Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.
I'm an 'atheist' and I'm 'here'. But I don't recall being party to that. But I probably do dislike at times what Ratzinger has to say. ;-)
When you and I agree on something, something bad must be ready to happen. The Apocalype? ;)Point to the other Gary.Before we get started, how would you respond if someone said during a discussion, "But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of homosexual people have." Insert Black, Latino, or any other nationality/race there for more examples. Would you believe it to be in bad taste?Pot-Kettle-Black.How sad that when some people feel like the organization they belong to is critized, they immediately resort to childish spamming. How incredibly immature. But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of religious people have.
Except for the fact, Gary, that there is plenty of evidence for this all around. There still seems to be this notion that religion is exempt from criticism on behalf of it being... religion?
If we can criticize e.g. political institutions or secular institutions when they screw up, why shouldn't we be able to do the same with religious institutions? What makes them special?
Then I can only imagine what's worse when you and I agree.
Speaking of, we like boobs.
<looks to see if the sky is falling>
Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.I'm an 'atheist' and I'm 'here'. But I don't recall being party to that. But I probably do dislike at times what Ratzinger has to say. ;-)
Well, if you were actually on Paizo once in awhile instead of taking long hiatuses from it you would have seen it. ;)
What's NOT reasonable is that atheists are immune from being generalized, whereas everything else is fair game to be generalized or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.As soon as atheists agree to a central authority -- one who, according to their own belief system, is infallible in matters under discussion -- then yes, please, generalize us based on what that guy says. Likewise, if I ever register as a Democrat, then you can criticize me for Democrat policies. Etc. Until then, your point is pretty far off the mark.
But you didn't say the Catholic church (though you did use it in your example), you said "religions". So unless YOU can show me where all religions agree to the same central authority, then my point is as valid as yours. Of course it is entirely possible that we are both blowing smoke.
Yap! Yap! *Starts pulling on the Wet Blanket*It's obvious you're posting that just because your religion is being critised.*sigh* That's the kind of crap that we don't really need to see Paul.Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Kirth,
You're slightly out. Most people seem to want THEIR religion to be immune to ciritcism as it is obviously the One True Religion (TM) but all the other (false) religions should be criticised for they are tools of (insert name of personification of evil, if any).
Looks at strange poodle, then humps it.
But you didn't say the Catholic church (though you did use it in your example), you said "religions". So unless YOU can show me where all religions agree to the same central authority, then my point is as valid as yours. Of course it is entirely possible that we are both blowing smoke.
You missed again.
Looks at strange poodle, then humps it.Yap! Yap! *Starts pulling on the Wet Blanket*It's obvious you're posting that just because your religion is being critised.*sigh* That's the kind of crap that we don't really need to see Paul.Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Kirth,
You're slightly out. Most people seem to want THEIR religion to be immune to ciritcism as it is obviously the One True Religion (TM) but all the other (false) religions should be criticised for they are tools of (insert name of personification of evil, if any).
Today we are teaching poodles how to fly. *throws them both out the window*
Fly Fluffy, fly!!
Looks at strange poodle, then humps it.Yap! Yap! *Starts pulling on the Wet Blanket*It's obvious you're posting that just because your religion is being critised.*sigh* That's the kind of crap that we don't really need to see Paul.Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Kirth,
You're slightly out. Most people seem to want THEIR religion to be immune to ciritcism as it is obviously the One True Religion (TM) but all the other (false) religions should be criticised for they are tools of (insert name of personification of evil, if any).
Nice catch!
But you didn't say the Catholic church (though you did use it in your example), you said "religions". So unless YOU can show me where all religions agree to the same central authority, then my point is as valid as yours. Of course it is entirely possible that we are both blowing smoke.You missed again.
If you claim "atheists don't believe in God," you're making a generalization that happens to be true.
If you claim, "most atheists accept biological evolution," you're making a generalization (and tempering it with a "generally") that can be shown to be true.
If I say "religious people generally don't want their religion to be open to criticism," I'm making a generalization (and even tempering it with a "generally," rather than saying "all") which is also true.
If I say the Catholic church covers up sex abuse by priests, and if the Pope did that and he's head of the Catholic church, I'm stating a specific fact that is true, in the sense that the Pope calls the shots for the Catholic Church.
If the Pope says atheism leads inexorably to nazism, he's blowing smoke.
And if an atheist claims that "religion is demonstrably false or nonsense and is usually or always harmful." that is also blowing smoke? Or is it true? Or who gets to decide?
Fly Fluffy, fly!!
YIPE! YIPE! YIPE! SPLAT!!!!
And if an atheist claims that "religion is demonstrably false or nonsense and is usually or always harmful." that is also blowing smoke? Or is it true? Or who gets to decide?
If he says "always" and you show him an example where it's not, no one has to "decide" -- the truth is demonstrated, and you've shown that his statement is false.
If he says "ususally," you might show him more examples of it helping than he has examples of it hurting, and thereby demonstrate your counter-claim.
If he says "often," and demonstrates that to be true, and your only reply is to demand freedom from criticism (and maybe call him a nazi), then I'd say he's the one correct in that specific case.
Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Religion, especially organized, is open to criticism, but faith is another matter. There is a difference. And if you're going to criticize, be up front about it. But yes, people will be offended by either. It's up to you to decide if you care about that or not. Piling on more criticism, or especially shifting it to the individual when they speak up, just increases the level of rhetoric and bad will. Again, if you care about those kinds of things. Some people do. Heck, I'm not even sure that I know any Catholics, or Baptists or Jews or others that don't criticize their own religion from time to time.
How many 'XXXXX are azzhats' posts or threads do we really need to see? What good do they really do?
I find it sad that that simple point falls on deaf ears. And sad that valid counterpoints are ignored altogether.
Dancing in a minefield at midnight...
How to explain the religions of Abraham to the Hollywood generation
HA!!! HAHAHAHAAHHAHA!!
Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Religion, especially organized, is open to criticism, but faith is another matter. There is a difference. And if you're going to criticize, be up front about it. But yes, people will be offended by either. It's up to you to decide if you care about that or not. Piling on more criticism, or especially shifting it to the individual when they speak up, just increases the level of rhetoric and bad will. Again, if you care about those kinds of things. Some people do.
How many 'XXXXX are azzhats' posts or threads do we really need to see? What good do they really do?
I find it sad that that simple point falls on deaf ears. And sad that valid counterpoints are ignored altogether.
Dancing in a minefield at midnight...
Are you saying that faith should get a free pass?
And if an atheist claims that "religion is demonstrably false or nonsense and is usually or always harmful." that is also blowing smoke? Or is it true? Or who gets to decide?If he says "always" and you show him an example where it's not, no one has to "decide" -- the truth is demonstrated, and you've shown that his statement is false.
If he says "ususally," you might show him more examples of it helping than he has examples of it hurting, and thereby demonstrate your counter-claim.
If he says "often," and demonstrates that to be true, and your only reply is to demand freedom from criticism (and maybe call him a nazi), then I'd say he's the one correct in that specific case.
So it is bad to say that atheism will always lead to nazism, but it is fine to say that atheism can possibly lead to Leninism (attack on the religious practicers and institutions, "re-education" of theists through torture, destruction religious structures and/or (re)construction of secular structures in their place, etc).
Are you saying that faith should get a free pass?Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Religion, especially organized, is open to criticism, but faith is another matter. There is a difference. And if you're going to criticize, be up front about it. But yes, people will be offended by either. It's up to you to decide if you care about that or not. Piling on more criticism, or especially shifting it to the individual when they speak up, just increases the level of rhetoric and bad will. Again, if you care about those kinds of things. Some people do.
How many 'XXXXX are azzhats' posts or threads do we really need to see? What good do they really do?
I find it sad that that simple point falls on deaf ears. And sad that valid counterpoints are ignored altogether.
Dancing in a minefield at midnight...
Treat it like a theory like we do for evolution. As long as it's personal and not oppressing the rights of others, I hold no grievance to it.
Are you saying that faith should get a free pass?
Maybe they are suggesting you don't have to be a jack-hole about disagreeing with someone, for whatever reason. Some people see it as their job to be "brutally-honest" jack-holes as often as they can be about whatever they can be.
Are you saying that faith should get a free pass?Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Religion, especially organized, is open to criticism, but faith is another matter. There is a difference. And if you're going to criticize, be up front about it. But yes, people will be offended by either. It's up to you to decide if you care about that or not. Piling on more criticism, or especially shifting it to the individual when they speak up, just increases the level of rhetoric and bad will. Again, if you care about those kinds of things. Some people do.
How many 'XXXXX are azzhats' posts or threads do we really need to see? What good do they really do?
I find it sad that that simple point falls on deaf ears. And sad that valid counterpoints are ignored altogether.
Dancing in a minefield at midnight...
Heck no. Faith is challenged on a daily basis. I know mine is. But I'm not going to sit there quietly whilst being attacked for having it. If it's not convenient to others, so be it. I'm not one of those people that will get in your face about your beliefs, and I ask for the same in return. My plate is full with my own life.
Wow, that's a lot of crying.
That is all.
Amen.
Are you saying that faith should get a free pass?Maybe they are suggesting you don't have to be a jack-hole about disagreeing with someone, for whatever reason. Some people see it as their job to be "brutally-honest" jack-holes as often as they can be about whatever they can be.
Basically, yes. The MANNER in which the disagreement is made is more important than the argument itself. Just ask my wife. Same premise.
Mmmm, this thread needs moar spam!
|
Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Kirth,
You're slightly out. Most people seem to want THEIR religion to be immune to ciritcism as it is obviously the One True Religion (TM) but all the other (false) religions should be criticised for they are tools of (insert name of personification of evil, if any).
Actually, I think *most* people would be pleased if religion proselytizing/bashing were left out of discussions completely. I know this is OTD, but it's still a gaming forum some things should be left for other venues.
So it is bad to say that atheism will always lead to nazism, but it is fine to say that atheism can possibly lead to Leninism (attack on the religious practicers and institutions, "re-education" of theists through torture, destruction religious structures and/or (re)construction of secular structures in their place, etc).
I'd say so. I might disagree with how much "atheism" led to Leninism as much as basic megalomania on Lenin's part did, but that's splitting hairs compared to the basic point. Overall, you've pointed out one concrete example, with demonstrable truth (Leninism was overtly atheistic, even if not "caused" by atheism), and you made no absolute (and false) claims of it being universal.
Actually, I think *most* people would be pleased if religion proselytizing/bashing were left out of discussions completely. I know this is OTD, but it's still a gaming forum some things should be left for other venues.Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Kirth,
You're slightly out. Most people seem to want THEIR religion to be immune to ciritcism as it is obviously the One True Religion (TM) but all the other (false) religions should be criticised for they are tools of (insert name of personification of evil, if any).
Well said
Treat it like a theory like we do for evolution. As long as it's personal and not oppressing the rights of others, I hold no grievance to it.Are you saying that faith should get a free pass?Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Religion, especially organized, is open to criticism, but faith is another matter. There is a difference. And if you're going to criticize, be up front about it. But yes, people will be offended by either. It's up to you to decide if you care about that or not. Piling on more criticism, or especially shifting it to the individual when they speak up, just increases the level of rhetoric and bad will. Again, if you care about those kinds of things. Some people do.
How many 'XXXXX are azzhats' posts or threads do we really need to see? What good do they really do?
I find it sad that that simple point falls on deaf ears. And sad that valid counterpoints are ignored altogether.
Dancing in a minefield at midnight...
I am sorry, but have to ask. What exactly do you mean by theory in this case? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and not make assumptions about your meaning.
You exaggerate and simplify the power of the Pope. In theory, he could order that type of turnaround, but it would go against every grain of faith/training/tradition he has in him, and it would never become Church Law. In the real world.
You're just telling me that his apparently grievous personal failings, and those of his institution, prohibit him from behaving decently despite the fact that he has the power to do so. This is nothing more than making excuses for truly horrible behavior. If I had just posted that the Pope was a no good jerk and his organization is a rotted edifice in need of abolition, you'd be on me for flaming you gratuitously, bashing religion, and the whole list of usual complaints. But you just told me the same thing.
I am not entirely sure what to make of this.
The 'guilt' argument is equally flawed. Legally or in sin. By not providing condoms they are guilty of the consequences. To your credit you did cite is as a REMOTE association.
For the average parishioner, it's a remote association. For the Pope it's almost direct culpability. He's insulated only by layers of intermediaries. The policies are his responsibility, as are their consequences.
That's not Samnell's crazy anti-religious idea of the day either, but a quite ordinary principle. Milosevic didn't personally go out and ethnically cleanse Bosnia, but he was culpable all the same. Stalin didn't personally starve a bunch of people in Ukraine, but we don't let him off the hook for it. Why should Joe Ratzinger be any different?
So, stepping away from hypotheticals, is the Catholic Church 'guilty' of 'sin' for its opposition to abortion, etc?
I do think it's actively doing wrong and working to make the world a worse place through its opposition to abortion too, and should be rightly excoriated for it.
I am sorry, but have to ask. What exactly do you mean by theory in this case? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and not make assumptions about your meaning.Treat it like a theory like we do for evolution. As long as it's personal and not oppressing the rights of others, I hold no grievance to it.Are you saying that faith should get a free pass?Religion, especially organized, is open to criticism, but faith is another matter. There is a difference. And if you're going to criticize, be up front about it. But yes, people will be offended by either. It's up to you to decide if you care about that or not. Piling on more criticism, or especially shifting it to the individual when they speak up, just increases the level of rhetoric and bad will. Again, if you care about those kinds of things. Some people do.
How many 'XXXXX are azzhats' posts or threads do we really need to see? What good do they really do?
I find it sad that that simple point falls on deaf ears. And sad that valid counterpoints are ignored altogether.
Dancing in a minefield at midnight...
Theory, as in the definition? Theory, as in things that are generally accepted, but cannot be proven as factual? I'm referring to the classical definition. Unless there's a another theory?
Theoretically speaking, of course.
Hey, Samnell. Here's the reply of a devout Catholic: as a matter of faith, I believe that the Catholic Church is fundamentally correct about how the universe works on a supermatural level. A person who believes in Church doctrine but leaves the Church because current Catholics are sinful or disgraceful, is betraying that truth. (In the same way, anyone claiming to stay in the Church, even though he rejects credal dogma, is betraying what he understands to be the truth.)
Is the church's position on birth control not an expression of its opinion about the supernatural operation of the universe? I know pro-choice and pro-condom Catholics. It seems to me just as good a reason to leave the organization as any disagreement about the preferred language of the Eucharist, the nature of the Pope's authority, the Trinity, or any of the rest of the reasons people have left it down the centuries.
I'm not trying to be cavalierly dismissive here, but I think the pope would be the first guy in line to tell you that yes, his opinions about condoms (and the ordination of women, etc) come out of that understanding of the supernatural order of the universe. If disagreeing about the Trinity would be sufficient cause to up and leave, then why not condoms? Certainly to a believer both are equally real and of grave import, what with lives being at stake.
I could see the distinction if the issue is over something that the Church itself admits is a purely secular, administrative matter like not letting priests marry or some provision in a monastic rule. But last I checked condoms aren't in that category.
|
Theory - (Common usage) A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.
However the scientific definition is different as applying to gravitational theory, atomic theory, and evolutionary theory.
Theory- (scientific usage) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
stuffWHile I have disagreed with your tone in other areas, you make some good, and even damning points here. Yeah, the Catholic Church- as an organization- IS NOT a modern democracy. Still, for those who would see change in the organization, this might very well be the silver bullet they have been hoping for.
It's not unfair to hope that this is a sign of more and better changes to come. I am no fan of the Catholic Church for any number of reasons, some more personal than others, but I would be very happy (if still a little surly, because I'm surly in general) to wake up tomorrow and see on CNN the Pope himself showing how to properly put on a condom. That would be great. It's just probably never going to happen. It should. It would be just about the most powerful message I could imagine to go on TV around the world with the Roman Pontiff himself not just endorsing comprehensive sexual education but actually engaging in it for all to see. It's a funny image, but I'm serious here. That would really be an incredibly good thing.
The last time the church attempted to be stalwart in the face of change due to primarily worldly(sexual and political) concerns, the Protestant Reformation happened. I'm thinking the current Pope...or hell, ANY Pope, or anyone in the faith down to the laypeople and common folk want to see something like that happen again, lest history be made for the wrong reasons once more. Sometimes the best thing you can do is simply wait(Sun Tzu said one should always be prepared to wait)- the inexorable progress of time might do more than a thousand angry letters ever could.
I can afford to be patient. Like you I am a literate, more or less educated westerner who could go out right now and have a condom in my hands in less than fifteen minutes. Maybe less but I'm not sure if the closer gas stations sell them. I have access to the internet, to all manner of information about human sexuality, the transmission of disease, and the other relevant topics and the education to process it and make informed decisions.
For people who lack our advantages, who live in places where anti-condom advocacy, wild superstitions about raping virgins to cure disease, illiteracy, language, and lacking infrastructure all conspire to keep me from being so informed the only source of information I might have are folk tales and for modern medicine I can only consult the priests and catholic aid workers who have come in from outside. Even if I do my very best to be informed, I'm starting the race two miles back from everyone else and these guys are tying extra weights to my legs and telling me the finish line is in the wrong direction. Waiting then costs lives.
It's easy to tell ourselves that history will sort things out, but the right thing doesn't just randomly happen. Progress rarely falls from the sky, however easy it can be to take for granted once it's arrived. Rather it comes from people of good conscience not waiting, but acting. MLK might have said something about the arc of history pointing to justice, but he said that while practicing direct action. :)
You exaggerate and simplify the power of the Pope. In theory, he could order that type of turnaround, but it would go against every grain of faith/training/tradition he has in him, and it would never become Church Law. In the real world.You're just telling me that his apparently grievous personal failings, and those of his institution, prohibit him from behaving decently despite the fact that he has the power to do so. This is nothing more than making excuses for truly horrible behavior. If I had just posted that the Pope was a no good jerk and his organization is a rotted edifice in need of abolition, you'd be on me for flaming you gratuitously, bashing religion, and the whole list of usual complaints. But you just told me the same thing.
I am not entirely sure what to make of this.
No I didn't but feel free to believe of it what you will. That's the color in the rose-colored glasses paradigm. You know, those cool shades we all put on in the morning when we head out into the world.
In many countries, women are not given the choice of abstinence. Denying condom education is favor of abstinence is not only unrealistic but inhumane--all simply for the sake of religious dogma.
Sorry, I saw this and had wanted to comment about it but forgot until now. If we are talking about situations where women have no choice in the sexual activity, then what are the realistic chances of a condom being employed? Seriously. Think about it rationally. It ain't going to happen. You don't have a choice to abstain, then you sure as hell don't have a choice to use a condom.
I am sorry, but have to ask. What exactly do you mean by theory in this case? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and not make assumptions about your meaning.Treat it like a theory like we do for evolution. As long as it's personal and not oppressing the rights of others, I hold no grievance to it.Are you saying that faith should get a free pass?Religion, especially organized, is open to criticism, but faith is another matter. There is a difference. And if you're going to criticize, be up front about it. But yes, people will be offended by either. It's up to you to decide if you care about that or not. Piling on more criticism, or especially shifting it to the individual when they speak up, just increases the level of rhetoric and bad will. Again, if you care about those kinds of things. Some people do.
How many 'XXXXX are azzhats' posts or threads do we really need to see? What good do they really do?
I find it sad that that simple point falls on deaf ears. And sad that valid counterpoints are ignored altogether.
Dancing in a minefield at midnight...
Theory, as in the definition? Theory, as in things that are generally accepted, but cannot be proven as factual? I'm referring to the classical definition. Unless there's a another theory?
Theoretically speaking, of course.
Ugh... It feels like this convosation comes up every time, fortunately Jeremy has posted a nice pair of definitions which will make it easier.
Theory - (Common usage) A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.
However the scientific definition is different as applying to gravitational theory, atomic theory, and evolutionary theory.
Theory- (scientific usage) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
I can't treat faith like a theory(scientific), one is our best description of the way an element of the universe works, while the other is the beliefs in something, in the absence of evidence to support that belief. The two things are almost the exact opposite of one another. Only a mathematical or logical proof is more dissimilar.
The theory of evolution isn't just 'some idea'. That evolution happens is one of the most important and well established facts in the entire world. It lets us make better medicines, it lets us identify where to find fossils of species, it helps us engineer better machinery and much more. It is no exaggeration to say that few elements of science are more important to every person on this planet than evolution.
Most religious people do not know what a theory is, and there are may who, based on their faith, and nothing else, say that evolution cannot be right. They say that it causes much of the worlds sin, and have even tried to blame it for the holocaust. They call science arrogant, because it seeks to understand the world, all the while saying that they have all the answers already, and in some cases going so far as to say that if the world says one thing, and their holy text another, it is the world that must be wrong. But it is science that is arrogant.
So please forgive me, but I do not think it is appropriate to treat faith like and theory the same. To treat faith like a scientific theory, would be to give it credibility it has not earned, while to treat faith the same way many religious people treat theory, would be a sign of such disrespect it makes even me blanch.
No, far better in my opinion that I treat faith as I see it. A strange, alien way of thinking, that makes a virtue of believing some very strange things without (or in conflict with) evidence, a way of thinking i am very glad I struggle to understand or share.
Commonly overlooked points, and some waxing poetically - (well, OK not poetically)
1. Gamers, in general, are intelligent and educated.
2. Gamers come in liberal and conservative, believers and non-, religious and agnostic.
3. all shapes, sizes and sexes.
4. Very few are religious zealots
So the wide brush of 'Most religious people do not know what a theory is,...' fails. Simply. Hence, the argument fails. Simply.
In my religious upbringing and education, I have learned about many other religions and the importance of science and critical thought. I've learned about mathematical theory and the laws of physics. I've read the works of the great authors of all time. I've studied philosophy, African studies, history and art. I've lived in a depressed city, volunteered in it, and continue to look forward to the day when it, and the world, heals its wounds and moves forward. I've learned to reconcile my scientific/mathematical brain with my artistic/religious brain. The world we live in, and the world we aspire to live in. Sometimes it's a struggle, but I make my way as best I can.
I believe a many others on this forum have done the same, or similar.
I believe we can have better discourses than this. IF people choose to do so. But ALL parties need to agree. Honestly, I wish I could believe that was possible.
EDITED: To remove a split infinitive. Man, I'm rusty.
I've learned to reconcile my scientific/mathematical brain with my artistic/religious brain.
I'm a scientist, a former artist, an atheist, and not much of a mathematician, so it's hard for me to accept that there's an "artistic/religious" brain as distinct from a "scientific/mathematical" one, since in my case it seems to be an "artistic/scientific" one vs. a "religious/mathematical" one. I wonder if other people have totally different combinations as well?
Commonly overlooked points, and some waxing poetically - (well, OK not poetically)
1. Gamers, in general, are intelligent and educated.
2. Gamers come in liberal and conservative, believers and non-, religious and agnostic.
3. all shapes, sizes and sexes.
4. Very few are religious zealotsSo the wide brush of 'Most religious people do not know what a theory is,...' fails. Simply. Hence, the argument fails. Simply.
In my religious upbringing and education, I have learned about many other religions and the importance of science and critical thought. I've learned about mathematical theory and the laws of physics. I've read the works of the great authors of all time. I've studied philosophy, African studies, history and art. I've lived in a depressed city, volunteered in it, and continue to look forward to the day when it, and the world, heals its wounds and moves forward. I've learned to reconcile my scientific/mathematical brain with my artistic/religious brain. The world we live in, and the world we aspire to live in. Sometimes it's a struggle, but I make my way as best I can.
I believe a many others on this forum have done the same, or similar.
I believe we can have better discourses than this. IF people choose to do so. But ALL parties need to agree. Honestly, I wish I could believe that was possible.
EDITED: To remove a split infinitive. Man, I'm rusty.
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is." -Albert Einstein
I would point out that science and religion are not ultimately at odds, many (if not most) of the scientific research that has been done by humans has probably been done by religious individuals. Even today there are religious scientists hard at working advancing the knowledge of man. Also as an aside, at least according to an atheist website I was browsing earlier, there is no absolute separation of atheism and religion. This seems to be a pretty widely held correlation in Western atheism, but not necessarily is it an absolute. A belief that there is no one powerful supernatural being doesn't necessarily mean that a person doesn't believe in supernatural or spirituality.
|
The theory of evolution isn't just 'some idea'. That evolution happens is one of the most important and well established facts in the entire world. It lets us make better medicines, it lets us identify where to find fossils of species, it helps us engineer better machinery and much more. It is no exaggeration to say that few elements of science are more important to every person on this planet than evolution.
I thought this link might interest you.
I consider myself a man of faith. That said, that link fascinates me. When you say "few elements of science are more important to every person on this planet than evolution" I have to take pause to consider. I mean, literally 2 weeks ago I saifd to a coworker that I considered it entirely unimportant to my life.
I can see your take and from a macro view agree at least in part (which is not to say I disagree at all, I am just not sure that I fully agree. :) ) But on a micro level, on the my life level, and my locus of control... If we evolved from apes, or were made by the breathe of G-d, or any other way, it practically speaking means little to me. It is interesting dinner conversation, but little more.
My son asked me about which dinosaurs were easiest for the cavemen to kill and I told him that there was no scientific evidence that dinosaurs and cavemen ever lived together.
|
|
The theory of evolution isn't just 'some idea'. That evolution happens is one of the most important and well established facts in the entire world. It lets us make better medicines, it lets us identify where to find fossils of species, it helps us engineer better machinery and much more. It is no exaggeration to say that few elements of science are more important to every person on this planet than evolution.I thought this link might interest you.
I consider myself a man of faith. That said, that link fascinates me. When you say "few elements of science are more important to every person on this planet than evolution" I have to take pause to consider. I mean, literally 2 weeks ago I saifd to a coworker that I considered it entirely unimportant to my life.
I can see your take and from a macro view agree at least in part (which is not to say I disagree at all, I am just not sure that I fully agree. :) ) But on a micro level, on the my life level, and my locus of control... If we evolved from apes, or were made by the breathe of G-d, or any other way, it practically speaking means little to me. It is interesting dinner conversation, but little more.
My son asked me about which dinosaurs were easiest for the cavemen to kill and I told him that there was no scientific evidence that dinosaurs and cavemen ever lived together.
Trying not to get involved but.... one correction we didn't just evolve from apes we ARE apes. Humans are apes, like wolves are canines, like lions are felines, we are apes.
Trying not to get involved but.... one correction we didn't just evolve from apes we ARE apes. Humans are apes, like wolves are canines, like lions are felines, we are apes.
Right. We also didn't evolve from the current other apes. Instead all of us apes evolved from common ancestors. And all of us apes continue our slow trek down the evolutionary process. Maybe in a million years, chimps and gorillas will be piloting starships and we will be a forgotten species tossed on the trashheap of history.
Trying not to get involved but.... one correction we didn't just evolve from apes we ARE apes. Humans are apes, like wolves are canines, like lions are felines, we are apes.Right. We also didn't evolve from the current other apes. Instead all of us apes evolved from common ancestors. And all of us apes continue our slow trek down the evolutionary process. Maybe in a million years, chimps and gorillas will be piloting starships and we will be a forgotten species tossed on the trashheap of history.
Evolution isn't that quick. I'm guessing that it would take at least 4-5 million years for one of the greater apes to get to our intelligence level(if they evolved in that direction). However, if we helped it along like on Planet of the Apes....
Evolution isn't that quick. I'm guessing that it would take at least 4-5 million years for one of the greater apes to get to our intelligence level(if they evolved in that direction). However, if we helped it along like on Planet of the Apes....Trying not to get involved but.... one correction we didn't just evolve from apes we ARE apes. Humans are apes, like wolves are canines, like lions are felines, we are apes.Right. We also didn't evolve from the current other apes. Instead all of us apes evolved from common ancestors. And all of us apes continue our slow trek down the evolutionary process. Maybe in a million years, chimps and gorillas will be piloting starships and we will be a forgotten species tossed on the trashheap of history.
No we've had reptiles, and now mammals, the insects should be next.
I would point out that science and religion are not ultimately at odds, many (if not most) of the scientific research that has been done by humans has probably been done by religious individuals.
I disagree; the root processes of the two (submittal to and worship of the unknown, vs. methodically breaking down and pushing back the limits) are diametrically opposed. The fact that religious people can be scientists means that those people can do different things at different times, and tolerate some level of congnitive dissonance.
Many of the random serial murders committed in the U.S. have probably been done by religious individuals, but I would NOT in any way use that to try and claim that religion and serial murder are compatible.
No we've had reptiles, and now mammals, the insects should be next.
Go back a bit. Insects and fish had their big day in the Paleozoic Era, before the dinosaurs. They're just very good at hanging on.
|
|
Evolution isn't that quick. I'm guessing that it would take at least 4-5 million years for one of the greater apes to get to our intelligence level(if they evolved in that direction). However, if we helped it along like on Planet of the Apes....Trying not to get involved but.... one correction we didn't just evolve from apes we ARE apes. Humans are apes, like wolves are canines, like lions are felines, we are apes.Right. We also didn't evolve from the current other apes. Instead all of us apes evolved from common ancestors. And all of us apes continue our slow trek down the evolutionary process. Maybe in a million years, chimps and gorillas will be piloting starships and we will be a forgotten species tossed on the trashheap of history.
Actually, it is that quick. Homo Sapiens have only been around for about 200,000 years, and the "common ancestor" between us, gorillas and chimpanzees is conjectured around 4-8 million years ago. As for who's more evolved, is it us surrounded by our technological toys, stress, wars, famine and pestilence or our ape cousins who spend all day eating, sleeping and making baby apes?