Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 8,901-8,950 of 12,463

[Hazel]

Yes, I enjoy debating and discussion,when the mood takes me, is that wrong? Do you draw no entertainment value from discussion? If so it must be such a chore for you to talk to us all.

[Hazel]

hahahaha, thats most amusing, because if you read your posts, you will not find one that does not smack of condescension. I'm sorry if you find my bluntness offensive, but I'm not going to sugar coat my responses if I think you're being ridiculous. If you can't see that I'm attacking what you're saying rather than you, thats your problem, I never attacked you, I attacked what you were saying "proved yourself ridiculous in your responses" does not mean you're ridiculous, it means the response you choose are. I'm reasonably sure that you yourself are an intelligent and astute person, its a shame some of your response haven't reflected t this, I'm reasonably sure that some of mine don't reflect it too, but you know, we're human, and that means sometimes we say stupid things, and sometimes we think we're being clever when really we're being ridiculous, and equating species to religion is pretty damn ridiculous, I'm sure you're intelligent enough to see that.

As for me asking if you can see the irony, that was a reflection of a comment you made to me earlier.

btw, the entertainment post was actually an attempt at levity, a ridiculous thing to do, I now realise.

[Hazel]

ok, thats fine if you want to stop talking to me. I have actually drawn some enjoyment from talking to you, I felt challenged at times, so thanks. Have a good day/evening/whatever it is in your time zone, whichever time zone that is, John.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "yes, it was godwins law, you mentioned a nazi, thus godwins law was invoked. "

Was that Godwin's intent? From my reading, it was not.

I don't think he meant for people to cry, "Godwin's!" every time someone mentioned Hitler or the Nazis. It actually had to do with what the people were posting and whether or not they were being hyperbolic and making inappropriate comparisons.

It seems you're ignoring that point. Are you? If so, why would you ignore such a fact?

Though, when it comes to the indiscriminate "Godwin's" cry and quasi-demand that people silence themselves, I must say ... I think it rather protects the Nazis and Nazi sympathizers and accomplishes not much more than that. Rather ironic, that.

Perhaps you've not read Godwin's own words on the subject.... If not, you can find an article that is attributed to him here ...

http://www.jewcy.com/arts-and-culture...

It seems to me, though correct me if I'm wrong, that the idea of crying "Godwin's" whenever someone mentions Nazis or Hitler and claiming that's Godwin's Law and his point, might be a belief, perhaps a dearly held belief, and not much more than that.

[[deleted user]]

Not my fight but I find the exaggerations somewhat fascinating today.

One of John's posts ...

"Travis wrote: "we are a little worried about the rest of you. "

We should all be somewhat worried when anyone wants to set up rules we are all made to live by."

It would seem at least one doesn't smack of condescension. (Guessing more that one, but it's not my fight. Therefore, I won't dig that deeply.)

[Michael]

I wish I could claim prescience, John. I'm in the same camp as you, I think. I see the benefit of both science and faith - I try not to use "religion", but that's just my quirk, nothing more - but here in these so far 182 pages, mostly in the later stages really, I have read a rather cloying amount of scathing, humourless pedantry, not from everyone I should add, but from some quarters certainly. There have been several occasions when those seeking a moderate, reasonable and even conciliatory view such as yours is (and I'd like to think mine is at heart) are dissected, deconstructed and semantically pre-mortemed, presumably because if someone has a cocksure allegiance to science and its method the instinct is to pounce, poke, maul and proclaim such butt-numbing questions as this (paraphrase coming): "Ha! But what do you mean by a fact?" I mean, honestly. They may as well ask why jellyfish don't play golf.

Good example - your post 9085, which sounds to me uncomplicated, wide-scoped and fairly polite. Cue the one that followed, which was a non sequitur of unnecessarily assumptive bile. Maybe someone got their pace up after the foregoing rallies were getting too close to the baseline, or their Thorazine wore off, I don't particularly care, but it seemed like a disproportionate response to what you said. Mercifully short though - if you've been reading a lot of this, you'll see that Cliff Notes would not be a bad thing.

But I'm going on a bit now too, I admit. Deep down I laugh a little though. I've had this thought lately that no sane theist would declaim science (how could they, it's everywhere and it's often fascinating), but every rampant atheist seems to declaim that kind of faith, despite the more personal aspect of it being absolutely none of their, erhum, Goddamn business - (and if you're out there Hp, let's not gibber about defining faith again, as that would be reheating the leftovers). It makes the debate slightly lop-sided, if only by implication, and often a little bit smug.

The debate title got lost long ago - now it's lapsed into regular ad hominem jibing (I may be guilty of this myself but it's difficult not to get the dirt on your shoes if you stand too close to where it comes from). I haven't graduated yet from the live-and-let-live position, I have my thoughts and they, whoever they are, have theirs, and that's that. No biggie. We can all stare at a rainbow without fighting, even if we think different things about it. But it's amazing how many people on this thread have kicked out and screamed because a view wasn't absolute and concrete and as dull as what the bull left behind.

[Travis]

John wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Not my fight but I find the exaggerations somewhat fascinating today.

One of John's posts ...

"Travis wrote: "we are a little worried about the rest of you. "

We should all be so..."

Personally, I'm not sure why you seem to set hazel off.
I don't agree with half of what you say, but you have at least been honest about where you are coming from and come off as polite, even when we are coming at an idea from opposite sides.

I could see michael being accused of being condescending, but you've been fine.

[Hazel]

ok, so its been a shitty few days, I have been reflecting over the last hour or so, and yeah, I reckon I've been a bit touchy and more blunt and rude than i would usually allow myself to be. No excuses, just reasons, I've had a shitty few days, I've been sick yet still having to go into work if I want to pass my probation at work, and I also came off my bike this morning and am in a fair bit of pain. Again, no excuses, but I probably should have avoided posting while in the mood I've been in. I'll rein myself in, put more thought into my responses, and what not. Its a rule I usually hold myself to, and have simply failed to hold to it this week, its been a shitty week, theres not much more I can say.

And John, I wouldn't normally have called you ridiculous, thats not really what I'm like most of the time, please accept my apologies. I was probably finding condescension where there was none, because my real offline life has been that way out for a few days.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Hazel really is the nice one. :)

[Michael]

Travis wrote: "I could see michael being accused of being condescending".

That's what you got from all that? Anyway, all looks rather more settled now if I read the stuff above.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "I've had a shitty few days"

Hazel - I hope you pass your probation, feel better and head toward smoother days.

[Hazel]

If I still have my job on the 4th june, I'll let you know :P

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "I'm truly sorry about your awful day. I have those, too. In fact I had one like that this past monday, so I understand."

Something is in the air .... My grandfather died a few days ago. Regardless of our stance, we're all part of the human experience.

My grandfather was 93 and one of the WWII veterans who die every day now. What's the statistic? One hundred a day or something. B-24 bomber pilot who took part in the Ploiesti Oil raid. I started looking into that last month when he took a turn, also looking into B-24's, etc.... Crazy to think about what those men went through and the responsibilities and dangers they faced. It's hard to lose them, personally but also as a society. Imagine all of the memories, etc... that are being lost. My grandfather didn't talk much about his wartime experiences; I'm sure not many of them did.

[Hazel]

Yeah, that was another thing, my partners grandmother died too, at the grand old age of 97. Sorry to hear about your grandad Shannon

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "If I still have my job on the 4th june, I'll let you know :P"

Good luck to you!

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Yeah, that was another thing, my partners grandmother died too, at the grand old age of 97. Sorry to hear about your grandad Shannon"

Yup! I swear. Something is in the air. One of my former students was in a car accident on the way to school last week. Her father was killed. Very sad. I don't know what's going on across the pond, but we've had a tough couple of months in my area. Lots of people dying, getting in accidents, and getting sick. Everyone is talking about what a hard fall/winter it's been. It's sort of weird. Sorry about your partner's grandmother, too.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Hazel, Shannon - condolences for your losses.

Hang in there, Hazel.

[cerebus]

John wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "So, the question is whether or not John glibly compared someone else to Hitler or the Nazis."

I find it interesting when people invoke Godwin's law in a hyperbolic ..."
Nothing hyperbolic about the way I raised it.

John wrote: "But that was all so not the point. My point was the opposite of what you interpreted it as. "
If the "you" in there is referring to me I think you should reread my response to Shannon on this point...I explicitly referred to the fact that my assumption had been you were using it as an equivalence with your inquisition/dalai lama example. I also pointed out that no matter your interpretation or intent, as benign or correct as it may or may not have been, the use of Mengele in that way is *an example* of Godwin's Law.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "the use of Mengele in that way is *an example* of Godwin's Law"

Sigh....

[cerebus]

Hazel wrote: "John wrote: "I didn't like the accusation that anyone who supports religion supports its historical atrocities"

why not? If you are a member of a religion, then by default, you are giving TACIT su..."
I can see where Hazel is coming from with this, but I would put a slightly different twist on it...I think it is possible to believe in a religion without necessarily giving approval to what it has done in the past (tacit or direct) but I think the believer should be able to acknowledge the wrongs that have been done by a religion rather than try and defend them simply because they are a believer.
Note, I say acknowledge, I do not say accept guilt or blame. By acknowledging change can be made and mistakes won't be repeated. It is the blind obedience displayed by *some* which results in defending the indefensible, presumably so as to be seen as a "good believer".
Where we run into issues though is where we see the problems that religion is *currently* causing, for example subjugation of women, or in the treatment of homosexuals as 2nd class citizens....where that is happening I think believers should be considering their adherence to their faith. And yes, this applies to scientists as well....I would not support scientists in unethical research, but that is why in a well-controlled setup there are ethics committees to deal with these issues.

As for the PETA example, I agree totally however....

[cerebus]

John wrote: "Travis wrote: "we are a little worried about the rest of you. "

We should all be somewhat worried when anyone wants to set up rules we are all made to live by."
Especially when those rules are faith based. (Faith of any kind).

[cerebus]

John wrote: "anyways, going back to the original discussion with people more open-minded, let me add this:

I would rather NOT live in a world that precludes EITHER science or religion. I think both have, in th..."
This is one of the claims that raises the most discussion, and leads to the question "What do you feel religion has given us that is unique to religion and could not have arisen otherwise?"

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "I think it rather protects the Nazis and Nazi sympathizers and accomplishes not much more than that. Rather ironic, that."
I disagree completely with this, and while I don't think you intend it could be considered fairly offensive.
The intent of Godwin's Law is to highlight the fact that in discussions of almost any nature, inevitably someone will make a comparison with the Nazi's in an attempt to denigrate the other side. I've seen it in arguments about vegetarianism amongst others. You could equally turn your point around and say it trivialises the horrendous nature of what they were responsible for by comparing it to ultimately irrelevant discussions on religion/food choices/etc. Mengele was responsible for some of the most horrendous and deviant activities I can think of, yet he's used to score points in a discussion on atheism? (John, before you jump on this, please reread my earlier posts, I am aware of your intent)

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "It seems to me, though correct me if I'm wrong, that the idea of crying "Godwin's" whenever someone mentions Nazis or Hitler and claiming that's Godwin's Law and his point, might be a belief, perhaps a dearly held belief, and not much more than that. "
No, "crying" Godwin's is pointing out a spurious and irrelevant comparison with Nazi's and anything. If someone wants to raise Nazi's and not be called on Godwin's then it needs to be relevant to the discussion, e.g. World War II, facism, etc.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "The intent of Godwin's Law is to highlight the fact that in discussions of almost any nature, inevitably someone will make a comparison with the Nazi's in an attempt to denigrate the other side. "

Did you read the article Godwin wrote, regarding his intent?

[cerebus]

John wrote: "I agree there are those who are jingoistic about their religion being the only true way, but myself and many others that I know feel that different religions have a great deal of mutual validity and are merely other paths to the same goal. "
I would be interested for you to expand on this idea. I will assume for the purposes of this post that you are christian (denomination irrelevant), if this is incorrect then you are welcome to say so (without revealing affiliations...you can just tell me I'm wrong), but hopefully you can apply my questions to your particular flavour....
(Shannon, you might want to skip this next bit, it's back to my standard questions :))
As a christian the bible is your holy book, correct? As such, when it tells you that your religion is the only true one, and all other religions are false, and that worshiping false gods is a sin, how do you reconcile that with your "mutual validity and are merely other paths to the same goal" concept? And as an extension, when the bible says things like slavery is acceptable, how do you make the choice to disregard that part (assuming of course you don't have slaves? :)) but accept others? These are not trick questions, nor attempts to trap you, they are honest questions (I have asked of others) to attempt to understand how those of belief come to those particular set of beliefs.

[cerebus]

John wrote: "wow. prescience"
Nah, just more standard trolling from Michael....his attempt to rile people.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "This is one of the claims that raises the most discussion, and leads to the question "What do you feel religion has given us that is unique to religion and could not have arisen otherwise?"

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The churches in my community feed the poor their evening dinners. When secular groups and secular folk take on that service, I'll stop saying it.

Further, as I've mentioned before, I went through a tough time a few years ago ... regarding my job and whether or not children were being protected. It raised a specter for me ... when my Kindergarten teacher was physically abusive and people in the school didn't protect us. I did conventional therapy for a time and, perviously, had read books by conventional therapists. I tried, but it didn't work for me. When someone put it in the context of Native American beliefs, ... the directions, the lessons therein, etc..., I made progress. Processing the situation through that lens, native beliefs, helped me turn a corner. It's quite possible that, had I not had that teaching, I'd still be where I was ... emotionally and physically. I might never have left that job, at an unhealthy school, and taken a job at a new and much healthier school. I might still be stuck.

"Religion" gave me what conventional science was unable to.

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "I'm really puzzzled by this whole thing. Its almost as if invoking Godwin's Law (incorrectly) is your attempt to silence or cover up my actual point"

Interesting idea ....

I've thought it odd for some months that some can say all people who believe in "God" and practice faith offer tacit approval for and are culpable for the evil acts of religious leaders and followers. However, when someone asks if all people who value science and practice science offer tacit approval for and are culpable for the evil acts of certain scientists, who experimented (...and continue to experiment) on people, are met with a chorus of ... "Godwin's!"

Out of curiosity ...?

A question for the people who tend to type "Godwin's" fairly regularly ....

Did you boycott Seinfeld due to the "Soup Nazi" story and jokes?

Hmmm....

I did.

There's, in my opinion, a difference between that and other "glib" comparisons and the above.

[cerebus]

John wrote: "This is your interpretation of my intent when I mentioned Mengele?"
No.

[cerebus]

John wrote: "You would be incorrect. I'm aware of my own intent, and have explained it extensively, yet this incorrect perception of my intent persists. Not sure why, exactly. "
Me neither since I have said what I thought your intent was, several times, and this wasn't it.

[cerebus]

John wrote: "Mengele's human experimentation was relevant to my discussion of human experimentation. Not sure how to make that more clear. The fact that he was also working for the nazis was not my point. If you'll note, I made mention of two other cases of human experimentation."
"Not sure how to make that more clear." By saying so. When you make the statement. It is possibly unfortunate, but it is inevitable that using Mengele, or Hitler, or Goebbels, or Himmler, in any example will be seen as, at the very least, a potential example of Godwin's Law, almost entirely as a result of the frequency with which it happens (hence Godwin's Law). To be honest I suspect Godwin wishes he'd never mentioned it......

To clarify my point, I was not saying that you were glibly comparing Nazi's (I should check, is it Nazis or Nazi's? I suspect the former to be honest) to science, I was saying that the use of Mengele as an example of the evils of science (which again, for clarity, I understand was a point you were not making) is an example of Godwin's Law. It was a bit of trainspotting if you like, a case of "oh look, there's a Godwin", rather than "you evil man, you think all scientists are evil!". It was also not an attempt to stop the discussion, although I know initially the interpretation of Godwin's Law was that once used the discussion was over and whoever used the Nazi analogy has lost....that was not my intent.
To give another example, if I say "...it would be like a believer saying 'Science is evil because it has 7 letters and in some cultures that is evil'" it would be fine for someone to point out that that is a strawman, while at the same time acknowledging it is not a position I hold (i.e. I do not claim any believer has said that).

Hopefully my position is now clear and we can move on?

[cerebus]

John wrote: "I'm really puzzzled by this whole thing. Its almost as if invoking Godwin's Law (incorrectly) is your attempt to silence or cover up my actual point, in that human experimentation occurred in the pursuit of scientific data. Unethically, of course. "
No. Not trying to silence you. Never tried to silence anyone here. Your use of "(incorrectly)" is your interpretation, one which I disagree with, for reasons flogged to death in my last few posts.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "I've said this before and I'll say it again. The churches in my community feed the poor their evening dinners. When secular groups and secular folk take on that service, I'll stop saying it."
Can we make the same example of Medicins Sans Frontiers, and say when religious people take on that service we'll stop saying bad things about religion? Churches are feeding people in your area, one which is presumably a predominantly religious community? Which would make more sense, secularists set up a competing service, or, seeing as secularists are by nature not an organised bunch, contribute to an existing arrangement? Yes, religious people are charitable. So are secular people. Yes, secular people are selfish. So are religious people. Neither have a monopoly on charity. Yes, churches organise charitable groups, do you feel that in the absence of religion and churches, that a secular society would be a free-for-all with no charity? The question is, what does religion provide that is unique...that would not have arisen were it not for religion.

[Dionna]

Tina wrote: "Whirlwind wrote: "Tina wrote: "I actually strangely agree with you...
with the fact that this wonderful world can not fit into a narrow-minded box of religion,

and that it is without gender"

...b..."

So why are you referring to it as a he?

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: ""Religion" gave me what conventional science was unable to."
And I totally accept that, and am glad that you were able to get that from religion, and would never want to talk you out of that. But that you got that from religion doesn't mean others do, or that they cannot achieve the same results from not-religion (not necessarily science either). It is not something that is unique to religion, that we cannot have without religion.....

[cerebus]

I wrote: "The question is, what does religion provide that is unique...that would not have arisen were it not for religion"
Let me clarify, this is not a question that if answered "well, I can't think of anything" means I am suddenly going to jump out from behind a bush (burning or otherwise) and shout "Hah! Got you! You must renounce your religion!". It means I will say (without any bush jumping, I'm too tired for hiding and jumping) "Right, so please stop (if you started, not everyone of faith has) claiming that we *need* religion. You might, she might, those guys over there might, but for your own personal reasons. It is not a universal human need." That is my only point with that question. I have said it before, I'll say it again, you're welcome to your religion and your faith. You are not welcome to a) exempt it from questioning and discussion, and b) don't use it to justify (for those who do) bigotry or anti-science (e.g. attempting to teach creationism as science). Further to a), I expect people to be able to explain and defend if necessary their position on many things, politics as an example, religion is not a privileged subject that is exempt from this. Further to b), continuing the education slant, I think teaching kids comparative religions is great, but in the right context, it is not science, don't try and teach it as such.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Did you boycott Seinfeld due to the "Soup Nazi" story and jokes?"
Not that I watched it with any regularity (thought it a fairly average show myself), but no....but would probably have thought to myself "Hmmm, there's a Godwin" and moved on.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Churches are feeding people in your area, one which is presumably a predominantly religious community? "

Either I'm having a deja vu moment or you're channeling Gary.

Ummm.... As I told Gary when he said the same thing to me, Vermont and New Hampshire are the most non-religious states in America. So, no, not so much.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "There's, in my opinion, a difference between that and other "glib" comparisons and the above"
Using it as an example of how science is evil (which, once again, for the record, I know was not John's intent) fits in that "glib" category for me. In fact, worse than "glib", I see it as downright wrong. Great, John was using it as an example of how it is wrong to say it of science as it is of similar examples of religion, it is still an example of Godwin's Law.

To redress the lack of balance, henceforth there will be a John's Law, as a corollary to Godwin's, but specifically related to spurious examples of "X is/was religious and did/said/believed/wore/wrote/ate/inserted/sang Y, therefore Y is an example of all the evils of religion!". I will call it when I see it, if I see it, in the same way I call Godwin's when I notice it, but don't scan every single post in this thread for it.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "As I told Gary when he said the same thing to me, Vermont and New Hampshire are the most non-religious states in America. So, no, not so much"
This may be a misconception, but for an outsider saying some area of the US is less religious than another is a bit like saying a lake is a bit less wet than the ocean. If you have figures I'd be happy to see them, but I would suspect (for the pedantic amongst you, suspect does not mean "I am certain!") that both those states are still more religious than many other countries. Are the religious still a majority in those states? Atheists still a minority?

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Neither have a monopoly on charity. Yes, churches organise charitable groups, do you feel that in the absence of religion and churches, that a secular society would be a free-for-all with no charity? The question is, what does religion provide that is unique...that would not have arisen were it not for religion. "

I agree. Neither group has a monopoly on charity.

Specifically, however, churches in my community feed the needy their nightly dinners.

Do I think a secular society of non-believers would be a free-for-all? No. At the same time, I don't see secular non-believers serving nightly dinners. Why? When a low income housing building burned and some of our families were homeless, my co-workers who weren't overly religious and were very liberal (the liberal comment will come into play later), refused to help buy food for them as the lived in a motel in an area without access to food. (By the way, they didn't have cars.) Some said the government should do that. When arguing this point before, some non-believers have said many non-believers, usually more liberal minded, think such service should be the responsibility of the government via our tax dollars ... whereas, they said, the religious, usually conservatives, believe in ... well, it's best I not say ....

So, no, I don't see secular non-believers going out five nights a week, cooking, serving, and washing the dishes of the poor given my limited experience with not overly religious people and non-religious people who'd rather $5 be taken from their paychecks and trust that the government handle it.

Not sure that I trust the government, but, then ... I'm one of the token Indians, so that's a given.

Regarding the last part, ....

I'm guessing the people in my community who are served hot meals in churches five nights a week aren't overly interested in whether or not that service is unique to churches.... You know? Would such charity and service have arisen without churches? We can't answer that question, can we? After all, such service did arise in churches and continues in churches, so .... We can't erase time and history and try to ascertain what would have happened if ....

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "But that you got that from religion doesn't mean others do, or that they cannot achieve the same results from not-religion (not necessarily science either). It is not something that is unique to religion, that we cannot have without religion..... "

Okay... Walk through this with me, will you?

I agree. Just because I got what I did through the link to native "religious" teachings, doesn't mean others would. True enough. I'd never claim otherwise.

Is it unique to religion? No. Can we find it in other places? Some can and do. Yes.

For me, though, it was unique to religion. I couldn't get it from other places. I tried. I tried those places first. I mean, I really tried. It did not work. Period. So, for me, the insights and progress I made were tied to and unique to native beliefs and teachings.

Not all people are the same, as I've said before. Different things will speak to different people. We're not machines. We're, in my opinion, unique.

Question....

What is the point of asking what religion gives that is unique and can't be found elsewhere? Really and truly, what is the point of that question?

Is it an attempt to show we don't need religion because it offers nothing that can't be found elsewhere?

I'm fairly certain that's the point, but let me know if I'm wrong.

Can you see that, while people can find help elsewhere, not all people will? It might work in generalizations. Secular groups feed the hungry throughout the world; we don't need religions to do it. Huh.... True, but .... How does it work when we talk specifics? Do secular groups do that on the border of Vermont and New Hampshire? Not so much. Do people make progress through traditional therapy? Yes. Did Shannon? No.

Some might be fed and learn lessons by secular groups and through conventional therapy and some might not but will find those things through churches and religious teachings.

Personally, I'm okay with that.

[cerebus]

John wrote: "Those are valid questions, but they are based on certain assumptions."
Yup, assumptions abound.

John wrote: "2. it assumes that the believer is unable to understand that the bible was written in a different time period and make sociological and cultural adjustments accordingly (slavery, for example)"
Not quite. It assumes that if a believer says something along the lines of "gay marriage is bad, because the bible says so", I would ask on what authority do you make the judgement that gay marriage is bad because the bible says so, but slavery is bad despite what the bible says, because that bit is historical, the gay bit is scripture. If you accept that any part of the bible is valid *because it is the divine word of god* then it's a tad presumptuous to then reject another part because of your interpretation. *If*, and this is somewhere we got to in discussion with Shannon, you say "I agree with this bit of the bible 'cos it makes sense to me and I like it, but I don't believe it's the divine word of god", then we're fine, I have no problem with you picking and choosing which bits you agree with, but I will argue with you if you try and use it as an excuse for rejecting, for example, gay marriage....at that stage you (generic, not specific) cannot claim it is god's word, you just don't like the idea.

John wrote: "3. it assumes that the believer cannot discern between what is history, object lesson, allegory, parable, inspiration and instruction."
Nope, it assumes that if you interpret any of it as "object lesson", where it is an object lesson because it is god's word, that you should therefore have to explain how any of the rest of it is not god's word, but "history, allegory, parable, inspiration and instruction."

John wrote: "4. probably most importantly, it assumes that your understanding of the bible and what it means is correct, and if a believer appears inconsistent from your understanding of the bible, their faith is invalid."
Nope, it assumes nothing about your understanding of the bible, it assumes something about your approach to the bible. Specifically, if you believe any of it is the word of god, it is inconsistent to then claim not all of it is the word of god. Biblical literalists give me the heebie jeebies, but the one thing I will grant them is consistency.

John wrote: "I find this curious. Its like, if you think what I believe is a fairy tale, what is it to you if you think I'm not believing my fairy tale correctly? What do you care?"
I care because you (again, generic) are using that fairy tale, to justify things like exemptions to basic human rights, e.g. rejecting gay marriage. It is not that I think you are using that fairy tale (your words, not mine) incorrectly, in fact I think from your worldview you are using it entirely correctly, but I think you (same again) are using it inconsistently as an excuse to reject those basic human rights for what are, to all intents and purposes, bigoted reasons.

John wrote: "First, let me say that I explained I have my own theory. That of course means I am not going by what is in the bible, or even what my denomination says, but from my own personal gut feeling about what makes the most sense to me. IMHO we are obviously all different, and I feel God made us that way because he treasures our diversity. But like I said, that's ME. I'm not trying to make anyone else adopt that POV."
Ok, great, we've advanced now that I understand your position, and I can now ask: Do you accept that any of the bible is the divine word of god, or do you see it, in its entirety, as documents written roughly a couple of thousands of years ago, which have some great ideas (be nice to each other, blessed are the cheesemakers and so on), and some pretty nasty ideas (slavery is god, what I do with my own dangly bits is bad), and I'll take what I see as the good and reject what I see as the bad?

John wrote: "For that reason, I don't think analyzing my own particular views are going to help you understand religion in general."
Not trying to understand religion in general, don't think that's an achievable goal, I'm trying to understand your (specific, not generic this time) particular views, so I'm pretty sure this is all helping me with that.

John wrote: "But I will say that many believers are more diverse and exercise more discernment and judgement than you're giving them credit for."
I think believers are as diverse as it is possible to be. If there was a prize for diverseness they'd be right up there with atheists. Hell, I used to be one, and I'm the most diverse person I know :)

John wrote: "Take the book of Job, for example. I don't believe it is an accurate story of a bet between God and Satan. Instead, I think its an allegory that addresses the question of "Why do bad things happen to good people?". I've read it several times in my life and its meant something different to me each time because of where I was in my own life. Just as you can find a regular book can be thought provoking."
Yup, that's what I love about reading, and in science, that it makes me think, and that those thinks are subject to change, in some cases total reversal. As before it does lead to the question: are there any parts of that same bible that you read as the inerrant word of god?

I'm not trying to group all believers together, I'm not trying to argue with all believers (unless they all start posting here, in which case they're fair game), I'm having in this case a discussion with one particular believer.....

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "As I told Gary when he said the same thing to me, Vermont and New Hampshire are the most non-religious states in America. So, no, not so much"
This may be a misconception, but for an outsider saying some area of the US is less religious than another is a bit like saying a lake is a bit less wet than the ocean. If you have figures I'd be happy to see them, but I would suspect (for the pedantic amongst you, suspect does not mean "I am certain!") that both those states are still more religious than many other countries. Are the religious still a majority in those states? Atheists still a minority? "

I've posted that info before. You can Google both states.

Regarding whether or not atheists are a minority, etc... and comparing to other countries, ....

I found something interesting when people here discussed certain European countries that "were" predominately atheist. The statistics don't back that up. I shared specific information and asked, several times, for that to be explained, if possible. (Crickets...) Yes, I've read articles about certain European countries being mostly atheists. I always believed that. But, when I consulted encyclopedias, FactsOnFile, and the CIA World Factbook, it didn't come out that way. So, how do Vermont and New Hampshire compare to Finland or Sweden or ...? I don't know, given the fact that the numbers in texts vs. what's said in articles and on the Internet don't seem to match up.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "What is the point of asking what religion gives that is unique and can't be found elsewhere? Really and truly, what is the point of that question?

Is it an attempt to show we don't need religion because it offers nothing that can't be found elsewhere?"
It is purely an attempt to show that those who post saying "we need both" or "we need religion" should be saying "I need both" or "I need religion". It is not an attempt to get a point where I say "we now agree that we can get rid of religion" it is an attempt to say "stop saying 'we'." It is not an attempt to say that if you personally had not had religion, that something else would have got you to where you are now and that therefore religion is effectively irrelevant to you, a mere stopgap, and that something else would have done the job. It is an attempt to say that those who have a similar experience and use it to say "without religion nobody would get to this position" are wrong. It is not a specific dig at you, it is an attempt to show that such examples, when claimed by those making the claims, are not universally applicable, and do not demonstrate anything that is universally unique to religion.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Personally, I'm okay with that. "
And I was fairly sure I'd made it clear I was too, but just in case i haven't.....Me too!

[cerebus]

John wrote: "cerebus wrote: "To redress the lack of balance, henceforth there will be a John's Law, as a corollary to Godwin's, but specifically related to spurious examples of "X is/was religious and did/said/..."
:)

[cerebus]

John wrote: "I would love it if secular charity and religious charity would hold competitions in real life to see who would better help the poor.

Rather than just on a message board discussion. And before you point fingers at me, I used to serve on a mission board at my church that delegated funds to various charities. The nice thing? we never required that any of them be religious. One was a home for victims of domestic violence, another for recovering addicts, as two examples that had nothing to do with the religious or nonreligious leanings of the people in need.

NOW, having said that, PLEASE outdo us in the secular world, PLEASE make us ashamed by outgiving, out donating, outvolunteering. Please. A lot of people need help. "
I have been a member of charities, and regularly donate. I admire and respect charities such as you describe, much as I am suspicious of charities, wherever they may be, that restrict their charity to the religious (or alternatively, any secular charity that refuses anyone based on them having faith, if such charities exist?), or that use their giving to proselyte (thank you spell-checker).
You're right, there are plenty in need, more than there should be considering the wealth that exists, but I don't discriminate based on faith or lack thereof when admiring those who give, or suggesting that those who could but don't, should.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "It is purely an attempt to show that those who post saying "we need both" or "we need religion" should be saying "I need both" or "I need religion".

I'm not going to search for his original post, but your response to his post, your opening with the words in italics stating "John writes:" states,

"I would rather NOT live in a world that precludes EITHER science or religion. I think both have, in " (John's words)

I don't get a pronouncement that people need religion from that. But, again, I'm not going to search for his original post to read the statement in its entirety.

I do know many here have posted that we need both. I agree with you. Some need both. Some don't.

However, I've been asked this question before, though not by you ... I don't think. I wasn't asked that question because I claimed "we" need religion. I'd never claim that, though some do. Further, I think the question might have been posted, in general, to any believers before.

So, for you, it might be an attempt to point out that not all people need religion. I don't think that's the point of the question when it's asked by others given the fact that it's not always connected to a believer stating that "we need" religion.