which i have reasonably refuted.
unconditional love has no conditions for which it is offered
in this case, belief for everlasting life. and everlasting life is the expression of love for those that believe.
sort of like telling a child;
if you second guess me, i will throw you out of the house. but if you believe in me you can stay home...
The offering of the choice is the expression of love. You may think that choice is wrong or unfair, but that doesn't mean it isn't love.
It's like saying to a child, 'don't put your hand on that hot plate, or you'll get burned'. The child is free to follow their parent's advice, or put their hand on the hot plate and get it burned. Either way, you learn something.
wouldn't you consider that narcissistic
I call it advancement. Personal, mental, emotional. Worshiping yourself is narcissistic. Self knowledge and self discovery are not.
if you are referring to science, science has contributed more then faith.
just within the last 100 yrs.
Believe what you wish. Science is easy to see. Faith is not.
certainly.
the knowledge of science was very limited when these oral traditions emerged. had we known what causes diseases, we wouldn't consider it a curse from god. had we known what causes earthquakes, we wouldn't call it an act of god. had we known we were not the center of the universe, perhaps we'd be more humble. had we known we are all made of stardust, perhaps we wouldn't be taught to discriminate...
I don't think earthquakes are curses from God. I don't think we are the center of the universe (though, where the center of the universe is, is a subject of debate. It could be anywhere, so technically, we could be.)
faith is a stick in the wheel. it fears to be refuted and it fears to be replaced by reason and logic for the purpose of progress.
Most of the time, yes, I agree with you. Faith is very confusing, and it leads to people making stupid statements, when in reality there is no need for assertions such as 'god created the universe, not the big bang', or 'evolution isn't true', etc. It is a very immature view.
Yet, you, with all of your intelligence, cling to this immature idea of faith like your life depended on it. Why do you refuse to accept, or even consider, a new idea of faith when it is presented to you?
i will piggyback on a statement hitchens said about mother theresa, he called her a fundamental religious terrorist. i thought that was a rather shocking assessment about a person who's life's work was based on helping the needy.
however when the knowledge, the realization, of what her stance on condoms/birth control were, i came to that same conclusion. it was her faith that told her the use of condoms was worse then perpetuating the problem, it was her faith that fed into the suffering. she couldn't see beyond herself, her selfishness. her faith was the stick in the wheel. reason and knowledge would support the use of birth control because those methods would have alleviated the suffering immeasurably, without doubt. as you can plainly see hitchens was right about mother theresa, she was not a humble servant rather she was a cold blooded tyrant creating a system that sustained misery which exalted her as the ultimate servant.
Or she was following her belief. She was doing what she thought was right. You coming along and saying it was wrong doesn't change that. You're right, being stubborn is a slippery slope. But sometimes what you fight for is a very good thing. The American revolution is an example. The haitian revolution is another.
It's hit or miss. You pointing out a miss doesn't disprove faith at all, but in fact proves it without a doubt.
no sir, faith is the enemy of progress because faith is a friend to degeneration.
no thanks.
And here we finally get to what you think of faith. I would guess that, if you were forced into faith, you believe it to be a suspension of rational thinking, and in that sense completely and utterly wrong.
At least we agree on something.
