Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 29, 2008 15:06:47 GMT -4
Actually, with the clarification to vitamin pills, Jason has come about as close as I suspect he can to admitting that religion is absolutely unnecessary... It depends on your definition of "unnecessary." If you mean "it's unnecessary to living a full and happy life," then I would have to agree. Some people seem to do perfectly well without any religion at all. I even believe that a person without religion can be in a good position once they reach the other side, so long as they've lived a generally good life here. But (you knew the "but" was coming), if you mean "unnecessary to acheiving one's highest potential," then I'm no longer sure I agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 29, 2008 15:27:11 GMT -4
So an individual must be religious in order for them to achieve their "highest potential" Even you must understand how offensive some people might find that statement. Right?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 29, 2008 16:07:29 GMT -4
RAF, could you please tone down the hostility? I more or less agree with what you are saying, just not the way you're saying it.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 29, 2008 16:37:24 GMT -4
Using "rish averse" would be opposed to or reluctant to take risks? Using "risk adverse" would mean making something less risky? Gillianren, we need your help. EDIT: So if you were "risk averse" you might not take the risk in the first place. If you were "risk adverse" you would take the risk, but try to reduce the risk by taking precautions etc.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 29, 2008 16:42:15 GMT -4
RAF, could you please tone down the hostility? I more or less agree with what you are saying, just not the way you're saying it. That's fine...I'm outta here...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 29, 2008 16:44:14 GMT -4
You know, I've been thinking about this, and what's important is a sense of wonder. The failing of certain religious types is to think that "sense of wonder" is the same as "religious nature." (And remember, I'm religious myself.) I would agree that a sense of wonder is similar to a religious nature in many respects, but not all of them. Care to elaborate a little more on what you mean by a "sense of wonder"?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 29, 2008 16:49:46 GMT -4
Using "rish averse" would be opposed to or reluctant to take risks? Using "risk adverse" would mean making something less risky? Gillianren, we need your help. I'm pretty sure that "risk averse" is the more proper form for what we were talking about, though I easily found a half-dozen instances of "risk adverse" on the internet.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 29, 2008 16:57:55 GMT -4
RAF, could you please tone down the hostility? I more or less agree with what you are saying, just not the way you're saying it. That's fine...I'm outta here... In other words, "I would rather leave than act civilly."
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 29, 2008 17:00:56 GMT -4
Actually, with the clarification to vitamin pills, Jason has come about as close as I suspect he can to admitting that religion is absolutely unnecessary... Al, maybe you could definitively finish this thread by stating your view of the question at hand, which I think is this: Is our society taking less risks "in part because today's society is largely irreligious".Over to you... ;D EDIT: There should be a poll on this question (or something similar)
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 29, 2008 17:07:02 GMT -4
Using "rish averse" would be opposed to or reluctant to take risks? Using "risk adverse" would mean making something less risky? Gillianren, we need your help. I'm pretty sure that "risk averse" is the more proper form for what we were talking about, though I easily found a half-dozen instances of "risk adverse" on the internet. Ha Ha. I'm sure you could also find on the internet: risk obverse too. Like here: We have become so risk obverse that we refuse to accept the proposition that some accidents are okay.speaking-frankly.blogspot.com/2008/04/whats-wrong-with-america-party-67512.html
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 29, 2008 17:11:18 GMT -4
One of the greatest dreamers of our age left these instructions for his funeral: "Absolutely no religious rites of any kind, relating to any religious faith, should be associated with my funeral." www.clarkefoundation.org/news/031808.phpAnother visionary had this to say: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 29, 2008 17:18:42 GMT -4
An argument from authority?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 29, 2008 17:25:59 GMT -4
Not really. I'm not using their arguments to make a point about the subject at hand. I'm just pointing out that two fairly important visionaries were "irreligious."
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 29, 2008 17:37:00 GMT -4
In other words, "I would rather leave than act civilly." I would rather leave than participate on a board that "coddles" irrational religious freaks...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 29, 2008 17:50:31 GMT -4
Not really. I'm not using their arguments to make a point about the subject at hand. I'm just pointing out that two fairly important visionaries were "irreligious." To which the religious response is, "how much more could they have done if they had been religious?" The argument hinges on whether religion is viewed as an advantage. If it is, then anyone, no matter what their native talent, would be improved by religion, and therefore religion is required to acheive their greatest potential (because their greatest potential is what they could accomplish if they had every advantage in addition to their native talent). You could make an argument that the greatness of some people came from their lack of advantages others possess, and that without those obstacles they may not have acheived greatness, but the potential to acheive greatness was in them regardless - the obstacles only brought to the surface what was already there and presumably they may have found some other method to tap that ability.
|
|