Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
No offense taken. I can assure you the intention wasn't devious.

This sub-thread started from an affirmation of religious phenomenons as totally subjective and downright irrational. Many fellow bloggers here seem to be in agreement with that (I feel like saying: DUH! this is why I think the rating system is bad; I doubt certain posts above bear any "excellent" quality to them).
While I too can agree to the subjectivism of certain aspects (eg the creation in christianism), I think we should be much more careful in declaring it all "irrational", especially regarding religions like, say, buddhism.

TBG and JakeS mentioned the necessity of hard facts, and rational processes.
My point is that there were many scientifically sound theories considered wrong for decades before being accepted by the community, despite "rational" theoretical proof and hard-fact experimental proof.
No doubt bearing a grudge against religion, some here treat the religious phenomenons exactly the same way the Vatican treated Giordano Bruno and Galilei. I can't touch it, hence it doesn't exist. Well a lot of stuff was considered impossible even in modern time science, and is now accepted. So if we pretend ourselves evolved and rational, we should at least learn from the past,
namely to be more careful in our sentences (or else, why not, to tag them "Ideological"), more precise in our argumentation (rather than reducing christianism or buddhism to the winged dragons), open minded enough to accept that "impossible" today may be "scientifical fact" 200 years from now.


Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 01:23:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

melo 4

Display: