Can we agree on this?

[Pass That Shit]

I think it all comes down to faith. You either believe something or you don't. There are no facts. I think that for every scientific fact the athiest provides, there's a counter from a different scientist that makes science fit with the word of God. Since we weren't around at the beginning, we have no clue on how we got here. What we think may have happened to start it all comes down to us trusting in someone else. Agreed?

:beatdeadhorse: It always comes down to faith. Some put their faith in man, and others in God.

[slipknotpsycho]

karma for me actually....

'man' has dissapointed me far too many times to put faith in them, and 'god' has disaapointed me by far, many more times.

do as you'd have others do to you... cuz you fuck someone else over, it will coem back... eventually, and at some point...

i like karma, cuz when something 'bad' happens i don't have to explain to everyone else why my loving creator felt it needed to add uneeded pain to my life... rather, pain is just the nature of life it's self... but cause others pain, and you will get worse...

that is my belief, and i have never doubted it... thus, i tend to be kind toward people, very helpful, and for the idiots, patient....

[PureEvil760]

Agreed, faith is the foundation to create a pathway to god, before having spiritual experiences all you have to go by is faith.

[Stemis516]

agreed...no matter what u believe concerning god or lackthereof takes faith

even in your example slipknot, your still putting ur faith in karma...theres no proof karma is the right way to go

[Coelho]

I think it all comes down to faith. You either believe something or you don't. There are no facts. I think that for every scientific fact the athiest provides, there's a counter from a different scientist that makes science fit with the word of God. Since we weren't around at the beginning, we have no clue on how we got here. What we think may have happened to start it all comes down to us trusting in someone else. Agreed?

:beatdeadhorse: It always comes down to faith. Some put their faith in man, and others in God.

I agree completly... many times i tried to say that because of this, any religious discussion based on arguments, reasoning and logical thought leads to nowhere, because at the end we will be basing our arguments upon beliefs, dont matter if the beliefs are in a religion or in the science or whatever.

[Matt the Funk]

Life is all about faith. You have to put faith into almost everything you know and do. A lot of things you subconsciously have faith in, which is why i'm sure most of you are not paranoid schizo's. Anyways yes, faith, I can respect whatever faith you have even though I might disagree, because I don't know any better than you.

[Oneironaut]

I disagree. Having faith, that is, believing something without evidence for your position, is something that I try not to do. I am an atheist, but I am not an atheist because of faith. I do not believe in God because I do not see any evidence for such a being (at least as far as the gods described in scriptures, and the concepts of God which have been defined for me by believers).

Being an atheist does not mean saying you know with 100% certainty that there is no such thing as anything that might be worthy of the label "God". Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in gods. I lack a belief in gods because in order to believe in a god I would need to be presented with a good definition of what this god is and sufficient evidence to support the claim that it exists.

Screw faith. If you don't have enough evidence to answer a question, just be honest with yourself and say "I don't know". I don't know what caused the universe to come into existence, nor whether the Big Bang even had a cause. I don't know if there are parallel universes. I don't know if there are extraterrestrials in our galaxy. I don't know if string theory is true or not. I'm not going to make assertions about things that I don't have evidence for.

I am going to use the evidence we have, and the kinds of evidence we lack, to judge the probabilities of the claims I am presented with, without making any absolute claims to ultimate truth. I am an atheist for the same reason I don't believe in fairies; not because I have faith, but because I have not seen any evidence at all for any of the supernatural beings posited by any of the religions I have examined, and thus it is valid to say that the existence of these extraordinary beings is extraordinarily unlikely.

[mrdevious]

My lack of belief in god isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of reason. I have "faith" in there being no god like I have faith in no Easter bunny. If I told you about the invisible space jellyfish you wouldn't disblieve because you have "faith" in their non-existence, you'd disbelieve because there's no reason to believe me. Yet when we talk about the almighty diety in the sky, suddenly we have to have "faith" not to believe. So tell me, why does disbelief in god require faith, but disbelief in the jellyfish not?

[ukmonkey]

Can a real religious person explain to me the definition of the word faith, I could do with a laugh.

[mrdevious]

Can a real religious person explain to me the definition of the word faith, I could do with a laugh.

I imagine this won't fly too well but....


Faith is a Euphamism. It's a way of justifying an irrational form of reasoning by wrapping it in a pretty package labeled "faith". But when you whipe away the euphamism, it really just means "if you believe hard enough, that will make it true".

[Stemis516]

see i think that even if you call yourself an athiest, your still using faith

you dont know for certain god doesnt exist...you cant prove he doesnt exist anymore than a theist can prove he does exist...everything that isnt a clear cut fact takes faith to believe.....you dont need to have faith to believe that 2+2 = 4....because its been proven and its a truth....god however, we know nothing about, so any stance you take on him whether its the chirstian god, allah, a flying spaghetti monster or no god at all takes faith

just because we believe something is true does not make it true....i believe there is a god....is there one? in all honesty i really dont know, but i believe that when i die i will find out....keep in mind, i have a very good chance of being completely wrong with my faith

[mrdevious]

see i think that even if you call yourself an athiest, your still using faith

you dont know for certain god doesnt exist...you cant prove he doesnt exist anymore than a theist can prove he does exist...everything that isnt a clear cut fact takes faith to believe.....you dont need to have faith to believe that 2+2 = 4....because its been proven and its a truth....god however, we know nothing about, so any stance you take on him whether its the chirstian god, allah, a flying spaghetti monster or no god at all takes faith

just because we believe something is true does not make it true....i believe there is a god....is there one? in all honesty i really dont know, but i believe that when i die i will find out....keep in mind, i have a very good chance of being completely wrong with my faith


An interesting post stemis, to me it seems you nailed the issue right on the head, but also got it wrong. You're absolutely right that no atheist can know for sure that god doesn't exist, like the flying spagetti monster. But that's why atheism is not a matter of faith, at least not on the level of faith in god. A proper atheist doesn't purporte to know the existence of god, he/she knows that not a single piece of sufficient evidence has been presented. I don't even have faith that the flying spagetti monster doesn't exist, I just don't have a single reason to believe in it. But the important issue here is that even if you can attribute atheism to faith, the extension of such faith to everything non-existent makes the god-hypothesis no more valid than everything imaginary.... unless of course sufficient evidence were to be provided.

[Coelho]

Well... i think we must use the word faith in an wider sense.
If somebody only believes in things based upon logical reasons, then i would say this people have faith in the reason, or in other words, this people believes that the reason is the ultimate way to know the things.
But, the rational thinking is just one way of thinking, among many others, and we can not prove its is "truer" or "falser" that another ways of thinking, like intuitive, for example. Thats why i say to believe in the reason is a matter of faith too.

[Stemis516]

show me evidence that he doesnt exist then

[Tanarus]

Mr dev, while i agree with most of what you belive and what you say (form lurker here) i think you are contradicting yourself. A true atheist is saying that god dosent exist because there is no reason or fact to support God. Faith is needed to believe in God, but also needed to not believe something as well. It takes faith to say God exists as well as God dosent exist. And that there is a chance one or even both sides are wrong. All of that takes faith. By 'your' definition of faith, "It's a way of justifying an irrational form of reasoning by wrapping it in a pretty package labeled "faith". But when you whipe away the euphamism, it really just means "if you believe hard enough, that will make it true"."
it takes faith either way you look at it

[rimbaegeus]

I think the issue is quite simple. It is Science's mission to explain the "how" of things, and Religion's mission to explain the "why" of things.

With that in mind, the universe is one of empericals. There can only be one explaination of "why" and one of "how." Regardless, since all can agree humans are fallible, this means that every person must respect one another's "why," while the "how" can still be debated, as we still have empirical evidence lying around to explain that which is.

The real connundrum, however, can be realized when likening Religion to a child's education. If a child errs and believes that two sets of two total five, we correct the child. We do not want the child to believe anything false without reason. To this, it seems natural to respond that since we don't lie to our children (except for the sake of some education, as Socrates would say), we shouldn't allow adults to believe that which is false.

However, since religious evidence is not emperical, and is based largely on testimony, we can always assume there is a possiblity for doubt on the part of the believer, and imperfection as well.

It is, however, interesting to note that amongst humans, for thousands of years, testimony was considered the strongest type of evidence.

[jdmarcus59]

I think it all comes down to faith. You either believe something or you don't. There are no facts. I think that for every scientific fact the athiest provides, there's a counter from a different scientist that makes science fit with the word of God. Since we weren't around at the beginning, we have no clue on how we got here. What we think may have happened to start it all comes down to us trusting in someone else. Agreed?

:beatdeadhorse: It always comes down to faith. Some put their faith in man, and others in God.

if you think that man is the answer, then I think the qustion must

be wrong, for man has been in charge now for to long, and just look around

were killing everyone..

[Frank_The_Tank]

i was jus pondering on the thought that science was created by satan to destroy faith and keep people sinning because in their minds they believe in science and it give them an excuse to do wat ever the fuck they want. catch my drift kinda?? weed turns me into a philosipher(spelling)

[Nor.Cal Smoker]

I put my faith in to karma and intuition. I believe that when something feels wrong, it more than likely is wrong. And if everybody treated each other the way they would like to be treated all the problems that man has now would slowly disipate.:S5:

[RichieRich]

Hey Pass...nice topic man!!!

I can say that I have faith that my kitchen chair will hold my weight if I sit in it. But it isnt really faith until I actually sit down in it and I see if I fall to the ground or if the chair will hold my weight. The object in which you are putting your faith is the true question here. Christians put their faith in the finished work of Jesus on the cross and his resurrection from the dead. Paul said if Christ has not been raised from the dead, then your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. (1 Cor 15)

Faith to me is Trust and sole reliance (upon Jesus). For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith and this is not from yourself but is a gift from God. (Eph 2:8)
Once again I put my usual disclaimer here about not wanting to offend anyone....Peace...:jointsmile:

[Pass That Shit]

Can a real religious person explain to me the definition of the word faith, I could do with a laugh.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."


On a deeper level, I agree with MrDevious on this one. The Athiest does not have faith, cause if it were faith, there would be substance and evidence. But since the Athiest has none against God, they are just trusting in man. I was generalizing using the word faith meaning that we have to trust in someone else to come to our conclusions. Trusting in something that is not true doesn't mean you have faith. Jesus is FAITH. If you don't have Jesus, you don't have FAITH.

Thanks Richie Rich!!!:hippy:

[Tanarus]

again, i believe that is an incorrect assumption. I dont believe in God anymore, and i am not saying that that there isnt a god, just that my intuition adn reasoning has led me to believe that God in the sense of the bible is not something i can believe in. I think that takes faith to believe that. There is more then one kind of faith.

[Pass That Shit]

God is a righteous judge. He gives us free will. He will deny those that deny him. If this controversial word of God is TRUE, then those that deny him will have to face the cosequences of being seperated from the LIGHT. Let God be true but every man a liar. :hippy:

"as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

To each his own. :jointsmile:

[Delta9 UK]

God is a creation of Man.

Science is an observation of the world.

We didn't create the Universe around us, but we sure as hell created religion to fill the bits we didn't understand.

[PureEvil760]

The truth remains the truth regardless of what you or those around you choose to believe.

[Oneironaut]

Right. Promoting faith is pretty much saying that it doesn't matter whether or not one's beliefs correlate with the truth about reality.

"I have faith in Jehovah, you have faith in Allah, he has faith in L. Ron Hubbard. Yeah, we can't all be right, but who cares what the truth is? If everybody else is believing in stuff with no real good reason to choose those particular beliefs, then it's okay for me to believe stuff without having anything to back it up too."

It is just a way to justify not thinking about stuff. When you believe in something that isn't true like religion, you have to make up all sorts of excuses for why reality doesn't seem to support your position. It's very interesting to see all the different ways people of faith cope with this. The various rationalization mechanisms are pretty much the same no matter what false belief you're talking about. Believers in religions, crazy conspiracy theories, psychic powers, astrology, and alternative medicine all use the same techniques for justifying their rejection of logic and reason in favor of what's comfortable to believe for them.

[darth stoner]

I think it all comes down to faith. You either believe something or you don't. There are no facts. I think that for every scientific fact the athiest provides, there's a counter from a different scientist that makes science fit with the word of God. Since we weren't around at the beginning, we have no clue on how we got here. What we think may have happened to start it all comes down to us trusting in someone else. Agreed?

:beatdeadhorse: It always comes down to faith. Some put their faith in man, and others in God.

If you walk inside my house after coming from the mud path and steal my cookies, I wouldn't have needed to be there when you walked in. Your footprints would let me know someone was inside, and that someone walked in from the mud path.

Your assertion that for every scientific fact there is a scientist that lines it with the word of god is also wrong. No real scientist would say the earth is not about 4.6 BILLION years old or that humans did not descend from apes. These are FACTS, not THEORY.

Then you go after the fact that evolution is "just a theory". Well, gravity is also just a theory, thermodynamics is just a theory too. Yet these "just a theory" (and many others) work well enough to build pretty much everything you see on your daily life.

Try to build a plane with the knowledge the bible gives you. Does it work ? No.

Try to build a plane with the "theories that could be wrong". What happens? We build planes, and even better planes, and even better planes than previously thought. The fact that's it's a THEORY doesn't make it wrong.

The thing with religious people is that you take gaps in scientific knowledge and attribute it to god. You know, like ancient egypt people who said Ra was the god that made the sun rise, or in ancient greece where poseidon was the god of the seas.

It's like:
"oh you can't explain where matter came from? GOD!!"
"oh you can't explain how life started? GOD!!"

But..
"If God was there before everything else, then who created god ? And who created god's creator?" ad infinitum

--> "He's the alpha and the omega!!!"

Right. PLEASE!

[Coelho]

What we call "proofs" the earth really have billions of years is not a so strong proof.

For example, lets imagine someone goes to a theater, but arrives late, so the person watches the movie from the middle, instead from the beggining. Im supposing the person is alone in the theater (i know its sad, its just for the argument's sake). My question is, how this person can be absolutely sure the movie really started from the beginning? It could have started, from the middle, only moments before this person arrive to the theater. So, this person just could not tell the difference.

The same happens with us. We are here upon the earth only some millions of years (at most). How can us be so sure of things that happened much before we're here? How can anybody prove, in an unquestionable way, that the world was not created just a little time before?

Once, one friend of mine that was given to this phylosophies, and who showed me this argument, went even further: we cannot prove that even yesterday really happened. The universe could have been created today, and we could have been created today too, but our minds filled with memories to simulate that we were here before, and that we had a past.

I struggled a lot against him, but in the end i had to agree. Really we cant prove or disprove it. Since that day i stopped to take so much things for granted. We think we know much more than we really know. But now im aware of it.

[PureEvil760]

theres no such thing as time, there was never a beginning and there will be no end, we have lived for billions katrillions babigilions of years, maybe not as a separate entity as we do now, but we still existed forever.

[JaggedEdge]

I disagree. Having faith, that is, believing something without evidence for your position, is something that I try not to do. I am an atheist, but I am not an atheist because of faith. I do not believe in God because I do not see any evidence for such a being (at least as far as the gods described in scriptures, and the concepts of God which have been defined for me by believers).

Being an atheist does not mean saying you know with 100% certainty that there is no such thing as anything that might be worthy of the label "God". Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in gods. I lack a belief in gods because in order to believe in a god I would need to be presented with a good definition of what this god is and sufficient evidence to support the claim that it exists.

Screw faith. If you don't have enough evidence to answer a question, just be honest with yourself and say "I don't know". I don't know what caused the universe to come into existence, nor whether the Big Bang even had a cause. I don't know if there are parallel universes. I don't know if there are extraterrestrials in our galaxy. I don't know if string theory is true or not. I'm not going to make assertions about things that I don't have evidence for.

I am going to use the evidence we have, and the kinds of evidence we lack, to judge the probabilities of the claims I am presented with, without making any absolute claims to ultimate truth. I am an atheist for the same reason I don't believe in fairies; not because I have faith, but because I have not seen any evidence at all for any of the supernatural beings posited by any of the religions I have examined, and thus it is valid to say that the existence of these extraordinary beings is extraordinarily unlikely.

Not sure if this has been said before, but you are agnositc, same as I am. Agnostic's feel they do not have enough information on the matter to make a decision one way or another. Athiest feel they have enough information to declare that there isn't a god.

Just clearing that up, because there is a distinct difference between agnositc and athiest.

[darth stoner]

The same happens with us. We are here upon the earth only some millions of years (at most). How can us be so sure of things that happened much before we're here? How can anybody prove, in an unquestionable way, that the world was not created just a little time before?

Once, one friend of mine that was given to this phylosophies, and who showed me this argument, went even further: we cannot prove that even yesterday really happened. The universe could have been created today, and we could have been created today too, but our minds filled with memories to simulate that we were here before, and that we had a past.


Nobody will say for sure that the earth was created precisely 4.56 billion years, 3 months, 12 days, 8 hours, 50 minutes, 23 seconds (...) ago. What can be given is rough estimates, as accurate as possible. And in geological time, being off for 500,000 years isn't bad, for instance.

Your friend is correct, but if you wave out all logic and say "yeah, anything could have happened, let's disregard everything we know, even tho everything we know points in this direction", then you're letting go logic, and there is no further discussion possible.


That is the same as saying this could be a simulated universe and that some really advanced alien civilization is simulating our reality. Yup, possible, but how does that help us better understanding our universe ? If you try to answer the big question with that, then you've created a bigger problem -- how did the advanced alien's civilization universe came to be ?

[Oneironaut]

Not sure if this has been said before, but you are agnositc, same as I am. Agnostic's feel they do not have enough information on the matter to make a decision one way or another. Athiest feel they have enough information to declare that there isn't a god.

Just clearing that up, because there is a distinct difference between agnositc and athiest.
They are not mutually exclusive terms. I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know for sure that there is no God (just as I don't know any fact for sure; I'm always open to new evidence that could change my mind), so technically that makes me an agnostic. I also happen to not hold a positive belief in a God, which makes me an atheist.

It is a common misconception that atheism means you have 100% proof there is no God. That certainly isn't the case. Most atheists that I know are more rational than that, and will admit that when you look at any idea from a scientific perspective you can't claim to have absolute proof of anything. But just because you don't have absolute proof doesn't mean you can't reach tentative conclusions that you're pretty damn sure about. I can't prove 100% that unicorns don't exist, so technically I'm a unicorn agnostic, but I am still a unicorn atheist because I don't hold a positive belief in unicorns.

"Gnosticism" and "agnosticism" refer to whether or not one claims to know for sure the existence/non-existence of God, whereas "theism" and "atheism" refer to whether or not one holds a belief in a God. There are agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists, agnostic theists and gnostic theists. You too are an agnostic atheist, if I understand your position correctly, since you do not hold a belief in a God and do not claim absolute knowledge one way or the other.

If we disagree anywhere, it's on the relative probabilities of the two statements "God exists" and "God does not exist". I personally don't think the two are equally likely to be true. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that the first statement is false.

[darth stoner]

Weak and strong atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism)

[JaggedEdge]

They are not mutually exclusive terms. I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know for sure that there is no God (just as I don't know any fact for sure; I'm always open to new evidence that could change my mind), so technically that makes me an agnostic. I also happen to not hold a positive belief in a God, which makes me an atheist.

It is a common misconception that atheism means you have 100% proof there is no God. That certainly isn't the case. Most atheists that I know are more rational than that, and will admit that when you look at any idea from a scientific perspective you can't claim to have absolute proof of anything. But just because you don't have absolute proof doesn't mean you can't reach tentative conclusions that you're pretty damn sure about. I can't prove 100% that unicorns don't exist, so technically I'm a unicorn agnostic, but I am still a unicorn atheist because I don't hold a positive belief in unicorns.

"Gnosticism" and "agnosticism" refer to whether or not one claims to know for sure the existence/non-existence of God, whereas "theism" and "atheism" refer to whether or not one holds a belief in a God. There are agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists, agnostic theists and gnostic theists. You too are an agnostic atheist, if I understand your position correctly, since you do not hold a belief in a God and do not claim absolute knowledge one way or the other.

If we disagree anywhere, it's on the relative probabilities of the two statements "God exists" and "God does not exist". I personally don't think the two are equally likely to be true. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that the first statement is false.

It sounds like you have it down better than I do. And yeah, based on what you said and a slight memory of something I once read, I would consider myself agnostic atheist.

Yup, the more I think about it, I don't think I can argue that.

[Oneironaut]

What we call "proofs" the earth really have billions of years is not a so strong proof.

For example, lets imagine someone goes to a theater, but arrives late, so the person watches the movie from the middle, instead from the beggining. Im supposing the person is alone in the theater (i know its sad, its just for the argument's sake). My question is, how this person can be absolutely sure the movie really started from the beginning? It could have started, from the middle, only moments before this person arrive to the theater. So, this person just could not tell the difference.

The same happens with us. We are here upon the earth only some millions of years (at most). How can us be so sure of things that happened much before we're here? How can anybody prove, in an unquestionable way, that the world was not created just a little time before?

Once, one friend of mine that was given to this phylosophies, and who showed me this argument, went even further: we cannot prove that even yesterday really happened. The universe could have been created today, and we could have been created today too, but our minds filled with memories to simulate that we were here before, and that we had a past.

I struggled a lot against him, but in the end i had to agree. Really we cant prove or disprove it. Since that day i stopped to take so much things for granted. We think we know much more than we really know. But now im aware of it.
There are lots of crazy things like that that you can't technically disprove. Solipsism, for example: the idea that the entire universe is just a figment of your imagination or a dream that you can't wake up from. Or the idea that you are trapped in a computer simulation like in The Matrix. Or the idea that every single person except for you is actually a robot. Or the idea that Australia doesn't really exist and there is a grand conspiracy to make you think there is actually a place called Australia.

[mrdevious]

Or the idea that Australia doesn't really exist and there is a grand conspiracy to make you think there is actually a place called Australia.

Hey, I actually heard about that one! There's a website that claims the Earth is actually flat, and the edges fall off into oblivion or something. Accoring to them it's a conspiracy by the world governments, and they've fed us fake maps of the Earth. Ohio and australia, for some reason, don't actually exist. Though I'm not sure how they convince the millions of East Asian imigrants who try to illegaly emigrate over there by boat lol. :wtf:

[mamma puffpuff420]

Life is all about faith. You have to put faith into almost everything you know and do. A lot of things you subconsciously have faith in, which is why i'm sure most of you are not paranoid schizo's. Anyways yes, faith, I can respect whatever faith you have even though I might disagree, because I don't know any better than you.

i like ur post matt the funk
it is 1 of the most sencible 1 i have heard
the only thing i would omit is the word..almost
we have 2 put our faith in everything we do

[Oneironaut]

I don't see a good reason to rely on faith for anything. What good is it, really? I prefer facts and educated guesses. I like to have good explainable reasons for believing what I believe, and cannot fathom why anyone would consider it a virtue to not have good explainable reasons for believing what they believe. If I don't know something, I'm comfortable admitting I don't know and not inventing answers.

Could you please define "faith" for me in a way that makes it a positive attribute to have? Because gullibility doesn't seem to be a very good thing to have, nor does dogmatism.

[darth stoner]

Faith is something that made our ancestors believe there was a Sun God, a Moon Goddess, a Rain God, purely because they couldn't explain what they saw.

Faith is believing in something without any hard evidence whatsoever. And it only sounds good to religious persons as they've been indocrinated with certain beliefs, that lead them to believe faith is good.

And about the respect other people's faith thing.. that needs to change, no one would respect you if you said you really believe in Zeus or Thor. Why should we give preference to the judeo-christian god ? Just because most of us were raised in catholic/christian countries ?

Any christian/catholic people in this forum would have been muslims instead if they were born say in Iran. Why? Because it's illegal to not believe there, they'll actually kill you for it (the whole infidel thing). You happen to believe in the judeo-christian god merely because you were born in ${COUNTRY}.

[darth stoner]

And by the way, why are we discussing religion in the spirituality section? :)

[mrdevious]

And by the way, why are we discussing religion in the spirituality section? :)

Well, there's no "religion" forum and I'm pretty sure that spirituality is intertwined with religion.




I don't see a good reason to rely on faith for anything. What good is it, really? I prefer facts and educated guesses. I like to have good explainable reasons for believing what I believe, and cannot fathom why anyone would consider it a virtue to not have good explainable reasons for believing what they believe. If I don't know something, I'm comfortable admitting I don't know and not inventing answers.

I know man, it baffles me too. We've all read about dark times in history; the soviet union, the spanish inquisition, the pagan purge, the countless upon countless examples in history where so many inocent people suffered and died and were repressed because they lived in an age of doctrine rather than an age of reason. And yet, much as we all feel for people of these times and feel frustrated at their plight, most still feel that a society based on reason is somehow a bad thing.