Robert Green Ingersoll – Take away the Bible!

It’s fairly hard to argue with this

Book Of Doubt

1525062_578603605559814_1836642645_n

View original post

Advertisements
  1. In how far do universities lead to love, liberty and joy?
    In how far do laboratories lead to love, liberty and joy?
    In how far do observatories lead to love, liberty and joy?
    In how far do useful arts lead to love, liberty and joy?
    In how far does astronomy lead to love, liberty and joy?
    In how far does chemistry lead to love, liberty and joy?
    In how far does science lead to love, liberty and joy?

    Christians have believed in character. How would Luther have been able to stick to his convictions in the face of emperor and empire without Character? How would King have gone his way without Character? How would St. Francis have left all behind without character? Or think of Paul Schneider, Dietrich Bonhoeffer… you don’t need to search a long time for character among Christians.

    Christians have taken the good of the bible and thrown away the wicked and absurd. It was Christians who started the fight against slavery though the bible had no problem with it. As a first example, you’ll find more.

    And yes, priests were philosophers. Actually it was the church that brought ancient philosophy through the middle ages to the modern era. No university without monasteries and cathedral-schools. Take any relevant philosopher of the middle ages and chances are not bad he was indeed a priest.

    I am not sure what he means with “humanity”. If it’s “mankind” it hardly makes sense, so Iguess it’s the subjects at university called “humanities”? In how far do they contradict religion anyway?

    It’s fairly hard to argue with this

    I don’t think so.

    • Perhaps your brand of christianity is the new improved with all the bad taken out kind? Sadly, yours is not the only brand of christian belief running around trying to rule the planet.

      • Perhaps your brand of christianity is the new improved with all the bad taken out kind?

        Oh, I’m not talking about my brand of Christianity. Bonhoeffer was Lutheran. I am not. St. Francis was Catholic. I am not. King was Baptist. I am not. Only Schneider could be considered close to my church, but then again, my church supported the Nazi state with hardly anybody resisting, so this “brand” also is not without fault.

        I wasn’t even talking about brands of Christianity or Christianity at all. What I wanted to point out is that the above statement is crap. Science doesn’t bring love, liberty and joy. Neither do all the other things mentioned. Being a philosopher doesn’t make you more loving, etc etc etc.

        That was my point. My argument was thus completely secular. Please don’t be irritated by the fact that I do believe in God, this plays no role here. You only need reason to see that the above statement is crap.

        • I think his point is that love, liberty, and joy are natural desires of humans and it is truly that religions have robbed us of it in favor of their own version. Even now you believe that the religious version of these is better somehow… proving, in my opinion, that he was exactly right.

          • I think his point is that love, liberty, and joy are natural desires of humans

            I don’t see where he’s saying that. What he’s saying is tht one would gain those through all those things he mentioned, which I questioned.

            and it is truly that religions have robbed us of it in favor of their own version
            There has been religion ever since. How can religion then have robbed us of anything. Plus, he doesn’t speak about new or old versions, so what you are doing here is eisegesis. You have some thought and try to bring it into the text.

            Even now you believe that the religious version of these is better somehow

            Where do I speak of new versions? Is there any difference between the liberty King fought (and died) for and what you or Ingersoll understand by liberty? To name one example? I don’t think so.

            See, this man seems to have had some major problems with religion. That’s okay, everybody can have his own opinion. But when he claims something others must be allowed to critizise him. That’s all I did.
            You are for whatever reason trying to put this on a personal level, trying to attack me for my religion or understanding me as if I was attacking non-religion. I don’t. I just thought about what he wrote, found it to be nonsense and said so. And please, if I made any mistake somewhere, tell me so. If you have – for example – a proof that science does ultimately lead to love or liberty. I’d be more than interested.

            But please stop understanding what I have not written. My critizism is of what he said, nothing more, nothing less.

            • You are right in that you are entitled to an opinion and I was merely explaining how I understood what he is quoted as saying. I did not, nor do I think the quote, say that science leads to those good things. I say we as humans seek them naturally and without religion in the way, with an unimpeded search for truth, we would find them. Religion has held us back and continues to do so.

              • I did not, nor do I think the quote, say that science leads to those good things.

                Science was one of the examples mentioned. I could have taken “observatories” as well. I cannot but understand the quote as all these good things such as science, observatories, universities, laboratories and useful arts lead to the other good things: love, joy and liberty, while religion, priests and the like hinder love, joy and liberty generally.

                Maybe it’s just my bad command of English.

                I agree with you that we as humans seek naturally after love, joy and liberty. I’d claim religion (whichever you fancy) is the means by which we seek. You can leave your old religion and seek further, but not without starting your new brand, which will run sooner or later into the same flaws… that’s just natural. Religion is not holding us back, but while seeking we run into dead ends, and some need some more time to find out about those ends being dead. Anyway I’d say there are as many religious people as nonreligious close to and far from love, liberty and joy.

                • I almost agree with you but in seeking truth you can’t start with the answer which is exactly what religion does… starts with an answer and seeks evidence to support it. This principle defect causes religious belief to retard progress and supports/defends all manner of bad behaviors.

                  • starts with an answer and seeks evidence to support it

                    That’s not religion, that’s fundamentalism. Both religious and nonreligious.

                    This principle defect causes religious belief to retard progress and supports/defends all manner of bad behaviors.

                    I agree. Do you agree with me that it causes the same in nonreligious settings?

                    • Starting the search with the conclusion is bad no matter who does or why. Religion always starts there and must, by definition… it is faith. Faith is knowledge of what is unknowable… a conclusion not based on facts or evidence. Whether that religious belief is fundamentalist in nature does not matter. If the conclusion is reached before the evidence shows it most probable or even without evidence, the search was done wrong.

  2. Religion always starts there and must, by definition… it is faith.

    No, wrong. What answer do you think religion starts with?That there is a God? Well, doesn’t science presume that there is actually at least somethign that we can research? Do physics proof the physical world?

    Stop eating the fundamentalist’s bait. Religion is not science and does not work likewise. It’s not about proof or disproof at all.

    Faith is knowledge of what is unknowable

    If faith was knowledge, we’d call it: knowledge. But we don’t, it’s faith. So there is a difference.

    If the conclusion is reached before the evidence shows it most probable or even without evidence, the search was done wrong.

    Once again, religion is not science. There is no search like research in religion. But it’s hard to talk about that, because there are thousands of definitions of “religion” out there, and without taking care you use all the same word all the time addressing different things. I cannot be sure I stayed consistent in the little talk we had so far…

    But let me get this through: Religion is not science. Fundamentalists tend to behave like that. They want to proof everything: God’s existence, the truth of the bible (like truth could be proved and was not a matter of personal faith) etc…

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: