One question I would like to ask is of atheism is the sense in which atheism is the denial of the category of 'the sacred' or 'the holy'. — Wayfarer
One question I would like to ask is of atheism is the sense in which atheism is the denial of the category of 'the sacred' or 'the holy'. — Wayfarer
What do you understand by 'the sacred' can it be a secular notion? — Tom Storm
"The sacred" is connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.
The sacred is religious rather than secular. — SpaceDweller
Definitionally yes, usage... who knows? — Tom Storm
What do you understand by 'the sacred' can it be a secular notion? — Tom Storm
I believe in a single substance, the mother of all forces, which engenders the life and consciousness of everything, visible and invisible. I believe in a single Lord, biology, the unique son of the substance of the world, born from the mother substance after centuries of random shuffling of material: the encapsulated reflection of the great material sea, the epiphenomenal light of primordial darkness, the false reflection of the real world, consubstantial with the mother-substance. It is he who has descended from the shadows of the mother-substance, he who has taken on flesh from matter, he who plays at the illusion of thought from flesh, he who has become the Human Brain. I acknowledge a single method for the elimination of error, thus ultimately eliminating myself and returning to the mother substance. Amen.
The problem/catch is that sacrednsss is used as an excuse/reason to stifle free thought, the classic example being, at the moment, Islam - it doesn't take much to elicit a fatwa from the grand Ayatollah of Iran if you catch my drift. — Agent Smith
Of course that is true. Religions can be a source of oppression, no doubt about that, but they’re not only that — Wayfarer
The problem/catch is that sacrednsss is used as an excuse/reason to stifle free thought, the classic example being, at the moment, Islam - it doesn't take much to elicit a fatwa from the grand Ayatollah of Iran if you catch my drift — Agent Smith
What is free thought? Don't you think your thoughts have been formed by science, on school? You were forced by law to follow the brainwash. Or braintaint maybe. Isn't science stifeling too? There are a lot of science ayattolah's. Threatening with punishment if you don't adapt — Haglund
You submit a strawman that certainly no significant group adheres to, which is that the Hebrew Bible is to be read literally and in isolation. — Hanover
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.' — Isaiah 45:7
Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” — Job 2:10
If they did, adherents would be stoning little girls. — Hanover
'The sacred' is not a clear idea. — Tom Storm
What do you understand by 'the sacred' can it be a secular notion? — Tom Storm
No. Science is not dogma. Scientists can certainly be ‘dogmatic’ though with their beliefs and ideas. — I like sushi
There is a reason why scientific theories adapt and change over time and The Bible and Koran remain exactly the same - one is Dogma and the other is constantly changing — I like sushi
I raised this problem before, but you ignored it. By what light do we read such passages from Deuteronomy? I think it obvious that we read them in light of beliefs and values which are not fixed and eternal, but relative to time and place. Those who wrote and those who first heard the Law did not think that it was not to be taken literally. — Fooloso4
The only strawman here is the one you made. It is not a matter of reading the myths literally. How do you understand the following:
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.'
— Isaiah 45:7
Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?”
— Job 2:10 — Fooloso4
There are two ways to read the Bible: (1) from a traditional view of a believer or (2) from the view of biblical scholarship. — Hanover
Your last sentence quoted above is simply not correct and it conflates the views of #1 and #2. — Hanover
If you want to stand in the position of a believer, you are correct in asserting that Moses received the law from Mount Sinai ... — Hanover
If you take the position of #2 (a modern biblical scholar) — Hanover
that assumes a sudden handing down of law as opposed to hundreds of years of the Bible being written, it being edited, and it being combined by an editor into a single scroll. — Hanover
What you are describing in your post is a modern fundamentalism ... — Hanover
As to your comment that biblical interpretations by adherents have varied through history and that fact is obvious, I agree. — Hanover
I never suggested the question of who God was best answered by referinng to the Bible. — Hanover
I think we could spend weeks on Job alone, considering that does present a very complicated discussion of theodicy. — Hanover
At least we can define God as the good and deny unholy acts are decreed by him, but only falsely in his name. — Hanover
Just because scientists can be ‘dogmatic’ it does not mean that science contains dogma — I like sushi
There is no dogma in science. There is dogma in religions. — I like sushi
I sense you're conflating authority with knowledge — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.