Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

This is silly. Faith suggests having the courage of one's convictions. I believe India is the most populous nation in the world becauae I have faith in almanacs. I believe the evidence of my.own eyes becauae I have faith in the dependable accuracy of my senses. All knowledge depends on faith, which Sagan should know, but apparently doesn't.

I suppose he wants us to have faith in his wisdom.

Perhaps he asks too much.

Sagan endorses reasonable faith. Faith and reason are variably mutually consistent.

Yes. But if he did get it wrong, Sagan knows the truth now.

[ThinkOfOne]

"IF WE ARE TO SURVIVE AS A SPECIES, WE MUST OVERCOME FAITH." CARL SAGAN

This is silly. Faith suggests having the courage of one's convictions. I believe India is the most populous nation in the world becauae I have faith in almanacs. I believe the evidence of my.own eyes becauae I have faith in the dependable accuracy of my senses. All knowledge depends on faith, which Sagan should know, but apparently doesn't.

Actually, what's silly is that you fail to make a distinction between two different denotations of the word "faith". Christians, especially the Evangelicals, deceitfully often do the same thing.

Hopefully the following will put this in perspective for you:

One of the most significant conflicts between religion and science is the issue of faith. Faith, as Sagan described it, is “belief in the absence of evidence,” and it often requires adherence to ideas without the necessity of proof.
Religious faith can provide comfort, purpose, and a sense of belonging to individuals, but it is also a system that, at times, has led to harmful consequences when applied to areas where evidence-based reasoning is essential.

Science, on the other hand, is founded on empirical evidence and the scientific method.
It is a system of inquiry that demands rigorous testing, skepticism, and openness to new evidence.

The importance of skepticism is particularly relevant in today’s world, where misinformation and pseudoscience can spread rapidly, undermining public trust in scientific advancements and critical thinking.

As Sagan noted, the essence of science lies not in “what makes us feel good,” but in “what’s true” (Sagan, 1996). This distinction is critical, particularly when considering pressing issues such as climate change, healthcare, and technology, where decisions must be grounded in facts, not belief systems.

From https://www.thesquaremagazine.com/mag/a ... -religion/

[Immanuel Can]

Faith, as Sagan described it, is “belief in the absence of evidence,”

Wow. That man was truely clueless on the subject.

I guess he had faith that he was right, though...his kind of "faith."

[ThinkOfOne]

Faith, as Sagan described it, is “belief in the absence of evidence,”

Wow. That man was truely clueless on the subject.

I guess he had faith that he was right, though...his kind of "faith."

Yes, his kind of "faith". Unlike your "faith", where things are true because it makes you "feel good" to believe it, Sagan believed in a "faith" based on solid evidence and sound reasoning.

You're easily one of the most consistently dishonest posters on this forum. If you could be honest with yourself, maybe you could start to begin to be honest with others. Christianity, especially Evangelical Christianity, is an intrinsically dishonest religion. As such, it logically follows that so many of its adherents are also dishonest: as you routinely show with your posts.

[Immanuel Can]

Faith, as Sagan described it, is “belief in the absence of evidence,”

Wow. That man was truely clueless on the subject.

I guess he had faith that he was right, though...his kind of "faith."

Sagan believed in a "faith" based on solid evidence and sound reasoning.

Then, according to his own definition, it wasn't 'faith'.

But he was simply naive. He needed a course on basic epistemology, so he'd know the difference between things like "deductive" and "inductive" knowledge, and so he could understand what "empirical" implied. That's one heck of an oversight for somebody who styled himself a "scientist," for sure.

[Alexis Jacobi]

We humans have been social animals long before we were human (almost certain that the last common ancestor of us, the chimpanzees, and the bonobos was a social animal). So we have had "morality" for a long time.

A sort of morality, you make a good point, but not a metaphysics.

I did study the chimp culture in anthropology courses, and there is so much that is human-line in their awareness, but no chimp could deliberately act against “chimp ways” as determined by the natural context.

But man does this.

[Alexis Jacobi]

ThinkOfOne posted:

As Sagan noted, the essence of science lies not in “what makes us feel good,” but in “what’s true” (Sagan, 1996). This distinction is critical, particularly when considering pressing issues such as climate change, healthcare, and technology, where decisions must be grounded in facts, not belief systems.

The one who wrote this is confused about ‘categories of truth’. If only science-type categories are ‘true’, the implication (the determination) is that metaphysical truths are false invented misleading erroneous.

This is a very serious category error. Yes, indubitably, science truths are rock-solid and true as facts.

But there are entire orders of truth that pertain to man, man’s world, and man as an amphibious creature who operates in the physical/material world of Nature and a world of metaphysical ideas, meanings and values.

It is true certainly that a man must be able to separate the two categorical realms. And it is very true that Christian fundamentalist fanatics have supreme difficulty in keeping the categories separate.

And it is truer than falling rain, truer than clouds backlit by the glorious diamond eye of the sun, that dear Immanuel cannot distinguish well enough the separation line between the two categories.

Original mating pair anyone?

[promethean75]

"There is no ‘morality’ comparable to Christian morality"

Confucianism pwns Christianity any day, bruh. Christian nations inevitably become basket-cased nervous wrecks, while the dragon people keep on gettin' it, century after century after century like a well-oiled Honda Acura. And maybe one in a thousand dragon people ever emo out and try to start a cult or blow up a synagogue or mosque. There was the one chinese or korean guy with the gandalf beard who thought the spaceships were coming, but he is a very rare exception. The only problem they have over there is being hard on the wives. A Chinese man will beat his wife with a pot before you can spell Dao Tay Cheeng.

But Confucius was leagues beyond Moses and his gang. Just picture Confucius listen to Jesus speak. What is he doing? He's twisting his mustache and laughing at Jesus like the white-haired kung-fu teacher dude Uma went to train under.

[Alexis Jacobi]

"There is no ‘morality’ comparable to Christian morality"

Confucianism pwns Christianity any day, bruh. Christian nations inevitably become basket-cased nervous wrecks, while the dragon people keep on gettin' it, century after century after century like a well-oiled Honda Acura. And maybe one in a thousand dragon people ever emo out and try to start a cult or blow up a synagogue or mosque. There was the one chinese or korean guy with the gandalf beard who thought the spaceships were coming, but he is a very rare exception. The only problem they have over there is being hard on the wives. A Chinese man will beat his wife with a pot before you can spell Dao Tay Cheeng.

But Confucius was leagues beyond Moses and his gang. Just picture Confucius listen to Jesus speak. What is he doing? He's twisting his mustache and laughing at Jesus like the white-haired kung-fu teacher dude Uma went to train under.

I wrote

“There is no ‘morality’ comparable to Christian morality certainly, nor comparable to any moral system that I am aware of, in Nature.”

In Nature qualifies the statement.

There is also no morality in nature like Confucianism.

[Alexis Jacobi]

(A footnote in Dawson’s Religion and Culture, page 33:

F. H. Jacobi (I743-1819), like Al Ghazali, criticized the philosophers for maintaining that logical demonstration is superior in value and certainty to intuitive perception. He taught that philosophy is a kind of logical criticism which can define and explain but cannot reach beyond itself. All our knowledge of Reality, whether material or spiritual, is derived from immediate perception, and this is a kind of miracle which we must accept by an act of faith — a leap in the dark from which there is no escape.

[Belinda]

I suppose he wants us to have faith in his wisdom.

Perhaps he asks too much.

Sagan endorses reasonable faith. Faith and reason are variably mutually consistent.

Yes. But if he did get it wrong, Sagan knows the truth now.

Does that mean you believe in life after death?

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

Quítate tú

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes. But if he did get it wrong, Sagan knows the truth now.

Does that mean you believe in life after death?

Huh?

Sagan is writhing upon the razorblade shelves of a living hell. Incalculable anguish, total spiritual devastation. His skin is flailed off and a merciless biting rain of sulphuric acid falls in the leaden depths of that realm where he chose to spend eternity, sizzling his sin-body. He got what he deserved and only now — ha ha ha! — does he see his mistake. But there’s nothing to do now and no reprieve.

It’s the Will of God, Belinda.

[Immanuel Can]

Sagan endorses reasonable faith. Faith and reason are variably mutually consistent.

Yes. But if he did get it wrong, Sagan knows the truth now.

Does that mean you believe in life after death?

It means that he also does...now.

[popeye1945]

Yes. But if he did get it wrong, Sagan knows the truth now.

Does that mean you believe in life after death?

It means that he also does...now.

There is always refuge in the God of the gaps----lol!! pathetic. Is this really the best he/she/it could do? Life lives upon life in relative perpetual motion. I say onto you, what the fuck is wrong with your head?