Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 5,001-5,050 of 12,463

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "maybe knowing all the details about the life cycle of a woolly bear caterpillar may not be necessary."

You would be surprised. The whole point of "pure" science is you literally never know what may help humanity directly, until you "know". Pure science has thrown up some surprising routes to applied science and hence to technological advance.

Currently they are looking at the silk of certain spiders that may eventually result in a fabric far stronger than regular silk which could be of vital importance to things as far spread as aeronautics, electronics and medical sutures.

We couldn't survive, outside of being a caveman, without science - and maybe not even as a caveman, because they had to keep inventing things to sustain their lives. That's a form of science.

The metamorphosis of the caterpillar may also be the Rosetta stone of non-embryonic stem cell research. Think about it, a caterpillar resets and regenerates its entire biology. What if you could reproduce the effects in humans and regenerate entire organs and limbs?

Maria wrote: "For those that believe, maybe it's necessary to save our souls for some other life, but not the world we live in now."

Agreed, and this perverse expenditure of effort, money and blood on another hypothetical life is what bothers a lot of non-theists about religion.

Maria wrote: "Yeah, you don't really need faith to find scientific answers, the data or tangible proof is either there or it's not."

However religious people continue to try to logically justify their beliefs.

Maria wrote: "You absolutely need faith to have religious beliefs, because some of the teachings of most religions are just way out there and cannot be logically proven or explained."

There are also many mutually conflicting, contradictory and internally split religions. This perhaps should be our indication of how effective "faith" is at informing people real information.

Maria wrote: "Faith has been defined as "the evident demonstration of things not beheld which really doesn't make sense because if things are not beheld, then how could they be evidently demonstrated? "

Agreed.

Of course science deals with things not directly "beheld" all of the time. Whether it is calculating the invisible forces of gravity or studying things literally too small to be illuminated by light. However, we can infer existence by the effects on things we can perceive.

Of course religion often claims the same kind of observance of results while simulataneously contradicting itself and claiming that faith is both necessary and good.

[Kathy]

I really think it's a right brain left brain thing, what the left brained see as science and the right brained see as magic or faith is the same thing. If you look at the Tree of Life in Cabala it has a pillar of severity and a pillar of mercy and also a central pillar that is a direct path from Source to manifestation. It's the Great Marriage in Alchemy. And I can't help but wonder if this isn't going to have a lot to with the corpus callosum in the coming age.

[Allen]

Cerebus wrote: "Allen wrote: "I have thought of the sciences and religion as both cause and effect kinda like flip sides of the same thing."
This concept of science and religion being "two sides of the same coin" ..."

Sounds a bit over generalized. Not all beliefs are that authoritarian. We know very little about many things. And assume on some things we take for granted. Religion in general is not anti thought or research. Mankind can be bettered in many ways through science as well as through faith. I would just hats to loose either.

[Gary]

Kathy wrote: "I really think it's a right brain left brain thing, what the left brained see as science and the right brained see as magic or faith is the same thing. "

It's a nice claim, but without evidence or rationale it just is another claim or belief no more valid than any other conflicting beliefs.

Now I know that you will likely think "oh that's a left brained response" but I have to say I have seen people who have unified creativity and logic fairly successfully, they have been some of the most innovative scientists and engineers that I have met.

Oh and this just in, I have found the most accurate mythical creation story I have read. The first chapter of the following scripture http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/73... details the creation of the world through music (harmonic vibrations) which are amazingly close to the basic ideas of modern string theories!

[Gary]

Allen wrote: "Mankind can be bettered in many ways through science as well as through faith. I would just hats to loose either. "

Please explain how faith (the belief in ideas without reason or evidence) betters mankind. I ask every time it is claimed on this thread and there is yet to be anything close to a good answer.

Allen wrote: "Not all beliefs are that authoritarian. We know very little about many things. And assume on some things we take for granted."

If we accept that we are taking certain things for granted and are willing to challenge those preconceptions then that is the opposite of belief. If someone claims to know something but cannot explain why other than belief or faith then that is authoritarian (i.e. they expect you to accept their authority).

I agree we know very little about many things, but science is about finding the answers while religion is about assuming the answers.

Allen wrote: "Religion in general is not anti thought or research."

Christianity, Judaism and to some extent Islam are based on the book of Genesis. The book of Genesis identifies original sin and the fall from grace as "eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge" and "knowing the difference between good and evil". This means that well over 50% of the worlds current religions are specifically based as anti-knowledge.

"It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God." Pope John Paul II as quoted by Steven Hawking.

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." - Cardinal Bellarmine

"If we have to give up either religion or education, we should give up education." - William Jennings Bryan (witness for the prosecution in the Scopes trial)

"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" - John Calvin

"Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient." - William Dembski

"What would it matter if, for the sake of the Christian Church, one were to tell a big lie?" - Martin Luther

To see more anti-intellectualism just look at the Creationism movement in America.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Do you think people have an intrinsic right to believe whatever they like? What if the belief they choose includes that the belief that people do not have this right? What if their beliefs mean that they impress their beliefs on their children including beliefs that they are lesser or sinful compared to others because they are women, or gay, or black? What effect does freedom of belief have on society and the world at large when that means that people can believe others are wrong or wicked without reason?

Do you think that belief in an ideology, be it religious or secular, be accepted and should it be unchallenged? What if that belief is Christianity, Islam, Paganism or Satanism? What if that belief is in Communism or Fascism?"

Do I believe people have an "intrinsic right" to believe whatever they like? Hmmm.... Two things ....

First, we, as humans, will think and will believe as we choose. Yes, our experiences factor into our thoughts and our beliefs. But, ultimately, our thoughts and beliefs can't be "legislated" or forced. Well, I take that back. Some, throughout history, who have been made prisoners of war or have been sent to re-education camps or ..., well, some of those people have been broken ... in mind and spirit. Yes, there are instances, extreme instances, in which people have been forced to think and believe certain things. However, there are also instances in which people were not broken. Rambling .... Ultimately, while indoctrination of all sorts, not just religious, happens on a daily basis and while some horrid people have attempted to bend the minds of people throughout history, there are instances in which people have chosen a different path and have not been broken. So, given that, I believe people are capable of thinking and believing as they choose.

Second, given this, right or not, people will think and believe as they choose. Is it an intrinsic right? I think it's reality. Does that make it a right?

Do I think it should be a right? Personally? Yes.

Now, regarding your other questions .... I believe Hazel has asked similar questions of me. My answer remains the same.

We can go down paths that I don't hold with, that I find reprehensible and extremely disturbing ...

I'm a woman who believes in equal rights? Would it be okay with you, Shannon, if some believed you, as a woman, should have no rights? Would you feel it's their right to hold the belief that you're inferior and should have no rights?

Well, I've been in that situation before. My Mormon relatives, uncle, told me I was, as long as I wasn't Mormon and as long as I was an unmarried woman, a possible instrument of the devil ... not that he was saying I wanted to be used by the devil, of course, but, given my status, I was able to be used. I won't go into all of the things that were said over the years, but .... They cut. They hurt. My family, who I loved and was loyal to, said these things to me ... and believed them ... and treated me differently based on their beliefs. As a result of this, in large part at least, I'm no longer in contact with these family members. We've not spoken in six years. That cuts and that hurts ... badly. Yes, I tried to talk it out. I tried everything but shutting my mouth and accepting their "truth" as my own.

Here's the thing. As awful and hurtful as that experience was for me and for our family at large, I never once ... not once ... wanted to take his ability, their ability, to think for themselves, believe for themselves, or make their own choices. Never once.

We could talk about all sorts of things here.

My grandmother, who would turn very dark in the summer and was called horrid racial names, would take me to Maine each summer growing up. When I go to Maine and spend a lot of time in the water, my American Indian "looks" come out in the way I tan ... a reddish-bronze. One day, I was walking past her and she said, "Ugh.... Get AWAY from me! You and your Indian tan!" She looked at me like I was filth.

Yes, my grandmother, who was treated this way herself ... who I inherited my Indian skin from, in part, treated me this way. Cut? Hurt? Horribly.

But, again, here's the thing .... While I was badly, badly hurt by that, while I wish my grandmother was able to love me, truly love me, without treating me like I'm wrong or bad due to my heritage, I never once wanted to take her ability to think what she chose or believe as she would. I'm sitting here writing this, tensing up and tearing up and getting upset ... and still ... while I wish it was different ... I would never ... if I had some magic wand that I could wave that would force her to change her thoughts and actions ... I would never wave that wand and force her.

I picked these two instances instead of answering all of your questions. Why? They're two things that have been a part of my life and are very personal to me and have cost me ... a lot. Therefore, I believe my thoughts and beliefs about my "truth" ... that people should think and believe as the choose ... are proven through how I felt and reacted in these situations.

While I've distanced myself from my family due to the fact that their influence on me was unhealthy and harmful, I didn't do it in an ugly way. I didn't tell them they were wrong or bad or horrid. I didn't call them names. I didn't tell them their beliefs were wrong and they needed to give them up. I didn't say things like ... I wish I never loved you, something my Mormon cousin said to me. In fact, I told them I loved them deeply. I told them I wished them well. But, I also said we needed to go our separate ways ... in peace.


Now, I also said, very recently ... within the last month or so ... that I imagine, on the one hand, that it's very easy for me to wax poetic on this topic. America isn't perfect, by any stretch of the imagination. However, I'm a single woman living in America in relative safety. I can come and go as I please. I can walk on the streets ... by myself ... even at night. I'm a teacher ... who teaches children, including girls. I do so with relative safety. Not all women are as lucky. What if, all of a sudden, my reality changed and I was living in a different place. Weren't women and girls just gassed in Afghanistan recently? How dare anyone educate females? Imagine! Kill them! If I were in that type of situation, would I still hold as one of my truths the idea that people should be able to think and believe as they choose ... that it should be an actual right ...?

I'm going to answer that the same way I did then. I truly hope I would. I'm not certain. But, I really and truly hope, even in the face of something that horrid and in which I'd pay a physical price instead of just an emotional one, that I would still hold true to what I believe in.

Even though I know extremes exist and that there are people in this world who think and do AWFUL things, I would not, if I could, wave some wand that would allow me to control others ... their thoughts and actions ... I wouldn't make everyone the same .... I wouldn't make everyone think and believe as I do.

This is likely a bad analogy .... For me, it's like an argument I've heard against the death penalty.

You have 1,000 people on death row. They're all guilty, truly guilty, of the worst crimes against humanity ... rape, torture, murder ... except one. One is innocent. Would you, in order to see to it that the 999 never commit another crime and to see them punished, kill the 1,000? Or, would you, in order to protect the rights of the innocent person who was falsely convicted, choose to stand against the death penalty?

We can go to extremes. We can bring up the worst examples we can think of. The pastor who was bitten by a snake, for example. And, let's face it, there are extremes and there are nasty and rotten people out there who do nasty and rotten things. However, I think about the majority. Heck, maybe it's not even a majority. I could even take it down to a couple, though the number is far, far greater than a couple .... We also live in a world in which people have good thoughts and good beliefs. We live in a world in which people stand up for others and care for others and are kind and loving. These people are intelligent and thoughtful and good-natured. They have thoughts and they have beliefs. Would I, in order to stop those who have harmful thoughts and beliefs, take away the rights of those who have altruistic thoughts to think and believe as they choose.

No, I would not.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "However, you need to remember two other factors first that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, and the power of the placebo. Not meaning to cause offence, it is just worth considering."

I'm familiar with this. As I mentioned, I went only for relaxation. I'd done no research on massage or the possible benefits of massage. My massage therapist did not tell me my asthma symptoms would improve. I was in it just to relax.

Wouldn't I have to have believed it was going to help my asthma in order for it to have been like a "placebo" ...? I'm pretty sure the answer to that question is yes. Right?

The point .... You asked what recommendations I'd make to people. Who would I tell them to turn to for the truth? Medical doctors? Or, herbalists, faith healers, charlatans, etc...? My point? Medical doctors have helped me with regard to my asthma, likely saved me once at the ER. I'd never ditch my inhaler. I carry it always. However, interestingly enough, I found, by accident, something that works for me. A preventative, it seems.

It's that place some don't want me to go, I think. The truth doesn't always have to be ... medical doctor or charlatan. Pick. Those two extremes. Or ... medical doctors and "new age" folk who might be well-intentioned, but .... Pick. One is right and one is wrong. Sometimes, Gary, the truth, at least for some, might be both ... or might be somewhere in between.

What recommendations would I give people? Or, would I not give people the benefit of my experience? Okay. Let's take this to the personal. I'm not as live and let live as I seem ... when talking in general.

In answering this question, I remembered times when I sat down with someone and said ... something is wrong ... you have to go to the doctor. That happened just this last year. I sat down with a co-worked and told her I just knew something was horribly wrong. I told her why I felt that. Discussed signs and symptoms I was seeing. I told her how much I cared about her and asked her to go to a doctor. She got ticked. I tried reason. She said she was fine. I told her, if she didn't go to a doctor or find some way to get it under control (she said it was just stress), I'd call her husband and tell him of my concerns. Pretty heavy-handed. Heavy-handed and I stressed she see a medical professional. Now, I also, given the fact that she's Catholic, suggested she talk with her priest. I suggested both. Doctor first ... to rule out a medical problem. In the end, there was a serious medical problem and she almost died. Next, I suggested her priest, if she thought that would help with her stress, or a counselor.

I have another co-worker who has a different medical issue. She was recently in my room crying about it, literally, crying over how much pain she's in. Did I tell her to stop going to the doctor or physical therapy? No. I support her in that 100%. I told her to talk with the doctor about her pain. Perhaps he didn't know how bad it had been for her. Then, I suggested she try alternative medicine in addition to regular medicine. I'd recently heard of a diet that helped with inflammation. She could research it. I suggested she stop wearing heels. Would that help? Of course, shoes don't have anything to do with medicine, alternative or otherwise. I suggested she look into anything that might work. I said, "If it were me, I'd be wearing flats and going to therapy and throwing everything at it that I possibly could. I'd try the diet. I'd try just about everything and anything that might work."

So, very specifically and very personally, that's the type of advice I give.

Yes, Hazel, I imagine it might have something to do with relaxation, but I don't know. It might have do something with my allergies. For example, there's a place on the back of my neck ... well, two places ... if my massage therapist pushes there, I feel an actual draining. I think it somehow ... I don't know .... There's something to it that works wonders, for me, at least.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "First, we, as humans, will think and will believe as we choose. Yes, our experiences factor into our thoughts and our beliefs. But, ultimately, our thoughts and beliefs can't be "legislated" or forced."

First thank you for such a extensive and personal answer, I appreciate the frankness and honesty.

Shannon wrote: "Second, given this, right or not, people will think and believe as they choose. Is it an intrinsic right? I think it's reality. Does that make it a right?"

My point wasn't whether we could force people to change their beliefs, or whether people have the right to believe. My point was should beliefs that are potentially or demonstrably unjust, cruel or bigoted be challenged?

In the examples you gave, is it right not to challenge racism in those close to you? Is it right not to challenge religious intolerance and misogyny in those closest to you? It may seem that you are respecting their right to believe such horrible stuff, but you are in a unique position compared to the stranger they may meet and be racist, intolerant or misogynistic to, after all as a relative they may listen to you a lot sooner than they will a stranger.

We influence people around us all of the time, you have no doubt influenced myself and others on this forum, so in a small way you may be challenging peoples beliefs and misconceptions, so why not directly?

The most horrible atrocities in history are tragic, but not only because of the terrible people who commit them, but because of the people who give by their silence, their assent.

When children grow up a parent attempts to instil in their child a sense of morality, a guide to what is and is not acceptable behaviour, but that does not stop when we hit 18. Throughout our lives we may discover prejudices that we never knew we had, unless of course those around us never challenge us on those prejudices.

Shannon wrote: "I wouldn't make everyone the same .... I wouldn't make everyone think and believe as I do. "

That is fair, but would you hope to be one of those courageous people who stand up and challenge prejudices. If you were in Afghanistan would you silently comply with the belief of the patriarchs that you and your fellow women should be uneducated, covered and humble and at the whim of men. Would you silently stand by and let others be beaten or even stoned to death?

Shannon wrote: "You have 1,000 people on death row. They're all guilty, truly guilty, of the worst crimes against humanity ... rape, torture, murder ... except one. One is innocent. Would you, in order to see to it that the 999 never commit another crime and to see them punished, kill the 1,000? Or, would you, in order to protect the rights of the innocent person who was falsely convicted, choose to stand against the death penalty?"

I would not have them killed. Partially because vengeance is not part of justice and death is not a punishment because you cannot learn from it, partially because I would never be 100% sure that 999 are definitely guilty, partially because of the one innocent, partially because I think that it is within anyone to change no matter how "evil" their actions thus far. I also do not believe in the force of "evil" and that many criminals have morally stunted upbringings (often caused by things like religion or ideology) or have psychological or medical conditions that may be treated. Finally even if you lock someone up for the rest of their natural lives, I do not believe in an afterlife so ending another consciousness is a particularly reprehensible act no matter how evil.

However the main reason I wouldn't apply the death penalty is that according to scientific studies it doesn't work effectively as a deterrent. Only if I was particularly afraid that the majority may escape incarceration would I consider it.

[Travis]

People seem to mix up aknowledging a belief with respecting that belief.

You have the right to believe what ever you want. That right does not magically mean anyone has to respect that belief.

Shannon doesn't want anyone forced to believe as she does, which is the same thing atheists want.
Which group is forcing their beliefs on other people?
Oddly enough, it's the people also screaming the loudest their beliefs must be respected, the religious folk.
Pick up a newspaper, click on a news site. The religious folk want a respect that they aren't willing to treat the rest of us with.
That's where the problem arises.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "In the examples you gave, is it right not to challenge racism in those close to you? Is it right not to challenge religious intolerance and misogyny in those closest to you? It may seem that you are respecting their right to believe such horrible stuff, but you are in a unique position compared to the stranger they may meet and be racist, intolerant or misogynistic to, after all as a relative they may listen to you a lot sooner than they will a stranger."

Remember when I said I tried ... tried to talk it out? I did challenge them, in a loving way. I tried reason. It didn't matter. They continued to think and believe as they had always done. In addition, my grandfather challenged my grandmother. My mother challenged her brother. Still, they believed as they believed ... thought as they thought. So, given that, what does one have left? One can take it. One can go another way. One can wish s/he could change the other and force them to believe a different way. One could use force.

Challenging such thoughts and beliefs isn't necessarily going to make people see things differently, change of their own accord.

So, what do you have left, at that point?

For me, in the face of something like this, I have myself. I have my beliefs. My belief in the importance of honesty, for example. My belief in the right of others to make their own choices. As much as an honest look at the situation might hurt and as much as their choices might wound me, I can hold onto that. I'm going to be honest. I'm going to see the situation for what it is and what it could lead to. Yes, in the face of racism, etc..., I speak up and take a stand against it. But, I know some, please, many, will continue to hold the same thoughts and beliefs. That's human nature, sadly, and it's reality. I wouldn't change it ... their ability to choose. I'd like to change racism, etc.... Yes. But, I'd never change their ability to make their own choices.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "That is fair, but would you hope to be one of those courageous people who stand up and challenge prejudices. If you were in Afghanistan would you silently comply with the belief of the patriarchs that you and your fellow women should be uneducated, covered and humble and at the whim of men. Would you silently stand by and let others be beaten or even stoned to death?"

I have, throughout my life, taken many stands against injustice. I've talked of some of them on this thread. As I mentioned in my last post, that doesn't mean the injustice is going to stop. It doesn't mean I'm going to, through my argument and reason, lead people to see a different way. In fact, it often hasn't.

What does one do, Gary, when people don't fall in step, believe as one wants them to believe?

I'm saying ... given certain ugly realities, yes, I'll take a stand; however, I truly believe people should have the right to make their own choices ... even ugly ones.

[Tim]

Travis wrote: "People seem to mix up aknowledging a belief with respecting that belief.

You have the right to believe what ever you want. That right does not magically mean anyone has to respect that belief..."

I totally agree and have often said as much. I respect your right to believe hocus pocus, and will fight for that right. But do not ask me to respect the hocus pocus itself. That is another matter entirely.

[Tim]

Travis, I think you are correct in identifying this as being the locus of the source of conflict between atheists and believers.

[[deleted user]]

Tim wrote: "Travis, I think you are correct in identifying this as being the locus of the source of conflict between atheists and believers."

True ... between most atheists and most believers. However, I'd also say this is the problem, in general, this unwillingness to accept difference. In my mind, at least, that's the root of the problem. When humans need other human beings to be just like them ... to believe as they do ... think as they do, etc.... I see that as the root of much conflict. (Well, that and wanting what those other people have, of course.)

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Tim wrote: "Travis, I think you are correct in identifying this as being the locus of the source of conflict between atheists and believers."

True ... between most atheists and most believers. Ho..."

But, I think people do and should accept differences. Not always, but are a bit more willing to aknowledge differences between generations, cultures, political views, people who prefer Batman over superman or even ethnic groups.

In those cases there is more acceptance between people. Still some conflict, but with some work, common ground can be found. It can be a long process, but you can work towards it.

trickier when you've been told you are (fill in the name of your favorite deity)'s favorite and so has the other group.
hard to find the middle ground there.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Tim wrote: "Travis, I think you are correct in identifying this as being the locus of the source of conflict between atheists and believers."

True ... between most atheists and mos..."

Well, when it comes to Batman vs. Superman, I'd pick whichever one was played by Sean Bean. ;)

[Hazel]

Neither have been played by Sean Bean, so you'd have to just stick to Sharpe instead... he's a superhero, right?

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Tim wrote: "Travis, I think you are correct in identifying this as being the locus of the source of conflict between atheists and believers."

True ... between most a..."

I think it's time we staged an intervention for Shannon.
Otherwise, we are going to see her on the evening news, being dragged away, by the police, from Sean Bean's house.

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "Neither have been played by Sean Bean, so you'd have to just stick to Sharpe instead... he's a superhero, right?"

The ability to get killed that many times and come back must be some kind of super power.

[Hazel]

either that or he's a zombie... or Jesus in disguise... which I think amounts to the same thing ;P

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "either that or he's a zombie... or Jesus in disguise... which I think amounts to the same thing ;P"

As I've said, if Sean Bean died for our signs that many times, it makes you wonder what Shannon has been up to.

So, in a fight between zombie Sean Bean against vampire Jesus, who would win?

[Hazel]

it would depend how they were armed, all zombie sean would need is a stake, anything else is a bonus, Vampire jesus would need something with which he could destroy the brain or remove the head...

And what sort of zombie are we talking? Dawn of the Dead shamblers, or 28 days later runners?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Challenging such thoughts and beliefs isn't necessarily going to make people see things differently, change of their own accord."

No but that is no reason not to try.

I think we are both agreed that we don't think people should be forced to believe something, for both moral and practical reasons. In my case this is one of my primary objections to religion in general is that this belief is forced on people from an early age. Forced by the authority of Church, Clergy and parents who were in turn indoctrinated. Forced with threat of an all powerful patriarch who is meant to be loving and kind and yet always carries the implicit or explicit threat of punishment or even disappointment.

Religion, organisational or personal, involves the impressing of ones own beliefs on others with some coersive force.

In my mind there is a huge difference between that and instead teaching people mutual respect for logical and ethical reasons.

For example;

Shannon wrote: "My belief in the importance of honesty"
Religious answer: Don't lie or face gods disappointment/wrath.
Ethical answer: If you want to be part of a society that doesn't lie to you then do not lie to others, remember that your reputation may eventually depend on your veracity.


Shannon wrote: "the right of others to make their own choices."
Religious answer: (Commonly that people only have the right to choose 'godly' paths.) but perhaps god created us with free will therefore it is wrong for a mere mortal to intefere with this.
Ethical answer: If you want to be part of a society that allows you to make your own choices then you need to respect others to make their own choices, furthermore if you want good advice about your choices then be prepared to give open and honest advice to others but do not be angry if they disagree.

The whole point is that instead of rules and laws that say "do this or else" you teach people why the ethical choice is overall the better one. The difference here is that the comprehension of ethics means that people police their own actions far more, and tragedies caused by people "just following orders" would lessen as people would have the ethical intuition free to challenge immoral orders rather than the religious tendency to override ethics. (The old "love the sinner, hate the sin" lie)

If this sounds strangely familiar then it is. It is the equivalent of a science of ethics, in the same way that instead of telling people "the world is like this because god made it" instead you teach people how to apply critical thinking and the difference between someone with a respected and informed opinion and someone who only has opinions.

Shannon wrote: "It doesn't mean I'm going to, through my argument and reason, lead people to see a different way. In fact, it often hasn't."

Same here, but that doesn't mean I will ever stop trying, because though your objection may not be the tipping point to change someones mind, it may help them eventually learn, and when you are the one fortunate enough to be at that tipping point there is nothing more rewarding.

This is why I debate theists.

Shannon wrote: "What does one do, Gary, when people don't fall in step, believe as one wants them to believe? "

The difference here is that it isn't so much what I want them to believe, but for them to understand what their beliefs are and what the difference between belief and opinion is. Many people for example believe that the Bible is a moral and good book (in fact it is commonly called "the good book") and are yet completely unaware of what horrible stuff it contains. Many people also base their beliefs on religious teachings and yet either ignore or do not know the extent or consequences of that belief.

This is why I often say that I can understand the attitude of a fundamentalist better than a moderate as at least the fundamentalist has the courage of their convictions.

Shannon wrote: "What does one do, Gary, when people don't fall in step, believe as one wants them to believe? "I truly believe people should have the right to make their own choices ... even ugly ones. "

That is a nice sentiment, but a paradoxical one. For example if you act on this belief then you can end up supporting people in their belief that people do not have the right to make their own choices or to believe how they wish. In fact just about all monotheistic religion is based on the idea that people are not allowed to choose or to believe as they wish and by supporting monotheism you support this belief which goes against your own stated values.

Shannon wrote: "this unwillingness to accept difference. In my mind, at least, that's the root of the problem. When humans need other human beings to be just like them ... to believe as they do ... think as they do, etc.... I see that as the root of much conflict. (Well, that and wanting what those other people have, of course.)"

This tribalism is served by religious identity, it is very easy to declare somebody heretic, heathen, godless, satanic, catholic, muslim and then invoke that intolerance to fuel conflict and silence dissent. It doesn't matter whether the leaders of this cause honestly believe the difference, or whether they have ulterior motive of land, wealth or power, the point is that the authority does not need to explain why the enemy is the problem, just point to the difference and that becomes the reason in itself.

Without such beliefs leaders need to make the case to their people, to explain with reason and evidence why such a conflict is needed. This does not mean that conflict would be eliminated, but it would be a lot harder to get people to go to war on a flimsy pretext.

Shannon wrote: "Well, when it comes to Batman vs. Superman, I'd pick whichever one was played by Sean Bean. ;)"

Well the last Superman film turned him into a painfully obvious parallel to christ and showed that the US is still kind of uncomfortable that Jesus hasn't shown his birth certificate as a US citizen, and that an all-American saviour is what they would really like. Of course the Mormons have known that for years...

Whereas Batman should run as the Republican candidate, a rich priviliged kid who blames all of societies ills on the lower class thugs and criminals, and is kind of free and loose with stuff like "due process" and "enhanced interrogation". Like the current republican candidate he also has a lot of faith in his protective garments...

Nope... hang on... the NRA would never support Batman and his anti-gun agenda!

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Challenging such thoughts and beliefs isn't necessarily going to make people see things differently, change of their own accord."

No but that is no reason not to try.

I think we a..."

I can't imagine Republicans liking superman, as he is the ultimate illegal immigrant.
They hate Obama, but superman comes from even farther away than Kenya.

and don't get me started on that last Superman movie.
How can you make your hero both a Christ figure and a deadbeat dad...?

[Gary]

Travis wrote: "I can't imagine Republicans liking superman, as he is the ultimate illegal immigrant.
They hate Obama, but superman comes from even farther away than Kenya."

Yeah but Superman is neither black or Mexican so he will end up as governor of California.

Travis wrote: "How can you make your hero both a Christ figure and a deadbeat dad...? "

Because by Christian belief Christ is god, therefore is his own father, and god sent himself down as his own son to be brutalised and murdered to allow himself to forgive people of the crime of disobedience they committed even he forgot to tell them that it was wrong to disobey.

So whether father to himself or father to mankind he sounds like the absolute ultimate deadbeat dad imaginable to me.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "What does one do, Gary, when people don't fall in step, believe as one wants them to believe? "I truly believe people should have the right to make their own choices ... even ugly ones. "

That is a nice sentiment, but a paradoxical one. For example if you act on this belief then you can end up supporting people in their belief that people do not have the right to make their own choices or to believe how they wish. In fact just about all monotheistic religion is based on the idea that people are not allowed to choose or to believe as they wish and by supporting monotheism you support this belief which goes against your own stated values."

Confused at this point .... Earlier in your post, you said we agreed. We did not want to force beliefs on others. Then, you state the above. Could you clarify? Is it that you'd not force others to believe a certain thing up until you ran across someone with ugly beliefs? The belief, for example, that people should believe ... you pick, that homosexuality is bad, that women are bad, that everyone should convert to Islam, that you must become born again ....

You see, this began with your asking me a question along the lines of ... would I really and truly stand by my belief, even in the face of people who believe things that I find abhorrent, or would I not. I've been trying to answer your question. I believe I would. I have, in action not just in word, taken many stands against injustice. Yes, what I've believed to be injustice. However, in the end, I believe people will and should make their own choices.

When it comes to force and forcing people to believe as we do or not, we're either in agreement or we're not.

You say you wouldn't want to force people. Really? Does that always hold true? Or, does it not hold true if someone is trying to force their beliefs upon you? And, what would that look like? A movement to force shari law on the UK? That extreme? Or, would it look like something else? Something less extreme?

[Xdyj]

Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "What does one do, Gary, when people don't fall in step, believe as one wants them to believe? "I truly believe people should have the right to make their own choices ....."

I think firstly there is a distinction between what people should be legally allowed to do and what people should do. For example people are allowed to hold a belief system that atheists or gays should be hanged, but if they act on such belief and kill their children for being atheist or gay then they should be apprehended. On the other hand we also have moral obligation to not to endorse such a belief system and challenge it (by speech, not by force) whenever we can. A more subtle issue would be whether or not people should be legally allowed to propagate a militant, hateful belief system, i.e. whether or how to restrict hate speech.

Personally I disagree with Gary's statement on "all monotheistic religions" as AFAIK at least the more liberal incarnations of them (like the type of Christianity Shannon believes in) have already been reformed greatly since the age of enlightenment as well as by generations of progressive/feminist theologians, and a faith should be judged by what its followers are preaching today instead of what they preached 2000 years ago. Even most ultra-conservative Christian/Muslim organizations in the U.S. do not dare to call for abolishing the constitution.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Is it that you'd not force others to believe a certain thing up until you ran across someone with ugly beliefs?"

I think we are coming at the same thing from markedly different angles. We both think that beliefs should not be forced on people (correct?), however your opinion is that people should be allowed to believe what they want, while my opinion is that belief itself is the fundamental problem.

There is of course a bit of a linguistic issue that I must comment on here. I try to avoid the term "belief" myself as I associate it with "faith". Personally I say I have "opinions", "ideas" or even "philosophies" if you will, but I distinguish them from "belief" because that implies that the opinion is the equivalent of a faith or belief, rather than being based on rational assessment and being flexible as I learn new information.

So whereas you would not wish to impose another set of beliefs on someone by force, I oppose the imposition of beliefs at all because ultimately a belief is acquired from some form of imposition.

Shannon wrote: "I believe I would. I have, in action not just in word, taken many stands against injustice. Yes, what I've believed to be injustice. However, in the end, I believe people will and should make their own choices."

You see this is were the language part is tricky. If you believe that everyone has the right to their beliefs then you paradoxically support the right of believers to choose to impose their beliefs. Whereas standing against injustice (as I accept you have) doesn't mean that you are trying to impose your beliefs on others, it means you oppose their beliefs and wish them to make their decisions based on informed opinion rather than ignorant belief.

Shannon wrote: "When it comes to force and forcing people to believe as we do or not, we're either in agreement or we're not."

My opinion is that is is incumbent on the moral person to oppose belief with education and information. If a person has a different opinion from us based on their understanding of the information then at least they have thought about their opinion and potential prejudices.

Shannon wrote: "You say you wouldn't want to force people. Really? Does that always hold true? Or, does it not hold true if someone is trying to force their beliefs upon you? And, what would that look like? A movement to force shari law on the UK? That extreme? Or, would it look like something else? Something less extreme? "

How would it look? Well it may be clear as Sharia law (which, despite right-wing American fears, is quite similar to - and perhaps less harsh than - the Mosaic laws that fundamentalist evangelists wish to resurrect). However, it may be as subtle as unelected members of government supporting an anti-secular agenda (Baroness Warsi), pseudo-science being taught to our children as fact or vulnerable people being lied to about medical treatments based on a skewed sense of sexual morality.

If you notice I do not say to people "you should not believe in god" because that is just imposing a belief upon a belief. This is where soviet communism went, replacing religion with political ideology with just the same lack of evidence or rationale.

What I do is ask people if they really have thought about what they believe to be true, have they thought about it and do they realise the effects this belief has on their world view?

This is why I challenge empty belief-based statements whether online, on the street or in a church.

[Gary]

Xdyj wrote: "For example people are allowed to endorse a belief system that atheists or gays should be hanged, but if they act on such belief and kill their children for being atheist or gay then they should be apprehended."

Sorry but in a society where it is allowable for anyone to endorse the murder of others, then people will be murdered for those reasons. At that point the responsibility is on the people who endorse the murder as well as the perpetrators.

Xdyj wrote: "On the other hand we also have moral obligation to not to endorse such a belief system and challenge it (by speech, not by force) whenever we can. A more subtle issue would be whether or not people should be legally allowed to propagate a militant, hateful belief system, i.e. whether or how to restrict hate speech. "

Restriction of hate speech is indeed a difficult subject, but a society merely fails to endorse rather than condemn such speech is one in which hatred and violence will be free to be nurtured.

Xdyj wrote: "A faith should be judged by what its followers are preaching today instead of what they preached 2000 years ago. "

Yes but it should be judged on what all the followers are preaching. If people are preaching about the moral authority of the Bible then they are condoning every horrific aspect of Mosaic law. Fundamentalists are nurtured and given justification by moderates. Just look at the Christian moderates who salve their own consciences by such absurdities as "love the sinner, hate the sin", just look at the Muslim moderates who were surveyed in the Middle East and stated that suicide bombings were "sometimes justified".

If you go around saying the biblical scripture is good then you cannot claim that someone who stones to death a girl for being found not a virgin on her wedding night is bad.

Indeed the churches have reformed in the modern world, but that has got a lot more to do with the availability of education and general secularisation than it has to do with religious reform. There are plenty of people who want to reverse these gains as fast as possible.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Just look at the Christian moderates who salve their own consciences by such absurdities as "love the sinner, hate the sin", just look at the Muslim moderates who were surveyed in the Middle East and stated that suicide bombings were "sometimes justified"."

You have a very negative view of religion, Gary. That's cool. I get it. Here's the thing, though. You tend to make statements, like the above, that make it seem like you're an authority on the subject. It actually sounds like you've done quite a bit of study on the subject, which is great, and you might be an authority on the subject, in general. But, it doesn't sound to me like you've had much experience with or have done much study regarding ... hmmm ... liberal religious organizations. You constantly mention moderates and the fact that moderates give justification to radicals. People have mentioned to you and others, on several occasions, that there are actually moderate and liberal religious organizations who do not believe as you contend, do not act as you contend, and do not make statements as you contend. The majority might. The majority likely do. Not all do. I sometimes wonder that you, as a scientist who wants to delve into the truth and who asks questions of others, do not open your mind to consider such possibilities.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The United Methodist Church in my town in a "reconciling" congregation. They do not salve their conscience by saying ... love the sinner and hate the sin. They welcome all people and believe, yes, believe, that all people are equal. Male and female. All races. Gay and straight. Etc.... Yet, in my mind, you continually ignore such instances and paint all people of faith with, in my mind, the same brush.

Going back to my initial question of you .... I asked if it makes you more comfortable to believe that no good can come from religion and that no truths can be answered from religious/spiritual study. You answered that it doesn't make you comfortable to converse with believers. You find comfort in conversing with scientists. In truth, you didn't answer the question(s). I decided you didn't want to answer that question and left it. However, it's coming up for me again, a different but similar question.

Does it make you more comfortable to ignore the fact that there are moderate and liberal churches who have reformed and who do stand for the rights of all and who don't stand on the scripture as the divine word of God? They do exist you know. So, I wonder at your reasoning for ignoring that fact. I'm left wondering ... either it doesn't fit with your argument and your attempt to educate others in the dangers of belief or you're more comfortable ignoring their existence. Perhaps there's another option.

I can say; however, if I were reading your arguments and didn't know much about different religions, I would believe you and think all religions are either radical or apologists for radicals.

Do you find that concerning? That people who read your words, despite that fact that, from time to time, you encourage people to do their own research, would take what you say as, hmmm, gospel? Do you think it might be more responsible to acknowledge all aspects of a topic, not just those that fit with your argument or opinions?

Speaking of this .... You mentioned that,

"it may be clear as Sharia law (which, despite right-wing American fears, is quite similar to - and perhaps less harsh than - the Mosaic laws that fundamentalist evangelists wish to resurrect)."

While I'm aware of movements to bring Sharia law to the UK, Canada, and have it recognized in some courts in the US, I'm unaware of a movement within the public sphere or the legal system by evangelists to resurrect Mosaic laws. Could you provide us with sources?

And, since we've been talking about ugly things and rights, I must say, right-wing Americans aren't the only people who fear Sharia. I've watched documentaries on PBS and read articles detailing the fears of many, including many Muslims, regarding these attempts to bring Sharia to these countries. I've seen Muslim women speak out against the atrocities of Sharia, including a Canadian woman who is gay and an activist, as well as a Muslim, who has had death threats issued against her.

So, I'm going to do as you suggest. I know it might seem that I'm being a bit punky. That's partly because it's the first hot day here in months and we're all wilting. It's partly because we're talking in circles. But, please know, in truth, I'm not as surly as I might seem.

You say we should speak out against injustice ... if not attempt to force people to think certain thoughts or not ... hold certain beliefs or opinions or not ... I think ... but I'm not sure when it comes to, for example, the above answer.

I've always done that. I'll do it now.

I, personally, think it's problematic to make a statement such as the one you made about Sharia and evangelists. First, while there are public and legal movements to bring Sharia to the UK, Canada and certain US courts, there is, to my knowledge, no similar movement by evangelists to bring a certain new system of justice to the same places. Further, to basically claim that Sharia isn't as scary as some right-wingers in American contend and isn't as horrifying as what the evangelists want to do to us is ... untrue ... and detracts from the horrors and injustices perpetrated by some who follow Sharia. Therefore, I'm taking this opportunity to share my thoughts on that subject.

However, true to my word, if you continue to hold with these opinions, Gary, I support your ability to think for yourself and decide upon your own opinions, even though I'd disagree. I do; however, believe it's for you to choose your own thoughts.

[Hazel]

Gary, and me too, have said several times that we recognise the good works done by people who are religious, and that there are good things in the bible etc. Why do oyu persist in accusing him of saying the opposite? Its simply quicker and easier for him to not have to be specific everytime he talks about religion, it would get irritating if he put "with the exception of the average religious person who is generally good and moral, and happy, and accepting" in parentheses everytime he spoke about religion in general.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

If being religious is following a church then the definition of Religion is believing in what the church's leaders say.

If beng religious is following what you think The Holy Book (whatever) says, than that is what Religion is to you.

Moderate and liberal churches have to cherry-pick their holy books to keep their congregations, so the question is does cherry-picking the good bits they like and choosing to not believe the parts they dislike (and each moderate church has a basic lite top ten list, which in turn they permit the attendees to cherry-pick amongst the list and add or drop their own bits).

What has made me continue to follow this most stupid thread is the eternal ridiculous responses where an answer is an orange (Gary talks to Book followers, and his response to that is meaningful) while others respond with an apple, cherry, pear, or raspberry answer (related to their individual cherry-picked belief, which is all over the map, for example, god gives advice on raping your female slave, so the cherry-picker says I don't believe that so Gary is WRONG, but it is clearly in the Bible, so how is Gary really wrong? But he gets called out as being incorrect anyway and being hurtful to honest seekers of self-growth and self-awareness and self-development, because he didn't take into account YOUR cherry-picked belief system, which somehow he has to differentiate from all the other cherry-picked individual belief systems here related).

(of course, from an outsider view, cherry-picking means you really aren't religious anymore as well as being a fuzzy dilettante picking what color of dress to wear today, but cherry-pickers are so quick to call the religion they're choosing to wear today as REAL, all so insulted - and then they wonder why no one takes them serious because they've forgotten how even though they are swearing oaths on puffed sleeves this year, everyone remembers they swore they wouldn't be caught dead with puffed sleeves last year - do you cherry-pickers get it?)

Gary, this s a moving target! You CANNOT win! Although you might make some people doubt whatever beliefs they have later - maybe - this is not a sane debate going on here. Not a single Christian response maintain any common ground from comment to comment. Your arguments are always wrong because they keep changing what they say believe in today! They aren't interested in debate or religious history or doctrine philosophy. It's all about personal drama and being the focus of the attention. (my dress is green today, do you like it? What do you think? Do I look fat?) Tomorrow she'll want to discuss the blue pants and it will be IMPORTANT, the green dress has gone to Goodwill, forgotten and un-cherry-picked.

How can you debate religion when every 'moderate' Christian or whatever is cherry-picking? Every legitimate fact you give them is denied through the device of 'I don't believe that, you hurt my feelings!" how can you have a debate?

The most silliest thing about this is the sanctimonious patting of backs about how you all are 'debating'. This is merely a coffee klatch 'The View'.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Gary, and me too, have said several times that we recognise the good works done by people who are religious, and that there are good things in the bible etc. Why do oyu persist in accusing him of s..."

Hazel, you have said that.

Regarding my question(s), they were originally meant for Cerebus and Gary, based on comments they've made. In addition, my subsequent question was for Gary. I'm not saying you haven't said that. You have.

Regarding your question on Gary's behalf, I mention it because it's true. I've read Gary's posts. Have you? I've read them and thought about them. While Gary has said some religious folk do good works, he's also said they'd do such works whether or not they went to church. While he has said some "reform" seems to have been made within some churches, he questions whether or not that has to do with anything more than happenstance. Correct? That's why I asked the question; the question(s) or statements are based on his words.

Now, if only some of us are allowed to ask questions, just say the word.

[[deleted user]]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "If being religious is following a church then the definition of Religion is believing in what the church's leaders say.

If beng religious is following what you think The Holy Book (whatever) says,..."

April, I can only assume you're speaking to me. Given that, ....

Where, exactly, did I claim Gary is WRONG and where, exactly, did I say he's being hurtful? Where in my posts, exactly?

Of course, given that I'm not a "believer in the book" as you mentioned, perhaps you're not talking to me.

Here's a question for you .... Well, there are two.

Why do you rarely take part in meaningful conversations on this thread, rarely take part in a give and take with other people who are trying to discuss something they believe to be important? Why do you, when you do take part, often do so only to insult people and discuss their stupidity or the stupidity of their comments or how they don't read or aren't educated or to call people ridiculously obsessed or lonely given your extensive perusal of their profiles? What's that all about?

So, you're not here on a quest. Not here for understanding. You're here for, what? The ability to point and laugh?

If that's the case, it makes me kind of sad. I'm here for understanding. But, it takes all kinds of people, doesn't it? As long as you're comfortable with your reasons for staying and with your responses, that's what truly matters.

And, one of the things I respect about Hazel is the fact that ... when she calls people out ... she calls them out ... by name. No games. No guessing. It's not always comfortable. But, it is real. I respect that. So, respectfully, on the off chance that you'd like to call me out in the future, if of course you do, I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd just do it. I'm not a beat-around-the-bush sort of person.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Really! I think not. But then.....again. I'm just trying to understand. But....I wake up and am myself. However, then, I feel, well, what's it all about? Sorry, I'm just trying to understand. Can I ask a simple question? But, we're all on a journey.

[[deleted user]]

You know, on second thought, Hazel, I want to amend my post. I frankly don't believe I have "accused" Gary of saying religious folk don't do good works or that there aren't good portions of religious books. I got a bit confused by your response for a minute. But, in truth, I haven't.

If you look back, when Gary said, weeks ago, that the only good that comes from religion in a community is to serve as, I can't remember his words, but a threat of sorts ... behave and follow our morals or else, I disagreed. And, I made an argument.

Some of Gary's posts strike a chord with me. There's a lot that makes sense. Some ... go to an extreme that I don't think is necessary nor does it go with his normal logical tone. That's just the truth ... as I see it.

What I did was to ask questions. Cerebus said no truth can come through religion? I asked how this could be. None. At the very least, some might find they like having others think for them, make decisions for them, etc.... That is a truth. Some, like Cerebus and Gary, after their experiences within the church and careful study, decided they don't like it when others think for them or attempt to make decisions for them, etc.... That's a truth. And, I'd wager, there are other truths that people find through religious/spiritual study. My question was ... I wonder .... And, it's me wondering. Atheists ask believers all sorts of questions about their beliefs and why the believe and what they don't believe and .... That's okay. But, it came to me. There's a question I'd like to ask of an atheist. Given the fact that you chose to leave your church, does it make you feel more comfortable to believe that no truth can come from religion and religious/spiritual study? I also asked Gary, given his negative commentary regarding religion ... and it is almost exclusively negative, which I get, and often gives only extreme examples, which I don't get, ... does it make him more comfortable to believe that no good can come from religion ....

That's a very different question than ... do you believe religious folk do good or don't do good .... Very different.

Now, my next question was ... does it make you feel more comfortable to ignore the fact that liberal churches exist .... We've discussed liberal churches before. Cherry-pickers! Umm.... Except for the fact that the churches I've referred to don't always believe the Bible is the divine word of God. But, hey, we could go round and round on that subject. Churches are wrong for not reforming. When churches reform, they're cherry-picking! Oops .... Churches are wrong to begin with.

Anyway, those are the questions I asked.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

How on earth can a church reform without god's sayso? Are reformers getting permission from god to reform?

[Hazel]

Shannon, I never said you said Gary was wrong. Thats not what I said at all.

When it comes down to it, I don't want to get into an argument with you, because I actually think you're a nice person, who's interesting, and pretty cool (if a little scary with the Sean Bean fixation ;P). I'm sure Gary will answer your questions when he comes online.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Shannon, I never said you said Gary was wrong. Thats not what I said at all.

When it comes down to it, I don't want to get into an argument with you, because I actually think you're a nice person,..."

Hazel ... I think you misread the post. That post was in response to April. I started by saying ... April, I can only assume .... April said, among other things,

"...so the cherry-picker says I don't believe that so Gary is WRONG, but it is clearly in the Bible, so how is Gary really wrong? But he gets called out as being incorrect anyway and being hurtful to honest seekers of self-growth and self-awareness and self-development, because he didn't take into account YOUR cherry-picked belief system"

That particular question was addressing April and her statement.

I agree, though. There's no reason for us to argue.

[Hazel]

eerrr, I assumed the post that started with "you know what hazel" was directed very much at me... post no 5180

either way, have some bean:

http://bean-daily.livejournal.com/159...

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "eerrr, I assumed the post that started with "you know what hazel" was directed very much at me... post no 5180

either way, have some bean:

http://bean-daily.livejournal.com/159..."

Oh, it was ... didn't think I asked for where I said Gary was wrong in that post, though ....

Will look at the Bean report. ;)

[[deleted user]]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "How on earth can a church reform without god's sayso? Are reformers getting permission from god to reform?"

We'd have to ask the different churches who have reformed.

I was going to copy the statement on the website of the church in my town ... so you could see what they said. Then, I thought ... not everyone is stable and I've shared a lot of personal information here and someone could cut and paste that statement in google and find my town. For that reason, I'm not cutting and pasting. But, I did want to answer your question.

The church site said, after a year of discussions on the topic and study and prayer regarding the meaning of the different teachings of Jesus, they decided to become a reconciling church.

I wasn't attending the church at the time, nor do I now. So, I really can't give you anymore specific information.

I also know some of the Lutheran churches here have become reconciling congregations. One of my friends was attending one of them at the time of this. She told me the pastor began giving messages regarding people and the equality of people. She also said the pastor claimed Jesus never came out against homosexuality and they should follow his teachings. I remember telling my friend there were several places in the Bible that speak against homosexuality. I wasn't sure if any were made by Jesus or not. I did have a vague recollection, I thought, of a statement credited to Jesus that basically said sexual misconduct was among the least of offenses. She asked me because I had a better knowledge of the Bible. I suggested that she try to find the cite herself. I don't know if she ever did. But, I do know her church became a reconciling church. From her perspective, it came down to two things. Jesus didn't speak against homosexuality. (True or not. I don't know.) And, they, as a congregation, felt it was the right thing to do. I believe, in part, that it was based on their code of ethics.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "http://bean-daily.livejournal.com/159..."

So did not expect to see Sean Bean in the shower!! Wow!

(No, Travis, I did not take that video. I swear.)

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "http://bean-daily.livejournal.com/159..."

So did not expect to see Sean Bean in the shower!! Wow!

(No, Travis, I did not take that video. I swear.)"

So you say.
Got two words for you Shannon and the first one is 'restraining'...

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "http://bean-daily.livejournal.com/159..."

So did not expect to see Sean Bean in the shower!! Wow!

(No, Travis, I did not take that video. I swear.)"

So yo..."

Ha, ha, ha! Is the second word tea? Because, I'm sure, if ever I were to meet the fabulous Mr. Sean Bean, that he'd invite me to tea!

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "http://bean-daily.livejournal.com/159..."

So did not expect to see Sean Bean in the shower!! Wow!

(No, Travis, I did not take that video. I ..."

Yeah, maybe using 'restraining' so close to you talking about Sean was just asking for trouble.

'Tea' is probably the least worrisome word you could have come up with.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "http://bean-daily.livejournal.com/159..."

So did not expect to see Sean Bean in the shower!! Wow!

(No, Travis, I did not take..."

Hey! Hazel is egging me on! I'm really not a stalker. I wasn't even thinking about Sean Bean (fingers crossed behind my back) until Hazel mentioned him. Sigh ...

[cerebus]

Allen wrote: "Religion in general is not anti thought or research...."
If a scientific theory conflicts with a position in a religion, any religion, then which is chosen? Faith tells you to ignore the evidence and believe what the religion tells you. That, to me, is anti-thought. Can you give me some examples of a religion which will change its faith based positions based on scientific evidence?

[cerebus]

Kathy wrote: "I really think it's a right brain left brain thing, what the left brained see as science and the right brained see as magic or faith is the same thing. If you look at the Tree of Life in Cabala it has a pillar of severity and a pillar of mercy and also a central pillar that is a direct path from Source to manifestation. It's the Great Marriage in Alchemy. And I can't help but wonder if this isn't going to have a lot to with the corpus callosum in the coming age. "
Who's doing what now?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "You have a very negative view of religion …. But, it doesn't sound to me like you've had much experience with or have done much study regarding ... hmmm ... liberal religious organizations. “

Technically you are right in the first statement but not in the way implied. Also there is an important difference here that I notice is a common thing amongst theists. I do have a generally negative view of religion, but not of religious people, which is an important distinction. I have a generally negative view of religion because religion has a lot of negative aspects, and yet I have yet to see a consistently positive religious effect. The two most cited demonstrable positives are first the sense of community and charity that religious gatherings can bring, and second the enforcement of morality on adherents. The first effect is not dependent on religion and it can be argued that this advantage is not worth the cost when secular organisation can do the same (without the cost and time of religious ritual) and the second effect is only positive when you can guarantee that the morality imposed is ethical. Otherwise it is just a system of authoritative control open for abuse.

Indeed in parts of the world religion may serve the first function with little secular competition but this is what you expect when something fills a niche, and ‘good’ people will tend to flock to that because our culture presupposes religion is good. Religion may even help control the more unruly elements using the second principle, but since more religious states and countries do not have a markedly improved ethical society (based on measures of crime) this means that there is no positive effect and the potential negative effects are well documented and tragic. Worse still the imposition of a moral code I think is inherently inferior to the education and comprehension of a moral code.
Shannon wrote: "there are actually moderate and liberal religious organizations who do not believe as you contend, do not act as you contend, and do not make statements as you contend. “
I am well aware of this and have agreed with you on these points but the only positive thing about these organisations is that they are competition to the more bigoted ones, which is only positive when compared to their negativity.

Worse still, and part of my point about moderates, is that because these organisations base their faith on the same scripture and the same moral background they cannot effectively argue or speak out against the more intolerant. For example the homophobes quote Leviticus, Kings, Romans, Corinthians, Timothy and Jude leaving the moderates the unenviable choice of undermining their own faith by refuting scripture, staying silent or getting involved in an involved argument about picking and choosing your beliefs that quite frankly the extremists are going to be right about.

Shannon wrote: "I sometimes wonder that you, as a scientist who wants to delve into the truth and who asks questions of others, do not open your mind to consider such possibilities.”
That is an assumption that because you believe that moderate faiths are good, if I looked into them enough I would agree with you. I have looked and weighed the logic, evidence and rationale and the only positive that I can see is that they provide a more ethical alternative to other religions, but at the cost of perpetuating religious institutions as a whole.

Shannon wrote: "Yet, in my mind, you continually ignore such instances and paint all people of faith with, in my mind, the same brush.”
I do not. For a start there are religions that do not believe in sin in the same manner, yet a lot of them still perpetuate the idea that religious belief without rationale or evidence is a positive thing.

As for your specific example of your Church, can I ask, does your Church simply accept anyone into their membership regardless of gender, race or sexuality, or has your Church authority spoke out clearly and loudly against the homophobia and misogyny practiced by other Christian groups? Do you have, as it were, an anti-Ratsinger?


Shannon wrote: "Going back to my initial question of you .... I asked if it makes you more comfortable to believe that no good can come from religion and that no truths can be answered from religious/spiritual study. … In truth, you didn't answer the question(s).

Apologies the evasion wasn’t intentional, it was more predicated on the fact that the question contained basic assumptions that didn’t apply so I tried to answer what I thought you wanted to know. I will answer again and please tell me if you do not think my position has been made clear.

Direct answer; the question does not apply to me. I do not “believe” that no good and no truths can come from religion. So my comfort in belief is fairly irrelevant. Moreover, my belief would be a religion and therefore quite hypocritical.

I have observed and investigated religion and though I once believed, I no longer see any good that comes from religion that cannot be accessed in another form that does not have the cost of religious belief and I do not see any way that truth can be found from religious or spiritual study when the supposed truth is assumed by belief in the first place, but of course I accept the idea that some methodologies of certain religions (i.e. meditation) can be studied, but the methodology does not require belief in the religion, and the study of religion itself can be quite important in understanding our own psychology and history. Of course the best way to study religion is from a neutral position.

So no. It does not make me comfortable, in fact quite the opposite, as you have clearly demonstrated the usual theistic equivocation between a state of belief and non-belief, without even noticing, and I regard you as one of the more considerate and intelligent theists I have conversed with.

I hope that answers your question properly. Again please tell me if not.

Shannon wrote: "Does it make you more comfortable to ignore the fact that there are moderate and liberal churches who have reformed and who do stand for the rights of all and who don't stand on the scripture as the divine word of God?”

Hopefully I have also answered the question above to your satisfaction? To summarise, I do not ignore them, at best they are effectively neutral, at worst they form part of the basic assumption that faith and belief is intrinsically positive.

May I ask, why have you changed your position from addressing the issues to addressing my motivations? One could assume that this is a subtle ad-hominem attack where your intention is to undermine my arguments by implying bias, without actually supplying evidence of that bias?

Shannon wrote: "That people who read your words, despite that fact that, from time to time, you encourage people to do their own research, would take what you say as, hmmm, gospel? Do you think it might be more responsible to acknowledge all aspects of a topic, not just those that fit with your argument or opinions?”

I do try to take into account all aspects of the topic, the problem is that you are assuming that I am objecting to the principle of monotheism in general and perhaps Christianity in particular. That is not true, I address Christianity more because that is our common background (and with many English speakers). However, it is not just Christianity I am criticising, it is the entire concept of belief or faith as a virtue that I object to. I see no net positive to this behaviour. Whether a religion is intolerant, apologist or neutral, it is still based on the idea that belief or faith is a good thing. I disagree with this at the base level.

I have asked several times where there was a clear advantage, and I have yet to have an answer that has even given a possible advantage.

Shannon wrote: "I, personally, think it's problematic to make a statement such as the one you made about Sharia and evangelists. First, while there are public and legal movements to bring Sharia to the UK, Canada and certain US courts, there is, to my knowledge, no similar movement by evangelists to bring a certain new system of justice to the same places.”

It is more subtle because the modern west has had a distinct gap between Church and Law (thanks mainly to the collapse of Rome and also the Reformation), while in Islam it is much more unified.

Political leaders in the US have advocated the 10 commandments be placed in courts despite the first commandment being a direct contradiction to the first amendment of the US constitution. Right wing political leaders have openly stated their wish to roll back many equality laws and to re-criminalise homosexuality. Many have wanted the adoption of blasphemy laws. In the UK there has been movements to sneak blasphemy laws back in by classing blasphemy against the big religions as hate speech.

I would provide another swathe of quotes and references but this is getting a little long (again, sorry!)
Shannon wrote: "Further, to basically claim that Sharia isn't as scary as some right-wingers in American contend and isn't as horrifying as what the evangelists want to do to us is ... untrue ...

Sharia Law is practiced in the UK as a method of civil dispute resolution between Muslims and is mostly benign (if a little bias against women).

However a full implementation of Sharia Law such as exists in some middle eastern countries does include some terrible things. Yet so does the Mosaic Laws of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Now I don’t want to fall into the trap of the slippery slope fallacy, however I will say “point me out where the line exists between what Christian Laws should be adopted into western society” I am willing to bet that that line would have moved significantly if Rick Santorum was elected.

Shannon wrote: "However, true to my word, if you continue to hold with these opinions, Gary, I support your ability to think for yourself and decide upon your own opinions, even though I'd disagree. I do; however, believe it's for you to choose your own thoughts.”

Well thank you for that (somewhat condescending) endorsement, but I will forgive you because you are overheated :-)

I however am quite open to having you influence my thoughts and opinions via rational discourse.