Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Gary wrote: "Did you at least read a full transcript and interview all parties involved?"
Ahh.... A rhetorical question! Because, as you know, we don't have people in classes who sit and type everything that is said in order to provide transcripts later. So, this either means you're playing with me or think you're making a point.
(As mentioned, the child told me what happened. Then, the teacher told me what happened. The stories matched. Exactly. The only difference was the take on the experience. The child was hurt; he was asking an honest question. The teacher was sick and tired of people who believe FOX news. But, you likely didn't want me to answer that ... again, right?)
Ahh.... A rhetorical question! Because, as you know, we don't have people in classes who sit and type everything that is said in order to provide transcripts later. So, this either means you're playing with me or think you're making a point.
(As mentioned, the child told me what happened. Then, the teacher told me what happened. The stories matched. Exactly. The only difference was the take on the experience. The child was hurt; he was asking an honest question. The teacher was sick and tired of people who believe FOX news. But, you likely didn't want me to answer that ... again, right?)
Gary wrote: "I never said it was wrong to question science, in fact the point of science is that it asks questions of science itself. The point I was making was that it is fallacious to disregard a scientifically supported idea because a bunch of uninvolved people claim something different."
Hence part of the irony ....
Regarding all things fallacious and the disregard for scientific ideas, for the 10th time, the child was asking an honest question ... that deserved an honest answer ... or ... a non-answer. I'm so sorry. This concept is way to hard for you to understand. Therefore, you need to believe me ... I mean, accept what I'm saying. Do conservatives, etc... play games with regard to this issue? Heck, yeah! The 12 year old wasn't playing a game. And! Scientists and the science-minded, in my mind, should have a better comeback, even if it's a game, than, "Nananabooboo, you're so ignorant." The fact is that there has always been warming and cooling. Hello! Fact. Deal with the fact. Explain it. Explain all the factors. I think, even in talking about other factors, one could show that human industry is horrid for the environment and is HUGELY responsible for our current climate and woes. But, I think you've said that's impossible or arrogant or something. So, explain that ... to explain all the factors might lead people to believe the human factor is negligible. It's not. That's a huge risk, so I won't go there. Or, say, it's too complicated to explain fully, but I'd like you to accept that global warming is caused by humans. Don't say, "You're ignorant," especially when talking to a child ... especially when you're teaching a child. One thing was taught in the classroom that day. Don't question.
Regarding the research, I don't know. Yes, question and research. But, as you've said, climate change is such a hard topic and so difficult to explain to people without knowledge of math and science. I'm guessing, if what you say is true, that people would be set up for failure. Right? Ask the question once, without tone, and who knows, people might assume you're an "ist" anyway, regardless of tone ... then, research. But, you'll be researching something that is too difficult to explain and understand. And, if you're 12 ....
Hence part of the irony ....
Regarding all things fallacious and the disregard for scientific ideas, for the 10th time, the child was asking an honest question ... that deserved an honest answer ... or ... a non-answer. I'm so sorry. This concept is way to hard for you to understand. Therefore, you need to believe me ... I mean, accept what I'm saying. Do conservatives, etc... play games with regard to this issue? Heck, yeah! The 12 year old wasn't playing a game. And! Scientists and the science-minded, in my mind, should have a better comeback, even if it's a game, than, "Nananabooboo, you're so ignorant." The fact is that there has always been warming and cooling. Hello! Fact. Deal with the fact. Explain it. Explain all the factors. I think, even in talking about other factors, one could show that human industry is horrid for the environment and is HUGELY responsible for our current climate and woes. But, I think you've said that's impossible or arrogant or something. So, explain that ... to explain all the factors might lead people to believe the human factor is negligible. It's not. That's a huge risk, so I won't go there. Or, say, it's too complicated to explain fully, but I'd like you to accept that global warming is caused by humans. Don't say, "You're ignorant," especially when talking to a child ... especially when you're teaching a child. One thing was taught in the classroom that day. Don't question.
Regarding the research, I don't know. Yes, question and research. But, as you've said, climate change is such a hard topic and so difficult to explain to people without knowledge of math and science. I'm guessing, if what you say is true, that people would be set up for failure. Right? Ask the question once, without tone, and who knows, people might assume you're an "ist" anyway, regardless of tone ... then, research. But, you'll be researching something that is too difficult to explain and understand. And, if you're 12 ....
Shannon wrote: "Hence part of the irony ...."Nope. Still do not see it. I have been consistent with what I said. In fact I was questioning you as to how accurate your presentation of the situation was.
Shannon wrote: "for the 10th time, the child was asking an honest question ... that deserved an honest answer"
For the 10th time I agree, as long as your representation of the situation is accurate.
Shannon wrote: "One thing was taught in the classroom that day. Don't question."
From the version you relate you would be correct, but you still haven't answered how much of this event you witnessed or how reliable was the witnesses that related it to you.
Shannon wrote: "Regarding the research, I don't know. Yes, question and research. But, as you've said, climate change is such a hard topic and so difficult to explain to people without knowledge of math and science. "
Actually the basics are simple. The real problem is that the specifics are so complex that they can mislead people. For example there was many conservatives scoffing at "global warming" last winter because of a heavy snowfall. Yet extremes in weather, cold or hot, are exactly what you would expect from the majority of models.
This ambiguity is then taken advantage of by people with an agenda. The same happens with Creationists. It was once said that a Creationist is actually emboldened each time a 'transitional' fossil is discovered, because this means that they have two gaps in the fossil record instead of one!
Personally I am not an expert climatologist, nor is it an area that I have investigated much in, so generally I will accept the current consensus that it is happening as I understand the basics and it answers the pertinent questions I have on the subject. To doubt it I would need a reason to suspect that human CO2 and CH4 emissions don't effect the climate that we would expect.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "One thing was taught in the classroom that day. Don't question."
From the version you relate you would be correct, but you still haven't answered how much of this event you witnessed or how reliable was the witnesses that related it to you."
I could swear I answered that in a post this morning. But, I'll give you the step-by-step account.
Now, you don't know me personally, so I suppose it makes sense to question my memory and accounting. I will say two things. One, I don't think I've ever said anything in a post that would lead anyone to think I'm one to lie. In fact, I tend to give painstaking attention to detail and give more details than some would like to read; further, I don't think any of my posts or stories have been contradictory. Correct me if I'm wrong? Now, if you knew me, you'd know I never lie. It's the one thing I don't do. Further, you'd know how my brain works. This is the second thing. For some reason, if I hear something, I remember it. Forever and always. A sound, a voice, or words. I'm the type of person who has a freakish memory, especially for all things auditory, and can recite conversations, almost word for word if not word for word, days, months and years later. People, actually, use me for my memory. Administrators who have had questions about what was said in a meeting will contact me. One summer, a parent was threatening to sue over an issue of bullying and harassment that had happened years before. An administrator called me during the summer to ask if, in our transition meeting when the child came to our school, the teachers from the other school labeled the child a bully or a victim. I was able to answer ... something that was said years before. And, when asked if I had taken notes during the meeting, I remembered I did and knew where the notes were ... offered to come down and pull them.
Ultimately, though, you and everyone reading this don't know me personally and don't know if I'm developing an elaborate persona for myself and am making up garbage. So, while I'm willing to give you a step-by-step, I think you can likely still come back and say ... while you answered, I don't know if you're representing it accurately or remembering it accurately. Right? But, here we go.
One day, a boy came to me very upset. He said one of the teachers called him ignorant. I said something along the lines of, "What? No? I can't believe Ms. ___ would say something like that. No."
He said she did. He said the teacher said global warming is caused by humans. He said that didn't make sense to him because there had always been warming and cooling. He said he raised his hand and said ... But, there have always been times of warming and cooling. He went on to talk about, so he said ... and he did with me, different things he'd read recently about warming and cooling during the Middle Ages. Not conservative talking points. He was reading history texts in his spare time, unassigned. Then, he asked ... if there has always been warming and cooling, why would you say global warming is caused by humans and industry?
The teacher repeated herself. He repeated himself. The teacher said only people who watch FOX news would be ignorant enough to believe that. He asked if she was calling him ignorant. She said yes. He said she was also ignorant. She said he had a detention.
He followed that up, Gary, by giving me a look I'll never forget and saying, "Wow! This was such a great day! Ms. ____ called me ignorant, and you called me a liar! She said it!!!!!!!!" He stormed out.
At lunch, some of the teachers were eating together, including the teacher who made the statement. So, no, I wasn't there. But, I heard what I heard from the child and teacher involved. Okay?
I said, ... So, a funny thing happened a few minutes ago. _____ came to me and said ... I repeated what he said, what I said, and what he said.
She said ... I did call him ignorant.
I said ... Are you saying it happened? It really happened? Because I told him I couldn't believe you'd say something like that. It happened?
She said it did.
I asked why she'd react that way. She told me she was sick and tired of ignorant conservatives who watch FOX news and believe garbage.
I said ... Wait a minute. We're talking about _____. You know how much he loves history, how much he reads and how much he studies it. That's what he eats and breathes. He was asking a valid question. There have been times of warming and cooling, pre-industry. He knows it. Knows it as fact. Why not just explain it to him ... answer the question?
Her response ... Are you kidding me, Shannon? I don't care whether or not he loves history. It was science class, and I know his mother is a republican.
I said, "She is? How do you know?"
She said ... Oh, come on, Shannon!
I said ... You know what? I don't know if his mother is a republican or not. I don't really give a flying flip. He asked you an question and deserved an answer. And, you know, I didn't tell you how it ended. It ended with him yelling at me that I'd called him a liar ... because I said I couldn't believe you said something like that.
She said ... Well, believe it.
I got up and left. Sort of guessing she called me ignorant when I left. But, that is truly a guess on my part.
Later that day, I asked the boy to come see me before he left. He was not pleased. Understatement. I said ... I'm asking you, please. But, it's your choice.
He came in. I told him I went to the teacher at lunch and told her what he said. She confirmed that it happened as he said it did. I told him I didn't think, when I said what I did, that I was calling him a liar. However, I could see that it was a fine line ... the difference between saying ... I can't believe Ms. ____ would say that and saying you were lying. I apologize. You've never lied to me. I had no reason to think you were lying, other than the fact that I've never heard Ms. ____ say something like that before. Even so, you came to me and told me the truth and I doubted you. I'm sorry. All I can say is I know you're telling the truth, and I'm sorry that I doubted you. I'll try my hardest not to do something like that again.
He stood there and looked at me for awhile. Then, he said, "Thank you. I accept your apology."
From the version you relate you would be correct, but you still haven't answered how much of this event you witnessed or how reliable was the witnesses that related it to you."
I could swear I answered that in a post this morning. But, I'll give you the step-by-step account.
Now, you don't know me personally, so I suppose it makes sense to question my memory and accounting. I will say two things. One, I don't think I've ever said anything in a post that would lead anyone to think I'm one to lie. In fact, I tend to give painstaking attention to detail and give more details than some would like to read; further, I don't think any of my posts or stories have been contradictory. Correct me if I'm wrong? Now, if you knew me, you'd know I never lie. It's the one thing I don't do. Further, you'd know how my brain works. This is the second thing. For some reason, if I hear something, I remember it. Forever and always. A sound, a voice, or words. I'm the type of person who has a freakish memory, especially for all things auditory, and can recite conversations, almost word for word if not word for word, days, months and years later. People, actually, use me for my memory. Administrators who have had questions about what was said in a meeting will contact me. One summer, a parent was threatening to sue over an issue of bullying and harassment that had happened years before. An administrator called me during the summer to ask if, in our transition meeting when the child came to our school, the teachers from the other school labeled the child a bully or a victim. I was able to answer ... something that was said years before. And, when asked if I had taken notes during the meeting, I remembered I did and knew where the notes were ... offered to come down and pull them.
Ultimately, though, you and everyone reading this don't know me personally and don't know if I'm developing an elaborate persona for myself and am making up garbage. So, while I'm willing to give you a step-by-step, I think you can likely still come back and say ... while you answered, I don't know if you're representing it accurately or remembering it accurately. Right? But, here we go.
One day, a boy came to me very upset. He said one of the teachers called him ignorant. I said something along the lines of, "What? No? I can't believe Ms. ___ would say something like that. No."
He said she did. He said the teacher said global warming is caused by humans. He said that didn't make sense to him because there had always been warming and cooling. He said he raised his hand and said ... But, there have always been times of warming and cooling. He went on to talk about, so he said ... and he did with me, different things he'd read recently about warming and cooling during the Middle Ages. Not conservative talking points. He was reading history texts in his spare time, unassigned. Then, he asked ... if there has always been warming and cooling, why would you say global warming is caused by humans and industry?
The teacher repeated herself. He repeated himself. The teacher said only people who watch FOX news would be ignorant enough to believe that. He asked if she was calling him ignorant. She said yes. He said she was also ignorant. She said he had a detention.
He followed that up, Gary, by giving me a look I'll never forget and saying, "Wow! This was such a great day! Ms. ____ called me ignorant, and you called me a liar! She said it!!!!!!!!" He stormed out.
At lunch, some of the teachers were eating together, including the teacher who made the statement. So, no, I wasn't there. But, I heard what I heard from the child and teacher involved. Okay?
I said, ... So, a funny thing happened a few minutes ago. _____ came to me and said ... I repeated what he said, what I said, and what he said.
She said ... I did call him ignorant.
I said ... Are you saying it happened? It really happened? Because I told him I couldn't believe you'd say something like that. It happened?
She said it did.
I asked why she'd react that way. She told me she was sick and tired of ignorant conservatives who watch FOX news and believe garbage.
I said ... Wait a minute. We're talking about _____. You know how much he loves history, how much he reads and how much he studies it. That's what he eats and breathes. He was asking a valid question. There have been times of warming and cooling, pre-industry. He knows it. Knows it as fact. Why not just explain it to him ... answer the question?
Her response ... Are you kidding me, Shannon? I don't care whether or not he loves history. It was science class, and I know his mother is a republican.
I said, "She is? How do you know?"
She said ... Oh, come on, Shannon!
I said ... You know what? I don't know if his mother is a republican or not. I don't really give a flying flip. He asked you an question and deserved an answer. And, you know, I didn't tell you how it ended. It ended with him yelling at me that I'd called him a liar ... because I said I couldn't believe you said something like that.
She said ... Well, believe it.
I got up and left. Sort of guessing she called me ignorant when I left. But, that is truly a guess on my part.
Later that day, I asked the boy to come see me before he left. He was not pleased. Understatement. I said ... I'm asking you, please. But, it's your choice.
He came in. I told him I went to the teacher at lunch and told her what he said. She confirmed that it happened as he said it did. I told him I didn't think, when I said what I did, that I was calling him a liar. However, I could see that it was a fine line ... the difference between saying ... I can't believe Ms. ____ would say that and saying you were lying. I apologize. You've never lied to me. I had no reason to think you were lying, other than the fact that I've never heard Ms. ____ say something like that before. Even so, you came to me and told me the truth and I doubted you. I'm sorry. All I can say is I know you're telling the truth, and I'm sorry that I doubted you. I'll try my hardest not to do something like that again.
He stood there and looked at me for awhile. Then, he said, "Thank you. I accept your apology."
Gary wrote: "Actually the basics are simple. The real problem is that the specifics are so complex that they can mislead people."
In my mind, it's about understanding or about being right. That's the question we need to ask ourselves. Do I need to be right? Or, do I need to foster understanding? Now, I could be wrong in this. However, I believe I have a point here ... and a good one.
A scientist, a science teacher or a science-minded person could say, "Global warming is caused by humans." Then, when someone says, ... "But, history tells us there has always been ...," the global warming as caused by humans proponent could say, ... I'm right. You're ignorant. I'm right. I'm right. I'm right!!
Or ...
There are people in my family who are conservative and throw out the conservative talking points all the time. "It doesn't matter what we do. There's always been global warming."
I've actually engaged with them. Even though I'm not science-minded, really, I've engaged. Now, I think you've told me this argument is arrogant and grossly misleading and all but horrid, but this is what I've said to them ....
Let's talk about that. You know I love history. There have always been times of warming and cooling.
They'll say something like ... see ... told you.
Then, I start talking about when ... and I ask about whether or not we had industry during those times. Oh, that's right ... no ... we didn't have industry.
Usually, at this point, someone will yell, "Sunspots! It's really sunspots."
I'll say ... I remember learning about sunspots in high school and the teacher saying increased sunspot activity can do all sorts of things, including make for warmer weather. But, let's think about this for a minute ....
If we had extreme warming and cooling ... with and without sunspots and without human industry ... and people suffered ... thousands and thousands and thousands were displaced, suffered from starvation and died, how much worse will it be now. Because now, now, we have the cycles and sunspots AND industry. I mean, come on. You remember summers when we were little. You remember what the air looked like. We next to never had smog. Now, we have smog all the time. ____ can't go outside half the time due to her asthma. It was never like that when we were kids. It is now. Do you really want to look at that and tell me it's not going to have an impact? Do you really think, as scary as times of warming and cooling were throughout history, that industry isn't going to make it 5,001 times worse? Think of what happened pre-Industry and how truly horrible it was. How much more horrible will it be with Industry? I don't know about you, but it scares the crap out of me.
At that point ... yeah, I know ... you've told me it's a misleading argument ... not sure I agree, but ...
At that point, they usually say, "Huh? I never thought of it that way. Why don't the scientists say that? That sorta makes sense."
If I said, "You're ignorant!" they'd say, "No, you're ignorant!" I'd say, "You are!" They'd say, "No, you are!"
Except of course, I don't call people that.
Would I be right in saying industry is "causing" global warming today? If they disagreed and, instead of trying to speak to their arguments, I called them names, would I be right? Scientifically, perhaps. Morally, no. Would they have gained any understanding at all? No. A resounding no.
And, before someone says ... we don't need to understand religion, it's wrong and there's no evidence and if you talk about understanding you're saying religion and science are equal ...
That's so not what I'm saying.
I'm talking about fostering understanding, regardless of the topic.
If it's all about being right, we can throw the word "ignorant" at people all day long. And, we can go home at night and wrap ourselves in the blanket of our rightness.
If it's about understanding, we need to stop with the name-calling and speak to the issue ... whatever the issue might be. Yes, go to common sense explanations. And, if that's just too crazy and wrong for some science concepts, then have the intellectual honest and curtesy to say ... I know there have been times of warming and cooling pre-Industry, but this is such a complex issue. If we were to go into the complexities, people might not understand and might not see industry and THE problem we're facing right now ... but see it as one of many factors. That could lead to catastrophic consequences. At least say that. I mean, come on. Why go the ... I'm going to stick my tongue out at you and call you ignorant... route?
While I might not have had all of the science concepts right due to not have an appreciation of science, I'll tell you what I did do ....
I caused people to think. Wow. What a concept? They started to understand that, in their words, "Holy sh*t, we might be scr*wed." Yeah, we might be. And, one of my family members told me, months later, that what I said really made sense. And, she wanted me to know she was starting to do things differently. She was using different hairspray and recycling. "Me! Recycling!" True story.
Do you think that would have happened if I told her she was ignorant? I don't. Not for a second.
So, for me it comes down to ...
What's really important and what are we truly about?
Is it about being right? Or, is it about understanding? For me, it's the latter.
In my mind, it's about understanding or about being right. That's the question we need to ask ourselves. Do I need to be right? Or, do I need to foster understanding? Now, I could be wrong in this. However, I believe I have a point here ... and a good one.
A scientist, a science teacher or a science-minded person could say, "Global warming is caused by humans." Then, when someone says, ... "But, history tells us there has always been ...," the global warming as caused by humans proponent could say, ... I'm right. You're ignorant. I'm right. I'm right. I'm right!!
Or ...
There are people in my family who are conservative and throw out the conservative talking points all the time. "It doesn't matter what we do. There's always been global warming."
I've actually engaged with them. Even though I'm not science-minded, really, I've engaged. Now, I think you've told me this argument is arrogant and grossly misleading and all but horrid, but this is what I've said to them ....
Let's talk about that. You know I love history. There have always been times of warming and cooling.
They'll say something like ... see ... told you.
Then, I start talking about when ... and I ask about whether or not we had industry during those times. Oh, that's right ... no ... we didn't have industry.
Usually, at this point, someone will yell, "Sunspots! It's really sunspots."
I'll say ... I remember learning about sunspots in high school and the teacher saying increased sunspot activity can do all sorts of things, including make for warmer weather. But, let's think about this for a minute ....
If we had extreme warming and cooling ... with and without sunspots and without human industry ... and people suffered ... thousands and thousands and thousands were displaced, suffered from starvation and died, how much worse will it be now. Because now, now, we have the cycles and sunspots AND industry. I mean, come on. You remember summers when we were little. You remember what the air looked like. We next to never had smog. Now, we have smog all the time. ____ can't go outside half the time due to her asthma. It was never like that when we were kids. It is now. Do you really want to look at that and tell me it's not going to have an impact? Do you really think, as scary as times of warming and cooling were throughout history, that industry isn't going to make it 5,001 times worse? Think of what happened pre-Industry and how truly horrible it was. How much more horrible will it be with Industry? I don't know about you, but it scares the crap out of me.
At that point ... yeah, I know ... you've told me it's a misleading argument ... not sure I agree, but ...
At that point, they usually say, "Huh? I never thought of it that way. Why don't the scientists say that? That sorta makes sense."
If I said, "You're ignorant!" they'd say, "No, you're ignorant!" I'd say, "You are!" They'd say, "No, you are!"
Except of course, I don't call people that.
Would I be right in saying industry is "causing" global warming today? If they disagreed and, instead of trying to speak to their arguments, I called them names, would I be right? Scientifically, perhaps. Morally, no. Would they have gained any understanding at all? No. A resounding no.
And, before someone says ... we don't need to understand religion, it's wrong and there's no evidence and if you talk about understanding you're saying religion and science are equal ...
That's so not what I'm saying.
I'm talking about fostering understanding, regardless of the topic.
If it's all about being right, we can throw the word "ignorant" at people all day long. And, we can go home at night and wrap ourselves in the blanket of our rightness.
If it's about understanding, we need to stop with the name-calling and speak to the issue ... whatever the issue might be. Yes, go to common sense explanations. And, if that's just too crazy and wrong for some science concepts, then have the intellectual honest and curtesy to say ... I know there have been times of warming and cooling pre-Industry, but this is such a complex issue. If we were to go into the complexities, people might not understand and might not see industry and THE problem we're facing right now ... but see it as one of many factors. That could lead to catastrophic consequences. At least say that. I mean, come on. Why go the ... I'm going to stick my tongue out at you and call you ignorant... route?
While I might not have had all of the science concepts right due to not have an appreciation of science, I'll tell you what I did do ....
I caused people to think. Wow. What a concept? They started to understand that, in their words, "Holy sh*t, we might be scr*wed." Yeah, we might be. And, one of my family members told me, months later, that what I said really made sense. And, she wanted me to know she was starting to do things differently. She was using different hairspray and recycling. "Me! Recycling!" True story.
Do you think that would have happened if I told her she was ignorant? I don't. Not for a second.
So, for me it comes down to ...
What's really important and what are we truly about?
Is it about being right? Or, is it about understanding? For me, it's the latter.
Shannon wrote: "I could swear I answered that in a post this morning. But, I'll give you the step-by-step account."Thank you, apologies if I missed it before.
I also wasn't trying to question your veracity or your bias, just how much of the actual conversation you heard and how much you were told.
Working at a school I have heard both kind of situations, one where a child claims that they were being completely reasonable and one were a teacher is exasperated with them. Without hearing specifics I would not like to judge either.
Going by the story the child had presented, intentionally or not, a false dichotomy. He questioned the teachers lesson based on the idea that industrial caused climate change and natural climate change were two exclusive answers, which is obviously not true.
Now obviously the correct answer would be that yes climate has changed throughout history and prehistory, but there is plenty of evidence that human caused climate change since the Industrial revolution is having a a strong and rapid effect compared to known natural processes.
Now I personally would be very worried if any science teacher did not know about natural climate change (the high temperatures during the Mesozoic as compared to the glaciations of more recent periods).
Now if the teacher had mentioned that but the student persisted that it didn't make sense to him I could see her getting frustrated, especially when trying to teach an important subject to an entire class.
Did she overreact? Quite possibly. Did the child think that his own knowledge meant the teacher was wrong, well from the description of his argument, quite possibly. Did the teacher jump to conclusions because the student happened to echo a common denialist tactic, also conceivable.
Yet I cannot condemn the student for being wilfully ignorant of the subject based on what you have said, nor can I condemn the teacher, though I can agree that it may have been unprofessional to express the opinion in class. I know in the UK that sort of thing would kick up a storm whether the teacher was justified or not, which is another reason I wouldn't like to be a teacher.
I saw a cartoon recently that summed up the changes in teaching in the last 20 years of the UK. The first panel was a teacher and a parent staring at a child who was shamefully downcast at their misbehaviour and poor performance, the next panel was the parent and child both staring at the teacher for the child's poor performance.
Shannon wrote: "However, I believe I have a point here ... and a good one."I agree. I do keep saying that.
Yet it only works if people actually listen, rather than simply analysing your opinions for perceived weaknesses so that they can "be right".
Shannon wrote: "At that point ... yeah, I know ... you've told me it's a misleading argument ... not sure I agree, but ..."
It's misleading because it becomes the "one amongst many" argument. Yeah we might be causing global warming, but natural processes cause it too. "Yeah each cigarette I smoke, all the coffee I drink, all the alcohol, does probably mean I am shortening my lifespan, so why should I give up setting myself on fire?"
Shannon wrote: "Why don't the scientists say that? That sorta makes sense."
Well if scientists said that they may turn out to be wrong. In fact it looks like it is wrong. Recent evidence suggests that without human global warming the Earth would have been cooling. So the "making it worse" argument may make sense, until someone points out that the Earth was gradually cooling up until the industrial revolution. Now you have no understanding, and you're wrong.
What scientists say is "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations."
This is the job of science, to tell us what's actually happening, not distorting it to make it easier for the layperson to understand, mainly because when this happens it usually backfires and the public end up misguided.
Shannon wrote: "If they disagreed and, instead of trying to speak to their arguments, I called them names, would I be right? "
I have never advocated that you call people names because they disagree.
Yet I can understand people who lose patience with someone when they continually disagree based on dogma and do not listen to counterarguments or evidence that doesn't support their conclusion.
Shannon wrote: "Is it about being right? Or, is it about understanding? For me, it's the latter."
Obviously that teacher made you very angry, and I agree that calling people ignorant instead of engaging with them can be very counter productive. You do not need to keep repeating the point I have agreed to repeatedly.
The irony here of course is that your point is one I have advocated from the start. I am not going to say "we don't need to understand religion, it's wrong", because that itself is a religious argument. Yet faith and belief in religion is a quiet way of claiming that you are "right" and refuting understanding.
So yes I agree with you, and this has been my point about faith and belief all along. Faith is claiming that you are right and refusing to accept the possibility you could be wrong or trying to understand why you may be wrong or why you have faith in the first place.
wow, you both enlighten me, thanks for the elucidating comments. I learn so much in reading your threads, both Gary and Shannon.
Robin wrote: "wow, you both enlighten me, thanks for the elucidating comments. I learn so much in reading your threads, both Gary and Shannon."Feel free to get a word in edgeways any time you like :-D
no thanks, you two are doing just fine.
Nadir wrote: "Actually, this is a question on the reading group guides. I like the topic so I bring it up here.I'm an atheist myself so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I'm not implying that re..."
I agree April
This won't interest everyone, but it might interest some. A bit ago, I mentioned the sexualization of girls in a conversation regarding homeschooling with Gary. (This has nothing to do with homeschooling.) Today, I read an article about the sexualization of girls. It mentioned that the American Psychological Association raised an alarm about this in a 2007 report. I did some looking. I read the 2007 report but found there was a 2010 report. The 2010 report repeated most of what was in the 2007 report but also added information.
If you read the back and forth between us and are interested in the subject, you might want to read this report. I was discussing the topic based on my experience, things I'd seen and heard, and what made sense to me. Likely better to turn to this ... as they discuss studies, etc... Further, it points to some pretty scary stuff ... that we might want to consider.
Oh, yes, off topic, I know. But, personally, I think it's an important topic and ... since we talk of evidence here ... this is the 2010 report, but you can google the 2007 report ...
http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/...
If you read the back and forth between us and are interested in the subject, you might want to read this report. I was discussing the topic based on my experience, things I'd seen and heard, and what made sense to me. Likely better to turn to this ... as they discuss studies, etc... Further, it points to some pretty scary stuff ... that we might want to consider.
Oh, yes, off topic, I know. But, personally, I think it's an important topic and ... since we talk of evidence here ... this is the 2010 report, but you can google the 2007 report ...
http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/...
Shannon wrote: "http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/... "Well I've skimmed it and the report does cover a lot of the research that I have been aware of beforehand. I will try to read it in depth when I have some more time.
I remember hearing a great quote which said, "When an overweight woman, with poor hygiene, bad skin and hair with ill fitting, stained clothes can look at a younger, better groomed man passing them on the street and think 'I bet he fancies me' there will finally be equality of the sexes."
It does refer back to the conversation on Climate Change in a way. Such an issue is immensely complex and sometimes 'common sense' is a poor guide, but still it gets used to simplify and blame a complex problem on something that exempts us from responsibility.
I have heard the Puritanical/Evangelist/Muslim tirade on many occasions on how a woman should dress modestly, and any form of nudity (even when breast-feeding) is taboo. Now it seems to be common sense that if a woman is dressed in revealing clothes that she will be more objectified, yet the actual objectification happens well before the woman's clothes become an issue. There is a good example in the report of this were the comparison was made between the reaction of a victorious athlete removing their top in celebration. For the male it did not even occur to the commentators that there was anything sexual about it, for the female it was the primary talking point.
Whether you think girls should dress modestly or want them to dress provocatively, the result is still objectifying the woman.
I had a bit of a moment when it started to talk about "Intrapsychic contributions" but apparently the term is used in psychology in a "non-telepathic" kind of context :-)
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/... "
Well I've skimmed it and the report does cover a lot of the research that I have been aware of beforehand. I will try to read it in dept..."
Mmmm.... I think it would be enlightening if people read the report and came to their own conclusions.
Well I've skimmed it and the report does cover a lot of the research that I have been aware of beforehand. I will try to read it in dept..."
Mmmm.... I think it would be enlightening if people read the report and came to their own conclusions.
Shannon wrote: "Mmmm.... I think it would be enlightening if people read the report and came to their own conclusions."Indeed, but how many people will? Let's face it you could read reports 24/7 and still be uninformed about something.
However, where this becomes useful is when you try to come up with a policy to combat the problems arising and you can get genuine information on the causes of sexual objectification, and an idea on how effective that policy would be.
Meanwhile in the UK there are things like;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/201...
where some Christian schools are refusing to allow their pupils scientifically tested vaccines to help prevent cancer. Why? Well HPV is a STD and therefore the idea is that a "moral" woman who only has sex with one partner within marriage has a low chance of catching it, yet the chance is not zero. So the only possible reasons are that either the idea that their kids could catch an STD is insulting, or perhaps it is just punishment for illicit sex or perhaps they think (like has been commented before) that having an injection will encourage their girls to be promiscuous?
A girl may be the paragon of "virtue", only having sex with her husband and only when trying for children and if her husband is already infected, or if he secretly sleeps around or if the horrific happens and she is raped, she could die of the HPV induced cancer as easy as anyone else. To refuse preventative medical treatment because of prudery is beyond short-sighted or ignorance, it is outright evil.
By the way, for some weird reason, when one clicks on the site in Gary's response ... then my response to Gary ... it is different from the original site I gave. I don't know why. The original gives the full report.
Here's the full 2010 report ... if you're interested ...
http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/...
Here's the full 2010 report ... if you're interested ...
http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/...
Shannon wrote: "Here's the full 2010 report ... if you're interested ..."Thanks. Not sure why that happened.
Science and religion both are two different poles but both are essential and in a sense to see them has all the root present. I'd like to be scientific as well as religious but my religion would be different than the meaning we have got about this particular word and also my meaning of science would be varied than the others. As an individual I love science as it has all the power of making one's life more easier and comfortable but I can't manage my life without religion as it gives pleasures of the mind and body. My religion is universal and my science is absolute.
Vishal wrote: "I'd like to be scientific as well as religious but my religion would be different than the meaning we have got about this particular word and also my meaning of science would be varied than the others. "So science and religion are the same kind of thing as long as we are talking about your (as yet undefined) definitions of science and religion?
Vishal wrote: "As an individual I love science as it has all the power of making one's life more easier and comfortable"
But you don't care about knowledge or truth as long as science just keeps you warm and fed? What about the power of preserving life, not just your own?
Vishal wrote: "but I can't manage my life without religion as it gives pleasures of the mind and body."
So you cannot manage without these pleasures? What wouldn't you sacrifice for them? If your religion led to the deaths and suffering of others would you not care because you have your pleasure? What if your religion is wrong, does that matter as long as you have pleasure?
Vishal wrote: "My religion is universal and my science is absolute. "
So I assume that first you are claiming that your religion is universal and therefore all other religions are not? Plus if your science is absolute and your religion is universal, what happens when they tell you different things, or when scientific knowledge changes? Does this mean that your science must conform to religion (therefore it isn't science) or that your religion must conform to science (therefore isn't religion then redundant)?
Gary wrote: "Indeed, but how many people will? Let's face it you could read reports 24/7..."
The point is to make the information available, especially since we shared our thoughts on the matter and people read them. Best to look at the evidence. The evidence seems to indicate that girls are objectified ... that societies that objectify girls have a greater acceptance of sexual harassment, among other things, and that their are serious negative consequences for girls ... including cognitive consequences. But, I'd rather not say more. I'd rather people who are interested read for themselves ... rather than just read our words.
Regarding the topic you've introduced ... Christian schools in the UK refusing to allow school girls to have the HPV vaccination ....
I have one question. Why are vaccinations handled through the schools in the UK? It seems rather odd to me. Why would parents leave something like vaccinations in the hands of schools? And, I can't say that I'm shocked that religious schools, which I assume aren't under the control of the government, would deny certain things ... hence the problem of abnegating responsibility to the schools.
In this country, parents and doctors have charge of vaccinations. Schools ask for proof of vaccination, yes, and can deny children entrance to schools if they've not been vaccinated. However, our vaccinations are done at the doctor's office.
Now, I can say, if I recall correctly, that things are a bit different here, in that .... I believe Texas ... red state, conservative, governed by a Christian governor, mandates that all girls be given the HPV vaccination, unless their parents opt out. That came out awhile ago, so I could be wrong. I don't think I am. So ... not all Christians deny medical services ... such as the HPV vaccination.
Also, my mother has always been sorely ticked off by the HPV vaccination. Why? Puritanical beliefs? Actually, she's ticked off with a "p" because boys and men spread the infection ... give the infection to girls and women. Therefore, she wonders why girls are being vaccinated. Why aren't boys vaccinated? Or, why aren't both boys and girls vaccinated? Oh, no ... only girls. She debated her doctor about this a few years ago. Wasn't it true that boys and men gave HPV to women? Yes. Could a vaccination be developed for boys? He thought so. Why, then, were the vaccinations made for girls? Well, since girls get HPV and might develop cervical cancer, isn't it best to vaccinate girls? Why trust that boys and men would have the vaccination? My mother asked ... if states are making it mandatory to be vaccinated, we wouldn't have to trust that boys are being vaccinated .... At the very least, she argued that both should be vaccinated. He had no answer. But, perhaps I digress.
The point is to make the information available, especially since we shared our thoughts on the matter and people read them. Best to look at the evidence. The evidence seems to indicate that girls are objectified ... that societies that objectify girls have a greater acceptance of sexual harassment, among other things, and that their are serious negative consequences for girls ... including cognitive consequences. But, I'd rather not say more. I'd rather people who are interested read for themselves ... rather than just read our words.
Regarding the topic you've introduced ... Christian schools in the UK refusing to allow school girls to have the HPV vaccination ....
I have one question. Why are vaccinations handled through the schools in the UK? It seems rather odd to me. Why would parents leave something like vaccinations in the hands of schools? And, I can't say that I'm shocked that religious schools, which I assume aren't under the control of the government, would deny certain things ... hence the problem of abnegating responsibility to the schools.
In this country, parents and doctors have charge of vaccinations. Schools ask for proof of vaccination, yes, and can deny children entrance to schools if they've not been vaccinated. However, our vaccinations are done at the doctor's office.
Now, I can say, if I recall correctly, that things are a bit different here, in that .... I believe Texas ... red state, conservative, governed by a Christian governor, mandates that all girls be given the HPV vaccination, unless their parents opt out. That came out awhile ago, so I could be wrong. I don't think I am. So ... not all Christians deny medical services ... such as the HPV vaccination.
Also, my mother has always been sorely ticked off by the HPV vaccination. Why? Puritanical beliefs? Actually, she's ticked off with a "p" because boys and men spread the infection ... give the infection to girls and women. Therefore, she wonders why girls are being vaccinated. Why aren't boys vaccinated? Or, why aren't both boys and girls vaccinated? Oh, no ... only girls. She debated her doctor about this a few years ago. Wasn't it true that boys and men gave HPV to women? Yes. Could a vaccination be developed for boys? He thought so. Why, then, were the vaccinations made for girls? Well, since girls get HPV and might develop cervical cancer, isn't it best to vaccinate girls? Why trust that boys and men would have the vaccination? My mother asked ... if states are making it mandatory to be vaccinated, we wouldn't have to trust that boys are being vaccinated .... At the very least, she argued that both should be vaccinated. He had no answer. But, perhaps I digress.
Gary wrote: "Vishal wrote: "I'd like to be scientific as well as religious but my religion would be different than the meaning we have got about this particular word and also my meaning of science would be vari..."
When I say my religion is universal of course I say I'm not Christan, not Mohamdan, not Hindu, not Buddhist and nothing. I say I'm what I am a person not entangled with those religions but at the same time not losing its essence. So then it becomes mine, mine for my preservation of individuality. And when I say my science is absolute it means I delve in truth. Who tells you different things? The whole process of science is to bring truth and not to stick with one perspective if it is so then what essence it will carry and the person who says I am only the one correct being is not at all scientific.
And when I say easier and comfortable I am not saying warm and fed only. It is just the outer layer. Do you think thousands of years before people were not eating and not sleeping well? In the situation they were living their meaning of good warming and good feeding was different. Today it has grown wider and scientific but you can't say they were wrong, the whole thing is gradually progressing and it is not possible if first step has not been taken so you have to initiate whether the step is wrong or right is invalid then. They were not wrong, just different. You say knowledge or truth and preserving others lives, is not it the science which is also destroying lives. And any knowledge or truth science discovers its benefit ultimately goes to humanity. Do not differentiate knowledge and truth from man's body. So don't get me wrong I say easier because it stands for humanity and I say comfortable because it gives comfortability to humanity although you interpret it in any sense.
I said both are different poles so I don't mean one or same. One is needed for body and another is needed for soul. You have every right you define soul as you please.
When I say my religion is universal of course I say I'm not Christan, not Mohamdan, not Hindu, not Buddhist and nothing. I say I'm what I am a person not entangled with those religions but at the same time not losing its essence. So then it becomes mine, mine for my preservation of individuality. And when I say my science is absolute it means I delve in truth. Who tells you different things? The whole process of science is to bring truth and not to stick with one perspective if it is so then what essence it will carry and the person who says I am only the one correct being is not at all scientific.
And when I say easier and comfortable I am not saying warm and fed only. It is just the outer layer. Do you think thousands of years before people were not eating and not sleeping well? In the situation they were living their meaning of good warming and good feeding was different. Today it has grown wider and scientific but you can't say they were wrong, the whole thing is gradually progressing and it is not possible if first step has not been taken so you have to initiate whether the step is wrong or right is invalid then. They were not wrong, just different. You say knowledge or truth and preserving others lives, is not it the science which is also destroying lives. And any knowledge or truth science discovers its benefit ultimately goes to humanity. Do not differentiate knowledge and truth from man's body. So don't get me wrong I say easier because it stands for humanity and I say comfortable because it gives comfortability to humanity although you interpret it in any sense.
I said both are different poles so I don't mean one or same. One is needed for body and another is needed for soul. You have every right you define soul as you please.
Vishal wrote: "Gary wrote: "Vishal wrote: "I'd like to be scientific as well as religious but my religion would be different than the meaning we have got about this particular word and also my meaning of science ..."
Another thing I'd forgotten may be it will give you what I think.
Just read this question I was confused. Just asking which one is a division and division makes discussion and argument and two opposite party and it is understandable because this question is in a discussion section. But then everything reach nowhere and no possible answers can be chosen. Just by this whole essence becomes wastage. Why can't we just given the authority to choose the good taste from both. Why can't we be just one clean sheet and write what we please.
Another thing I'd forgotten may be it will give you what I think.
Just read this question I was confused. Just asking which one is a division and division makes discussion and argument and two opposite party and it is understandable because this question is in a discussion section. But then everything reach nowhere and no possible answers can be chosen. Just by this whole essence becomes wastage. Why can't we just given the authority to choose the good taste from both. Why can't we be just one clean sheet and write what we please.
Shannon, vaccinations aren't handled by schools, instead schools are considered an ideal place to do them, cos you can just get the kids to line up and have the vaccine, instead of having to get them all to make appointments and go to their doctors. Its a quicker easier way of doing it. Whenever a vaccination is being offered in a school, all the parents are informed and have full control over whether their child gets it or not, its simply that the venue is a good one, as the kids are all going to be there anyway.
Shannon wrote: "Best to look at the evidence. The evidence seems to indicate that girls are objectified ... that societies that objectify girls have a greater acceptance of sexual harassment, among other things, and that their are serious negative consequences for girls ... including cognitive consequences."Agreed. Yet there is still a big difference between knowing that girls are objectified in society and finding appropriate and effective measures to counteract it.
But yes, it was a good idea to make it available.
Shannon wrote: "I have one question. Why are vaccinations handled through the schools in the UK?"
I don't know for certain, I think it may actually just be easier as by law every child must attend a school therefore by organising it through school you have the best chance of ensuring everyone gets a chance.
Shannon wrote: "And, I can't say that I'm shocked that religious schools, which I assume aren't under the control of the government, would deny certain things ... hence the problem of abnegating responsibility to the schools."
Actually the UK doesn't have separation of Church and State and there are many state funded faith schools. Unfortunately it is likely to get worse as the coalition government encourages "free schools" and other projects designed to get more private investment into education. This is always an issue as private investment usually comes with vested interest.
To receive government money schools do need to fulfil the National Curriculum, however that is small protection.
But yes, I am not shocked by religious schools actions, but then I expect - based on experience - hypocrisy, misogyny, anti-science and misguided authoritarianism from faith institutions.
Shannon wrote: "In this country, parents and doctors have charge of vaccinations. "
That's the country with no state healthcare, that is in uproar over the PPACA and has had people public cheering the idea of uninsured injured people being left to die?
Leaving it to doctors and parents would assume that the parents are well informed and doctors are widely available, even to the poor.
Unfortunately since the invention of inoculation in the 18th century religious leaders have decried it as being evil. Michelle Bachmann (US presidential candidate) claimed it caused "mental retardation" as recently as 2011, a claim which has no scientific evidence.
Meanwhile about 15% of the US (46M people) live in poverty which according to the US census bureau is also around the same amount who have no insurance. (obviously PPACA will hopefully fix that.)
So yes I can see it would be common sense for it to be doctors and parents to organise this, but once again it seems common sense doesn't quite fit with the reality of the situation.
Parental refusal to vaccinate was attributed to an outbreak of measles in Indiana http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/...
Shannon wrote: "I believe Texas ... red state, conservative, governed by a Christian governor, mandates that all girls be given the HPV vaccination, unless their parents opt out."
That's heartening to hear.
Shannon wrote: "not all Christians deny medical services"
Yes I am aware it is a minority.
Shannon wrote: "Therefore, she wonders why girls are being vaccinated. Why aren't boys vaccinated? Or, why aren't both boys and girls vaccinated?"
That's a damn good question actually.
According to the quick bit of research I just did, men are being encouraged to take the HPV vaccine in the US specifically because of the low uptake in women. However, considering cost effectiveness since the majority of cancers caused by HPV are cervical then concentrating on the vaccination of women who are the ones most at risk seems sensible, particularly if money is an issue. According to the Kinsey institute the average number of sexual partners a woman has in her lifetime is 4. Now lets (for no particular good reason) assume that it averages to 2 for "good Christian girls" that still means that each dollar spent on treating girls alone would be twice as effective as treating boys.
Though saying that, boys still benefit from a lowered risk of genital warts and anal cancer.
Vishal wrote: "When I say my religion is universal of course I say I'm not Christan, not Mohamdan, not Hindu, not Buddhist and nothing."So what religion are you? Do you just believe whatever sounds right at the time?
Vishal wrote: "The whole process of science is to bring truth and not to stick with one perspective if it is so then what essence it will carry and the person who says I am only the one correct being is not at all scientific."
Yet if you claim to not believe in any specific religion but do believe in a religion of your own, then you are the one saying you are correct, and therefore by your definition not being scientific.
Vishal wrote: "Do you think thousands of years before people were not eating and not sleeping well? ... Today it has grown wider and scientific but you can't say they were wrong"
Yes you can, just as subsequent ideas will show that we were wrong in some of our ideas.
My point was that science is a lot more than just making us comfortable.
Vishal wrote: "You say knowledge or truth and preserving others lives, is not it the science which is also destroying lives."
No science didn't destroy them, people did. People managed to use science to kill more people quicker, but the amount compared to the amount saved is immense. Even with the sciences of agriculture, sanitation and urbanisation the worlds population was a fraction of what it is now, and we lived for less than half the amount of time and around half of children never made it to adulthood and many women died in childbirth.
Vishal wrote: "I said both are different poles so I don't mean one or same. One is needed for body and another is needed for soul. You have every right you define soul as you please."
If you claim that they are two poles then you're claiming equivalence, one that is not supported.
Why is religion needed for the soul? Which religion is needed for the soul? What is a soul anyway?
If you define soul as you please then you are saying that the term is intrinsically meaningless.
Vishal wrote: "Why can't we just given the authority to choose the good taste from both. Why can't we be just one clean sheet and write what we please. "
Because you are assuming that both contain good things, moreover good things that cannot be substituted from elsewhere. This is generally true of science, however there has yet to be a convincing argument that shows something that religion gives us that cannot be obtained from a secular source.
Michael wrote: "i think Southpark answers this question remarkably well."Agreed
Gary wrote: "That's the country with no state healthcare, that is in uproar over the PPACA and has had people public cheering the idea of uninsured injured people being left to die?"
Hazel and Gary .... Thanks for the info on vaccinations in the UK and information on UK schools. Very interesting.
Regarding the above statement, it's a bit misleading. More than a bit, actually.
Most individual states have programs that ensure that all children have health care/health insurance. Yes, if you have a job and have health insurance, your child or children are covered under your employer's insurance. However, many states provide free health care to children whose parents don't have insurance. It's called Dr. Dinosaur in Vermont and Healthy Kids in New Hampshire. I don't know how many states have this, so I can't speak to that.
Further, people don't cheer at the thought of people being left to die. A bit of hyperbole, perhaps. In fact, regardless of whether or not someone is insured, anyone can go to an emergency room in any hospital here. They must be served ... may not be turned away. I know of a young man who was in a horrible motor vehicle accident. He was taken via life flight to a hospital, saved, and treated for a traumatic brain injury. He was in the hospital for weeks, despite not having insurance. Now, the problem came when he was well enough to be released from the hospital. If he had health care, he would have been transferred to a rehabilitation facility. Since he didn't, he was sent home ... to live with his parents ... with exercises, etc... for his parents to do with him. So, yes, there are definitely problems. However, it's not as if people jumping up and down and cheering when the uninsured have accidents on the highways or heart attacks in restaurants and fist bumping one another because yet another uninsured person is going to die since we don't take care of the sick. Yippee!
I wasn't saying our system is perfect ... or good ... or anything else. I simply find it bizarre that children are vaccinated in schools in the UK. Yes, I can see that it might be ... convenient and speedy. Sort of a factory line sort of thing. Being raised differently and seeing it handled differently all of my life, it seems extremely odd to me ... and somewhat creepy, frankly. But, people in the UK likely feel the same way about how some things are done here.
I wonder if it's done that way in the UK because you do have free health care. Given that, I'd say it's likely much more cost effective to handle vaccinations in a "assembly line" sort of fashion vs. all of those children having to be taken to the doctor to receive care ... and pay for a doctor's visit.
Regarding free health care, interestingly, I know people who work in hospitals here. Things are changing dramatically, even though the whole free health care thing doesn't kick in for a year or two. I'm told, by very reliable sources, that many of the elderly who are developing cancer, for example, are basically being sent home ... given medicine for pain but not given treatment for the cancer as has been the case over the last several years. Now, people could talk about whether or not such resources should be given to the elderly. Ouch.... Especially given population differentials, baby boomers coming into retirement and not having had enough children to pay for the cost of their medical issues and social security, and the economic woes we're currently undergoing, we likely need to start having some pretty serious conversations. Of course, no one wants to talk about that. Not aloud and in public, at least.
Not having experienced state sponsored health care, I'm not experienced in this. However, my feeling at the moment is this .... It's likely beneficial for some. Young people who don't have insurance, for example. I don't think it's going to be beneficial for others, like the elderly. The elderly who are being denied the care they or their friends had just a year or two ago are rather shocked and dazed by the whole experience. Personally, I find it rather disingenuous. However, it remains to be seen ... how this plays out.
Hazel and Gary .... Thanks for the info on vaccinations in the UK and information on UK schools. Very interesting.
Regarding the above statement, it's a bit misleading. More than a bit, actually.
Most individual states have programs that ensure that all children have health care/health insurance. Yes, if you have a job and have health insurance, your child or children are covered under your employer's insurance. However, many states provide free health care to children whose parents don't have insurance. It's called Dr. Dinosaur in Vermont and Healthy Kids in New Hampshire. I don't know how many states have this, so I can't speak to that.
Further, people don't cheer at the thought of people being left to die. A bit of hyperbole, perhaps. In fact, regardless of whether or not someone is insured, anyone can go to an emergency room in any hospital here. They must be served ... may not be turned away. I know of a young man who was in a horrible motor vehicle accident. He was taken via life flight to a hospital, saved, and treated for a traumatic brain injury. He was in the hospital for weeks, despite not having insurance. Now, the problem came when he was well enough to be released from the hospital. If he had health care, he would have been transferred to a rehabilitation facility. Since he didn't, he was sent home ... to live with his parents ... with exercises, etc... for his parents to do with him. So, yes, there are definitely problems. However, it's not as if people jumping up and down and cheering when the uninsured have accidents on the highways or heart attacks in restaurants and fist bumping one another because yet another uninsured person is going to die since we don't take care of the sick. Yippee!
I wasn't saying our system is perfect ... or good ... or anything else. I simply find it bizarre that children are vaccinated in schools in the UK. Yes, I can see that it might be ... convenient and speedy. Sort of a factory line sort of thing. Being raised differently and seeing it handled differently all of my life, it seems extremely odd to me ... and somewhat creepy, frankly. But, people in the UK likely feel the same way about how some things are done here.
I wonder if it's done that way in the UK because you do have free health care. Given that, I'd say it's likely much more cost effective to handle vaccinations in a "assembly line" sort of fashion vs. all of those children having to be taken to the doctor to receive care ... and pay for a doctor's visit.
Regarding free health care, interestingly, I know people who work in hospitals here. Things are changing dramatically, even though the whole free health care thing doesn't kick in for a year or two. I'm told, by very reliable sources, that many of the elderly who are developing cancer, for example, are basically being sent home ... given medicine for pain but not given treatment for the cancer as has been the case over the last several years. Now, people could talk about whether or not such resources should be given to the elderly. Ouch.... Especially given population differentials, baby boomers coming into retirement and not having had enough children to pay for the cost of their medical issues and social security, and the economic woes we're currently undergoing, we likely need to start having some pretty serious conversations. Of course, no one wants to talk about that. Not aloud and in public, at least.
Not having experienced state sponsored health care, I'm not experienced in this. However, my feeling at the moment is this .... It's likely beneficial for some. Young people who don't have insurance, for example. I don't think it's going to be beneficial for others, like the elderly. The elderly who are being denied the care they or their friends had just a year or two ago are rather shocked and dazed by the whole experience. Personally, I find it rather disingenuous. However, it remains to be seen ... how this plays out.
Funmi wrote: "If there is a God, I think he/she would be a scientist."Why would 'god' need to be a scientist? They wouldn't need science to find out truth.
I can't speak to Bachmann. I'm not a fan and don't pay much attention to her. I've not heard about her stance on immunizations. However, I can speak, to the smallest degree, regarding concerns about immunizations in this country.
Some things were left unsaid in Gary's post. Just as I didn't know about vaccinations in the UK, perhaps people in the UK don't know about some of our concerns regarding vaccinations in the US. It's definitely not as simple as ... religious people are against vaccinations. Times 1,000.
As some are aware, minorities and prisoners have been experimented upon in this country. One of the most famous cases involved the African American men who were told they were being immunized and were injected with syphilis.
Proof or no, many soldiers returned home from the first war in the Gulf with Gulf War Syndrome. Many here knew someone who suffered from it. I did. Mystery illness. Many talked of all the immunizations and pills they were given prior to being sent over. No one trusted the government when they said they didn't do any testing on our troops and didn't place anything experimental in their immunizations or pills. I've not heard much about it in recent years. I must admit I stopped paying attention. Why? I thought the government was totally and completely full of it. Was it the immunizations and pills? Was it something else? Were they infected with something in the Gulf? Chemical weapons exposure? I honestly don't know and don't have a hunch. However, I'm 90% the government knows and doesn't much care to make that public. Something called liability. Now, this might be horribly unfair. But, given the government's history of experimenting on people and covering up all sorts of things, we're pretty skeptical.
I was sorely ticked off when the birth control shot came out. Yes, in order to be put on the "market" and given to women, I'm aware that it had to be tested, etc.... However, not many women here were wildly excited about it. Many, including myself, were concerned. It was just being used for the first time. Who really wanted to be first? Then, I noticed something in the papers. When women were charged with crimes and taken to court, the judge would play a "let's make a deal" sort of game. Several women. Several judges. I remember different crimes including fraud, drug possession, dealing, and child abuse. The judge would tell the woman he'd let her go if she'd be willing to have the new birth control shots. I about flew through the roof every time I saw that. As far as I was concerned, those women were the "lab rats" who'd be the first and convince the rest of us that it was a safe option.
Then, we have the parents who were and still are horribly concerned about mercury in vaccinations ... and whatever else. Autism. Oh, I know. Proof. The government says no. But, do we believe the government, especially about immunizations they want to give us? Not so much. SO many parents came out years ago with stories ... my 2 year old was talking one day, had his immunizations, and wasn't talking the next ... diagnosed autistic. I'm aware science and the government say it was all one big coincidence. Of course, I'm also aware they've also removed mercury from vaccinations. And, there was a HUGE court case a couple years ago regarding vaccinations and autism. If I remember correctly, the family and the, I think it was the government ... but maybe just the doctor, settled. So, we never knew, exactly, what the findings would have been. I think I'm remembering this correctly, but I'm a bit foggy. Some were saying, if the parents hadn't settled, we'd have learned the truth. Those people believed the truth was that it wasn't a huge coincidence.
I'm not saying there's proof of some of this or that people's fears are accurate. However, I've never in my entire life heard someone say they weren't going to be vaccinated or have their children vaccinated for religious reasons. I guess those people exist. Gary has found them, articles about them. But, I'm pretty confident in thinking the vast majority of Americans, who are concerned about vaccinations, are concerned for the reasons I've mentioned. Rightly or wrongly. I don't know that it has much, in most cases, due to people wanting to raise good Christian girls who are all things virginal.
Some things were left unsaid in Gary's post. Just as I didn't know about vaccinations in the UK, perhaps people in the UK don't know about some of our concerns regarding vaccinations in the US. It's definitely not as simple as ... religious people are against vaccinations. Times 1,000.
As some are aware, minorities and prisoners have been experimented upon in this country. One of the most famous cases involved the African American men who were told they were being immunized and were injected with syphilis.
Proof or no, many soldiers returned home from the first war in the Gulf with Gulf War Syndrome. Many here knew someone who suffered from it. I did. Mystery illness. Many talked of all the immunizations and pills they were given prior to being sent over. No one trusted the government when they said they didn't do any testing on our troops and didn't place anything experimental in their immunizations or pills. I've not heard much about it in recent years. I must admit I stopped paying attention. Why? I thought the government was totally and completely full of it. Was it the immunizations and pills? Was it something else? Were they infected with something in the Gulf? Chemical weapons exposure? I honestly don't know and don't have a hunch. However, I'm 90% the government knows and doesn't much care to make that public. Something called liability. Now, this might be horribly unfair. But, given the government's history of experimenting on people and covering up all sorts of things, we're pretty skeptical.
I was sorely ticked off when the birth control shot came out. Yes, in order to be put on the "market" and given to women, I'm aware that it had to be tested, etc.... However, not many women here were wildly excited about it. Many, including myself, were concerned. It was just being used for the first time. Who really wanted to be first? Then, I noticed something in the papers. When women were charged with crimes and taken to court, the judge would play a "let's make a deal" sort of game. Several women. Several judges. I remember different crimes including fraud, drug possession, dealing, and child abuse. The judge would tell the woman he'd let her go if she'd be willing to have the new birth control shots. I about flew through the roof every time I saw that. As far as I was concerned, those women were the "lab rats" who'd be the first and convince the rest of us that it was a safe option.
Then, we have the parents who were and still are horribly concerned about mercury in vaccinations ... and whatever else. Autism. Oh, I know. Proof. The government says no. But, do we believe the government, especially about immunizations they want to give us? Not so much. SO many parents came out years ago with stories ... my 2 year old was talking one day, had his immunizations, and wasn't talking the next ... diagnosed autistic. I'm aware science and the government say it was all one big coincidence. Of course, I'm also aware they've also removed mercury from vaccinations. And, there was a HUGE court case a couple years ago regarding vaccinations and autism. If I remember correctly, the family and the, I think it was the government ... but maybe just the doctor, settled. So, we never knew, exactly, what the findings would have been. I think I'm remembering this correctly, but I'm a bit foggy. Some were saying, if the parents hadn't settled, we'd have learned the truth. Those people believed the truth was that it wasn't a huge coincidence.
I'm not saying there's proof of some of this or that people's fears are accurate. However, I've never in my entire life heard someone say they weren't going to be vaccinated or have their children vaccinated for religious reasons. I guess those people exist. Gary has found them, articles about them. But, I'm pretty confident in thinking the vast majority of Americans, who are concerned about vaccinations, are concerned for the reasons I've mentioned. Rightly or wrongly. I don't know that it has much, in most cases, due to people wanting to raise good Christian girls who are all things virginal.
Shannon wrote: "Regarding the above statement, it's a bit misleading. More than a bit, actually."Well actually it was more of a musing than a statement for the most part. I have been following a bit of the PPACA debate.
Shannon wrote: "Further, people don't cheer at the thought of people being left to die."
I will see if I can find the video. It was a debate with Republicans or Tea Party (I forget which) and the speaker had just been waxing lyrical about healthcare and free choice in insurance. They were asked about a hypothetical young man who never bought insurance because he was young and healthy, but then was involved in an accident that wasn't his fault. Should he be left to die? The speaker looked obviously uncomfortable and started speaking about how it was the persons free choice but then he looked extremely uncomfortable by the cheers and whoops accompanying that broke out when it was suggested that he be left to die.
Shannon wrote: "A bit of hyperbole, perhaps. In fact, regardless of whether or not someone is insured, anyone can go to an emergency room in any hospital here. They must be served ... may not be turned away."
That's good. Sometimes I think that's what they are trying to cut here.
Shannon wrote: "But, people in the UK likely feel the same way about how some things are done here."
Well hearing about things like patients not being able to get insurance because of a "pre-existing condition".
I think many Europeans get uncomfortable with the idea of healthcare as a business, where maximising profit and minimising cost is the most important thing to the people funding the care. Well actually there are plenty that are trying to chop up the healthcare system and sell it off or contract it out.
Shannon wrote: "I wonder if it's done that way in the UK because you do have free health care. Given that, I'd say it's likely much more cost effective to handle vaccinations in a "assembly line" sort of fashion vs. all of those children having to be taken to the doctor to receive care ... and pay for a doctor's visit."
Yeah, looking at the system was eye-opening were the drug cost 300 dollars and then doctors visits charged on top.
The problem with vaccines as a treatment is that though it works superbly, by preventing the condition appearing in the first place it can seem to be pointless. Preventative care often works as a little money spent now saving a lot of money later.
Shannon wrote: "I'm told, by very reliable sources, that many of the elderly who are developing cancer, for example, are basically being sent home ... given medicine for pain but not given treatment for the cancer as has been the case over the last several years."
I don't understand why that would happen. Are these elderly currently insured under your current system and are going to lose it, or are they on medicare and medicare is likely to be cut?
Doesn't seem to make much sense.
Funnily enough we are going the opposite way here. Care is being cut, there are less beds funded to go around. Therefore many people are being sent home where in the past they would have care.
Shannon wrote: "Especially given population differentials, baby boomers coming into retirement and not having had enough children to pay for the cost of their medical issues and social security, and the economic woes we're currently undergoing, we likely need to start having some pretty serious conversations."
Again I am no expert, but I understand the US has substantially lower tax rates than anywhere else in the world, and has dropped substantially since the second world war? In fact WW2 had substantially higher taxes meanwhile the US was actually cutting taxes while prosecuting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously.
Shannon wrote: "It's likely beneficial for some. Young people who don't have insurance, for example."
Well it seems quite disturbing to me to run healthcare as a business. A sick person isn't a customer, they don't really want "choice" or "options", they want to be looked after and cured. The incentives for insurers is to gather premiums and to try to minimise the cost of claims, the incentives for healthcare providers is to sell treatments which then the insurers have to pay. In such a system money is more important than lives.
Shannon wrote: "I don't think it's going to be beneficial for others, like the elderly."
Can you explain that for me, it makes no sense. How can expanding the amount of insurance so it covers everyone lead to people being sent home before any of the provisions are even enacted?
Shannon wrote: "Personally, I find it rather disingenuous. However, it remains to be seen ... how this plays out. "
At the moment the UK are moving toward US style healthcare as fast as they can, while the US have made a slight move in our direction (it's not really socialised healthcare or universal healthcare). In the UK there have been quite a few scandals were private companies have been given private contracts worth millions and completely screwed it up, but still got paid.
Healthcare used to be good in the UK, but slowly its slipping as deep cuts and privatisation gut it for profit.
Its amazing how much of the NHS is already contracted out to private companies. But essentially, what the government has done is cut budgets to hospitals, and then said that any hospital that fails to run on the budget will be sold to private bidders. Its a sneaky and insidious way of privatising healthcare.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I don't think it's going to be beneficial for others, like the elderly."
Can you explain that for me, it makes no sense. How can expanding the amount of insurance so it covers everyone lead to people being sent home before any of the provisions are even enacted?"
It makes no sense to me either. That's why the whole thing seems disingenuous to me. Oh, free health care! Oh, go home and take pain meds until you die. Doesn't make sense. It would actually be great if some of our reporters did some investigative reporting. I wonder if they will. Hmmm.... I doubt it. But, you never know. As I said, I personally know the people and know they are incredibly honest, so, while I was shocked and couldn't believe it, I do believe them. And, you're right. The new law has yet to come into play. However, I know all sorts of people who say things are really changing in the medical field. I wonder if they're guessing. Making guesses about how things will be in the future and making changes based upon those guesses. I just can't say. I don't know. But, I agree. It does not make sense. It definitely plays to people's fears. Many are afraid that we won't be able to afford to provide health care to all. True or not? I don't know. Many are afraid that we won't have enough doctors. True or not? I don't know. But, every now and then, a doctor or doctors will come out and say something along these lines. I just don't know. Can't explain it. But, I'd love for it to be explained.
Regarding pre-existing conditions, .... Yeah, I know. While a large percentage of Americans do not like the health care legislation that was passed, a HUGE percentage of Americans totally and completely support doing away with pre-existing conditions and covering people regardless. To deny people insurance due to pre-existing conditions is barbaric, in my mind. Lacking in humanity.
Regarding the clip you saw, .... I'd say it might be an extreme example. Did it happen? If you say it happened, it happened. I know a lot of people are fed up regarding a lot of things. I know people who work their butts off, have several jobs, yet still can't make it financially. Holy cow! I want them to have services. People I know who are fed up want them to have services. Then, there are other people who tick people off. A family member moved to another state. She found out she had some condition and had to have a baby in the next few years or she wouldn't be able to conceive or carry to term. She, her words, went to a bar that night, looked for a cute guy, and invited him to the parking lot. Enough said. They "saw" one another for a few weeks. She got pregnant. As soon as she did, she moved back to our "home" state. Her words ... Vermont had better benefits. Her words ... She couldn't afford to have a baby and raise a child. But, she had to get pregnant. So, the government could help her. She moved home, rent free but said she was renting. On and on. When the baby was born, she had more benefits than you could shake a stick at. Cheated the system in every way possible. She didn't work. No. At one point, the baby's father even moved up. Healthy. Able. He didn't work. Her words ... Why did he need to work when the government paid them to stay home? Ha, ha. But, of course, she lied to the government about his being here and able to support the baby. At the time, I remember being incredibly angry. I'd always wanted to have children ... from the time I was a child. Despite having a teaching job and insurance, I didn't have a pot to p**s in. So, it wouldn't have been responsible for me to get pregnant. Therefore, I didn't. I remember telling my mother ... I can't afford to have my own child, but, hey, at least I can pay for _____ to have one! Yay! Now, despite my anger, was I willing to say we should do away with such programs? No. People who cheat the system will likely always find a way to cheat and be okay; however, honest people who truly needed help would end up being hurt. So, please don't think I wanted to or want to end things like welfare and food stamps, etc.... However, just about every single person here knows of one of these stories. Even if it's not the norm, when people are struggling financially, they get totally and completely ticked off when they see young and able-bodied adults who scam the system. It tends to color their view. Is that wrong? Do they lose sight of the fact that the cheaters are likely in the minority? Yes. They're human. It happens.
Having said that, living here, I see other things. I see people who collect money for a poor family whose ... mother ... son ... whatever ... need medical care. People will give their last dime and penny. I see people who undergo something horrid. A terrible accident or something that leaves them in a wheelchair or something. People in the community band together, donate money and supplies, and donate their time to help the people build a ramp or something to make their house wheelchair accessible. There was an accident in New Hampshire a few months ago. I don't know if the person was insured. (I'm going to guess that he was.) The point is ... when people saw the accident, they didn't say ... hey, wonder if he's insured ... if he isn't, I'm going to stand here cheering while he dies. The guy was a retired police officer from Mass. if I remember correctly. An off-duty fireman was one of the first on the scene. I believe the car was about to catch fire. The next to arrive were the governor and his state trooper. The fireman and the trooper pulled him out in time. Now, that didn't happen just because they were civil servants. That sort of stuff happens here all the time. And, people give their all to people who are poor and suffering all the time. So, while the crowd reacted as it did in the clip you saw, I don't think it accurately portrays the people here. I'd say it's, to a certain extent, like the "freak" story. While it might have been the experience of the writers who write for the shows you've watched or the books you've read, it's largely not accurate.
Regarding taxes, .... I have no idea what people were charged during WWII vs. now, etc.... Yes, I've heard that we pay less in taxes than many European countries, for example. News agencies have done shows on that. Dateline and 60 minutes and CNN, etc.... I remember watching one about a Scandinavian country. They paid an insane amount in taxes. I can't remember the percentage. But, it was freakishly large. Then, they went into the fact that the government handles their health insurance and day care (and college?) and everyone in that country gets a one month vacation each year. The report asked the viewers if we were willing to pay that much in taxes in order to have those benefits. Well, I sat back and said ... if I paid ... whatever it was ... 50-70% of my salary in taxes, I would not survive. Didn't have a child, so free day care didn't much float my boat. I'm a teacher and get summers off, so .... Summers off ... ha, ha. I already had health insurance. My parents and I had already paid for my college. Well, at the time, I was still paying. What would I get out of the deal? Other than being homeless? More Americans than not still want control of their money ... and don't want the government taking any more charge of their lives than they already do. That just is what it is. New Hampshire doesn't even have an income tax on her citizens. No joke. It's going to be on the ballot this year ... whether or not to institute a state income tax. It will be interesting to see what happens. I'm guessing people will say it's the "live free or die" state and say, hell, no, to an income tax. People joke, during the winter months, that you can always tell when you cross from Vermont into New Hampshire or vice versa. Vermont's roads are well-maintained, cleared. New Hampshire's roads. Ha. Ultimately, though, crazy as it might sound to you, most New Hampshire residents are okay with that. They'll just get studded tires, chains, or stay home. It just is ....
Can you explain that for me, it makes no sense. How can expanding the amount of insurance so it covers everyone lead to people being sent home before any of the provisions are even enacted?"
It makes no sense to me either. That's why the whole thing seems disingenuous to me. Oh, free health care! Oh, go home and take pain meds until you die. Doesn't make sense. It would actually be great if some of our reporters did some investigative reporting. I wonder if they will. Hmmm.... I doubt it. But, you never know. As I said, I personally know the people and know they are incredibly honest, so, while I was shocked and couldn't believe it, I do believe them. And, you're right. The new law has yet to come into play. However, I know all sorts of people who say things are really changing in the medical field. I wonder if they're guessing. Making guesses about how things will be in the future and making changes based upon those guesses. I just can't say. I don't know. But, I agree. It does not make sense. It definitely plays to people's fears. Many are afraid that we won't be able to afford to provide health care to all. True or not? I don't know. Many are afraid that we won't have enough doctors. True or not? I don't know. But, every now and then, a doctor or doctors will come out and say something along these lines. I just don't know. Can't explain it. But, I'd love for it to be explained.
Regarding pre-existing conditions, .... Yeah, I know. While a large percentage of Americans do not like the health care legislation that was passed, a HUGE percentage of Americans totally and completely support doing away with pre-existing conditions and covering people regardless. To deny people insurance due to pre-existing conditions is barbaric, in my mind. Lacking in humanity.
Regarding the clip you saw, .... I'd say it might be an extreme example. Did it happen? If you say it happened, it happened. I know a lot of people are fed up regarding a lot of things. I know people who work their butts off, have several jobs, yet still can't make it financially. Holy cow! I want them to have services. People I know who are fed up want them to have services. Then, there are other people who tick people off. A family member moved to another state. She found out she had some condition and had to have a baby in the next few years or she wouldn't be able to conceive or carry to term. She, her words, went to a bar that night, looked for a cute guy, and invited him to the parking lot. Enough said. They "saw" one another for a few weeks. She got pregnant. As soon as she did, she moved back to our "home" state. Her words ... Vermont had better benefits. Her words ... She couldn't afford to have a baby and raise a child. But, she had to get pregnant. So, the government could help her. She moved home, rent free but said she was renting. On and on. When the baby was born, she had more benefits than you could shake a stick at. Cheated the system in every way possible. She didn't work. No. At one point, the baby's father even moved up. Healthy. Able. He didn't work. Her words ... Why did he need to work when the government paid them to stay home? Ha, ha. But, of course, she lied to the government about his being here and able to support the baby. At the time, I remember being incredibly angry. I'd always wanted to have children ... from the time I was a child. Despite having a teaching job and insurance, I didn't have a pot to p**s in. So, it wouldn't have been responsible for me to get pregnant. Therefore, I didn't. I remember telling my mother ... I can't afford to have my own child, but, hey, at least I can pay for _____ to have one! Yay! Now, despite my anger, was I willing to say we should do away with such programs? No. People who cheat the system will likely always find a way to cheat and be okay; however, honest people who truly needed help would end up being hurt. So, please don't think I wanted to or want to end things like welfare and food stamps, etc.... However, just about every single person here knows of one of these stories. Even if it's not the norm, when people are struggling financially, they get totally and completely ticked off when they see young and able-bodied adults who scam the system. It tends to color their view. Is that wrong? Do they lose sight of the fact that the cheaters are likely in the minority? Yes. They're human. It happens.
Having said that, living here, I see other things. I see people who collect money for a poor family whose ... mother ... son ... whatever ... need medical care. People will give their last dime and penny. I see people who undergo something horrid. A terrible accident or something that leaves them in a wheelchair or something. People in the community band together, donate money and supplies, and donate their time to help the people build a ramp or something to make their house wheelchair accessible. There was an accident in New Hampshire a few months ago. I don't know if the person was insured. (I'm going to guess that he was.) The point is ... when people saw the accident, they didn't say ... hey, wonder if he's insured ... if he isn't, I'm going to stand here cheering while he dies. The guy was a retired police officer from Mass. if I remember correctly. An off-duty fireman was one of the first on the scene. I believe the car was about to catch fire. The next to arrive were the governor and his state trooper. The fireman and the trooper pulled him out in time. Now, that didn't happen just because they were civil servants. That sort of stuff happens here all the time. And, people give their all to people who are poor and suffering all the time. So, while the crowd reacted as it did in the clip you saw, I don't think it accurately portrays the people here. I'd say it's, to a certain extent, like the "freak" story. While it might have been the experience of the writers who write for the shows you've watched or the books you've read, it's largely not accurate.
Regarding taxes, .... I have no idea what people were charged during WWII vs. now, etc.... Yes, I've heard that we pay less in taxes than many European countries, for example. News agencies have done shows on that. Dateline and 60 minutes and CNN, etc.... I remember watching one about a Scandinavian country. They paid an insane amount in taxes. I can't remember the percentage. But, it was freakishly large. Then, they went into the fact that the government handles their health insurance and day care (and college?) and everyone in that country gets a one month vacation each year. The report asked the viewers if we were willing to pay that much in taxes in order to have those benefits. Well, I sat back and said ... if I paid ... whatever it was ... 50-70% of my salary in taxes, I would not survive. Didn't have a child, so free day care didn't much float my boat. I'm a teacher and get summers off, so .... Summers off ... ha, ha. I already had health insurance. My parents and I had already paid for my college. Well, at the time, I was still paying. What would I get out of the deal? Other than being homeless? More Americans than not still want control of their money ... and don't want the government taking any more charge of their lives than they already do. That just is what it is. New Hampshire doesn't even have an income tax on her citizens. No joke. It's going to be on the ballot this year ... whether or not to institute a state income tax. It will be interesting to see what happens. I'm guessing people will say it's the "live free or die" state and say, hell, no, to an income tax. People joke, during the winter months, that you can always tell when you cross from Vermont into New Hampshire or vice versa. Vermont's roads are well-maintained, cleared. New Hampshire's roads. Ha. Ultimately, though, crazy as it might sound to you, most New Hampshire residents are okay with that. They'll just get studded tires, chains, or stay home. It just is ....
Gary wrote: "Vishal wrote: "When I say my religion is universal of course I say I'm not Christan, not Mohamdan, not Hindu, not Buddhist and nothing."
So what religion are you? Do you just believe whatever sou..."
Your claim is that I'm not scientific because I sound like saying I'm correct but where have you got I am saying like that. I follow my own intuition, my own view is not I am imposing my thoughts over other and if I am not imposing it means my is only mine. Correctness or wrongness is the matter when I say you see mine is better than yours but I'm not saying that and moreover I am letting my doors open for any other change. So if I am ready to see through the things across and then this disappearance of adherence is making me in a sense of scientific.
You have asked what my religion is but then just asking that you are ready to know a noun by which I can denote the way I follow and squarely by any means I am not going to denote it. By saying do you follow what is right at the time if you mean situational appearances or instincts then you are getting me in a different way because situational appearances enter and exit and what remains is just the truth but if you mean I am picking right from religion then again you are interested in the noun. I don't say right but essence and essence is different than right. Religious essence comes when you see it through a single man's prospect but when you see religion from community's prospect right and wrong quickly appears.
By saying that people have used science wrongly and science should not be blamed you are separating science from man then if science is different from man's body and mind who is doing research, who is inventing, who is searching? Can you define the invention of nuclear weapons and guns? Define it what its use in this world and I will tell you how science should be blamed for some reason.
When you say equivalence, you are absolutely right because equivalence does not imply nature but just its equivalent impact so we say it's equivalent. Nature can be different and if nature becomes same then where the term equivalence comes, then it becomes the same it comes to the one side. But it is not happening so we say equivalent in that sense.
When I say define soul as you please it means you have to define and search yourself what this soul is and not I will tell you. If anyhow you are rejecting the word soul it means you are rejecting the human being and just considering human as biological terminology as animal or if you just saying science is there only which has a definition and its usefulness just you are standing against human and in favor of robot because if man's living, doing, thinking, behaving, all can be done through science then man hardly would be a man and more a robot it would be. So you have to go in yourself to find what is soul and if you don't believe then yours is yours and other should not be affected by it other wise you will not be then scientific also. Because science is a truth then your not finding is not gonna be anyhow truth.
Your argument is that science has given a lot but what religion is giving can be attained by secular thought. You are at very strong side but even a secular people comes together and create community. But this term community has first created by religion. The religion was created not for the term of today as you are thinking but for the people to make them live together and share their sorrow, joy and ideas together. First words have learned then idea has arrived. Your view of a religion you find is utterly different. Even in tribal areas people follow religion but because you meaning is varied so you say that is not religion. It was religion that has created civilization and provided people to wider their ideas in favor of augmentation and growth. Fanaticism has grown lately in the term religion.
You snatch religion from people and see, is only science capable to control this huge earth. You snatch religion from people and see what they will be. Again brutal and barbarous and even science would very incapable of controlling them. And then you will see why the religion is there.
Please do not try to define anything from its other veil. The simple reason is that you are hardly going deep and seeing the mere upper layer and trying to define all from that layer.
So what religion are you? Do you just believe whatever sou..."
Your claim is that I'm not scientific because I sound like saying I'm correct but where have you got I am saying like that. I follow my own intuition, my own view is not I am imposing my thoughts over other and if I am not imposing it means my is only mine. Correctness or wrongness is the matter when I say you see mine is better than yours but I'm not saying that and moreover I am letting my doors open for any other change. So if I am ready to see through the things across and then this disappearance of adherence is making me in a sense of scientific.
You have asked what my religion is but then just asking that you are ready to know a noun by which I can denote the way I follow and squarely by any means I am not going to denote it. By saying do you follow what is right at the time if you mean situational appearances or instincts then you are getting me in a different way because situational appearances enter and exit and what remains is just the truth but if you mean I am picking right from religion then again you are interested in the noun. I don't say right but essence and essence is different than right. Religious essence comes when you see it through a single man's prospect but when you see religion from community's prospect right and wrong quickly appears.
By saying that people have used science wrongly and science should not be blamed you are separating science from man then if science is different from man's body and mind who is doing research, who is inventing, who is searching? Can you define the invention of nuclear weapons and guns? Define it what its use in this world and I will tell you how science should be blamed for some reason.
When you say equivalence, you are absolutely right because equivalence does not imply nature but just its equivalent impact so we say it's equivalent. Nature can be different and if nature becomes same then where the term equivalence comes, then it becomes the same it comes to the one side. But it is not happening so we say equivalent in that sense.
When I say define soul as you please it means you have to define and search yourself what this soul is and not I will tell you. If anyhow you are rejecting the word soul it means you are rejecting the human being and just considering human as biological terminology as animal or if you just saying science is there only which has a definition and its usefulness just you are standing against human and in favor of robot because if man's living, doing, thinking, behaving, all can be done through science then man hardly would be a man and more a robot it would be. So you have to go in yourself to find what is soul and if you don't believe then yours is yours and other should not be affected by it other wise you will not be then scientific also. Because science is a truth then your not finding is not gonna be anyhow truth.
Your argument is that science has given a lot but what religion is giving can be attained by secular thought. You are at very strong side but even a secular people comes together and create community. But this term community has first created by religion. The religion was created not for the term of today as you are thinking but for the people to make them live together and share their sorrow, joy and ideas together. First words have learned then idea has arrived. Your view of a religion you find is utterly different. Even in tribal areas people follow religion but because you meaning is varied so you say that is not religion. It was religion that has created civilization and provided people to wider their ideas in favor of augmentation and growth. Fanaticism has grown lately in the term religion.
You snatch religion from people and see, is only science capable to control this huge earth. You snatch religion from people and see what they will be. Again brutal and barbarous and even science would very incapable of controlling them. And then you will see why the religion is there.
Please do not try to define anything from its other veil. The simple reason is that you are hardly going deep and seeing the mere upper layer and trying to define all from that layer.
Vishal wrote: "Your claim is that I'm not scientific because I sound like saying I'm correct but where have you got I am saying like that."Because you say you have religion, which means belief, which means that you are placing your personal views above what other people tell you. Now you claim that you are not enforcing your views over other people, but you are every time you make a decision based on faith over evidence or other peoples opinion that is what you are doing. On this very thread you have made the claim that religion and science are both valuable, which could influence other people to agree with you.
Therefore you have acted as if your personal view was correct.
Vishal wrote: "You have asked what my religion is but then just asking that you are ready to know a noun by which I can denote the way I follow and squarely by any means I am not going to denote it."
We communicate via nouns, verbs, adjectives etc. You have made the claim that religion is vital, what I am asking is what do you mean by "religion". Either religion means something to you or it is completely meaningless at which point your supposition is erroneous.
Vishal wrote: "I don't say right but essence and essence is different than right."
However to discern an "essence" or literally "that which is the essential part", then if you are not right then you do not have the essence.
Vishal wrote: "Can you define the invention of nuclear weapons and guns?"
If a man kills another man with a gun, does that make the man less guilty of the murder? As weapons grow more powerful, does our guilt for using them decrease? If you kill someone by pushing them off a cliff does the mountain then bear some of the blame?
Science is the search for knowledge and truth, this knowledge can then serve us to harm or heal, but it is still us that are doing the harming and healing.
If I took a religious idol like a cross and hit someone with it killing them, would you blame the religion?
Vishal wrote: "Define it what its use in this world and I will tell you how science should be blamed for some reason."
Guns and bombs were mostly invented by people who wished to protect themselves from people who do violence with less effective weapons. Blaming "science" for the knowledge of how to hurt each other is as disingenuous as blaming the pen for a hateful and hurtful message you wrote. Do you blame the language that hate speech is written in?
Vishal wrote: "When you say equivalence, you are absolutely right because equivalence does not imply nature but just its equivalent impact so we say it's equivalent."
I said they are not equivalent in the slightest.
Vishal wrote: "When I say define soul as you please it means you have to define and search yourself what this soul is and not I will tell you."
So "guess" is your answer?
Why define soul at all then. It is just a meaningless label for something that you are assuming exists and then guessing what it's nature is.
Vishal wrote: "If anyhow you are rejecting the word soul it means you are rejecting the human being and just considering human as biological terminology as animal"
Why?
You are saying that humans are superior to animals, please say why without violating your initial claim that you are not saying what is "correct".
Vishal wrote: "or if you just saying science is there only which has a definition and its usefulness just you are standing against human and in favor of robot because if man's living, doing, thinking, behaving, all can be done through science then man hardly would be a man and more a robot it would be."
So now you are saying science is inhuman? Why? Surely the one thing that defines humans apart from animals is our ability to comprehend, communicate and understand which is the essence of science.
Vishal wrote: "So you have to go in yourself to find what is soul and if you don't believe then yours is yours and other should not be affected by it other wise you will not be then scientific also."
But if I look within myself for the answer to "what is a soul" then that concept is unique to my guess and according to you impossible to communicate. My guess at soul could be your guess at "banana". The word soul would then be meaningless as we have words to convey meaning.
Vishal wrote: "Because science is a truth then your not finding is not gonna be anyhow truth."
No science is not "a truth" it is the methodology of searching for truth without egotistic assumptions.
Vishal wrote: "You are at very strong side but even a secular people comes together and create community. But this term community has first created by religion."
That is just an assumption. We also created communities out of violence and oppression, with the strongest, scariest and then the wealthiest all taking control of others. Therefore by your argument violence and tyranny are just as essential to us as religion.
I think we can survive quite well if we can give up violence, and if we give up religion. In fact by giving up the latter we will help give up the former.
Vishal wrote: "The religion was created not for the term of today as you are thinking but for the people to make them live together and share their sorrow, joy and ideas together."
So why do you need to believe in magic, or gods, or the afterlife to do any of that? I share sorrow, joy and ideas with my friends all the time without religion.
Vishal wrote: "First words have learned then idea has arrived."
So why can you not define "religion" or "soul"?
Vishal wrote: "It was religion that has created civilization"
Actually civilisation asked questions which was the beginning of science, then belief crept in to make their first guesses "truth" thus religion was born from civilisation.
Vishal wrote: "You snatch religion from people and see, is only science capable to control this huge earth."
No because there is justice, community and morality which all does not require religion, in fact it can do a lot better without it.
Vishal wrote: "You snatch religion from people and see what they will be. Again brutal and barbarous and even science would very incapable of controlling them."
So you are saying I am brutal and barbarous? There is no indication that lacking religion makes people brutal and barbarous. In fact the most brutal regimes ever tend to be religious, take the Taliban or Iran for example where people are killed for dissent and women are abused and tormented. Take North Korea where the leader is treated ideologically like a "living god".
Vishal wrote: "And then you will see why the religion is there."
I do see, and you said it yourself. Control. It's purpose is to enslave people to a set of inarguable ideas. The difference is that without that control people wouldn't be as bad as you think. If religion was the only thing that kept people under control then the rise of secularism in the west would have made for increasingly violent societies, while in fact crime and violence has been dropping year after year.
Vishal wrote: "Please do not try to define anything from its other veil. The simple reason is that you are hardly going deep and seeing the mere upper layer and trying to define all from that layer. "
Actually I could say the same of you. I have looked at many different religions and all have been mundane and simplistic compared to the glimpse of reality that science shows.
Each religion tells one story, and insists that it is truth. Step outside of the constraints of story and look at reality.
Shannon wrote: "Oh, go home and take pain meds until you die. Doesn't make sense. It would actually be great if some of our reporters did some investigative reporting."Again I am not in the US, my comment on the healthcare system was mainly to illustrate that though you thought it was odd for schools to help organise vaccinations instead of doctors, I thought that was a strange concept in a country where access to doctors depended on money.
Yeah apparently there is a lot of scare stories being circulated, yet they don't actually seem to make any sense for the most part.
I must admit that I watch "the Daily Show" for much of my background on the US which no doubt biases me. What was funny with their investigative reporting was when the Republicans held a meeting in Hawaii to discuss healthcare and in interview they were painting pictures of the horrors of socialised healthcare and that no one wanted it. The reporters then pointed out that Hawaii had mandated insurance and had achieved up to 98% cover for its population. The republicans muttered that it was fine in the short term but it would eventually fail, then the reporters told them it had been instituted in 1974 and had been running for over thirty years.
Shannon wrote: "It definitely plays to people's fears. Many are afraid that we won't be able to afford to provide health care to all. True or not? I don't know. Many are afraid that we won't have enough doctors. True or not? I don't know."
Wherein lies the real horror in that attitude. If people are afraid that there won't be enough care for everyone, then they "know" that there definitely isn't enough now. What they are really worried about being the ones that are losing out.
Shannon wrote: " While a large percentage of Americans do not like the health care legislation that was passed, a HUGE percentage of Americans totally and completely support doing away with pre-existing conditions and covering people regardless."
Yeah, that was another funny article. The republicans saying that they'd keep the pre-existing conditions, keep the young adult provision, keep the existing medicare, etc. etc. In fact it seemed the only part they disliked was the "mandate" AKA the bit that actually pays for all of the rest of it.
Shannon wrote: "Regarding the clip you saw, .... I'd say it might be an extreme example. Did it happen? If you say it happened, it happened."
Well I saw a video of it, not witnessed it personally. It could have been staged, but I think the Tea party and their ilk have been saying some insane things.
Shannon wrote: "I know people who work their butts off, have several jobs, yet still can't make it financially."
Yup, same in the UK, plus we are losing loads of jobs as they make savage cutbacks in public services. All in the interests of making us "competitive" i.e. an attractive place for rich people to invest. Yet if our wages and services are cut to let rich people invest, then how are we going to benefit from that investment anyway? Unless you are in that industry that benefits.
Taxes are at all time lows compared to much of the twentieth century, as are regulations, that has resulted in the highest disparity in incomes since before Victorian times. At the same time the world economies are tanking, debt is at an all time high and problems keep piling up yet a small group of people are still receiving 6 figure salaries annually, a figure that would satisfy a lot of people for their entire lifetime.
The reason to me is obvious. When you cut public jobs like teachers and police to cut taxes, you are depriving your businesses of customers. When you reduce public services you force people to save their money for emergencies or spend it on essentials and again your customers are reduced.
We have a consumer economy but a rich man earning the same as a 100 average people is not the equivalent consumption of 100 people. How many TVs, computers, cars does a rich person have compared to 100 average people.
The problem seems to be a lack of shame. After WW2 taxes were heavy and many people were poor, but there was a genuine "all in this together" attitude. Now all we keep hearing about is how a few people get obscene amounts of money, just in bonuses, while the national debt piles up unchecked.
Disclaimer: I am not a rabid socialist, nor an economist, all of the above is just a view point based on what little I know. In physics terms "work" is done when force undergoes movement, to translate that to economics "wealth" is not money, but the movement of money around a system. The more money is spent, the more money is earned and the whole system grows in wealth, but when money pools in one place and stops moving then less wealth is generated.
/Rant
:-)
Shannon wrote: "Why did he need to work when the government paid them to stay home?"
Yeah, this argument always crops up, particularly in the hate-mongering right wing tabloids. They are always going on about "spongers" and "layabouts". Now yes there are cheats who trick the system out of money, and there are those that are lazy enough to not bother working if they can get by on handouts. Does that mean that for their sake the system should be abolished and leave the majority in genuine need to fend for themselves?
Whining about scroungers to me is turning a blind eye to the real cheating going on. First you can only shout "get a job" to people when you are sure that there are jobs to have, but with a global market and outsourcing, jobs go to the country most willing to neglect and abuse its citizens. Does that sound good? There is a reason Apple and others outsources to the sweatshops of China.
In the UK it was estimated that there are 5 applicants for every new job. That means on average 80% of people wanting that job will not get it. Is it fair to call them scroungers when no one will hire them?
Meanwhile right wingers have been calling for a more "competitive" minimum wage, or no minimum wage at all. So to be successful we need to treat the majority of citizens like the Chinese do? Not to mention, as I said above the less people are paid here, the less people can sell products to them so the economy still goes down.
Meanwhile the real cheats pay themselves salaries that would keep dozens of people in luxury and pay bonuses - even when they have actually failed or even profited from other people losing jobs or money. The same people are often also the ones sending money offshore, or exploiting tax loopholes because they can afford to pay a professional accountant to cheat for them and still come out richer.
Shannon wrote: "However, just about every single person here knows of one of these stories."
Yes. For good reason. You will find those stories all over the right wing newspapers while the people costing the government far far more are quietly ignored.
The best way to encourage people to do honest work is to offer them honest pay and decent conditions. Cheating is only worth it when honesty pays so little.
Shannon wrote: "So, while the crowd reacted as it did in the clip you saw, I don't think it accurately portrays the people here."
I don't doubt it, and I am willing to bet that a lot of people who cheered would be moved to compassion if the situation arose in front of them because most people aren't sociopathic. However, in politics and in other areas people often forget things like compassion because the real victims are invisible.
Shannon wrote: "Well, I sat back and said ... if I paid ... whatever it was ... 50-70% of my salary in taxes, I would not survive."
It's really hard to make direct comparisons there. I assume that the country you referred to has teachers and I assume they survive from year to year. So perhaps if things changed you wouldn't have to pay as much for certain things, or perhaps you would be paid more money as taxes are what pays many teachers wages.
The difference is that if a country is paying less and less in tax, yet maintaining the same level of spending and subsidies then of course your debt will be spiralling higher. The choice then becomes do you return taxes to the previous rates, and perhaps try to raise them on those people that draw way more than their fair share from the system? Or do you cut your spending. Now obviously fighting a few less wars would help, but are those wars investments in our wealth or our safety? If they are investments, is it in our wealth or the wealth of others?
Anyway this is quite a tangent from the question of the thread. My point about the inoculations was that here is a time that religion and science are clearly in conflict and clearly effect others. Is it right for a faith organisation to deny medical treatment to children based on their beliefs. Even if you say the children share their beliefs are they old enough to make an informed decision about something that may cost them their life. Finally, vaccination only works effectively when the majority are vaccinated, then the disease is likely to die out. Partial vaccinations of a population means that the virus is free to survive, mutate and reinfect until a strain evolves that can infect those inoculated. So the faith schools decision doesn't just make a choice for believers, it makes a choice for all of society.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Why did he need to work when the government paid them to stay home?"
Yeah, this argument always crops up, particularly in the hate-mongering right wing tabloids. They are always going on about "spongers" and "layabouts". Now yes there are cheats who trick the system out of money, and there are those that are lazy enough to not bother working if they can get by on handouts. Does that mean that for their sake the system should be abolished and leave the majority in genuine need to fend for themselves?"
Just as an aside ....
I'm sure you don't do this on purpose, but ....
When you take one of my quotes, like the above, and give commentary, including the fact that right wingers say this all the time and of course there are cheaters but to take away benefits would hurt people who genuinely need help, it might lead people to believe I'm a right winger who makes arguments about taking benefits away from people. If someone came to this thread and read the last post, yours, and didn't read mine, they'd likely jump to that conclusion.
In point of fact, I didn't "make" that statement. My cousin, who was cheating the system times 10, made that statement. I was reporting it. Further, I specifically said, while I was angry with my cousin for cheating the system, I would never say we should cut benefits as cheaters would always be okay, whereas people who truly needed help would suffer.
Something to think about and keep in mind ....
Yeah, this argument always crops up, particularly in the hate-mongering right wing tabloids. They are always going on about "spongers" and "layabouts". Now yes there are cheats who trick the system out of money, and there are those that are lazy enough to not bother working if they can get by on handouts. Does that mean that for their sake the system should be abolished and leave the majority in genuine need to fend for themselves?"
Just as an aside ....
I'm sure you don't do this on purpose, but ....
When you take one of my quotes, like the above, and give commentary, including the fact that right wingers say this all the time and of course there are cheaters but to take away benefits would hurt people who genuinely need help, it might lead people to believe I'm a right winger who makes arguments about taking benefits away from people. If someone came to this thread and read the last post, yours, and didn't read mine, they'd likely jump to that conclusion.
In point of fact, I didn't "make" that statement. My cousin, who was cheating the system times 10, made that statement. I was reporting it. Further, I specifically said, while I was angry with my cousin for cheating the system, I would never say we should cut benefits as cheaters would always be okay, whereas people who truly needed help would suffer.
Something to think about and keep in mind ....
Gary wrote: "Vishal wrote: "Your claim is that I'm not scientific because I sound like saying I'm correct but where have you got I am saying like that."
Because you say you have religion, which means belief, w..."
Okay from the very beginning you are just trying to drag me at one side. In my whole comment I was trying to live very liberal and following middle path. Somewhat I am exactly like your way but I can't leave the way of life of being religious. Now you are at the one side and from there you are trying to see the whole canvas but it is impossible unless you come in front of the canvas, exactly in the middle. Even by saying you share your love and joy with family and friends you are claiming you are a religious person whether it would be a shock for you because what ever you have learned about religion does not give you permission to see like that.
In India people have created 'Ayurveda' and 'Athrvaveda' and both are widely studied and it comes in religion. People follow these books but the both books are different. 'Ayurveda' is a medical science and 'Athrvaveda' is a mathematics and economics. Now if Hinduism is a religion but it is studying medical science and mathematics? What will you say about it. Now here science becomes religion from Hindus perspective.
What you are doing, the same I am doing but still I use the word religion because if you go through the Hindu's books 'Upnishad' or 'Veda' you would find they are saying the same. Religion means your way of living life. If you are a butcher then your way would be different than the priest or if you are businessman your way would be different than a student or cultivator. So different way of life for different people and that is there religion. Here in India meaning of religion gets differ than the meaning of some where else. Now Hinduism or Buddhism or Jainism in India had started from the search of truth.
You have said science is not truth its the way of find truth. What truth you are talking about? Is your truth is mathematics or biology or physics or chemistry? The whole truth you are talking about, here in India people have done under religion and if your thought about truth is somewhat covers mind also then here in India people already have searched and searching and these all under religion. Previously I stated that fanaticism has come lately in religion. And this because people have misunderstood the very meaning of religion. Now religion has seen through one particular community but it was created for the way of living life and disciplined it according to your need. Don't take need as in negative way, take it as a positive way. Here in India when people ask what religion do you follow and even if you say I am agnostic or atheist, a wiser Hindu or Buddhist will say that is okay, even agnostic and atheist is a religion. 'Buddhist does not believe in God and they wholesomely believe in science so what do you say about them if their ways are secular then are they not religious? They are.
You have said if someone hitting you through a cross should religion be blamed rather than the man who uses it. Now you have to understand completely that cross is not invented for killing but its just the depiction of Christianity. As cutlery is for eating food, kitchen knives is for kitchen or hatchet is for chopping wood. Now who knows when they will be in the hands of man become a weapon? You say bomb and guns are there for the protection of a man from another man. Why man need protection? Who is killing them?
The another man? Why this another man is killing another man? Is there religion which is telling to kill? No religion is not there to say kill, this man is just killing because of the psychology of his. Now will you keep psychology in science? Now if you say yes religion becomes science and you would have to either abolish one word whether science of religion because if religion is a science then you become religious and scientific at the same time. If you say no then it means you are rejecting the study of mind under science and therefor you are rejecting the prospect of man in science and separating it from man because only man's mind can search truth and if mind is involve then you have to involve psychology in science also but then something gets difficult because go study religion and see what is there. The whole religion is full of psychology and a process of understating the mind of human. Though when I say religion is the way of one's own life from righteousness, here righteousness coming because man has gone deep down and seen the only way to keep man from killing another man is just to tell them what is right way of living and it became a word religion. But it was the starting point to understand human psychology. It is beyond the normal man's capacity to comprehend the human mind psychology because it needs a deeper study and if every human will start studying psychology then the whole economy will be stopped. So the word religion came.
When there is no religion, what people will start doing? They will start misusing science as they are doing. But you are rejecting the valuation of religion because you have seen some people who is misusing and taking the benefit from the religion and you have made your mind against it as I have also seen people misusing science what you state man is doing not science and I can also make mind against science but why I am sticking with the science and religion at the same time because I am seeing only man is misusing and both should not be blamed.
In china and russia communism has grown. So what they are not following the popular religion, they say their communism is their religion. Now you will say no, because I know only Christianity and its way and so I say only this way is religion. How ridiculous. Before making any degradation against religion you will have to go deep root of this word and see it from some other facade also.
You have said civilization has born science and religion has born from then from science. Do you know what is civilization? Will you say barbarous people as they have a civilization? Would you say people who were not living in community can create civilization and will we say that? The civilization is created by organizing community and the way of life and even in that time when they live they say they are in religion. I am very surprised that your meaning is just getting the one side where you have I suppose seen priesthood and churches and temples and religious books and you have made your mind that the religion only lives there. The meaning of religion is deep rooted.
See I have defined religion in that sense and when I say first words have come then idea, my meaning is idea has struck us through words and by anyway I am not sounding like I am separating these two. When I say you search yourself the meaning of soul, my only approach is to get you find your meaning and not mine because there is chances mine would not be sufficient for you. It is just as in our schooling we are told by teacher to write our answers in our own word and not imitating the books word. Simply! but you have a penchant to take everything in theological way and somewhat you make every single sentence a matter of argument instead to find what is that.
Okay I will define what I mean by soul. I am very scientific man and everything that happens with me I try to define it by science but then apart from biological factors and mathematical statistics I wonder why I am feeling hate, anger, love, joy, envy, affection and all that. Then I define it through psychology but then I see It hardly giving me deeper answers because it can interpret and write the page on every emotions but when the matter comes to make bad emotions disappear, it comes with the very upper solution and it makes me perfect for some time but then again I have these emotions. I mean something is there which is yet to be explained and found. It means only this psychology is not enough. So to find and destroy it I have to take the help of religion. It is as to go inside the bank you will have to go through stairs and alleys and floor. So I search and find religion is doing far more better than science (word meaning can be differ by thought, please don't count only Christianity or Islam, come near Buddhism or Zen and you will see what is there) in that particular area. And then I go deeper and try to find where these emotions coming? You tell me is there only mind involve is creating these emotions or some effect heart also gives or spine is also involve? And then I see it is coming from the same point in the body and then getting distribution so in my sense I say this point human soul. These all process also happen in Animals but because animals emotions are very volatile and they are incapable of creating any thought about it so they don't know about soul. If by any means we will trained them in the way of humans their soul would be in active stage and then it will tell every thing. But its activeness is only found in human so we say human has a point where it is coming from and that I define soul.
Who says you all religious people believe in God, magic and afterlife? Christianity believes in God and magic and deny afterlife, Islam is against magic and idol worship but it does not deny God and it is against afterlife, Hindu believes in God and afterlife and its soul is against magic and Budhist believes in afterlife only and not in God or magic. You see different the religion different the views are and they have all the way to define what they believe as you are defining. Now God's definition is different in different religion. Magic is created by the chemistry. And people believe on them. It is as you have a car and you know how to drive it but you hardly know what is working inside and how. So if magic happens people hardly go inside to see what is working in there as you hardly see the mechanism of machine. You have just seeing the road from one side but from the aerial view you can find every road's structure.
I told you earlier that right and wrong comes when you impose only likewise if I show my car to another and say see this is better than yours because this is more efficient then another has also the explanation why his is better and then both would be against each other. But if you say mine has this facility and show me yours so that I can learn what is new and impressive in yours and other shows it because then it is not imposition but just sharing and when sharing comes we become friends. Then there is no matter of any argument. Just sharing is enough. This whole world is just trying to impose on each other and sanding against sharing. Any argument is getting you to show you are better and this how you are more over going in a trap of religion. And by this way even your science becomes a religion. (When I say whole world, consider majority and not minority. I am saying it because I have seen your way of argument is some what the way of 'Mahayana Budhism'. And believe me I am very impress by this way. You are superb.)
Because you say you have religion, which means belief, w..."
Okay from the very beginning you are just trying to drag me at one side. In my whole comment I was trying to live very liberal and following middle path. Somewhat I am exactly like your way but I can't leave the way of life of being religious. Now you are at the one side and from there you are trying to see the whole canvas but it is impossible unless you come in front of the canvas, exactly in the middle. Even by saying you share your love and joy with family and friends you are claiming you are a religious person whether it would be a shock for you because what ever you have learned about religion does not give you permission to see like that.
In India people have created 'Ayurveda' and 'Athrvaveda' and both are widely studied and it comes in religion. People follow these books but the both books are different. 'Ayurveda' is a medical science and 'Athrvaveda' is a mathematics and economics. Now if Hinduism is a religion but it is studying medical science and mathematics? What will you say about it. Now here science becomes religion from Hindus perspective.
What you are doing, the same I am doing but still I use the word religion because if you go through the Hindu's books 'Upnishad' or 'Veda' you would find they are saying the same. Religion means your way of living life. If you are a butcher then your way would be different than the priest or if you are businessman your way would be different than a student or cultivator. So different way of life for different people and that is there religion. Here in India meaning of religion gets differ than the meaning of some where else. Now Hinduism or Buddhism or Jainism in India had started from the search of truth.
You have said science is not truth its the way of find truth. What truth you are talking about? Is your truth is mathematics or biology or physics or chemistry? The whole truth you are talking about, here in India people have done under religion and if your thought about truth is somewhat covers mind also then here in India people already have searched and searching and these all under religion. Previously I stated that fanaticism has come lately in religion. And this because people have misunderstood the very meaning of religion. Now religion has seen through one particular community but it was created for the way of living life and disciplined it according to your need. Don't take need as in negative way, take it as a positive way. Here in India when people ask what religion do you follow and even if you say I am agnostic or atheist, a wiser Hindu or Buddhist will say that is okay, even agnostic and atheist is a religion. 'Buddhist does not believe in God and they wholesomely believe in science so what do you say about them if their ways are secular then are they not religious? They are.
You have said if someone hitting you through a cross should religion be blamed rather than the man who uses it. Now you have to understand completely that cross is not invented for killing but its just the depiction of Christianity. As cutlery is for eating food, kitchen knives is for kitchen or hatchet is for chopping wood. Now who knows when they will be in the hands of man become a weapon? You say bomb and guns are there for the protection of a man from another man. Why man need protection? Who is killing them?
The another man? Why this another man is killing another man? Is there religion which is telling to kill? No religion is not there to say kill, this man is just killing because of the psychology of his. Now will you keep psychology in science? Now if you say yes religion becomes science and you would have to either abolish one word whether science of religion because if religion is a science then you become religious and scientific at the same time. If you say no then it means you are rejecting the study of mind under science and therefor you are rejecting the prospect of man in science and separating it from man because only man's mind can search truth and if mind is involve then you have to involve psychology in science also but then something gets difficult because go study religion and see what is there. The whole religion is full of psychology and a process of understating the mind of human. Though when I say religion is the way of one's own life from righteousness, here righteousness coming because man has gone deep down and seen the only way to keep man from killing another man is just to tell them what is right way of living and it became a word religion. But it was the starting point to understand human psychology. It is beyond the normal man's capacity to comprehend the human mind psychology because it needs a deeper study and if every human will start studying psychology then the whole economy will be stopped. So the word religion came.
When there is no religion, what people will start doing? They will start misusing science as they are doing. But you are rejecting the valuation of religion because you have seen some people who is misusing and taking the benefit from the religion and you have made your mind against it as I have also seen people misusing science what you state man is doing not science and I can also make mind against science but why I am sticking with the science and religion at the same time because I am seeing only man is misusing and both should not be blamed.
In china and russia communism has grown. So what they are not following the popular religion, they say their communism is their religion. Now you will say no, because I know only Christianity and its way and so I say only this way is religion. How ridiculous. Before making any degradation against religion you will have to go deep root of this word and see it from some other facade also.
You have said civilization has born science and religion has born from then from science. Do you know what is civilization? Will you say barbarous people as they have a civilization? Would you say people who were not living in community can create civilization and will we say that? The civilization is created by organizing community and the way of life and even in that time when they live they say they are in religion. I am very surprised that your meaning is just getting the one side where you have I suppose seen priesthood and churches and temples and religious books and you have made your mind that the religion only lives there. The meaning of religion is deep rooted.
See I have defined religion in that sense and when I say first words have come then idea, my meaning is idea has struck us through words and by anyway I am not sounding like I am separating these two. When I say you search yourself the meaning of soul, my only approach is to get you find your meaning and not mine because there is chances mine would not be sufficient for you. It is just as in our schooling we are told by teacher to write our answers in our own word and not imitating the books word. Simply! but you have a penchant to take everything in theological way and somewhat you make every single sentence a matter of argument instead to find what is that.
Okay I will define what I mean by soul. I am very scientific man and everything that happens with me I try to define it by science but then apart from biological factors and mathematical statistics I wonder why I am feeling hate, anger, love, joy, envy, affection and all that. Then I define it through psychology but then I see It hardly giving me deeper answers because it can interpret and write the page on every emotions but when the matter comes to make bad emotions disappear, it comes with the very upper solution and it makes me perfect for some time but then again I have these emotions. I mean something is there which is yet to be explained and found. It means only this psychology is not enough. So to find and destroy it I have to take the help of religion. It is as to go inside the bank you will have to go through stairs and alleys and floor. So I search and find religion is doing far more better than science (word meaning can be differ by thought, please don't count only Christianity or Islam, come near Buddhism or Zen and you will see what is there) in that particular area. And then I go deeper and try to find where these emotions coming? You tell me is there only mind involve is creating these emotions or some effect heart also gives or spine is also involve? And then I see it is coming from the same point in the body and then getting distribution so in my sense I say this point human soul. These all process also happen in Animals but because animals emotions are very volatile and they are incapable of creating any thought about it so they don't know about soul. If by any means we will trained them in the way of humans their soul would be in active stage and then it will tell every thing. But its activeness is only found in human so we say human has a point where it is coming from and that I define soul.
Who says you all religious people believe in God, magic and afterlife? Christianity believes in God and magic and deny afterlife, Islam is against magic and idol worship but it does not deny God and it is against afterlife, Hindu believes in God and afterlife and its soul is against magic and Budhist believes in afterlife only and not in God or magic. You see different the religion different the views are and they have all the way to define what they believe as you are defining. Now God's definition is different in different religion. Magic is created by the chemistry. And people believe on them. It is as you have a car and you know how to drive it but you hardly know what is working inside and how. So if magic happens people hardly go inside to see what is working in there as you hardly see the mechanism of machine. You have just seeing the road from one side but from the aerial view you can find every road's structure.
I told you earlier that right and wrong comes when you impose only likewise if I show my car to another and say see this is better than yours because this is more efficient then another has also the explanation why his is better and then both would be against each other. But if you say mine has this facility and show me yours so that I can learn what is new and impressive in yours and other shows it because then it is not imposition but just sharing and when sharing comes we become friends. Then there is no matter of any argument. Just sharing is enough. This whole world is just trying to impose on each other and sanding against sharing. Any argument is getting you to show you are better and this how you are more over going in a trap of religion. And by this way even your science becomes a religion. (When I say whole world, consider majority and not minority. I am saying it because I have seen your way of argument is some what the way of 'Mahayana Budhism'. And believe me I am very impress by this way. You are superb.)
Shannon wrote: "I'm sure you don't do this on purpose, but ....When you take one of my quotes, like the above, and give commentary, including the fact that right wingers say this all the time and of course there are cheaters but to take away benefits would hurt people who genuinely need help, it might lead people to believe I'm a right winger who makes arguments about taking benefits away from people. If someone came to this thread and read the last post, yours, and didn't read mine, they'd likely jump to that conclusion.
In point of fact, I didn't "make" that statement. My cousin, who was cheating the system times 10, made that statement. I was reporting it. Further, I specifically said, while I was angry with my cousin for cheating the system, I would never say we should cut benefits as cheaters would always be okay, whereas people who truly needed help would suffer.
Something to think about and keep in mind .... "
Apologies. We do both wax verbose on the replies on average and I only cut down to make the reply legible (and to leave room for it). I am sorry if that has left the wrong impression.
Vishal wrote: "Okay from the very beginning you are just trying to drag me at one side. In my whole comment I was trying to live very liberal and following middle path."This is a common misconception. People often try to establish science versus religion or similar concepts (like Creationism v Evolution) as two extremes of a continuum, because it is then natural to assume that the "truth" lies somewhere between the two extremes. This is completely fallacious because 'religion' isn't one thing, it is very many different mutually exclusive things. Moreover when there is a difference between two opinions, sometimes only one side has any truth. A court case against a murderer doesn't mean that the killer is slightly guilty but also somewhat innocent, the killer could be guilty as hell, or you could have accused the wrong person.
Vishal wrote: "Now you are at the one side and from there you are trying to see the whole canvas but it is impossible unless you come in front of the canvas, exactly in the middle."
It's a nice metaphor, but completely untrue. How can you look at the whole picture and consider all religious claims equally when you choose to believe in some of the claims and not others? I have looked at a lot of religions reasonably equally because I do not believe.
Oh and (somewhat ironically) religion is a choice, not an intrinsic thing. you could live without it if you wanted, but I do know that freeing yourself is both difficult and sometimes painful.
Vishal wrote: "Even by saying you share your love and joy with family and friends you are claiming you are a religious person whether it would be a shock for you because what ever you have learned about religion does not give you permission to see like that."
Why do I have to believe in something supernatural in order to love? That makes no sense.
In fact I love them more. Nothing, no god or magical force, is more important to me than friends.
Vishal wrote: "Now if Hinduism is a religion but it is studying medical science and mathematics?"
No it doesn't. It studies the text which makes claims about medicine and other spheres.
Many religions have done the same and some have even stumbled across a few things that work. All have been completely eclipsed by the rational process of medical research.
Vishal wrote: "Religion means your way of living life."
In English that would be a "Philosophy". In English Religion means the belief (usually without evidence) in an idea or entity.
Vishal wrote: " You have said science is not truth its the way of find truth. What truth you are talking about? Is your truth is mathematics or biology or physics or chemistry?"
The truth of how the universe exists and works. Maths, biology, physics etc. are just small explanations of a greater whole.
Vishal wrote: "Previously I stated that fanaticism has come lately in religion. And this because people have misunderstood the very meaning of religion. Now religion has seen through one particular community but it was created for the way of living life and disciplined it according to your need."
Created by whom? Discipline under who's authority?
Fanaticism has been with religion for millennia, however Monotheistic religions are particularly fanatical because they have no room for an alternate philosophy.
You have again shown the problem with religion. You have made a claim about its use and provided no evidence to demonstrate you are right. So another person comes along and says you're wrong, this is the truth, also with no evidence. What do you have then? Argument, conflict and ultimately violence. The conflict between India and Pakistan demonstrates that.
Vishal wrote: "agnostic and atheist is a religion."
No, because it requires a lack of belief, religion requires belief.
Vishal wrote: "Now you have to understand completely that cross is not invented for killing but its just the depiction of Christianity."
Wrong, actually the cross is an instrument of tortuous execution.
Vishal wrote: "You say bomb and guns are there for the protection of a man from another man. Why man need protection? Who is killing them?"
Another person in conflict. A common cause of conflict is two opposing beliefs that cannot be tested or reconciled.
Vishal wrote: "No religion is not there to say kill, this man is just killing because of the psychology of his."
Actually many religions tell their followers to kill, most especially Christianity.
Vishal wrote: "if religion is a science then you become religious and scientific at the same time."
Religion is about belief. Science needs to strip away the arrogance of belief and try to see the truth as it is not as what we want it to be.
If you "believe" in science, you are doing it wrong!
Vishal wrote: "If you say no then it means you are rejecting the study of mind under science"
No. Because we can scientifically study the mind without belief too. Neurology and psychology can tell us why people believe in things quite effectively, without us needing to "believe" them.
Vishal wrote: "the only way to keep man from killing another man is just to tell them what is right way of living and it became a word religion."
If that is true then it has utterly failed. Religion has been around for thousands of years and there is no evidence that it has stopped killing and plenty of evidence that it has helped cause killing.
Vishal wrote: "It is beyond the normal man's capacity to comprehend the human mind psychology because it needs a deeper study and if every human will start studying psychology then the whole economy will be stopped."
Not true. The psychology of ethics is quite easy to comprehend, at least until religion and mysticism muddies the waters.
Vishal wrote: "When there is no religion, what people will start doing? They will start misusing science as they are doing."
That is a claim with no evidence whatsoever.
Vishal wrote: "why I am sticking with the science and religion at the same time because I am seeing only man is misusing and both should not be blamed."
The difference is science gives us things that we could not have otherwise. Religion doesn't give us anything that cannot be gained elsewhere.
Vishal wrote: "In china and russia communism has grown. So what they are not following the popular religion, they say their communism is their religion."
Yes, they believe in Communism as a ideological force. They have opposed science because it didn't fit with their political belief and they suffered because of it.
Vishal wrote: "Before making any degradation against religion you will have to go deep root of this word and see it from some other facade also."
I have.
Vishal wrote: "The civilization is created by organizing community and the way of life and even in that time when they live they say they are in religion."
Not everyone, and those without religion do not become uncontrolled beasts outside of society.
Vishal wrote: "When I say you search yourself the meaning of soul, my only approach is to get you find your meaning and not mine because there is chances mine would not be sufficient for you."
If I think the term "soul" is just a reification of what I would describe as a persona?
Vishal wrote: "but you have a penchant to take everything in theological way and somewhat you make every single sentence a matter of argument instead to find what is that."
I do not agree with what you claim. This doesn't mean I am trying to argue with you. It takes two sides to cause disagreement, one side has to make a claim before the other side can dispute it.
This is the problem with religion. It makes claims and then tries to intimidate or plead to not be argued with. In science you make a claim and provide evidence, if someone disagrees they can present their evidence. Eventually one side or the other can be proved right and there conflict can end. Not so with religion.
Vishal wrote: "Then I define it through psychology but then I see It hardly giving me deeper answers because it can interpret and write the page on every emotions but when the matter comes to make bad emotions disappear, it comes with the very upper solution and it makes me perfect for some time but then again I have these emotions."
We know quite well how emotions are processed in the brain, and psychology can explain why certain thoughts and processes work to change our brain chemistry. We are even on the verge of directly seeing brain activity linked to thoughts and concepts.
None of that needs religion.
The only effect of religion can be seen by the similarity between the religious ecstasies of Christians, Muslims and the mediation of Hindus and Buddhists. Similar states can be achieved by secular meditation, drugs or direct electrical stimulation. It does not mean religion is any more true or necessary than taking drugs.
Vishal wrote: "please don't count only Christianity or Islam, come near Buddhism or Zen and you will see what is there)"
I have. Not as much perhaps, but enough to see that there is little underlying difference.
Vishal wrote: "You tell me is there only mind involve is creating these emotions or some effect heart also gives or spine is also involve?"
Actually emotions come from a complex interaction of external stimuli, with our blood chemistry (therefore our organs and biorhythms) all influencing our mind. It is complex and difficult to understand the details but not impossible and not mystical.
Vishal wrote: "These all process also happen in Animals but because animals emotions are very volatile and they are incapable of creating any thought about it so they don't know about soul."
That is just an assumption. Whales, Dolphins and even elephants have complex behaviour and social activity and to assume that they are less than us because they are different is just human arrogance and bigotry.
I'd live in a world without religious fundamentalism.
Vishal wrote: "Who says you all religious people believe in God, magic and afterlife?"Religion deals in "belief". That is the definition of religion. Most religions believe in either gods or magic (including mysticism) and the afterlife.
Vishal wrote: "Christianity believes in God and magic and deny afterlife"
No it believes that there is an afterlife, just that it will occur when the dead are raised back to life after the end of this Earth and the creation of a new Eden. (Though many Christians actually believe in the classical pagan idea of a heaven in the clouds that the dead go to).
Vishal wrote: "Islam is against magic and idol worship but it does not deny God and it is against afterlife,"
Actually Islam also has an afterlife in a paradise the the righteous go to if they have obeyed Allah.
Vishal wrote: "Hindu believes in God and afterlife and its soul is against magic"
Actually some Hindus believe in many Gods, some believe that they are all aspects of one God (that may or may not be the same as the Christian god) and some do not believe in any god but practice certain Hindu traditions. The latter may not even be religion, just like an atheist can celebrate "Christmas" as a festival celebrating the passing of the middle of winter.
Vishal wrote: "and Budhist believes in afterlife only and not in God or magic."
Actually Buddhists believe in Saṃsāra and karma both are beliefs that actions and desires in one life have "mystical" repercussions on this or subsequent lives. That kind of unexplained mystical influence can be summarised as "magic".
However, I do know some Buddhists who practice a pragmatic form of Buddhism that is practically atheistic. This practice seeks satisfaction with life through discipline and meditation, and firmly believes in practical karma. I.e. good actions are often rewarded even indirectly and bad actions often have repercussions. More importantly if you want to live in a society that has peace and mutual respect, then you need to act with peace and respect first. This I would agree is not actually a religion but a personal philosophy.
Vishal wrote: "You see different the religion different the views are and they have all the way to define what they believe as you are defining. Now God's definition is different in different religion."
I know, I have studied many more religions than just those four.
Vishal wrote: "I told you earlier that right and wrong comes when you impose only likewise if I show my car to another and say see this is better than yours because this is more efficient then another has also the explanation why his is better and then both would be against each other. But if you say mine has this facility and show me yours so that I can learn what is new and impressive in yours and other shows it because then it is not imposition but just sharing and when sharing comes we become friends."
That is not a very good metaphor for religion. A better metaphor is if one person says "My car is better because it is Red", the other person says "no blue cars are better". Neither has any evidence or reason for one colour being better than the other, they just believe that it is and try to impose their beliefs on the other person who may or may not agree.
In the example given above using science you can say that one car is better than the other given a measurable attribute and a required criteria. For example one person says that "my car is better because it is fast" the other person says "my car is better because it is efficient and I cannot afford lots of fuel". Because both people have not used belief but instead have used reason to explain why their car is better for them, so both people can understand and respect the other persons position.
Vishal wrote: "Then there is no matter of any argument. Just sharing is enough. This whole world is just trying to impose on each other and sanding against sharing."
Actually when you share a belief you are taking the first step in an argument because you assume that you are right, ultimately someone will disagree with your belief and thence comes conflict.
However, argument is not always destructive. Reasoned debate is at the core of how science functions, and respectful disagreement and discussion has led to the saving and lengthening of more lives than any religious tradition in history.
Vishal wrote: "Any argument is getting you to show you are better and this how you are more over going in a trap of religion."
No. That just arrogantly assumes that anyone who disagrees with you does so because they think they are better than you, which holds the intrinsic assumption that they should know you are better than them because of the belief you have just stated.
Two people can disagree with each other without it becoming about ego. If I flip a coin with someone and call "heads" and they call "tails" that doesn't mean I think I am better than them for calling heads, even if it turns out to be heads.
Vishal wrote: "And by this way even your science becomes a religion."
No because when science is done properly two people who disagree both use reason and evidence to prove their point. If neither side is clear then they may go away and do experiments to test either side. In the end both people agree that if reason and evidence shows they are wrong then they will accept that answer.
Most good scientists even try to prove themselves wrong before they tell anyone else their ideas.
This is nothing like religion.
Vishal wrote: "(And believe me I am very impress by this way. You are superb.) "
Thank you very much. I apologise if sometimes I do not understand what you mean, but I am having a little trouble with your English, but my Hindi is non-existent!
Gary wrote: "The truth of how the universe exists and works. Maths, biology, physics etc. are just small explanations of a greater whole."
I need more explanation. What exactly you are trying to say? Are you against the religion or its wrong doings or you are against the belief? Are you more interested in Astro-Physics and giving a little valuation to say, 'Maths, biology, physics etc. are just small explanations of a greater whole'? Are you just searching the reason of this universe's existence only and if it has been solve then what? Are you seeing the religion from that stage or you are looking it from what you say 'small explanation' of the ground level? If it is former small pixels will be vanished. From your comment one thing I have found that you are in favor of evidence and against the any faith, am I right? Do you believe religion should support science and science should do the same or you believe science in itself does not need support and religion should be exterminated and science should be established in the world as one and only way to find truth or religion is in need of reformation and not extermination?
What do you mean? Somewhat, somewhere to understand your point I need an explanation. Please.
And by the way sorry for my terrible English as I'm not native and my background is more Hindi than English.
I need more explanation. What exactly you are trying to say? Are you against the religion or its wrong doings or you are against the belief? Are you more interested in Astro-Physics and giving a little valuation to say, 'Maths, biology, physics etc. are just small explanations of a greater whole'? Are you just searching the reason of this universe's existence only and if it has been solve then what? Are you seeing the religion from that stage or you are looking it from what you say 'small explanation' of the ground level? If it is former small pixels will be vanished. From your comment one thing I have found that you are in favor of evidence and against the any faith, am I right? Do you believe religion should support science and science should do the same or you believe science in itself does not need support and religion should be exterminated and science should be established in the world as one and only way to find truth or religion is in need of reformation and not extermination?
What do you mean? Somewhat, somewhere to understand your point I need an explanation. Please.
And by the way sorry for my terrible English as I'm not native and my background is more Hindi than English.
I don't think that the two are separable. Science is observing something, making a hypothesis, and testing it. I observe that the floor is wet. I hypothesize that I could use a towel to dry it. I test it perhaps with different materials to dry it and make my conclusion. This method of learning suggests that every action has a reaction. There is a force behind everything. With that in mind, both God and the big-bang theory are hypotheses made as to the creation of the world. Neither are very testable, but both come out of some odd reasoning for the earth and organisms to come into existence. In order to have religion, one must have the means of hypothesizing. It's just about the human brain. If I were to ignore all of this, I would say that I could live without organized religion, but not without love and spirituality of some sort. I suppose that means that I would choose religion over science, but religion without reason just sounds like instincts to me.
Gary wrote: "Whining about scroungers to me is turning a blind eye to the real cheating going on. First you can only shout "get a job" to people when you are sure that there are jobs to have, but with a global market and outsourcing, jobs go to the country most willing to neglect and abuse its citizens. Does that sound good? There is a reason Apple and others outsources to the sweatshops of China."I'm not quite sure what exactly your position on this is. I'm no economist but IMHO on one hand, global consumer movement should be, and is pressuring governments and corporations in some developing countries like China to make concessions to labor, on the other hand "outsourcing" itself is sort of inevitable due to comparative advantage & perhaps shouldn't be treated as a bad thing. Maybe the right answer is neither protectionism nor "competitive wages" as proposed by those right-wingers you mentioned, but more investment on education, R&D & other social programs to help ppl to embrace the structural change.
Can we have a world of Science and Mythology if religion is excluded? If a forced choice I would pick science over religion but I thinkt the power of Story and Myth is huge for people and that actually propagates a lot of religion along. We want to know where we came from, where we are going, hence great stories, great books have universal appeal. (Knauss, author of Room Four)
I agree, AJ, myths and stories do have great appeal. But the stories in myths (including extant religions) don't tell us where we came from, they tell us only the archaic beliefs of people who came before us. They tell us nothing of how the universe,or the world came to be, or how we evolved, or how our bodies work, or how ecosystems work, what a star is composed of, and how its life plays out, or how there came to be such diversity of life. At best, they give pseudo-explanations created in the absence of understanding, or information of how things really work. Stories are great, but we have to remember that they are just stories, often used to explain natural phenomenon that have since been explained correctly.
without sciencedefinitely
Mahz wrote: "without sciencedefinitely"
So no computers, Internet, Goodreads, printing, hospitals, lights, transport etc. etc.?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Exactly. Ask questions and always accept you could be wrong. Yet I didn't say ask questions and believe the first answer that comes along.
Shannon wrote: "So, when I said a student who LOVED history and read about history in his free time was confused when his teacher said global warming is caused by humans ... and he asked why she said that given the fact that he'd read about warming and cooling throughout history and started talking about the Middle Ages"
Perhaps the subject should have been called "Anthropogenic Climate Change"? I don't know. Did the kid say "I have read that there has been climate change all along so how have humans effected it?" or did they say "Why do you make the claim that global warming is caused by humans when we already know it has happened throughout history before the industrial age?"
One is questioning the science, the other is questioning the veracity of the speaker.
Shannon wrote: ", it was shocking to me, in a huge way, that you'd say, basically, ... if he used tone, it's okay that she called him ignorant."
What I said was that I would say it is okay to call somebody ignorant when they act in an ignorant way. I am not saying I would have chose that way, and I am also not claiming I would make a good teacher.
Shannon wrote: "They're questioning! Hooray! Seriously? That's how I look at it. That's what education is about."
Yes but questioning your own opinions and the ideas of others is the point. Look back on this thread and see how many times people have asked rhetorical questions not because they wanted to know, but because they wanted to make a point.
Shannon wrote: "When someone tells a person they're ignorant, in my mind, they shut the person down."
True. Which is why I try to avoid it. However, people can do the same by questioning. A particularly good example can be found a few pages back of a person that questioned everything they were told, to arbitrarily exacting levels, or presented false dichotomies or logical fallacies and then claimed that a lack of an answer that satisfied him (which wouldn't happen unless you agreed with them) meant that everyone else was wrong. That same person also refused to answer most of the questions posed to them and simply ignored them while asking more and usually ignoring the answers previously given.
This shuts a person down in a discussion just as effectively while attempting to deceive others to the validity of someone's opinion. A response of "that opinion is ignorant" has the virtue of at least being clear and an honest, if judgemental, opinion.
Shannon wrote: "That doesn't follow with the Gary of ... question ... research."
Therein is your answer. Question yes, but when answered check your sources (which is another level of questioning).
Shannon wrote: "Irony comes to play when you say people should question ... including you ... then, you say if a 12 year old used tone and was using an argument made by "ists" ... it would be okay to call him ignorant."
If that person is asking questions to undermine one idea while not questioning another, then yes. No irony there, just inconsistency on behalf of the questioner.
Shannon wrote: "Followed by ... science is really too complicated sometimes ... sometimes people just need to accept what is being said."
Yes, because you're learning something at the time. If you have doubts then go and research it afterwards or ask more questions. Do not use questions to try to undermine one idea and then leave another unquestioned.
Shannon wrote: "For me, questioning is important. Questioning in and of itself. I don't care if it's about religion or science or history or the shades of nail polish. Politics. Culture. The best movie ever. It just doesn't matter. Personally, I believe it's important, for 5,001 reasons, to question."
I agree. Yet you know you cannot question everything constantly or you would make no progress. The point is to ask questions where you have them, and have some sort of source you can trust which is probably right.
Did you personally witness this incident with the child and the science teacher? Did you at least read a full transcript and interview all parties involved? Or is this an anecdote you find shocking and wrong because it was told to you in a manner that assumed the shock and wrong from the start?
Shannon wrote: "It's okay to question dogma, because ... but not science,"
I never said it was wrong to question science, in fact the point of science is that it asks questions of science itself. The point I was making was that it is fallacious to disregard a scientifically supported idea because a bunch of uninvolved people claim something different. A lot of the questions you have will have been asked and answered by a lot of independent people. Now you can either question honestly and either accept the answer or go and do the research or even the experiments, or you can question science while not questioning Dogma.
Shannon wrote: "I'm saying, simply, question. I stand behind that. It's ironic to me that, it would seem, you stand behind that ... unless .... The "unless" didn't come through on any of your previous posts. "
No "unless" you are just equivocating questions with doubt and trying to present dogma as equally fallible or infallible as evidence based investigation.
Yes the kid should have asked questions if he had them, and yes the teacher was dead wrong if they answered honest confusion and curiosity with derision. However, I do not know for certain, and I have been in lessons where a (12 year old) kid has attempted to question everything they were being told for ideological reasons to undermine the teacher's authority and to attempt to substitute knowledge for Dogma. I have heard it in Science, RE and Philosophy.