(August 16, 2019 at 8:44 pm)Belaqua Wrote:(August 16, 2019 at 8:23 pm)wyzas Wrote: Really,.......... Isaac Newton. Would you like to go back a bit farther into history to prop up your position?
Well, we could go the other way, toward more modern people. W.H. Auden comes to mind. His religious views were certainly a part of his self-image, important to him in every part of life. And he did develop pretty well. Also Lewis Carroll, he was cool. Surely you can think of people, right?
Do we really have to cite cases of religious people who did good things? Who developed into good people?
Quote:I think the issue for me is that if religion/philosophy is all that the individual has to contribute to society (especially if the person only regurgitates and is pompous about it) then I won't have much of an opinion about the individual.
I consider contributions made in philosophy to be worthwhile to society.
Granted, regurgitation and pomposity are not positive attributes. But here we're pointing out obviously negative traits that were not in the original over-the-top statement. If you want to add to what he said, in order to make it acceptable, you can, but that's not what he said.
W.H. Auden.......... who?
The statement is not talking about good people, the statement was talking about "little" people as defined only by their religion.
If philosophy/religion is the only thing a person is able to talk about, I'll have little time for them. My interactions with the world take on more importance than "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." (google philosophy definition)
If you don't consider them positive attributes you should probably go back and look at your time spent here. (my opinion only)
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
