I
inocente
Guest
That’s not at all what I’m saying. There’s no need to put one group down to raise up another. The vast majority of donors and volunteers are motivated by compassion and justice whatever their beliefs, they should all be raised up. They don’t do it for a pat on the back or to get a front-row seat in temple whether they’re Christians, atheists or pot noodlers. If they themselves say they are part of a secular (or religious) organization then that’s it, period - in the case of something like the Red Cross/Crescent their work in war zones relies on total impartiality, and imputing religious or political motives would be counter-productive.It is bizarre to imply that religious people do not contribute heavily, and more likely a good deal more substantially, that non-religious people to the organizations mentioned above. It’s really a feeble argument and you should back away from it in fairness to logic but even more so in fairness to the millions of religious people who contribute, as if their religiosity had nothing to do with the success of these organizations.
You are confusing secular with non-religious. Secular means in the world, or of the world. The world includes everyone, even Christians. Now do you understand?
Again you miss the point CII. If it wasn’t for science then we would still go along with Thomas in thinking light is instantaneous. After all there’s nothing wrong with his logic, it’s his assumptions that led him astray, and without scientists testing assumptions we wouldn’t know any better than Thomas. Without the scientific method no progress would have been made in those seven hundred years.Isn’t this a juvenile way of thinking? Are you aware that there are seven hundred years between Aquinas and Einstein? Did you really expect Aquinas to come up with modern formulas for the speed of light?
So next time a philosopher argues with pristine logic that the mind is immaterial or that beauty is inexplicable, let’s remember the track record of philosophers making untested assumptions.
Since the majority of Christians are not classical violinists, I wonder how objective they are going to be about the music of Bach?
Here’s a psychological hypothesis posted on another thread. Remember to take deep breaths bro.
www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/mrossano/recentpubs/religious_mind.pdf
We might safely put a lot of Freud’s work in the bin. All that theory about symbolism in dreams and he never once thought to actually watch someone sleeping. If he had he would have discovered REM sleep, and that on average we dream half-a-dozen times a night, and we can only remember waking dreams. A little more observation to go along with all that theorizing and he would have realized that analyzing the occasional remembered dream might just be a waste of everyone’s time. He wasn’t exactly a pinnacle of science imho.
. Einstein wasn’t the first to propose mass-energy equivalence, and the idea that energy is proportional to mass x velocity squared was first proposed by Bernoulli, a mathematician, and Leibniz … a philosopher. If you want to blame anyone, look no further than the cursed guy who first discovered how to make fire.