Halibut Posted November 4, 2010 Author Share Posted November 4, 2010 The 62 year war over Israel started when a group of religious fanatics decided not to wait for the messiah and take over a large chunk of another country and rename it based on ancient religious texts. You can't get a much more religion based war than that. I'm not denying that religious groupings are significant, I'm suggesting that it's pathetically naive to imagine peace breaking all over if everyone miraculously lost their faith. Wouldn't happen - and you don't know human nature very well if you claim that it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pininsho Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 It might have an influence on other areas of thinking...but so what? In and of itself that's unremarkable. One's politics, or parentage, or an influential childhood experience or a particular teacher, various illnesses can affect one's thinking. And? Yes...............and all those experiences can have the surruptitious driving force of religion behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I'm not denying that religious groupings are significant, I'm suggesting that it's pathetically naive to imagine peace breaking all over if everyone miraculously lost their faith. Wouldn't happen - and you don't know human nature very well if you claim that it would. Of course conflict would still exist but it would not be overheated by fanaticism which makes a lot of people lose their critical facualties because of feelings. The new atheist middle east would see themselves as a bunch of people who happen to live some place. All there would be left to do would be trade and form political parties based on principles. No one left to hate with burning passion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 4, 2010 Author Share Posted November 4, 2010 Yes...............and all those experiences can have the surruptitious driving force of religion behind them. I still don't quite see why you're making such a big deal about it - are you suggesting that anything motivated by religious thinking is bad, or to be avoided? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pininsho Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I still don't quite see why you're making such a big deal about it - are you suggesting that anything motivated by religious thinking is bad, or to be avoided? Pretty much so..............although I do think some of the churches we have are stunningly beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pininsho Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Aquinas and Kierkegaard are the two examples I have given of different Christian approaches to Correspondence theory. Bertrand Russell and John Paul Sartre would show the equivalent divergence in atheistic approaches to the theory. It was an after thought, not from a website. But quickly googling myself, this looks like a good starting point: http://sorenkierkegaard.org/concluding-unscientific-postscript.html Edit: Oddly this second link I googled argued Kierkegaard's viewpoint remains consistent with Correspondence Theory. http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/conclud.htm I guess this just goes to show the complexity and variety of interpretations of the Theory and what it means. Just had a look at your links and I'm sorry wildcat but all this is a bit beyond me and pobably most other people on this forum including you, purdyamos, flaming jimmy and six45ive. People spend their entire lives studying this stuff and still don't seem to reach a concensus on what's valid and what isn't to try and rid the world of it's man made ills. Anyway my head's hurting so I'll say good night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Because in that situation religion is a pretty mighty tool to use when you fail with any other argument, even with those you are opposing because their logic is not that too dissimilar to yours. Basically we can't communicate so we'll stick a cross or crescent star in each others faces. And what is my logic? Because I don't believe 7/7 was a govt conspiracy I am now some authoritarian anti Muslim fanatic? Typical conspiracy theorist. In Palestine the Jewish settlers returned to reclaim their homeland from their point of view. They didn't happen upon that part of the world by chance, try and live quiet lives and when that failed pulled religion out of the bag. Religion was at the root of the conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 And what is my logic? Because I don't believe 7/7 was a govt conspiracy I am now some authoritarian anti Muslim fanatic? Typical conspiracy theorist. In Palestine the Jewish settlers returned to reclaim their homeland from their point of view. They didn't happen upon that part of the world by chance, try and live quiet lives and when that failed pulled religion out of the bag. Religion was at the root of the conflict. I haven't a clue what your logic is...I never ask that of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 I haven't a clue what your logic is...I never ask that of you. You wrote 'because they use a logic not too dissimilar to yours'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 You wrote 'because they use a logic not too dissimilar to yours'. It was a general term you dimwit. Not everything is about you. Jeeeez! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.