Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Steve wrote: "Religion is a totally man-made concept, using human fears for the purpose of control. We, as a species, can certainly do just fine without it.Myth : what always is, but never was."
I think i want a t-shirt of that last line.
Travis wrote: "If I go to a church will they teach me algebra? I think they should. Only fair if the schools are going to be busy teaching our kids religion...Like I said earlier, it pays to do some research before you make such a statement.
What is now called "Sunday School" originated in the industrial cities of England in the late 1700s (before labor laws made it illegal for children to work). Back then, kids started in the factories when they were old enough to walk, and they worked six days a week. The only day they had off was Sunday, mainly because the aristocratic factory owners closed for their "day of rest" and went to church.
As the story goes, one day a group of church-goers grew tired of the noise outside their church made by children who were taking advantage of their one day of rest. These folks investigated and discovered that these kids had never been to school. They worked all day, and were too poor to afford any kind of education (back then it was a priviledge reserved mainly for the wealthy). Rather than condemn these kids for being hoplessly "unwashed", some of the ladies started a school in the basement of their church. They took these kids under their wings and provided basic schooling for them on the one day of the week these kids could have away from the factories. Of course, back then, everybody learned to read from the family Bible, so it was no wonder Sunday School became associated with study of the Bible. But it is interesting to note that it was originally a meeting of a need within the community.
Where I live, budget cuts have forced schools to drop such things as music education, gym class, and art. It would certainly be nice if all those not-for-profit churches would open up their basements again and meet the need for this current generation.
By the way for those who would like to follow up on my "research", a good, basic history of Sunday School can be found on Wikipedia just by typing in "Sunday School."
Mary wrote: "I'm telling you Robert, you are taking pages to run circles around this issue. Just admit you find it "icky". You are aware that heterosexual married couples can and do have infertility problems, h..."You have no power to put thoughts into my mind. I have done what I can to express my experience, my perspective, and my conclusions. I don't know what magazine or political literature you've gotten this "icky" line from, but it has no authority to define how other people think. Some folks have deep thoughts that don't agree with yours. Did you ever think that using words like "icky" to describe anything that doesn't agree with you just makes you yourself look immature and vocabularily challenged? Any baboon can put four-letter words into the mouths of other people. It's the deep thoughts that come out of your own that define you as a thinker.
Robert wrote: "Travis wrote: "If I go to a church will they teach me algebra? I think they should. Only fair if the schools are going to be busy teaching our kids religion...Like I said earlier, it pays to do s..."
So, churches don't teach kids about religion anymore?
Robert, Sorry if my use of the word icky made you feel icky. Imagine how your words make others feel. You got it...icky.
Hazel wrote: "I don't understand how that example given is unethical? If two people in a married situation are unable to conceive, and so one of them sleeps with someone else to create a child, and this is somet..."Your inability to understand does not remove the validity of my point. Nothing I have said has canonized traditional marriage. If you can honestly claim that my argument is not valid because you think I imply that traditional marriage is sainthood, you haven’t read any of my posts.
Imagine that it was your boyfriend who, after nine months of carrying his baby, suddenly breaks the news that he's married to his roommate and demands full custody of your newborn child—and that there's no room for you in his child's life because he wants to raise the baby to think he and his spouse are the parents. Ouch! If you are so cold and removed from emotion that such a thought does not make you shiver, then I doubt you serve as a very good spokesperson for people like me who are bothered by that kind of ethics. It has nothing to do with the gender of the roommate and everything to do with the dishonesty and injustice of the whole thing. However, it is not something I have seen done until my local government granted marital rights to same-sex couples.
So again, your argument is: same sex marriage threatens hetero marriage. But then you admit many hetero marriages have their own problems, but that's still somehow better to you than the one hypothetical example you have. And of course the exams you cited never happens in heteros marriages?Marriage of any sort is sometimes complicated, frustrating, emotionally damaging, nurturing, loving, passionate and difficult. People have affairs, people impregnate women outside marriage ( seems there's a very old term for that one... Starts with a "B" I think.) Then there was that story in the bible where the wife couldn't conceive so it was okay for Jacob to sleep with and jmpregnate another. But all okay because the body parts were male and female?
So again to recap your argument - only heterosexuals should be allowed to mess up marriage?only heterosexuals should be allowed to divorce or to create blended, adopted families that fail 1 out of 2 times?
Sounds like you want to deny one group something another group is allowed... Now I'm sure there's a word for that too
It still appears to me that what Robert is angling for is not only refusing to extend the rights of marriage to same-sex couples, but to remove existing rights from those who do not fit his view of a perfect, deep and meaningful marriage. I assume the post of head of marriage police will pay him well.....
I think everyone should be accorded the right to marry whomever they want to. I know of same-sex couples while one did have a child and the partner adopted the child, I don't understand that ruling, believe me some hetero marriages are not easy to manage.
Robert, I think you're twisting your original example, you made no indication that anything underhand or cheating was implied in what you said. I see it being exceedingly unlikely that a gay couple would lie to a potential sperm or egg donor about their intentions or the situation, or would be underhanded in how they went about creating a child, I doubt very much that they would chaet on their partner with someone of a gender they are not remotely attracted to or lie to that donor person about their intentions, you've invented this whole ludicrous situation in your head as a woefully poor justification for your feelings that homosexuality is icky.Why can't you just be intellectually honest enough to admit that it makes you uncomfortable, and leave it there? Why are you digging yourself further into these ridiculous statements that hold no truth and are not backed up by anything that has happened ever... now, I do actually know a heterosexual lady who deliberately used a man (my brother) to get her pregnant and then told him that he was to have no part in his childs life, my nephew is now 6 years old, and we never get to see him, because of his insane manipulative mother, who has II believe now done the same to another man... so if anecdotal evidence counts for anything, which apparently, in your mind it does, then that shows that sort of behaviour already exists among the heterosexual community, but I can honestly say I've never seen or heard of it happening among homosexuals. I have however seen a lovely example of sperm donoring, in which a lesbian couple had a good male friend donate his sperm, which was used to fertilise one of the women's eggs, and then implanted into the other woman, which is a lovely idea, so both women get to be parents to the child, and the man understood from the beginning that he was simply a donor. They plan on doing i the other way round next time, so that both women get to carry a child. I think that's a beautiful arrangement, its a shame you can' see it.
I also read this yesterday, which is another life affirming story, though I suspect you'll be beating your chest and ranting after reading it:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/...
I believe, there is Science in Religion and Religion in Science, so the world will always have both.
Jim wrote: "I believe, there is Science in Religion and Religion in Science, so the world will always have both."Religion can accept major scientific principles with no issue. Believers can pick and choose when science applies and still hold firm to all of that specific religions' core belief. In order for science to accept religion it has to discard its core principals, primarily requiring evidence and testable results to properly come to conclusions. The god concept can only exist in the raw ABSENCE of science.
Travis wrote: "Steve wrote: "Religion is a totally man-made concept, using human fears for the purpose of control. We, as a species, can certainly do just fine without it.Myth : what always is, but never was."
..."
One of my favorites for sure - credited to Joseph Campbell. Here is another gem : "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Philip K Dick
Dena wrote: "many people are quoting the bible and things that they have read in books as to why they believe one way or another.The thing is that u need to have an open mind that others are different in some w..."Dena : I am blind to nothing - I am painfully aware that 80% of the population is religious, and that daily they try to inject their beliefs into society, government, civil laws, science, etc. certainly infringing on my life. I will never stand idly by with the attitude "we are not all the same, so just let them be...". If I do, they will make us all the same - the same as them. That is called a theocracy.
Welcome to the fray, Steve. I like your quote about reality not going away when you stop believing in it. I could have used that yesterday. Reality can be pretty harsh to those who don't pay attention to it.
Hazel wrote: "I see it being exceedingly unlikely that a gay couple would lie to a potential sperm or egg donor about their intentions or the situation, or would be underhanded in how they went about creating a child, I doubt very much that they would chaet on their partner with someone of a gender they are not remotely attracted to or lie to that donor person about their intentions, you've invented this whole ludicrous situation in your head as a woefully poor justification for your feelings that homosexuality is icky..."Ah, yes. The legalistic approach wins again unless I start listing the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the people who took me into their confidence to share their story with me. No, I can’t provide the evidence other than “this happened to somebody I know.” So I guess you win. Then again, I’m not playing to win a gay-marriage argument. I’ve been talking about a concept of “ideal protocol” that individuals can follow to promote harmony within the larger entities they form. Some folks want to accept any and all deviations from that protocol as a civil right. I’m trying to illustrate the ripples that these deviations cause. For instance, if a teenage boy thinks he needs to drive recklessly and endanger innocent lives with his sports car in order to feel like a man, is that an acceptable civil right, or is it a deviation from the ideal that justifies “correction”?
Here’s another example: I mentioned a few days ago that law, passed in 1975, that allowed married couples to “double-bid” on housing prices. One of the other sad effects of that phenomenon was the mass-exodus of married couples from the poorer neighborhoods of the inner cities. Adding the wife’s income to their mortgage, many families were able to move into the suburbs or other, nicer neighborhoods that had been newly vacated by those families bidding up and moving into the suburbs. However, as I’ve said, there are always ripples with every deviation from the ideal protocol.
Many of these project neighborhoods now found themselves populated almost entirely by single mothers struggling to raise their children. With the loss of the male role model next door, as well as the loss of the older married couples who could serve as examples to the young, the children of these projects developed their own societal organizations—namely the street gangs. Street gangs are wonderfully prolific in that they encourage new membership by making the world a frightening and dangerous place to those who do not join. They are different from a marriage or a “household” entity in that they are focused not on posterity through a family unit, but through forming a surrogate family unit to replace what most of these children never had. They prey on broken families—a commodity that inner-city neighborhoods are rich with. As a result, this problem just gets worse and worse as generations compound the distance between traditional families and the world these kids know.
The moral of the story is that, when you begin to deviate from the ideal protocol, you are going to start seeing ripples. At some point, these ripples are going to intersect and clash with those who are still trying to follow the ideal protocol. Those who don’t want to recognize an ideal protocol are not exempt from being affected by these ripples. You can go on insisting that all deviations are a civil right, but you’re not going to bring peace or progress from that kind of outlook. You’re just feeding the chaos.
Robert, the world is populated by humans. Humans are full of faults. There has never, I repeat never, been a time in our world where marriage was ideal. Even the supposed " idyllic" 1950s were only good for the man. Women and minorities did not have it so great. Abuse occurred, but hey a mans house is his castle and he's providing a roof right? He can do what he wants. Infidelity occurred, women were often advised to look the other way for the sake of their marriage.. Women were bored and depressed and often drank or took " mothers little helper" (Valium) unwed pregnancy has always been around, but girls were just shipped off to an aunt and made to give baby up, causing enormous pain and guilt. Again, heterosexuals can and do mess up marriage and child rearing. Happens daily. In fact, aren't most homosexuals born to and raised by heterosexual parents? How does that factor in to your "proof" anecdotes? Seems like homosexuality is the fault of.... Wait for it... Heterosexual parents. Hmmm. of course I believe sexual preference is genetic, so again by your reasoning that'd be the fault of hetero parents. I think we've found the real problem.
You can tell yourself whatever bedtime story you want to deny the fact that you just find homosexuality icky. thats your right. But i was raised that you stand up for what's right. And allowing same sex couples the same protection under the law is right. And I will continue to challenge those who say its not. Usually, I find out they have no real argument. As is your case.
Robert wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I see it being exceedingly unlikely that a gay couple would lie to a potential sperm or egg donor about their intentions or the situation, or would be underhanded in how they went abo..."The ideal protocol...?
I think I saw that Star Trek episode...
Here's a story: nearly got beat up for standing too close to someone this group thought was gay.
Only thing that stopped them was the gay guy turned out to be a girl friend of mine with very short hair.
Seeing a group as 'deviate wounds' leads you to think they don't deserve to be treated like people.
There are ripples from that idea.
Robert wrote: "Welcome to the fray, Steve. I like your quote about reality not going away when you stop believing in it. I could have used that yesterday. Reality can be pretty harsh to those who don't pay attent..."Thanks for the welcome, Robert. As you have probably guessed, I am not a big fan of the religious, or their incessant need to inject their mythical ideals into the lives of those who don't share their beliefs. As I read your posts regarding same-sex marriage, I would have to agree with Hazel - you just don't like the idea of it. Fair enough - why not just say so? I may not agree with you, but I will fight for your right to express your views. Just sayin'...
Robert wrote: "It’s about us and our personal search for self-gratification. "In the case of evolution it's nothing to do with self-gratification and everything to do with scientific evidence, which evolution has in abundance, and which creationism has none.
Robert wrote: "Some folks want to accept any and all deviations from that protocol as a civil right."Rubbish, nobody has said anything about "any or all", and your use of the expression is disingenuous at best, but I'd say manipulative. It is the slippery slope argument..."if we allow this, then what's next??".
Robert wrote: "I’m trying to illustrate the ripples that these deviations cause. For instance, if a teenage boy thinks he needs to drive recklessly and endanger innocent lives with his sports car in order to feel like a man, is that an acceptable civil right, or is it a deviation from the ideal that justifies “correction”?
Do any of your "examples" bear any relation to the discussion at hand? What does someone driving fast, potentially endangering others, have to do with two consenting adults wanting to get married?
Robert wrote: " However, as I’ve said, there are always ripples with every deviation from the ideal protocol."
And what is this "ideal protocol"? Everything you say suggests that even the current definition of marriage is too loose for you. Please let us know what this "ideal protocol" that you want to defend is.
To be honest your obfuscation is getting worse and worse. It has been pointed out by many here, and despite your dislike of the word, that all evidence suggests that you find the concept of same-sex marriage "icky" but seem not to have the courage to at least accept that fact.
Steve wrote: " I may not agree with you, but I will fight for your right to express your views. Just sayin'... "I agree with this, the frustration as you have noted is that Robert is unwilling to actually come out and say it, instead coming up with ever more bizarre and irrelevant examples and comparisons.
Dena wrote: "i cant stand religion mythology i think its all crap.However i also dont feel the religious people affecting my life much at all.If catholics want to follow thier pope good for them.I dont care what he says he has no power over me.And if the pope has no powere well then no religion is in my way. "Yup, and I would say most non-believers here feel something along these lines.....believe whatever you want, it's your call.....But, where we get involved is when that religious belief intrudes into society, as evidenced by the current hot-topic example of same-sex marriage.
Dena Wrote :"i cant stand religion mythology i think its all crap.However i also dont feel the religious people affecting my life much at all.If catholics want to follow thier pope good for them.I dont care what he says he has no power over me.And if the pope has no powere well then no religion is in my way. "So the attempts to legislate your uterus and what you may or may not do with don't bother you? The attempt to legislate your health care provider and what he may or may not treat for or with or tell you because you have a uterus don't bother you? The attempts to legislate that your employer may pick and choose what'll be included in your health insurance doesn't bother you? I'm guessing your not gay and wanting to get married, so that doesn't bother you?
It's all ok if doesn't bother you directly...
Dena wrote: "driving a fast car deserves a ticket and traffic court maybe.Being gay and driving fast are not related at all.The cop giving the ticket could be gay though. ":D
I wonder how that fits into Robert's "ideal protocol".
Hey, I'm gonna call Godwin's on myself here, but does Robert's use of "ideal protocol" sounds vaguely familiar?
Dena wrote: "Dena wrote: "Shanna wrote: " Dena Wrote :"i cant stand religion mythology i think its all crap.However i also dont feel the religious people affecting my life much at all.If catholics want to follo..."Ah, I'm with you now.
Dena wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Dena wrote: "Dena wrote: "Shanna wrote: " Dena Wrote :"i cant stand religion mythology i think its all crap.However i also dont feel the religious people affecting my life much at al..."No worries, my misunderstanding :)
Steve wrote: I may not agree with you, but I will fight for your right to express your views. Just sayin'... .."
Interesting.
I have kept away from this part of the discussion because it is not really about 'gay marriage' it is some atheists here, having a go at religion, as usual. The gay marriage thing is just another means to that end. It just happens to be Roberts turn to be their target.
But I did find your comment interesting and maybe it sets you apart from the Hazel's and Travis's.
You said that you will fight for Roberts right to express his views, fair enough, you must then think that his view has merit and a place in this discussion, unlike the others.
No, it is a common factor in supporting free speech, finding what is said abhorrent but supporting your right to say it. And you are seriously off the mark with the claim that people are having a go at Robert for his religion, it is entirely about his thinly veiled homophobia.
cHriS wrote: "Steve wrote: I may not agree with you, but I will fight for your right to express your views. Just sayin'... .."
Interesting.
I have kept away from this part of the discussion because it is no..."
Actually, it is about gay marriage.
Robert is the target because he is for denying people rights.
that and wrong as I think he is, he didn't scamper off when he got called on it.
He's actually referenced religion very little, so we mean atheists have been forced to debate what he has said and had very little opportunity to have a go at religion.
and you are free to say whatever you want. You are not free from someone questioning what you say.
Robert wrote: "o, I can’t provide the evidence other than “this happened to somebody I know.” So I guess you win."Completely missed the point there Robert, the point was that anecdotal evidence counts for shit, show us some peer reviewed papers that show support for what you're saying, or admit that your thinly veiled bigotry is exactly that.
I'd rather live in a world without these stupid, stupid Dan Brown novels.
Hazel wrote: "Robert wrote: "o, I can’t provide the evidence other than “this happened to somebody I know.” So I guess you win."Completely missed the point there Robert, the point was that anecdotal evidence c..."
Robert only believes his anecdotal evidence counts, as the positive stories we've told about marriage, gay and otherwise, have been shrugged off as us being brainwashed by the media.
Phillip wrote: "I'd rather live in a world without these stupid, stupid Dan Brown novels."If I could like a comment on here, I'd like this one :P
Of course everyone has a right to their opinion. But this is not a trivial question about whether choc chip cookies taste better with nuts or without. (Without, duh)This is a question of denying one group the same rights another group has. Robert, or anyone can make a statement, but they can also be expected to be challenged on their stance. Too often people are complacent about challenging others about ideas that are controversial. Imagine instead of gay marriage, if the poster had said, "Well it is obvious that Jews are what's wrong with our country. They should not be allowed the same rights as us". Or "Slavery is good for the black person. Why I know one slave who was freed and hated it. They need our guidance."
"Everyone knows blacks and whites shouldn't marry. It's so bad for their children."
Those used to be commonly held beliefs, I doubt anyone would say they were correct now
Only by challenging those ideas were they changed.
cerebus wrote: No, it is a common factor in supporting free speech, finding what is said abhorrent but supporting your right to say it. And you are seriously off the mark with the claim that people are having a go at Robert for his religion, it is entirely about his thinly veiled homophobia. .."
homophobia. That seems to be typical of the emotive language Travis is good at.
cHriS wrote: "cerebus wrote: No, it is a common factor in supporting free speech, finding what is said abhorrent but supporting your right to say it. And you are seriously off the mark with the claim that people..."How about you stop hiding and dodging and actually answer some of the points put forward.
Because, as you have proclaimed me the expert on emotive and derogatory, I can tell you, your snide and snippy remarks do not count as subjective.
Dena wrote: "Mary wrote: "Of course everyone has a right to their opinion. But this is not a trivial question about whether choc chip cookies taste better with nuts or without. (Without, duh)This is a question..."
We can barely handle the gay marriage debate and now Dena's bringing in something as controversal as cookies...?
This could get ugly.
I personally like chocolate chip cookies with macadamia nuts.
I personally like chocolate chip cookies with chopped pecans, but to each his or her own. I'm of the school of cultural relativism; I am straight, and that's okay. Many of my friends are gay and that's okay too. Neither of our ways of life are absolutely correct, so we go on and live our lives happily.
Dena wrote: "Travis wrote: "Dena wrote: "Mary wrote: "Of course everyone has a right to their opinion. But this is not a trivial question about whether choc chip cookies taste better with nuts or without. (With..."Obviously, I'm so emotionally distraught over this cookie controversy I can't even keep people's names straight.
As the great FSM always says. "It's always about who did what, to who, and for how many cookies"
cHriS wrote: "homophobia. That seems to be typical of the emotive language Travis is good at"What would you suggest cHriS?
Afterall it is what it's called.
Though I'm inclined to think it's problematic, it's not quite on the same footing as racism or sexism, heteroism? heterism?
Anything will be emotive because we all know what we are talking about denying rights to a group of people for flimsy reasons.
Sorry chris, but constantly claiming "emotive language" is simply avoiding the issue.....there are plenty of people here who have referred to Robert's position as homophobic.
Mary wrote: "As the great FSM always says. "It's always about who did what, to who, and for how many cookies"" R'amen.
cHriS wrote: "Steve wrote: I may not agree with you, but I will fight for your right to express your views. Just sayin'... .."
Interesting.
I have kept away from this part of the discussion because it is no..." You seem to want to put words in my mouth - I in no way think his view has merit. He appears far-right Christian at best, possibly ignorant of the 90% of Americans who support same-sex marriage, or simply homophobic at worst. Regardless, his view is part of the discussion, as it should be. But - he, and apparently you, based on your shot at atheists, should be prepared to have us disagree with you. If you are easily offended, suggest you don't play.
cHriS wrote: "cerebus wrote: No, it is a common factor in supporting free speech, finding what is said abhorrent but supporting your right to say it. And you are seriously off the mark with the claim that people..."Sorry, Chris, but calling someone homophobic is not emotive language; however, if someone were to call someone else a homophobic douche bag, that would be.
Wes wrote: "I'm an atheist myself so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I'm not implying that re..."Your answer, and the question itself, both point that that you understand neither science or..."
Could you link the dictionary you took those definitions from please?
And clarify how you
Religion, n. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
Science, n. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
equate these as the same?
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...
So tell yourself whatever convoluted story you need to, but the majority of Americans ( as recent polls show) do not care if homosexuals marry. It is progress. The same progress that freed slaves, allowed women to vote and will soon allow same sex marriage