Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 6,801-6,850 of 12,463

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Belief (as in full religious conviction, not temporary acceptance of an idea) is automatically intolerant of other ideas, otherwise it wouldn't be a belief. This is why I actively try not to believe in anything, and instead accept ideas until better ones come along. That is the only way you can try to be tolerant."

Beliefs aren't automatically intolerant; it depends on the beliefs.

I, for one, was raised with the belief that different people experience "God" differently. They know God by different names and understand different truths about God. I was also raised with the belief that people should be able to choose, regardless of religion or the lack thereof. Whether or not to believe and what one believed was their choice, their right, and to be respected.

I have difficulty wrapping my brain around your judgment.

Yes, some beliefs are intolerant. However, belief, in and of itself, is not necessarily automatically intolerant.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "She told me that she had three daughters. Had, because one was murdered four years ago. The murderer was black. She no longer likes black people in fact she can,t tolerate anyone who is black. You know and I know from our perspective she is wrong. But I have never been in her position so maybe its not for me to say she should not have this intolerant view."

This is where the difference between belief and objectivity comes into play.

Was the murderer male? Was the murderer American? Was the murderer tall, short, fat etc. Using rationality and statistical evidence she could conclude that the overwhelming majority of blacks do not murder people, but she has allowed an irrational belief to focus on a certain feature of the murderer, their ethnicity.

That is prejudice and bigotry, though some of you may not have been through the same experience, logic and reason can objectively confirm that her intolerance is unjustifiable.

I have only ever been mugged by Asian Males in a certain couple of cities. I do not hate Asians, Males or people from those particular cities because of this experience.

cHriS wrote: " I do no think woman should serve on the frontline if they have children. Nothing to do with me being intolerant."

If you do not think its a good idea, that's fine. Telling other people they are wrong for doing it or denying them their freedom of choice is intolerant.

May I ask, do you believe males should not serve on the front line if they have children? If not, how do you justify the discrepancy?

cHriS wrote: "Also the gay teenager and parent example can be a generation thing. Older people were raised at a time when it was illegal to be gay and they can be slow to adapt. "

The illegality of homosexuality was based on unsupported beliefs and intolerance. Furthermore, no one has the right to be intolerant of others just because they are used to it being acceptable to be intolerant.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Yes, some beliefs are intolerant. However, belief, in and of itself, is not necessarily automatically intolerant. "

In my opinion beliefs are intolerant, while opinions may not be. I am talking about the specific usage of belief as a conviction not necessarily supported by evidence that is strongly adhered to.

A belief is intolerant of conflicting beliefs, an opinion can accept the existence of conflicting opinions, and can be changed easily based on new evidence. If the belief you are talking about is open to challenge and change then that's not the usage of belief I am talking about.

(For the pedants :-) I am talking of the difference between "I believe that my friend has gone to the shops because her purse and keys have gone from the kitchen table" and "I believe in one almighty creator, and I will never abandon that faith no matter what.")

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Yes, some beliefs are intolerant. However, belief, in and of itself, is not necessarily automatically intolerant. "

In my opinion beliefs are intolerant, while opinions may not be...."

My knowledge of the word is ... a belief that something one thinks is true.

As I mentioned, I was raised to believe all people have knowledge and find their own truths in life. Whether Christian, Hindu, or atheist, all people come to know "God" ... or not. They come to understand God differently and know God by different names, learning different truths ... or not. My mother raised me to believe, accept as the truth, that all people had the right to choose to believe ... or not ... and that each person's path, regardless of belief, was valuable, wise, and could lead to understanding.

That was my mother's belief. She accepted it as the truth. That was and is my belief. I accept it as the truth.

This is a belief and ... it is not intolerant of conflicting beliefs. (Further, some definitions list the word "belief" as an opinion that one thinks is true.)

As I said, while some beliefs are intolerant, all beliefs are not automatically intolerant. One would need to look at the specific belief. Wouldn't one?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "My knowledge of the word is ... a belief that something one thinks is true."

Of course. As I said before sometimes "believe" is used as a word meaning the acceptance of the truth of an idea until proven otherwise, while other times it is used as a word to describe the utter conviction that an idea is truth despite any reason or rationale brought to bear.

I tend to use the words "belief" and "believe" to mean the latter 'strong form' and "opinion" or "ideal" to indicate the weak/temporal form.

E.g. "I can't believe it's not butter" is of a different nature to "I believe in Christ the Lord". In the former case a simple analysis (or perhaps even a taste test) may cause the revision of that belief with new data. In the latter case usually the belief will be adhered to despite any analysis or evidence that may arise, and often the believer will see this faith as a virtue.

Shannon wrote: "My mother raised me to believe, accept as the truth, that all people had the right to choose to believe ... or not ... and that each person's path, regardless of belief, was valuable, wise, and could lead to understanding."

What if the path they chose led to the suppression of the very ideal of allowing each person to choose their path? Is the path of oppressing all other paths wise if all paths are wise?

Shannon wrote: "That was my mother's belief. She accepted it as the truth. That was and is my belief. I accept it as the truth."

Before I say anything else I will say that the ideal outlined is indeed more tolerant than many others.

I accept the existence of entities called "electrons" etc. as 'truth', but only as true enough to represent what occurs at that level. I also accept the idea that eventually it may be discovered that electrons are not what we thought they were, but something markedly different that just behaves like electrons under common conditions.

Though the philosophy you espouse is indeed quite benevolent, I can imagine times it would be wrong. If only because many of these paths seek by their very nature to suppress others.

If you simply accept the philosophy as 'usually true' but are willing to accept that perhaps you could be persuaded in certain circumstances it may actually be wrong, then I would not call that a "belief" but an "opinion" or "ideal".

Shannon wrote: "This is a belief and ... it is not intolerant of conflicting beliefs. "

What about the belief that intolerant ideology should not be tolerated? If you believe that people have a right to be intolerant then you believe that it is ok not to tolerate some people, so by tolerating the intolerant you are being intolerant of the people being discriminated against.

Shannon wrote: "(Further, some definitions list the word "belief" as an opinion that one thinks is true.)

As I said, while some beliefs are intolerant, all beliefs are not automatically intolerant. One would need to look at the specific belief. Wouldn't one? "

Fair enough. I realise that due to the vagaries of English that some words have a spectrum of meanings which is why I try to narrow the definition when discussing them.

If you are talking about a belief that is open to potential change depending on circumstance or evidence, I would actually call that an opinion or ideal. If you are talking about a belief that will not change no matter the circumstance or new evidence then I would say that belief is automatically intolerant of the opinion that the belief may be wrong.

[Gary]

Marlene wrote: "Religious people, in my case 'Christian' try not to judge people that is not Christian as that judgement is left to God."

I have witnessed Christians judging people on a daily basis. Street preachers loudly judging everyone as "sinful" and judging everyone who follows another religion as misguided because 'Jesus is the way'. Many Americans judge their politicians on whether they have beliefs or not. Many religious people judge the irreligious as immoral.

Certainly there are some Christians who try not to judge, I know several myself, but there is a very vocal component that judge people all of the time.


Marlene wrote: "It is your place however to judge someone you know as a Christian. You could say I am intolerant of other religions, but not in the look down at you/throw you with stuff/not talk to you.... kind of way. It is that you do not agree with that belief and cannot condone certain things"

Intolerance and bigotry can easily wear the clothing of moral indignation while avoiding the appearance of pettiness. The difference being that a true moral judgement needs to comprehend the reason that a particular opinion/idea/act is immoral. If you base your morality solely on obedience to an authority then you are abdicating your moral responsibility and therefore cannot be viewed to be acting with morality.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: That is prejudice and bigotry, though some of you may not have been through the same experience, logic and reason can objectively confirm that her intolerance is unjustifiable."

"Logic and reason can objectively confirm....." this is almost a robotic reply. It reminds me of 'HAL' from Arthur C. Clarke's Space Odyssey. Either that or its a reply straight out of the PC brigades handbook.

"Logic" an argument determined by its logical form, not by its content. Your reply leaves little room for human emotion.

You are demonstrating what a world without religion could be like.

Unless we have been through what that lady went through maybe we should not be to quick to condemn her. I have watched tv programmes over the years where Jewish people who's family were gassed during the war have stated that they could never forgive and have a dislike of all things German.

That is their right to feel like that and logic does not come into it at all.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: The illegality of homosexuality was based on unsupported beliefs and intolerance. Furthermore, no one has the right to be intolerant of others just because they are used to it being acceptable to be intolerant.

Why do you have the right to state that
no one has the right to be intolerant of others just because they are used to it being acceptable to be intolerant

If you do not think its a good idea, that's fine. Telling other people they are wrong for doing it or denying them their freedom of choice is intolerant.

I don't think it's a good idea and I think it is an irresponsible thing to do. Freedom of choice has its limitations, usually when a law says you can't do something.

If your neighbour is sitting at home living off state benefits while you go out to work, you may be intolerant to his life style, but is that not his freedon of choice to do that? Are you therefore wrong be intolerant or would have a just cause to be?

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Religious people who pass judgement on what a consenting loving couple does together in privacy, and encourages others to do likewise, are not being tolerant...."

In another post you say
Telling other people they are wrong for doing it or denying them their freedom of choice is intolerant.

'pass judgement' may be a bit strong. The majority of people, religious and non religious may 'have a view' but only a few will, as you say, pass judgment as they may do with other issues.

Does your type of 'freedom of choice' not extend to someone, not approving of certain behaviour when they say openly that they do not approve.

[Gryph]

Jessica wrote: "Look at the Dark Ages... back then, there was no Science and Religion galore. There's a reason it's called the Dark Ages...."

Greetings Jessica,

While agree that the was limited Science in Europe during this time, it's incorrect to say that there was "no Science." There is plenty of evidence to support that societies outside of Europe continued in scientific pursuits: e.g. the Arabian peninsula, the far East, indigenous peoples of South and Central America.

Those that want evidence can google it themselves.

[Hazel]

I have to agree with C, the Venerable Bede wrote his De Rerum Natura in the dark ages, and he included that there should be no consideration of god while writing about the natural world, and that nature should be studied on its own terms. And his De Rerum Natura was an update of an earlier one, from which he removed all religious passages, and updated with new knowledge, drawing information from Pliny, amongst others, and adding his own observations. It is considered to be one of his best works, and at the time, was distributed far and wide across europe. It outsold his Ecclesiastical History of the English People.

So, even if there was plenty going on outside Europe, which there most certainly was, it was also happening within Europe. Bede is simply one example.

[Gryph]

Hazel wrote: "I have to agree with C, the Venerable Bede wrote his De Rerum Natura in the dark ages, and he included that there should be no consideration of god while writing about the natural world, and that n..."

Greetings Hazel,

Would you agree that the "Dark Ages" are also (mis)named as such because literacy was limited to the clergy and those in upper classes while the vast majority of Europe was denied it? That's always been my understanding and that of other academics that have written on that period.

[Hazel]

Hi C, I love the way you always say greetings :D

I can't really comment on whether it was misnamed, but I thought it was named such as the advances brought by the romans previously were left to fall into disrepair and disuse, and as such, the enlightened advances were lost, so it was "dark". I may be misremembering this, or have been told wrong.

I just like old texts, and want a copy of Bedes de Rerum Natura, as they only finally translated it to english recently. There was certainly a lot of science done in dark ages Europe, but yes, much of it was only available to the clergy. But thats where universities came from, so its not all bad. A few weeks ago, I could name some of the other clerical scholars, and some of the amazing work they did, but I forget now, its been a while since I went to the presentation on medieval and early science, and only the stuff about Bede seems to have stuck, mores the pity.

[Hazel]

oh wait, yes, Grosseteste, he was another one. His work on the nature of light was amazing. Pretty much all wrong, but astounding for the 13th century nonetheless. He postulated an early, and extremely wrong, "big bang" theory. I was told about him in this presentation, by Tom McLeish, a professor of physics in Durham university, who is helping with the translation of Grossetestes work.

http://www.grosseteste.com/bio.htm

unfortunately, all the work on this site is still in latin, so you can read about the man, but unless you're a latin scholar, you won't be able to read his work

[[deleted user]]

Regarding the "Dark Ages" ...

I was taught not to use the term. My history professors in college stressed that we should use Middle Ages .... I think there are three time periods within the Middle Ages. I can't remember why they stressed this. The only thing I remember one saying, I think, is that the time period was not truly "dark" ... or not as dark as we assumed. But, again, my memory is fuzzy regarding why we weren't to use the term. I know I was trained not to do so.

[Gryph]

Hazel wrote: "Hi C, I love the way you always say greetings :D

I can't really comment on whether it was misnamed, but I thought it was named such as the advances brought by the romans previously were left to fa..."

Well greetings again Hazel :)

My Mom instilled in me, at a very young age, that it took no more effort to be pleasant when greeting someone than it did to be neutral--or rude. Besides, the standard "Hazel ..." always sounds like class roll call by one's surname :)

Anywho .... I have to admit a serious lack in historical--philosophical, pure history, and otherwise--books in my library. It's also been some years since I've taken the time for a good "serious" read. That must change!!!

I think I'll start with Bede's work that you mentioned :). In the meantime, I'm off to visit the hyperlink that you provided for Grosseteste.

[Drew]

cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: why should I go out of my way to accommodate you"

You don't have to, but if you wanted a response I needed more info. about how you equate abortion with vandalism, kidnapping, stalking..."

You aren't too bright are you? There have been several cases where those against the idea of abortion have been known to commit vicious acts such as assault, arson, and bombings along with the other things that I mentioned. http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/AFY...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04...
http://books.google.com/books?id=HbED...
I believe a woman has the right to choose for herself whether or not to get an abortion and it isn't for any of us to say that she can't. I don't think it is killing a life anymore than cracking an egg is killing a chicken, that doesn't bother you does it, cracking open an egg and frying it up to eat, where's you self-righteousness on that one?

cs, where do you get off thinking you have the right to make someone else's choice? It's not up to you or any Jesus Freak to make that decision for any female.

[Gryph]

Shannon wrote: "Regarding the "Dark Ages" ...

I was taught not to use the term. My history professors in college stressed that we should use Middle Ages .... I think there are three time periods within the Middl..."

Greetings Shannon :)

The only consensus I could find regarding Middle Age naming was "Early" (5th to 10th cent. CE), "High" (11th - mid 14th), and "Late" (bridging mid 14th with the later Renaissance in the 15th).

Of course, these are somewhat arbitrary delineations, but I've also been taught to distinguish these periods rather than lump them into the more common "Dark Ages", as were you.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Though the philosophy you espouse is indeed quite benevolent, I can imagine times it would be wrong. If only because many of these paths seek by their very nature to suppress others.

If you simply accept the philosophy as 'usually true' but are willing to accept that perhaps you could be persuaded in certain circumstances it may actually be wrong, then I would not call that a "belief" but an "opinion" or "ideal"."

Hmmm....

You know .... I've been thinking about this today. While I've considered your point, I, in the end, disagree.

If we were to look at my belief, we'd see I said ... basically ... that I was raised to believe that people have their own paths to follow. People of all religions and various spiritual pursuits know "God" ... by different names and they discover different truths. Further, I was taught to believe that atheists have their own path and also discover truths. All have truths and the right to choose as they will.

I think there's a difference between saying all people follow their own path and find different truths ... and saying each and every thing believed by and perpetrated by each and every believer and atheist is THE truth. If the latter were my belief, I'd, perhaps, be accountable for supporting any misdeeds or intolerance perpetrated by such groups.

After all, I think science and advances in medicine are vital to our health, well-being and survival. It's my opinion that science leads us to many truths. Of course, scientists also do things I don't condone. Animal testing is an example. Animal testing, in my opinion, is cruel and wrong. Yes, I'm aware that such testing leads to success in certain areas. However, I am vehemently opposed to it. I try very hard not to buy products that have been tested on animals. (I'm sure, though, that I've "benefited" from such testing. That doesn't sit well with me.)

Given the fact that I view science and the medical fields to be vital and believe such pursuits lead to many truths, am I, as a result, responsible for the torture of animals? By believing science is a study that is necessary and leads to truths, do I tolerate what I deem intolerable?

I don't think so. Not unless I purposely buy products, etc... that are tested on animals. Not unless I stop reading labels, doing research, and stop paying attention to what I'm purchasing.

Again, I don't agree that all beliefs are automatically intolerant. One would need to understand the belief prior to making that judgment. Further, over generalizations lead to ....

Additionally, no, I don't foresee myself changing my "opinion" regarding my belief. I actually don't know that this is an issue of semantics.

I can't imagine a time when I'd say something like ....

Only believers have their own paths and discover their own truths. Not atheists. No.

Or ... I can't fathom ever saying something like ... atheists are the only people who know the truth ...

In addition, I can't see myself thinking only certain people have the right to choose whether to believe or not ... or that people may believe certain things and not others.

No. I'm not willing to say I might be wrong.

I truly believe that all people, believers and atheists alike, have a right to choose whether to believe or not and the right to choose what to believe or not .... Further, I believe all people, whether religious, spiritual, agnostics, atheists, etc... are on their own paths and discover truths.

I firmly believe that. And ... it's not intolerant. It's quite the opposite.

[Gryph]

Shannon wrote: "You know .... I've been thinking about this today. While I've considered your point, I, in the end, disagree. ..."

Greetings Shannon :)

Well said indeed!!!

[[deleted user]]

C-Cose wrote: "Shannon wrote: "You know .... I've been thinking about this today. While I've considered your point, I, in the end, disagree. ..."

Greetings Shannon :)

Well said indeed!!!"

;)

Early, High and Late do ring a bell! I just wish I have a better recollection of why they disapproved of the term "Dark Ages" .... While I know it had something to do with the time not being as dark as we assume, I remember being absolutely fascinated by their reasoning. I'm thoroughly vexed that I can't remember what they said.

[Drew]

Sreejit wrote: "You can't have one without the other. Both come from our ability to have creative and investigative thought. The ability to discriminate between right and wrong, good and bad. And both come from..."

You absolutely can have one without the other. You can be creative without religion, you can determine right from wrong without religion, you can have purpose and meaning without religion, and you can know who you are without religion. You also do not need science to have these things either, they come from within. Saying that you need both religion and science to achieve these things is both foolish and wrong.

[Hazel]

Sreejit, you specifically said that you can't have one without the other, that does suggest that you think we need both. Which we most certainly do not. There is nothing that religion can achieve that cannot be achieved by secular means, as such, religion is't really required, but there are many people who like it and feel comforted by it.

And religion doesn't provide those answers to the big questions, not really, it gives a simple non answer, usually along the lines of "god did it, trust in god", and thats where enquiry stops. Any enquiry a religious person makes beyond that is using the scientific portion of their brain.

[[deleted user]]

Sreejit ....

Just to go on the record ... I don't think you're foolish.

Now, ...

A couple thoughts regarding Hazel's contention that, "And religion doesn't provide those answers to the big questions, not really, it gives a simple non answer, usually along the lines of 'god did it, trust in god', and thats where enquiry stops." ...

First, does that line of reasoning truly fit all religions and spiritual pursuits, or is it more in keeping with Judeo-Christian and Muslim ideology? At first blush, the latter seems true, to me at least. And, ... that would leave out the spiritual experiences of a lot of other people, past and present.

Second, the answers believers seek aren't always along the lines of ...

How was the world made?

Why do stars twinkle?

Why are there rainbows?

The answer ... God did it. No.

While we know early people wove myths, etc... in order to better understand their world and explain why certain things existed, that's not the only reason people practice spirituality and religion. Some seek other answers. What does it mean to be a good person? How do I go about being the person I'm meant to be? How do I connect with others ... the world at large? What life lessons should I learn? Etc....

Enter the contention that these questions can be answered via "other" means ....

That could be true. But, as I've mentioned on this thread before, different things speak to different people. That is what it is. For example, there was a time when I was having difficulties with a certain issue. I couldn't wrap my brain around it. I couldn't get past it ... find a way to understand it and manage it. Oh, I attempted to do so. Through "other" means.... It didn't work for me. One day, someone said, "Shannon, let's put this in other terms. Think the circle of life. Think about the different lessons learned on the different points on the circle of life. Think about ...."

When she made that connect and got me thinking in terms of my native beliefs, it all clicked. Everything fell into place, almost immediately. That spoke to me. Making that link led to an understanding that I was unable to achieve through "other" means, despite the fact that I tried to do so.

Just because "other" means, secular means, are available and work for some, doesn't mean they'll work for all. It just doesn't.

Should we make such pronouncements for all people, especially when they might not fit all people? I'm leery to do so.

[Hazel]

but does the understanding you gleaned through this other means actually fit with how the world really works, or does it give you a flawed understanding, but that you find easy to digest? This is a genuine question, not an attack on the means you used.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "but does the understanding you gleaned through this other means actually fit with how the world really works, or does it give you a flawed understanding, but that you find easy to digest? This is a..."

Within the circle of life and certain beliefs, different animals "offer" different insights. For example, in one of the directions, you have the mouse and the eagle. The lesson ...? Both "see" the world differently.

The mouse represents vision that is very, hmmm, "close-up" ... the mouse can "see" details in the world immediately around her. It's good to see things directly around oneself ... to have a "close-up" view. Whereas the eagle, when flying high above all else, has a perspective that is more "broad" than the mouse, whose view is limited. It's also good to "see" the whole.

The point of the teaching is not to just see with the perspective of the mouse ... or just with the perspective of the eagle. The moral of the teaching is to remember we have the tendency, especially in times of stress or trouble, to view life and/or situations as either the mouse or as the eagle. It's important to, in those situations, change our perspective, attempt to view things from the other position, find more balance, and see if we are able to come to a different understanding of the situation.

[Hazel]

Ah, I see, you use an analogy to help you understand that sometimes you have to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Ah, I see, you use an analogy to help you understand that sometimes you have to take a step back and look at the bigger picture."

Or the opposite ....

I see the benefit to both ... know the lesson of each.

When in a certain situation, I might think, "Mouse," or "Eagle" .... At that point, I immediately remember the teachings and the lessons and am able to apply it to my life.

While I'm aware of "other" teachings, secular teachings, ... psychology and sociology, are valid and help people, those teachings don't always speak to me. Not always. In those situations, I understood them, logically.

But, they didn't and don't always reach me on a deeper level. In the situation I mentioned, I was attempting to get past something and deal with something through secular means ... "scientific" means .... It didn't work for me. Might it have worked for some? Yes. In that instance, it didn't work for me. When it was framed in terms of the circle of life and the lesson of the mouse and the eagle, I understood it logically AND it touched me on a deeper level. I felt it in my ... innermost self.

Different things speak to different people ....

[Hazel]

an analogy is a useful learning tool, theres nothing spiritual about it. That analogy works just as well in as secular sense, as it draws one what we actually know about animals, and their perception, and how their perception is effected by their point of view etc.

However, if you start attributing spiritual attribute s to the animal, for example, people who claim that animals are totems and that they each have aspects that relate to what that animal can teach us, then it goes into the realms of supernatural etc. Its interesting how you can take one animal, and different cultures attribute different qualities and traits to it, for example, the snake is considered cunning and sneaky, and often evil, in western culture, but many native american tribes (correct me if I'm wrong) attribute wisdom to the snake. But in reality, the snake is none of these, it just does what it does without motives of wisdom or cunning, and as such, we don't actually learn anything from this sort of attribution of human traits to animals.

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "an analogy is a useful learning tool, theres nothing spiritual about it. That analogy works just as well in as secular sense, as it draws one what we actually know about animals, and their percepti..."

if the animal pov are meant to represent the different views of science and religion, instead of a mouse and an eagle, wouldn't it be more appropriate if the analogy was an eagle and an unicorn?

[cHriS]

Drew wrote: You aren't too bright are you? There have been several cases where those against the idea of abortion have been known to commit vicious acts such as assault, arson, and bombings along with the other things that I mentioned"

You really are scraping the barrel with those links. We might as well put end to all scientific tests that involves animals because activists have made and carried out threats to researchers. Or maybe we should stop building tall buildings because they could be a target for bombers.


I believe a woman has the right to choose for herself whether or not to get an abortion and it isn't for any of us to say that she can't.

...what if she wants to get rid of a baby girl because she only wants boys but can't afford the operation?

cracking open an egg and frying it up to eat, where's you self-righteousness on that one?

Ha Ha. Yes I would eat the egg and I would eat the chicken and you might eat the chicken as well, but you wouldn't eat a baby.

where do you get off thinking you have the right to make someone else's choice? It's not up to you or any Jesus Freak to make that decision for any female.

No one is making any decision for anyone, this is only your warped perception, which does nothing for other athiests trying to have a reasonable discussion without showing intolerance. :)

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "an analogy is a useful learning tool, theres nothing spiritual about it."

In your opinion ....

Something is left out when this is discussed simply as an analogy. (No, not totems and attributing supernatural powers to animals. I, personally, don't go there.)

The circle of life ... that everything is connected ... that there are different lessons to learn through life and through the different directions ... new life, youth, adulthood, one's later years ...

It's more complicated than saying ... this is an analogy. Further, this is where the spirituality is connected to the example. I'm not going to go into that. There are different books, etc... that people could read if they're interested. But, in my opinion, the beliefs behind the circle of life are spiritual. I've learned them and experienced them as such.

And, .... As I said, I'm fully aware that there are secular words and secular analogies ... therapy, etc... that help people all the time. In this situation, it didn't help me. What helped me was framing the situation within the circle of life, the lessons learned in the different stages, and, yes, an analogy.

[Drew]

cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: You aren't too bright are you? There have been several cases where those against the idea of abortion have been known to commit vicious acts such as assault, arson, and bombings along w..."

If anyone has a warped perception it is YOU. Trying to stop people from being able to have safe and sanitary abortions IS trying to make a decision for someone else. Do you really think that women will stop having abortions just because YOU think it is wrong? It would continue to happen even if it was made illegal and then you are just making a practice that SHOULD remain legal unsafe for those women who want them.

[Drew]

cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: You aren't too bright are you? There have been several cases where those against the idea of abortion have been known to commit vicious acts such as assault, arson, and bombings along w..."

You really are a moron, you just made my point with your first paragraph.

[Hazel]

Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "an analogy is a useful learning tool, theres nothing spiritual about it."

In your opinion ....

Something is left out when this is discussed simply as an analogy. (No, not totems an..."

The circle of life is only spiritual if you imbue it with spirituality, but it is just as amazing and beautiful to know the water cycle, and the calvin cycle, and food webs, and ecology.

If the analogy works for you, then great. You felt awe at what you've been told, and so consider it spiritual. Awe is an experience I understand.

[Travis]

Drew wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: You aren't too bright are you? There have been several cases where those against the idea of abortion have been known to commit vicious acts such as assault, arson, and bo..."

drew, cs goes off the rails when asked about basic science, you are really surprised that things would be better when the chat turned to abortion?

[Hazel]

-.-

I just did the vacuuming while singing the Lion King theme tune. Shannon, I hold you entirely responsible...

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "The circle of life is only spiritual if you imbue it with spirituality, but it is just as amazing and beautiful to know the water cycle, and the calvin cycle, and food webs, and ecology. "

I think it likely depends on one's point of view.

We might define spirituality differently.

And, while the water cycle is part of the circle of life, looking at the water cycle and viewing it as beautiful, which it is, might be a bit like the mouse seeing the world closest to her. There might be another view, seen by the eagle, that encompasses more things of beauty ... or sees them from a different angle or perspective.

That's also one of life's lessons, in my opinion. The limitations of seeing things from one perspective and defining another person's experience ....

[cHriS]

Drew wrote: Do you really think that women will stop having abortions just because YOU think it is wrong?"

I have never said it was wrong. Your intolerance of anything religious is showing.

You see the Catholic church as wrong because it is anti abortion . It has a different view to yours, that does not make it wrong. There are atheists who do not agree with abortion, and as I have said before, it is not as simple as just being for or against, there is a middle ground where most peoples views are.

[cHriS]

Drew wrote: you just made my point with your first paragraph.
"

......I did, I made it look ridiculous.

[Drew]

cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: you just made my point with your first paragraph.
"

......I did, I made it look ridiculous."

No, you did the opposite, you made yourself look ridiculous.

[Gryph]

Shannon wrote: "That's also one of life's lessons, in my opinion. The limitations of seeing things from one perspective and defining another person's experience .... ."

Greetings Shannon :)

This sentence, more than most, defines (for me) the central argument of this discussion. Intolerance--in action--very easily fits this description.

What I perceive may or not be what another does. The same for my "ideals", understanding of "fact", sense of discovery, in fact any cognitive construct or process.

What I have perceived throughout this discussion, since my entry into it, is two-fold:

1. A marked slant of "Religion = Judeo / Christian / Islam" from those that prefer Science.

2. A series of "But Science says ... ", "But that is the same as Science ..." and other "buts". Although I'm sure it has happened earlier in the discussion, I have not seen the same response of "But God says ..." from those preferring Religion that continue to be active members of this discussion.

POV has been replaced, in many cases, by right v. wrong, black v. white, "your" and "their" camp expressions of thought.

Intolerance is most certainly expressed in this discussion.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: drew, cs goes off the rails when asked about basic science, you are really surprised that things would be better when the chat turned to abortion?

"

Hi Travis, you back again? Were you lying low for a while avoiding the last question I asked you, message 6845. :)

[cHriS]

Drew wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: you just made my point with your first paragraph.
"

......I did, I made it look ridiculous."

No, you did the opposite, you made yourself look ridiculous."

Ok, I will ask you, how did I do that?

[[deleted user]]

C-Cose wrote: "Shannon wrote: "That's also one of life's lessons, in my opinion. The limitations of seeing things from one perspective and defining another person's experience .... ."

Greetings Shannon :)

This ..."

Eagle and mouse .... Mouse and eagle .... It's something I try to keep in mind. I sometimes get stuck, but I try.

I think it's important.

;)

[Hazel]

C-Cose wrote: "What I perceive may or not be what another does. The same for my "ideals", understanding of "fact", sense of discovery, in fact any cognitive construct or process.

What I have perceived throughout this discussion, since my entry into it, is two-fold:

1. A marked slant of "Religion = Judeo / Christian / Islam" from those that prefer Science.

Thats because most of the religious people in the discussion are followers of Abrahamic religions. We have had a few Hindus turn up, which makes a welcome break in the conversation from what ends up being the norm. We've even had a couple of new age pagans many many pages ago... I think that was this conversation... I may be thinking of another one, but I'm sure we had a woman into her crystals and psychic stuff a looong time ago, in fact yes, if I recall correctly Whirlwind was really quite rude to her, which was a shame, as she seemed a nice lady.

2. A series of "But Science says ... ", "But that is the same as Science ..." and other "buts". Although I'm sure it has happened earlier in the discussion, I have not seen the same response of "But God says ..." from those preferring Religion that continue to be active members of this discussion.

There hasn't been any "but science says", though there has been "that can be explained this way, for which there is evidence to back it up". Also, I suspect the recent tete e tete between Shannon and myself may be colouring your perception, but you seem to think that whats happening is Shannon saying one thing, and me contradicting her, but thats not what I'm doing, I'm making statements and asking questions in order to draw more explanation from her about what she means. I now think I understand where she's coming from on this mouse/eagle thing, and I understand completely (I think) what she's saying, and why its a useful tool for her, and other people. I made plain that I think there's a danger of going too far and making unsubstantiated claims about what, for example, animals and plants can teach us, or what attributes they have, or making unsubstantiated claims of things like a tree having a spirit that can talk to us, then Shannon explained her position more, and it became clear that that was not where she was going.

I work by throwing ideas in, and seeing what people say in response, occasionally I may be original and just ask a direct question ;P Shannon and I have, I think, got quite used to each others mode of enquiry and speech (typing) patterns, we've been here together for a while now, I may have to invite her for tea... except the air fare may be an issue :D

[Gryph]

Hazel wrote: "C-Cose wrote: "What I perceive may or not be what another does. The same for my "ideals", understanding of "fact", sense of discovery, in fact any cognitive construct or process.

What I have perce..."

Greetings Hazel :)

I wasn't responding specifically to anything that you've posted--in discussion(s) with Shannon or otherwise. I was making a statement about the general "tone" that this discussion has had--in my perception--since I arrived here. I hope you can appreciate that my "But Science says ..." was a place marker indicating various responses that fit its general tone. If anything, your recent exchanges with Shannon have shown me that there is at least some tolerance for differing views here.

I have to wonder if the previous lack of contributions from non-Abrahamic traditions is a result of the question itself.

[Hazel]

oh good, I always get slightly paranoid that I'm not behaving the way I should. Its one of my personal issues I really need to work on. Its like when I was at work a while ago and £50 went missing from the till, and I knew I hadn't taken it, but I still started questioning myself anyway. Something I have to get past really. Sorry.

[Gryph]

Hazel wrote: "oh good, I always get slightly paranoid that I'm not behaving the way I should. Its one of my personal issues I really need to work on. Its like when I was at work a while ago and £50 went missing ..."

Greetings Hazel :)

No apology necessary, although I accept yours ... lol. I still find myself doing the same when I wonder if something I've done / said could have been misconstrued, but then I return to my mantra about only being responsible for what I do / say.

[[deleted user]]

Hmmm....

I agree with both of you, C-Cose and Hazel, to a certain extent. ;)

I very much identify with C's perceptions. Very much. I do think, for example, that there's a lot of focus on Judeo/Christian/Muslim traditions. While, Hazel, you might see that focus as a result of the fact that most believers come from that background, I don't know if that is the true cause or only cause. It might be the case sometimes. But, for example, I remember Christian references being made to Hindus not to long ago. :I I'd sooner think this focus has to do with the fact that most of the people who respond here, believer and atheist alike, have more experience with Judeo/Christian/Muslim faiths. Therefore .... In addition, in keeping with what I've said and connecting with C's statements, I have seen and experienced intolerance.

Having said that .... Yes, Hazel, we usually treat one another with respect. To be totally honest, though, I'm sometimes uncomfortable with some of the pronouncements that are made ... by you and others. They're very definitive. An example would be ... that's not spiritual ... from today's discussion.

This could just be me and as a result of my background, but ... it makes me uncomfortable. I can see, acknowledge and respect your opinion, including when it's different from mine. If you'd said, for example, "In my opinion, that's not spiritual," I'd agree ... at least with the fact that you have your own opinion on the matter. In your opinion, you might not see what I'm explaining as being connected to the spiritual. I do see a line, though, between saying ... this isn't spiritual ... which would be defining my experience for me ... and saying ... in my opinion, this isn't spirituality ... or ... I don't understand the connection to spirituality.

The latter would show your thoughts, your opinions, or your request for further explanation. That's something I'd welcome. I don't welcome people labeling me or defining me or defining my experience ... whether that's what you've meant to do or not ... whether that's what anyone has meant to do or not ... it sometimes reads that way. Especially if and when people add labels like "ignorant" and "arrogant" and "selfish" and "crazy" ... etc.... Just because people have a different experience or perspective, they're not automatically ignorant, arrogant, selfish or crazy ... all things that I've personally been called while taking part in this thread.

And, lest anyone thinks I believe myself to be above intolerance ....

While I didn't respond to the query made by Cerebus the other day on the thread ... could I refresh his memory regarding any intolerance shown here by atheists, I did message him personally in order to provide examples. I opened by stating my intolerance. I'm very intolerant of ... intolerant behavior. As I told Cerebus, I tend to go into "teacher-mode" and begin telling adults how they should treat one another. When I realized this and felt there was a fine line between taking a stand and policing grown adults, I stepped away from the thread. It left a sick feeling in my stomach. Of course, I have to say ... it also leaves a sick feeling in my stomach when I read intolerant statements ... and say nothing ... and watch others say nothing ... or join in. Both extremes feel wrong to me; I've not found answers yet in how to navigate this. But, that's as an aside ....