Quote Originally Posted by darth stoner
If you say believing without evidence is good, then the only possible logical outcome is to say the above sentences are not ridiculous. Do you agree they are not ?

Interesting. If I don't care about evidence though, why would I care about your "logical" outcomes?


Your stove example demonstrates an interesting point tho, ironically there's also a scientific explanation for that.

As childs, we're programmed to believe whatever our parents tell us. That's how we manage to stay alive during these years where we'd otherwise jump off a cliff to see what happens. You can override this programming (curiosity), but if you think back, you had a strange feeling that it would be better to trust what your parents told you.

Wow. We definately have different definitions going on. I didn't feel that was a very scientific example at all. Despite all your rather condescending cookie monster examples, we can construct imaginary scenarios to prove things all day long, and still not prove anything.
My point was, I had some faith in my parents, and it paid off. In this particular case, inquiry would have burned me.

It's not that I disagree with you, not necessarily. I just think your vision is remarkably polarized and dualistic for someone not of a fundamentally religious bent. Were you raised catholic or something out of curiousity?


Now reflect and think why you've never seen a buddhist or a christian guy taking two planes and stuffing them on two towers. No, religion isn't the only possible answer, but why do we only see such things coming from islam?

Because they really believe what their magic book says, and in their twisted minds, there are really virgins and eternal joy waiting.


That's an interpretation. Sure. I think its an incredible simplification, necessitated by a rather simple mind. Terrorists are motivated by the appeal of metaphysical pussy. My own hypothesis would be that they view the world differently, through a vastly different subjective lens, and feel that their actions are justified. That its a sacrifice worth their lives.
Are you aware of the buddhist monks who set themselves on fire in protest of the Vietnam war?
One of these viewpoints makes the adversary out to be a crazed lunatic, which is very comforting when you have to fight them. The other viewpoint shows that they might very well be a human being, and that the problem lies elsewhere.
It's really hard to have dialogue with people who you condescend towards. Maybe if you dropped the "us vs them" attitude you could actually create some change rather than just insulting people.

Though I admit, it can be quite fun at times...
As always, all bold my own.