Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 7,401-7,450 of 12,463

[[deleted user]]

C-Cose wrote: "Is it possible that when our actions or words are outside our own, or what we think is society's, comfort zone, we fall back on "declared belief" in an attempt to abrogate responsibility? At other times, it's just common sense what a "good person" would do, or somesuch?
"

I think it largely depends on the person.

Regarding common sense, .... I'm reminded of a quote that states sense isn't that common.

[Matthewmartinmurray]

I think people should take religion with the same kind of rigor and reason and logic of science. In other words I think religion should be treated as a science.

[Mika]

I dont think I can live without either one of them.

[Aliyah]

I think that both have their flaws, as seen in the media. Science predicts global warming, yet no real progress has been done so far in terms of combating it, because there are denialists out there that will disconfirm the presences of it. On the other hand, religious nations enforce their ideologies and repress the masses. I think both have their benefits and setbacks. For science, proving the existence of a certain phenomena can be approved or disapproved by another scientist.For religion, one has to be a believer. It is what it is, none are perfect (although we like to think the one or other is)

[Gary]

C-Cose wrote: "By this, I mean, do we tend to shrug off personal responsibility for both extremely good and horrid actions as simply following our beliefs?"

I think it is a bit more involved and certainly more insidious.

Setting aside belief for a moment think of authority. Variations of the Milgram experiment shows that the average person will override the pricking of their own conscience to considerable levels if they are obeying what they believe to be an authority. Up to and including inflicting (apparent) searing pain on our fellow humans.

This effect is fundamental to the training and discipline of soldiers. The regimentation and sometimes seemingly petty requirements to conform and obey orders instantly is designed so that when a soldier is ordered to kill another human, or drop a bomb on a civilian target, they bypass their conscience through the immediate obedience to authority.

Authority of course can come in many forms, a scientists lab-coat, a military uniform, a business suit or a priests robe.

Now look back at belief then. What is belief but the acceptance of some authority with the complete suspension of scepticism or doubt? Belief isn't authority imposed, it is our implicit submission to authority.

Once authority is accepted, it becomes extremely hard for the believer to subject that belief to scepticism. This would seem to be an evolved trait which allowed our ancestors to form and maintain cohesive social groupings. The problem therein is when that belief is placed in something that is vague, obscured or even duplicitous.

This is where situations arise in which a beloved leader that is believed in, abuses their power and yet even their victims end up defending them because belief in the authority tends to override personal conscience. Leading to "cults of personality". In a similar manner a political leader may come to represent to the believer certain values (order, loyalty, honour) yet the leader's policies may be directly harmful to the believers way of life or economic situation.

There are plenty more secular examples but at least problematic secular authorities can be exposed, debunked or dishonoured. This happens generally every few years in modern democracies when a group in power is exposed as being corrupt or incompetent and belief in them wanes except in the most dedicated. What happens though when the authority is an 'ultimate' authority, neither subject to examination or even requiring consistency.

Hence why religious belief is the most dangerous authority because though the authority may be wielded by fallible and falsifiable persons, the authority itself never will be, therefore the power of that authority to override personal conscience is so much more powerful.

Of course, just like political, military or social authority, authority can be wielded for good, encouraging and complimenting the human conscience. Yet it is obvious that - despite what religious leaders would like us to believe - the authority does not define human conscience or supply it. This can be easily demonstrated by comparing the conscience of people from culture to culture and seeing the same ingrained values, and also by seeing the way religion attempts to recruit and encourage belief by manipulation of those values.

(If conscience was solely a gift from god, then why would convincing people that Christ died for you make people feel indebted to that sacrifice?)

Religious authority protects itself from the dissolution that effects secular authority by not only assuming the realm of the most difficult questions in life, but by becoming unquestionable and even being viewed as impolite to even doubt. This means that even if the authority is abused, people will blame the temporary wielder of that authority while excusing the authority itself.

You can see this many times on this thread. Self-identified religious people blaming the many documented cases of abuse of religious authority on the people involved, while simultaneously embracing the same authority that encouraged the abuse.

This ends up with situations where people who "cure gayness" are blamed as bigots by gay Christians, blaming their 'aberrant' interpretation of the same authority, but never questioning that authority. The same with conscientious Muslims who are (rightly) appalled by suicide bombers and terrorists, but blame those committing those acts, not the complete submission to religious authority that overrode their conscience.

In a way then, it becomes a perverse illusion that conscience is derived from religion, because the people who decry the excesses of "extremists" cannot put themselves in their place and see the religious imperative for their act. So instead they blame the extremist for their completely incomprehensible human evil while then seeing "their" authority as all the more holy and right.

C-Cose wrote: "Is it possible that when our actions or words are outside our own, or what we think is society's, comfort zone, we fall back on "declared belief" in an attempt to abrogate responsibility? At other times, it's just common sense what a "good person" would do, or somesuch? "

While I agree there will always be times when a persons conscience is pricked but they will then seek to blame an authority for permitting their behaviour. ("The devil made me do it" defence) but I think that this is only a small part in it.

I have little doubt that the majority of Germans who took arms to defend the Fatherland and Reich in WW2 were good, honest and above all loyal people who didn't follow Nazism as an excuse to be evil and cruel, but followed the accepted authority of their country against the enemy they were told sought to harm them. I have little doubt that Americans cheer on the drone strikes against other countries based on their acceptance that their military are doing the best to defend them against an enemy.

In political terms, whenever you have governments being exposed as corrupt and imperfect you know at least that this authority is being subjected to critique. The same with science and a scientific community that doesn't always agree, sometimes vehemently. However, as soon as you find an authority that is apparently above all reproach, have you found the ultimate good, or have been subjected to the ultimate control?

[Hazel]

one thing Gary, in the Army, they are now trained to follow their conscience. They have ethics classes, and they will be held personally accountable and court marshalled if they follow orders that are illegal, unconscionable or immoral. "I was only following orders" has not been a valid excuse since the 1st World War. At least thats the case in the UK, and the training my other half has received.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "In political terms, whenever you have governments being exposed as corrupt and imperfect you know at least that this authority is being subjected to critique. The same with science and a scientific community that doesn't always agree, sometimes vehemently. However, as soon as you find an authority that is apparently above all reproach, have you found the ultimate good, or have been subjected to the ultimate control? "

I'm thinking a lot of different things, but I'll keep it to just a few ....

First, it seems to me that much of what you've said about religious belief, etc... is based on certain religions, namely those from the tribe of Abraham. And, ... while you didn't speak in terms of absolutes, all, you definitely don't explore the exceptions to the rule.

As a person living my life, I tend to look at the exceptions. I want to explore the exceptions and understand the exceptions. I want to strive toward the exceptional. I don't tend to think a lot can be learned by slogging through the refuse of the ... for example, people who would inflict pain upon others because an authority told them to .... I don't know that much can be learned from that, in my opinion. News flash. Cowardice exists; some will do anything to save themselves. I tend to wonder about the people who don't ... all of those people who show true courage ... who don't follow authority just because ... who don't bully and act self-important ... just because they can ... who don't inflict pain on others because they gain something from it.

You see, for me, I'll forever and always see past the idea that it's about authority ... nothing more and nothing less ... to what I believe lies at the root of the thing. What will I get if I do it? What will happen to me if I don't?

That will exist, always. Religion or science .... Authority or no ....

Given that, I want to understand the people who know they'll likely suffer as a result of doing the right thing but ... will do the right thing anyway.

I realize that many who view the world through the lens of science and science alone will disagree with me. I know that some non-theists and non-deists, the one's who blame religion for just about every wrong done, past and present, will disagree.

Here's the thing, though. In this, on this subject, it truly has nothing to do with religion or faith or belief. It's not about converting people, for me, to faith or atheism. It's not about finding the perfect argument to sway people. It's not about being right. It's not about any of those things.

Having seen and experienced evil acts and having seen and experienced acts of overwhelming courage, I know certain things in my gut, in the very fiber of my being. One of those things has to do with this subject. One of those things is that ... it's not just about authority ... it's about the heart of individual human beings and what they want and do in order to make themselves more comfortable or safe or .... That would remain even if religion and belief were gone. No, I don't have a scientific study to point to in order to claim the validity of my feeling. I just know, based on experience, that this isn't the full picture. Nor is it, in my opinion, the path we need to take to discover how to encourage ... courage and care.

Those are my thoughts and my opinions. Mine alone.

My final thought .... Hazel .... Which military? You said that and ... well, it seemed like the military everywhere .... I assume you meant in the UK. I don't think the military, in general, promotes the like. I know, for example, in my country, members of the military are not allowed to speak out against the policies or asinine behavior of presidents, conscience or no.

[Hazel]

Yes Shannon, the UK, which is why I put "thats the case in the UK" :)

[[deleted user]]

Totally didn't see that ... sorry. That's what I get for only reading the opening line. It does tend to be the attention-grabber, though. But, the fault was mine.

[Gary]

Aliyah wrote: "I think that both have their flaws, as seen in the media."

Science as a methodology includes the implicit acceptance that the body of knowledge is flawed and constantly seeks to improve.

Religion assumes perfection and blames flaws on people.

Aliyah wrote: "For science, proving the existence of a certain phenomena can be approved or disapproved by another scientist."

And anyone can study science, there are no "prophets" or "chosen" there are just those who work hard and those who have a certain amount of talent, but that does not make their work inaccessible to others.

The fruits of science (as you can see in front of you) can also be readily experienced on a daily basis by anyone without any doubt that science was responsible.

Two or more scientists can disagree, and yet when they do, both have recourse to independent sources to confirm or deny their opinion. Most scientists will then accept that confirmation.

Aliyah wrote: "For religion, one has to be a believer."

And for true believers there is no truth required and no compromise sought.

Aliyah wrote: "Science predicts global warming, yet no real progress has been done so far in terms of combating it, because there are denialists out there that will disconfirm the presences of it."

Well actually the Kyoto protocol and the investments made in clean energy have made a start (the UK have actually came in below their emissions target). There are other technologies in development that could help but are being held back by unfounded beliefs (e.g. most people don't know that coal fired powerstations give out more radiation than nuclear ones).

However, one of the biggest polluters did not sign the Kyoto protocol and continues to resist being weaned off fossil fuels has people who say things like;

"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand." - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior during the Reagan years.

"I can't say [climate change] doesn't have a percentage of effects on it - one percent, three percent, five percent. But I don't think it's the cause. I don't think we can control what God controls." - Ralph Hall, the chair of the House of Representatives science committee 2012.

Aliyah wrote: "It is what it is, none are perfect (although we like to think the one or other is) "

Which is why I'd always go for the one that is striving towards perfection, rather than claiming perfection.

[Gary]

Hazel wrote: "one thing Gary, in the Army, they are now trained to follow their conscience. They have ethics classes, and they will be held personally accountable and court marshalled if they follow orders that ..."

Good point. I was generalising the concept of military training which has long had to contend with the fact that humans do actually have intrinsic reservations about harming each other to various degrees.

I am aware of ethics & responsibility training, but that is a rational choice rather than an emotional response.

[Michaela]

Science is the new religion, so the question is moot. It's like asking which religion we prefer; one where there is an all powerful being that created us or one where WE are that all powerful being.

[Bella]

Organized Religions scare me. Spirituality enlightens me. Science teaches me.

I would much rather live in world with Science. See ya religion.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "First, it seems to me that much of what you've said about religious belief, etc... is based on certain religions, namely those from the tribe of Abraham. And, ... while you didn't speak in terms of absolutes, all, you definitely don't explore the exceptions to the rule."

I was speaking of a trend rather than a rule, and my subject was belief in general and contrasting belief (or trust) in authority with absolute belief.

Shannon wrote: "As a person living my life, I tend to look at the exceptions."

That's fine, yet without the context of the trend an exception is meaningless.

For example the anecdotal "oh my grandfather smoked until he was 90" occurs often when the effects of tobacco smoking is discussed. However, without the context that the trend is for a highly shortened lifespan the exception can actually mislead you.

Shannon wrote: "people who would inflict pain upon others because an authority told them to .... I don't know that much can be learned from that,"

Really? The fact that the assumption of authority changes how the majority of people respond is something not to be learned from?

Look at ads where claims are made about beauty products by actors in lab coats, or celebrities endorse various products, behaviours or politicians. All that is a demonstration of how authority is being deliberately accessed and manipulated around you.

Shannon wrote: "News flash. Cowardice exists; some will do anything to save themselves."

If you look at the experiment I referenced, it wasn't anything to do with cowardice.

Because we are social animals we have a tendency to submit to authority, because that is how social groupings have evolved into an advantage.

Experiments have shown that this trust in authority has nothing to do with cowardice and more to do with social responsibility and cohesion.

Shannon wrote: "You see, for me, I'll forever and always see past the idea that it's about authority"

Or perhaps you do not even see it's influence on you? Authority isn't a bad thing in itself, but to deny it's power over people is a little unobservant.

Shannon wrote: "Given that, I want to understand the people who know they'll likely suffer as a result of doing the right thing but ... will do the right thing anyway."

Agreed, but how do they know it's the 'right thing'? Is it through ethical education or submission to a rival authority. Take for example the plight of martyrs across the globe. Which martyrs are suffering the punishments of one authority at the bidding of another?

Shannon wrote: "I realize that many who view the world through the lens of science and science alone will disagree with me."

Where you see science as a limitation, I see it as a way to see through the obfuscations of belief, assumption, superstition and our own egos.

Science (the discipline not the modern scientific community or body of knowledge) is the seeking of knowledge. The only thing that lies outside of it's "lens" would be ignorance.

Shannon wrote: "I know that some non-theists and non-deists, the one's who blame religion for just about every wrong done, past and present, will disagree."

Just as the theists who defend religion (not just a religion but any religion) will continue to do so and continue to blame humans for not living up to the supposed perfections of religion.

Shannon wrote: "It's not about converting people, for me, to faith or atheism."

Nor I, as I have said before you can't 'convert' somebody into a lack of belief, if you do then you just are replacing belief with belief.

Shannon wrote: "it's about the heart of individual human beings and what they want and do in order to make themselves more comfortable or safe or .... That would remain even if religion and belief were gone."

Indeed, just as morality and ethics would survive it's absence and indeed may flourish.

Humans are capable of great evil and great goodness without religion. Belief just makes for a dangerously fertile ground for uncompromising escalation.

“Tolerance grows only when faith loses certainty; certainty is murderous.”
― Will Durant

[Aliyah]

Interest comment Gary, I like your reasons why you support science. As with many people are either on the absolute end of the scale. What I see with a lot of young adults is either "I love God" or "religion is dumb lol"(these are usually annoying indie kids who say this shit).

I try telling the religious lot that their religion was responsible for the Crusades, colonialism, depriving women of their independence and against homosexuals. What I don't get is that they are oblivious to this.

As for the indies, they think they are different, but they are dumb because they can't comprehend why they became atheist in the first place. For both parties, it think that they are both incorrect, because to be religious or atheist, you have to factor the limitations of both systems and correlate that to your personal development.

there is no right or wrong.

I agree with the others that science and spiritualism is the way to go

[Gary]

Michaela wrote: "Science is the new religion, so the question is moot. It's like asking which religion we prefer; one where there is an all powerful being that created us or one where WE are that all powerful being. "

I think you're talking about the belief that science is a belief which does seem to be the new religion amongst evangelicals, creationists and denialists.

If you believe in science, you're failing to do it properly!

[Aliyah]

I meant that I take everything with a pinch of salt and accept the good parts of science only.

[Michaela]

Gary wrote: "Michaela wrote: "Science is the new religion, so the question is moot. It's like asking which religion we prefer; one where there is an all powerful being that created us or one where WE are that a..."
No, actually I wasn't. You are right about 'failing to do it properly' though. Science is supposed to be about reasoning, testing and proof. It's not. It's politicized and tainted with human beliefs and conjecture offered as fact, which makes it a religion. People are every bit as emotional about their belief in science as Christians, Muslims, etc. That is what I was talking about. Pure science is unemotional examination of facts.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Humans are capable of great evil and great goodness without religion. Belief just makes for a dangerously fertile ground for uncompromising escalation.

“Tolerance grows only when faith loses certainty; certainty is murderous.”
― Will Durant "

Ultimately, Gary, we're likely never going to agree on any of these things ... for several reasons.

My first observation .... I didn't say authority doesn't hold sway over people, including in a negative way. Did I? Yet, your word allude to the fact that I have and have been sadly unobservant. That is one of the reasons we'll never understand one another.

My second observation .... I'll have to look into this study you've mentioned. I've read about several studies, though I can't give you specifics as I was in college and that was forever ago, of people who would agree to do things to others/allow things to happen to others in order to save themselves. I've also watched that play out in my everyday life. I taught middle school. A multitude of people are willing to inflict all kinds of pain on others in order to "save" themselves. I, personally, see that as cowardice. I can't imagine a scientist labeling it as such, so, no ... no scientific study would show that. At least, I can't imagine that any would. It's a judgement, cowardice ... vs. and observation.

Regarding your thoughts on anecdotes and a grandfather who smokes, but .... That's actually no what we were talking about. Not really interested in trendlines of people who smoke. Not, in this instance, interested in trendlines. I'm interested in the exceptional. For example, I'm interested in MLK ... who fought against evil and authority and did so without violence. A man, a man of beliefs ... as an aside, who insisted on standing for what was right but also insisted on doing so without violence.

This is a difference between us and, for me, that's fine. I'm not going to put you down or take on a supercilious role. It's just a difference. While you might be interested in how the majority of people act and react and while you might want to study trendlines, I'm going to be interested in that one spark of light. True. There likely won't be any definitive answers at the end of my looking at that spark. No studies. But, I think answers lie there. They might be of a different sort. But, I see value in them. Actually, I see value in both. But, personally, I see the answer in the exceptional. What was it about that person ... about that group ... that made them different? That's what draws me ....

Regarding conversion, .... Yes, I know you don't believe in conversion. I actually commend you for that. I also know and have read posts on an atheist group here at GR ... that is dedicated to a discussion of conversion ... right down to the age of those converted, the atheist's assessment of their level of intellect, etc.... So, while you don't hold with conversion, it would seem there are non-theists and non-deists who do. In fact, it's an idea that's peddled on the American Atheists website, including helpful hints and how-to's.

Finally, I would suggest that while, from time to time, you discuss the fact that you could have your mind changed on certain things, you seem pretty certain to me. I know I seem certain and am often. Not always. My final observation.

[Gary]

Michaela wrote: "Science is supposed to be about reasoning, testing and proof. It's not. It's politicized and tainted with human beliefs and conjecture offered as fact, which makes it a religion."

Everything is politicized and tainted with human belief and bias, because humans are doing it. The difference is that science has mechanisms within itself to combat this that are highly effective. If you have trouble believing this then look at the computer you are in front of, something that would not exist without science successfully separating human bias from fact. Look at modern technology, medicines and discoveries.

Dismissing it all as "another religion" is like comparing astronomy to astrology.

Michaela wrote: "People are every bit as emotional about their belief in science as Christians, Muslims, etc. That is what I was talking about. Pure science is unemotional examination of facts. "

Again you use "beliefs" but a good scientist doesn't (and yes there are 'bad' scientists but I think the achievements of the majority speak for themselves, literally in some cases.)

Why should science be unemotional? The point is recognising emotion's influence and making sure it doesn't bias your results. Science is full of wonder and amazement. Scientists are often passionate people driven to discover what is true and what may have been up to now an assumption.

Science is not a religion because a religion requires belief and science requires scepticism.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I didn't say authority doesn't hold sway over people, including in a negative way. Did I?"

No but you said " I'll forever and always see past the idea that it's about authority" which seemed to dismiss the idea that it does.

Shannon wrote: "people who would agree to do things to others/allow things to happen to others in order to save themselves. I've also watched that play out in my everyday life."

Yes, I think there is a lot of that in studies of 'Game Theory'. You are of course quite right, but what I was talking about is that these experiments were trying to demonstrate that authority itself changes people's behaviour because we have evolved as a social animal that accepts authority in order to build communities.

Shannon wrote: "A multitude of people are willing to inflict all kinds of pain on others in order to "save" themselves. I, personally, see that as cowardice."

I agree entirely.

The point though is that a perceived authority can actually cause one to act with more courage, not because the person is afraid of the consequences but because they place trust in the authority being right.

The old refrain of "this is for your own good" has its basis in this truth.

Shannon wrote: "I can't imagine a scientist labeling it as such, so, no ... no scientific study would show that. At least, I can't imagine that any would. It's a judgement, cowardice ... vs. and observation."

The experiments were deliberately selected so that the factor of the subject being intimidated by the representative of the authority was controlled. The control prompts were also varied between imperatives and more neutral prompts.

The overall conclusion drawn was not that the people were bullied into doing it, but instead they tended to submit to the authority.

Shannon wrote: "I'm interested in the exceptional. For example, I'm interested in MLK ... who fought against evil and authority and did so without violence."

That's fine. However, how can you measure such a person except against the context of their time? MLK withdrawn from the context of the trends of the people around him becomes what?

Shannon wrote: "A man, a man of beliefs ... as an aside, who insisted on standing for what was right but also insisted on doing so without violence."

Beliefs he did have, what he certainly had was morality and conviction. Does one inform the other? Possibly, but if I was to choose a trait I'd want in a person I'd choose moral conviction over belief any day. I've seen too many believers perpetrate and propagate evil. Morality, however, is another matter.


Shannon wrote: "While you might be interested in how the majority of people act and react and while you might want to study trendlines, I'm going to be interested in that one spark of light."

Commendable, yet how can you appreciate the exceptional without comprehending the mundane that surrounds them?

What is the difference between millions of Germans and Claus von Stauffenberg? Was it a freak statistical anomaly that made 1930's Germany into a country of psychopaths and cowards, or was their another factor at play that meant the majority of their people accept their governments authority and actions until they truly realised what was going on.

More importantly, if it happened again, would we notice? Would we speak out?

Shannon wrote: "Actually, I see value in both. But, personally, I see the answer in the exceptional. What was it about that person ... about that group ... that made them different? That's what draws me ...."

I agree, there is value in knowing both, but unless you know one how can you know the other.

For example, what makes a suicide bomber? It is the general western position that they are psychopaths, murderers and cowards but is that really true? Why do some believers do these things and others do not?

I think just labelling them cowards or dysfunctional not only keeps the danger present, but dishonours the memory of their victims. I am not saying we need to condone them or that we shouldn't condemn them but the answer to why they do what they do is important.

Shannon wrote: "I also know and have read posts on an atheist group here at GR ... that is dedicated to a discussion of conversion"

Yes I think I've commented on it.


Shannon wrote: "So, while you don't hold with conversion, it would seem there are non-theists and non-deists who do. In fact, it's an idea that's peddled on the American Atheists website, including helpful hints and how-to's."

As there are plenty of evangelistic religious people. The principle difference being that the atheist group is not trying to force a set of beliefs on people, but talking about questioning beliefs they already hold.

Shannon wrote: "Finally, I would suggest that while, from time to time, you discuss the fact that you could have your mind changed on certain things, you seem pretty certain to me. I know I seem certain and am often. Not always. My final observation. "

That's true, and it's happened on occasion. You managed to convince me for a start that the US home-schooling movement wasn't solely religious in nature and there were a few other reasons to do it. (Though the majority did turn out to be for religious reasons, there was a significant percentage that didn't).

However, to convince me that belief was a force for overall good would require enough evidence to outweigh all the evil I have seen belief do, and also be exclusive to the practice of belief. To convince me that there are "magical" (to distinguish from mundane) forces or gods would take as extraordinary rationale and evidence as such an extraordinary thing would deserve. (While also being internally consistent and consistent with known observed phenomena.)

The reason I generally post here is to provide a counterpoint to the commonly repeated simplistic misconceptions of science. In my (current) opinion, that's the duty of anyone who understands, in the hope that the understanding spreads and that rationality, reason and evidence are things that people are encouraged to place their trust in, instead of inherited beliefs and biases.

[Michaela]

Gary wrote: "Michaela wrote: "Science is supposed to be about reasoning, testing and proof. It's not. It's politicized and tainted with human beliefs and conjecture offered as fact, which makes it a religion."
..."

Okay, this debate could go on all day and into forever. After this, I'm done. I have other things to do.

Religion is defined as: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

To begin, I wasn't referring to science as in technology and development. I was referring to the debate that rages between Atheists and Christians/Muslims. Atheists insist that there is no god and those who do believe in one are superstitious morons, pointing to science and thumping it like a bible. Then there are Christians who refuse to believe anything that isn't in the bible in explicit detail. Both reactions are emotional and BELIEFS. The reason it is belief? Emotions. Are you emotional about the ingredients of a can of soup? Not unless there is something wrong with you. Nevertheless, what is in the soup is fact and scientifically verifiable.

In your response, you admit that everything is tainted by human bias and then you say, 'Why should science be unemotional?' You claim that emotion can be kept out of it. How? Yes, there are checks and systems in science to ensure that beliefs don't color the results but unfortunately it doesn't change human nature. Humans have to relay the information to others and when they do, their beliefs and interpretations come into play. Belief can't be taken out of the equation. Science as a method is not a religion. BUT, the BELIEF in it as the answer to everything is.

Take the 'Big Bang Theory' (no I'm not saying I don't BELIEVE it's accurate). In the title it says that it is a theory, however, when I was in school, it was offered as fact. It isn’t. It can never be proven. Don’t like that example? Okay, try the Theory of Evolution. This one may actually be provable but to date, it isn’t. Again, it is put out there as fact. Governments and schools make claims every day that are not scientifically proven facts. Scientists back up those claims because they BLEIEVE they are fact. Are they bad scientists? Not necessarily. They’re human.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I'm interested in the exceptional. For example, I'm interested in MLK ... who fought against evil and authority and did so without violence."

That's fine. However, how can you measure such a person except against the context of their time? MLK withdrawn from the context of the trends of the people around him becomes what?"

Hmmm.... This could be a big difference between our different trains of thought or it could be a picky point. I'm not sure. For me, it wouldn't be about "measuring" the man. It would be about learning from him. While I've not spent a lot of time pondering this and haven't done any reading on it, I also think, in the case of those bright exceptions, that they're not really a product of their time. I mean, obviously, on some level, they are. However, what made certain people, like MLK, exceptions not the rule, is that they were, more often than not, ahead of their time. So, for me, the man is the man ... MLK is MLK.

Now, on the one hand, I understand where you're going. If everyone had been like MLK, he wouldn't have stood out, etc.... Therefore, I should be willing to look at and study the average people of the day. Right?

Here's the thing. We can dance around it, but ... let's not. Okay? Take my words in context. I said,

"As a person living my life, I tend to look at the exceptions. I want to explore the exceptions and understand the exceptions. I want to strive toward the exceptional. I don't tend to think a lot can be learned by slogging through the refuse of the ... for example, people who would inflict pain upon others because an authority told them to .... I don't know that much can be learned from that, in my opinion. News flash. Cowardice exists; some will do anything to save themselves. I tend to wonder about the people who don't ... all of those people who show true courage ... who don't follow authority just because ... who don't bully and act self-important ... just because they can ... who don't inflict pain on others because they gain something from it.

You see, for me, I'll forever and always see past the idea that it's about authority ... nothing more and nothing less ... to what I believe lies at the root of the thing. What will I get if I do it? What will happen to me if I don't?"

Do I see the average? Yes. Do I focus on the average? No. Further, I don't think authority in and of itself is the root cause, hence my looking at the exceptional ... in order to learn.

Yes, we can pick apart my statement. I was thinking about all the studies I've read and wasn't familiar with the one you mentioned. Your study was about authority. Fine. I know of studies that have to do with protecting one's self and not doing what is right. We can talk about what's right. We can talk about whether or not I should judge people to be cowards. Okay.

Ultimately, what I'm talking about is, for me, learning. I'm guessing we likely learn in different ways. News flash. Different people learn differently. Different people have different approaches. That's perfectly fine in my mind. Yours? For me, I can see the average and understand it. Yet, I find that perspective to be pretty limited. In this and in all things, I'm constantly looking to the exception. I find a lot of information there. A lot of wisdom. Take it out of the realm of belief and religion and science. I'd rather. Perhaps what I'm about to say will be heard in a different way if we do.

When I look at a bunch of poor schools with poor children and poor test scores, I think ... yeah, poor schools don't have the same resources and poor children often have challenges such as lack of vocabulary, lack of healthy food, etc.... These things can lead to low performance and test grades. But, am I really going to learn much from slogging through that knowledge on a daily basis? Hey.... I've read Ruby Payne. (Did I spell that right?) Yeah, I can learn things by focusing on poverty and what we know about poverty and how to teach students of poverty. However, .... Dang. I'm always going to go after that exception. Because ... there are always those schools that excel despite the same conditions. Why? That's where I'm really going to learn. For me, that leads me to believe it's not necessarily about poverty, solely. It's also about something else. What? I want to find that. If I find that, damnation, I could possibly replicate it. And, ... if I could replicate it....! The good part of it ... how those particular schools are the exception.

Now, regarding MLK and beliefs and morals. You said you'd choose a man with morals over ... or something like that. Again, that wasn't my point. My point was not ... in any way ... to say a religious man of belief was amazing. It must be due to his beliefs.

Honestly ....

My point is .... You've been stating, over and over, that beliefs are a recipe for violent and uncomprimising conflict. Dun, dun, dun....! Well, actually, it's not. Not always. (If you cut and paste the "it's not" part, please cut and paste the not always part too ...) While I know beliefs have and can lead to such things, "beliefs" are not, in my opinion, the root of all evil ... beliefs alone do not, in my opinion, lead to ... violent ... and uncomprimising ... conflict.

You can have men and women of both beliefs and morals who are the exception to the rule and act exceptionally.

It's, for me, not an either/or thing. When looking at someone like King, I'm not going to favor one or the other, belief or morals. At the very least, I'm not going to go into it doing so. I'd want to know what made the man. All of it. Not just the parts and pieces I value. I want the full picture. I want to know what made him tick. I want to learn from him. The man. Not the religious man. Not the orator. Not the husband. The father. All of it.

How and why did he step out and step up, a man, to a certain extent, out of his time ... a man who was willing to risk everything to "fight" for what he ... believed ... was right?

Regarding religious folk and atheists who attempt to convert people to their fold ....

I don't believe in conversion. Period. Religious or not. I've stated that many times. Not just 'cause. It's part of who I am. Now, as I said, I commend you for not being into that. And, ... I read your words on that other thread. I agreed with you when I saw them. It would be about belief, would it not? Why now say ... but the religious do it by ... and the atheists do it by .... Either you're not into conversion as it would still be about belief, or ....

Further, though this is an aside, I was totally and completely creeped out to an extent that words would likely not describe when I saw that particular question in that particular thread. I'd be equally horrified if I saw that type of question in a religioius thread, not that I read religious threads. But, if I did and it was there ....

And, ... ultimately, that's the difference between me and some, note some, of the non-theists and non-deists who take part here. I can see wrong in both. I can see wrong in the arguments of some of the religious and some of the non-theists and non-deists. I can see wrong in myself.

But, I sure as shoot find wrong in people asking ... who have you converted from religion ... sex, age, level of intellect, etc....

That reminded me of things I'd rather not be reminded of. Further, if memory serves, you're the only one who said, "Ah, guys .... Is this really what we want to be about?" Not your exact words. Obviously. I tend toward folksy. I also found that somewhat disturbing ... that more people who belong to that thread didn't stand up and say ... Umm... Whoa...? Are we actually attempting to document such things? I mean, for me, it wasn't just about the conversion, which I don't appreciate regardless of who might be doing it. It was about the idea of cataloguing such information ... as if that is appropriate ... on any level.

[Gary]

Michaela wrote: "I was referring to the debate that rages between Atheists and Christians/Muslims. Atheists insist that there is no god and those who do believe in one are superstitious morons, pointing to science and thumping it like a bible."

Well that's one perception, perhaps one from an outside perspective. For the most part atheists are responding to the allegations and assumptions of religion which encroach into their lives or the lives of their friends, or they are trying to honestly help those who may have once been like themselves, doubting and confused.

Most atheists wouldn't care if you believed in Jesus or Santa, but its when these people make statements regarding their righteousness of their beliefs or why they have a holy right to discriminate or hate that atheists feel they have to speak out.

Michaela wrote: "Both reactions are emotional and BELIEFS."

No, one is a lack of belief and a protest against the irrational beliefs of others. Rarely does an atheist say "M-Theory is correct so therefore gays shouldn't be allowed to get married".

Michaela wrote: "The reason it is belief? Emotions."

It's a belief when you refuse to analyse, critique or examine your own opinions. Science requires you do so. Emotions have little to do with the formation of a belief, but often come into play when belief is questioned.

Michaela wrote: "Are you emotional about the ingredients of a can of soup? Not unless there is something wrong with you. Nevertheless, what is in the soup is fact and scientifically verifiable."

Is it? What's in soup can get people very emotional. Was it GM food, was the chicken sourced from a battery farm, has some religious hate group poisoned the soup?

Is it a fact? Well you have the ingredients list, but that could be wrong, you could DNA test it, but do you accept DNA evidence etc. etc.

"Facts" do not exist in science, "theories" do. "Facts" are absolutes and are therefore in their own way "beliefs". When a scientist uses the word "fact" they actually mean an opinion or theory that has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Michaela wrote: " You claim that emotion can be kept out of it. How?"

No I said it could be corrected for, this is why different groups peer review each others work and try to reproduce results.

Michaela wrote: "Humans have to relay the information to others and when they do, their beliefs and interpretations come into play. Belief can't be taken out of the equation."

They can be very successfully minimised. Take for example "Quantum Theory", one of the best tested and confirmed models of the universe, yet people cannot even understand what its full implications are. There are many competing interpretations, and some scientists prefer one interpretation over others, but they don't 'believe' in them and most are seeking evidence that will reveal what the truth is.

Michaela wrote: "Science as a method is not a religion. BUT, the BELIEF in it as the answer to everything is."

No. Because science is the search for knowledge, all knowledge. If there is an answer, then science should be searching for it. If evidence of gods exist then science should follow that evidence. As soon as you say (x) is off limits to science then you are replacing reason with assumption and belief.

Michaela wrote: "Take the 'Big Bang Theory' (no I'm not saying I don't BELIEVE it's accurate). In the title it says that it is a theory, however, when I was in school, it was offered as fact."

That's because in science terminology a theory is a proven fact. The theory of gravity is a theory, the theory of combustion is a theory. The fact things are made out of atoms is a theory. The fact that the Earth is not flat is a theory.

Nowadays unscrupulous people try to say "oh its only a theory" to mislead unscientific people.

In fact "the Big Bang" is so well proven that the fireball itself can be seen, glowing across the entire night sky.

Michaela wrote: "Don’t like that example? Okay, try the Theory of Evolution. This one may actually be provable but to date, it isn’t."

It is proven. Beyond reasonable doubt. Because it's a scientific theory, not a hypothesis.

Again creationists and other believers try to misrepresent what scientists mean to undermine the scientific process in favour of belief.

Evolution is not only proven, but mathematically demonstrable, and has been directly observed. In fact it has so much evidence that creationists have to admit to "micro-evolution" and then make up reasons why a lot of micro-evolution doesn't add up to macro-evolution (or what scientists call "Evolution")

Michaela wrote: "Again, it is put out there as fact."

Which it is, with the same body of proof that the Earth is a spheroid and travels around the sun.

Michaela wrote: "Governments and schools make claims every day that are not scientifically proven facts."

Nope. They are telling the truth and then religious believers try to undermine the telling of truth to support their religion.

Michaela wrote: "Scientists back up those claims because they BLEIEVE they are fact."

No. They back up the claims because they have incredible amounts of corroborating data that not only tells a consistent story, but actually makes testable predictions that can then be falsified if the theory is wrong.

You see this is why atheists (and scientists) get passionate about believers spreading such misinformation, because they dupe people into believing and ignoring the vast amount of data that millions of scientists have spent their entire life working on for the betterment of us all.

The irony being people saying "it's only a theory" using a computer, an invention only possible because of Quantum Theory.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Now, on the one hand, I understand where you're going. If everyone had been like MLK, he wouldn't have stood out, etc.... Therefore, I should be willing to look at and study the average people of the day. Right?"

Not only that, but what if there was no prejudice people around at the time? People being like MLK are not the only way to obscure him, but there being no context of the accepted prejudice of the time takes away from who he was.

You can take a person out of history and you might find their a chauvinistic, prejudice little ****, then drop them in the context of their time and suddenly they become a reformer or a revolutionary compared to those around them.

Not really a point there except to say that context is important.

Shannon wrote: "Do I see the average? Yes. Do I focus on the average? No. Further, I don't think authority in and of itself is the root cause, hence my looking at the exceptional ... in order to learn."

That's kind of my point. The whole point of the experiment was to show that humans have, for want of a better phrase, a pack instinct. A natural instinct to accept authority when its established. No doubt a great adaptation in our evolution, but still just like our lust, fear or anger, an adaptation that can be manipulated by others.

Shannon wrote: "Fine. I know of studies that have to do with protecting one's self and not doing what is right. We can talk about what's right. We can talk about whether or not I should judge people to be cowards. Okay."

That's not the point. I was making a point about the proven effects of authority and how that would effect belief and religion. Studies of cowardice or whatever you would like to call it are a separate issue.

Shannon wrote: "I'm guessing we likely learn in different ways."

Of course, and a great way of learning is discussion amongst people with different viewpoints.

Shannon wrote: "News flash."

That kind of comment though is coming across as aggressive and condescending.

Shannon wrote: "Different people have different approaches. That's perfectly fine in my mind. Yours?"

Yup. But I fail to see how this relates to what I said.

Shannon wrote: "When I look at a bunch of poor schools with poor children and poor test score, I think ... yeah, poor schools don't have the same resources and poor children often have challenges such as lack of vocabulary, lack of healthy food, etc...."

I agree with everything you said here. I agree that an exceptional school is a worthy thing to study. However, how can you study what is exceptional without also studying what it is exceptional from?

With regard to my point, I was looking at a general effect, now yes there are exceptions (I would hope to be one personally), but without understanding the context what meaning would there be to an exception?

Shannon wrote: "Now, regarding MLK and beliefs and morals. You said you'd choose a man with morals over ... or something like that. Again, that wasn't my point. My point was not ... in any way ... to say a religious man of belief was amazing. It must be due to his beliefs.

Honestly ...."

That's fair, I was just responding to the fact you felt you had to point it out.

Shannon wrote: "My point is .... You've been stating, over and over, that beliefs are a recipe for violent and uncomprimising conflict. Dun, dun, dun....! Well, actually, it's not. Not always. (If you cut and paste the "it's not" part, please cut and paste the not always part too ...)"

My point is that conflicting beliefs can only be resolved ultimately by one belief being removed or one or both being opened to compromise or even verification. This is why it is a recipe for violence and conflict, but fortunately often humans do compromise despite their beliefs.

Shannon wrote: "While I know beliefs have and can lead to such things. However, "beliefs" are not, in my opinion, the root of all evil ... beliefs alone do not, in my opinion, lead to ... violent ... and uncomprimising ... conflict."

In my opinion they are, and the logic I offer that is the above. Beliefs can indeed sometimes be resolved amicably, but in those situations you usually find the belief becomes modified or is compromised.

Sometimes beliefs can lead to conflict for the right reasons too, like a belief in the freedom of people, but I still prefer that ideas be questionable and subject to critique and doubt. I.e. opinions not beliefs. (I realise sometimes the words become interchangeable)

Shannon wrote: "You can have men and women of both beliefs and morals who are the exception to the rule and act exceptionally."

Of course.

Shannon wrote: "That reminded me of things I'd rather not be reminded of. Further, if memory serves, you're the only one who said, "Ah, guys .... Is this really what we want to be about?" Not your exact words. Obviously. I tend toward folksy. "

I can fully understand your point, but then I can understand it from the other point of view too. In my opinion a person who leaves faith must at some point choose to do so, and I have helped a small few do just that. I have even helped a few who ended up with a different set of beliefs.

Then again I see some friends, suffering with their faith. Feeling guilt, shame, fear, that they don't deserve. Honest and good people who think they are worthless, or corrupt, or insignificant due to the legacy of their indoctrination into their beliefs.

If I help them, I may harm them, I may lose them as friends, or I may help them find their worth and lift the weight of undeserved guilt and return them self-esteem.

But I don't. Why? Am I respecting their choice to believe or am I being selfish in waiting for them to come to me because that's half the battle? Am I a coward for fearing to lose them as friends if I do? How will I feel if another one falls to despair?

I don't know the answer.

[Gryph]

Gary wrote: "I think it is a bit more involved and certainly more insidious."

Greetings Gary,

I sincerely hope that you didn't think I was reducing this to an argument of extremes. I was providing my thoughts on the possibility that in some cases, people are more willing to abrogate responsibility for their thoughts and actions. I'm also the first person to admit that things are rarely (if ever) black and white.

The Milgram experiment and its variants is an excellent example of the gradual giving up of personal responsibility until one finally hands it over to an "authority". When we discussed this -- several times in various courses -- in university, there was but a handful of students that indicated they would have "disobeyed orders" from the outset of Milgram and not participated. I was one of them. But then, I've never been terribly good at blindly following orders when I haven't received a damn good reason for doing so.

To my mind, watching video of variants of Milgram, the rationales that subjects told themselves were lies that they told themselves in order to lessen their guilt, personal responsibility and shame about their actions: "It's just a little shock", "I'm only turning it up a little", "I'm sorry if this hurts", etc..

I agree with what you say about our general willingness to accept Authority, in whichever form it takes, due (in part) to our organization as a "social animal". I don't disagree that this happens in the military, politics, or under the "protection" of Religion. However, I don't agree that this is the way that things have to be.

For every 1, 10, 100, 1000 people that will just blindly accept the pronouncements of "authority", I have seen examples of that 1 person that will not. Most times, that 1 person is silenced in some way, but there are times when that 1 person is heard and an acceptance of personal responsibility spreads to others. That 1 person continues to give me hope that we will one day evolve into a species that isn't blinded by Authority.

The first Suffragettes, Rosa Parks, Benazir Bhutto, the victims of abuse in Residential and RC-headed schools, abuse victims in the NHL .... these are all examples of the 1 person that refused to be silenced.

Is Religious Authority a deeply ingrained driver in our willingness to abrogate responsibility? Absolutely. So are Political Authority, Corporate Authority, and the mob mentality that has replaced what democracy once was.

None of these Authorities have Power that wasn't expressly given them by the rest of society.

The one major difference (although there are many) that serves Science well in this battle of Authority is that true Science (versus the wingnuts that use it as a shield) has observation, critical discussion, and revision based on a new understanding built right into the model. True Science is not the Authority in the same way that Religion or Politics is because those that practice (or live the practise of) Science take responsibility for what they have observed and understand based on currently available information. There is less abrogating of responsibility in this arena, to my mind.

It would be interesting to study whether those that practice Science have, in general, a more defined and deeper sense of personal responsibility than those that practice Religion. Not the analytic mind, not the ability to objectively observe, not the ability to draw rational conclusions .... just how personal responsibility plays into the choices.

Society is, after all, nothing more or less than a collection of individuals. Some choose to have an active part in the decisions that are made on their behalf by Authority, some choose to voice their opinions and then let Authority decide for them, others choose to hand it all over to Authority.

Me? Wherever possible I take an active part in the decision making. I don't blindly follow the dogma of Religion (in any form), hence my membership in the "Religion of One". I educate myself about the issues in the Political process and vote for the person that I think will best represent my wishes — sadly that person has rarely "won" the seat. I work daily to chip away at many of the myths and "beliefs" that permeate much of society. I take responsibility for and ownership of my "shit" and can only hope that there are others that do the same.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "I can fully understand your point, but then I can understand it from the other point of view too. In my opinion a person who leaves faith must at some point choose to do so, and I have helped a small few do just that. I have even helped a few who ended up with a different set of beliefs.

Then again I see some friends, suffering with their faith. Feeling guilt, shame, fear, that they don't deserve. Honest and good people who think they are worthless, or corrupt, or insignificant due to the legacy of their indoctrination into their beliefs.

If I help them, I may harm them, I may lose them as friends, or I may help them find their worth and lift the weight of undeserved guilt and return them self-esteem.

But I don't. Why? Am I respecting their choice to believe or am I being selfish in waiting for them to come to me because that's half the battle? Am I a coward for fearing to lose them as friends if I do? How will I feel if another one falls to despair?

I don't know the answer. "

I'm going to touch on this one first and separately. There's something here that I can't put my finger on. A depth of honesty or feeling or .... I'm not sure. But, it feels important to me to honor it.

I can see what you're saying, Gary, on a certain level. I can get the point of you or other non-theists or non-deists being torn when watching a loved one or friend suffering. Suffering with their faith. (Suffering with their unfaithful spouse ... suffering with cancer ... suffering with ....)

I see a fine line, though. Please see me through on this point and know it has nothing to do with my spiritual beliefs or otherwise.

Suffering is suffering. I, personally, have a really hard time watching people suffer. Who doesn't, some might say. Well, I was told, while I was growing up and a young adult, that it was as if I didn't have the tolerance to view the pain of others.

People we know, our friends, etc... suffer all sorts of things. I'd say the vast majority have little to nothing to do with religion. But, ... I could be wrong on that. I don't feel that strongly on that point.

I do feel strongly about this point ....

There's a difference between being there for our loved ones and friends and getting up in the morning with conversion on our hearts.

A very, very big difference.

I have issues with fear and guilt. Big ones. Mine have, literally, nothing to do with religion. There are people in my life who see my suffering. They, like you when it comes to your friends, see me struggling with these things. Things I don't deserve. Some remain silent. Some ask me thought-provoking questions in, I assume, an attempt to help me shift my perspective and grow through it. Others will come right out and call it, name it, and attempt to help me through it in a very ... out there ... sort of way. I don't mean weird. I mean open. Then, there is one specific person I can think of at the moment, who is trying to help me through it by ... how to put it ... being really kind to me, gentle with me, supportive of the person I am.

My point ... those different people are trying to help me ... trying to support my growth ... trying to ease my pain. Why? They care about me and want me not to live in fear and guilt.

You and some non-theists and non-deists might feel the same way about your friends who happen to be suffering due to their faith. You might "bleed" when you see their pain. It might cut you. You might want to help them in the same way some have tried or are trying to help me. Awesome. Truly. That's what relationships and humanity, in my opinion, should be about.

Then .... You have people who want to convert others.

There is a difference. And, .... Conversion disturbs me on several levels, including visceral levels. I've mentioned this before, a few times. I have native ancestry. I'm NOT okay with conversion. Period.

When I read that particular question on that particular thread ... voiced as it was ... cataloguing people, converts, down to their age and perceived intellectual levels ....

That's something else again, Gary. Now, there might be those who, without thinking, answered those questions but weren't really into conversion. They might have helped who they helped out of feelings of concern and love vs. the desire to convert.

But, .... That was not, in any way, the tone of that question or many of the messages ... in my opinion. The tone, in my mind, .... I'm not even going to say it. I'm just going to say this, again. Whether it was a thread for Baptists or Muslims or Atheists and Skeptics, a HUGE red flag would go up for me when I saw someone asking about who you've converted and whether they were male or female and how old they were and how intelligent they were and .... That is horrifying to me. I was further horrified by how many people wrote in ... even after your words of caution.

Disturbing ....

I'd also guess that some of the people who wrote in would have screamed from the rooftops if they saw a religious thread cataloguing people, converts, in the same way. Yet, because it was on the Atheists and Skeptics thread, the question wasn't viewed with the same ... skepticism and critical eye ... and heart. I don't know. But, I know I was pretty damned disturbed. So much so that, weeks later, I'm still sickened and horrified by it ... just as sickened and horrified as I am when I hear believers say their mission in life is to go out and convert people in order for them to be saved.

There is a very, very fine line.

And, ... that goes to my point.

What I saw in that question was, in my opinion, evil.

And, ... you had a bunch of people, who do not hold beliefs, taking part in something that smacks of evil ... or is evil itself.

Therefore, beliefs are not the root of all evil. I've seen with my own eyes people, who don't hold any beliefs at all, do evil. There and elsewhere. Or, do those people, who think and say they don't hold any beliefs, actually hold some? They might not be beliefs in God or Great Spirit or .... If you're right and beliefs are the root of all evil, they must hold them ... yet deny them. Or, while beliefs can lead to evil, beliefs in and of themselves are not the root of all evil.

Further, .... I know I've done evil in my life. I'm human and hard on myself and know the times I did evil. I'm sure you, Gary, have also done evil. I bring this up because .... I can see you asking, "Do you know the people who took part in that question don't hold beliefs?" Got me. So, here we go. I've done evil things. I know it. You have, too. There's no way you haven't. You're human. And, you don't hold with beliefs ... even the very word. So, why did you do evil? If beliefs are the root of all evil, what was at the bottom of your evil acts? Or, have you never done evil? Hmmm.... Should we define evil? I'm guessing we don't need to ... and guessing everyone, just about, knows everyone does evil. It's a question of how often, to what extent and whether or not any amount of remorse is involved ....

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "News flash."

That kind of comment though is coming across as aggressive and condescending."

Okay. I definitely don't see the words "news flash" to be aggressive. The word "aggressive" is a pretty strong word in my mind. Further, I wasn't in a condescending mood when I used those words. However, I can, given your comment, I can see and acknowledge that it might be seen as condescending ... whether that was the feeling behind the statement or not.

Therefore, I won't use the words again here. I intend to respect your feelings regarding condescension.

I do feel the need to say something else, though. Since you've brought it up, I'm going to go down that road.

Non-theists and non-deists, including you, have called me and other people of faith various things. Ignorant. Arrogant. Sheep. I've not been told I was the downfall of this thread or the stupidest person who ever posted or have had the stupidest arguments ever, but I've seen non-theists and non-deists say those things to people of faith.

We've, people of faith, been questioned, every which way, and when, for example, I asked a question of you and Cerebus ... did it make you more comfortable to ... I was given a ration by two women, on your behalf, ... which was followed by you accusing me of being the same as every other theist you ever knew and attacking you personally ... instead of just asking you a question. People who called me ignorant and arrogant ... people who told me I was wrong, 5 ways to tomorrow, called me out for saying something along the lines of .... Does it make you feel more comfortable, given the fact that you once believed and later turned from your faith, to think nothing can be learned from religious study? That .... Wow. That was an attack! (No, I didn't begrudge people questioning me. I do find it hard to take when I was questioned, every which way, ... and answered ... but ... when I asked a major question of a non-believer ... well, I wasn't answered by one and was told I was an aggressive attacker by the other ... and given a ration by two people who weren't even involved. I find that hard to take.)

Why do non-theists and non-deists call out, with great regularity, believers for aggression and attacks when ... they stay silent when non-theists and non-deists do it ... and even make 5,000 excuses when they do it themselves?

I have a hard time with that.

Just like I have a hard time when Republicans excuse other Republicans for things they'd skewer Democrats for and vise versa.

In my mind, there have been a lot of truly aggressive words uttered here. I've uttered some and was honest and admitted them. I've seen believers use aggressive words. I've seen non-theists and non-deists be aggressive. I've seen you do it.

News flash = aggressive. No. Condescending. I can see that ... and will not use those words again.

But, I've got to tell you, honestly, calling people ignorant and arrogant and half of the other things that have happened here ... ignorant and arrogant perpetrated by you ... the other things done by other non-theists and non-deists, were a heck of a lot more aggressive.

Hey, .... I even remember a particular poster who went after cs and I ... Don't answer them, Gary. Don't answer them. Remember that? Gary, I don't know why you keep talking with them, she asked you. That person continuing by questioning our (cs and my) intellect ... saying she'd gone in our pages and couldn't believe the things we read ... questioned whether or not we were educated ... actually ... assumed we weren't. I remember that particular post. (I actually think, at some point, Hazel questioned the poster's tone.) You, if I recall, talked about why it's important to you to talk with people, even if it's challenging. No words about aggression or condescension on the part of this woman. No.

But, "news flash" ... that, dang, that is aggressive.

No. It isn't aggressive, in general, nor is it aggressive when viewing the words used on this thread in the not so distant past. Words that were not called into question by non-believers ... including you.

I will not, even for the sake of peace, remain silent on this point ... in light of your allegations regarding my word choice.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "There's a difference between being there for our loved ones and friends and getting up in the morning with conversion on our hearts."

Perhaps to you, and even to I. However, I can see people feeling differently. After all I have no doubt in my mind that some of the most devious and nefarious evangelists, who regularly deceive and lie about HIV, homosexuals, vaccines, climate change etc. do so not because they are "evil" or because they are solely concerned with profit and control. I think that many of them have the courage of their convictions and honestly think that converting people to their faith will help them and help society.

Martin Luther, one of the founders of the protestant movement said words to that effect, that any lie in service of a 'greater truth' was worthy.

(I personally do not agree.)

Shannon wrote: "They, like you when it comes to your friends, see me struggling with these things. Things I don't deserve. Some remain silent. Some ask me thought-provoking questions in, I assume, an attempt to help me shift my perspective and grow through it. Others will come right out and call it, name it, and attempt to help me through it in a very ... out there ... sort of way. I don't mean weird. I mean open. Then, there is one specific person I can think of at the moment, who is trying to help me through it by ... how to put it ... being really kind to me, gentle with me, supportive of the person I am."

It is always difficult, helping someone who is suffering, or is afraid. I know this well. I have helped some people (they told me) a lot, but I have had my failures.

The difficulty is that you need to know what the person wants, and what they need. Sometimes it is not the same thing. I have once been very successful by making myself the enemy, by giving the person a focus to direct their fight toward, and draw that away from the loved ones that were trying to help them. It took many years before the person understood why I did it, but finally there was some vindication for me.

Some people need compassion, others find compassion drags them down when they need to fight. Helping people is seldom as easy as just commiserating or sympathising with them.

Interesting question is "do you feel the need to tell 'comforting little lies'" to someone in that situation? Personally I find that such things are more insidious and damaging than the stark truth. Others disagree.

Shannon wrote: "You might want to help them in the same way some have tried or are trying to help me. Awesome. Truly. That's what relationships and humanity, in my opinion, should be about."

Agreed.

Shannon wrote: "Then .... You have people who want to convert others."

Usually you accuse me of absolutism regarding these things.

Personally I can see why if a religious person truly believes that they know "the truth" and if they do not try to convert people to "the truth" then those people will be doomed to eternal damnation.

If a person really truly believes that someone is at risk of eternal damnation, what sort of excuse could they make to justify the moral cowardice of not trying to convert them?

"I am not going to try to convert you because I can't be bothered and if you die and go to hell tomorrow for all eternity, well it's your own fault..." What a despicable moral failure, taking into account the persons moral beliefs.

In a similar manner a non-theist sees around them everyday, religious people justifying their hatred of gays via their unfounded beliefs, lying to school children about evolution somehow being more theoretical than all other theories, claiming that they don't need to address global issues because it's gods will, or advocating hatred against another group based on a conflict of unsubstantiated beliefs.

Then they see people like Michaela above, who seems to have been influenced by such things and is propagating that misinformation perhaps unknowingly.

It's a difficult moral justification not to want to "convert" people out of these beliefs, or at least get them to question them.

When it comes down to it, people on each side don't really see "conversion" they see "enlightenment". If anything the thread that horrified you was at least the truth.

Shannon wrote: "I'm NOT okay with conversion. Period."

I understand. All I would say though is that people are converted from the time they are born. When it comes down to it I see a big difference between the conversion of people to belief, using fear, guilt and a desire for comfort to indoctrinate them, and "conversion" of people to honestly question their beliefs and the beliefs of others, even the person doing the "conversion".


Shannon wrote: "They might have helped who they helped out of feelings of concern and love vs. the desire to convert."

I don't see the latter, it doesn't make sense to me. The only "desire to convert" I see is those religious cults that thrive on the financial input or political control of their members. Beyond that people try to convert people because they honestly believe it will help them and others.

I can see why you'd see the honest assessments disturbing, yet I'd just have to say that I feel the same everyday with the casual way that religious belief receives automatic respect and unquestionable authority. Call someone a bigot because they show racial, gender or sexual prejudice that's fine, but as soon as they claim divine mandate people start going on about the rights of religion to discriminate according to their beliefs. Political movements like fascism or supremacist movements are no longer afforded this automatic respect of hate, so why religion?

Shannon wrote: "I'd also guess that some of the people who wrote in would have screamed from the rooftops if they saw a religious thread cataloguing people, converts, in the same way."

There are plenty about. They make little cartoon booklets with them. Detailing methods of converting atheists, other religions, other cultures and even specific ones to target children.

http://www.gospeltract.org/

Or look at some of the infamous "Jack Chick" tracts.

http://chick.com/

Personally, I find the daily indoctrination of billions of innocent children into their parents unsubstantiated beliefs far more disgusting than an honest thread between free-thinkers about people they have managed to get to question those beliefs they received as children.

Shannon wrote: "Therefore, beliefs are not the root of all evil."

I've never claimed they were. What I said was beliefs lead to conflict because by their nature beliefs cannot be questioned or modified, opinions can. Belief facilitates evil, and belief enables otherwise good and moral people to commit evil because they believe it's good.

Without belief we'd still have jealousy, greed, control, hate, etc. but without belief people would find it a lot harder for people to buy into their unfounded prejudices.

If having sex with a person of the same gender disgusts you, then don't do it. However, convince people to believe it's 'evil' and you can impose your disgust on others.

Shannon wrote: "Should we define evil? I'm guessing we don't need to ... and guessing everyone, just about, knows everyone does evil. It's a question of how often, to what extent and whether or not any amount of remorse is involved ...."

"Evil" should be defined. In fact that's one of the problems. People assume they know what evil is because of their beliefs, but two different beliefs have two different evils. Muslims believe it is evil to make any graven image like Christian crucifixes, devout Christians believe it is evil to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. Both beliefs can cause conflict with each other, both beliefs are completely unfounded on verifiable evidence and both practices are considered correct or even innocuous to the other.

Is it evil to kill someone? What if you kill one person to save hundreds, the basic role of any armed soldier? Is that still evil? Is it evil not to kill one maniac with a gun and instead allow dozens to die at his hands?

What if you believe that life is just a infinitesimal slice of an infinite existence? How evil is it to kill one heretic who is consigned to hell anyway, if it saves even one other persons eternal soul?

To me ethics is a subject to study and be understood just like any science. To that end you make certain basic working assumptions (just as physics assumes that some form of reality 'exists', so ethics assumes that there are certain things that we want as an individual).

In the end though, one of my other issues with many (not all) religions is the inherent moral cowardice. I have talked to people before that told me that they drew great comfort from "confessing their sins to god" and feeling like they had been forgiven because he is of infinite mercy. My first question was had they confessed to the person they had wronged and actually sought their forgiveness first? My second was if god was infinitely patient and forgiving, then how could that really replace their conscience? Why should they feel comforted by apologising to a third party?

Yes I have done wrong, more times than I ever wanted, but it is incumbent on me to endure those stains on my conscience as a constant reminder of the mistakes I have made. Morally speaking, even if god existed, I am responsible for my own actions so only two sources of forgiveness matter to me. First and foremost the wronged party, secondly - and only after achieving the first - myself. Of course that means that there are one or two people that I can never gain forgiveness from, so those wrongs I will have to forbear and hopefully will thus remember to never fail in that manner again.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Therefore, beliefs are not the root of all evil."

I've never claimed they were. "



In Message 7584, you wrote the following ...

"Shannon wrote: "While I know beliefs have and can lead to such things. However, "beliefs" are not, in my opinion, the root of all evil ... beliefs alone do not, in my opinion, lead to ... violent ... and uncomprimising ... conflict."

"In my opinion they are"

So, it seems to me, Gary, based on your words and not my interpretation of your words, that you do think beliefs are the root of all evil. At the very least, you believed that yesterday afternoon. Or, did you say the above without meaning it.

??

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "There's a difference between being there for our loved ones and friends and getting up in the morning with conversion on our hearts."

Perhaps to you, and even to I. However, I can..."

Regarding the ultimate message of this post, if you feel the need to excuse conversion, that's your choice. If you think cataloguing people and their age and level of intellect and religion and how you converted/convinced them is a free-thinking conversation, that's your choice. If you think someone referring to "brainwashing" her children, therefore they're atheists ... and her children "brainwashed" their children, therefore .... If you think that is simple free-thinking conversation, you have the right to your opinion. And, ... if instead of admitting to something foul perpetrated by non-theists and non-deists and if you want to focus on all the ills seen among religious folk, again, that's your choice.

I see converstion of anyone by anyone to be wrong. I can look, with open eyes, on such things perpetrated by believers and non-believers alike and cry foul.

That's my choice. And, ... I've made it.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Therefore, I won't use the words again here. I intend to respect your feelings regarding condescension.

I do feel the need to say something else, though. Since you've brought it up, I'm going to go down that road."

Thank you. This is why I thought I'd point it out rather than respond in what I would feel would be a like manner. It is somewhat disappointing that you have chosen to go the route of "ah but you said (x)".

Shannon wrote: "Non-theists and non-deists, including you, have called me and other people of faith various things. Ignorant. Arrogant. Sheep."

First, again I would remind you about the fact that in your protest against insults you are insulting people by generalising them over something they do not share, not a shared belief or attitude.

Second I used "ignorant" perhaps unwisely, but the word to me applies when somebody does not know about a subject and then makes judgements while either ignoring or denying information related to that subject.

I have called points of view arrogant, both as individualised and generalised statements. In my opinion it is arrogant for a person with little to no training in a field to make huge statements about the validity or content of that field.

If you learnt Japanese for 10 years and then translated a page online, then I come along knowing 4 words of Japanese and claim that "actually this is what the page means" and expect for my opinion to have the same validity and respect as yours because I said it, would that not be arrogant?

Is it not arrogant to imagine that despite hundreds of years of scientific exploration of the unknown, a few people have been blessed with the ultimate answer and are waiting patiently for us 'children' to catch up?

Shannon wrote: "I've seen non-theists and non-deists say those things to people of faith."

And I've seen theists and deists say the exact thing back, sometimes word for word. In fact one or two go as far as to "mock" atheists for having a faith in atheism as undoubtedly they know the misrepresentation annoys them, yet ironically they have gone full circle and using what they claim to be a virtue as an insult.

Yes people on both sides can act like *****, I occasionally 'throw the gloves off', usually when deliberately provoked. So we are as bad as each other on occasion? Well I've never denied it.

Shannon wrote: "We've, people of faith, been questioned, every which way"

As have I, and I have attempted to answer every question asked as clearly as possible. Though occasionally I have been careful to point out when questions seemed to carry an inherent bias or assumption.

Shannon wrote: "I was given a ration by two women, on your behalf, ... which was followed by you accusing me of being the same as every other theist you ever knew and attacking you personally ... instead of just asking you a question."

Sorry could not follow that, or remember the point you seem to be referring too.

Or what you mean by "ration"?

Please re-ask if you wish, I will try to answer honestly, but I will reserve the right to point out if I feel it is a bias or leading question.

Shannon wrote: "Why do non-theists and non-deists call out, with great regularity, believers for aggression and attacks when ... they stay silent when non-theists and non-deists do it ... and even make 5,000 excuses when they do it themselves?"

Perhaps because both sides see certain things that are reasonable that the other side finds insulting or aggressive?

Shannon wrote: "In my mind, there have been a lot of truly aggressive words uttered here. I've uttered some and was honest and admitted them. I've seen believers use aggressive words. I've seen non-theists and non-deists be aggressive. I've seen you do it."

And I've tried to admit it where I felt it was warranted, explain if I felt the phrase was warranted and attempted to respect others views where I could.

Shannon wrote: "But, I've got to tell you, honestly, calling people ignorant and arrogant and half of the other things that have happened here ... ignorant and arrogant perpetrated by you ... the other things done by other non-theists and non-deists, were a heck of a lot more aggressive."

Ok so obviously us non-theists are the demons here. Lets me just simply say that some of the things you may not even notice sound a lot worse to the other side.

Shannon wrote: "No words about aggression or condescension on the part of this woman. No."

So? I was unaware I was moderator of this thread.

You used something in conversation that I found distasteful so I mentioned it, without hyperbole, sarcasm or a retort. In the interests of civility. Just as in the past you have pointed things out to me with apparently a similar intention.

In response I get a long post about how "yeah but you guys do it all the time" complete with a grudging retraction and sarcasm.

Shannon wrote: "I will not, even for the sake of peace, remain silent on this point ... in light of your allegations regarding my word choice. "

My "allegation" was that I felt the comment was aggressive and condescending. I will now test that "allegation"... Yep... that's what I felt. Allegation confirmed.

You see as a Scouser I can use sarcasm with some facility too.

Now I was trying to be civil, but you seem to want to use that civility to engage in a rant on the evils of the non-theist. If you wish to pick up the conversation civilly at some point, I'll be over here.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: ""yeah but you guys do it all the time""

That, actually, is not what you got.

I admit when I do wrong. I've done it over and over again in this thread. Sometimes even without being asked to do so. I've searched and searched my mind and can't recall one instance when you've admitted to inappropiate or aggressive words or tone. In fact, very few non-theists and non-deists have. Hazel has. I remember that distinctly. (I have.) The rest .... Not so much.

Further, I'm most definitely not the one saying, "But, look, Gary. Everyone does it! I get to do it too."

My point, if it was truly lost, is ... I don't appreciate hypocricy (...or hyperbole).

Calling "news flash" aggressive is hypocritical given past history and more than a bit of an exaggeration.

My opinion.

I don't make excuses. You know that. I do; however, say something when the bias and hypocrisy is too much.

Finally, I have not now nor have I ever thought or said the non-theists and non-deists here were demons. Would that be an example of hyperbole? To, in response to my message, make a statement saying all non-believers here are clearly demons.

You're branding my falsely. I'm guessing I'm not the only one who can see that. Though, I might be the only one willing to say it.

Not only have I NEVER said that or implied it, I have been very vocal in standing up for the rights of non-theists and non-deists, their ideas and opinions. Further, when believers have made attacks, true attacks on non-believers here ... name-calling, swearing, ... or ... saying only the religious have morals, I have, time and again, spoken up.

That's a true statement. And, I'll wager there are people who have been following this thread since I started taking part ... and before ... who would agree with that statement ... whether or not they'd do it here.

I have never said you were demons or treated you as such. Nor have a stood for anyone else doing so.

I'm left not knowing if you really believe that of me, believe given lack of evidence. Or, is this merely a tactic in order to shift the argument or win a debate?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I'm left not knowing if you really believe that of me, believe given lack of evidence. Or, is this merely a tactic in order to shift the argument or win a debate. "

So when you find something offensive or disturbing and go on about it paragraph after paragraph, that's a legitimate concern that people should take seriously, when I respond though I'm trying a "tactic" to "win"?

So you have went from being condescending to accusing me of pretending to be offended at the condescension and subsequent justification?

Who's branding whom unfairly?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I'm left not knowing if you really believe that of me, believe given lack of evidence. Or, is this merely a tactic in order to shift the argument or win a debate. "

So when you fin..."

There is something called evidence, Gary. And, .... You're not answering the questions.

That's okay, though. It's your choice.

[Maria]

I think it's time to stop dwelling on how someone says something and get back to discussing the issues.

Why get offended by anything said here? Even if someone came right out and called someone else a bad name (which no one has that I've noticed)no offense, but who cares?

We don't even know each other and other than batting around opinions on all kinds of interesting topics, we probably won't ever know each other. So don't waste energy getting offended, just counter back with your own thoughts and let's move on.

Some people are more aggressive and outspoken than others and some seem to get offended by everything, said or implied.

Let's bring up a nice, interesting, controversial topic and get back to the banter.

[Hazel]

http://www.compleatseanbean.com/

[Maria]

There you go, thanks, Hazel! You know, until I started with this thread, I had never heard of him! He is sexy in a rugged sort of way, isn't he?

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "I think it's time to stop dwelling on how someone says something and get back to discussing the issues.

Why get offended by anything said here? Even if someone came right out and called someone e..."

For me, Maria, it's a question of honesty. I, personally, appreciate honesty in all areas of my life, including on the Internet. It's rather dishonest to paint someone as other than they are ....

Further, people here have been called horrid names. One only needs to go back and read the posts. I remember the day or two when the teenagers were swearing at the non-theists and non-deists, telling someone she was too ugly to post a picture of herself, and saying they were going to hell. That was pretty nasty, in my opinion. And, ... I spoke out against it.

Whether it's on a GR thread or whether we eat dinner together, in my mind, there is little to no difference.

There should be standards, in my opinion, for appropriate conduct and how we treat one another. I mean, after all, think about all of the articles that have been written and studies done regarding the anonymity of the Internet and how people treat one another when they aren't held accountable. Do we really want to play out? Some might. I don't and won't.

But, that's my opinion. I know you disagree, in that, every time this issue is raised, you post to say no harm has been done and that no one should be offended.

Sometimes, it's really not about offense, Maria. Sometimes, it's really and truly about a lack of honesty. Which, frankly, is the reason many non-theists and non-deists here question believers and speak out against belief. They don't think it's honest; they think believers are living a lie.

You know what? I can actually respect them for that argument and that stance.

Unless and until it becomes obvious that it's not actually about honesty ...

If it were, there'd be a demand for honesty in all ways and in all things ... of all posters and in all circumstances. When that demand is not made, it becomes clear that it has less to do with honesty, in and of itself, and more to do with fighting against belief. Not about taking a stand for honesty and against misinformation and lies. No. At that point, I lose respect.

Please don't assume it has to do with offense. Though, sometimes things here have been five thousand shades of offensive. Sometimes it's about a stink factor and respect that is lost given opportunism, at worst, or a very clear double-standard, at best.

[Maria]

Sorry, Shannon, I just can't take it as seriously as you seem to. It's a discussion thread where people who have no other connection with each other speak their mind on volatile, controviersial subjects.

I really don't mind if someone is less than real or honest and I don't care if they spew out hate.

It's virtual reality, meant to be a diversion, fun, etc. Chill.

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "Sorry, Shannon, I just can't take it as seriously as you seem to. It's a discussion thread where people who have no other connection with each other speak their mind on volatile, controviersial s..."

I actually remember you taking people to task for spewing hate, Maria. You, if I remember correctly, threatened to turn in the teens for spewing hate. In addition, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure, a very long time ago, you took Hazel to task for how she was speaking to you. Yeah, I'm 99% positive. I was pretty shocked by your tone, and Hazel apologized.

(I have a really good memory ... unless I'm low iron.)

So, ... it seems to me that it really depends for you ... whether you take it seriously or whether you care.

Unless, of course, you've changed your mind since you started here and made those statements. Maybe you cared once but don't care now.

Further, .... How to say this? I remember you saying, a couple of times, that you loved to ... was it stir the pot? ... push people's buttons? ... that it was so much fun for you to see how people reacted and over-reacted.

Now, to be fair, when I called you on those words and asked if that's really why you were here, you said it wasn't ... those were mean words, you guessed, and you didn't mean them.

Your comment about a virtual reality, diversion and fun reminds me of those comments. And, .... I wonder. Are you serious when you tell me to "chill" ... or are you trying to push my buttons to see what happens? Create a little more diversion and fun ...?

Ultimately, I have one reality and don't take part in virtual realities. I also don't think it's fun when people play fast and loose with the truth and brand others falsely. (Nor did you ... once or twice.) I also don't stay silent when people do that to others ... or when they're abusive to others.

In addition, is it really for you to tell me to ... chill? You rarely take part here, Maria. Every once in a great while, you take part. Which, by the way, is absolutely fine. But, I find it odd that someone who stays silent 95% of the time comes in every once in awhile and tells people, whether it be the man from India this summer or whether it is me, what they should feel and/or that you'd like them to change the subject as you're getting bored. Not diverting enough ... one way or another, I guess.

I could see calling me on lies, if I were lying, or calling me on abusive language, if I were being abusive to someone. I'd take input like that to heart and question my actions. My point of view, my feelings and my voice; however, are mine, Maria. So, if it's all the same to you, I don't know that it's appropriate for you to tell me how I should view things, what to feel, or what to say ... especially given the fact that I'm unclear as to your motives. And, ... after all, you've said ... we have no connection to one another. You don't mind if someone is less than real or honest or spews hate. Therefore, I'm not really sure what your intentions are ... when you tell me to chill ... or that you have my best interests or the interests of truth at heart.

[Maria]

I speak up on this discussion board when there is a topic that I have an opinion on. I drop by at least once a day to see what's going on and all I've seen lately is people talking about someone's "tone" or choice of words - more about how things are said than any particular discussion.

This used to be a lively board with lots of info and interchange about actual subject matter. That's why I jumped in, I'd like to see that again.

You are unclear of my motives because I have none. It's a discussion board to interchange opinions and information. Nothing deeper.

I did not mean to offend you by telling you to chill. I merely meant that there are so many more things in life to get worked up about that are infinitely more important, at least in my mind, than how someone treats me on an internet discussion board.

I have taken some to task here - and I will continue to object to anything I see here that is objectionable to me. As should you. If someone is offended by our remarks, let them, in turn, take us to task.

I can't say that I really have your best interests, or anyone's here, at heart, since as you said, we have no connection and I don't know you at all. Of course, I wish everyone well and truly don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. But as I said, it's a discussion board, I don't expect strangers to have their feelings hurt by something I, another stranger, says here.

Lastly, I have just as much right to tell others how to view things as anyone else here. If you don't think it's appropriate, feel free to say so, as you just did. How we react to others' comments is our own choice. But you can no more expect me to follow your instructions as far as what to say or how to say it - any more than I can expect you to do the same based on my comments.

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "I speak up on this discussion board when there is a topic that I have an opinion on. I drop by at least once a day to see what's going on and all I've seen lately is people talking about someone's ..."

A couple of thoughts ....

First, I'm interested in honest dialogue regarding Gary's continued contention that belief, in and of itself, ... belief, in anything, ... belief, the very word ... is evil incarnate. Please note .... I told Gary I didn't agree with him on this point. I don't see belief as the root of all evil. He wrote back on Thursday and said he did. He did think that.... Then, when I asked him to honestly/more deeply explore that subject and asked some follow-up questions, he said he didn't think it was the root of all evil. ?? When I asked him to clarify, given the fact that one day he said it was and one day he said it wasn't, he didn't answer. Instead, the posts turned to how "aggressive" I am, something Gary has charged me with time and again. And, ... when I called him on his past aggressive and condescending behavior and mentioned my lack of appreciation for hypocrisy, it turned to ... Shannon is demonizing us.

But, please note .... The original point, my questions regarding his contentions about belief, have now been conveniently blurred in and amongst the smoke and mirrors. Haven't they? So has the idea of non-believers cataloguing, cataloguing !, their converts.

(I should imagine such conversation would be lively and lead to interesting information. I'm curious, therefore, as to why you'd attempt to shift the focus elsewhere. Why not ask for answers to those questions? Why not take part in the conversation and share your thoughts on whether or not you think belief is the root of all evil?)

At any rate, it seems to me it might be safer to label me an aggressor and a demonizer of non-theists and non-deists everywhere, despite the evidence to the contrary. That way, we won't have to think about whether belief, in and of itself, really and truly is the root of all evil, as Gary believed it to be until yesterday, and as horrid as he promotes it to be to the forum.

Of course, there's another point that I made .... Many of the non-theists and non-deists here have used honesty and lies as the main basis for their arguments against belief. That, as I said, is an stance I respected them for. Anyone who stands for honesty and fights against lies gets respect from me ... even though I believe in a higher power.

However, it would seem some of those very same people aren't overly interested in honesty and lies, in and of themselves. I find that problematic. Further, if they don't demand honesty in all situations and of all people, I tend to wonder about their use of honesty and lies as an argument for non-belief.

Notice the fact that the above has nothing to do with tone. Not really. It has everything to do with the basis of some of the "religion/spirituality or no" arguments that have taken place here.

But, if you continue to focus on whether or not I got my feelings hurt, that point will likely also become lost.

Finally, if you're interested in a lively exchange and lots of information, why don't you change the subject yourself ... versus asking people to talk about something you'll find more interesting. What information, on what topic, would you like to add to the discussion? I'd love it, actually, if you'd bring an exciting and intriguing topic to the fore. I like to think, and I like to learn. I'm not; however, when someone asks me to talk about something else in order to entertain and provide a certain level of interest, going to do so. Asking that, mentioning that, well ... it seems rather odd to me. Now, you have the right to your opinions, to your words and to ask people to change the subject. Gary does. I do. But, as you've said, we also have the right to call people on things, if we feel it's important.

[PaulWADE]

Taking a totally oblique view of the question. What would happen to the English language, without an historic religious bent?
Oh God, Jesus Christ, yes!!Oh God, yes,(one for the ladies.) what in Christ's name? I swear to God!!I swear to tell the truth--so help me God.
Do ya' see where I am going with this?
How would people express themselves?

[[deleted user]]

Paul wrote: "Taking a totally oblique view of the question. What would happen to the English language, without an historic religious bent?
Oh God, Jesus Christ, yes!!Oh God, yes,(one for the ladies.) what in Ch..."

Paul .... I have to say .... I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue this particular point! Though, I've no idea where you were going with, "Oh, God, yes!"

;)

[Ritesh]

I could live without both..however i cant live without faith, without helping each other...without empathy that otherwise makes us so human...

[Hazel]

and you think that empathy and good deeds come from religion?

[[deleted user]]

You know, I wonder ....

I've also thought, when people post as Ritesh has, that they think things like empathy and morality come directly from religion and that non-believers, for example, don't have empathy and morals.

I know some have come right out and said that. They're wrong in that assumption. Many believers and non-believers alike have been, throughout history, both empathetic and sociopaths ... moral and immoral.

I wonder, though. There was something in Ritesh's post, followed by Hazel's, that made me think. Do people, like Ritesh, make such comments because many religions are seen to promote empathy and morality? Whereas, science doesn't. That doesn't mean that scientists aren't moral. It doesn't mean that there aren't ethics panels, etc... to guide science. But, science, in and of itself, doesn't promote empathy and morality. That's just not the point. Whereas, many within religious and spiritual circles do see that as the point of their faith.

Could this, in some instances, be the result of the misunderstanding? Could it be that and not a commentary on the immorality of non-believers?

I don't know ....

[Kurt]

It's a pretty easy question to answer as long as one understands that religion is not the same as spirituality. While most may regard religions as positive influence on societal progress, and some aspects of them probably still are, and they probably were back at their origins when our species was in the midst of civilizing itself. They helped maintained familial bonds and monogamy, which surely had a positive impact on our ability as a species to work collectively to further civilization.

But religions are nothing more than thought methods and hierarchical means to instill and practice the tenets of beliefs. If those beliefs are stuck in ancient times, and if those in religious power are unwilling to normalize their practices and tenets for modern, scientific times, then religions must be viewed as anachronistic and a hindrance to societal progress.

If that is the case, and I believe it is, obviously science should stay and religions should go.

If the question were a choice between spirituality and science, then that is a completely different matter. I believe that we are coming closer to understand that science may be the primary vehicle to help us arrive to the most heightened spiritual awakening our species has ever experienced.

Coincidentally, Hurricane Sandy prompted me to write a post on this same subject: http://bojiki.com/2012/11/01/mother-n...

[Gary]

In the interests of civility and re-engaging in worthwhile conversation Shannon, I will try to clear a few things up. Please understand that the below is my opinions based on my understanding, not accusations or assumptions.

Some of the confusion I believe is caused by me not following some of your comments clearly enough. For example the apparent discrepancy that you pointed out was based on the full context of what you said, not a single line. In my opinion belief is a recipe for conflict and uncompromising positions based on the simple precept that belief requires faith not reason, if a belief is subject to reason or doubt then I would prefer to describe it as an opinion.

However, I don't think belief is the root of all evil as I know there is selfishness, jealousy and hate in the world. Hence to my mind there is no discrepancy with what I said, but I can see how it has not come across clearly.

Next, my comment to you about certain phrasing was an honest attempt to keep a civil conversation by pointing out something I felt came across less than civil. I even ensured that I clearly stated that it was how it "came across" not insinuating it was deliberate. I felt you would appreciate that, just as I would appreciate when you find a term offensive.

I fully accept that non-theists have been rude here, but I feel that people of all kinds have been rude here, and I can understand why you find it more stark from non-theists while I find it more stark with theists.

You've commented that you feel that a certain thread you find disturbing or offensive, which is fair enough. To my mind it isn't nearly as offensive, though I may not agree with it, as it has the virtue of honesty compared to other evangelical threads.

You disagree with conversion, I feel somewhat the same, but for markedly different reasons. No one has intrinsic beliefs which can easily be shown by the statistical amount of children who end up with the same beliefs as their parents or the culture in which they are immersed. That is conversion of innocent, impressionable minds that rely on society and family to form their initial conceptions of the world. Personally I find it horrifying that children are allowed in Churches and are exposed to unproven beliefs with no evidence and told it as fact. (Then the same people attempt to claim that things with proven facts are "just theories".)

I hope some of that clears up what I have said. I would like to continue to converse with you civilly because in the past we have had rewarding conversations. However recently, from my point of view your recent posts have appeared to me to be highly partisan and quite aggressive compared with posts made in the past.

So that's an olive branch, please tell me if you need more.