Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 8,301-8,350 of 12,463

[cerebus]

Melissa wrote: "I am curious, what is your response to it? How would you show why this is not the case?"
As I said this has been addressed many times, both by myself and by others, but I will summarise here:
Religion and science are more opposites than they are "two sides of one coin". Religion has a set of predetermined answers which you are expected to rely on and accept "on faith". You are not supposed to question these answers, and you are expected to ignore any evidence which contradicts those answers.

Science however is constantly questioning, even where a long established "answer" is in place, and where repeatable evidence is found which contradicts an existing position that position is forced to modify.

I struggle to see how these two conflicting positions can be seen as "two sides of the same coin".

[Travis]

Melissa wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Melissa wrote: "And I also believe both are just two sides of the coin we call spirituality"
I think we need a new version of Godwin's Law for the "two sides of the coin" analogy. P..."

because the coin only has one actual side.
Religion tells us it's the other side of coin, but when we ask to see that side, are told you can't see the other side of the coin, you have to just believe it's there.

[Melissa]

Cerebus wrote: "Melissa wrote: "I am curious, what is your response to it? How would you show why this is not the case?"
As I said this has been addressed many times, both by myself and by others, but I will summa..."
Fair enough. But to be honest I didn't go through the entire thread. I simply read the question and answered it with my own opinion. You are correct about the "two sides of the same coin" analogy being a little off. However, I still stand by the rest of what I said. We need both. To consider the alternative would mean a completely different reality than what we have right now. We need rules. We need faith. But we also need those that will test the rules. We need those that will question faith. And thanks for answering my question.

[cerebus]

Melissa wrote: "We need rules. We need faith"
When you say rules, what rules do we need that are provided only by religion? Or to put it another way, in the absence of religion what rules that currently exist do you think would no longer apply?
And as for needing faith, I'd disagree, it is something we could very easily get along without.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Mmmm.... If the Europeans had not come to and taken our land to begin with, they'd not have been able to take our resources and our lives. They are connected."

Yes that was right then, but now the developed world can take resources and lives from thousands of miles away.

Shannon wrote: "Further, while talking about American Indians, we're taught to value all life, conscious or not. (No, you don't need to argue again that this line of thought could lead to suicide or something like, given the fact that humans need to eat, etc....) "

I am very familiar with the concept of animism and respect it a lot more than Monotheism. For a start it is possible to follow a lot of the practices without needing to believe in the supernatural or gods.

I get what you mean about placing value on life, and in a way that's the point. I remember various animistic cultures used to "appease" the spirit of a killed animal, show it respect and honour, and then did their best to ensure that the animals death was not wasteful.

In a way I think that is perhaps what colonisation of other worlds could teach us once again. The colonisation of the world by the European superpowers was more about the sudden idea that resources were limitless and there to be taken, often by right of a "superior" culture and religion. Hence we are now living with increasingly dwindling resources with an attitude of increasing denial to signs that we cannot endlessly tear stuff out of the ground nor pump it into the sky.

Hence the colonists could learn to appreciate once more the best use of limited resources and due respect for those we have. Yes I do prefer animism though my perception of it may be a little romanticised.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "So, if we were to take this idea out of the realm of theory and make it a reality, what would that look like? "

Wow, big question and not one I think I could do justice to here. Plus I am happy to admit I largely do not know.

If I was to say one thing though, it is my experience with religion has taught me to recognise ideology, belief and faith beyond religion.

For example the two facets of the US political spectrum have created two diametrically opposed ideologies that are quite complex and internally divisive. The "left" has a conflict between its ideals of authority and individual liberty while the "right" has a major conflict between its claims to liberty conflicting with religious conservatism. Now certainly there are libertarians and others with concepts that straddle the aisle but it does seem that both sides are crippled with partisanism. Yet to an outside observer the actual political divide is tiny compared to the range of political ideals. Both sides have actually agreed on many points, but only vary on a question of scale. The supremacy of capitalism is an article of faith as is the evils of communism. The main difference is whether to abandon the poor and unlucky to their fate entirely or to maintain them in eternal poverty while both sides watch wealth pool to less and less people.

Already I think some US readers think I am a rabid communist or socialist European, but neither do I have faith that government is always right, it's just I recognise that less government does not equate to more liberty because there is always someone ready to fill that power vacuum. At least governments are meant to be answerable to their people, whereas the corporations that take their place only answer to stockholders.

I think (with suitable caution here) that what the world needs is less ideology and more rationality. Instead of the constant argument of capitalism versus socialism actually do the research, trial various models and independently assess the results. Decide also on what our outcomes want to be. If the goal is to prize individual success and greed over society then the whole advantage of collective effort is lost. We are more than the sum of our parts.

In the end I think society will continue to improve as long as ideology gives way to evidence and reason and as long as we can curtail the "new equality" that all ideas are equally valid. Experts train for years, whether its in economics, politics, humanities or science, surely a good system would respect the consensus of expert opinion and feed it into public policy?

[Gary]

Rob wrote: "This makes no sense. You don't want to use the word, yet you describe exactly that. What? Huh? Your reasoning for not writing this, apparently to you, dirty word is just as nonsensical"

Not dirty to me, but the word is often used by the people who seem to believe that the UN and the Pope are conspiring to take their guns. Hence I described the concept rather than use a term that may be misunderstood.

It's similar to "atheist", I could use the word but it rarely serves it's purpose as usually both people are arguing using a completely different definition of the term from their worldview. A part of scientific training is trying to be clear if there is a chance your audience may have different preconceptions.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "As you don’t recall, I said…..
“There is no god and nothing can travel faster than light, so some people believe. So where does the light go when it reaches the edge of the universe“? "

And then claimed that there was some bias to science speculating about what was beyond that edge, but not speculating on god. But this is not valid as we have reasonable amounts of evidence to make the speculation in the case of the horizon of the observable universe while we have no evidence to speculate on god.

cHriS wrote: "Having just watched a programme that explained the answer."

Again a TV program is not good evidence that you know what you're talking about. You implied that light cannot reach this edge, however light near the edge would not have this problem and to that light we would be the edge. Furthermore Inflationary Theory demonstrates exactly why we can speculate about this.

cHriS wrote: "This information that you provided us with, although interesting, was nothing really to do with what I had said."

Because you don't understand the implications of the theory that you used to try to imply that science was speculating about one thing it had no evidence for and not another.

cHriS wrote: "You have this habit of miss quoting people to fit in with your replies."

Again, cannot make a rational argument so you fall back on accusations of deception. Because obviously everyone knows in their hearts you are right and are therefore deliberately trying to deceive people if they claim you're wrong.

cHriS wrote: "It never reaches the edge because the universe expands faster that light. And that’s where science has to stop."

Which is wrong because science does not have to stop because the theories of General Relativity and Inflationary Theory have a lot to say about this. You may not understand why, but science does not have to stop here and in place of a "TV program" I offer actual training in cosmological theory.

cHriS wrote: "It will speculate about what may or may not be beyond the universe but is unwilling to speculate about a god."

So this statement is invalid as being "willing" isn't the point. The space-time horizon is fairly well understood, and there are even hypotheses that may soon be testable that will give us an idea of what is over the edge even if its impossible to get there. Science may be wrong, but we may be wrong that anything exists at all, the point is what is probable. Meanwhile there is no consistent or testable definition of "god" so it's pointless to speculate until there is evidence.

cHriS wrote: "My analogy was that many people believe there is no god and nothing travels faster than light. "

Which is misleading on the first and outright wrong on the second. The main people who "believe" in the absence of a god are religious people who believe in once concept of god over that of other concepts of god/gods/goddesses/the force/FSM. There are also people like me that do not believe in a god, but do not believe in the absence of "god" because it's not really a binary question.

Second is that there may be some people who believe "nothing travels faster than light" but that is nothing to do with science. Science accepts a theorem that demonstrates that no object with mass can be accelerated to the speed of light, and that massless objects travel at the speed of light. This does not lead to a "belief" that nothing can travel faster as the science does not preclude another entity that could already be travelling faster than light.

cHriS wrote: "So a reasonable question for a person to then ask is ‘what happens to the light’ and if there is no god how did we get here etc………."

And the answer is that nothing happens to the light as at the point it reaches your "edge" locally things are not travelling at the speed of light, but instead its way out where we are.

cHriS wrote: "Since the science programme I watched answered the question about light (although not to your satisfaction)"

No. My "satisfaction" was with your interpretation which was based on the erroneous idea that this horizon light could never reach (when actually it is only light from this far away that will never reach it) and that therefore science had to "stop" (to conveniently be replaced by faith no doubt).

cHriS wrote: "it may also one day respond to Shannon’s reflection that she “can envision knowing there is an amazingly phenomenal power that is beyond her understanding”."

Indeed. But that does not necessarily mean a god. I know there are amazing phenomenal powerful things beyond my complete understanding, like Black holes.

cHriS wrote: "…………….and nothing to do with your interpretation …."

I was responding to your claim that "this is where science has to stop" and your allegation that somehow this meant that science somehow shied away from god.

cHriS wrote: "That is true from inside the ‘science’ bubble where you live. Just as those who live inside the ‘religious’ bubble see things from their perspective."

Yes the science "bubble" is the study of reality. I occasionally read about stuff outside of reality, but I don't believe in it. Once more you arrogantly try to dismiss science as just another point of view equal to any other point of view on reality that people invent.

Yet you say that the FSM is just an insult? By your argument it is a valid point of view as any other.

cHriS wrote: "Science is not right, but the scientific theory of the moment is right until a better one comes along. Not much different from inside the religious bubble: their theory is right until a better ones comes along as well. "

Again you mistake "science" for current knowledge when science is a methodology. The scientific process has been refined and developed but never proved wrong. Scientific models have been proved wrong and discarded but that is the way science works.

Meanwhile religions all claim different truths, so when a new idea comes along it is resisted and often leads to violence or subjugation. This is not equivalent to science otherwise the Bible would already have had excised the references to slavery and other immoralities by now wouldn't it?

cHriS wrote: "You can argue that science had ‘proved’ their ‘theory of the moment,’ but if it later turns out that the theory was not correct, you will say it was correct on the evidence science had at the time. I bit like a scientific get out of jail free card, much the same as religion has."

No because scientific process is based on the questioning of ideas and the discarding of ideas based on new evidence. Religion requires faith and belief. Religion makes claims such as "homosexuality is wrong and punishable by death" and people believe this without ever understanding why. If you applied the scientific method to that question the first thing you'd ask is "why is it wrong", the second is "define wrong" and the last is "why is killing a suitable punishment since it teaches its victims nothing?"

cHriS wrote: "I am glad that I am able to, like Shannon……..“envision knowing there is an amazingly phenomenal power that is beyond my understanding”. "

Which is the hypocrisy of religion, the pretence of humility. I not only can I “envision knowing there is an amazingly phenomenal power that is beyond my understanding” but I do not claim to know what it may be yet, or to give it human personality or attributes, or to define it at all until the evidence is shown to me.

In the same way that I would not judge a defendant on what I wanted the evidence to be rather than waiting for what it is.

[Gary]

Travis wrote: "We are on page 169 of a debate about religion vs science and you don't want to upset anybody by mentioning globalization...?"

:-)

Not upset. It's just sometimes quicker to explain a concept rather than use a label and then having to unpick everything that's wrong with the persons conception of that label. A bit like the risks of naming scientific theories around Chris.

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Travis wrote: "We are on page 169 of a debate about religion vs science and you don't want to upset anybody by mentioning globalization...?"

:-)

Not upset. It's just sometimes quicker to explain..."

I have no strong feelings concerning 'globalization', it was just a pleasantly, amusing moment, that deep as we are into this thing, shannon is still thoughtful and/or naive enough to worry about using what felt to me a fairly bland phrase.

Gives you a good feeling that even 170 pages in you guys can still surprise me and despite all the argument I can still find something that makes me smile.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "So, if we were to take this idea out of the realm of theory and make it a reality, what would that look like? "

Wow, big question and not one I think I could do justice to here. P..."

I appreciate your answer. It's largely still in the realm of theory, at least when applied to the original question.

You made a comment about rights and whether or not people had the right to live in America if they consume things from other countries and, perhaps, consume too much. I wanted to understand and asked the following and received this reply ...

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Does China have the "right" to pollute and decimate "their" land, since it's their land, in their work to modernize and commercialize? Do they have the "right" to live there if they're harming the planet in a way that will impact the rest of us?"

Exactly. Obviously it can be seen to be unethical to try to deny others the advantages we enjoy through selfishness but at the same time we now are starting to understand the damage we have wrought and that they are now contributing to. It doesn't matter if a ton of pollution is pumped into the air in China or the US if we all share it in the end. Pollution does not respect borders."

It's one thing to mention this as an idea and to discuss ideology. It's another to put it in practical terms.

Reminded of Travis saying I was on Step 42 last night. That's what I do. For me, I see the above and see several steps ahead. In addition, I tend to go for practical application.

On the one hand, our purpose could be to discuss rights and ownership and place and .... We might throw things out there, like the above, to challenge our thinking a bit.

Then, there are some who might see the above and want to run with it. The "YEAH!" variety of person ... What right do the Chinese have to live there and misuse the land and pollute the water and air?! They have no right! Yeah! Or .... What right do the Americans to live in America when they don't even use the land and resources they have? All they do is take, take, take from everyone else!

So, now what ...? That becomes practical ... how ....

Maybe I should ask the following .... Is it meant simply to challenge thinking and, perhaps, encourage people to be more mindful? Or, is it meant to leave the realm of theory and discussion and be a practical "solution" for our problems?

Practically, ... would it look like a country, a collection of countries or a world organization who determines who gets to live where ... what would happen to the people who live in a place but don't use the resources of that place ... what would it look like if certain countries did their own thing; what would happen to them ... who gets to be right ... who gets to tell the people of China or India that they can't have the things many of us have, TV's, computers, cars because, given their numbers, their ownership of such things will increase our costs and harm our lungs ....

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: It's just sometimes quicker to explain a concept rather than use a label and then having to unpick everything that's wrong with the persons conception of that label. A bit like the risks of naming scientific theories around Chris.
..."

Another way of looking at it is..........

Someone asks me or Travis for directions and we will say... "turn right at the tall building over there, take the next left after the park and it is next to the cinema. (or what ever directions are needed).

Gary would be unable to give direct directions without also giving a brief history of the 'tall building', how the park was designed and what is showing at the cinema. :)

[Melissa]

Cerebus wrote: "Melissa wrote: "We need rules. We need faith"
When you say rules, what rules do we need that are provided only by religion? Or to put it another way, in the absence of religion what rules that curr..."
Most major rules in today's society come from religion itself. As do most morals and ethics. Do you believe that science alone would have allowed us to socially evolve in the same way?
As for faith, a vast majority of people need to feel a part of something bigger. They need to believe that there is something out there that explains why we are here. Why we suffer. They need to believe that there is an effect(an afterlife) to the cause(life). That is where faith comes in. When there is no tangible proof their faith allows them to believe in it anyway.

[Rob]

Gary wrote: "Rob wrote: "This makes no sense. You don't want to use the word, yet you describe exactly that. What? Huh? Your reasoning for not writing this, apparently to you, dirty word is just as nonsensical"..."

I was going to write something longer and more thought out, but it's easier to sum it up this way: You make absolutely no sense. I don't know who gave you this "scientific training", but it sounds like it was your freshman year biology teacher. Actually, sorry. I don't want to insult teachers. It sounds like it was something you read online in passing and got confused about.

[Travis]

Melissa wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Melissa wrote: "We need rules. We need faith"
When you say rules, what rules do we need that are provided only by religion? Or to put it another way, in the absence of religion what..."


rules and morals etc come from us. We created religion as a way of imposing these rules onto large groups of people way back when.
religion is a man made construct.
Since most of the morals of religion are basic ones that help keep a society stable, then yes, I think science could have come up with a version.

and while we do need to believe in something to help us deal with the scary parts of life, but what religion has provided has pretty much turned out to be fairy tales, we might be better off focusing on the one life we have.

[Melissa]

Travis wrote: "Melissa wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Melissa wrote: "We need rules. We need faith"
When you say rules, what rules do we need that are provided only by religion? Or to put it another way, in the absence ..."
Yes WE did create religion. We created it out of NEED. And while some are content with the idea of life without belief in some kind of creator, most NEED more. And science alone could not provide that. It is human nature to seek out a connection with something bigger than ourselves. That is proven in the fact that all over the world different faiths have been around for hundreds of years. These fairy tales you make light of provide inspiration and hope and may have helped to inspire some of the greatest thinkers of our times. I know science has made great achievements throughout history, which is why I believe we need that as well but, it is not enough.

[Gary]

Rob wrote: "I was going to write something longer and more thought out, but it's easier to sum it up this way: You make absolutely no sense. "

So if it makes no sense to you, you give up and assume that it makes no sense to anyone?

I think you have just insulted your teachers.

[Gary]

Melissa wrote: "Yes WE did create religion. We created it out of NEED. And while some are content with the idea of life without belief in some kind of creator, most NEED more."

People "need" structure and organisation. Does that make any structure thus valid? Meaning a tyranny is just as valid as a democracy.

Melissa wrote: "These fairy tales you make light of provide inspiration and hope and may have helped to inspire some of the greatest thinkers of our times."

And have led to division and slaughter.

I also find it somewhat disturbing the idea that it's ok to lie to people if it makes them feel better.

A person may be dying, they have a "need" to be reassured they are not because they are afraid. Is it right to tell them they will make a full recovery and aren't going to die, letting them die unprepared and with things unfinished or do you tell them the truth and then help them come to terms with their fear and let them fill whatever time they have left with their loved ones?

The idea of letting the little people who need their illusions have them is quite sinister.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Someone asks me or Travis for directions and we will say... "turn right at the tall building over there, take the next left after the park and it is next to the cinema. (or what ever directions are needed)."
No, you'd answer a different question......"Rain, I think.....".......

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Gary would be unable to give direct directions without also giving a brief history of the 'tall building', how the park was designed and what is showing at the cinema. :) "

Only if you claimed that the building was a tree and the cinema can't exist because you haven't seen any films there. :-)

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "It's one thing to mention this as an idea and to discuss ideology. It's another to put it in practical terms."

Indeed. I am also cautious about "ideology" as by it's nature it puts ideas above evidence. We may have 'desired goals' such as achieving sustainability, but sometimes the practical way to achieve these goals may seem to go against the ideology.

Shannon wrote: "Reminded of Travis saying I was on Step 42 last night. That's what I do. For me, I see the above and see several steps ahead. In addition, I tend to go for practical application."

I see nothing wrong with that.

Shannon wrote: "On the one hand, our purpose could be to discuss rights and ownership and place and .... We might throw things out there, like the above, to challenge our thinking a bit."

Also a valid cause :-) which is exactly why I enjoyed this discussion. My tendency though is to try to step back and look at things objectively, and to try to see where our assumptions may lie.

Shannon wrote: " What right do the Americans to live in America when they don't even use the land and resources they have? All they do is take, take, take from everyone else!"

As many do.

Shannon wrote: "So, now what ...? That becomes practical ... how ...."

Agreed, it is far easier to condemn and tear down a system than it is to build something better.

Shannon wrote: "Maybe I should ask the following .... Is it meant simply to challenge thinking and, perhaps, encourage people to be more mindful? Or, is it meant to leave the realm of theory and discussion and be a practical "solution" for our problems?"

Both? Neither?

Shannon wrote: "Practically, ... would it look like a country, a collection of countries or a world organization who determines who gets to live where ..."

You're talking about authoritarianism versus liberty, and yes you are quite right. I do not like the "nanny-state" idea of government any more than I like the idea of government being cut back to a minimum to let self appointed corporations to pick over our corpses.

In my "perfect" world, policies would go to the appropriate experts to study and then their recommendations would go to people who had been democratically appointed on their merits in their appropriate field to make a policy decision.

So a question on science would be researched by scientists and then decided upon by democratically elected people with at least a demonstrable background in science. A question on economics, the same...

Of course I acknowledge that I favour science here, but more because science can tell us about practically everything.

For example, I have read a study on Britain's "binge-drinking epidemic" by someone who has studied the actual effects of alcohol on people as compared to a placebo. If you Americans (and others) didn't know, we Europeans like to drink, but certain European countries seem to handle it fine, while places like England are plagued with drunken violence in our city centres and towns.

The English response has been to raise taxes to discourage drinking, and though consumption is down, the epidemic "appears" to continue. Yet other countries have higher consumption and lower violence. Meanwhile all the taxes have done is to make illicit drugs more popular amongst people who can no longer afford to drink, and made people more likely to load up on cheap alcohol at home and then go out already drunk, whereas they would probably drink a lot less in the social setting of a bar or pub.

Meanwhile this study has demonstrated that under test conditions people became less inhibited, flirtatious and/or violent based more on whether they believed the drink was alcoholic rather than the actual alcohol content.

Obviously this study needs more conformation, but what this tells us is the reason the UK has a binge drink problem is because we keep telling our people we have a drink problem. Therefore, people who drink and become violent are actually just convinced that the drink legitimises their loss of control rather than the other way around. Which means that the Millions spent on discouraging drinking by the government is actually reinforcing the behaviour of those who get drunk and out of control. Whereas if the government helped convince people that we are still fully responsible for our actions it might cut violence and other social alcohol issues by far more than any tax increase.

Just to be certain, this is not certain, but instead of the puritanical assumption that alcohol is the source of the problem, we realise it's peoples attitude to alcohol that may be the issue, which would explain why certain cultures are more sensitive to these problems and other cultures less.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "In my "perfect" world, policies would go to the appropriate experts to study and then their recommendations would go to people who had been democratically appointed on their merits in their appropriate field to make a policy decision.

So a question on science would be researched by scientists and then decided upon by democratically elected people with at least a demonstrable background in science. A question on economics, the same..."

So, ...?

Instead of having individual governments, would we have one world government? A set of scientists the world over ... a set of economists the world over ... who make recommendations. Then, there'd be a set of democratically elected people, though only people who understand science and economics and ..., who will adopt these recommendations? Is that it?

If that weren't it, I'm guessing there will still be countries who go their own way. Countries that pollute, etc.... After all, regardless of how we want things to be, things aren't always going to be that way. If we still had countries, with their own scientists, etc..., their scientists might make different recommendations. People can be bought. People can be threatened. Separate and apart from that, people who want power can kill scientists, overthrow scientists, and go their own way.

So, if we set up the conversation as it has been, what will happen to those countries? If Americans have "no right" to live in America because they're not connected to the land and don't use their natural resources, what will the rest of the world ... the cool kids with the scientists who make recommendations for science-minded folks to adopt ... do to those Americans? (Of course, the statement is an overgeneralization and an assumption to begin with. America isn't all Beverly Hills 90210.) If the Chinese have "no right" to have cars like the people in the UK due to such ownership raising the gas prices for the people of the UK and polluting the air, what will happen if they decide to flip off the people who tried to colonize them before and who colonized all sorts of people the world over?

Or, if we had one world government, ruled by a select group of experts, for all intents and purposes, what would happen to the people who didn't follow the policies adopted? If they have "no right to live" in America, etc... if they don't have a garden or buy locally, what will the experts do to those people? Where will they live ... if they don't have the right to live in a place if they don't x, y, and z?

As an aside, there's another problem. A world governed by scientists and other experts.... Scientists. Doctors, who are scientists. Economists. Who else?

Question.

How many of those experts will be white men?

Just curious. White men from Europe and America. Other countries have scientists. For sure. Yes, a portion of women go into such fields, though it's lower then men, I think. But, think about it. Proportion. Per capita. How many children in the poorest countries have the opportunity to become part of this elite few? (Enter social justice? The idea that ... if we move to this system ... those poor kids will have more because we'll take it from, hmmm ... the Americans, and they might become better educated. Then, in a generation or so, there might, might, be a higher percentage of people fitting the elite standards we've embraced ... not just Europeans and Americans. Oops. Forgot Canada.)

But, hey, this is just what's popping into my mind. The possible options if we were to take this idea and make it practical. Are their other options? Options that don't stink as badly?

People have no right to live in a place if .... If they don't garden and buy locally and recycle. I wonder. I'm not saying this was in your mind or in your heart. I'm not. I do wonder, though. If we adopted this idea, how many would take the leap from ... have no right to live in a place ... to ... have no right to live? After all, where would they go? Let's say they're stubborn and obnoxious and refuse to cow to the dictates of the elite experts and elite politicians who understand the experts. We no longer have an Australia to send them to ... to rid ourselves of the rebels and the riffraff who we don't want to deal with and who tell us to bugger off. If they have no right to live where they live or live among us, what will we do with them? (Perhaps they get the one way ticket to Mars. ?)

So, again, interesting idea to think about. It challenges one's thinking and might prompt people to be more mindful.

However, when I think about putting it in practice, I find myself envisioning a system I would fight until my last breath to prevent.

If you're envisioning it sugaring off differently, though, please share.

[Travis]

Melissa wrote: "Travis wrote: "Melissa wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Melissa wrote: "We need rules. We need faith"
When you say rules, what rules do we need that are provided only by religion? Or to put it another way, ..."

and a child needs to be reassured that the monster in the closet won't get them and santa will bring them that cool lego set, but then they grow up and they need to let that go.
for a child to become an adult we tell them all about the made up stuff that need to stop thinking is real...except the man in the sky, that one is real.

I keep hoping that one day, we'll grow up enough to be able to deal with the world without that last imaginary friend.

Because if you need something bigger than yourself to believe in, there's only the whole world and everything and everybody in it.
Which, for some reason, religious folk look at and think that's not enough or find the real answer too scary.

plus, the idea that religion wants to lay claim to all inspiration and imagination seems a bit dicey.

[Aiman]

Gary wrote: "Aiman wrote: "it's about one's experiences with things he beyond his power or anybody else's or beyond science's power for that matter."

"Power" and "might" are a common feature in the lexicon of ..."

http://brendanmcphillips.com/2007/09/...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cul...
A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?"

A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"

"God created everything?" The professor asked.

"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."

The student became quiet and did not answer the professor's hypothetical definition. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question, professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"

The other students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color.

You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's Inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

The young man's name - Albert Einstein 7

[Aiman]

Gary wrote: "Gary wrote: "Aiman wrote: "http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17..."

Interesting though. A quick bit of research on a few sites was very interesting. Has anyone else heard of him? Apparently hi..."

and most important of all I insist that you read this link, I myself might not have been able to put across my belief due to my limited knowledge I assume but this shall answer all your queries.
May God be your Guardian- the one I firmly believe in.

http://www.islam101.com/religions/pro...

[[deleted user]]

Aiman wrote: "May God be your Guardian- the one I firmly believe in."

Aiman ...

I respect your choice to believe and to practice your faith. I also believe in "God" ... though I'm not Muslim.

One thing, though.... Something you might want to consider. While I believe and pray, I know others don't. Or, they do, but don't believe in the same way, etc.... Therefore, I've very careful about my words and my prayers. For example, I don't pray for people who are non-believers. It just doesn't seem right to me, in my opinion, to pray for those who wouldn't accept or want my prayers.

To tell Gary, "May God be your Guardian - the one I firmly believe in" might be considered a prayer, yes? While I'm sure your intentions were good, I wonder if it's right ... to use such words and "pray" such a thing for someone who is a non-believer.

Let me put it in different terms. My uncle converted to Mormonism. Mormons, to my knowledge, have a practice of going to certain temples and .... Is paperwork involved? I don't know. Do they perform special prayers? I don't know. But, something is done over their deceased family members, in order that their spirits may choose the "real and true" faith, Mormonism.

I had several conversations with my mother and one with my uncle regarding this. My great-grandmother was a Nazarene, for example, and very strong in her faith. It seemed to push her own children away from churches, but that's another story. I know, beyond much doubt, that she would not be pleased to have him doing whatever he would do in order that she, her spirit, could choose Mormonism. Isn't such a thing presumptuous? Is it right? I made it quite clear, if I were to die before my Mormon relatives, that they were NOT to pray such prayers, etc... over me. I, personally, think it's as wrong as wrong could be.

Granted, I know that's not what you've done. I'm just somewhat uncomfortable and ask that you consider this idea. To ask that the God you believe in be another's Guardian .... Well intentioned, perhaps, but not necessarily welcome.

Peace, though, Aiman.

[Aiman]

Sai Thein Than wrote: "Actually, this is a question on the reading group guides. I like the topic so I bring it up here.
I'm an atheist myself so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I'm not implying that re..."

Sai Thein Than wrote: " I've once been a Buddhist and I felt like Buddhism is restricting me in something what I do(I don't know what it is exactly). Maybe that's because of my ignorance in religion. But I just don't give a damn so I'm, here, an atheist."

Why don't you study your religion and other ones to in detail since, maybe your ignorance is what has made you an atheist.
And have you never ever at any point in life felt the need to know if actually somewhere out there exists a God that you're unaware of? Why not search Him and prove His existence to our hearts or vice versa rather than being complacent and choosing to ignore a matter of such importance just because choosing to be an atheist allows you to freely do whatever your religion-(which ever it was)restricted you from. Shouldn't you looked at other religions for an answers that satisfies you?

[Hazel]

Aiman, why is it that religious folk assume that atheists are ignorant, when it is the study of religion and the reading of holy books that is the main cause for people to become atheist?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Instead of having individual governments, would we have one world government?"

Well I never said that. It is also important to distinguish "government" which is a system of governing structures and "Government" as a specific entity. For example, various treaties and organisations, NATO, the UN, the ICC and even the boards of Multinational corporations all effectively govern the affairs of people across the world in different nations, but it is not one big faceless unified entity.

Shannon wrote: "Then, there'd be a set of democratically elected people, though only people who understand science and economics and ..., who will adopt these recommendations? Is that it?"

Not exactly, but I do feel that when people make important decisions they should understand the implications of that decision based on real comprehension not hyperbole.

Shannon wrote: "If that weren't it, I'm guessing there will still be countries who go their own way."

Indeed, but that is the problem with governance, whether its a collection of towns and cities in a county, counties in a state, states in a nations or nations in a world. There is a conflict between being fair to people consistently and also being responsive to local needs and differences.

We only need to look at places that have little to no labour laws that can undercut other countries production by paying their workers little while making them work relentlessly. Is it fair for them to do that to their own people? Is it fair to send jobs to these places if countries refuse to abuse their own masses?

Shannon wrote: "If we still had countries, with their own scientists, etc..., their scientists might make different recommendations."

Indeed. Fortunately the international scientific community has perhaps the best record of global co-operation of any affiliation. Even managing to partially function through Chinese and Soviet totalitarianism. Different scientists may indeed make different recommendations, which is why local people should make local decisions. However for a global problem the scientific community has fairly good ways to establish a consensus.

Shannon wrote: "People can be bought. People can be threatened."

Corruption in general. Yes. Which is why my "perfect" world would likely not work as simply or as smoothly as I would like. However, this again shows the problem with ideology. America likes to put forward the ideology that "democracy" and "freedom" automatically makes everything better and then panics when some people use "democracy" to vote in a tyranny or theocracy because that is what they have been taught is best in their culture.

Hence my "perfect" world would only function with "perfect" people. Just as "perfect" capitalism would always result in wealth and efficiency and never in crashes and inequality, and "perfect" communism would always give every person an equal chance in the world and would never become a despotic tyranny.

However, it does not mean that there are no lessons to learn from these idyllic extremes.

Shannon wrote: "So, if we set up the conversation as it has been, what will happen to those countries?"

I don't know. Which is the problem. My point generally was that the modern age has altered the concepts of colonisation and conquest. Transport is now so effective that geographical location and distance is a secondary consideration.

I read a good article yesterday written by an upper class Englishman about the problems with the way the US and world in general are ruled by the rich. Generally he indicated that the wealthy in the US had far more in common with the wealthy around the globe than they had with the people that share the cities they live in. They may live "in" America or the UK but they are not "of" them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...

Shannon wrote: "Or, if we had one world government, ruled by a select group of experts, for all intents and purposes, what would happen to the people who didn't follow the policies adopted?"

I don't see how that would change. After all what happens to people now in the UK that the policy of testing disabled people for their "fitness to work" and then denying them financial welfare if they do not look for work? All based on the ideology that welfare only exists because people aren't trying hard enough. A policy that has led to many suicides and other deaths were the private company that assessed them forced them to work despite the chance it would kill them. Yet the main problem with this ideology is that it assumes that the employment market is completely supply side and ignores the demand side.

The only change I am really suggesting is that policies be based first on actual evidence rather than ideological belief.

Shannon wrote: "As an aside, there's another problem. A world governed by scientists and other experts.... Scientists. Doctors, who are scientists. Economists. Who else?"

I agree. Perhaps as technology matures we will be able to equip people to learn faster. So (x) gets voted in to govern and then a problem arises and (x) can flash learn the knowlege that they need.

Shannon wrote: "How many of those experts will be white men? "

How many politicians are white men and not experts in anything but political manoeuvring, manipulation and spin now? How many get their positions from established wealth rather than any personal laudable skills, knowledge or expertise?

Certainly science and other areas in some countries need to improve on their demographics but they are still in general far ahead of US & UK politics. The difference here is that addressing educational fairness of opportunity is easy with the political will to invest, while merely appointing people to rule because they are not white men is condescending to non-white men and does little to win respect.

Also in science notoriety and respect is generally won through papers and works. I.e. through the mind not the body that contains it. Some people don't find out the gender of a scientist let alone the colour of their skin until long after they have deliberated or even collaborated with them.

Shannon wrote: "Yes, a portion of women go into such fields, though it's lower then men, I think."

The same with politics. But politics works that way because of the inherent bias of the population that is used to seeing white men in charge. The bias in sciences is due to the cultural impetus that discourages women from certain interests and the fact that the US and UK still have unfair educational opportunities that are worsening as the wealthy squeeze money out of the system to cut taxes for themselves.

Shannon wrote: "How many children in the poorest countries have the opportunity to become part of this elite few?"

Again in a "perfect" world, education would allow anyone a chance to reach their potential, regardless of race or their parents wealth.

Shannon wrote: "But, hey, this is just what's popping into my mind. The possible options if we were to take this idea and make it practical. Are their other options? Options that don't stink as badly?"

All the things that you say "stink" are just as much a problem of the current system, except that the system is mired in political ideology and regularly ignores the fruits of intelligent inquiry.

Shannon wrote: "I'm not saying this was in your mind or in your heart. I'm not."

Good :-) but it does seem like you've missed the point I was making.

Shannon wrote: "I do wonder, though. If we adopted this idea, how many would take the leap from ... have no right to live in a place ... to ... have no right to live?"

Just so we're on the same page, I didn't mean to say that people didn't have the right to live somewhere. I was comparing the idea of the colonisation of America by Europeans and pointing out that at the time the geography mattered. The Native Americans were there and could be considered to have a right to their resources. However now there is no need to actually invade, occupy and colonise a place if we can have others take their resources and send them around the world to us, simply because in the digital world our names have a bigger number of digits in our account.

Shannon wrote: "Let's say they're stubborn and obnoxious and refuse to cow to the dictates of the elite experts and elite politicians who understand the experts."

What happens to people today? Just replace "elite" with "wealthy". And replace "understand experts" with "sometimes understand experts, sometimes ignore experts and sometimes spread deception about experts based on personal interests"

Shannon wrote: "However, when I think about putting it in practice, I find myself envisioning a system I would fight until my last breath to prevent."

This is why I said "perfect" world. But still your objections seem based on problems that already exist. The only difference would be that people would select people based on their wealth of knowledge, not their wealth that buys political adds or deliberately spreads ignorance.

I don't know about you but based on the stupidity of our current chancellor of the exchequer, I'd certainly like vote on the next one based on what his scores in mathematics were.

In fact the only politician that impressed me in the last few years has been Bill Clinton, who instead of ideology and empty claims actually stood up and did a speech that actually included data, figures and calculations. Now he may have spun the figures, miscalculated or be simply wrong but if you felt so inclined you could research that, and at least he respected his audience to do so. Meanwhile I remember Paul Ryan being questioned on how he could possibly deliver the across the board tax cuts he intended without devastating Medicare, Medicaid and other services and all he did was repeatedly claim that it was "revenue neutral" and repeat a lot of unquantifiable rhetoric about "wealth creators" and "job creators".

So I'm not sure how you have equated my idea of basing policies on evidence rather than belief has somehow led to the NWO?

[Gary]

Aiman wrote: "The young man's name - Albert Einstein"

Sorry Aiman, you've fell for a hoax.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einste...

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Or, if we had one world government, ruled by a select group of experts, for all intents and purposes, what would happen to the people who didn't follow the policies adopted?"

I don't see how that would change. "

It might given our starting point. It wasn't ... how do we better use our resources ... or ... given that borders are now arbitrary, shouldn't we form a, what, global society .... The starting point was ... Americans don't have the right to live in America given that they consume resources from elsewhere.

Okay. So, if that's true, where will those Americans go? Or, where will all Americans go? If we have not right to live here, ....

[Gary]

Aiman wrote: "and most important of all I insist that you read this link, I myself might not have been able to put across my belief due to my limited knowledge I assume but this shall answer all your queries.
May God be your Guardian- the one I firmly believe in.

http://www.islam101.com/religions/pro... "

Insisting that we do as self-appointed holy men tell us is one of the things I find repugnant about religion, but very well.

I ask that you read and seriously consider my following analysis. I do this to demonstrate to you that while you may find the text convincing, this is because you already believe it's true.

However, I am not telling you what to believe. Perhaps you should do the same for others?

[Gary]

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote: "Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him."

I actually like that part, it is very thoughtful and civil. It does contain the common error of "denying the existence of god" rather failing to believe.

Strangely enough in the Einstein hoax you quoted above it points out that certain things are privatives (cold, dark etc.) are labels for things that do not exist. Yet here the lack of belief is mistaken for the presence of an active denial.

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote: "I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God."

Why swap one authoritarian ideological belief for another with equal lack of evidence?

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote: "The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods."

Again this goes part way and stops. Being a person that has wishes and preferences are also human qualities, therefore Dr. Naik has directly referred to here is a reason not to accept his own point.

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote: "If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism;"

May I say here that I agree entirely with the point. Islam is no worse than Christianity, it is simply that Christianity seems to have had its main phase of extreme violence and bloodshed around the time Islam was having it's cultural renaissance of wisdom and learning.

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote: "If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’"

Assuing it has been "created" however nothing is really "created" in the world around us, instead it is changed from one form to another and then when that form comes under a certain label, we say that it has been "created" but this is an abstract label, not an absolute.

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote: "At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat"

Not true. The Earths shape was known in Greek times and a estimation of it's size was made. This knowledge was lost in the west because Christianity allowed the works of pagan Greeks to be largely destroyed. How do we know them then? It was actually Islam that preserved and translated Greek works into Arabic, a widespread trade language. So it's no surprise that the Qu'ran should have the correct shape.

However, the Qu'ran also mentions that the sun rises and sets from the Earth so actually contains conflicting evidence to this too.

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote: "The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2"

In 499 AD, the Indian astronomer Aryabhata mentioned in his Aryabhatiya that reflected sunlight is the cause of the shining of the Moon. This is almost a century earlier in a nearby country with a lot of trade with the Middle East.

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote: "Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water."

Apart from the simple fact that has been well known thousands of years before that people die if they lose too much water, it's hardly divine revelation or even a lucky guess.

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote: "The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation."

So far the Doctor has it wrong 3 for 3.

Based on his idea that if the Qur'an holds scientific truths that this validates the Qur'an then is it reasonable to assume that even one error would invalidate it?

16:69 Then (the Bees) eat of all fruits (Bees do not eat fruits)
18:86 Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring. (The sun does not physically set on Earth)
27:61 Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode... (the Earth is not fixed, it moves)
51:49 And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect. (Except all the creatures that reproduce singularly)

Meanwhile 13:3, 15:19, 50:7, 51:48 all speak out about the Earth being "spread out" which rather implies that flatness that Dr. Naik denies.

I do not read Arabic so I cannot speak to the nuance of the original meanings, but if you can use the English translation to present the flawed evidence above then you surely can then refute it by the same mechanism?

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote: "The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered"

This rather implies that we thought the Earth was flat until the 20th century, which is rather silly.

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote: "It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents."

Creation requires a time that something did not exist and a time which it did. However, since time is part of the universe how can you have a time that time did not exist? "Creation" is a human concept based on our limited perception.

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote: "I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago."

In fact much of this "scientific knowledge" referred to predates the Qur'an by a culture that the Qur'ans author was very familiar with.

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote: "Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la"

If you translate this into philosophy, this is known as the "God of the Gaps" theory. I.e. whatever we don't know we attribute to god until demonstrated otherwise, a flawed and obstructionist philosophy that denies true humility in the face of the unknown.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "How many politicians are white men and not experts in anything but political manoeuvring, manipulation and spin now? "

Too many.

That's not a good reason, in my opinion, to embrace more of the same.

In addition, each state here has a system of governance. Governors, legislators serving at the state level with members of Congress and the Senate who are sent to Washington DC.

I'm proud to say my state, New Hampshire, is governed, at the highest level, by women. Our governor and the senators sent to DC are all women. I almost think our members of Congress are also women. I'd have to check. Further, while some of these women have wealth and came from wealth, not all of them did. One is a lawyer who served as New Hampshire's Attorney General for years. Some are business women, etc....

I know there are problems here. Trust me. I know. I understand that people can be bought. I know some of our elected officials aren't among the educated elite. At the highest levels, the presidency, wealth is a factor. Further, how much of our governance is impacted by the corporate sector? However, that's not an accurate picture of what happens here.

So, speaking personally, if I were an Afghani woman, having a disproportionate number of men deciding my fate might seem like more of the same ... though better, given that they'd be deciding things for me based on the best ideas that science, etc... have to offer. However, if I'm a woman living in New Hampshire, as I am, it doesn't sound all that great to me.

[Gary]

Aiman wrote: "Why don't you study your religion and other ones to in detail since, maybe your ignorance is what has made you an atheist."

I did. As a child I could not imagine not being anything but a devout Christian, since everyone told me it was so important. It was my study in detail that drove me away from Christianity, and my study of other religions that drove me away from religion.

Aiman wrote: "And have you never ever at any point in life felt the need to know if actually somewhere out there exists a God that you're unaware of?"

Yes. However, now I feel that to have been highly arrogant of me to assume that the universe had to be the product of some intellt remarkably similar to my own.

Aiman wrote: " choosing to ignore a matter of such importance just because choosing to be an atheist allows you to freely do whatever your religion-(which ever it was)restricted you from."

Aiman, you may think that it was wanting to ignore rules to do what we want that told us to do this. This is not true. I am constantly disturbed by people who imply that the only reason they don't do evil is that god is watching them. Perhaps its merciful that such people have this paranoia?

If the only reason you do good is because god told you, then you are not a good person, just an obedient one. If the only reason you do good is because you are afraid of what he will do to you means that you are evil, but afraid.

I choose to do good, not because god is watching me, but because I make a moral choice based on ethical standards and knowledge. Those standards are derived from simple but logical axioms.

In fact the main reason many atheists leave religion is because of the evil the religion wanted us to do. Like asking us to hate other people, or to deny them rights.

Aiman wrote: "Shouldn't you looked at other religions for an answers that satisfies you? "

I did.

Now I realise how hollow it really felt compared to the majesty of a vast and majestic Universe, one that is comprehensible and at the same time constantly surprising. Meanwhile, each person is a tiny but unique, irreplaceable and priceless part of that universe that it is an atrocity to cause to suffer or to extinguish based on the arrogance that all this was created just for us by a person who is not only like us, but prefers some of us to others.

Some theists like to mutter that without gods, we make ourselves into gods. That is not true. If anything, everyone is my god because I respect their (and your) lives and well being more than I respect a god that even if it existed, would not need my care and compassion.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Americans don't have the right to live in America given that they consume resources from elsewhere."

Ok I think I see the point. I wasn't saying American's didn't have the right to live in America. I was pointing out the relative nature. Did the Native Americans have 'the right' to live in America. Did Europe have the right to colonise them, and then demonstrate how in the modern age our physical location is a lot less important when it comes to what resources we are using. The Europeans cultivated and mined on the land they took from the Natives. However today Americans gather harvests from around the world and mine resources in every hemisphere.

It was a question, not a judgement.

All directly related to the idea of building colonies in places were we would not be taking resources from other humans, and almost certainly not taking it from other life, let alone intelligent life.

[Travis]

Aiman wrote: "Sai Thein Than wrote: "Actually, this is a question on the reading group guides. I like the topic so I bring it up here.
I'm an atheist myself so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I..."

My ignorance has made me an atheist?

How is seeing and accepting the world as it is ignorant, while attributing everything to an invisible man in the sky smart and enlightened?
and then the solution to people who don't want religion is to offer them more religion?

If a vegan won't eat at Burger King, would your solution be to take them to 5 Guys?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "That's not a good reason, in my opinion, to embrace more of the same."

True, but it wasn't really relevant at all to my point.

What would you suggest instead then?

Shannon wrote: "I'm proud to say my state, New Hampshire, is governed, at the highest level, by women."

That's good to hear. I bet it drives the southern folk nuts. :-D

I was also glad to hear about the first openly lesbian Senator, Tammy Baldwin wasn't it?

Shannon wrote: "However, that's not an accurate picture of what happens here."

I didn't say it was entirely corrupt, but that still wasn't my point.

Shannon wrote: "However, if I'm a woman living in New Hampshire, as I am, it does't sound all that great to me."

But I never suggested "hey lets have men rule" I suggested that people should have a chance to select politicians based on their intellect and skill, particularly in an area where they are set to govern.

If you say there are not enough skilled women so that the "new politicians" would be all white males, then that surely is another problem to address rather than an intrinsic problem with the idea, otherwise you'd be suggesting that women are intrinsically incapable of becoming similarly skilled, which I certainly wouldn't say.

Certainly I would also say that certain governances should be undertaken by the group that the legislation will represent. I remember the recent US committee regarding women's rights to contraceptives etc. that was entirely made up of men, despite there being women who they could have called on instead.

So yes, if women are under-represented in science, economics or any other field then perhaps this should be looked at anyway, regardless of 'pie in the sky' alternative governances? After all the likelihood is that we are just cutting the potential geniuses we could have by half?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "In fact the only politician that impressed me in the last few years has been Bill Clinton, who instead of ideology and empty claims actually stood up and did a speech that actually included data, figures and calculations."

I actually look back on Clinton's presidency with great longing, frankly. My reasoning isn't due to his use of facts and figures; I actually don't remember that speech.

Clinton was an effective president for a few reasons, in my opinion.

First, he seemed to truly love America. He seemed to love America, love Americans, and love, love, love being president. It's like he was filled with joy over it all. And, yes, I think it's important for the leader of a country to absolutely love the country, the people and the job. (No, I don't think all presidents feel the same way.)

Next, well, he wasn't always a liberal. He was a Democrat, for sure. But, he, on certain issues, was quite conservative. In my mind, he was closer to an Independent. That's something I truly appreciate. I'm an Independent ... full disclosure. I don't think the "right" answer is always found on the "side" of the Democrats or the Republicans. Where was he more conservative? Crime.

In addition, he worked with people. He worked with all people. He wasn't the ... my way or the highway sort. He actually worked with the Republicans. Hence, he actually led. Novel concept.

Going back to something that has been discussed ... the "perfect" world led by the educated "elite" ....

While I think it's important to be educated, obviously, I'd not want to live in a place ... town, state, country or world ... that is only led by the "elite" ....

As I was in graduate school, I substitute taught and worked during legislative session at Vermont's State House. You had wealthy people who'd come up from NYC and that area to become politicians; easier for them to do that here rather than there. You had business people and teachers. You also had dirt poor VT farmers who had no more than a high school degree. I'll tell you something .... Those farmers had something to offer that the Harvard educated wealthy folk from the city didn't have.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I actually don't remember that speech."

It was a recent one in support of Obama.

Shannon wrote: "I don't think the "right" answer is always found on the "side" of the Democrats or the Republicans."

Exactly. That's my point about evidence over ideology.

Shannon wrote: "Going back to something that has been discussed ... the "perfect" world led by the educated "elite" ...."

I had a feeling that it would end up in this interpretation.

In my "perfect" world it wouldn't be an "elite" because everyone would have a good chance at education. Therefore I am talking about people being selected by everyone, based on the persons record of competence, intelligence and wisdom.

So those farmers would be fine since they were likely smart enough to do all this despite any limitations of a rural background.

Many people have proven their intelligence and competence without a Harvard degree.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "In fact the only politician that impressed me in the last few years has been Bill Clinton, who instead of ideology and empty claims actually stood up and did a speech that actually inc..."

I think with 'elite' we are running into the 'globalization' problem, as it is a word with some emotional baggage.
As we are falling into the 'educated doesn't mean smart argument'.

and as someone also living in New England, I would counter that I've met people who went to college that were actually pretty smart and I've met some farmers who were dumb as a bag of popsicles and shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Elite refers to 'the best', that can mean the girl that graduated valedictorian from Smith, or the guy that has been fixing cars for 25 years so can take one apart and put it together blindfolded.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "In my "perfect" world it wouldn't be an "elite" because everyone would have a good chance at education. Therefore I am talking about people being selected by everyone, based on the persons record of competence, intelligence and wisdom."

We've come full circle, to the point we began. Remember my asking if the point was to discuss an idea or to put the idea in practice? If the latter, how would we put it into practice?

Now, it's about an idea again, an ideal, your "perfect" world, which is ever changing as the discussion continues. Which, ultimately, is cool for a discussion, to challenge thinking, to prompt different avenues of thought and action.

Afraid it would go there ...? Well, when one takes an idea and attempts to apply it to life, one would likely apply it to the life that exists around us, that has done and does exist, vs. your idea of a "perfect" world. Yes?

You mentioned a world in which experts in science and economics develop policies that democratically elected people who understand science and economics will accept or deny, on our behalf.

Well, if I were to look around me and take in the world in general, I'd have to say the number of people who would make those policies and understand those policies would be small. Correct? Therefore, if put in practice ... now ... today ... next year ..., the pool from which we take the people who would decide for us would be small. The farmer, who has life experience and knows what is needed to take an idea and put it in practice and get it done and done well, would not be one of the policy makers and would not be one of the people up for election to vote on the policy.

And, yes, Travis, I know some college educated people who are brilliant, obviously, and some uneducated people who couldn't wiggle their way out of a paper bag that is open on both ends.

What was "proposed" was the idea of living in a land or world in which scientists and economists, an elite few, make policies that people who understand science and economics will vote upon. That rather limits things. At present, in our reality, it rather limits who would decide for the rest of us.

Limitation doesn't work for me, personally. And, yes, limitations already exist in governance. That's not something I embrace.

Truly, though, I do think this is a fascinating topic. It really is ....

Finally, ....

The word "elite" does come with baggage, just as other words do.

It has baggage for good reason, in my opinion.

[Gary]

Travis wrote: "I think with 'elite' we are running into the 'globalization' problem, as it is a word with some emotional baggage.
As we are falling into the 'educated doesn't mean smart argument'."

Exactly. I think that lovely human being Rick "don't Google me" Santorum used that emotive argument against Obama. Declaring him an "elitist" and "snob" for wanting everyone to go to college, when in fact he was saying that everyone should have the chance to go to college or vocational training should they want to.

:-) I think linking education to "elitism" is perhaps why the Republicans seem to do so well in places were their policies would seem to do the most harm. But that's just an ignorant socialist European elitist's opinion from 6,000km away :-D

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "What was "proposed" was the idea of living in a land or world in which scientists and economists, an elite few, make policies that people who understand science and economics will vote upon. That rather limits things. At present, in our reality, it rather limits who would decide for the rest of us."

Perhaps if intelligence and expertise were respected instead of snubbed as "elitism" and education whether schooling, training or research was viewed as a vital investment instead of a place to slash funding to pay for tax cuts to those who didn't need money for education, it wouldn't apply to a "few" any more?

You asked for my ideas, if you just wanted to attack them... well what's the point?

[[deleted user]]

Have Democrats been thought of as elitists and snobs, because they want people to be educated?

Or, have they been labeled as such due to things like ....

Encouraging Democrats to get the shots prior to attending NASCAR events ....

??

Hmmm....

The picture is much bigger and has far more colors than people might first see.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "In my "perfect" world it wouldn't be an "elite" because everyone would have a good chance at education. Therefore I am talking about people being selected by everyone, based on the per..."

But, you are the one jumping right to the negative baggage of an elite.
Who is saying the farmer doesn't get to be one of the 'ruling of elites' because he doesn't qualify.
You are.

If this one world project is looking for the best, then it would require a wider or more fluid choosing process. gary is putting out ideas and instead of suggesting how then could be fixed or adjusted to work, you declare them limitations and you don't like it, so it probably won't work.

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Travis wrote: "I think with 'elite' we are running into the 'globalization' problem, as it is a word with some emotional baggage.
As we are falling into the 'educated doesn't mean smart argument'."..."


speaking as a home grown, born in the USA flaming liberal whackjob, I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Have Democrats been thought of as elitists and snobs, because they want people to be educated?

Or, have they been labeled as such due to things like ....

Encouraging Democrats to get the shots pr..."


actually, you had it right with your first sentence.

As the picture is in fact as small and as black and white as it appears.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Have Democrats been thought of as elitists and snobs, because they want people to be educated?"

Erm... yes.

Shannon wrote: "Encouraging Democrats to get the shots prior to attending NASCAR events ...."

I never heard of that. Was that said by a Democratic presidential candidate in a speech to the electorate or was it a flippant joke?

Shannon wrote: "The picture is much bigger and has far more colors than people might first see. "

It's also dangerous to assume that you see clearer than others based on a single statement.

You brought up the "elitism" derogatory reference. I was pointing out others have used this to deride the idea that getting an education was somehow snobbery, something that as a teacher I thought you'd find quite offensive.

Any small group that governs a larger one can be called an "elite". If we are going to use the concept of a representative democracy it is completely unavoidable. Therefore if we have an "elite" I'd rather they be selected for positive reasons.

Of course with increasing technology you could have true democracy where every policy is voted on directly by the electorate instead of the politicians. Unfortunately, in reality such a process is more likely to result in "mob rule", "trial by media" or a similar tyranny of ignorance. We get this a lot in the UK already where the papers report (or manufacture) some outrage and the public demands an immediate legislative response, meanwhile other issues remain strangely untouched.

A few years ago an idiot with a Japanese curved sword (Katana) caused a public outcry that got the sale of replica Katana's banned, however straight swords are still legal! Which is all quite silly anyway as speaking as a swordsman I am more concerned about an unskilled person coming at me with a Kitchen knife than a sword!

I realise this may parallel your current Gun ownership controversy, but a sword requires a lot more skill to become more deadly than a knife, while automatic firearms are the original point and click technology.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "You asked for my ideas, if you just wanted to attack them... well what's the point? "

I didn't attack your ideas.

I disagreed. I pointed out problems in your idea (added after ... being put in play). That is very different.

If you want to go on the attack, that's your choice. It's not a choice I'm going to make.

Would you like to discuss how we could, practically, put some of your ideas in play?

Or, would you rather attack me?