Perhaps this will help you understand the meaning of the sacrifices.Quote by: NoJingoLingo
BibleGateway.com - Commentaries » Leviticus
No, I'm not going to do either one. All I was trying to do was help those who are interested in studying the Bible.So now take the time to list the laws so that we can examine whether your claims are valid or not. Unless you'd just prefer to admit that you're lying.
As I suspected, you're not willing to risk the intellectual thrashing you know is forthcoming.
That thrashing is inevitably coming, that's why theists always resort to "faith". They can't compete on an intellectual playing field, they can't compete on a logical playing field, so they simply demand that they can believe whatever ridiculous nonsense gives them warm fuzzies and then can declare themselves victors because they aren't open to being evaluated rationally.
Apply the same thinking to any load of lunacy, from Raelian wingnuttery to psychic healers to Bigfoot. It's all the same stuff, just with different labels and it's all laughable.
No intelligent theist would push their faith onto an intellectual playing field, because the intelligent ones know the difference between fact and faith.
Name me one theory that isn't based partially on faith.
It never ceases to amaze me the fact that those who reject all forms of what they call organized religion, think that they have now become rational and objective.
Human beings are imperfect beings. We can corrupt just about anything. We have prejudices, lusts, weaknesses, desires, stregths and the like. An atheist can be just as bigoted, intolerant, and fanatical as a follwers of religion and vice versa.
You just quoted yourself?
I'm a theist, thank-you-very-much. And I know that my faith isn't based on something that can be shown via scientific means. So I don't try. That's what I mean by "intelligent theist."
A strength of the scientific method is that it mostly eliminates individual's biases and errors because ideas are tested by others who do not share the same biases. They too have biases but they are overuled by another.
An individual may act irrationally but the bigger the crowd of people using the logic, the bigger the chance that all bias and irrationality will be ruled out.
An atheist can be irrational, intolerant, etc (although by and large, they are less so) but the combined body of logical people suffer from this weakness far less.
There's different kinds of faith. You are correct in that everything that people believe is based on faith. I have faith that if I go to switch on the light during the night, I won't be electrocuted. I have no direct proof to support this; one could argue that there's a probability that pressing a button without direct proof that it is safe is dangerous.
However, the key difference is that unlike assuming that religion is true and that light switches don't kill you usually is that the latter has evidence to support it.
We'd all like to be 100% certain about everything but if we demand that ideas be proved to this standard (and believe any old nonsense until this is fulfilled) then the world would come to a standstill.
There's plenty of debate to be had on this from a philosophical viewpoint but from a practical sense; science works.
It works in keeping aeroplanes in the air but also in asserting that because of a lack of evidence, all religion/spirtuality/paranormalism is untrue.
In the name of Science many Guatemalans were involuntary infected with Syphillis by Doctors and researchers, The same happened in the United States with African Americans. Charles Darwin's book "The Descent of Man" was the precursor to many modern racist theories (see belief) (Then see faith) Medical specialists, academics and researchers who were the "clergy" of such "faith" conducted experiments on human beings under the assumption that one race was superior to another and they set out to prove this point.
Lest we forget, Nazi Germany wasn't a religious empire but a secular empire ruled by a dictator who was an atheist. The irrationality of this government committed plenty of atrocities before their irrationality was ruled out. Their irrationality was not ruled out through intelligent debate or scientific deduction but y World War II.
Oh brother...
Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith. - Christopher Hitchens
That is science done wrong. Science, by definition, doesn't cater for the irrational even though there's been many before and still many today who claim their irrationality to be of scientific basis (see creationists pushing "Intelligent Design" into education systems).
Science is a process, not a dogmatic belief system with an irrational faith at its core. Therefore it cannot claim infallibility and protect its adherents by such irrational faith whereby atrocities can somehow be waged "in the name of science".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks