The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Getting a Seniors' party into the Senate

Getting a Seniors' party into the Senate

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All
Swami Vivekananda can also mouth religious nonsense. Religious nonsense is not limited to the Abrahamic religions.
Posted by david f, Friday, 6 November 2015 7:03:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Apart from philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists and historians I do not know of any other group that studies and analyses religion.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 6 November 2015 8:47:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

Even if you consider someone's statements to be nonsense, you still need to ascertain whether they are religious nonsense.

As far as I am concerned, if some nonsense is religious (take for example virgin-birth, resulting as we know from a mis-translation) then I'm all for it, for if it helps people to come closer to God then who cares about the rest?!

But if a piece of nonsense isn't religious, if it doesn't help anyone to come closer to God, then it can't be called "religious nonsense"!

It seems that you do not even recognise the existence of religion*, but in that case you contradict yourself when you mention "religious nonsense".

(* that is not to say that you do not recognise the existence of individuals and organisations which call themselves "religious", just that you find no substance to their claim)

---

Dear Mr. Opinion,

On the assumption that unlike David you essentially acknowledge that religion exists, then many religious people study religion, religious teachers teach religion and there is a vast body of information about religion in scripture.

(and if you didn't acknowledge that religion exists, then you would arrive at the logical conclusion that philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists and historians do not study or analyse religion either)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 7 November 2015 11:00:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Certainly I recognise that religion exists. It belongs to that class of mental attitudes called superstition.

Closer to God? One cannot become closer to or farther from a non-existent entity.

You wrote: "(* that is not to say that you do not recognise the existence of individuals and organisations which call themselves "religious", just that you find no substance to their claim)"

I don't know what you mean by the above. If an individual or an organisation calls itself religious they are religious as far as I am concerned.

I can even accept that you might not have meant to be insulting when you insulted me by calling me religious.

I don't contradict myself when I refer to religious nonsense. All nonsense is not religious nonsense. Religious nonsense is one kind of nonsense. There are other kinds of nonsense.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 7 November 2015 11:35:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

<<If an individual or an organisation calls itself religious they are religious as far as I am concerned.>>

And if an individual or an organisation calls itself a horse, then they are horses as far as you are concerned? Thence you conclude that horses can speak?

And if an individual or an organisation calls itself a dinosaur, then they are dinosaurs as far as you are concerned? Thence you claim that "dinosaurs still exist"?

<<Certainly I recognise that religion exists>>

All you recognise is that there exist people who claim that they are "coming closer to God". Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't, but so far you never acknowledged that either they or anyone else are in fact coming closer to God, in fact you explicitly denied it, thus you have not recognised the existence of religion, only the existence of strange people.

And it's not only you who make this error, also most philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists and historians.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 8 November 2015 2:06:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I have made no error. You have an idiosyncratic definition of religion which I have never heard from anyone else. As far as I know no one else shares it. You define religion as coming closer to God. I see no reason to accept that as a definition for religion.

You wrote: "And it's not only you who make this error, also most philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists and historians."

There is no reason that anyone else should accept your definition of religion. I find this discussion tiresome so will stop and not continue this discussion.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 8 November 2015 3:09:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy