"human error"

[d_b]

@Anacoluthon64 post:2

Talked about, yes; resolved anything useful, no.

Your correct “human error” doesn’t resolve anything. It only pointing out the obvious that there was something wrong with the people in question, because anyone that kills someone else has a screw loose or two. So I will quote a word that has been added to the Oxford dictionary recently for my foolishness: “D’oh”.

@Anacoluthon64 post:2

…so I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and say that it’s (3), despite the numerous times and ways it has been put to you. You very much can blame an individual or a group for clinging to indefensible beliefs, particularly when they produce harmful actions and when the beliefs fly in the face of evidence the believers are well aware of. Do you think a Court of Law will acquit, on the grounds of “human error,” someone of murder for killing somebody s/he thought was an alien disguised as a human if the accused is found to be otherwise mentally fit? And the individuals that instilled and sustained that belief are complicit and just as guilty as the actual perpetrator. The faulty belief that prompted the harmful action is itself the “human error,” so your insistence on drawing a distinction between the two is entirely bogus, as has been pointed out several times. What part of this don’t you get?

I now agree “human error” as I called it is useless. A Court of Law will most probably declare the suspect in question insane if they try to spin a story of aliens or that god told them to kill someone. But a Court of Law will not declare a whole group guilty if only a selected few of the group’s members are insane/misguided and this is what I tried to draw a distinction between, the religious group and the misguided individuals that is part of the group.

@Anacoluthon64 post:2

You wrote, “so I would agree with you that it was the official position of the RCC and they misinterpreted the Bible, but I would not agree with you that the Bible is wrong …” in the “Creationist Stew, Anyone?” thread, and I took this to mean that you seem to hold the christian bible as a reliable source of knowledge, just as I wrote.

@d-_-b post:30

So I would agree with you that it was the official position of the RCC and they misinterpreted the Bible, but I would not agree with you that the Bible is wrong and all Christians believed their going to fall off the edge of the world.

Above is the quote as I have written it. I nowhere said the Bible is a reliable source of knowledge, I only said the Bible didn’t tell us that we will fall off the edge of the earth.

@Anacoluthon64 post:2

Really? And, having “questioned” it, you clearly still find the account of JC’s life and work, and the bible itself plausible, despite the dire scarcity of evidence for it, and the mountains of philosophical, historical and scientific evidence that militate against it, particularly in respect of the miracles that are supposed to have occurred. This is not consistent with your later assertions about “evidence” in your post. Or perhaps you’re using that word in a novel way. Would you care to explain this apparent anomaly?

I could not see why I should find the account of Jesus Christ life and work questionable. You asked me what is my personal believes is and I gave it to you. If you want to talk further about Jesus Christ and the “the mountains of philosophical, historical and scientific evidence that militate against it” I would like it if you would open a new thread with links and references to these evidence so that we can deal with it more fully in the correct thread.

@Anacoluthon64 post:2

I must say that you have a very odd interpretation. The blog article makes statements without any proof? Where, exactly, does it do this? Or do you expect the author to cross-reference every single historical and scientific fact, irrespective of how well-known it is? That would be unreasonable. Also, how is the author’s use of Galileo and Copernicus’ names “give a illusion that they believed religion to be false,” and how is this relevant to the article’s main argument in the first place? It seems to me that your interpretation is a bit flawed.

I agree it would be very unreasonable of me to insist that the author cross-reference every single fact it claims. I would also leave it at that, my opinion towards the blog post in question is a biased and I would encourage anyone who reads the article to read the blog comments as well and make up their own mind about the article.

@Anacoluthon64 post:2

That would probably be true if things actually happened in the way you describe. But again you simply ignore the arguments put forward in support of the contention that inter-religious frictions would immediately cease to exist if religious beliefs were subjected to critical appraisal since doing so would expose their essential vacuity and show them to be unnecessary and misguided. Now please explain how these arguments are flawed by being “not evidence” but “a speculation/opinion.”

Would you please post on the specific thread where I ignored the arguments put forward, then I will reply on that thread. I would also like it if all religious beliefs are subjected to critical appraisal, but I do feel that is a very daunting task and one can only try to search for the needle.

I would also agree all inter-religious friction would cease to exist if religion was taken away, but not all friction between humans would cease to exist and I do feel that human element was brought to religion by humans and thus it’s not religions fault.

Regards,