God has many names, and one of them is 'Bastard'
Your apologetics(aka lousy attempt to avoid logic) are weak.
God has many names, and one of them is 'Bastard'
This was an interesting debate for a while, but now it seems to have degenerated to insults and name-calling. If everyone can’t be civil I see no reason for this discussion to continue.
Zombieneighbours, you wrote near the beginning “I hope it can remain civil enough that it won't need to be locked”. I hope so too.
|
said a lot of things over several posts
Here is truth ...
Life doesn't break down into sweet little boxes like memes and generalizations. For every argument you bring up, I can bring up 10 in counterpoint, which will be rapidly dissected by 10 others with 10 unique counterpoints per. The truth is that man is much more complex than any little example you have given, and each "poignant fact" that you attempted to raise has deeper levels of truth that you haven't even begun to grasp.
"Education" isn't a key to anything. It is the beginning of wisdom, but it is not the end. I am sure that all our Wall Street CEOs are well-educated, and some are probably the most brilliant minds in regards to financial management. Yet all this education came to naught in regards to what they've done with other people's finances. All the education and knowledge in the world does not create a moral person. Just for fun, a little light reading on one person's evaluation of what being well educated means.
While we're on the subject of morals, define good. Define evil. We all have concepts that certain behaviors are acceptable and certain others are not, but where does that come from? Some instinctual heredity that says lieing is bad? How do you define these terms without guidance from a higher moral authority, because surely if it is just something that society decides it is nothing more than situational ethics and no true morality at all.
To continue on the discourse of morality - why subject ourselves to it at all? The societal interpretation of natural selection is "might makes right." Why should I subject myself to the whims of others (teachers, parents, coaches, managers, leaders, civil forces) when it clearly impinges on my own personal advancement.
To take it even further, why should I care about doing good? Why shouldn't I just do whatever it is I feel like doing? I'm only here for a few years and gone anyways, why not have the most self-gratifying experiences I can, damned be to the rest of you?
For all of science's vaunted facts, it is still a work based upon observation. IF there is an Almighty, and IF this is the universe that said Almighty created, the only thing we've been able to do is observe and evaluate the rules under which Almighty put in place. My DNA, cell structure, blood flow, gene pairings, the expansion of the universe, the existence of dark matter ... all of it exists in accordance to rules that either random chance or an intelligent Almighty put into place. Unfortunately, our own scientific observations have been very flawed, and change just as rapidly as Oprah's latest diet fad. Up until 1999 (maybe even earlier we started viewing neanderthal as an offshoot or subspecies, but I know that I was taught in biology and other sciences that neanderthal was in the chain) we were evolved beings from Neanderthal man being in the chain. Today, we're supposedly distant cousins from a branching made further back. The principle behind "Ockham's Razor" is only as good as the "practicality" can get it. "Scientific Theory" indeed.
With all this being said, in the end, I stick with my personal favorite societal axiom, "Elvis fans are nicer than those who make fun of Elvis fans." I would much rather be a person of faith who spends his life trying to make himself a better person, friend, father, husband, gamer, whatever, than one who feels that the only way to a better future is to stamp out said persons of faith in order to support a personal agenda, and I proudly declare myself a servant of Christ, and will continue to do so even if you take me to the stake to be burned.
|
This is interesting reading, but like several of you, I have no desire to enter the fray. Others of a like mind--you can RSS this thread to keep track of it. Just look for the the orange-and-white ascending signal icon in the top right of your window, select it, and then opt in for a bookmark or email tracking, etc (there should be a box of selections on the right side after you click on the RSS icon).
|
|
lots of interesting things
I actually don't think anyone can ask for more than try and live by what you think is right without impinging on the rights of others.
I have no faith in a divine being whatsoever. I cannot deny that one might exist, as there is no evidence to disprove it. I have seen nothing to rovide evidence for such a being either, certainly not in the sense that people believe a God to be (directly involved in creation and taking a hand in the fates of the for instance).
I am a man of science, yet I live by a tennet that I will enjoy my life to the best of my ability whilever I don't cause harm or hurt to others in the process. Sometimes this is hard, but I seemed to have muddled through so far, without guidance from a book or set of moral teachings presented from a divine being. I learn though, and change my opinions, based on evidence presented that I believe to be valid. An opinion helped by my training as a scientist.
I agree with your general philosphy TigerDave, but will counterpoint that the majority of the people I have met who have tried to impose their beliefs upon me have been Christian. I used to argue against following the dogma of a church quite vehemently when I was younger, but have since learned the folly of such things. Who am i to judge what people whould think, and then try to convince them of their supposed folly?
While I applaud those who have faith and have become better people because of it (my wife included in this category), my personal expereince of religion in general is that of trying to convert through any means necessary, although mostly passive in my society. Many of the ones I've met who've tried to convert me are dogmatic in their attempts and often contemptuous whenI rebut them. They also get quite upset/angry when I retrn the favour with scientific eveidence arguing argainst things as presented in "The Bible". Most of the scientists I know, on the other hand, are quite willing to listen to other peoples arguments and the evidence they present without bias. They then take that evidence and evaluate it for its authenticity. If it comes up to scratch then they accept it and try to work it into their philosophies.
I feel faith is perfectly fine. I think blindly following the teachings of religions as a basis of that faith to be dangerous. It leaves people open to suggestion when they get into the mindset of following the words of people who preach, people wjo may or may not have their own agenda. I find scientific eveidence to be comforting. I believe taking everythign presented as scientific evidence to be solid proof is also dangerous, as many scientists also have an agenda (mostly finance).
I think educating people to be discerning in what evidence they beleive is a very key idea in protecting people from falling under the influence of "cult" teachings, or zealous dogmatism, or any other form of blindly follwing the word of someone just because they are charismatic. That is the point I was trying to make earlier, it is also the poitn I believe others were trying to make. Being educated is not enough, being a discerning thinker is.
Hope my points were cear. Sorry if I offended anyones beliefs in this, it wasn't my intenion.
Cheers
Here is truth ...
Life doesn't break down into sweet little boxes like memes and generalizations. For every argument you bring up, I can bring up 10 in counterpoint, which will be rapidly dissected by 10 others with 10 unique counterpoints per. The truth is that man is much more complex than any little example you have given, and each "poignant fact" that you attempted to raise has deeper levels of truth that you haven't even begun to grasp.
Biosphere > Region> landscape >Ecosystem > community>interactions > population> Individual> individual> Organ systems> organs> Tissues> Cells> organelles> Component molicules > Atoms > protons and Neutrons > Up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom, electron neutrino, electron, meon neutrino, Meon, tau neutrino, tau, photon, gluon, z weak force, w weak force.
You can look at a complex system and break it down to its component parts from stars to languages. In every field of human study, we find that Life does actually break down into 'sweet little boxs'. Observation does, in my opinion and that of many others, seem to point towards discreet packages of cultural information, which evolutionary pressures act on. Man is complex, but time and time again throughout nature we see complexity arrive originate in nature from simple rules. Evolutionary psychology and Ethology can explain almost all animal behaviors in purely mechanistic terms. It is my personal opinion it capable of explaining human behaviors in such a manner also, but that latent Anthropocentrism has hampered investigation into human behavior in the field.
As to deeper levels of truth that I haven't even begun to understand; I suspect your true, I am after all not a quantum physicist so it would be true to say that on the deeper levels of reality I am as blind as your average member of the clergy. Actually just a little less blind, I can kind of half wrap my head around uncertainty principle and the two slit experiment.
"Education" isn't a key to anything. It is the beginning of wisdom, but it is not the end. I am sure that all our Wall Street CEOs are well-educated, and some are probably the most brilliant minds in regards to financial management. Yet all this education came to naught in regards to what they've done with other people's finances. All the education and knowledge in the world does not create a moral person. Just for fun, a little light reading on one person's evaluation of what being well educated means.
That depends what you mean by well educated?
At it's most basic, I would say to be well educated is to have acquired basic academic skills, such as engage in self study, write a cited essay that coherently shows that you have understood a concept and engage in research. One must also have learned critical thinking skills.
These skills are the basis from which you can learn about any subject with some reliablity. Such skills are only enhances by the addition knowledge.
I suspect many CEO's on Wall Street have in fact not learned these skills. It is very possible to get on in business without these skills, provide one has a Type A personality, some personal charisma and some luck. More specifically, in the case of London I can say with some specificity that many of those banks, which have gotten into serious financial difficulties, have not be headed by people with qualifications in Banking or Economics.
While we're on the subject of morals, define good. Define evil. We all have concepts that certain behaviors are acceptable and certain others are not, but where does that come from? Some instinctual heredity that says lieing is bad? How do you define these terms without guidance from a higher moral authority, because surely if it is just something that society decides it is nothing more than situational ethics and no true morality at all.
To continue on the discourse of morality - why subject ourselves to it at all? The societal interpretation of natural selection is "might makes right." Why should I subject myself to the whims of others (teachers, parents, coaches, managers, leaders, civil forces) when it clearly impinges on my own personal advancement.
We do not derive Morality from scripture, which much should be very clear. We no longer believe that adulterers should be stoned or that we should keep slaves. You would also struggle to find an American who would believe that it was moral to turn the other cheek, as another country invaded the United States (and the same goes for any country). So, common human morality does not come from scripture.
Therefore, if morality comes from god, it must do so in other forms. Innate sense of morality. And most people do seem to have an inbuilt sense of morality. But not every one does, those who suffer from Antisocial personality disorder seem to have no such moral compus. This possess the question. Does god intentionally deprive some people of the ability to make a judgement about the morality of their actions or does god make mistakes.
On the other hand, evolution provides an explination for how and why a society would form morals. In a highly simplifies form, it boils down to this. Under some conditions, there is a strong selective preasure for organisms to co-operated. This tends to lead towards formation of societies. Societies without rules are unstable, societal break down is bad for the individuals their for those societies that do not have rules are selected against. Rules evolve. Thanks to game theory we also happen to know that it is benifical to cheat, which is why altrism was considered an issue for evolution for a while, but kin selection largely solves that issue. The end result is that any society that evolves will also evolve rules, which you call morals. Humans tend not to kill one another in general, but that is no greater achievement than great white sharks or parana. Infact, one might argue that they are more moral as they tend to kill each other less often.
evolution also explains why Antisocial personality disorder can exist within a population, thanks to the genetic tie between genes and behavior.
So, simply put, you don't even have to have 'good' and 'evil' to form a morality system. You don't have to have a Moral Authority for a system of morality to evolve.
Why subject our selves to morality? Because we gain an evolutionary advantage from doing so. Evolutionary success is not measured in indeviduals, but rather genes and populations. For instance, when a man dies to protect of his brothers children he is actually acting to protect his own genes. See kin selection.
To take it even further, why should I care about doing good? Why shouldn't I just do whatever it is I feel like doing? I'm only here for a few years and gone anyways, why not have the most self-gratifying experiences I can, damned be to the rest of you?
Because it disadvantages you and your genes to do so, because your body has a reward mechanism that makes you feel good when you do things which are good for your genes. Because societies that dont follow rules break down disadvantaging no only you but all other members of the society, many of who carry large proportions of your genetic material.
Because acting like that is stupid in general.For all of science's vaunted facts, it is still a work based upon observation. IF there is an Almighty, and IF this is the universe that said Almighty created, the only thing we've been able to do is observe and evaluate the rules under which Almighty put in place. My DNA, cell structure, blood flow, gene pairings, the expansion of the universe, the existence of dark matter ... all of it exists in accordance to rules that either random chance or an intelligent Almighty put into place.
Not random chance. Measurable laws which we can observe, measure and understand. And measurable laws, which may be only one set of many possible sets. Given that their may very well be an infinitely large number of universes with perhaps an infinitely large variance of natural laws. The point here is that all we have is our observation. If your god does exist he chooses to appear not to exist. Under these conditions it is as reasonable to believe in The Flying spaghetti monster as it is the Christian God. In fact, it is slightly more reasonable to believe in the flying spaghetti monster, because the tenets of Pastafarianism specifically state that the FSM made the universe to appear as though it came into existance in accordance to natural laws.
More over, 30% to 40% of american christians do not agree with your statement with regards to the apparent evidence that your 'trickster god' left behind, believe in a far more literal account of creation. Many of them are likely to believe you are a bad Christian for not believing as they do. So in fact will believe that you are going to hell for not agreeing with them.
Your in a tricky position with them, because your either saying the bible isn't literal or that god is intentionally deceptive.
Unfortunately, our own scientific observations have been very flawed, and change just as rapidly as Oprah's latest diet fad. Up until 1999 (maybe even earlier we started viewing neanderthal as an offshoot or subspecies, but I know that I was taught in biology and other sciences that neanderthal was in the chain) we were evolved beings from Neanderthal man being in the chain. Today, we're supposedly distant cousins from a branching made further back. The principle behind "Ockham's Razor" is only as good as the "practicality" can get it. "Scientific Theory" indeed.
You are looking at one of science strongest points, its self-correcting nature. Our understanding of science is constantly growing, that does mean that we get it wrong sometimes. Usually only in a fairly minor way, which are easily put right. Rarely, usually as a result of a failure in the method itself, (such as rare cases of academic fraud.) larger mistakes creep in, but these are usually discovered and repaired quickly as well.
But if you believe that this invalidated the scientific method as well might i humbly suggest that you cease to make use of science and its benefits. I'll let you keep using the internet, because well i'll be interested to see how you progress, but i will ask that you return to a hunter-gather existence. I guess we can let you have microblade or clovise point flint technology along with cultivated wild crops you can grow. No refrigeration, medicine or cleaning products. No house at all I am afraid, as nearly all forms of building will draw on science and mathematics you learned at school. No food preservation other than sun or wind drying, or maybe smoking.
In fact, i will be appeased if next time your seriously Ill you choose to forgo medicial science and depend purely on prayer. I wonder if you will consider science unreliable under those conditions.
With all this being said, in the end, I stick with my personal favorite societal axiom, "Elvis fans are nicer than those who make fun of Elvis fans." I would much rather be a person of faith who spends his life trying to make himself a better person, friend, father, husband, gamer, whatever, than one who feels that the only way to a better future is to stamp out said persons of faith in order to support a personal agenda, and I proudly declare myself a servant of Christ, and will continue to do so even if you take me to the stake to be burned.
While live and let live is a wonderful approaches in many cases, this is not a 'elvis' situation. Currently, in the U.S. there is considerable effort being spend to attempt to present religious ideas which lack evidence, as being on an equal footing to well established scientific principles. Tactics used by the creationist movement run the gauntlet from slander to the issueing of False DMCA's .
It is the behaviour of various members of both the Christian Right and some conspiracy theorists that lead me to even raise the question. In truth I intensely disagree with censorship. Do not assume that exploring the idea means support for it.
|
|
I am a man of science, yet I live by a tennet that I will enjoy my life to the best of my ability whilever I don't cause harm or hurt to others in the process. Sometimes this is hard, but I seemed to have muddled through so far,
Shhh. Don't tell anyone else ... this is pretty much the same as I.
I think that there are persons of faith, and then there are persons of faith, if you get my meaning. I would imagine that there is much the same amongst scientists - the ones whom are the embarrassment of the group as a whole.
Who am i to judge what people whould think, and then try to convince them of their supposed folly?
Surely. From my point of view (only to help you understand why I would take such a path):
If there does exist an Almighty, and if the scriptures are dictates from same, do I not have an obligation to tell you "Caution! Danger ahead!!"?? If there is an immortal soul, shouldn't I care enough for you to tell you to look to it's health in the same manner you tell me a diet based on Twinkies is a danger to my physical health? There are ways of doing such of course that cross the lines of good behaviour, and I can't answer to those, just understand that I will not stand here and constantly lambast you about your life, etc.
They also get quite upset/angry when I retrn the favour with scientific eveidence arguing argainst things as presented in "The Bible". Most of the scientists I know, on the other hand, are quite willing to listen to other peoples arguments and...
I would LOVE to discuss this. Unfortunately, this specific format leads to nothing but name calling and knee-jerk reactions rather than honest and insightful dialog.
|
|
I simply will NOT get into a point/counterpoint discussion. I can already see that you have drawn supposition from statements I made (case in point: I do NOT believe in a "trickster god" - I am assuming you are talking about that specific concept of intelligent design that postulates that an Almighty triggered universal expansion [sometimes called the billiard ball principle] and then sat back and watched what came after) that indicate you have differentiated from the meaning I put forth to what you are responding to. I can also tell that there is a goodly chance where I have done the same, which is what makes this format of in-depth discussion so caustic - the format fails the discussion.
What I am saying is that I don't accept a stance that only you are capable of a rational decision, that rule by the "educated" is not a thing to be desired, and that I feel that further travel down your path of pathogenic association leads to inoculation and extermination of said pathogen - the person of faith.
|
|
I agree with your general philosphy TigerDave, but will counterpoint that the majority of the people I have met who have tried to impose their beliefs upon me have been Christian. I used to argue against following the dogma of a church quite vehemently when I was younger, but have since learned the folly of such things. Who am i to judge what people whould think, and then try to convince them of their supposed folly?
And I will counterpoint that the majority of people I encounter and read of who try to impose their views on others have done so on a non-religious basis. These range from groups like PETA who hurl anathemas at anyone who eats any meat in contrast with Christians who just shrug and say "More for me!" when I decline pork, to the science establishment who demand complete economic reorganization based on their current theories in contrast with Christians who just shrug and say "Let me use my land as I see fit and you may use yours as you see fit", to political groups that demand government reorganization to advance their views in contrast with Christians and Jews who just shrug and say "Do not outlaw my faith and I will not outlaw your government".
While I applaud those who have faith and have become better people because of it (my wife included in this category), my personal expereince of religion in general is that of trying to convert through any means necessary, although mostly passive in my society. Many of the ones I've met who've tried to convert me are dogmatic in their attempts and often contemptuous whenI rebut them. They also get quite upset/angry when I retrn the favour with scientific eveidence arguing argainst things as presented in "The Bible". Most of the scientists I know, on the other hand, are quite willing to listen to other peoples arguments and the evidence they present without bias. They then take that evidence and evaluate it for its authenticity. If it comes up to scratch then they accept it and try to work it into their philosophies.
Many of the socialists, communists, and libertarians I have met have been quite contemptuous when I rebut them, becoming excessively belligerent when I present even the simplest evidence to rebut their assertions. Likewise scientists are more than happy to play the appeal to authority card and both assert their views are above rebuttal because they are "scientific" as well as refusing to consider any dissenting points from anyone without an equal or greater degree from an equal or greater university.
Hope my points were cear. Sorry if I offended anyones beliefs in this, it wasn't my intenion.
Cheers
No, you presented your views very clearly and directly, and without any incidental condemnations.
However, you have missed one key factor that is quite relevant:
Not every person of faith believes the same thing.
Because of that, citing one or more actions of one or more people of faith and expecting those must be rebutted first by any person of faith is unreasonable in the extreme. A person of faith could then equally demand an explanation of eugenics, rescinded drug and chemical bans, denials of the accuracy of any bible history, and more as a precondition for the presentation of any scientific claims.
Errors and excesses of dogmatism abound on both sides.
To deny it, or worse to insist that only the other side must be accountable for it, is the beginning of offense.
Unfortunately the error prone and dogmatic will quickly default to that, and thus begin the cycle of offense and retort.
I simply will NOT get into a point/counterpoint discussion. I can already see that you have drawn supposition from statements I made (case in point: I do NOT believe in a "trickster god" - I am assuming you are talking about that specific concept of intelligent design that postulates that an Almighty triggered universal expansion [sometimes called the billiard ball principle] and then sat back and watched what came after) that indicate you have differentiated from the meaning I put forth to what you are responding to. I can also tell that there is a goodly chance where I have done the same, which is what makes this format of in-depth discussion so caustic - the format fails the discussion.
What I am saying is that I don't accept a stance that only you are capable of a rational decision, that rule by the "educated" is not a thing to be desired, and that I feel that further travel down your path of pathogenic association leads to inoculation and extermination of said pathogen - the person of faith.
I have never said that only i am capable of rational decision.
I have never argued that faith itself is a disease and i have explicitely said that no one should ever be hurt or persicuted the entirely hypothetical argument.Your consistantly mischaracterising my argument. but since your not willing to discuss the subject i guess that is that.
Your consistantly mischaracterising my argument. but since your not willing to discuss the subject i guess that is that.
"mischaracterising"
ROTFLPIPLMAO
|
|
Surely. From my point of view (only to help you understand why I would take such a path):
If there does exist an Almighty, and if the scriptures are dictates from same, do I not have an obligation to tell you "Caution! Danger ahead!!"?? If there is an immortal soul, shouldn't I care enough for you to tell you to look to it's health in the same manner you tell me a diet based on Twinkies is a danger to my physical health? There are ways of doing such of course that cross the lines of good behaviour, and I can't answer to those, just understand that I will not stand here and constantly lambast you about your life, etc.
My wife certainly agrees with you :). And from that perspective, yes, I can see where people feel they have an obligation to at least try. Like you say, there are ways of doing so, and then there are ways.
They also get quite upset/angry when I retrn the favour with scientific eveidence arguing argainst things as presented in "The Bible". Most of the scientists I know, on the other hand, are quite willing to listen to other peoples arguments and...I would LOVE to discuss this. Unfortunately, this specific format leads to nothing but name calling and knee-jerk reactions rather than honest and insightful dialog.
My days of arguing against religious texs are long behind me, however, one day maybe I'll take you up on this offer. :)
Cheers
|
|
However, you have missed one key factor that is quite relevant:
Not every person of faith believes the same thing.
Because of that, citing one or more actions of one or more people of faith and expecting those must be rebutted first by any person of faith is unreasonable in the extreme. A person of faith could then equally demand an explanation of eugenics, rescinded drug and chemical bans, denials of the accuracy of any bible history, and more as a precondition for the presentation of any scientific claims.Errors and excesses of dogmatism abound on both sides.
To deny it, or worse to insist that only the other side must be accountable for it, is the beginning of offense.
Unfortunately the error prone and dogmatic will quickly default to that, and thus begin the cycle of offense and retort
I agree that not everyone of faith behaves int he way I described. Indeed many of the people of faith that I know do not behave that way.
I also agree that dogmatism and overzealousness abound on all fronts. Put it down to the failings of human nature though greed, arrogance or other form of folly.
I'm an advocate for accountability from all fronts, particulalry when society as a whole is potentially affected. I merely believe that the evidence prvided to make things accountable should be more solid than just "I believe it to be true" or because "A divine entity told me to".I also believe it needs to be solid than evidence provided by a company or scientist set to benefit from the evidence. Independence is key to valid scientific research. However as a counter point to that, if it isn't causing anybody harm, I'm all for letting people be.
AS for your other rebuttals, lets put it down to varying experiences of the circles we move in :). Since I'm no expert on religious teachings nor society studies, I tend to present my personal experiences as evidence to support my beliefs. After all, how else does one come to the core of their beliefs but through personal expereince. All other evidence on these things tends to come through the lense of anothers perspectives, and that can seriously bias a perspective. One day, if i get more time, I may delve into some of this with more rigor and chase down some of the things I believe to be true about society and religions. Until then, I rely upon expereince and my current level f knowledge to get me through.
Cheers
I currently have some free time, so I can join in this discussion better.
A question; since in general religious people are more friendly, healthy, and imaginative, wouldn’t it make sense for the hypothetical world ruler/rulers to make atheism illegal?
Most atheists seem to be too busy trying to bash religion to ever amount to anything, whereas religious folk seem to be making the big achievements in this world (show me an atheist who wrote better plays than Shakespeare, built buildings more beautiful than the cathedrals, etc,). How could anyone think an atheistic world would be a better world?
In reality, the concept discussed in this thread would make a world of drones, a world without beauty.
|
|
I currently have some free time, so I can join in this discussion better.
A question; since in general religious people are more friendly, healthy, and imaginative, wouldn’t it make sense for the hypothetical world ruler/rulers to make atheism illegal?
I'd like to see some evidence to support this particular statement. It's a pretty big call and one I'm sure I'd have heard about throughout the scientific community. If there was indeed a correlation between religion and health (both physical and mental) I would have assumed it would have been plastered all ove rht place as strong evidence why people should convert. Haven't seen it though, so would be interested to know where you come by this idea.
Cheers
I currently have some free time, so I can join in this discussion better.
A question; since in general religious people are more friendly, healthy, and imaginative, wouldn’t it make sense for the hypothetical world ruler/rulers to make atheism illegal?
Most atheists seem to be too busy trying to bash religion to ever amount to anything, whereas religious folk seem to be making the big achievements in this world (show me an atheist who wrote better plays than Shakespeare, built buildings more beautiful than the cathedrals, etc,). How could anyone think an atheistic world would be a better world?
In reality, the concept discussed in this thread would make a world of drones, a world without beauty.
Atheists never amount to anything.
Religious people are happier.
Atheism smothers beauty.
Whoa. Those are really bitter remarks coming from... a religious person? I thought you guys were happy and beautiful?
<Passes the solvent.>
"Have some."
Has anyone suggested the title of the thread should be "I am become Net, the destroyer of WORDS".
Just a thought, I mean meme.
God has many names, and one of them is 'Bastard'
Yah, that's how my grandfather referred to Him sometimes. I think God has been called much worse, though, wouldn't you agree?
You can look at a complex system and break it down to its component parts from stars to languages. In every field of human study, we find that Life does actually break down into 'sweet little boxs'.
Boxes, a metaphor somewhat out of place for things which... don't fit into boxes, can't be contained in boxes, would probably fall out anyway if you could, and inevitably wear out the boxes we try to put them into anyway - one way or another.
I think I'll go now.
I currently have some free time, so I can join in this discussion better.
A question; since in general religious people are more friendly, healthy, and imaginative, wouldn’t it make sense for the hypothetical world ruler/rulers to make atheism illegal?
Most atheists seem to be too busy trying to bash religion to ever amount to anything, whereas religious folk seem to be making the big achievements in this world (show me an atheist who wrote better plays than Shakespeare, built buildings more beautiful than the cathedrals, etc,). How could anyone think an atheistic world would be a better world?
In reality, the concept discussed in this thread would make a world of drones, a world without beauty.
I would love to see research that backs up your claims concerning Theists being happier, healthier and more imaginative than Atheists are.
"High Levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low povety rates, low infant mortality rates and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income and gender equality."
- The Cambridge companion to Atheism.
It would be lovely to see some data backing your claim that Theists being happier, healthier and more imaginative than Atheists are. Based on the data, which I have seen, i would have to conclude the opposite.
-Atheism is growing (3 times as many people losing their faith than gaining a faith)
-Safest countries in the world have a positive correlation with atheism
-Education and intelligence have a positive correlation with atheism
-Atheists less likely to be criminals and less likely to divorce
Obviously, given that I am not writing a graduate thesis, I am not going to go to the effort of writing out a fully cited article on this but I will at least provide you with the sources quoted to show that I am basing the claims on genuine research.
As for the idea that atheists aren't making the 'big achievements in this world', well Nature in 1998 published data which points towards massive levels of atheism amongst scientists. Given that almost every major benefit of modern society owes its existence to work done by such people, I would say that in many way, the people making the biggest achievements are almost exclusively atheists. But lets not fu-fu the arts, we have a number of we have a strong showing here too. Lets try acting and film
Lets just pretend for a second that your assertion that Marlon Brando, John Malkovich,
Jodie Foster, Jack Nicholson, Woody Allen, Katharine Hepburn, Steven Soderbergh and Sir Ian McKellen certainly have contributed to the cinema and they are far from alone. As for Music, I think we could do with a few more artists like Dave Mathew, Ani Difranco and bjorks. Thaleia's art form of choice is inundated with jems; Eddie Izzard, Mark Twain , Penn & Teller, Ricky Gervais, Billy Connolly and George Carlin just to mention a few.
Literature well the witness for the defence shall be Salman Rushdie, Isaac Asimov and Ernest Hemingway. Documentry making Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins. Public intellectuals of great stature we have Christopher Hitchens and Noam Chomsky (quiet possibly the worlds most cited man.)
With a special interest to the state of geekdom: Seth Green, Bruce Lee, Charles Schulz, Stephen Fry, H.P.Lovecraft and Gene Roddenberry. In the latter two cases, there atheism are directly responsible for the nature their work. No atheism = No mythos.
It is also tricky to claim a man like william Shakespeare for your camp, given that he lived at a time when no real alternative to theism. If shakespeare was a theist, it was as likely 'by default' as out of genuine conviction and who can say that he would feel the same way in the modern world?
Religious buildings certainly are beautiful, but secular buildings are just as capable of being so. And claims as to the religiousness of their creators fall under the same scrutiny of Shakespeare, if we are to make any prediction at all, it should likely follow the trends. Higher intelligence quota, more likely they are to be atheists.
I hardly think that an atheist world would be 'dull' or ugly. In fact, if i had to choose between the Song of Solomon and Self Evident by ani difranco, miss difranco will have my vote, though i would be sad to see it go.
I didn’t say all atheists were less healthy, etc., than religious people, I just said “In general”, and science stands behind me on at least two counts:
As to religious people being more imaginative and achieving more in the world, I could list hundreds of names, but Zombieneighbors would probably disqualify most of them as being from a time with “no real alternative to theism”.
As to religious people being friendlier, well, that’s from personal experience, and I see now I had no right to say that, as I have not personally met the majority of atheists. But my other points I stick to like glue.
P.S. Kruelaid, please don’t think of me as an example of a typical religious person, I’m not.
|
|
A question; since in general religious people are more friendly, healthy, and imaginative, wouldn’t it make sense for the hypothetical world ruler/rulers to make atheism illegal?
Is this not, therefore, the definition of the Taliban, or any other faith-extremist organization?
I love my faith. I believe in it wholeheartedly. I also believe that part of it is that you have to make up your own mind. What value is there in faith if it is coerced? If it is coerced, is it even faith?
From my studies, even the God that I choose to worship gives you this freedom, with the understanding that denial results in eternal separation.
I didn’t say all atheists were less healthy, etc., than religious people, I just said “In general”, and science stands behind me on at least two counts:
As to religious people being more imaginative and achieving more in the world, I could list hundreds of names, but Zombieneighbors would probably disqualify most of them as being from a time with “no real alternative to theism”.
As to religious people being friendlier, well, that’s from personal experience, and I see now I had no right to say that, as I have not personally met the majority of atheists. But my other points I stick to like glue.
P.S. Kruelaid, please don’t think of me as an example of a typical religious person, I’m not.
Neither of those links are original research or cited, so it would not be accurate to be say science backs your statement. This is doubly true when compared to data that points to exactly the opposite.
That said, there is a small amount of research, which suggests that membership of religious organisations has a positive effect on mental health, in countries with high levels of religion.
But that benefit is dwarfed by the effects meditation (which has a demonstrate able effects) or cognitive behavioural therapy. In fact, what evidence there is about the benefits of membership of religious communities apply equally across all religions (which shows it likely has nothing to do with there being a god of some kind.) and the benefits seem to be nothing more than the benefits which membership of any community provides.
|
|
A question; since in general religious people are more friendly, healthy, and imaginative, wouldn’t it make sense for the hypothetical world ruler/rulers to make atheism illegal?Is this not, therefore, the definition of the Taliban, or any other faith-extremist organization?
I love my faith. I believe in it wholeheartedly. I also believe that part of it is that you have to make up your own mind. What value is there in faith if it is coerced? If it is coerced, is it even faith?
From my studies, even the God that I choose to worship gives you this freedom, with the understanding that denial results in eternal separation.
Yes, it is a pretty good definition of religious fascism. There are a couple of good examples of atheistic fascism in the thread, too.
Just a belated answer to your earlier question about where does an atheist get their morality from: I can only speak for me personally, but my morality, like most people's, is based on empathy. Although "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you." is a religious quote, the sentiment is not religious in nature, i.e. you don't need to believe in a higher power to feel compassion for others and want to treat them as part of the common humanity you are part of. To be honest, the vast majority of people, atheist and theist have very similar morals in the vast majority of issues (the last 5 commandments, for instance are fairly universal even among atheists). It's mostly on issues of sexual mores or definition of when life begins that we have differences. Of course, those just happen to be two of the most incendiary topics to disagree about.
I've noticed that a lot of religious people can't conceive of non-religious people having morality, or at best having inferior morality. It's interesting to me why this is. My current working hypothesis is that because for most sincerely religious people there is no line separating their religion and their morality, they find it impossible to see how people can come to a working system of morals without religion. Like I said, interesting.
|
|
I might mention as an aside to this topic, Archbishop Hunthausen (Seattle Archdiocese) once said, "Sadly, I have personally met more 'unaffiliated' people (whether atheists, non-Christians, or simply not religious) who better model the Christian ethos than I have actual, self-professed Christians. In my experience, Christians are as judgmental and hubristic as anyone. It's ironic that an unbeliever is the better Christian! God is the final arbiter." This was in response to one of the proclamations of Vatican II regarding who is and is not admitted to Heaven (in circumstances of nonbelievers who by actions mirror the teachings of Christ).
A question; since in general religious people are more friendly, healthy, and imaginative, wouldn’t it make sense for the hypothetical world ruler/rulers to make atheism illegal?Is this not, therefore, the definition of the Taliban, or any other faith-extremist organization?...
Yes, it is a pretty good definition of religious fascism. There are a couple of good examples of atheistic fascism in the thread, too...
I didn’t say I was for that, in fact that part about making atheism illegal was intended to get this discussion, which I find fascinating, moving again (and it worked admirably). I do not approve of anyone, religious or otherwise, forcing their views on other people.
Just want to make that clear.
|
I didn’t say all atheists were less healthy, etc., than religious people, I just said “In general”, and science stands behind me on at least two counts:
As to religious people being more imaginative and achieving more in the world, I could list hundreds of names, but Zombieneighbors would probably disqualify most of them as being from a time with “no real alternative to theism”.
As to religious people being friendlier, well, that’s from personal experience, and I see now I had no right to say that, as I have not personally met the majority of atheists. But my other points I stick to like glue.
P.S. Kruelaid, please don’t think of me as an example of a typical religious person, I’m not.
Neither of those links are original research or cited, so it would not be accurate to be say science backs your statement. This is doubly true when compared to data that points to exactly the opposite.
However, they are from respected and peer reviewed sources with a reputation for accuracy. Therefore it would be safe to say, based on the reputation of the sources, that they are accurate in their analysis.
|
|
I've noticed that a lot of religious people can't conceive of non-religious people having morality, or at best having inferior morality. It's interesting to me why this is. My current working hypothesis is that because for most sincerely religious people there is no line separating their religion and their morality, they find it impossible to see how people can come to a working system of morals without religion. Like I said, interesting.
The first thing we have to do is remove this concept that seems to say that whatever rules that govern existence only apply to one side of the argument.
My question ... is where does morality come from? I refuse to agree with ZN that our concept of "good" and "evil" is a byproduct of natural selection "deciding" that we needed a genetic-based stimulus system to promote moral thought. There are things that we label either good behavior or bad behavior that actually go against the concepts natural selection and self-preservation, which is my argument. Morality doesn't fit into natural selection, but rather runs contrary to it.
I believe that morality, for it to be truly moral, has to come from a higher source than us, because quite frankly we suck. My argument is that anything else is just socially-defined situational ethics.
|
|
My question ... is where does morality come from? I refuse to agree with ZN that our concept of "good" and "evil" is a byproduct of natural selection "deciding" that we needed a genetic-based stimulus system to promote moral thought. There are things that we label either good behavior or bad behavior that actually go against the concepts natural selection and self-preservation, which is my argument. Morality doesn't fit into natural selection, but rather runs contrary to it.
Read The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith.
If a behaviour is provably damaging in a mathimatical sense. Would that be more acceptable?Demolition Man anyone.I was thinking Brave New World, but that works as well!
EDIT: Oh, or We! It's been 15 years since I read that one, but it was based on a "mathematical" society as well I believe...
Oh - nice reference been years since I read We myself. That book never got the attention it deserved.
Theory is the highest form of Proof in science. To become more certain of something you have to move into the realms of Mathematics.
Your creating a false dichotomy here. The idea that 1+1=2 is also 'just a theory'. Specifically its part of Numbers Theory.
If we are teaching folks critical thinking, and Intelligent Design is an inferior model to other alternatives, where is the danger? Wouldn't the "survival of the fittest" mean the better idea survives? Dawkin's ties between evolutionary theory and memes actually comes back around to my concern with this line of thinking--it can be applied to biology as well. Will we have a genetic bar as well as a cultural bar, and those that don't meet the bar are? Quarantined? Exterminated to preserve the gene pool? Back around to control...
Bonus point for mentioning the founder of the idea of Memes (not that he was expecting it to become the kind of phenomena it became).
In any case you'd pick up ID if you did evolutionary theory in any kind of course that covered the history of the subject since ID is basically the prevailing theory in place prior to the publication of Darwin's seminal work.
In any case I don't feel ID belongs in a science class based mostly on the problem that its not a science in our current understanding of science. You can't use ID to make predictions about the natural world, its not useful in experiments etc. In fact my biggest problem with trying t do science with ID is that it essentially answers any question you ask of it with 'A creator did it'. We also face a problem with what amounts to a fairly obvious question in this line of inquiry - namely do we start discussing the errors an inefficiencies of this creator? Is it a reasonable to try and draw some kind of conclusions based on how this creator choose to do things?
Imagine a world in which their are academic factions based around ID. Do we really want to see debates on TV between factions that believe that the creator in omnipotent and unknowable and the academic faction that figures the creator was presumably well meaning but not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer? I suspect the whole idea of bringing ID into mainstream science is a case of 'be careful what you wish for - you might just get it.'
Once its a science then we really have no choice but to try and understand this creator so that we can figure out how he works and make some useful predictions - so we replace the idea of studying Gods will with the need to study the creators psychology in order to get into his head and figure out what he was thinking when he made these designs...then we split up into innumerable factions based on what we think we know about the psychology of God and his presumed level of intellect in order to argue (in peer reviewed journals no less) with each other over the merits of our different views of Gods mental make up.
Ahhh, Jeremy, visualizing that debate really made me smile.
In my head, Monty Python is doing it right now.
Beautiful.
Also I really have no desire to have any scientific authority regulating morality.
Currently roughly 2% of the population has a certain genetic predisposition to certain chemicals, like mercury and formaldehyde. Science has decided that mercury, formaldehyde and other poisons make a great preservative for vaccination shots. Two teaspoons of any of them is enough to do serious damage to a full grown human if not outright kill them. Yet if a child misses a round of shots they just get doubled up on. Meanwhile autism and mental and nervous system disorder rates have increased by somewhere around 8 fold. Science hand waves the people voicing concern because there hasn't been enough research done on the issue, even though a bunch of small companies have provided testing. And who's bright idea was it to put mercury into white tooth filling? They release mercury into the mouth of a person every time the surface of the tooth is manipulated for the life of the filling, such as when chewing, brushing your teeth, etc..
Gee, I wonder why the numbers of neurological disorders in children has grown exponentially over just a few years.
Scientists can control my morality when they can stop making stupid-assed decisions like putting poison into an infant's immunizations then requiring every infant in the country to take it. Until then, I would suggest that they stop acting like everyone else is too stupid to possibly live without their severely educated, nigh-infallible and unassailable viewpoint because the "stupid non-scientists" can't produce an equal amount of proof in a matter that the CDC has decided to ignore, sidestep and flat-out lie about.
Rant off.
While I'd never discount the idea that we are seeing significant increases in mental disorders due to poisons in our environment I definitely feel you underplay the amount of time and effort the pharmaceutical companies and those that distribute their drugs in increasing the number of diagnoses.
... and the academic faction that figures the creator was presumably well meaning but not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer? ...
I have this strange image of the Creator dwelling in a higher realm, (in the Creator's parents basement) scribbling furiously on divine paper and rolling Fate D20s, readying for when his buds Osiris and Perkunis come over to play Prophets and Potentates ...
|
|
My question ... is where does morality come from? I refuse to agree with ZN that our concept of "good" and "evil" is a byproduct of natural selection "deciding" that we needed a genetic-based stimulus system to promote moral thought. There are things that we label either good behavior or bad behavior that actually go against the concepts natural selection and self-preservation, which is my argument. Morality doesn't fit into natural selection, but rather runs contrary to it.
Read The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith.
Here's a nice overview; Guttenberg Collection has the PDF for free, as well.
...I am a reasonable person with an open mind who lives in the real world...How can you say you have an ‘open mind’ when you’re not even willing to consider God as an alternative to the big bang theory and evolution?
Although my views are quite different than yours, I admire your zeal and how you stand by what you believe. But zeal on its own isn’t enough; it must be directed in appropriate ways.
I ask you to please reconsider, with a truly open mind, the many arguments for God and creation.
Sometimes the gulf is just so wide...
I mean which one should I choose? There must be at least seven very popular options on the table and while some of them seem somewhat compatible with each other many of them are clearly mutually exclusive. It gets far more complex the closer one looks at it as well as ones that might at first brush appear compatible turn out not to really be. Then there are the factions, most of the options on the table seem to be split into a wide number of different sub options and while some of these sub options appear to like each other many don't. Its enough to make it very tough to choose.
Even this is only looking at the more popular current options on the table - however it seems God(s) have some kind of a best before date as so many of them seem to have expired - well that was my first impression anyway, but much like 70's and 80's fashion there seems to be a trend that everything old is new again and a lot of these 'expired' God(s) are coming back into vogue again...really how does one go about choosing which group is right with this kind of information overload?
|
|
...I am a reasonable person with an open mind who lives in the real world...How can you say you have an ‘open mind’ when you’re not even willing to consider God as an alternative to the big bang theory and evolution?
Although my views are quite different than yours, I admire your zeal and how you stand by what you believe. But zeal on its own isn’t enough; it must be directed in appropriate ways.
I ask you to please reconsider, with a truly open mind, the many arguments for God and creation.
Sometimes the gulf is just so wide...
I mean which one should I choose? There must be at least seven very popular options on the table and while some of them seem somewhat compatible with each other many of them are clearly mutually exclusive. It gets far more complex the closer one looks at it as well as ones that might at first brush appear compatible turn out not to really be. Then there are the factions, most of the options on the table seem to be split into a wide number of different sub options and while some of these sub options appear to like each other many don't. Its enough to make it very tough to choose.
Even this is only looking at the more popular current options on the table - however it seems God(s) have some kind of a best before date as so many of them seem to have expired - well that was my first impression anyway, but much like 70's and 80's fashion there seems to be a trend that everything old is new again and a lot of these 'expired' God(s) are coming back into vogue again...really how does one go about choosing which group is right with this kind of information overload?
Especially as almost every religion makes the same claim: I am the one true path and everyone else is a lying git. Most of them have to be wrong, so the chances of picking the right one seem astronomical. Welcome to one reason to be an agnostic. [humour]Another is we can't have terrorism in our name. There's no way you can throw a bomb into a cafe shouting "I believe in a free and rational debate about the issues."[/humour]
|
|
Especially as almost every religion makes the same claim: I am the one true path and everyone else is a lying git. Most of them have to be wrong, so the chances of picking the right one seem astronomical. Welcome to one reason to be an agnostic. [humour]Another is we can't have terrorism in our name. There's no way you can throw a bomb into a cafe shouting "I believe in a free and rational debate about the issues."[/humour]
And yet somehow people manage to drive speakers away from universities in terror, or force the administrations to bar them from appearing in the first place while making that very claim.
While I agree with the live and let live point of your post...
While we're on the subject of morals, define good. Define evil. We all have concepts that certain behaviors are acceptable and certain others are not, but where does that come from? Some instinctual heredity that says lieing is bad?
I'd not go with lieing is bad so much as be careful with your lies. Humans are highly social animals and your not going to be very happy if your excluded from groups you'd like to be part of.
How do you define these terms without guidance from a higher moral authority, because surely if it is just something that society decides it is nothing more than situational ethics and no true morality at all.
I suspect that there are some truisms that can be found in every culture from every point in history but by and large we seem to get by pretty well with situational ethics. I mean I deeply disprove of slavery but I'm kind of forced to concede that Ancient Romans and and southerners pre-American Civil War would have seen things in a different light.
Come to think of it I'm pretty sure that the Higher Authority is itself pretty prone to situational ethics. I have a hard time believing that there are many, well any really, good American Christians alive today that would condone slavery but that did not make southern plantation owners any less Christian and, for their time, many were very good Christians indeed. Hence, in this case, the God remains the same but the morality shifts.
In the same theme I suspect that there are a lot of cases where you'd find yourself far more in agreement with an American Atheist then a Christian from a culture who's mores are very foreign from your perspective.
To continue on the discourse of morality - why subject ourselves to it at all? The societal interpretation of natural selection is "might makes right." Why should I subject myself to the whims of others (teachers, parents, coaches, managers, leaders, civil forces) when it clearly impinges on my own personal advancement.To take it even further, why should I care about doing good? Why shouldn't I just do whatever it is I feel like doing? I'm only here for a few years and gone anyways, why not have the most self-gratifying experiences I can, damned be to the rest of you?
'Cause you'll have no one to play with if your only out for yourself and your a profoundly social creature.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Especially as almost every religion makes the same claim: I am the one true path and everyone else is a lying git. Most of them have to be wrong, so the chances of picking the right one seem astronomical. Welcome to one reason to be an agnostic. [humour]Another is we can't have terrorism in our name. There's no way you can throw a bomb into a cafe shouting "I believe in a free and rational debate about the issues."[/humour]And yet somehow people manage to drive speakers away from universities in terror, or force the administrations to bar them from appearing in the first place while making that very claim.
I don't follow. So, is the problem the belief in a free and rational debate about the issues or is the problem that there are people willing to use fear to force others to bend to their will (which is by definition not part of a free and rational debate)? It seems like the implication from the statement above is that even those who want free and rational debate use terror and therefore are part of a corrupt/evil ideology. Is there a particular ideology that is completely unwilling to use terror, or is it just a matter of defining any particular ideology to exclude the extremist members willing to use terror (which, I would think "I believe in free and rational debate about issues" would accomplish, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what those words mean).
|
|
I believe that what Sam is saying is that there is an element that claims to believe in free and open discussion, yet at the same time tries to shut down any discenting voices. For example, individuals shut down a speech at Columbia University being given by the founder of the Minutemen while the same university sat by the next year and allowed the president of Iran speak with no interuptions. My favorite example of this is a quote from Columbia's own campus paper.
I don't follow. So, is the problem the belief in a free and rational debate about the issues or is the problem that there are people willing to use fear to force others to bend to their will (which is by definition not part of a free and rational debate)? It seems like the implication from the statement above is that even those who want free and rational debate use terror and therefore are part of a corrupt/evil ideology. Is there a particular ideology that is completely unwilling to use terror, or is it just a matter of defining any particular ideology to exclude the extremist members willing to use terror (which, I would think "I believe in free and rational debate about issues" would accomplish, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what those words mean).
One student protestor told the Spectator that “I don't feel like we need to apologize or anything. It was fundamentally a part of free speech. The Minutemen are not a legitimate part of the debate on immigration.”
Notice that the student involved argued that not allowing a discenting opinion to be heard was part of free speech.
Columbia Spectator article on Minutemen protestAnother article on the Minutemen speech
Editorial on the Minutemen Protest
Another intimidation claim at Columbia
Evolutionary psychology and Ethology can explain almost all animal behaviors in purely mechanistic terms. It is my personal opinion it capable of explaining human behaviors in such a manner also, but that latent Anthropocentrism has hampered investigation into human behavior in the field.While it might be possible to explain all human behaviors in a theoretical sense we don't exactly appear to be particularly close to achieving this goal. Evolutionary Psychology is pretty darn good at taking observed human behaviors and coming up with interesting hypothesis on why we might display such behaviors but, from my experience (and my degree is in Evolutionary Psychology) there is no real consensus on even the largest and most fundamental questions in the field. Take for example the nature of free will in humans. Just how much do we have? Are we genetic robots or highly adaptable learning machines? To what degree is genetics destiny - or maybe its some where in between...but exactly were if this is the case? No two profs I had seemed to be in true agreement on this point and yet its a very important question however without a definitive answer we can't fully explain humans.
Or, put another way, my degree in Evolutionary Psychology has failed to make me an expert at comprehending my girlfriends and, since a few of them have been Evolutionary Psychologists themselves, I can say with authority that they have the same complaint about me.
As with so many other academic fields its a lot better at generating good questions then at generating good answers.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I believe that what Sam is saying is that there is an element that claims to believe in free and open discussion, yet at the same time tries to shut down any discenting voices.
Is the idea of believing in free and open discussion tainted by such people? It just seems scary to me that someone can say "I believe in free and rational discussion of the issues" and someone else says "those people use terror to scare away opposing viewpoints." I'm sure some people use terror to scare away opposing viewpoints in any ideology, but the fundamental concept of free and open discussion seems like something worth respecting and striving for, even if not all people who make such a claim actually respect and strive for that goal.
For example, individuals shut down a speech at Columbia University being given by the founder of the Minutemen while the same university sat by the next year and allowed the president of Iran speak with no interuptions.
I don't understand what one has to do with the other. The former is an example of people not supporting free and open discussion, irrespective of any claims to the contrary, and supports your point that some people are hypocrites; the later is an example of people supporting free and open discussion.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You know, folks, there is a reason I put that in humour tags. I knew if I didn't, someone would take it seriously. Looks like I should have tried harder to make it clear it was a joke and therefore not to be taken seriosuly. Maybe next time I'll put a red nose on it, too. Possibly giant clown feet.
I thought it was funny, but the response it provoked (and to which I responded) was...not what I would've expected.
I might mention as an aside to this topic, Archbishop Hunthausen (Seattle Archdiocese) once said, "Sadly, I have personally met more 'unaffiliated' people (whether atheists, non-Christians, or simply not religious) who better model the Christian ethos than I have actual, self-professed Christians. In my experience, Christians are as judgmental and hubristic as anyone. It's ironic that an unbeliever is the better Christian! God is the final arbiter." This was in response to one of the proclamations of Vatican II regarding who is and is not admitted to Heaven (in circumstances of nonbelievers who by actions mirror the teachings of Christ).
Really?
I was pretty sure that rule #1 for getting into the Christian Heaven was that you had to believe that Christ was your savior. I suppose there were exceptions for extenuating circumstances (died as an infant, was born prior to Christ etc.) but was under the impression that this was the basic rule.
|
|
I believe that what Sam is saying is that there is an element that claims to believe in free and open discussion, yet at the same time tries to shut down any discenting voices.Is the idea of believing in free and open discussion tainted by such people?
Sorry, I just noticed that in trying to clarify my argument I accidently cut out the portion where I said "These people form a radical minority and like all radicals do not represent the overall views of the people they claim to support.
For example, individuals shut down a speech at Columbia University being given by the founder of the Minutemen while the same university sat by the next year and allowed the president of Iran speak with no interuptions.
I don't understand what one has to do with the other. The former is an example of people not supporting free and open discussion, irrespective of any claims to the contrary, and supports your point that some people are hypocrites; the later is an example of people supporting free and open discussion.
I would agree with you, except that both events happened at the same university one year apart. That means that many of the same students and faculty would have been involved. So that in turn means that many of the same people saying that it was a fundimental part of free speech to interupt and disrupt the voice of one group also says that it is a fundamental part of free speech to allow someone with extremist views like Iran's president to have a free and uninterupted chance to air those views. Note the views of Eva Fortes, who helped protest the Minutemen and was part of the group who orginized the Iranian president's speech.Inviting Jim Gilchrist and his Minutemen to speak at a university such as ours lends legitimacy to their organization, sending the message that they are a recognized voice in a crucial political debate, instead of what they actually are: a band of rogue vigilantes.
However, she doesn't seem to think the same of the extreme homophobic, anti-semetic, holocaust denial veiws of the Iranian president.