Discussion in 'Politics and Debate' started by mcpon14, Jan 19, 2018.
This is the only Jesus I worship
That ***** owes me 12 bucks.
He got game
Ray Allen can't act.
He can ball tho
Especially shooting threes.
Deadeye corner specialist
With a nice butt.
Are you saying that they wrote something which was historically inaccurate, even if they didn't know it was? I would say, that's a dangerous idea to hold.
Yes, because their intention was to deliver to people some "good news." It would be the equivalent of someone telling a group of people that there are free tacos at a certain taco stand, except in this case, the fact of it could be verified.
But you have you believe really really hard, and only when you die are allowed to eat.
If I can't hold those promised tacos in my hand, or salivate over their smell, I would say there are no tacos. And I would try to persuade others of the fact there are no tacos, and that we should go on a quest for real, unadultered knowledge backed by scientific evidence.
Then that would be subscribing to the scientific method of thinking and perspective, which is perfectly well and good.
As oppose to..?
What this thread is about.
Sorry I didn't read all of it.
Can you explain to me in laymen's terms?
The religious perspective, and method of thinking and reasoning.
The source of evidence is a key religious text or authority figure.
And your premises are verses or sections of the text or the actions or sayings of the religious figure, and you arrive at conclusions using those premises as to what the sect's doctrines and beliefs are.
Both beliefs are based on faith.
Empirical reasoning is based on faith that your senses are not deceiving you.
Religious reasoning is based on faith that your religious authority (texts, figures, etc.) are not deceiving you.
And a lot of scientific claims that people believe in are just trusting that your sources are not lying to you, unless you look at the evidence yourself and test them yourself.
Separate names with a comma.