Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Terryann wrote: "Now imagine it without the benefits of religion and the guides it provides. "Oh don't worry, we have imagined, and I can't wait....
Terryann wrote: "GAH! A world without religion would be an immoral, depraved world. A world without science, creativity and the like will be reminiscent of the dark ages. Both science and religion has its place, yo..."I see a world without religion as one with less intolerance, religious people, most not all, are very intolerant of other people's ideas, beliefs, backgrounds, sexual orientation, and many times race.
Terryann wrote: "Travis wrote: "Maria wrote: ""Wish people would stop assuming that saying 'I believe' grants them a magic respect forcefield." Same could be said about the people who say "I don't believe...""
O..."
Sure.
Just not in religion.
Terryann wrote: "GAH! A world without religion would be an immoral, depraved world. A world without science, creativity and the like will be reminiscent of the dark ages. Both science and religion has its place, yo..."So, you are saying that this world, the one with religion is moral and undepraved?
if that's the case why don't you guys give us a 2,000 year turn and see how it goes.
Drew wrote: . without religion as one with less intolerance, religious people, most not all, are very intolerant of other people's ideas, beliefs, backgrounds, sexual orientation, and many times race. .."It seems you are also intolerant.
cHriS wrote: "It seems you are also intolerant. ."And normal service is resumed......
Terryann wrote: "GAH! A world without religion would be an immoral, depraved world. ..... Now imagine it without the benefits of religion and the guides it provides. "Again repeatedly claimed but no evidence. If it were true then religious societies would have substantially less crime, less conflict and less human rights abuses. This is not what we observe.
Religions have gave us "morality" that condones violence, injustice, rape, incest and slavery.
In fact the only people who seem to need religion are the religious types who believe that without their fear of god they would happily murder and rape.
Personally I have a conscience.
C-Cose wrote: "There's "explaining [oneself] fully" and then there's writing as if one is an academic speaking to a "layperson" .... as you suggested I am in a later section."Actually no, I was agreeing with you if you read it. I was agreeing that there are seldom absolute answers, but often it appears to the layperson that science is about absolute answers.
So actually I was crediting you with not thinking like a layperson.
C-Cose wrote: "Your definitions appear to be rooted in "common usage"; I believe mine to be supported by dictionary definition."
No, actually I was using dictionary definition but narrowing it to a specific definition, not to win a point but to explain where I saw the difference.
You did the same to begin with by separating the words "spirituality" and "religion" to distinguish between two very specific meanings, while we both know the dictionary definition overlaps.
C-Cose wrote: "You do not seem to make the same distinctions."
Yet I had the good grace to accept your distinction and address it, rather than arguing about words instead of discussing ideas.
C-Cose wrote: "You persist in your perception that I have a desire to "enforce" my opinion on others. I have done my best to explain that this is not so."
So you tried to enforce your opinion on me that you do not enforce opinions. Can you not see the cognitive dissonance here.
C-Cose wrote: "I have also not expressed in any way that you are doing the same."
But I accept that part of discussion is enforcing your ideas (passively or aggressively) onto other people. I just assume that people who wish to engage in debate are willing to allow this to happen to them as much as they expect to happen to other people.
C-Cose wrote: "I can't begin to understand where your marked dislike of anything non Scientific stems from; understanding the basis for a different opinion is a requirement for me to engage in any useful discussion."
My marked dislike is not based on non-scientific ideas, but for people claiming things based on little or no evidence or reason.
C-Cose wrote: "Therefore, I respectfully withdraw from this discussion and wish you the best in finding the absolute answers that you seek. "
Again, absolute answers are what religion attempts to provide. I am happy with the search for better answers.
I am sorry that you feel unable to discuss, but I have done so as best I can. I note that you have, like many others, restricted yourself to critiquing my responses often based on little more than language rather than addressing the ideas behind that, and have refused to reply to any of the points I raised or the questions I asked. I tried to answer you as best and as honestly as I could, it's a pity you felt no obligation to engage in a similar manner.
Cerebus wrote: "Some amusement on a Friday morning"Love Dara O'Briain!
Good choice.
Gary wrote: "Terryann wrote: "GAH! A world without religion would be an immoral, depraved world. ..... Now imagine it without the benefits of religion and the guides it provides. "Again repeatedly claimed but..."
I'm personally frightened of all those religious types walking around, who could snap at any moment and go on a rampage, if religion wasn't holding them back.
I think it's why I'm not comfortable with crowds.
cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: . without religion as one with less intolerance, religious people, most not all, are very intolerant of other people's ideas, beliefs, backgrounds, sexual orientation, and many times race. .."It seems you are also intolerant. "
Yup, intolerant of the idea that people have the "god given" right to be intolerant.
Our right to discriminate is being discriminated against, complain Christians
Read more: http://newsthump.com/2012/09/04/our-r..."
Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: . without religion as one with less intolerance, religious people, most not all, are very intolerant of other people's ideas, beliefs, backgrounds, sexual orientation, and..."Ah, christians, those masters of irony.
cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: . without religion as one with less intolerance, religious people, most not all, are very intolerant of other people's ideas, beliefs, backgrounds, sexual orientation, and many times r..."Of internet trolls, yes.
Gary wrote: ... My marked dislike is not based on non-scientific ideas, but for people claing things based on little or no evidence or reason. "Which is all people with a belief. Yet you are happy to converse with us.
cHriS wrote: "Which is all people with a belief. Yet you are happy to converse with us."Of course. All people deserve respect, all ideas don't.
Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Which is all people with a belief. Yet you are happy to converse with us."Of course. All people deserve respect, all ideas don't."
Even though you dislike the people who have the ideas.
How do you respect an idea?
That's not fair Chris, Drew and I may disagree on a few things but we are each tolerant of each others beliefs and have enjoyed sharing ideas on them . That's what a discussion should be about , respecting everyone has a different view and discussing the merits of each view without insulting the other person or demeaning their view
Gary you do realise that was a spoof site don't you !!
hannah, the spoof was taking the piss out of actual cases that are happening. Knowing Gary, he was no doubt well aware that it was a spoof site.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19472438
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/201...
The whole thing is people getting dismissed for refusing to do their jobs properly, or failing consistently to adhere to uniform rules (the crucifix ones are actually where they were told that they aren't allowed to wear jewellery, of any sort, as part of company dress code), but the so called injured parties are claiming religious discrimination.
Hannah wrote: "That's not fair Chris, Drew and I may disagree on a few things but we are each tolerant of each others beliefs and have enjoyed sharing ideas on them . That's what a discussion should be about , r..."I was responding to messages 6856. Drew said: I see a world without religion as one with less intolerance, religious people, most not all, are very intolerant of other people's ideas, beliefs, backgrounds, sexual orientation, and many times race.
Atheists here seem very intolerant of anyone with a belief. Read Gary's post above as an example.
Chris I think it would depend on which religion you have had most exposure to , I have had a large exposure to a certain facet of the christian religion and I have to say that they are very intolerant towards homosexuality etc ... I may believe in god but I am not blind to the problems that organised religious groups have caused and continue to do so
Hazel I know these cases exist and I have mixed feelings about them to be honest , as a Christian I fought in school to be allowed to wear my cross ( the rules were earring but no necklaces ) ... Because I can't see how my wish to wear my cross ( under my uniform and hidden from view ) would be a problem ... However when you are talking about religious views such as a doctor refusing to give a life saving abortion or hysterectomy to a woman because of their religious views. I can see that this is where their wishes will interfere with other peoples lives
I suppose it wouldn't have caused any harm to wear it under your uniform Hannah, except then you've been given special privileges the other kids don't have. It doesn't matter if its religious, if the rules say no jewellery, then no jewellery. Its really that simple. Couldn't you have just carried it around in your pocket or something if it was really that important to you? That's about the same as under your uniform.I never understood a no jewellery rule, but that's not the point, if its in place, you simply accept that, and wear your jewellery outside of school/work hours.
It was one of the last presents given to me by my dad ... And in the sort of school I went to you didn't carry anything in your pocket you didn't want setting fire too !!!! Plus the school held Christian asemblys and had a pro Christian faith ethos so with all the other faiths showing their faith on their shoulders eg head scarves , etc I felt that I wanted to wear my cross under my uniform where I had always wore it
The actual rules were no necklaces ... This wasnt a necklace ...it was a pendant ..
Mind you I got taken to e head because of my purple hair then I pointed out to him that the school rules said no extreme hair STYLES ... Mine was just an extreme hair colour ....
I always had good semantics when it came to rules ...
I think it is more damaging the reports where women are sent away from clinics for abortions ( ESP the two cases of raped 9 yr olds who were told they had to give birth because the catholic doctors wouldnt do it .... When one of them managed to get an abortion the entire family were ex communicated ) ... Or clinics that are denied funding because they offer birth control aspects to their roles
the pendant is a necklace. Pendant synonyms from dictionary.com (if you're going to claim that you would use semantics to win)
Synonyms: chaplet, choker, necklace, necklet, pearls, rosary, wampum
Again, it doesn't matter what the necklace means to you, the rules say no necklaces. I understand it was special to you, but that isn't reason to give you special permission. It being the one of the last gifts from your father is neither here nor there, what if someone else then claimed they were allowed to carry a pocket knife in school, because it was one of the last gifts from their father, and you'd set a precedent? I know a neckalce isn;t as dangerous as a knife (though I've seen some you could do serious damage with), the fact remains that the school (or workplace) has to remain objective, and your personal circumstances relating tot he banned object are irrelevant (unless its something that you need for health reasons)
Also, a crucifix is in no way comparable to a hajib or turban, as they are required to be worn by the religion, whereas your cross is not required. There is no rule, tenet or dogma in Christianity that says you will be considered to be lax in your devotion if you don't wear your cross. Allowing the wearing of the hajib is a courtesy that recognises the requirement by the religion that it be worn.
Though, I prefer the French ruling that banned them, and all other religious symbology, from schools. It makes for a less divisive atmosphere, if people don't wear what is essentially gang colours.
If I'd have been your head I would have pointed out that to make your hair an outrageous colour, then you had to use a styling product, ie hair dye, and therefore, it was a hairstyle,and then changed the wording of the rule to avoid such semantic games in future.
As me, however, cooooooool, purple hair!!!
I can see your point hazel about special privileges but in some sense there are lots of occasions when some kids have special privileges , Some kids get free school meals , some free transport, some free music lessons , some extra tuition , some more time in exams ...
There is no school in the uk where there are no kids with ' special privileges ' .. At least my request for a ' special privalage' costs no money to anyone , and takes up no teachers time
those aren't special privileges, those are reflections of circumstances. Free school meals are given to kids from low income families (they used to give out free milk to all kids too, do you remember that? stupid tories scrapping it). I never saw free music lessons at my school, so I can't comment on that, you either paid for it, or didn't do it.extra tuition is available to anyone who a)asks for it, and b) actually needs it.
extra time in exams is given to kids with dyslexia, they get an extra 15 mins per hour of exam, I see no problem with this. Its not a privilege, its a consideration of their problems.
Your "special privilege" was not something you required, nor something that ensured that you did well in your lessons, it didn't ensure you didn't go hungry due to lack of money, it wasn't something that was relating to the school, education or your ability to attend at all. It was no different to not being allowed to wear trainers instead of school shoes.
Hannah wrote: "Chris I think it would depend on which religion you have had most exposure to , I have had a large exposure to a certain facet of the christian religion and I have to say that they are very intoler..."pNo not intolerant, many people religious or not, do not agree with homosexuality, not the people, the act. Are you saying they have to agree with it?
amazing how many people think "tolerate" means "like" and "agree with".
Chris I am saying that you cannot claim that another person is intolerant unless you are willing to accept that religious groups ( not people but organised religious groups ) are intolerant of these cases
Chris I am saying that you cannot claim that another person is intolerant unless you are willing to accept that religious groups ( not people but organised religious groups ) are intolerant of these cases
I tolerate that opinion hazel !!!:)
Just so you know Hannah, I agree that a no jewellery rule is arbitrary at best, and never understood it myself, we had no such thing at my school (well, unless it got really silly and ostentatious, for eg, large earrings were discouraged, mostly due to their inherent tangly nature which was dangerous in things like gym class).
After he objected to the purple hair I dyed it bright pink !!! Lol
Hannah wrote: "After he objected to the purple hair I dyed it bright pink !!! Lol"I went blue one term... it was a mistake though, as as it washed out slowly over time I ended looking like I had a blue rinse
Hazel I would agree with you in a school that claimed to have no religious ethos ... If it told me no religious symbols allowed ... Ok .. However my objection was that this is a school that holds Christian assembly's ... And had a pro Christian. Ethos ... Then had no intention of following any if it through its living arrangements I the school ... Tbh we all knew the schools ' we are a Christian friendly school' was b'llshit but I wanted to test their idea while keeping my cross safe If a school is going all out to be ' look at us we are religion friendly ' it should expect contradictions to its rules
Lol hazel I once had to sit next to an old lady on a bus telling me what a shame it was that I dyed my hair ... Ie I was a Scarlett woman ... This while she had a purple rinse .. !!!!!
You need to bleach the hair well before you dye :;
Hannah wrote: "Chris I am saying that you cannot claim that another person is intolerant unless you are willing to accept that religious groups ( not people but organised religious groups ) are intolerant of thes..."I have not claimed anyone is intolerant. I was giving Drew an example of how he was using the word intolerance against religious groups and the same can, in that case be said against atheists. No one has a monopoly on Intolerance but it suits some to use it here regarding religion.
Hazel wrote: "Your "special privilege" was not something you required..."
Intentionally stepped away from this thread until a couple days ago and wasn't going to start sharing my thoughts again. However ....
Speaking as a teacher in a public school in America ....
We actually don't know enough about Hannah's situation to determine this "special privilege" wasn't something she required.
Sadly, I've taught students whose parents died during the school year. In many cases, they're put on special plans. At my last school, they were called EST plans. (There was no connection to special education.) There are times when students go through various difficulties that require them to have extra care and accommodations. For example, students whose parents die during the school year, etc... can be given plans that give them reduced work, extra time, etc.... We don't know when Hannah's father died. I'm sorry, by the way. We don't know whether or not that cross was necessary to her in her studies. Maybe, for emotional and psychological reasons, the cross gave her comfort, eased anxieties she might have had due to her situation and loss, etc....
Ultimately, we just don't know. However, I know, as a teacher, that such an accommodation would likely be made at my school ....
... if I worked at a school that had such an utterly ridiculous and asinine rule.
Fortunately, I don't work at a school that thinks it's appropriate to legislate such things. If I did, I'd work against such a policy.
Intentionally stepped away from this thread until a couple days ago and wasn't going to start sharing my thoughts again. However ....
Speaking as a teacher in a public school in America ....
We actually don't know enough about Hannah's situation to determine this "special privilege" wasn't something she required.
Sadly, I've taught students whose parents died during the school year. In many cases, they're put on special plans. At my last school, they were called EST plans. (There was no connection to special education.) There are times when students go through various difficulties that require them to have extra care and accommodations. For example, students whose parents die during the school year, etc... can be given plans that give them reduced work, extra time, etc.... We don't know when Hannah's father died. I'm sorry, by the way. We don't know whether or not that cross was necessary to her in her studies. Maybe, for emotional and psychological reasons, the cross gave her comfort, eased anxieties she might have had due to her situation and loss, etc....
Ultimately, we just don't know. However, I know, as a teacher, that such an accommodation would likely be made at my school ....
... if I worked at a school that had such an utterly ridiculous and asinine rule.
Fortunately, I don't work at a school that thinks it's appropriate to legislate such things. If I did, I'd work against such a policy.
cHriS wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Chris I am saying that you cannot claim that another person is intolerant unless you are willing to accept that religious groups ( not people but organised religious groups ) are int..."Where have I been intolerant other than you, I believe you are a troll, I do not like trolls and I admitted that I was being intolerant of you. Who else have I been intolerant of? I may not have agreed with some of the things others have said but I don't dislike them and I tolerate them just fine.
Frankly Shannon, there is no reason it would be necessary for her to wear it, if she needs special consideration for a parent having died, that means letting her have time if she needs it, offering counselling, being gentle with her, not letting her break rules. The cross, under no circumstances is necessary for her studies, and if she needed it for comfort, again, it doesn't need to be worn to be kept close. Carrying it in her bag is the same as having it under her uniform. Its there, but not visible, and not breaking the rules. Now, Hannah also described her school as somewhere you don't keep things in your pockets if you didn't want them burned. Sounds like a rough school. As such, no jewellery probably very easily equates to "don't give them the tools to garrotte you".
Also, I agree its an arbitrary rule. Except in rough schools with kids that have a tendency to destruction and burning things.
It's probably a rule to prevent theft (going on the Hannah's brief description of the school) and the school's perceived liability and thus having to deal with angry parents. Imagine the trauma of having such a sentimental item stolen...
cHriS/cs wrote: "Atheists here seem very intolerant of anyone with a belief. Read Gary's post above as an example. "I'll actually agree with you on this cs, but not for the reasons you imply.....atheists here have been intolerant of those unused to having their beliefs challenged. Or even questioned. I'll do a straw poll here, who from the non-atheist side, who is still following this thread, has found us heathens on the atheist side intolerant? There are plenty of believers in this thread, whose position I disagree with but whose honest involvement with the discussion I have no issue with...but I would love to hear from any of those who feel we have been intolerant.
cHriS/cs wrote: "No not intolerant, many people religious or not, do not agree with homosexuality, not the people, the act. Are you saying they have to agree with it? ."Of course not, so long as your definition of 'hav[ing] to agree with it' includes having to participate. Outside of that, whatever anyone else does with their genitalia and another consenting adult is irrelevant to you, or to me? Honestly, why do you care? Why does religion care?
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...
So you are only moral because you are religious? So are you moral because you fear punishment, or desire the reward of an afterlife? Neither makes you moral.
It is entirely possible to live a moral life without religion....if this were not the case, as has been pointed out before, the prison population would be overwhelmingly atheist, when in fact the opposite is true, it is only a tiny minority (in the US at least) that is atheist.
Which morals do you choose from religion, the ones saying "love thy neighbour" or the ones saying "stone disobedient children"?