Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
message 9001:
by
cHriS
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Mar 17, 2013 08:31AM
.....oh dear now I've rattled his cage.
reply
|
flag
NEITHER! They are interdependent!
Hands down, I could do without religion. If I was sick I would find more comfort in penicillin than the bible, I prefer to know Algebra over Psalms and I do not think you need religion to live a good, productive life. Religion did not bring us the internet we are all using to type here. That was science.
Thank you!Mary wrote: "Hands down, I could do without religion. If I was sick I would find more comfort in penicillin than the bible, I prefer to know Algebra over Psalms and I do not think you need religion to live a go..."
Linda wrote: "NEITHER! They are interdependent!"why did you put a "ter" into independent?
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "We lose knowledge, it's a bad thing, we lose a religion and...well, they are like buses another one will be along in a minute. "And, yet ... there's one constant that doesn't go aw..."
I'd put quotes around 'constant' as well, as he is anything but. He differs from religion to religion and even person to person.
gravity is a constant, Kim Kardashian posing naked is a constant, god is as constant as the weather in new england.
Give him five minutes and he'll change.
Ling wrote: "the more you read and understand Science, the more you become interested with Religion. And you might end up telling yourself that someone/something must be the reason of all that there is."Or you might read enough science to realize there isn't a reason and stuff just happens.
Travis wrote: "I'd put quotes around 'constant' as well, as he is anything but. He differs from religion to religion and even person to person."
Indeed. In my mind and heart, that's due to the fact that we're human beings, thankfully, and not machines. People are different and find different insights and truths.
Yet, the idea of a high power is something that has existed in every culture for thousands of years.
Indeed. In my mind and heart, that's due to the fact that we're human beings, thankfully, and not machines. People are different and find different insights and truths.
Yet, the idea of a high power is something that has existed in every culture for thousands of years.
Speaking of reading and realizations, would anyone like to come over to ... http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/9.... Don't know if I did that right. We'll see.
At any rate, I think Cerebus and I are both finding The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies? very interesting and well worth the read. People could read or just take part in the conversation.
It might be nice to try something a bit different.
At any rate, I think Cerebus and I are both finding The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies? very interesting and well worth the read. People could read or just take part in the conversation.
It might be nice to try something a bit different.
*sigh* I don't believe I am 'owed' answers, but this is a discussion, people make posts, questions are asked and In some cases answered. Without questions we cannot learn, and this thread would be just a series of people answering the original question, but with no debate or interaction. I ask questions to try and ascertain other people's views and perspectives, as assumptions (as you were more than happy to point out) are usually wrong. In some cases asking questions highlights differences that can be discussed, in others it leads to a realisation that there is more common ground than suspected. I have never refused to answer any of your questions, I don't recall many of them, at least not specifically to me. I will make an assumption (no point asking, don't want to have another 'inquisition') that as someone from the US of religious belief, you are more used to the position that religion is something that you do not question, and is not open for debate. I'm sorry, but I do not hold that view, and in the same way as if I arrived on a forum discussing, for example, medical treatments for a particular illness and made claims, or professed an opinion, I would expect to be asked to support and explain myself. If for you religion is something you have, cannot be questioned on, and is not open for debate, then I would suggest a discussion like this is of little interest to you. If you want to demonstrate your great faith and be applauded for it, this is not the place for that.
If I were to be uncharitable I would suggest your reaction to questioning is at least a subconscious fear that if subjected to scrutiny your faith is not as strong as you would like. Do I think that? Not particularly....as I have said before I don't care why you believe, and have no interest in persuading you not to.
As for me and cs, now referring to himself as chris, yes, there is history, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.
John wrote: "cerebus wrote: "It's alright cs, you were a troll who evaded answering any questions, then sneaked back in with a new name. I may have pulled the 'troll' trigger too soon on some, but you're still ..."in cerebus defense, there have been instances of question dodging, and verbal gymnastics thrown around just to cause trouble and derail any discussion/debate.
So, while he has a tendency to use the 'T-word' a bit quicker then needed stuff has occurred on the thread that lead to that reaction.
and brusk and grumpy as he may sound, he has a point in that it's a bit tricky to have a discussion/debate if nobody will answer a question.
People are welcome to just show up, announce which side they've picked and then go on there merry way and have, but if you stick around to debate/discuss/defend/ other words that start with D your pick, you will get questioned or some form of people trying to get more info or opinions out of you.
If you think a questioner is being rude, feel free to call them on it, but most of the time it's just people trying to figure out where the other side is coming from and get their ideas out there.
John, do you believe we're known not only by our faith but by our fruit, our works?
Wow, maybe I did hit a nerve. Your histrionics and hysterics and indignation are out of proportion to what goes on in this discussion. If you react like that to some questioning, no different to what others, myself included, have had, then you should avoid online discussions. We get your point, you feel above having to face questions, fine, move on, talk around the subject with those who will make you feel better, but enough of your 'righteous' indignation.
"Intolerant". Show me where I said you were intolerant. You also claim I accused you of things you do not believe, show me where I said that. I highlighted assumptions where I made them, and said they should be challenged where incorrect.
Actually, don't worry about answering that previous interrogative...this is taking up too much space on this thread, if you want to continue your chastising, send me a direct message, or setup another thread for it.....for here let's just leave it with you being outraged and me thinking you've over-reacted.
Travis wrote: in cerebus defence, there have been instances of question dodging, and verbal gymnastics thrown around just to cause trouble and derail any discussion/debate.."It is always easier to defend someone who happens to be singing from the same hymn sheet as one self, as you are doing with cerebus. And maybe there is nothing wrong with that if you both think along the same lines and are unable to acknowledge that your own point of view is not necessary everyone’s or even right.
I have been through what John is experiencing now, on this thread, and with two and sometimes three or even four members arguing against me at the same time. Some ‘atheists’ here assume that it is their right to demand clarification when someone new says that ‘believe’ or have a faith and if that clarification is not to their liking then they suggest questions have been dodged or in your own words “verbal gymnastics thrown around just to cause trouble and derail any discussion/debate”.
This thread asks the question ‘Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?’. Nothing more. It does not ask, Why do you believe in a God?
Someone joining the discussion and who gives ‘Religion’ as their reply should be able to explain why they gave that answer, if asked. But they do NOT have to justify or defend anything at all, unless they want to. And suggesting that they should or that they are avoiding questions or derailing a debate is inappropriate because the debate will always be a side issue from the main ‘Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? question, and in it’s self will already have been derailed from that.
Although for the most part this thread has taken on a life of it’s own far beyond the original question, I can appreciate that it will not be seen that way by newcomers. Especially non atheists who do not seem hang around much after the first few posts.
As far as the cerebus v cs thing goes, he overstepped the mark some time ago and I stopped replying to him (as Hazel has done to me, fair enough) but at every opportunity he likes to insert the word ‘troll’ in the hope that if he chucks enough mud it will stick. But one does not mind.
Cerebus, don't leave the forum just because of Chris or cs, or anyone for that matter. Your comments are welcomed just like theirs are.If someone wants to post something totally outrageous and doesn't want to respond to requests to explain or justify, then who cares? We can just move on to something else that strikes our fancy and discuss that.
It reminds me of sitting on a plane with a talkative seat-mate. If you feel like talking to them, go ahead, but if not, answer in monosyllables or pretend to be asleep. They'll stop talking to you. :)
You can't get offended here, it's not real life. Sometimes I will post something, and people will have a fit asking me for clarification, etc. Then other times, like most recently, they will continue their discussion with one another, ignoring me completely.
cHriS wrote: "I have been through what John is experiencing now, on this thread, and with two and sometimes three or even four members arguing against me at the same time. "
Well, yes and no .... And, ... so have I, sort of.
Having been here for awhile, as have you, I can honestly say people have been treated far worse than John has been ... x5. Further, the two non-believers who were engaging John apologized to him. Hazel wrote and apologized. Cerebus wrote and apologized. John can accept those apologizes or not. His choice. It's not every day that people here apologize to others. It's actually pretty darned rare, even when the behavior has been ten times worse. In addition, the fact that some of us have been here for awhile and have seen some truly inappropriate behavior makes John's reaction seem somewhat extreme. But, then, ... we've been here and seen things that John hasn't, I guess. John has a right to his feelings, as everyone does, but, by comparison, this has been pretty darned tame.
Having said that ....
Is there something that can be learned from this experience?
I agree with part of what you said cHriS. Of course, I also agree with part of what Cerebus said. I think most people see this thread pop up, find it interesting, post their reply and move on. That's what I did at first. Some might come back if they get messages in their e-mail account, etc.... When believers come back and stay for a bit, it's obvious that they get questioned. Further, they get questioned in a way that is far different from the way first time non-believers are questioned, which is not at all ... unless I take issue with historical inaccuracies in their posts. It's happened hundreds of times, and we've discussed it before. I think it's acceptable to ask questions; I agree with Cerebus on that point. But, you also make a point.
There have been plenty of times when four or five non-believers throw question after question or comment after comment at a believer. We've both been through that on several occasions. That can be pretty tough to take. And, ... you're right. It's not necessarily that we don't want to answer the questions. Speaking for myself, I've been more than willing to answer or to take time to think something through and answer. The way it happened, though ... it almost seemed ... well, it's not at all comfortable. Further, there have been times, way in the past, when I took the question seriously, really searched my mind and heart, and poured myself into my post only to receive a, "Well, you're wrong!" reply. That can be difficult; I won't slap any judgements onto it. It was difficult. If non-believers were really honest, I think they'd agree that it's not the most polite or respectful way to carry on a discussion. Frankly, there have been times when the two of us have questioned a non-believer ... add C-Cose into that mix ... and I saw some non-believers not take it well ... at all. Further, to say some of the non-believers were wrong. Ummm, watch out. So, frankly, for both sides, it can be tough to take, if we're honest. Some prevaricate, true. I think some do that because they feel they're being trapped or they take issue with how they feel they've been treated. Are there "trolls" who poke and run just for fun? Maybe. I don't know.
So, .... Is there something to be learned from this or not? A possible thought .... When someone new posts, perhaps we could keep this in mind. Regardless of who posts, perhaps we could keep the name-calling to a minimum. Or, hey, maybe we could leave name-calling out of it altogether. Ultimately, it does nothing for the discussion or building any understandings. And, to be brutally honest, it makes believers look like hypocrites and non-believers look like the immoral people many believers claim them to be. Neither is likely accurate nor does this benefit anyone.
Assumptions ...? That seems to have been a problem here, for John, and it has been a problem in the past. Perhaps we should think about steering clear of making assumptions, even if we say that we're making an assumption. Maybe we should just ask questions. I know I've made assumptions here, when I was first here, and non-believers warned me against it. I also know people have made assumptions about me. One of the problems with that is the fact that we're no longer talking to one another.
After we go down the assumption path, all of a sudden, we're talking with every theist we've ever talked with ... or we're talking to every other non-believer we've ever talked with. That's been a longstanding issue here, in my opinion. I, personally, would like people to listen to my words and talk with me and leave every other theist they've ever "debated" out of it. Wouldn't we all like to be "seen" and "heard" for who we are and for what we actually say? I know John told Cerebus he was like every other atheist he's debated. Okay. At this point, is John posting regarding Cerebus and what he actually wrote, or is he taking a stand against all of those other non-believers from his past?
Just some thoughts ....
Well, yes and no .... And, ... so have I, sort of.
Having been here for awhile, as have you, I can honestly say people have been treated far worse than John has been ... x5. Further, the two non-believers who were engaging John apologized to him. Hazel wrote and apologized. Cerebus wrote and apologized. John can accept those apologizes or not. His choice. It's not every day that people here apologize to others. It's actually pretty darned rare, even when the behavior has been ten times worse. In addition, the fact that some of us have been here for awhile and have seen some truly inappropriate behavior makes John's reaction seem somewhat extreme. But, then, ... we've been here and seen things that John hasn't, I guess. John has a right to his feelings, as everyone does, but, by comparison, this has been pretty darned tame.
Having said that ....
Is there something that can be learned from this experience?
I agree with part of what you said cHriS. Of course, I also agree with part of what Cerebus said. I think most people see this thread pop up, find it interesting, post their reply and move on. That's what I did at first. Some might come back if they get messages in their e-mail account, etc.... When believers come back and stay for a bit, it's obvious that they get questioned. Further, they get questioned in a way that is far different from the way first time non-believers are questioned, which is not at all ... unless I take issue with historical inaccuracies in their posts. It's happened hundreds of times, and we've discussed it before. I think it's acceptable to ask questions; I agree with Cerebus on that point. But, you also make a point.
There have been plenty of times when four or five non-believers throw question after question or comment after comment at a believer. We've both been through that on several occasions. That can be pretty tough to take. And, ... you're right. It's not necessarily that we don't want to answer the questions. Speaking for myself, I've been more than willing to answer or to take time to think something through and answer. The way it happened, though ... it almost seemed ... well, it's not at all comfortable. Further, there have been times, way in the past, when I took the question seriously, really searched my mind and heart, and poured myself into my post only to receive a, "Well, you're wrong!" reply. That can be difficult; I won't slap any judgements onto it. It was difficult. If non-believers were really honest, I think they'd agree that it's not the most polite or respectful way to carry on a discussion. Frankly, there have been times when the two of us have questioned a non-believer ... add C-Cose into that mix ... and I saw some non-believers not take it well ... at all. Further, to say some of the non-believers were wrong. Ummm, watch out. So, frankly, for both sides, it can be tough to take, if we're honest. Some prevaricate, true. I think some do that because they feel they're being trapped or they take issue with how they feel they've been treated. Are there "trolls" who poke and run just for fun? Maybe. I don't know.
So, .... Is there something to be learned from this or not? A possible thought .... When someone new posts, perhaps we could keep this in mind. Regardless of who posts, perhaps we could keep the name-calling to a minimum. Or, hey, maybe we could leave name-calling out of it altogether. Ultimately, it does nothing for the discussion or building any understandings. And, to be brutally honest, it makes believers look like hypocrites and non-believers look like the immoral people many believers claim them to be. Neither is likely accurate nor does this benefit anyone.
Assumptions ...? That seems to have been a problem here, for John, and it has been a problem in the past. Perhaps we should think about steering clear of making assumptions, even if we say that we're making an assumption. Maybe we should just ask questions. I know I've made assumptions here, when I was first here, and non-believers warned me against it. I also know people have made assumptions about me. One of the problems with that is the fact that we're no longer talking to one another.
After we go down the assumption path, all of a sudden, we're talking with every theist we've ever talked with ... or we're talking to every other non-believer we've ever talked with. That's been a longstanding issue here, in my opinion. I, personally, would like people to listen to my words and talk with me and leave every other theist they've ever "debated" out of it. Wouldn't we all like to be "seen" and "heard" for who we are and for what we actually say? I know John told Cerebus he was like every other atheist he's debated. Okay. At this point, is John posting regarding Cerebus and what he actually wrote, or is he taking a stand against all of those other non-believers from his past?
Just some thoughts ....
cs wrote: " he overstepped the mark some time ago and I stopped replying to him (as Hazel has done to me, fair enough) but at every opportunity he likes to insert the word ‘troll’ in the hope that if he chucks enough mud it will stick. But one does not mind."
Stopped replying to me as cs, then came back to the thread as chris and recommenced where you'd left off. Don't forget, I was not alone in describing your behaviour in that manner.
"One does not mind", no, only enough to still whinge about it.
Shannon wrote:"When believers come back and stay for a bit, it's obvious that they get questioned. Further, they get questioned in a way that is far different from the way first time non-believers are questioned, which is not at all ...There is nothing stopping believers questioning non-believers...
"Imagine there is no heaven. It's easy if you try"I agree with this quote because the core of most problems in the world is religion. If religion did not exist we would not have wars, and therefore people would not die. It's true that there may still be fights, but they could be easily resolved by being talked through. Now I am a Christian, I am not an Atheist but I still think the world would be a better place without religious beliefs because it would thwart dangers and threats of war. I feel that we would be a more peaceful community as a world and a whole without religion.
I do not believe that we could not live in a world w/o science because science is what is used to help fight medical diseases that cure people. If we did not have science, a lot of people would die for reasons that may not be needed. The technologies we have are because of science and we can heal people in ways that we couldn't even 20 years ago. That is my opinion on this topic.
Maria wrote: "Cerebus, don't leave the forum just because of Chris or cs, or anyone for that matter. Your comments are welcomed just like theirs are.If someone wants to post something totally outrageous and ..."
Thank you Maria, I appreciate your comments....I know we have had discussions earlier in the thread, and even if we disagreed it was always a civil discussion.
April wrote: "If religion did not exist we would not have wars..."I have to say, as an atheist that was a position I held in the past, but after seeing people be pulled up on it here, and doing more research, it is no longer a position I agree with. At worst I would say people use religion at times to justify demonising others, to make them seem less like themselves and therefore easier to engage in war, but I also think that if religion were not used in that context, human nature would find some other rationale to fill that void.
Shanna wrote: "There is nothing stopping believers questioning non-believers... "
No, there isn't. But, .... I'm not sure that's the point.
No, there isn't. But, .... I'm not sure that's the point.
cerebus wrote: "April wrote: "If religion did not exist we would not have wars..."
I have to say, as an atheist that was a position I held in the past, but after seeing people be pulled up on it here, and doing mo..."
Nicely said. I'm in full agreement. ;)
I have to say, as an atheist that was a position I held in the past, but after seeing people be pulled up on it here, and doing mo..."
Nicely said. I'm in full agreement. ;)
Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "There is nothing stopping believers questioning non-believers... "No, there isn't. But, .... I'm not sure that's the point."
For me it appears one of the failings I am being accused of is not revealing anything about myself, but for me that isn't going to happen until asked a relevant question. There are plenty of things I could reveal, albeit mundane and likely irrelevant, so there's nothing to be gained by a scattershot series of revelations from me. But I don't recall ever refusing to answer a question that someone raised during these discussions.
Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "There is nothing stopping believers questioning non-believers... "No, there isn't. But, .... I'm not sure that's the point."
Then what is the point?
cerebus wrote: "For me it appears one of the failings I am being accused of is not revealing anything about myself, but for me that isn't going to happen until asked a relevant question. "
I've not accused you of that, though....
I've not accused you of that, though....
Shannon wrote: "I've not accused you of that, though.... "Nope, you haven't :)
cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I've not accused you of that, though.... " Nope, you haven't :)"
Nor would I. ;)
Nor would I. ;)
Travis wrote: "Then what is the point? "
Not up for arguing for the sake of arguing. Don't know if that's in your mind or heart, truly.
But, .... I've shared some thoughts, which people may or may not agree with. That's cool with me. This was not the point of my sharing those thoughts, though, or the takeaway message of my post.
Not up for arguing for the sake of arguing. Don't know if that's in your mind or heart, truly.
But, .... I've shared some thoughts, which people may or may not agree with. That's cool with me. This was not the point of my sharing those thoughts, though, or the takeaway message of my post.
I am all for a world without religion. I was at jury duty today and was asked if I had an excuse for not being able to serve for two weeks; the woman before me said she had family coming in for a first communion for a week and the judge let her out with no questions, but gave me grief when I said I have a full class load. Ultimately, he let me go, but I'm still pissed off that somehow family trumps getting an education.
Interesting, John has deleted all his posts. (well, there was one, but it was the one about being tired and going to bed)
Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "There is nothing stopping believers questioning non-believers... "No, there isn't. But, .... I'm not sure that's the point."
But your phrasing implied a criticism of the one sidedness of the questioning occuring, or did I misinterpret that?
cerebus wrote: "Interesting, John has deleted all his posts. (well, there was one, but it was the one about being tired and going to bed)"
Oh, my...!
Oh, my...!
Shanna wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "There is nothing stopping believers questioning non-believers... "
No, there isn't. But, .... I'm not sure that's the point."
But your phrasing implied a criticis..."
Implied criticism or observation...?
Was my observation accurate or not?
No, there isn't. But, .... I'm not sure that's the point."
But your phrasing implied a criticis..."
Implied criticism or observation...?
Was my observation accurate or not?
cerebus wrote: "Interesting, John has deleted all his posts. (well, there was one, but it was the one about being tired and going to bed)"Yes it was night here and I was interested in reading your exchange in the morning, shame that...
Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "There is nothing stopping believers questioning non-believers... "No, there isn't. But, .... I'm not sure that's the point."
But your phrasing imp..."
Never said it wasn't accurate, it is, to a degree I wouldn't say "which is not at all" to be completely accurate, you, cs and Maria are all believers and question I sure if we wade through 185 pages of comments there will be others but preponderance has been non-believers questioning believers.
Criticism and observation are not mutually exclusive... :) to have a valid criticism one must, at least minimally, observe.
Shanna wrote: "Never said it wasn't accurate, it is, to a degree I wouldn't say "which is not at all" to be completely accurate, you, cs and Maria are all believers and question "
I was talking about new posters, though. (I don't know that cHriS and Maria have questioned new posters.) I've only questioned new posters, who are non-believers, when it comes to historical inaccuracies. But, I mentioned that. (I've questioned new posters, who are believers, when they've said religion is the end all and be all of morals.) So, given all of that, I'd say, "which is to say not at all." I mean, really, when talking about new posters, that is accurate.
Now, have believers discussed things and asked questions, etc... of regular non-believers? Heck, yes.
I was talking about new posters, though. (I don't know that cHriS and Maria have questioned new posters.) I've only questioned new posters, who are non-believers, when it comes to historical inaccuracies. But, I mentioned that. (I've questioned new posters, who are believers, when they've said religion is the end all and be all of morals.) So, given all of that, I'd say, "which is to say not at all." I mean, really, when talking about new posters, that is accurate.
Now, have believers discussed things and asked questions, etc... of regular non-believers? Heck, yes.
Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Never said it wasn't accurate, it is, to a degree I wouldn't say "which is not at all" to be completely accurate, you, cs and Maria are all believers and question "I was talking ab..."
:) Well then, I'd say it's "your side" slacking off... :P
Shanna wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Never said it wasn't accurate, it is, to a degree I wouldn't say "which is not at all" to be completely accurate, you, cs and Maria are all believers and question "
..."
Ha...!
Just thinking we might want to keep this in mind and consider it in the future ... or ... not. But, it's been mentioned and people are cognizant of the issue. They can make choices as they see fit.
Me? I'm going to continue to deal with historical inaccuracies (...and moral inaccuracies) and save my other thoughts and comments for people who have posted regularly or start posting regularly.
..."
Ha...!
Just thinking we might want to keep this in mind and consider it in the future ... or ... not. But, it's been mentioned and people are cognizant of the issue. They can make choices as they see fit.
Me? I'm going to continue to deal with historical inaccuracies (...and moral inaccuracies) and save my other thoughts and comments for people who have posted regularly or start posting regularly.
Shanna wrote: ":) Well then, I'd say it's "your side" slacking off... :P "I have a question (surprise, surprise). Does anyone think that the imbalance between questions coming from believers and non-believers is possibly a result of there being less questioning in religion, the whole accepting things on faith concept? I am not saying this is the case, but it just occurred to me when reading this, and am interested in other opinions....I do not yet have a strong one of my own on this.
cerebus wrote: "Does anyone think that the imbalance between questions coming from believers and non-believers is possibly a result of there being less questioning in religion, the whole accepting things on faith concept?"
Not Shanna, but I don't feel like going to bed, so .... You also might want the opinion of someone who is a believer. ;)
I'll speak only for myself, obviously. I don't know how other believers feel about it.
When someone first posts here, I think they should simply be able to answer the question. I mean, really, isn't that the point?
Science! Religion! I'm glad we don't have to choose! I choose neither!
Unless someone states something that is blatantly untrue, why would I question them or comment? It just doesn't seem right to me.
Why doesn't it seem right? Does it have to do with there being less questioning in religion? I don't know about that, for me. I wasn't raised up in religion proper. First, the United Methodists in my neck of the woods are encouraged to question. Second, my mother encouraged me to question and think for myself even more than that. Third, I never felt truly comfortable in the UMC. So, no, I'm not sure that it's that ... for me, at least.
It could be cultural. What part does religion play in that? I'm not sure. It might be an American thing, not that American's have the corner on free speech. But, like I said, it seems to me that people should have the right to come to this thread and post their initial answer without being questioned, etc.... That seems respectful, to me. Let them answer the question. (Inaccuracies are something different.) Then, once new posters have made a certain commitment to the thread, I think it's perfectly fine to ask questions.
But, then, ... you need to look at how the questions are being asked. Four or five non-believers at a time. Really? What's up with that? Bam, bam, bam ... rapid-fire.
Does one have to be a believer to find that ... an unfortunate way to conduct a discussion? Does that sense of discomfort have to spring from religion?
I could ask ....
Why do non-believers feel so inclined to question almost every single believer almost every single time? Personally, I don't think it has to do with being non-believers and being more open to questioning. I say that because some non-believers have said some seriously inaccurate or inappropriate things here and not many, if any, non-believers have questioned them. Right? So, I'd ask .... Are non-believers questioning due to a commitment to truth and questioning, solely? (Does the evidence show that?) Or, is it about something else? If the latter, what is at the bottom of it?
Not Shanna, but I don't feel like going to bed, so .... You also might want the opinion of someone who is a believer. ;)
I'll speak only for myself, obviously. I don't know how other believers feel about it.
When someone first posts here, I think they should simply be able to answer the question. I mean, really, isn't that the point?
Science! Religion! I'm glad we don't have to choose! I choose neither!
Unless someone states something that is blatantly untrue, why would I question them or comment? It just doesn't seem right to me.
Why doesn't it seem right? Does it have to do with there being less questioning in religion? I don't know about that, for me. I wasn't raised up in religion proper. First, the United Methodists in my neck of the woods are encouraged to question. Second, my mother encouraged me to question and think for myself even more than that. Third, I never felt truly comfortable in the UMC. So, no, I'm not sure that it's that ... for me, at least.
It could be cultural. What part does religion play in that? I'm not sure. It might be an American thing, not that American's have the corner on free speech. But, like I said, it seems to me that people should have the right to come to this thread and post their initial answer without being questioned, etc.... That seems respectful, to me. Let them answer the question. (Inaccuracies are something different.) Then, once new posters have made a certain commitment to the thread, I think it's perfectly fine to ask questions.
But, then, ... you need to look at how the questions are being asked. Four or five non-believers at a time. Really? What's up with that? Bam, bam, bam ... rapid-fire.
Does one have to be a believer to find that ... an unfortunate way to conduct a discussion? Does that sense of discomfort have to spring from religion?
I could ask ....
Why do non-believers feel so inclined to question almost every single believer almost every single time? Personally, I don't think it has to do with being non-believers and being more open to questioning. I say that because some non-believers have said some seriously inaccurate or inappropriate things here and not many, if any, non-believers have questioned them. Right? So, I'd ask .... Are non-believers questioning due to a commitment to truth and questioning, solely? (Does the evidence show that?) Or, is it about something else? If the latter, what is at the bottom of it?
I have a question (surprise, surprise). Does anyone think that the imbalance between questions coming from believers and non-believers is possibly a result of there being less questioning in religion, the whole accepting things on faith concept? I am not saying this is the case, but it just occurred to me when reading this, and am interested in other opinions....I do not yet have a strong one of my own on this. I'd say yes and perhaps an instinctive desire to avoid cognitive dissonance which I think may be a factor with "hit and run" posters. Some of the basic tenets in religion is to avoid questioning, faith the very notion of it is about, in part, not questioning. And because many atheists (myself included) have stated it the very act of questioning that lead them away from belief
When someone first posts here, I think they should simply be able to answer the question. I mean, really, isn't that the point?But they do and if that's all they choose to do, does anyone hunt them down and force them to respond to any subsequent questions? They are free to ignore or not. You are painting them with a victim brush Shannon, just a little. Is provoking thought a bad thing? surely not your point as a teacher, or do beliefs of a religious nature hold a unquestionable status something granted automatic respect?
First time posting on this thread. Hmm. I posted on a similar thread a few days ago and nobody wanted to talk to me about it. Is it safe to stick my head up here or will it get bit off?I haven't read all 185 pages of this, but it seems that much of what is recent is about what people call religion vs. what people call science. Not everybody’s definitions are in sync with the others. I just got into an argument with a co-worker today who justified the additive of caffeine in vitamin pills (which causes an instant, “magical thinking” feel-good when the pill is popped) because "if you believe it makes you feel better, then it has done its job." That is a religious faith placed in something called "science" that is not truth. I don't like that.
I love science, and I can't avoid the spiritual world (which may or may not be classified as religion). I'm stuck in the middle. What I really want is truth. I've searched for truth in religion, and I've found a lot of shysters...but I've found more shysters in science. Shysters gravitate to where people have placed their faith. If people believe in science, that is where the shysters gather. Humans are humans. They are vulnerable to the lies they want to believe--whether those lies are in the form of temples and priests, or studies and statistics twisted to say what the corporation funding the study wanted said. Science has become a religion that many anti-religious people are in danger of being enslaved to. Watch out!
Atheism was once a noble uprising against corrupted religion. Today, most of the outspoken atheists I know are just letting the inner three-year-old out to say “don’t tell me what to do.” That’s not the kind of atheism Socrates died for. That’s a sad, selfish way to live. It makes religion look good. If you want to bite my head off for saying that, then do so, but try not to make it look like your inner child.
Robert wrote: "First time posting on this thread. Hmm. I posted on a similar thread a few days ago and nobody wanted to talk to me about it. Is it safe to stick my head up here or will it get bit off?I haven't ..."
I do believe you're mistaking science with pseudoscience. A lot of people take advantage of other people's naivete because snake oil is a lot more lucrative than selling actual science.
The trick to getting good information on science is, always look for reliable sources. In other words, don't trust Yahoo! news for your science news. There are all kinds of blogs that write about skeptical news quite well, if you know where to look. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't know about this and write science off altogether.
Shanna wrote: "Is provoking thought a bad thing?"
Remember my first post tonight .... Both Cerebus and cHriS had a point, in my opinion. It is appropriate to question. I agree. But, cHriS had a point, too.
I don't know that I'm painting "them" with a victim brush. It's how I feel, based on what I've observed and who I am.
Provoking thought, in and of itself, isn't a bad thing. Religion doesn't hold an unquestionable status; I didn't say that. Nor am I saying religion should be granted automatic respect.
(Honestly, when it comes to those statements, I feel like they're a standard argument made to theists and not a response to my posts.)
I do think people should be given respect. I think first time posters should be able to answer the question, simply, as long as they don't make inaccurate or inappropriate posts.
Now, I think I've answered all of your questions. Can't help but notice you didn't answer mine ... though they weren't addressed to you. ;)
They were on point to the discussion, though.
Remember my first post tonight .... Both Cerebus and cHriS had a point, in my opinion. It is appropriate to question. I agree. But, cHriS had a point, too.
I don't know that I'm painting "them" with a victim brush. It's how I feel, based on what I've observed and who I am.
Provoking thought, in and of itself, isn't a bad thing. Religion doesn't hold an unquestionable status; I didn't say that. Nor am I saying religion should be granted automatic respect.
(Honestly, when it comes to those statements, I feel like they're a standard argument made to theists and not a response to my posts.)
I do think people should be given respect. I think first time posters should be able to answer the question, simply, as long as they don't make inaccurate or inappropriate posts.
Now, I think I've answered all of your questions. Can't help but notice you didn't answer mine ... though they weren't addressed to you. ;)
They were on point to the discussion, though.
Heather wrote: "Robert wrote: "The trick to getting good information on science is, always look for reliable sources. In other words, don't trust Yahoo! news for your science news. There are all kinds of blogs that write about skeptical news quite well, if you know where to look. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't know about this and write science off altogether...."Very true. Especially in the medical field. I'd like to add that, if you'll pay attention to who is buying up the words on search engines, you will know who is benefiting financially from what is being posted on the internet and in the scientific journals that these search engines direct you to. There is most always a money trail.
At the same time, you must understand that the "litmus test" of religion (I believe it was mentioned in the book that started this whole thread) also applies to academics and science. The largest growing religion in this country today is...Education (with a capital E). It believes it is the only way, it seeks to convert others to its belief system (mainly that you can't possibly know how to do your job unless you have undergone the mystical rite of graduation) and it persecutes those who have not conformed to its ways. People flock to its temples not because they believe it can teach them the truth, but because they hope it can bring them prosperity--much the same as what Buddhism has evolved into in the last few centuries.
Robert wrote: "Is it safe to stick my head up here or will it get bit off?"It is safe, and you won't get your head bitten off, but hopefully you're up for what some have seen as overly robust questioning? I will state now it is not intended to put you on the back-foot or to offend, but there will be questions :) It should also be hopefully clear that you are welcome to be as robust in questioning in return :)
Robert wrote: "Shysters gravitate to where people have placed their faith. If people believe in science, that is where the shysters gather"
I'd agree with the first part of this, and the second to a point....I think where I would make the distinction though is between science and scientists. Scientists are people, and as prone to bias and ego as anyone else. Where I see the benefit of science is as a method to try and eliminate this bias and ego as much as possible, requiring repeatable, testable evidence. Scientists may fake, or hide data, to promote a particular bias, but the scientific method then requires others to be able to repeat that evidence, and when they cannot the fakery is highlighted. Is it a perfect system? Probably not, but it's as close as I think we can get when there are people involved.
Robert wrote: "Science has become a religion that many anti-religious people are in danger of being enslaved to. "
I would personally disagree with this in that correctly practiced science requires evidence, and is willing to change if the evidence requires. If you are putting faith in science you are doing it wrong. (I will put a clarification here as it seems to have got me trouble quite recently! If I say 'you' it is almost always in the generic sense, not to ascribe any particular position to the poster to whom I am responding.)
Robert wrote: "Atheism was once a noble uprising against corrupted religion. Today, most of the outspoken atheists I know are just letting the inner three-year-old out to say “don’t tell me what to do.” That’s not the kind of atheism Socrates died for. That’s a sad, selfish way to live. It makes religion look good. If you want to bite my head off for saying that, then do so, but try not to make it look like your inner child. "
I'd be interested to hear more about why you think atheism is a reaction or an uprising against religion. That is not something that I have ever felt was part of my atheism, and I certainly feel it is possible to be an atheist without rebelling against a religion. For me it comes down to the absence of belief, I haven't come across an instance where the presence of a deity is necessary as an explanation. Does that mean I claim to know everything, or that I think science does? No, of course not, but when encountering an unknown it is ok (and I would say preferable) to say "we don't know, but we can investigate" instead of "we don't know, therefore it is explained by my religion, so I don't need to look any further for an answer". As has been pointed out elsewhere, having an explanation from science does not preclude a deity, who for example has set something like evolution in progress, but it does not add anything to the explanation, and can be countered with adding another level before that from some other religion (for example). It's the "turtles all the way down" problem.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
