When you were born, Valkenar, did you "believe" in evolution?
Did you know how to go potty, and how to feed yourself?
Where did you learn this stuff?
You say that religion breeds ignorance, but I say that you were born in a perfect state of ignorance.
What happened after that? Did you learn from other people, or did your intellect suddenly come to the rescue, and transform you into some kind of wise, all seeing, distinct personage.
So where along the way did you pick up this strange mix of beliefs and perspective that enabled you to miraculously rise above all these poor ignorant things you scoff and smirk at, called people?
You poor fool, you are one of them.
We need to bring Reagan back... to fight Japan.
Moderator: Available
I more or less agree.fivedragons wrote:When you were born, Valkenar, did you "believe" in evolution?
Did you know how to go potty, and how to feed yourself?
Where did you learn this stuff?
You say that religion breeds ignorance, but I say that you were born in a perfect state of ignorance.
What happened after that? Did you learn from other people, or did your intellect suddenly come to the rescue, and transform you into some kind of wise, all seeing, distinct personage.
So where along the way did you pick up this strange mix of beliefs and perspective that enabled you to miraculously rise above all these poor ignorant things you scoff and smirk at, called people?
You poor fool, you are one of them.
Christians...what exactly IS a christian? Ive seen all sorts of people who are christians, as well as different ways they believe in christ.
Same with muslims. Sunni Muslims, and Shiite, you will notice they tend to have all sorts of varying beliefs, especially since there really is no sense of authority in the muslim world.
With so much variation within 'single' beliefs, is it fair to say they are all ignorant?
-
fivedragons
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:05 am
Yeah, we're all ignorant, and that is the message lying at the bottom of the cesspool of human interpretation and spin doctoring that becomes all spiritual teachings.
Humility, it's what's for breakfast.
So simple, but no one really wants to practice it.
Kind of like gratitude. Really powerful, but not sexy, we all want the universe to bow down to us.
##### if I'm going to admit to myself that I don't know all the answers, and that I might actually need other people to care for me.
No, I'll just pretend that I'm god, and laugh at all the fools who don't realize it.
Humility, it's what's for breakfast.
So simple, but no one really wants to practice it.
Kind of like gratitude. Really powerful, but not sexy, we all want the universe to bow down to us.
##### if I'm going to admit to myself that I don't know all the answers, and that I might actually need other people to care for me.
No, I'll just pretend that I'm god, and laugh at all the fools who don't realize it.
-
fivedragons
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:05 am
As far as what is a christian, I don't think there has ever been such a thing, no matter what people might say.
I think there might come moments in a person's life where they learn how to view themselves and the people around them with love and compassion, in the process learning what the teachings of christ are about.
So simple, but we'd rather argue about it, make up names for it and claim it for our own.
Kind of like martial arts.
Just for fun, think of all the stupid, asinine, ignorant, egotistical, and proud (proprietary) statements you've ever heard about martial arts.
Doesn't really affect the truth of the matter in any way. Karate rules, and anyone who says different, should just be thankful that I don't care to demonstrate it.
I think there might come moments in a person's life where they learn how to view themselves and the people around them with love and compassion, in the process learning what the teachings of christ are about.
So simple, but we'd rather argue about it, make up names for it and claim it for our own.
Kind of like martial arts.
Just for fun, think of all the stupid, asinine, ignorant, egotistical, and proud (proprietary) statements you've ever heard about martial arts.
Doesn't really affect the truth of the matter in any way. Karate rules, and anyone who says different, should just be thankful that I don't care to demonstrate it.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
It's my observation that religion to SOME of the politically motivated left is a pejorative. It's all about their perception of it being inextricably linked to dogma.
Dare I say "they" don't get it?
Anyone ever heard of The Golden Rule? It seems to be the one and only common denominator of all religions. Please someone, tell me how teaching The Golden Rule is "fomenting ignorance." Then maybe I can understand what Justin is saying.
I just an ignorant lad, you know...
- Bill
Dare I say "they" don't get it?
Anyone ever heard of The Golden Rule? It seems to be the one and only common denominator of all religions. Please someone, tell me how teaching The Golden Rule is "fomenting ignorance." Then maybe I can understand what Justin is saying.
I just an ignorant lad, you know...
- Bill
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Not the ancestors of dinosaurs... real dinosaurs. You DO know these people exist, right? So I was wrong, you think it's ok to defend these people instead of get rid of these ridiculous beliefs. I'm really surprised at you Bill. All someone has to do is mention chi and science is there to debunk myths. Mention religion and you're defending magic and ignorance.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
You want to disagree with evolutionary biologists who classify birds as sharing the same genetic lineage?TSDguy wrote:
Not the ancestors of dinosaurs... real dinosaurs.
Feathered, flying creatures have been around since... the days of the dinosaurs!
But here's the real truth, TSDguy. Your Flintstones argument has nothing to do with religion. It's a red herring. You just don't like Evangelicals. It's cool, as long as you accept people who don't like blacks, Mexicans, A-rabs, etc., etc. Or maybe you don't mind people running around at night wearing white sheets and white hoods.
C'est la meme chose!
- Bill
For you, religion isn't about dogma. I'm sure as a veteran of parochial school you recognize that for some it absolutely is about dogma.Bill Glasheen wrote:It's my observation that religion to SOME of the politically motivated left is a pejorative. It's all about their perception of it being inextricably linked to dogma.
I daresay you don't get it if you think I'm saying the golden rule is fomenting ignorance. I never suggested any such thing. The only point I'm making here is that you can't dismiss the role of religion in leading people to ignorance in this country. Suggesting that religion as it relates to this country is entirely innocent because it teaches things that aren't ignorant is frankly rather bizarre.Please someone, tell me how teaching The Golden Rule is "fomenting ignorance." Then maybe I can understand what Justin is saying.
To put it another way, If I go out and teach elementary school kids how to bake bread, and then also teach them that humans rode around on triceratops, then I am playing a role in propagating ignorance. I may be doing something other than fomenting ignorance, but that doesn't render the damage I'm doing irrelevant. In the same way, religion may do many great things, but it's the immediate cause of 30% of this country being ignorant about evolution.
I assume you're joking about the whole "birds are descended from dinosaurs thing" You know perfectly well that's not what they mean when people say that humans rode dinosaurs. They're not just trying to be clever and saying " Hey, people ride on creatures descended from dinosaurs. And I think you know what TSD means by real dinosaurs and you're just being intentionally obtuse.
FiveDragons:
Are you just making the argument that what James Watson (The DNA guy) says is just as baseless as what Billy Graham says is God's plan?
Bill I think you lead a very sheltered life, and I think this explains why you just can't get this. In science circles it would be ABSURD to think humans rode T-Rexes. It would be ABSURD to think that humans arrived as is on earth 5,000 years ago. You, like the ostrich, bury your head in the ground refuse to believe that the MAJORITY of the US believes this, and with very good reason. It's hard to accept that these people even exist, but being something of a traveler, I've seen first hand that around every other person believes these things. Go to the rural grain states, go to church, and strike up a conversation about how the earth was created, Bill.
And for your entertainment, I present the 27 million dollar creationism museum which had over 100,000 visitors in the first month alone, and features a 5,000 year old earth and people riding dinosaurs.
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
And for your entertainment, I present the 27 million dollar creationism museum which had over 100,000 visitors in the first month alone, and features a 5,000 year old earth and people riding dinosaurs.
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
Bill, your take on my post a few pages ago was that:
"Religion isn't about facts; it's primarily about faith."
Well, this is the problem. Anytime someone has an issue with religion, they just aikido the whole matter by sidestepping the debate, claiming they're all about faith and unprovable things, and therefore exempt from examination and critique. I just don't see that. Religion makes some claims which are totally untestable, sure (although we do have to wonder why some people are so enthusiastic about such doubtful material or why we're so enthusiastic about encouraging them), but it also makes a bunch of testable claims about the origin of the earth and man, the nature of the earth, and it also has a long track record w.r.t. the establishment of new knowledge. We know how often major advances in both the hard and social sciences come out of organized religion. We CAN talka bout these things... despite your protestation that because it's "faith" anyone who takes any issue with religion in general (or the willingness to commit yourself to something you don't have any evidence for, or the questionable motives and logic of people who may have leadership roles in our nation and set a course for war, educational policy, and social freedoms) is missing the whole point.
I mean, what if it just becomes my religion that people are poisonous to the earth and our emissions are causing global warming? What if I just truly believe that I can channel chi energy and knock people down in a fight without touching them? What really is the difference between that and organized religion, which just has a pretty, historical patina of respectability and familiarity on it?
As for some of your other statements, they create a false dichotomy. Religion doesn't own "the spirit" or have a monopoly on meaning. Religion doesn't guarantee "emotional intelligence" nor does being a pure atheist exclude it. Religion isn't just about the afterlife--it obviously has lots of things to say about how we live before we die. Religion isn't about "ethics and a moral compass" as if fact-centered people lack those things, nor does religion abstain from mucking around in the law--there are too many examples to list. All of those statements are misleading and suggest that religion is exempt from evaluation and a scientific or secular humanist perspective on life lacks meaning.
"You and Bill Mauer want to skewer religion because some groups of the religious don't ascribe to your views. Well excuuuuuuse meeeee !!! Just because some don't agree with you doesn't make their political opinions wrong."
Huh?!? I am perfectly happy to get along with people that disagree with me. I have said here, several times and not long ago, that I perfectly understand the prolife perspective and acknowledge that abortions are always a "wrong." That's about the most contentious issue in our society and I'm happy with the lack of agreement. I've also got an atheist dad (don't tell his wife) who works for Habitat for Humanity, an organization that I support i principle and also financially. I think reasonable differences of opinion are healthy. I don't pick fights with Habitat ust because I'm a mean atheist. I don't want to skewer religion because they have different political positions; that's an absurd charge (I believe you had something to say about the strawman argument earlier?). I have issues with being told I can't question the motives of a vice presidential candidate on the grounds that she believes myth as if it were fact, probably thinks the end days are near, holds irrational views about the birth and development of earth, and doesn't think abortion clinic bombings count as terrorism. I have issues with outside religious groups banding together to influence politics in my home state (primarily people who not long ago espoused marrying multiple young women to older men who then controlled them) in order to deprive me of the right to marry whichever consenting adult I choose. These things legitimately affect me and I have no less right to voice my thoughts about them than you do about Palin's beauty pageant / executive qualifications or whether Obama pushed banks to issue risky loans.
What an insane idea, Bill... I'm off my rocker because I oppose having someone who holds fervent, completely groundless views about the end of the world also hold the nuclear codes, and I don't like a gang of religious people attacking my rights with legislation--but you get to stand on your soapbox and say whatever you want about candidates. Hmm. Wait! I forgot once again that all actions and beliefs of the religious whether they impact me or not are automatically exempt from critique!
"Neither you nor Bill Mauer nor a Born Again can proselytize me into anything. Sorry..."
Really, Bill, all I wish to convince you of is that ideas are ideas and can be examined on their own merits, regardless of the label. It would also be nice if you stopped considering all arguments with religion on one side and science or secular humanist positions on the other as a battle between the benignly faithful and a bunch of grumpy people who hate everyone who disagrees with them. Turn your lecture on the religious for a minute. "Hey, Mormon church--why do you have to pick a fight with everyone who disagrees with you? Why do you have to donate millions of dollars to deprive Californians of their right to marry, which won't impact on your religion whatsoever, just out of spite? Really, go read some history and you will see our founding father T. Jefferson felt we should be able to practice our own religion and free from the tyranny of others!" You could append the exact same excerpt from his act to teach them a lesson, you know....
"Again... You and Bill Mauer need to get over what you don't like about people who happen to disagree with you. Maybe it's you! And maybe you both need to go back and read some early American history. This country is not a product of spontaneous generation. The spirit of the founders lives on."
In sum: I disagree with lots of people and get along fine. It's when their beliefs have a potentially serious impact on me, or are an explicit unprovoked attack on me, that I get testy--especially when I'm told my beliefs are secondary and theirs are protected because they're based on "faith," or when I'm told that in a struggle of important matters *I'VE* got the only problem getting along with others. *I* can happily abide by Jefferson's proposal; many religious people cannot.
PS: As far as the Golden Rule goes, I'm a major component. People often ask me at work how much information such be disclosed to patients, or what we should recommend to them, or how we should handle staffing issues, and my reply is usually to invoke the golden rule specifically. Now it's been said that the G.R. is the one common thread in all religions--perhaps it's come up with some branches of all religions; I wouldn't know, given there having been hundreds. I will say that there are plenty of counterexamples, too--stoning a lesbian or adulturer to death in Afghanistan, torturing a Jew into conversion in Spain, and so on. Painting all religion gold with such a blanket statement would be like forgetting Hitler was probably an atheist when it comes time to promote atheism.
"Religion isn't about facts; it's primarily about faith."
Well, this is the problem. Anytime someone has an issue with religion, they just aikido the whole matter by sidestepping the debate, claiming they're all about faith and unprovable things, and therefore exempt from examination and critique. I just don't see that. Religion makes some claims which are totally untestable, sure (although we do have to wonder why some people are so enthusiastic about such doubtful material or why we're so enthusiastic about encouraging them), but it also makes a bunch of testable claims about the origin of the earth and man, the nature of the earth, and it also has a long track record w.r.t. the establishment of new knowledge. We know how often major advances in both the hard and social sciences come out of organized religion. We CAN talka bout these things... despite your protestation that because it's "faith" anyone who takes any issue with religion in general (or the willingness to commit yourself to something you don't have any evidence for, or the questionable motives and logic of people who may have leadership roles in our nation and set a course for war, educational policy, and social freedoms) is missing the whole point.
I mean, what if it just becomes my religion that people are poisonous to the earth and our emissions are causing global warming? What if I just truly believe that I can channel chi energy and knock people down in a fight without touching them? What really is the difference between that and organized religion, which just has a pretty, historical patina of respectability and familiarity on it?
As for some of your other statements, they create a false dichotomy. Religion doesn't own "the spirit" or have a monopoly on meaning. Religion doesn't guarantee "emotional intelligence" nor does being a pure atheist exclude it. Religion isn't just about the afterlife--it obviously has lots of things to say about how we live before we die. Religion isn't about "ethics and a moral compass" as if fact-centered people lack those things, nor does religion abstain from mucking around in the law--there are too many examples to list. All of those statements are misleading and suggest that religion is exempt from evaluation and a scientific or secular humanist perspective on life lacks meaning.
"You and Bill Mauer want to skewer religion because some groups of the religious don't ascribe to your views. Well excuuuuuuse meeeee !!! Just because some don't agree with you doesn't make their political opinions wrong."
Huh?!? I am perfectly happy to get along with people that disagree with me. I have said here, several times and not long ago, that I perfectly understand the prolife perspective and acknowledge that abortions are always a "wrong." That's about the most contentious issue in our society and I'm happy with the lack of agreement. I've also got an atheist dad (don't tell his wife) who works for Habitat for Humanity, an organization that I support i principle and also financially. I think reasonable differences of opinion are healthy. I don't pick fights with Habitat ust because I'm a mean atheist. I don't want to skewer religion because they have different political positions; that's an absurd charge (I believe you had something to say about the strawman argument earlier?). I have issues with being told I can't question the motives of a vice presidential candidate on the grounds that she believes myth as if it were fact, probably thinks the end days are near, holds irrational views about the birth and development of earth, and doesn't think abortion clinic bombings count as terrorism. I have issues with outside religious groups banding together to influence politics in my home state (primarily people who not long ago espoused marrying multiple young women to older men who then controlled them) in order to deprive me of the right to marry whichever consenting adult I choose. These things legitimately affect me and I have no less right to voice my thoughts about them than you do about Palin's beauty pageant / executive qualifications or whether Obama pushed banks to issue risky loans.
What an insane idea, Bill... I'm off my rocker because I oppose having someone who holds fervent, completely groundless views about the end of the world also hold the nuclear codes, and I don't like a gang of religious people attacking my rights with legislation--but you get to stand on your soapbox and say whatever you want about candidates. Hmm. Wait! I forgot once again that all actions and beliefs of the religious whether they impact me or not are automatically exempt from critique!
"Neither you nor Bill Mauer nor a Born Again can proselytize me into anything. Sorry..."
Really, Bill, all I wish to convince you of is that ideas are ideas and can be examined on their own merits, regardless of the label. It would also be nice if you stopped considering all arguments with religion on one side and science or secular humanist positions on the other as a battle between the benignly faithful and a bunch of grumpy people who hate everyone who disagrees with them. Turn your lecture on the religious for a minute. "Hey, Mormon church--why do you have to pick a fight with everyone who disagrees with you? Why do you have to donate millions of dollars to deprive Californians of their right to marry, which won't impact on your religion whatsoever, just out of spite? Really, go read some history and you will see our founding father T. Jefferson felt we should be able to practice our own religion and free from the tyranny of others!" You could append the exact same excerpt from his act to teach them a lesson, you know....
"Again... You and Bill Mauer need to get over what you don't like about people who happen to disagree with you. Maybe it's you! And maybe you both need to go back and read some early American history. This country is not a product of spontaneous generation. The spirit of the founders lives on."
In sum: I disagree with lots of people and get along fine. It's when their beliefs have a potentially serious impact on me, or are an explicit unprovoked attack on me, that I get testy--especially when I'm told my beliefs are secondary and theirs are protected because they're based on "faith," or when I'm told that in a struggle of important matters *I'VE* got the only problem getting along with others. *I* can happily abide by Jefferson's proposal; many religious people cannot.
PS: As far as the Golden Rule goes, I'm a major component. People often ask me at work how much information such be disclosed to patients, or what we should recommend to them, or how we should handle staffing issues, and my reply is usually to invoke the golden rule specifically. Now it's been said that the G.R. is the one common thread in all religions--perhaps it's come up with some branches of all religions; I wouldn't know, given there having been hundreds. I will say that there are plenty of counterexamples, too--stoning a lesbian or adulturer to death in Afghanistan, torturing a Jew into conversion in Spain, and so on. Painting all religion gold with such a blanket statement would be like forgetting Hitler was probably an atheist when it comes time to promote atheism.
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Sometimes you argue best when you say less. Much of your discussion above wanders into arguements against positions that I don't own. Lots of strawman stuff going on there.IJ wrote:
It would also be nice if you stopped considering all arguments with religion on one side and science or secular humanist positions on the other
Sometimes you argue best when you argue my own point. Thank you.
Are you listening, TSDguy?- Bill
I have absolutely no idea what your point is or why you continue to argue, Bill. Especially when you site drunken jokes by fivedragons as 'checkmate'.
Bottom line: A majority of the US believes in illogical religious dogma, for example the above mentioned creationism, people riding dinosaurs, and the earth was created 5,000 years ago. I (sincerely hope) we can all agree this is a serious national problem, especially considering one of these folks is running for VP. There are a lot of other tangents, but that's the jist of the last half of the thread. I can't even begin to understand why you think around 170,000,000 people in the US believing this stuff is a good thing.
Bottom line: A majority of the US believes in illogical religious dogma, for example the above mentioned creationism, people riding dinosaurs, and the earth was created 5,000 years ago. I (sincerely hope) we can all agree this is a serious national problem, especially considering one of these folks is running for VP. There are a lot of other tangents, but that's the jist of the last half of the thread. I can't even begin to understand why you think around 170,000,000 people in the US believing this stuff is a good thing.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
