Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Couple random thoughts:so, on one side we have gone from religion, to belief to spirituality.
On the other we have gone from science to...well, actually we stayed at science.
Has changing the terms changed anything in the debate?
Not being snarky here, just curious. is there a difference in those three terms?
People have said 'I'm not religious, but I am spiritual'. Which just makes me shrug and go 'Yeah, so...?"
Does going from one term to another change the debate or your point of view or are we just shuffling terms?
What's the difference between the three terms?
other thought ( and this one is snarky: be warned): after the events in Syria, and until mobs of scientists run wild in the streets, killing and setting things on fire, don't be surprised if I have trouble taking the 'religious folk aren't intolerant' argument seriously.
Travis wrote: "Couple random thoughts:so, on one side we have gone from religion, to belief to spirituality.
On the other we have gone from science to...well, actually we stayed at science.
Has changing the te..."
Greetings Travis :)
You pose an interesting question. As the initial topic question only allowed for the polar options of Science and Religion, I believe the nature of the discussion has been changed by defining the terms more precisely.
While common usage may combine Religion with Spirituality, many do not--as evidenced by this thread. My thought is that "belief" has become a place-marker; some equate it with an idea, ideal or some other cognitive construct (Science) while others equate it with one element of their "religious" experience.
As to your last statement, I agree that it is difficult to see tolerance when we see extreme examples of intolerance ascribed to a specific Religion. I would suggest that it is important, vitally so, to distinguish between standard practice and extremism in action.
Travis wrote: "Couple random thoughts:
so, on one side we have gone from religion, to belief to spirituality.
On the other we have gone from science to...well, actually we stayed at science.
Has changing the te..."
I'm going to take your last point first, Travis.
Are you addressing a point cHriS made, or you addressing the conversation we've been having regarding intolerance on this thread? I'm not sure.
Given that, .... As I've stated, I believe all people are capable of tolerance and intolerance. All people, whether believer, agnostic, or atheist are capable of both. Further, I've detailed examples of religious intolerance, both historical and personal. I've also said I've seen and experienced intolerance on the part of atheists. In my opinion, atheists don't have the market on tolerance; they are intolerant but often of other things.
As an aside, scientists have also bloodied their hands, as we're all well aware. It might not have been out of intolerance, but bad acts have been committed historically (...and very recently) by scientists. I detailed several of those instances several months ago and don't intend to do so at this time.
Not snarky ... just true.
Religion. Belief. Spirituality.
What do they mean? Does the dialogue change depending on which term is used?
In my opinion, they might mean different things to different people. That would be my ultimate takeaway message.
However, having been one of the people who stated I was spiritual but not religious, I can say ....
I was told by some atheists on this thread that, if memory serves, I was wrong. Religion was religion. Spirituality was religion. People started throwing out definitions. It was mentioned that we had to agree on definitions in order to have a discussion. Etc.... Of course, there was also a chorus of, "Cherry Picker!" ... "Cherry Picker" .... That type of thing happens with great regularity, though. My memory might be blurring that into another topic. I don't think so, but you never know.
Despite the above, I, personally, see differences.
In my mind, religion is organized. Organized religion. There is a structure, a hierarchy, and tenants that members are supposed to espouse.
A belief, in my opinion, can deal with anything, religious, spiritual or otherwise. A belief is something we hold to be true.
Spirituality .... When I say I'm spiritual, it means I often focus on spiritual things. By that I mean .... I often think about and actually "feel" a connection with other people and other living things ... I think about the impact one might have on the other ... I think about roles that are played and how actions might change things, for good or for ill ... I think about God, Great Spirit, the light I envisioned as a little girl ... I wonder about the nature of God, Great Spirit, that power source I saw ... Am I on the right path? ... Am I fulfilling my purpose? ... What do I do with my gifts and talents? ... How should I best use them? ... Am I making a difference? ... Am I leaving the world a better place? ... How can I forgive that person? ... Should I forgive? ... What does that mean? ... Is there good and is there evil? ... Are there just varying forms of healthy and unhealthy? ... Did I do the right thing in that situation? ... And, though I imagine atheists cringing ... what is power, what is true power, what power do we hold, what power do I hold, what will I do with that power, etc...? By power, I, personally, don't mean the power attributed to animal totems. I don't mean tarot cards. I don't mean a lot of things. I, personally, do believe in power, though, and see different types of power ... some that aren't explained. As I mentioned before, I have what the women in my family refer to as "the sight" .... Ha! I still experience fear when I say that aloud or write it. How sad is that?! Drew, very kindly, said he wouldn't point and laugh at me when I brought that up, acknowledged what I said, and explained that he thought it was possible ... but not necessarily linked to God or anything spiritual ... I was linking it to that. I mention Drew specifically on this for a reason. I think he showed me kindness and tolerance at that time and in that situation; I was very grateful for it. Aprilthe ... did, too. At any rate, I also often think about that .... This gift or talent or power or ... the thing that makes me different. What is it? Am I meant to use it? How am I meant to use it? When I have a dream and see four babies in a dark place and one of the babies disappears ... then find out one of my cousins is pregnant with quads ... then find out the doctors thinks one of the babies will die ... what do I do? When she asks, for example, "Have you had any dreams or vibes?" what do I do? Say nothing? Tell her? Did I have that dream by happenstance? Did I have it for a reason? Will telling her help her to prepare? (True story. I said nothing .... I said I felt sick and fled the hospital room. My mother later told me that said it all ... that my cousin turned to everyone and said ... now I know. And, the baby did die. To this day though, I still wonder .... If I have this, whatever this is, and if I see things from time to time, does that mean I'm supposed to "use" it or do something with it? How does it fit in my life and the lives of people around me? What is the point? The purpose? Will I ever know? And, no, it wasn't coincidence. I sat down with my mathematical father and asked if he thought I was crazy and asked to use his mind ... we spent hours listing ever single thing and sorting them in categories ... after agreeing on how to define the categories ... so vague it could be a coincidence ... questionable ... so detailed and spoken of to various people before the even that it couldn't be a coincidence or a "lie" ... followed by probability and statistics and his pronouncement that statistically ... something was going on that he couldn't explain through math and science ....)
Those are thoughts and questions and ... burdens ... I carry and try to figure out. I do so by pondering them and talking with family members. Went to Borders once in search of reading materials, but .... I saw chapters on blue fairies and .... If people believe in blue fairies, I'm not going to tell them otherwise, but .... I, quite frankly, sometimes wish I lived in a time (without antibiotics, surely not!) when people, shamans, etc... had knowledge that is now lost to us, in my opinion.
Ultimately, though, Travis, to get answers to these questions, I don't go to one book or one church in order to get them. I believe a lot of truly enlightened people have come before me ... religious/spiritual and secular. So, I do a lot of reading and thinking about other people who have experienced things and gone through hard times and faced dilemmas and studied how they acted and reacted in those situations. I do, personally, believe Jesus lived and was wise beyond imagining. As I've stated, I do read the gospels and find direction in many of the teachings attributed to Jesus. I don't mean disrespect when I say this, truly, .... I also find great truths in novels I read ... like, To Kill a Mockingbird. I find truths in studying different people who have lived, from Gandhi to Golda Meir. I find truths in the ideas behind the circle of life. For me, mouse and eagle are huge.
This, for me, is the stuff of the spirit and spirituality. In my opinion, it differs from religion in that I'm not following one dogma and still have many questions.
Having said that, ....
If I'm spiritual instead of religious and if I don't belong to a religion and don't follow religious dogma, do I have a place here ... or do I not?
Is this a place of black and white? Religion, as in organized religion, and science? Or, are a variety of "colors" welcome?
And, ultimately, certain people might chime in and say there are no other colors ... said it before and will say it again ... there's religion and there's science ... period.
so, on one side we have gone from religion, to belief to spirituality.
On the other we have gone from science to...well, actually we stayed at science.
Has changing the te..."
I'm going to take your last point first, Travis.
Are you addressing a point cHriS made, or you addressing the conversation we've been having regarding intolerance on this thread? I'm not sure.
Given that, .... As I've stated, I believe all people are capable of tolerance and intolerance. All people, whether believer, agnostic, or atheist are capable of both. Further, I've detailed examples of religious intolerance, both historical and personal. I've also said I've seen and experienced intolerance on the part of atheists. In my opinion, atheists don't have the market on tolerance; they are intolerant but often of other things.
As an aside, scientists have also bloodied their hands, as we're all well aware. It might not have been out of intolerance, but bad acts have been committed historically (...and very recently) by scientists. I detailed several of those instances several months ago and don't intend to do so at this time.
Not snarky ... just true.
Religion. Belief. Spirituality.
What do they mean? Does the dialogue change depending on which term is used?
In my opinion, they might mean different things to different people. That would be my ultimate takeaway message.
However, having been one of the people who stated I was spiritual but not religious, I can say ....
I was told by some atheists on this thread that, if memory serves, I was wrong. Religion was religion. Spirituality was religion. People started throwing out definitions. It was mentioned that we had to agree on definitions in order to have a discussion. Etc.... Of course, there was also a chorus of, "Cherry Picker!" ... "Cherry Picker" .... That type of thing happens with great regularity, though. My memory might be blurring that into another topic. I don't think so, but you never know.
Despite the above, I, personally, see differences.
In my mind, religion is organized. Organized religion. There is a structure, a hierarchy, and tenants that members are supposed to espouse.
A belief, in my opinion, can deal with anything, religious, spiritual or otherwise. A belief is something we hold to be true.
Spirituality .... When I say I'm spiritual, it means I often focus on spiritual things. By that I mean .... I often think about and actually "feel" a connection with other people and other living things ... I think about the impact one might have on the other ... I think about roles that are played and how actions might change things, for good or for ill ... I think about God, Great Spirit, the light I envisioned as a little girl ... I wonder about the nature of God, Great Spirit, that power source I saw ... Am I on the right path? ... Am I fulfilling my purpose? ... What do I do with my gifts and talents? ... How should I best use them? ... Am I making a difference? ... Am I leaving the world a better place? ... How can I forgive that person? ... Should I forgive? ... What does that mean? ... Is there good and is there evil? ... Are there just varying forms of healthy and unhealthy? ... Did I do the right thing in that situation? ... And, though I imagine atheists cringing ... what is power, what is true power, what power do we hold, what power do I hold, what will I do with that power, etc...? By power, I, personally, don't mean the power attributed to animal totems. I don't mean tarot cards. I don't mean a lot of things. I, personally, do believe in power, though, and see different types of power ... some that aren't explained. As I mentioned before, I have what the women in my family refer to as "the sight" .... Ha! I still experience fear when I say that aloud or write it. How sad is that?! Drew, very kindly, said he wouldn't point and laugh at me when I brought that up, acknowledged what I said, and explained that he thought it was possible ... but not necessarily linked to God or anything spiritual ... I was linking it to that. I mention Drew specifically on this for a reason. I think he showed me kindness and tolerance at that time and in that situation; I was very grateful for it. Aprilthe ... did, too. At any rate, I also often think about that .... This gift or talent or power or ... the thing that makes me different. What is it? Am I meant to use it? How am I meant to use it? When I have a dream and see four babies in a dark place and one of the babies disappears ... then find out one of my cousins is pregnant with quads ... then find out the doctors thinks one of the babies will die ... what do I do? When she asks, for example, "Have you had any dreams or vibes?" what do I do? Say nothing? Tell her? Did I have that dream by happenstance? Did I have it for a reason? Will telling her help her to prepare? (True story. I said nothing .... I said I felt sick and fled the hospital room. My mother later told me that said it all ... that my cousin turned to everyone and said ... now I know. And, the baby did die. To this day though, I still wonder .... If I have this, whatever this is, and if I see things from time to time, does that mean I'm supposed to "use" it or do something with it? How does it fit in my life and the lives of people around me? What is the point? The purpose? Will I ever know? And, no, it wasn't coincidence. I sat down with my mathematical father and asked if he thought I was crazy and asked to use his mind ... we spent hours listing ever single thing and sorting them in categories ... after agreeing on how to define the categories ... so vague it could be a coincidence ... questionable ... so detailed and spoken of to various people before the even that it couldn't be a coincidence or a "lie" ... followed by probability and statistics and his pronouncement that statistically ... something was going on that he couldn't explain through math and science ....)
Those are thoughts and questions and ... burdens ... I carry and try to figure out. I do so by pondering them and talking with family members. Went to Borders once in search of reading materials, but .... I saw chapters on blue fairies and .... If people believe in blue fairies, I'm not going to tell them otherwise, but .... I, quite frankly, sometimes wish I lived in a time (without antibiotics, surely not!) when people, shamans, etc... had knowledge that is now lost to us, in my opinion.
Ultimately, though, Travis, to get answers to these questions, I don't go to one book or one church in order to get them. I believe a lot of truly enlightened people have come before me ... religious/spiritual and secular. So, I do a lot of reading and thinking about other people who have experienced things and gone through hard times and faced dilemmas and studied how they acted and reacted in those situations. I do, personally, believe Jesus lived and was wise beyond imagining. As I've stated, I do read the gospels and find direction in many of the teachings attributed to Jesus. I don't mean disrespect when I say this, truly, .... I also find great truths in novels I read ... like, To Kill a Mockingbird. I find truths in studying different people who have lived, from Gandhi to Golda Meir. I find truths in the ideas behind the circle of life. For me, mouse and eagle are huge.
This, for me, is the stuff of the spirit and spirituality. In my opinion, it differs from religion in that I'm not following one dogma and still have many questions.
Having said that, ....
If I'm spiritual instead of religious and if I don't belong to a religion and don't follow religious dogma, do I have a place here ... or do I not?
Is this a place of black and white? Religion, as in organized religion, and science? Or, are a variety of "colors" welcome?
And, ultimately, certain people might chime in and say there are no other colors ... said it before and will say it again ... there's religion and there's science ... period.
Travis wrote snarky: be warned): after the events in Syria, and until mobs of scientists run wild in the streets, killing and setting things on fire, don't be surprised if I have trouble taking the 'religious folk aren't intolerant' argument seriously. If you want to do terrible things, you better use science to do it. Richard Dawkins. (Science v Religion BBC 1 11.15pm.12/9/2012)
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Couple random thoughts:My asking about the religion/spirituality was a general curiosity thing. Language kind of fascinates me and the mixing of terms really had me wondering about them and how using one over the other tweaks the debate or if it has any effect at all.
On one hand, if the debate is science vs religion and people are saying 'I'm not religious, I'm spiritual', then we need some kind of clarification on what that means.
If there's a difference, than how does that impact on the debate or is it just a matter of finding a nicer/different way to say something
'combat fatigue vs shellshocked' sort of thing.
Not a great example, but you get the idea.
Or we can just move to the 'science vs spirituality' thread and bug those people.
personally, I have two terms: science and atheist and I stick with them. so, to have the other side going into various degrees leaves me just sitting here thinking 'Yeah, so? Does that change anything?'
I don't feel I have anything to add to the debate, as I don't see/understand if using them are just a word choice, a different idea or what.
I guess instead of a language barrier, I see an idea barrier.
My comment on intolerance was also kind of general, in that while it's being explained that religions aren't intolerant, a whole bunch of religious folks just killed three people over a movie.
There's no god, but man does he have a wicked ( yet nonexistent) sense of humor.
As I've said, send me the link to the mob of scientists that took to the streets and set something on fire and I'll move along, but otherwise, that debate is done.
Reality put in the tie breaking vote and it wasn't for religion.
and shannon, if your scientist example has you saying it's probably not intolerance, then it's not a good example of scientists being intolerant.
That has nothing to do with the debate, I am aware science has been put to some bad uses ( facebook for example) but that was just a shaky bit of logic that set off my nit-picking nerve.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote snarky: be warned): after the events in Syria, and until mobs of scientists run wild in the streets, killing and setting things on fire, don't be surprised if I have trouble taking the..."Unless that link contains footage of Dawkins then leading a mob of scientists with torches ( or more likely bunsen burners) into the streets, then it's nothing more than an interesting quote, but it's still game over as far as the intolerance debate goes.
cHriS can you re-upload the link, it's broken.
Travis wrote: "Unless that link contains footage of Dawkins then leading a mob of scientists with torches ( or more likely bunsen burners) into the streets, then it's nothing more than an interesting quote, but it's still game over as far as the intolerance debate goes. "Sadly, I don't have a link to the atrocity, but .... experimentation on those considered to be "inferior" en masse, as a race, group, or creed in the name of Science smacks of intolerance to me. But then that was the Holocaust ... different times, I suspect.
Travis wrote: "That has nothing to do with the debate, I am aware science has been put to some bad uses ( facebook for example)"
I actually wasn't thinking of FB but of scientists and doctors experimenting on people who are minorities and marginalized.
You know.... Women, prisoners, African-Americans, etc....
Was that intolerance?
As I said, scientists have blood on their hands. For me, blood is blood. But, we've gone down this rabbit hole before on this thread.
I'm pretty sure the scientists did what they did in order to learn and save the rest of the populous ... the ones who look right ... with the right anatomical parts, the spotless criminal record, the right skin color.
Sort of hints at a bit of racism, doesn't it? Hmmm... Who is expendable and who isn't? Who can we experiment on in order to save the "right" people? What is at the heart of racism? Intolerance? Or, hate and fear? Where is the line?
But, given the fact that the scientists, in my opinion, didn't do what they did out of intolerance in and of itself, I left it at their having blood on their hands ... and blood is blood.
Since, however, in acknowledging science has been used for bad things ... like Facebook, I had a hard time not connecting a few dots.
Though, to be fair to the scientists, I don't believe they ran through the streets and set fire to anything. I think they stayed in buildings and told people they had to give them shots in order to help them. Hmmm.....
I actually wasn't thinking of FB but of scientists and doctors experimenting on people who are minorities and marginalized.
You know.... Women, prisoners, African-Americans, etc....
Was that intolerance?
As I said, scientists have blood on their hands. For me, blood is blood. But, we've gone down this rabbit hole before on this thread.
I'm pretty sure the scientists did what they did in order to learn and save the rest of the populous ... the ones who look right ... with the right anatomical parts, the spotless criminal record, the right skin color.
Sort of hints at a bit of racism, doesn't it? Hmmm... Who is expendable and who isn't? Who can we experiment on in order to save the "right" people? What is at the heart of racism? Intolerance? Or, hate and fear? Where is the line?
But, given the fact that the scientists, in my opinion, didn't do what they did out of intolerance in and of itself, I left it at their having blood on their hands ... and blood is blood.
Since, however, in acknowledging science has been used for bad things ... like Facebook, I had a hard time not connecting a few dots.
Though, to be fair to the scientists, I don't believe they ran through the streets and set fire to anything. I think they stayed in buildings and told people they had to give them shots in order to help them. Hmmm.....
C-Cose wrote: "Travis wrote: "Unless that link contains footage of Dawkins then leading a mob of scientists with torches ( or more likely bunsen burners) into the streets, then it's nothing more than an interesti..."salutations C.
I appreciate your comments on the spirituality/religion question, but if we are going to the holocaust for the rebuttal to my intolerance remark, then I am sticking to my original idea that it's still game over on that topic.
C-Cose wrote: "different times, I suspect"
Mmm.... I'm not sure. I just read something interesting. A doctor details past abuses and states, given current oversight, he highly doubts such things could happen now. However, he notes,
"In terms of pharmaceutical companies, there are clearly loopholes when it comes to overseas studies. Indeed, pharmaceutical companies have been doing more and more studies overseas. Although federal law states that such studies, if they are funded by the federal government or if they are to be used as part of an application for FDA approval of a drug, that is not always enough of a guarantee of oversight:
Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general reported that between 40 and 65 percent of clinical studies of federally regulated medical products were done in other countries in 2008, and that proportion probably has grown. The report also noted that U.S. regulators inspected fewer than 1 percent of foreign clinical trial sites.
Clearly, this is an unacceptable level of oversight, particularly outside of developed countries, such as those in Europe, where clinical trial oversight is comparable to that in the U.S.
Ironically, two examples come to mind of clinical trials that show the holes in our regulatory system for human subjects protection, both of which I have written about right here on SBM before."
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/i...
So, yes, on the one hand, times have changed and have changed for the better. However, there still seems to be experimentation on people of a certain color, those who are marginalized, etc....
Mmm.... I'm not sure. I just read something interesting. A doctor details past abuses and states, given current oversight, he highly doubts such things could happen now. However, he notes,
"In terms of pharmaceutical companies, there are clearly loopholes when it comes to overseas studies. Indeed, pharmaceutical companies have been doing more and more studies overseas. Although federal law states that such studies, if they are funded by the federal government or if they are to be used as part of an application for FDA approval of a drug, that is not always enough of a guarantee of oversight:
Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general reported that between 40 and 65 percent of clinical studies of federally regulated medical products were done in other countries in 2008, and that proportion probably has grown. The report also noted that U.S. regulators inspected fewer than 1 percent of foreign clinical trial sites.
Clearly, this is an unacceptable level of oversight, particularly outside of developed countries, such as those in Europe, where clinical trial oversight is comparable to that in the U.S.
Ironically, two examples come to mind of clinical trials that show the holes in our regulatory system for human subjects protection, both of which I have written about right here on SBM before."
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/i...
So, yes, on the one hand, times have changed and have changed for the better. However, there still seems to be experimentation on people of a certain color, those who are marginalized, etc....
Travis wrote: " I am sticking to my original idea that it's still game over on that topic. "
Really ...?
Medical experimentation was perpetrated on innocents during the Holocaust. It is the truth.
As you might have noticed, given the fact that atheists here don't like it when the Holocaust is mentioned and tend to say they won't respond to people who go there, etc..., I didn't mention Nazi experimentation in my post. I mentioned experimentation on minorities and prisoners in the US all the way up through the '60's and mid-'70's.
Further, I just included information on loopholes in the laws/policies/regulations that scientists put in play after the Holocaust and because of the extermination done at that time. Scientists with our pharmaceutical companies still might be experimenting on people with brown skin, for example ... in other countries.
Still game over ...?
Really ...?
Medical experimentation was perpetrated on innocents during the Holocaust. It is the truth.
As you might have noticed, given the fact that atheists here don't like it when the Holocaust is mentioned and tend to say they won't respond to people who go there, etc..., I didn't mention Nazi experimentation in my post. I mentioned experimentation on minorities and prisoners in the US all the way up through the '60's and mid-'70's.
Further, I just included information on loopholes in the laws/policies/regulations that scientists put in play after the Holocaust and because of the extermination done at that time. Scientists with our pharmaceutical companies still might be experimenting on people with brown skin, for example ... in other countries.
Still game over ...?
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "That has nothing to do with the debate, I am aware science has been put to some bad uses ( facebook for example)"I actually wasn't thinking of FB but of scientists and doctors expe..."
It's a misuse of science, but it's not scientists reacting to people saying 'climate change isn't real' or 'you can't prove god doesn't exist' by taking to the streets, flipping over cars and wracking up a body count.
When a bunch of scientists beat the crap out of a climate change denier, then you've got something.
and if Bill Nye is leading the mob, then you have an example and something with DVRing.
Travis wrote: ... if we are going to the holocaust for the rebuttal to my intolerance remark, then I am sticking to my original idea that it's still game over on that topic. "Greetings Travis,
Just to understand you...the recent actions of extremists in Syria are an example of "Religious" intolerance, but the actions of extremist Scientists during the Holocaust is not a comparable example of intolerance?
Am I missing something? Or are the actions during the Holocaust ineligible for this debate because of a combined gut reaction (culturally) to them?
Here's a more current example for you. "Science" actively refusing to identify and then work towards a cure for HIV / AIDS during the early years of the outbreak. It was a "gay male" disease after all. I'm sure that had nothing to do with a sense of intolerance at all ....
I truly don't see how you can claim superiority of Science over Religion in the field of tolerance.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: " I am sticking to my original idea that it's still game over on that topic. "Really ...?
Medical experimentation was perpetrated on innocents during the Holocaust. It is the tr..."
Yes, still game over.
One, it's not a nice thing, but it isn't intolerance. it's not an angry mob killing people that dared to disagree with them.
Two, my example is tuesday, three people dead over a trailer for a movie, the other side has the holocaust.
and to be picky, the holocaust is in fact a huge example of religious intolerance.
three, it's not scientific intolerance to test drugs meant for people on people. It's not pleasant and questionable on many levels, but it's actually greed and possibly prejudice.
Travis wrote: "It's a misuse of science, but it's not scientists reacting to people saying 'climate change isn't real' or 'you can't prove god doesn't exist' by taking to the streets, flipping over cars and wracking up a body count.
When a bunch of scientists beat the crap out of a climate change denier, then you've got something.
and if Bill Nye is leading the mob, then you have an example and something with DVRing. "
Phew ....
Good thing you put all the conditions on it, Travis. Else, ... it looked like I was making a pretty good argument. Scientists experimenting on brown people ... not out of intolerance, as I said, but ....
Eww.... A wee bit sketchy. Scientists experimenting on minorities and prisoners in order to save the rest of us. Why? Well, minorities don't have a voice and don't have money and, hey, who will really care if people with brown skin in Central or South America get experimented upon ....
But, now, I have no argument ... since I'm not likely going to be able to ask said people with brown skin about their thoughts on global warming and I truly doubt the scientists beat them up prior to injecting them.
When a bunch of scientists beat the crap out of a climate change denier, then you've got something.
and if Bill Nye is leading the mob, then you have an example and something with DVRing. "
Phew ....
Good thing you put all the conditions on it, Travis. Else, ... it looked like I was making a pretty good argument. Scientists experimenting on brown people ... not out of intolerance, as I said, but ....
Eww.... A wee bit sketchy. Scientists experimenting on minorities and prisoners in order to save the rest of us. Why? Well, minorities don't have a voice and don't have money and, hey, who will really care if people with brown skin in Central or South America get experimented upon ....
But, now, I have no argument ... since I'm not likely going to be able to ask said people with brown skin about their thoughts on global warming and I truly doubt the scientists beat them up prior to injecting them.
C-Cose wrote: "Travis wrote: ... if we are going to the holocaust for the rebuttal to my intolerance remark, then I am sticking to my original idea that it's still game over on that topic. "Greetings Travis,
J..."
greetings to you.
While the aids incident is at least closer than the holocaust, it's more religious intolerance than scientific intolerance.
Or at the least a political effort not to fund or promote any research than the actual scientists crossing their arms and going 'nope, not gonna do it.'.
and again, the holocaust is religious intolerance.
Hitler was not announcing he was a chemist and wanted to exterminate the biologists.
He declared himself a christian and went after the jews.
again, misuse of science does not automatically equal intolerance.
The holocaust was bad, no arguments, but it's a lazy debate tactic and more evidence for religion not having the tolerant high ground.
Travis wrote: "Yes, still game over.One, it's not a nice thing, but it isn't intolerance. it's not an angry mob killing people that dared to disagree with them."
Travis,
You're absolutely right ... in your own mind .. although history would refute your claims.
Your example is one of individuals acting as a mob in response to an extremist view of their own Religion. Is is not a reflection of the underlying Religion. Perhaps, if you read some historical accounts of what various Religions assert--regardless of how the adherents act--your claims would have more weight.
I'm not talking about any specific "Holy Book"; I'm speaking about pure, unadulterated, historical accounts of the founding and beliefs of those religions. I've read some by terribly intelligent atheists that had no difficulty discussing the subject matter.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "It's a misuse of science, but it's not scientists reacting to people saying 'climate change isn't real' or 'you can't prove god doesn't exist' by taking to the streets, flipping over..."I'm not saying it's not a bad thing, I'm a wuss about needles, so wouldn't condone giving shots to my worse enemy, I'm just saying it's not a slam dunk as far as intolerance goes.
If there was a bunch of white people that no one cared about and it was cheaper than buying white mice, the pharm companies would be going to them in a heart beat.
Like I said, greed, high ick factor and morally very questionable.
It's just not the same as a bunch of people responding to a movie trailer about their religious figure of choice by killing people and setting a city on fire.
Travis wrote: "Hitler was not announcing he was a chemist and wanted to exterminate the biologists.He declared himself a christian and went after the jews."
Travis,
Hitler wasn't the one experimenting on Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Hungarians, Polish, or general malcontents. Scientists in his employ were--and there is no indication that they were all Christian. They were experimenting to refine their own definition of a "Master Race".
Hitler also wasn't Christian; he was a former Christian who created his own religion built on a cobbling together of Nordic and proto-Nordic mythology with himself as the Supreme Religious Leader. If you're going to state something as fact, at least have a modicum of information about it.
As to the AIDS crisis response, you have no idea what you're talking about. The lack of reaction was because gay men were dying and they didn't matter. To put in in terms you will understand, the victims of the early "Gay Cancer" were having anal intercourse and the Scientists didn't approve. Religious or not.
Travis wrote: "He declared himself a christian and went after the jews."
And, ... the mentally ill, the blind, the deaf, those with special needs and low IQ's, homosexuals ...?
Again, we've been down this road.
This wasn't about Hitler being a Christian and going after Jews. This was about Germany's economy being totally and completely destroyed after WWI. This was about people taking wheelbarrows of money to town and walking away with a loaf of bread. This was about people, who were starving, falling under the spell of a man who pointed at the Jews, the go-to scapegoats, as the cause of their plight.
Go-to scapegoats? Yes. That had to do with their faith, to a certain extent. It also had to do with the fact that, a thousand years before, give or take, Europeans thought handling money was dirty. So, the Jews were allowed the "dirty" job of moneylending. Based on religious intolerance, true. But, then, when someone couldn't pay back his loan, the chants went up about the Jews poisoning the well or killing the baby. Religious intolerance or greed? The more things change ... the more they stay the same. So, there we went again. Poverty. Starvation. Let's blame the Jews.
Mmmm....
I'm not making this up. Read any history book that was written by a historian. Ask historians ... of history ... not of religion or the history of atheism.
How much of Hitler and the holocaust was religion and how much was poverty, greed, and the thirst for power?
To say Hitler and the holocaust was about religion and religious intolerance is not accurate. It just is not.
Now, Hitler's scientists experimented on mentally ill people and people with special needs, etc..., who weren't always Jewish, because ...?
Hitler's scientists experimented on their own people, good German boys and good German girls with blond hair and blue eyes and the proper measurements, because ....? Made them have sex with one another in order to attempt to breed super humans, because ....?
I'll need a whole mess of cites for books and articles written by reputable historians if you're going to tell me it was all based on religion and religious intolerance ... or ... I'll need to get messed up on a whole bottle of alcohol if I'm going to believe it was all about religion.
And, ... the mentally ill, the blind, the deaf, those with special needs and low IQ's, homosexuals ...?
Again, we've been down this road.
This wasn't about Hitler being a Christian and going after Jews. This was about Germany's economy being totally and completely destroyed after WWI. This was about people taking wheelbarrows of money to town and walking away with a loaf of bread. This was about people, who were starving, falling under the spell of a man who pointed at the Jews, the go-to scapegoats, as the cause of their plight.
Go-to scapegoats? Yes. That had to do with their faith, to a certain extent. It also had to do with the fact that, a thousand years before, give or take, Europeans thought handling money was dirty. So, the Jews were allowed the "dirty" job of moneylending. Based on religious intolerance, true. But, then, when someone couldn't pay back his loan, the chants went up about the Jews poisoning the well or killing the baby. Religious intolerance or greed? The more things change ... the more they stay the same. So, there we went again. Poverty. Starvation. Let's blame the Jews.
Mmmm....
I'm not making this up. Read any history book that was written by a historian. Ask historians ... of history ... not of religion or the history of atheism.
How much of Hitler and the holocaust was religion and how much was poverty, greed, and the thirst for power?
To say Hitler and the holocaust was about religion and religious intolerance is not accurate. It just is not.
Now, Hitler's scientists experimented on mentally ill people and people with special needs, etc..., who weren't always Jewish, because ...?
Hitler's scientists experimented on their own people, good German boys and good German girls with blond hair and blue eyes and the proper measurements, because ....? Made them have sex with one another in order to attempt to breed super humans, because ....?
I'll need a whole mess of cites for books and articles written by reputable historians if you're going to tell me it was all based on religion and religious intolerance ... or ... I'll need to get messed up on a whole bottle of alcohol if I'm going to believe it was all about religion.
C-Cose wrote: "Hitler wasn't the one experimenting on Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Hungarians, Polish, or general malcontents."
I feel horrible. You're right. I left people out. I always forget the Gypsies, for example. I don't know why. It's so sad, really. To be marginalized, targeted, brutalized, killed ... and, ultimately, forgotten.
I feel horrible. You're right. I left people out. I always forget the Gypsies, for example. I don't know why. It's so sad, really. To be marginalized, targeted, brutalized, killed ... and, ultimately, forgotten.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "He declared himself a christian and went after the jews."And, ... the mentally ill, the blind, the deaf, those with special needs and low IQ's, homosexuals ...?
Again, we've been ..."
If you are drinking margaritas, then pass the pitcher this way , as I knew it would get like this the minute I saw that the holocaust was being used as a counter example.
So, new deal:
My example happened tuesday and didn't involve nazis, so give me a counter example from this week, that's nazi free and we'll talk.
Travis wrote: "My example happened tuesday and didn't involve nazis, so give me a counter example from this week, that's nazi free and we'll talk."
Not sure if our pharmaceutical companies were experimenting on people with brown skin residing in countries lacking oversight this week or not. I could call the different companies and ask, but something tells me they won't answer. In addition, let's face it. Even if they said they weren't doing that this week, I wouldn't believe them.
My guess ....? They were likely experimenting on them this very day. But, that's only a guess ....
Not sure if our pharmaceutical companies were experimenting on people with brown skin residing in countries lacking oversight this week or not. I could call the different companies and ask, but something tells me they won't answer. In addition, let's face it. Even if they said they weren't doing that this week, I wouldn't believe them.
My guess ....? They were likely experimenting on them this very day. But, that's only a guess ....
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "My example happened tuesday and didn't involve nazis, so give me a counter example from this week, that's nazi free and we'll talk."Not sure if our pharmaceutical companies were ex..."
So, that would be a 'I got nothing'...?
I don't want guesses, nazi references or people having to stretch back thirty years ago for something that might, kinda, sorta be intolerance.
My pick was yesterday, three dead, fires in the streets, mobs of people over an effin movie trailer for a film with no distribution deal, that could only be found on youtube, and you had to get it translated from english to arabic, because it dissed their religious figure of choice.
That is what religious intolerance looks like.
I have waited, listened, been lectured at and had the holocaust thrown at me.
So, somebody, anybody pony up a counter argument that shows 'science is intolerant' in equal measure or get off the moral high ground.
tired of playing this game.
Just curious, does anyone read comments this far, holla if you do. I personally have trouble accepting the all seeing Supreme Being, but can see the function of religion, as a moral device. The moralities which are hammered into us, as kids, and which stays in us as adults (sociopaths etc excluded LOL) all have religion(s) as a source. Speak the truth, dont harm others etc etc... Religion gives us the (faux in my case) accountability of leading life the so called good way. This is of of course leads to debate, with things in the middle like abortion, but there is no debate that I shouldnt go and kill my neighbour to check the damage in his lungs. Bottomline, a person who is logging into this website and writing comments in this forum, for him science and religion has become a theoretical debate, what about the rest....
no I frankly stopped reading a few threads ago. Although it it nice to see others' viewpoints it has gone off on tangents to Hitler and everything in between and I am put off by it.
Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote snarky: be warned): after the events in Syria, and until mobs of scientists run wild in the streets, killing and setting things on fire, don't be surprised if I have trou..."Travis? Dawkins? Travis? Dawkins?........ Dawkins wins every time.
Shanna wrote: "cHriS can you re-upload the link, it's broken."Shanna, it was not a link, although it was underlined as such. It was the programme I just finished watching, maybe others watched it. I will see if I can find a link to BBC iplayer, as it may be re-played. If I can I will post later today.
Thanks cHriS, I'm curious.
cHriS wrote: "Hi Travis, you back again? Were you lying low for a while avoiding the last question I asked you, message 6845. :)"Funny you should bring that up cs. Are you avoiding the question that I asked you in 6955 on page 140? Are you ever going to address the list of avoided questions I summarised for you on page 93, 4608, before your protracted absence?
Travis wrote: "So, that would be a 'I got nothing'...?"
Are you serious, Travis? Seriously?
I found information that ...
After WWII, scientists were horrified by the experimentation done on humans, so they put different oversights and restrictions upon themselves. Supposedly....
But, humans were experimented upon in the US, in the US (!), up through the '60's and '70's.
Further, I gave information and a site that details a loophole in these oversights ....
Our pharmaceutical companies are, in VERY large numbers, experimenting in countries without oversight and the FDA, in only 1% of those instances, has attempted to monitor the situation.
Further, people with brown skin in South America were experimented upon within the past few year ... few years .... This doctor discussed a case that was a violation of human subject testing ideals that scientists have put forth.
Yet ....
After my stating that, you talk about Nazi references and things going back 30 years ago. References that "might, kinda, sorta be intolerance" .... And, then ... you say you're sick of playing this game.
Travis ....
Making such comments diminishes what happened ... to human beings.
Ignoring the fact that pharmaceutical companies, in large numbers, were doing their testing in countries without oversight (and with very poor brown people who need money) and were experimenting upon native people within the last five or so years, diminishes the disgusting nature and horror implied by those choices.
And, Gary says that I ... a person who believes that people have the right to choose any faith they want or not ... am intolerant because I'm supporting people in their choice of a faith that might lead to suppression ... that I'm somehow responsible for their choices due to the fact that I support choice, the freedom to practice a faith or not?!
Yet ....
Despite facts, facts of something vile, you're ignoring it ... totally and completely ...
Then, in the face of this, facts, you're alluding to the fact that I'm playing a game.
I assure you, Travis, when it comes to white people abusing natives in the Americas, I, for one, am not playing a game.
Is that really the path you wanted to walk down? Or, did your fingers run away from you in the heat of the moment?
Are you serious, Travis? Seriously?
I found information that ...
After WWII, scientists were horrified by the experimentation done on humans, so they put different oversights and restrictions upon themselves. Supposedly....
But, humans were experimented upon in the US, in the US (!), up through the '60's and '70's.
Further, I gave information and a site that details a loophole in these oversights ....
Our pharmaceutical companies are, in VERY large numbers, experimenting in countries without oversight and the FDA, in only 1% of those instances, has attempted to monitor the situation.
Further, people with brown skin in South America were experimented upon within the past few year ... few years .... This doctor discussed a case that was a violation of human subject testing ideals that scientists have put forth.
Yet ....
After my stating that, you talk about Nazi references and things going back 30 years ago. References that "might, kinda, sorta be intolerance" .... And, then ... you say you're sick of playing this game.
Travis ....
Making such comments diminishes what happened ... to human beings.
Ignoring the fact that pharmaceutical companies, in large numbers, were doing their testing in countries without oversight (and with very poor brown people who need money) and were experimenting upon native people within the last five or so years, diminishes the disgusting nature and horror implied by those choices.
And, Gary says that I ... a person who believes that people have the right to choose any faith they want or not ... am intolerant because I'm supporting people in their choice of a faith that might lead to suppression ... that I'm somehow responsible for their choices due to the fact that I support choice, the freedom to practice a faith or not?!
Yet ....
Despite facts, facts of something vile, you're ignoring it ... totally and completely ...
Then, in the face of this, facts, you're alluding to the fact that I'm playing a game.
I assure you, Travis, when it comes to white people abusing natives in the Americas, I, for one, am not playing a game.
Is that really the path you wanted to walk down? Or, did your fingers run away from you in the heat of the moment?
In addition, Travis ....
That post dismisses, out of hand, C's contentions regarding gay men and AIDS.
I don't know anything about that. I've not read about it or heard about it ... the idea that more wasn't done at the time because it was "only" killing gay men and they were expendable. But, I'm not going to dismiss it ... or say ....
There's a gap in my knowledge. Must be religion is at fault.
I'm actually, when I have some free time in the next few days, going to do some research. If C is right, that's pretty darned horrifying, in my opinion, and shouldn't be dismissed as if it were nothing. That's adding salt to the wound and attempts to diminish what happened to a group of people.
Robin ....
Out of curiosity .... I don't know if you're reading or not .... Since you were when Aditya posted a question, maybe you are reading, so ....
Are you also put off by the contentions and references made by atheists? Or, are you only put off by the contentions made by believers?
I find myself somewhat curious on that topic.
Aditya ... I don't have an answer ... I did read your question. I mean, my first reaction would be ... it depends ....
That post dismisses, out of hand, C's contentions regarding gay men and AIDS.
I don't know anything about that. I've not read about it or heard about it ... the idea that more wasn't done at the time because it was "only" killing gay men and they were expendable. But, I'm not going to dismiss it ... or say ....
There's a gap in my knowledge. Must be religion is at fault.
I'm actually, when I have some free time in the next few days, going to do some research. If C is right, that's pretty darned horrifying, in my opinion, and shouldn't be dismissed as if it were nothing. That's adding salt to the wound and attempts to diminish what happened to a group of people.
Robin ....
Out of curiosity .... I don't know if you're reading or not .... Since you were when Aditya posted a question, maybe you are reading, so ....
Are you also put off by the contentions and references made by atheists? Or, are you only put off by the contentions made by believers?
I find myself somewhat curious on that topic.
Aditya ... I don't have an answer ... I did read your question. I mean, my first reaction would be ... it depends ....
Shannon wrote: "Medical experimentation was perpetrated on innocents during the Holocaust. It is the truth."True. But the philosophy of science doesn't require such behaviour and a secular analysis on morality would demonstrate that it was wrong.
The reason that such things happened were based on the ideology of racial supremacy based on notions of divine mandate. "Gott Mitt Uns"
Shannon wrote: "As you might have noticed, given the fact that atheists here don't like it when the Holocaust is mentioned and tend to say they won't respond to people who go there, etc..., I didn't mention Nazi experimentation in my post. I mentioned experimentation on minorities and prisoners in the US all the way up through the '60's and mid-'70's."
People tend to avoid it because it's generally viewed as a 'cheap shot' (Godwin's Law). Bad taste to be forced to resort to.
But I absolutely recognise that you didn't mention it. However, I can see why people thought you were implying it, through no fault of your own.
Religious apologists, in particular American Evangelists I've noticed, have repeatedly tried to label Hitler etc. as atheists, despite significant evidence to the contrary. Certainly their religious beliefs were heavily skewed and incorporated both Christian teachings, occult mysticism and a certain amount of messiah complex.
The holocaust was certainly not just religious in nature, but it was heavily influenced by thousands of years of anti-semitism in Europe which was primarily based on the fact that Jewish religion and Christian religion had its conflicts and its differences. Anti-Jewish sentiment had existed because claiming to be Jewish in Christian eyes was denying that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Many Christians also blamed the Jews for killing Christ as when the Romans adopted Christianity as the state religion they were careful to absolve 'Pontius Pilate' in the story of blame in favour of the Jewish priests calling for his execution. Furthermore many Christians became envious of Jewish wealth because Christians used to avoid the sin of usury and could not charge interest, leaving Jews to grow wealthy by banking. Ironic that modern US evangelists are happy to ignore the sin of usury that they are committing while decrying homosexuality in others.
As for the other victims of the holocaust, homosexuals were obviously a religiously selected target, though general disgust in others helped there, Gypsies were often reviled for witchcraft and paganism, the disabled were also sometimes thought of as 'punished by god' (check the bible about instructions about who is allowed before the altar).
Also the entire idea of the superiority of the Arian heterosexual race was based on a 'divine mandate' or 'providence' that Germany was leading the chosen people to greatness.
Obviously there are more factors of politics, envy, hate and greed, but belief in divine justification did a lot to oil the machine of death.
Shannon wrote: "Scientists with our pharmaceutical companies still might be experimenting on people with brown skin, for example ... in other countries."
There is nothing, however, in science or in a scientifically derived system of ethics to support such an action. The 'scientists' that justify such actions to themselves or others based on criteria that will often be based on belief or culture. If not religion, then patriotism or even just simple greed.
Oh and sorry I've been away. I will answer your direct response to me as soon as possible Shannon. Thank you.
Shannon wrote: "And, Gary says that I ... a person who believes that people have the right to choose any faith they want or not ... am intolerant because I'm supporting people in their choice of a faith that might lead to suppression ... that I'm somehow responsible for their choices due to the fact that I support choice, the freedom to practice a faith or not?!"Specifically, supporting a persons right to choose I support, however that does not mean that there are not consequences to that choice. A person may choose to be racist, that does not mean I will respect that choice or tolerate their intolerance.
In essence, if a decision effects only yourself, or effects others in mostly a positive manner then I can tolerate it.
Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Hi Travis, you back again? Were you lying low for a while avoiding the last question I asked you, message 6845. :)"Funny you should bring that up cs. Are you avoiding the question
Gary there are a few questions to you, not to many pages back that did not get a reply.
cHriS wrote: "Gary there are a few questions to you, not to any pages back that did not get a reply."Please point them out if they were not many pages back as I have been unavoidably away due to workload.
I will be happy to answer them. Will you answer yours?
Gary wrote: "There is nothing, however, in science or in a scientifically derived system of ethics to support such an action."
No ....
It just happens. It's just happened for years and years and years and it still just happens.
Regarding tolerance and intolerance ... regarding questions ... regarding ....
I wonder at a couple of things.
Atheists, in my experience on this thread, think the ideas and beliefs of religious and spiritual people should be questioned. Nothing should be beyond question and exploration. (I've come to agree.)
Yet, atheists, it would seem, think something is beyond question and beyond exploration. Any and all mention of Hitler and the experimentation done upon human beings .... That ... that's a cheap shot. That ... that's a topic that never should be mentioned. And, if anyone does, they'll meet with various forms of scorn ... or shunning, depending.
I find that fascinating ... and sadly ironic.
I agree with you, Gary, that elements of religion and anti-Semitism oiled the wheels of the "machine" of the holocaust and the war in the European theater. I won't ignore that. It's true. It happened. But .... I won't pretend the idea that it was all about religion is acceptable. Not even remotely so ... on any point. I wonder at the fact that some attempt to do so. But, that ... that's not a cheap shot or a willful rejection of actual facts.
No ....
It just happens. It's just happened for years and years and years and it still just happens.
Regarding tolerance and intolerance ... regarding questions ... regarding ....
I wonder at a couple of things.
Atheists, in my experience on this thread, think the ideas and beliefs of religious and spiritual people should be questioned. Nothing should be beyond question and exploration. (I've come to agree.)
Yet, atheists, it would seem, think something is beyond question and beyond exploration. Any and all mention of Hitler and the experimentation done upon human beings .... That ... that's a cheap shot. That ... that's a topic that never should be mentioned. And, if anyone does, they'll meet with various forms of scorn ... or shunning, depending.
I find that fascinating ... and sadly ironic.
I agree with you, Gary, that elements of religion and anti-Semitism oiled the wheels of the "machine" of the holocaust and the war in the European theater. I won't ignore that. It's true. It happened. But .... I won't pretend the idea that it was all about religion is acceptable. Not even remotely so ... on any point. I wonder at the fact that some attempt to do so. But, that ... that's not a cheap shot or a willful rejection of actual facts.
Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Gary there are a few questions to you, not to any pages back that did not get a reply."Please point them out if they were not many pages back as I have been unavoidably away due to ..."
I will if you do the same. We all have to be away at times.
Shannon wrote: "You know .... I've been thinking about this today. While I've considered your point, I, in the end, disagree."Sorry Shannon, I may be confused here but I am not sure what you are not agreeing with. The statement quoted was about the difference between two extremes of the word "belief" and how I was distinguishing between them. What part were you disagreeing with? The concept that there is a difference or my choice of usage? Sorry if I've missed the point.
Shannon wrote: "People of all religions and various spiritual pursuits know "God" ... by different names and they discover different truths."
Is that not a fundamentally egocentric assumption? You are presupposing the existence of a god and then assuming that anyone religious is seeing some aspect of the entity you presuppose, even religions with different gods, many gods and no gods? Further, does this not immediately imply a hierarchy of truths? For example the truth "there is no God but Allah" and the truth "there are many Gods in my pantheon" are both mutually exclusive. Which "truth" is right?
Shannon wrote: "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. "
I suppose that partly answers the former, but by doing so renders the point null? The above statement could easily be interpreted as "x" religion is true and whenever a person of a different (or no) religion discovers a truth contained within "x" then they are right?
Shannon wrote: "Of course, scientists also do things I don't condone. Animal testing is an example. Animal testing, in my opinion, is cruel and wrong."
Again you are implying that "science" is the source of the ethical decision to use animal testing. It's not. Science is the process, the source of the decision to use animal testing will be;
(a) The necessity of the science being done, whether driven by humanitarian reasons (i.e. medical) or financial reasons (cosmetics etc.)
(b) The protections, legal and ethical, against human testing, deliberate or incidental. For example there are laws preventing untested food additives, drugs, cosmentics being released for sale to people. In essence all products are animal tested, just sometimes the animal tested is the patient/customer.
Now a blanket ban on animal testing may indeed have a good ethical argument, but does it outweigh the ethical argument of exposing humans to unwarranted risk or the abandonment of likely avenues of research to alleviate human (or even animal) suffering?
In the end a lot of the animal testing is not the fault of scientists but the fault of our commercial economy, the needs (and unnecessary wants) of their patients/customers, and also the general, often litigious, public. Often avoiding animal testing risks great expense for the companies, and greater investment of money and time.
I don't know the best answer but in my opinion I agree that torturing animals to quickly get a new lipstick on the market seems to me to be unethical. However, allowing people to die because vital medical research is held up or disrupted is just as unethical, and I would understand the anger and fury of the families of those victims at people who place animal rights first.
Shannon wrote: "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 ...."
As I said, I meant all beliefs were the person believes that they are inarguably right. In my opinion a belief that is temporary or accepted to be potentially falsified, is not what I generally refer to as a 'belief' as it misleads people.
Shannon wrote: "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."
It may just be semantics. Yet personally I try to consciously ensure that all of my opinions are open to debate or question, even the opinion that they should be! :-) I feel (at this time) that anything else would be arrogance on my part.
Shannon wrote: "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 ..."
Fair enough, but it is not the imaginable refutations that I am talking about, it's the unforeseen or unimaginable. After all your current imagination/opinions have led you to the worldview you have now. If you could imagine the reason that you would change your mind, then you would likely change your mind already. Its the new data, the unknown data that creates the new possibilities that true belief then struggles with.
Shannon wrote: "In addition, Travis ....That post dismisses, out of hand, C's contentions regarding gay men and AIDS.
I don't know anything about that. I've not read about it or heard about it ... the idea tha..."
Fine, let's go:
I don't diminish or dismiss the holocuast or the aids crisis, both horrible things, what I am doing is explaining that neither counts as scientific intolerance, as both are strongly tied to religious movements.
Either the nazis were christian or Hitler started his own religion ( as c-cose stated.) Both are religions.
and yes, the nazis killed huge groups of people, including the jews, who were used as the common scapegoat for Germany to go ahead with their plans.
Were the scientists in charge of the german government? Were they going after people for disagreeing with the the law of thermodynamics? Did Hitler think he was chosen by science to create his whackjob philosophy?
Then it was misuse of science, not intolerance.
You say it wasn't all about religion. Fine, it also wasn't all about science.
Does that mean we can stop talking about it, and move on to an example that is all about science?
The neglecting aids research happened at the same time that the republican party began its merging with the christian right.
Yet, I'm being told it was all the scientists fault.
Both incidents were tied to politics and economics, but both have equally strong ties to religious movements and their prejudices.
At no point do I say either is a good thing, but I keep getting hammered because science can be and has been used for bad things.
If I kill someone with a golf club, I am not an intolerant golfer, I am using a golf club the wrong way.
Now, again, using brown people for medical tests against their will equals bad thing.
But, unless they picked the brown people to punish them because they mocked Newton's third Law, it is not scientific intolerance.
No matter how many times I am told that science has blood on it's hands or 'What about the brown people?' I will still point out that I am looking for an actual, solid, nazi free, didn't happen thirty years ago example to counter the one I gave so we can stop playing the false equivelancy game about intolerance.
If, as I'm told science and religion are two sides of the same coin, equal partners, then there must be something more recent that I can be shown.
Why is it so hard for people to give me that if 'both sides do it'?
So, far we have the nazis and cs keeps chanting Dawkins over and over.
cs is wrong too, but at least he picked somebody around now that doesn't involve nazis.
Heck, I'm feeling generous, show me a mob of atheists setting fire to stuff and rampaging in the streets over what they saw as another group belittling or disrespecting science or atheisim and I'll accept that.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "People of all religions and various spiritual pursuits know "God" ... by different names and they discover different truths."
Is that not a fundamentally egocentric assumption? You are presupposing the existence of a god and then assuming that anyone religious is seeing some aspect of the entity you presuppose, even religions with different gods, many gods and no gods? Further, does this not immediately imply a hierarchy of truths? For example the truth "there is no God but Allah" and the truth "there are many Gods in my pantheon" are both mutually exclusive. Which "truth" is right?"
One problem with this, Gary, is that you didn't include the part where I said ... or not .... Right?
Also, please note, I wrote "God" ... for a reason.
Is it egocentric? I don't think so. Why? My belief is that there is a force and, frankly, I don't have a whole lot of answers about that force. I, personally, believe, as does my mother, that the force is there. We believe that different people know truths about that force (...that we refer to as God), understand different aspects of it, know the force by other names.
I realize that's not a black and white concept .... Not right or wrong .... It's thinking outside of the box ... perhaps even outside a circle (!) ....
My idea, my belief, is that ... there is a force, a source, an energy ... that deals in truths. Different people have different truths. That's open to agnostics and atheists. Not necessarily the power ... the light I saw as a child ... at least if they don't accept it. It's that ... I think agnostics and atheists also seek truths. They seek them in different ways. They might find different truths.
But, all, despite which path, are working toward, in my opinion, certain understandings. Sometimes, some fall far short. True. Sometimes, some stomp on the truth. Hey, I'm not delusional. But, in my view, all are capable of finding truths and all do find truths ... even if it's not the absolute truth ... every time.
Is that egocentric? Again, I don't think so, but I don't know.
If it is, we can just add that to the list of labels I've acquired while participating on this thread ....
Regarding my point of disagreement .... I think you were attempting to argue that your original point ... beliefs are automatically intolerant ... was right ... despite my sharing my beliefs which you deemed to be more benevolent ... but .... Those other people whose right I supported to practice as they chose ... or not ... might suppress others, therefore, my belief was still intolerant .... Right? Followed by ... a discussion between the different meanings of belief and opinion and .... If I was willing to say I might be wrong ... then .... So, I responded that I thought about your point but disagreed. I wasn't willing to say I might be wrong in my belief. To do so would be to say that ... only some have the right to choose their faith ... that's not something I'd ever do ... to say that only believes find truths ... not atheists ... or the opposite ... to say that atheists don't have the right to say ... there is no supernatural force ... No. I'd never change my mind on my belief and believe or say any of those things. Unclear as to what was unclear ....
Is that not a fundamentally egocentric assumption? You are presupposing the existence of a god and then assuming that anyone religious is seeing some aspect of the entity you presuppose, even religions with different gods, many gods and no gods? Further, does this not immediately imply a hierarchy of truths? For example the truth "there is no God but Allah" and the truth "there are many Gods in my pantheon" are both mutually exclusive. Which "truth" is right?"
One problem with this, Gary, is that you didn't include the part where I said ... or not .... Right?
Also, please note, I wrote "God" ... for a reason.
Is it egocentric? I don't think so. Why? My belief is that there is a force and, frankly, I don't have a whole lot of answers about that force. I, personally, believe, as does my mother, that the force is there. We believe that different people know truths about that force (...that we refer to as God), understand different aspects of it, know the force by other names.
I realize that's not a black and white concept .... Not right or wrong .... It's thinking outside of the box ... perhaps even outside a circle (!) ....
My idea, my belief, is that ... there is a force, a source, an energy ... that deals in truths. Different people have different truths. That's open to agnostics and atheists. Not necessarily the power ... the light I saw as a child ... at least if they don't accept it. It's that ... I think agnostics and atheists also seek truths. They seek them in different ways. They might find different truths.
But, all, despite which path, are working toward, in my opinion, certain understandings. Sometimes, some fall far short. True. Sometimes, some stomp on the truth. Hey, I'm not delusional. But, in my view, all are capable of finding truths and all do find truths ... even if it's not the absolute truth ... every time.
Is that egocentric? Again, I don't think so, but I don't know.
If it is, we can just add that to the list of labels I've acquired while participating on this thread ....
Regarding my point of disagreement .... I think you were attempting to argue that your original point ... beliefs are automatically intolerant ... was right ... despite my sharing my beliefs which you deemed to be more benevolent ... but .... Those other people whose right I supported to practice as they chose ... or not ... might suppress others, therefore, my belief was still intolerant .... Right? Followed by ... a discussion between the different meanings of belief and opinion and .... If I was willing to say I might be wrong ... then .... So, I responded that I thought about your point but disagreed. I wasn't willing to say I might be wrong in my belief. To do so would be to say that ... only some have the right to choose their faith ... that's not something I'd ever do ... to say that only believes find truths ... not atheists ... or the opposite ... to say that atheists don't have the right to say ... there is no supernatural force ... No. I'd never change my mind on my belief and believe or say any of those things. Unclear as to what was unclear ....
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "In addition, Travis ....
That post dismisses, out of hand, C's contentions regarding gay men and AIDS.
I don't know anything about that. I've not read about it or heard about it ..."
Travis ...
You and I both know I said ... it wasn't exactly intolerance, but .... You do acknowledge that. Correct?
Further, I agree ... and did so in writing ... but I'll do it again. It wasn't all science ... the experimentation on innocent people during the holocaust (...the holocaust not being something I brought up, by the way). But, you know what, I'm not going to sit silently when, in my opinion, someone attempts to say it was all religion and religious intolerance. It wasn't. I'll say something else. It wasn't all about the big and bad Hitler browbeating the frightened scientists into doing bad, bad things. It was also about said scientists wanting to learn more. But, that's an aside.
Regarding your limits on any and all examples .... Given the limitations you're placing on the discussion, Travis, I can't give any examples, as I said last night. You're right, Travis. You are so right.
I can't go to talk to the natives in South America, because I lack the funds and don't speak their language. I can't ask them if the scientists with the pharmaceutical companies beat them up or set fire to anything prior to experimenting on them ... nor can I inquire as to their views on global warming or Newton. As an aside, though, I find it fascinating, to a certain degree, that said scientists have experimented upon people who might know very little about global warming and Newton. Just as an aside ....
But, no, I don't have evidence that scientists experiment on innocents due to the fact that those innocents don't like science.
Methinks there might be other types of intolerance, though .... And, while this doesn't speak directly to intolerance, as I stated in my initial posts, ... you acknowledge that, right? ... it does speak, in my opinion, of racism.
Now ....
People who might want to learn more about how people of color have been treated by society, science, and the legal system might find the following cite of interest.
http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/
It's true. It happened. It happened to my people. It was ugly. (The site is great, by the way ... in my opinion.)
But, again, as you say, it didn't happen this week.
Further, I don't think fire was involved.
So, some, given that, will likely choose, at this point, to disregard my point and not research this or think on the matter any further.
However ....
It is a part of my history ... my family history and the history of my home state. And, in my mind, not many people know about this. Those who do aren't usually excited to talk about it. I think it's important to do so ....
Especially when talking about the wrongs committed by science/scientists ... in terms of Facebook ... as an aside.
That post dismisses, out of hand, C's contentions regarding gay men and AIDS.
I don't know anything about that. I've not read about it or heard about it ..."
Travis ...
You and I both know I said ... it wasn't exactly intolerance, but .... You do acknowledge that. Correct?
Further, I agree ... and did so in writing ... but I'll do it again. It wasn't all science ... the experimentation on innocent people during the holocaust (...the holocaust not being something I brought up, by the way). But, you know what, I'm not going to sit silently when, in my opinion, someone attempts to say it was all religion and religious intolerance. It wasn't. I'll say something else. It wasn't all about the big and bad Hitler browbeating the frightened scientists into doing bad, bad things. It was also about said scientists wanting to learn more. But, that's an aside.
Regarding your limits on any and all examples .... Given the limitations you're placing on the discussion, Travis, I can't give any examples, as I said last night. You're right, Travis. You are so right.
I can't go to talk to the natives in South America, because I lack the funds and don't speak their language. I can't ask them if the scientists with the pharmaceutical companies beat them up or set fire to anything prior to experimenting on them ... nor can I inquire as to their views on global warming or Newton. As an aside, though, I find it fascinating, to a certain degree, that said scientists have experimented upon people who might know very little about global warming and Newton. Just as an aside ....
But, no, I don't have evidence that scientists experiment on innocents due to the fact that those innocents don't like science.
Methinks there might be other types of intolerance, though .... And, while this doesn't speak directly to intolerance, as I stated in my initial posts, ... you acknowledge that, right? ... it does speak, in my opinion, of racism.
Now ....
People who might want to learn more about how people of color have been treated by society, science, and the legal system might find the following cite of interest.
http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/
It's true. It happened. It happened to my people. It was ugly. (The site is great, by the way ... in my opinion.)
But, again, as you say, it didn't happen this week.
Further, I don't think fire was involved.
So, some, given that, will likely choose, at this point, to disregard my point and not research this or think on the matter any further.
However ....
It is a part of my history ... my family history and the history of my home state. And, in my mind, not many people know about this. Those who do aren't usually excited to talk about it. I think it's important to do so ....
Especially when talking about the wrongs committed by science/scientists ... in terms of Facebook ... as an aside.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "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. "
I suppose that partly answers the former, but by doing so renders the point null? The above statement could easily be interpreted as "x" religion is true and whenever a person of a different (or no) religion discovers a truth contained within "x" then they are right?
"
Gary ...
There are times, see the above, when I wonder if you're responding to me ... to the person I am and have shown myself to be in my posts on this thread ... to my beliefs ... or if you're responding to something else.
I suppose that partly answers the former, but by doing so renders the point null? The above statement could easily be interpreted as "x" religion is true and whenever a person of a different (or no) religion discovers a truth contained within "x" then they are right?
"
Gary ...
There are times, see the above, when I wonder if you're responding to me ... to the person I am and have shown myself to be in my posts on this thread ... to my beliefs ... or if you're responding to something else.
Shannon wrote: "One problem with this, Gary, is that you didn't include the part where I said ... or not .... Right?"Only for space. The same point applies that a belief in the negative is just the same as holding a mutually exclusive positive belief. (I.e. talking about the oft cited "belief in the non-existence of God" that non-atheists tend to believe atheists believe.)
Shannon wrote: "Also, please note, I wrote "God" ... for a reason."
To indicate any higher being, beings, entities, powers or lack of same? In which case I understand your point but still feel somewhat uncomfortable with the use of the term applied so broadly.
Shannon wrote: "Is it egocentric? I don't think so. Why? My belief is that there is a force and, frankly, I don't have a whole lot of answers about that force."
It is part of human psychology and ego to ascribe motivation to events. (i.e. raging at a computer that has "crashed on you", or a car that has broken down just at the wrong time). Ascribing a mysterious "force" to the universe is an extension of that process and is therefore applying human ego to the universe in general.
Not meant to be a insult of egocentrism, just a common default for people.
Shannon wrote: "I think agnostics and atheists also seek truths. They seek them in different ways. They might find different truths."
I see your point, and the altruism behind it. My only misgiving is what you mean by "truth", and in the end when two 'truths' are in conflict, by what methodology do you resolve the conflict?
Shannon wrote: "Is that egocentric? Again, I don't think so, but I don't know."
In my personal opinion as soon as you say "x is true", that is egocentric. (Allowing for conversational usage were one would prefix something like 'in my opinion' or 'to the best of our current knowledge'.) When somebody says something is true and they cannot conceive of it being wrong no matter what they discover subsequently, then that to me is egocentric.
Shannon wrote: "If it is, we can just add that to the list of labels I've acquired while participating on this thread ...."
Honest discussion is hard because we make our language do so much with so little. This is why I don't like arguing about words, but I do feel it is important to understand what each other means when they use them.
For example, your usage of "God" above was indeed how Einstein used the term, as a generic term for the universe and it's laws as a whole, and not as a personal loving deity that he was subsequently attributed to supporting.
Shannon wrote: "Unclear as to what was unclear ...."
I think I understood all that, and I suppose then we just simply disagree. I do not support the right for people to be left to believe what they want when those beliefs include the right to deny others their freedom. Just as I do not respect the idea of a completely lawless, completely free society, because that freedom will include the freedom for the strong to place limits or laws on the weak.
Shannon wrote: "I'm not going to sit silently when, in my opinion, someone attempts to say it was all religion and religious intolerance. It wasn't. I'll say something else. It wasn't all about the big and bad Hitler browbeating the frightened scientists into doing bad, bad things. It was also about said scientists wanting to learn more. But, that's an aside."
The difference being that even wanting to learn more isn't science, after all religion claims the same seeking of truth.
In all the examples there is no example of the discipline of science requiring the unethical actions. That people chose to do it and justified it to themselves were based on their own motivations.
Whereas many religions contain specific instruction on who has rights and who hasn't and directives to subjugate, punish or even kill certain people based solely on religious teaching.
Shannon wrote: "I can't ask them if the scientists with the pharmaceutical companies beat them up or set fire to anything prior to experimenting on them ..."
But nowhere in biology is there a law that requires the abuse of natives. If there is a god to blame in this particular case it is likely to not be god or science but the holy dollar.
Shannon wrote: "http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/
It's true. It happened. It happened to my people. It was ugly. (The site is great, by the way ... in my opinion.)"
Eugenics was based on some scientific principles, but it was founded on the idea that certain people, certain races, certain cultures have more intrinsic value than others. This arbitrary measure of value is not scientific and indeed historically it bears more resemblance to the ideas of a "chosen people" with divine mandate than it does a scientific theory.
For reference check the ideas in the Old Testament and the Latter Day Saints scripture for ideas about "gods chosen people".
Shannon wrote: "Especially when talking about the wrongs committed by science/scientists ... in terms of Facebook ... as an aside. "
Again, this is not a 'wrong committed by science', this was a value judgement based on flawed principles of intrinsic cultural value. The causes of which where partially cultural arrogance and partially religious ideal.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "In addition, Travis ....That post dismisses, out of hand, C's contentions regarding gay men and AIDS.
I don't know anything about that. I've not read about it or ..."
The limitations I am putting are 'here's my example, if both sides do it etc, then give me a example of the other side doing something similar'.
Give me a scientist getting violent over someone disputing science. I even expanded it too atheists, since as gary pointed out, science being more a method, seemed too broad.
I put out my example and the first, the very first response was the holocaust!
and people then wondered why I got grumpy and short tempered.
Really, that came as a shock?
I get that science has been used by people to do bad things, I am painfully aware that bad things occur in the world and will gladly add to the list of horribly, shitty stuff mankind has done to each ( I tossed out facebook, as after nazis I thought the mood could use some lightening) but just listing bad things and then repeating it's a bad thing, is not actually answering the original question.
and while I appreciate you trying to educate and get people's interest in a subject, I 'm not going to be click on the eugenics link. If I want to learn about people treating each other badly, I just buy a newspaper.
It's just as easy and then when I'm depressed, I can turn the page and read the comic strips.
Gary wrote: "Again, this is not a 'wrong committed by science', this was a value judgement based on flawed principles of intrinsic cultural value. The causes of which where partially cultural arrogance and partially religious ideal. "
I agree with you, to a large extent, on this point. I'm guessing we might disagree on the finer points. Although, we might not.
It was not my point, when addressing the comment Travis made about our conversations regarding intolerance and the burning and brutality being perpetrated in Egypt and Libya, that science committed wrongs and science was bloody. If I remember correctly, I stated then and since that scientists had blood on their hands. Scientists. Some of the human beings who work within the field of science.
I would never and have never said that science, in and of itself, is bad or has committed wrongs. How could science commit a wrong?
I take issue with some of the choices scientists and others have made. Who and what to experiment on, for example. Science exists, as we know it and in my opinion, because of people's thoughts, investigations, etc.... Oh, I know .... Gravity would still exist, even if people disappeared tomorrow. However, science ... the scientific method ... would not. Science, the study of science and the methods of science, requires human beings.
I think the ethical dilemmas enter the picture when we're dealing with humans. Right? How do we test this? Do we test on unwilling participants? Do we not tell men they have syphilis, not treat them when we develop antibiotic, in order to study how the disease progresses over time? Etc.... Even if we can, should we do a), b) or c)? Cloning, for example.
Yes, I'm clear on the fact that the abuses I've discussed were perpetrated by people and continue to be perpetrated by people ... due to all sorts of things, including greed, hatred, racism, religion, ... and intolerance.
Of course, ... and here's a finer point we might disagree upon ...
I don't think all religions have, at their core, a belief in and a framework for intolerance .... Some do. Some do not, I don't think. I'd need to do more research to be sure. But, .... In some instances, it's the people who practice the religion who bring forth the intolerance. Please note the fact that I said "some" ... please.
Going back to the topic of tolerance and intolerance, .... I don't think that one group has the market on either.
I agree with you, to a large extent, on this point. I'm guessing we might disagree on the finer points. Although, we might not.
It was not my point, when addressing the comment Travis made about our conversations regarding intolerance and the burning and brutality being perpetrated in Egypt and Libya, that science committed wrongs and science was bloody. If I remember correctly, I stated then and since that scientists had blood on their hands. Scientists. Some of the human beings who work within the field of science.
I would never and have never said that science, in and of itself, is bad or has committed wrongs. How could science commit a wrong?
I take issue with some of the choices scientists and others have made. Who and what to experiment on, for example. Science exists, as we know it and in my opinion, because of people's thoughts, investigations, etc.... Oh, I know .... Gravity would still exist, even if people disappeared tomorrow. However, science ... the scientific method ... would not. Science, the study of science and the methods of science, requires human beings.
I think the ethical dilemmas enter the picture when we're dealing with humans. Right? How do we test this? Do we test on unwilling participants? Do we not tell men they have syphilis, not treat them when we develop antibiotic, in order to study how the disease progresses over time? Etc.... Even if we can, should we do a), b) or c)? Cloning, for example.
Yes, I'm clear on the fact that the abuses I've discussed were perpetrated by people and continue to be perpetrated by people ... due to all sorts of things, including greed, hatred, racism, religion, ... and intolerance.
Of course, ... and here's a finer point we might disagree upon ...
I don't think all religions have, at their core, a belief in and a framework for intolerance .... Some do. Some do not, I don't think. I'd need to do more research to be sure. But, .... In some instances, it's the people who practice the religion who bring forth the intolerance. Please note the fact that I said "some" ... please.
Going back to the topic of tolerance and intolerance, .... I don't think that one group has the market on either.
Travis wrote: "...At no point do I say either is a good thing, but I keep getting hammered because science can be and has been used for bad things. ..."Greetings Travis,
I've led my post with this quote from your response in #7047 because it concerns me.
I certainly don't discount your experience with this thread, but I have to wonder how people vigorously disagreeing with statements that you have made equates to "hammering you".
I am trying .... oh how I am trying ... to find common ground with you in discussing relative tolerance vis a vis Religion and Science. In that effort, I hope that we can agree on the following:
1. Both Science and Religion are mental constructs used to define a type of thought process, view of the world or surrounding environment, that can not in and of themselves be (in)tolerant.
2. Science within the confines of how this discussion has developed further includes atheists and / or agnostics. I say this because the discussion topic has been phrased in a false dichotomy which places Science and Religion at opposite ends of the debate.
3. Both Science and Religion have adherents that can--have done, do--act in extreme ways based on their interpretation of these mental constructs (1).
4. The actions or speech of said adherents can be described as intolerant behaviour regardless of whether those actions / speech are in strict keeping with the construct that they follow.
5. Religion--specifically Abrahamic traditions--are mutually exclusive in their own sense of superiority, "truth" of claims, expectations from their adherents. I say this because there are many other religious traditions that couldn't give a toss one way or the other as to who has exclusive claim on "truth": e.g. Buddhism, many Pagan traditions, Shinto.
6. The actions of adherents must not be confused with the underlying construct(1).
If we can agree on the majority of the above statements, then I think I can continue in this discussion.
In #7031, you said "tired of playing this game.". To me this is not a game, it is not an exercise in mental gymnastics, it is not a purely philosophical discussion. For me, it a valid and important discussion on how one determines a level of tolerance and the effect that has on future behaviour.
Shanna wrote: "cHriS can you re-upload the link, it's broken."http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/...
I just thought, I'm not sure if you can view this from outside the UK.
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...
........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."
I agree 100% Shannon. I maybe more spiritual than religious, I am Catholic but not a strict Catholic and I don't go to church or quote the bible; because I don't study it. But I believe in something.
You will not really get an athiest to say.... 'in my opinion'.... because on this subject they do not have an opinion. They follow the rules and methods of science, and until science has a theory of Spirituality they have to say 'that is not spiritual'.
It is a polite way of telling you that you are wrong. With me they are not so polite and I just try and fight back.....a one man battle I think I'm not really winning here, :)