>>JUSTIN WROTE:
>>This is why all religions demand that
>>their claims be accepted on faith.  Accepting an argument based upon
>> >>faith is not something to be admired.  There is only one type of
>> >>faith: blind faith (if you don't believe me, look up faith in the
>> >>dictionary).

>KEN REPLIED:
>I did and have pasted it here, and only one out of the 6 definitions
> >constitutes blind faith (#2).
>
>Faith *
>
>1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a >person,
>an idea, or a thing.
>2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. >See
>synonyms at belief, trust.
>3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's
>supporters.
>4. ( Theology) The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God >and
>a trusting acceptance of God's will.
>5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
>6. A set of principles or beliefs.

I still stand by my assertion that there is only 1 type of faith:
blind
faith.  As I read thru the 6 definitions above, I still am reading
this as
blind faith.  The bottom line is this: you and I can go back and forth
all
day on whether or not faith is blind.  I am claiming that faith is
blind
100% of the time.  You are claiming that it isn't.  Conclusion: One of
us is
a moron.  End of discussion on the faith bit.



>>JUSTIN WROTE:
>>Just for the record, almost of the the pioneers, great thinkers, etc >>of
>>the world were either atheist, deist, agnostic, or one of the >>other
>>religions that encourage independent thought.  I personally do >>not
>>confine myself to a box or title to which I belong.  However, if >>I had
>>to pick one, I would most probably fit that of a deist b/c I >>consider
>>myself to be spiritual but not religious.

>KEN REPLIED:
>First off, if you are a deist, then your statements about "blind >faith"
>don't make sense, since you can only be a deist (someone who >accepts the
>existence of God) from either experience or belief.   If >you are
>criticizing belief, then you must be a deist from experience, >in which
>case it makes no sense for you to state that religions >require belief !

My mistake.  I should have said I was a deist of sorts.  Technically,
I am
not really a deist b/c I don't believe in a Creator.  But I do believe
in
the human spirit.  I believe H. sapiens have "souls" and that we are a
part
of something spiritual, something which involves Mother Nature.  What
exactly that means, I am still not for sure.  I need to let my
understanding
(or lack there of) of this belief develop further b/c I still do not
know
what I believe.



>KEN WROTE:
>Furthermore, many religions encourage independent thought.   In fact, >it
>is mostly specific practitioners of religion or religious >authorities who
>discourage independent thought, rather than the >tenets of the religion
>doing so.

I strongly disagree.  Let's take Christianity as an example.  Some
will say
that Christianity encourages independent thought but the current
leaders of
the movement (Robertson, Falwell, etc) discourage it.  In that case,
we can
go to the source: the bible.  It's my claim that the bible, as a
whole,
greatly discourages independent thought.  You will probably claim
otherwise.
  Concusion: One of us is a moron.  End of discussion on this
particular
detail.




>KEN WROTE:
>It is difficult without extensive study of historical materials to >figure
>out which Great Thinkers of the past were religious rather >than deists,
>but certainly all of the Founding Fathers (Washington, >Jefferson,
>Hamilton, etc.) accepted the existence of God...

I thought it was well documented that those you mention were deists?




>KEN WROTE:
>On the other hand, the list of Great Thinkers who were Atheists is >quite
>small in comparison.

That's because, as a total percent of the population, they didn't have
a
large number of people, especially when compared to the Christians,
Muslims,
or Jews.  At least the atheists have a consisent, cogent platform,
which is
far more than I can say for any organized religion.
Ken, what are your religious views, what do you believe in?

These philosophy discussions do not stimulate me in the least.

On a side note, I do not see the utility in philosophy.  Granted,
there are
a number of people on this list who are well read in the field
(Amadeus,
Ken, Don Matesz, and especially Todd and many others) and their
experience
has without question helped their verbal and writing ability, but I do
not
believe that philosphy can teach or even help someone become a better
thinker.  Our ability to think for ourselves, to solve our own
problems, etc
comes from within and cannot be taught in a classroom (here comes one
of
Justin's off topic rants). This is why I loathe the educational
system.
Along a similar line, it is also why I no longer have any confidence
in the
scientific method. Anecdotal evidence has always assisted me far more
than
any controlled study (wow, see how off topic I can get).

This is why I find debating in this forum to be frustrating at times
for me.
  I view myself as a skilled, critical thinker, but I am not a writer,
nor
am I a philosopher (nor do I play one on tv).  Often, I feel the
overall
quality of my argument is degraded by my lack of ability to
communicate my
views in a clear, concise manner.  Writing, after all, is a vehicle
for
thinking.  I feel my thinking is correct, but I am not a rhetoric
master
like many on the list (Q: where am I going with this? A: I have no
idea).

Justin Hasselman