onlooker wrote: Now relative to statements made before here, since religion is ultimately about faith, one can argue that religious peoples may have shifted their faith in such a way as to allow in good conscience the pillaging of the Earth.
Ibon wrote:I would say that secular thought wins the genocide prize If by genocide we are referring to the whole scale obliteration of natural ecosystems in order to expand human landscapes.
SeaGypsy wrote:Seculars are as inclined to believe in their superiority to the extent of forming genocidal intent to the same extent religious mutters are.
Pops wrote:Ibon wrote:I would say that secular thought wins the genocide prize If by genocide we are referring to the whole scale obliteration of natural ecosystems in order to expand human landscapes.
Actually I'm pretty sure we were talking about why the godless media won't name the god of the terrorists. Well the islamic terrorists anyway.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Pops wrote:Ibon wrote:I would say that secular thought wins the genocide prize If by genocide we are referring to the whole scale obliteration of natural ecosystems in order to expand human landscapes.
Actually I'm pretty sure we were talking about why the godless media won't name the god of the terrorists. Well the islamic terrorists anyway.
Tanada wrote:Pops wrote:Ibon wrote:I would say that secular thought wins the genocide prize If by genocide we are referring to the whole scale obliteration of natural ecosystems in order to expand human landscapes.
Actually I'm pretty sure we were talking about why the godless media won't name the god of the terrorists. Well the islamic terrorists anyway.
Actually I just used that as an example of the divide between devout and secular thinking in an attempt to start the conversation and see where it went. So far the back and forth between you and Seagypsy has been an excellent example of the conversation I was hoping for.
The Cistercians, who eschewed the aristocratic and sedentary ways of the Benedictines and, consequently, broke farther away from feudalism, became famous as entrepreneurs. They mastered rational cost accounting, plowed all profits back into new ventures, and moved capital around from one venue to another, cutting losses where necessary, and pursuing new opportunities when feasible. They dominated iron production in central France and wool production (for export) in England. They were cheerful and energetic. “They had,” Collins writes, “the Protestant ethic without Protestantism.”
Being few in number, the Cistercians needed labor-saving devices. They were a great spur to technological development. Their monasteries “were the most economically effective units that had ever existed in Europe, and perhaps in the world, before that time,” Gimpel writes.
Thus, the high medieval church provided the conditions for F. A. Hayek’s famous “spontaneous order” of the market to emerge. This cannot happen in lawless and chaotic times; in order to function, capitalism requires rules that allow for predictable economic activity.
You have more experience with organized un-religious congregation than me newf. But my point is not whether or not all people have beliefs but simply that beliefs based on the supernatural are not accountable, testable, or subject to reality checks.
beliefs based on the supernatural are not accountable, testable, or subject to reality checks."
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests