Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Travis wrote: "Using your logic, there is no danger of that one man becoming Nero, because we voted for him."
This statement has nothing to do with my logic.
We have a system of government, branches of government, checks and balances. When we went and voted for a president in November, we were voting for a president, who would be part of that government. We were voting for a president not a dictator.
I'm not forgetting how this started. This started with you saying it would be easy ... oh, so easy ... to solve this problem. Really? How? You said, ... putting all power in the hands of one man would be bad?
If the president, all of a sudden, pulled a Nero, he'd be a Nero. Yeah, we'd voted for him ... as president. Not as a dictator. And, if that happened, we'd have every right to impeach him, etc..., since that would be against our Constitution and our rights.
This statement has nothing to do with my logic.
We have a system of government, branches of government, checks and balances. When we went and voted for a president in November, we were voting for a president, who would be part of that government. We were voting for a president not a dictator.
I'm not forgetting how this started. This started with you saying it would be easy ... oh, so easy ... to solve this problem. Really? How? You said, ... putting all power in the hands of one man would be bad?
If the president, all of a sudden, pulled a Nero, he'd be a Nero. Yeah, we'd voted for him ... as president. Not as a dictator. And, if that happened, we'd have every right to impeach him, etc..., since that would be against our Constitution and our rights.
Travis wrote: "If rights have been decided by the court, then they weren't put to a vote.
Tracing backwards that we vote for the President...etc...is not the same as putting a right up for popular vote.
I voted for Clinton, Clinton appointed judges to the supreme court, the supreme court decided on Bush vs Gore, so I voted for George Bush...
"
I'm going to assume by this that you're now okay with this decision being made by the Supreme Court. That, by the way, isn't an easy thing, but that's an aside. I'm also going to assume that you realize putting all power in the hands of one man would be a bad thing, setting a very bad precedent and not upholding the rights of all of the people.
If, of course, that's not the case, feel free to elucidate.
I'm guessing, though, at this point ... this is an argument for the sake of winning an argument.
And, ... yeah ... decisions made by the Supreme Court are, in a round about way, based on votes. That's our system of government. That's why voting in presidents is so damned important. If you don't think so, let's vote in a crapload of Republican presidents. I mean, hey, it won't matter that they'd be appointing judges to the highest court. Right? That wouldn't matter a whit to you. Right? Or, would it have a huge impact on your life and all lives? At this point, the court, frankly, reflects the country. We're divided, almost 50/50. That has an impact on everything.
Tracing backwards that we vote for the President...etc...is not the same as putting a right up for popular vote.
I voted for Clinton, Clinton appointed judges to the supreme court, the supreme court decided on Bush vs Gore, so I voted for George Bush...
"
I'm going to assume by this that you're now okay with this decision being made by the Supreme Court. That, by the way, isn't an easy thing, but that's an aside. I'm also going to assume that you realize putting all power in the hands of one man would be a bad thing, setting a very bad precedent and not upholding the rights of all of the people.
If, of course, that's not the case, feel free to elucidate.
I'm guessing, though, at this point ... this is an argument for the sake of winning an argument.
And, ... yeah ... decisions made by the Supreme Court are, in a round about way, based on votes. That's our system of government. That's why voting in presidents is so damned important. If you don't think so, let's vote in a crapload of Republican presidents. I mean, hey, it won't matter that they'd be appointing judges to the highest court. Right? That wouldn't matter a whit to you. Right? Or, would it have a huge impact on your life and all lives? At this point, the court, frankly, reflects the country. We're divided, almost 50/50. That has an impact on everything.
Travis wrote: "Which of the examples I listed were put in place by an actual, popular vote?"
Yeah .... Just now realizing you just said popular vote.
We weren't talking about a popular vote when we were talking about gay rights, were we? When I started detailing how difficult and painful these things are and when you started saying it would actually be very easy. We were talking about our system of government and voting. All votes. Votes by individual states, which happen via their legislature. Votes by our representatives in Washington. Sure, a popular vote.
A popular vote entered this discussion when I mentioned ERA, which was or wasn't done via popular vote and, then, was handled or not in certain states.
But, we weren't, originally, only talking about a popular vote.
However, I stand with ... ERA ... when it comes to what rights I'd be willing to put up to a vote, popular or otherwise.
Yeah .... Just now realizing you just said popular vote.
We weren't talking about a popular vote when we were talking about gay rights, were we? When I started detailing how difficult and painful these things are and when you started saying it would actually be very easy. We were talking about our system of government and voting. All votes. Votes by individual states, which happen via their legislature. Votes by our representatives in Washington. Sure, a popular vote.
A popular vote entered this discussion when I mentioned ERA, which was or wasn't done via popular vote and, then, was handled or not in certain states.
But, we weren't, originally, only talking about a popular vote.
However, I stand with ... ERA ... when it comes to what rights I'd be willing to put up to a vote, popular or otherwise.
Atheist -- means literally "without god" -- but most atheists have made gods of something -- they just don't call them that: television, money, sex, attention, being a star on a reader's forum, attention... No human world will ever be without religion because we will always wonder "why" and "how" and there will always be someone who will start a church that tells us the answers (because most humans are afraid of true wonder) and no human world will ever be without science for the same "why" and "how" -- and someone will always want folks to accept theories and hypotheses as answers--just like the churches. It is when we begin to really enjoy wonder and stop fearing not knowing everything that we can be truly free to enjoy the miraculous nature of all creation and its scientific workings.
Dena wrote: "right,we dont need to vote on rights,we should just have them"
Morally speaking? Or ... legally?
How does that work? Legally?
Morally speaking? Or ... legally?
How does that work? Legally?
Teacherhuman wrote: " and someone will always want folks to accept theories and hypotheses as answers--just like the churches."If you are suggesting that people are expected to accept scientific theories on faith, then you are not talking about science. Science does not require faith.
Shanna wrote: ""
Wow! So even that was said by someone else.
Wow! So even that was said by someone else.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Which of the examples I listed were put in place by an actual, popular vote?"Yeah .... Just now realizing you just said popular vote.
We weren't talking about a popular vote when..."
But, since it failed the vote, you are gambling something you didn't have in the first place.
I'm suggesting that we test this idea and take all the rights we have now and put them to a state by state vote, just like gay marriage.
If suddenly, your freedom of religion only counts in certain states, or women or minorities only get to vote in certain states.
Crossing state lines in a gay marriage is tricky, try it in an interracial marriage.
Personally, I wouldn't miss the guns, but freedom of speech...
Shanna wrote: "http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2013/..."Don't even know where to begin with this one...
Teacherhuman wrote: "Atheist -- means literally "without god" -- but most atheists have made gods of something -- they just don't call them that: television, money, sex, attention, being a star on a reader's forum, att..."God of sex...?
Boy, wish someone had mentioned that one to me in sunday school, I might have stuck around.
you can ask 'how' and 'why' using science too.
It's kind of how science works.
and the great part is, when you get an answer, it's a real one.
Travis wrote: "Shanna wrote: "http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2013/..."Don't even know where to begin with this one..."
Not amused then?
Travis wrote: "But, since it failed the vote, you are gambling something you didn't have in the first place.
I'm suggesting that we test this idea and take all the rights we have now and put them to a state by state vote, just like gay marriage.
If suddenly, your freedom of religion only counts in certain states, or women or minorities only get to vote in certain states.
Crossing state lines in a gay marriage is tricky, try it in an interracial marriage.
Personally, I wouldn't miss the guns, but freedom of speech... "
I get somewhat confused in the ... rights are rights ... rights aren't given ... we have rights ... what rights are you willing to give up and vote for (like gay marriage) ... ERA ... but, when I say ERA, you say I never had that right to begin with so that example doesn't work...
Sort of like homosexuals don't have that right to begin with ... though, if rights are just given ... maybe they do ...
??
Maybe it's just me but ....
This isn't really making a lot of sense.
Now, regarding throwing away all of our rights and voting for them, like might need to be done on gay marriage, voting for gay marriage ....
We've already done that. Haven't we? We did that when we broke from England. We did that when we bled and died and founded our government.
My great-great grandmother didn't have the right to vote. Nor did my great-grandmother for a time. Guess what?
Like some homosexuals are doing now and like some people who support the rights of others are doing now, they actually fought for their rights. They spoke and they worked and they read and they wrote and they educated. Unlike today, they went on protests and were arrested. Were they violent protests? Nope. But, they were arrested, sometimes violently. Hey, wanna look at something really fun?! A bunch of them got arrested, over and over, and went on hunger strikes when in jail and were force-fed. Yeah.... Force-fed. Pretty picture. By the way, it wasn't by IV. That's what they did to get their rights. Their right to vote.
Why not just throw that away? Why not put that up to a vote? Yeah.
Why don't you answer that question?
Do you think that would honor them? Do you think that's the right course? Throw away their sacrifice like it meant nothing and sacrifice they did. By the way, for hundreds of years. Women started fighting for rights here back in the 1600's. Why not dishonor their sacrifice and act like it meant nothing at all?
Yeah.... Gay couples don't have the right to marry. They do, however, have the right to vote. May they do so accordingly. You and I have that right, too. Guessing we do so accordingly. Personally, I think it stinks that they can't get tax breaks in some states, etc.... Personally, I've fought for the rights of gay people and stood up for them, at personal cost. However, .... We have a government and a rule of law. It's not perfect, but it does offer certain protections to the general populace, if not to small constituencies. They're/we're fighting for their rights in the same way we fought for all of our rights. The only difference? They're/we're not being arrested and thrown in jail and violated, physically, because of it.
I'm suggesting that we test this idea and take all the rights we have now and put them to a state by state vote, just like gay marriage.
If suddenly, your freedom of religion only counts in certain states, or women or minorities only get to vote in certain states.
Crossing state lines in a gay marriage is tricky, try it in an interracial marriage.
Personally, I wouldn't miss the guns, but freedom of speech... "
I get somewhat confused in the ... rights are rights ... rights aren't given ... we have rights ... what rights are you willing to give up and vote for (like gay marriage) ... ERA ... but, when I say ERA, you say I never had that right to begin with so that example doesn't work...
Sort of like homosexuals don't have that right to begin with ... though, if rights are just given ... maybe they do ...
??
Maybe it's just me but ....
This isn't really making a lot of sense.
Now, regarding throwing away all of our rights and voting for them, like might need to be done on gay marriage, voting for gay marriage ....
We've already done that. Haven't we? We did that when we broke from England. We did that when we bled and died and founded our government.
My great-great grandmother didn't have the right to vote. Nor did my great-grandmother for a time. Guess what?
Like some homosexuals are doing now and like some people who support the rights of others are doing now, they actually fought for their rights. They spoke and they worked and they read and they wrote and they educated. Unlike today, they went on protests and were arrested. Were they violent protests? Nope. But, they were arrested, sometimes violently. Hey, wanna look at something really fun?! A bunch of them got arrested, over and over, and went on hunger strikes when in jail and were force-fed. Yeah.... Force-fed. Pretty picture. By the way, it wasn't by IV. That's what they did to get their rights. Their right to vote.
Why not just throw that away? Why not put that up to a vote? Yeah.
Why don't you answer that question?
Do you think that would honor them? Do you think that's the right course? Throw away their sacrifice like it meant nothing and sacrifice they did. By the way, for hundreds of years. Women started fighting for rights here back in the 1600's. Why not dishonor their sacrifice and act like it meant nothing at all?
Yeah.... Gay couples don't have the right to marry. They do, however, have the right to vote. May they do so accordingly. You and I have that right, too. Guessing we do so accordingly. Personally, I think it stinks that they can't get tax breaks in some states, etc.... Personally, I've fought for the rights of gay people and stood up for them, at personal cost. However, .... We have a government and a rule of law. It's not perfect, but it does offer certain protections to the general populace, if not to small constituencies. They're/we're fighting for their rights in the same way we fought for all of our rights. The only difference? They're/we're not being arrested and thrown in jail and violated, physically, because of it.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "But, since it failed the vote, you are gambling something you didn't have in the first place.I'm suggesting that we test this idea and take all the rights we have now and put them t..."
Well, you say rights should be put to a vote and then give an example where the vote was in favor of not giving you that right.
By your argument it's not a right, because it wasn't voted in.
So, when I ask what right you would gamble in a vote, I'm speaking of ones you already actually have.
How can you gamble by putting up something you don't have as the stakes?
They'd shoot you for that in Vegas.
I'm saying, rights should not be done by vote.
Yes, you have to fight to get the government to put those rights in place, to aknowledge them and then set up the legal apparatus to make it enforceable.
This is generally brought about through the courts. Not a popular vote.
Gay marriage is up before the supreme court and if things go well, it will be judged constitutional and then the government will need to take the next step and make it law of the land, not just law of the 9 states that have it until some group that doesn't like it dumps a whole lot of money and and get those states to go 'Nah, never mind, all your families are back to not counting."
and about all that 'dishonoring sacrifice', did you ever find out if women got their vote through the vote or through the courts?
Aside from the fact that your 'unlike today' comment seems to be saying gay people haven't suffered and sacrificed in the course of gaining rights, which is really insulting BS, I'm pretty sure the women's right to vote came about through the legal system and that your rant at the end really got away from you and I'm not entirely sure if you are arguing with me or agreeing?
Great question.For me it would be bye, bye religion.
You don't need religion to have humanity and a conscience, and I wish I had more time for a longer response but lets just say although it is not religion that perpetrates violence, but people. These same people often do start wars in the name of religion.
Just in case anyone is wondering I do read and agree mostly with what Richard Dawkins writes.
Travis wrote: "and about all that 'dishonoring sacrifice', did you ever find out if women got their vote through the vote or through the courts?"
I'm unclear regarding how you meant this to read, Travis. Therefore, I'll reserve judgment. I've known of the sacrifices our foremothers made and how they achieved the right to vote for some time, even mentioned it here in posts twice in the last 24 hours.
But, since you seem to be unclear, here ...
"Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote.
The 19th amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote. Achieving this milestone required a lengthy and difficult struggle; victory took decades of agitation and protest. Beginning in the mid-19th century, several generations of woman suffrage supporters lectured, wrote, marched, lobbied, and practiced civil disobedience to achieve what many Americans considered a radical change of the Constitution. Few early supporters lived to see final victory in 1920.
Beginning in the 1800s, women organized, petitioned, and picketed to win the right to vote, but it took them decades to accomplish their purpose. Between 1878, when the amendment was first introduced in Congress, and August 18, 1920, when it was ratified, champions of voting rights for women worked tirelessly, but strategies for achieving their goal varied. Some pursued a strategy of passing suffrage acts in each state—nine western states adopted woman suffrage legislation by 1912. Others challenged male-only voting laws in the courts. Militant suffragists used tactics such as parades, silent vigils, and hunger strikes. Often supporters met fierce resistance. Opponents heckled, jailed, and sometimes physically abused them.
By 1916, almost all of the major suffrage organizations were united behind the goal of a constitutional amendment. When New York adopted woman suffrage in 1917 and President Wilson changed his position to support an amendment in 1918, the political balance began to shift.
On May 21, 1919, the House of Representatives passed the amendment, and 2 weeks later, the Senate followed. When Tennessee became the 36th state to ratify the amendment on August 18, 1920, the amendment passed its final hurdle of obtaining the agreement of three-fourths of the states. Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby certified the ratification on August 26, 1920, changing the face of the American electorate forever.
For more information, visit the National Archives’ Digital Classroom Teaching With Documents Lesson Plan: Woman Suffrage and the 19th Amendment."
http://www.archives.gov/historical-do...
The answer ...? Votes. Same for African-American men and the right to vote. Same for a lot of things.
I'm unclear regarding how you meant this to read, Travis. Therefore, I'll reserve judgment. I've known of the sacrifices our foremothers made and how they achieved the right to vote for some time, even mentioned it here in posts twice in the last 24 hours.
But, since you seem to be unclear, here ...
"Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote.
The 19th amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote. Achieving this milestone required a lengthy and difficult struggle; victory took decades of agitation and protest. Beginning in the mid-19th century, several generations of woman suffrage supporters lectured, wrote, marched, lobbied, and practiced civil disobedience to achieve what many Americans considered a radical change of the Constitution. Few early supporters lived to see final victory in 1920.
Beginning in the 1800s, women organized, petitioned, and picketed to win the right to vote, but it took them decades to accomplish their purpose. Between 1878, when the amendment was first introduced in Congress, and August 18, 1920, when it was ratified, champions of voting rights for women worked tirelessly, but strategies for achieving their goal varied. Some pursued a strategy of passing suffrage acts in each state—nine western states adopted woman suffrage legislation by 1912. Others challenged male-only voting laws in the courts. Militant suffragists used tactics such as parades, silent vigils, and hunger strikes. Often supporters met fierce resistance. Opponents heckled, jailed, and sometimes physically abused them.
By 1916, almost all of the major suffrage organizations were united behind the goal of a constitutional amendment. When New York adopted woman suffrage in 1917 and President Wilson changed his position to support an amendment in 1918, the political balance began to shift.
On May 21, 1919, the House of Representatives passed the amendment, and 2 weeks later, the Senate followed. When Tennessee became the 36th state to ratify the amendment on August 18, 1920, the amendment passed its final hurdle of obtaining the agreement of three-fourths of the states. Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby certified the ratification on August 26, 1920, changing the face of the American electorate forever.
For more information, visit the National Archives’ Digital Classroom Teaching With Documents Lesson Plan: Woman Suffrage and the 19th Amendment."
http://www.archives.gov/historical-do...
The answer ...? Votes. Same for African-American men and the right to vote. Same for a lot of things.
Travis wrote: "I'm saying, rights should not be done by vote. "
Yes, I heard you.
You also said it's easy. Rights for gay couples. This is an easy thing.
I've asked you to elucidate.
You ...?
Haven't ....
Other than to ask ... would leaving the decision in the hands of one man be a bad thing ....
Okay, so ... George says, Shanna says (at least says it's disgusting), and you say rights shouldn't be voted on. You say this is easy.
Explain, please. How? How do we get rights for gay couples in this country? What's your suggestion?
(By the way, doing it through the Supreme Court isn't easy. It's taken years. And, of course, I'm sure there are death threats and the whole lot of it. I know there were death threats against the judges in Vermont when the judges were dealing with civil unions. I remember seeing the protesters. One of whom was dangerous, actually. They took the governor the heck out of the capital when they discovered he was there. This particular person, if memory serves, had posters threatening harm to the judges and sent, allegedly, letters smeared with feces to the judges and people in high office. Of course, it's not illegal to threaten to kill people in Vermont, though I'm sure sending excrement through the mail is illegal. So, yeah, given all of this and your posts from yesterday, I'm guessing your original answer for how this would be easy was not the court. But, let me know.)
Yes, I heard you.
You also said it's easy. Rights for gay couples. This is an easy thing.
I've asked you to elucidate.
You ...?
Haven't ....
Other than to ask ... would leaving the decision in the hands of one man be a bad thing ....
Okay, so ... George says, Shanna says (at least says it's disgusting), and you say rights shouldn't be voted on. You say this is easy.
Explain, please. How? How do we get rights for gay couples in this country? What's your suggestion?
(By the way, doing it through the Supreme Court isn't easy. It's taken years. And, of course, I'm sure there are death threats and the whole lot of it. I know there were death threats against the judges in Vermont when the judges were dealing with civil unions. I remember seeing the protesters. One of whom was dangerous, actually. They took the governor the heck out of the capital when they discovered he was there. This particular person, if memory serves, had posters threatening harm to the judges and sent, allegedly, letters smeared with feces to the judges and people in high office. Of course, it's not illegal to threaten to kill people in Vermont, though I'm sure sending excrement through the mail is illegal. So, yeah, given all of this and your posts from yesterday, I'm guessing your original answer for how this would be easy was not the court. But, let me know.)
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "and about all that 'dishonoring sacrifice', did you ever find out if women got their vote through the vote or through the courts?"I'm unclear regarding how you meant this to read, ..."
Well, why didn't you just tell me this instead of ranting on about your grandmothers sacrifice?
Did not know that constitutional amendments went through a popular vote. The site i check just mentioned the amendment and I thought those only occurred through the senate, house and president.
but, also, lots of things went through the supreme court: like interracial marriage.
Travis wrote: "This is generally brought about through the courts."
Historically...? No. More recently? Yes.
Historically...? No. More recently? Yes.
Travis wrote: "Aside from the fact that your 'unlike today' comment seems to be saying gay people haven't suffered and sacrificed in the course of gaining rights, which is really insulting BS, I'm pretty sure the women's right to vote came about through the legal system and that your rant at the end really got away from you and I'm not entirely sure if you are arguing with me or agreeing? "
You're wrong. On all counts.
You're wrong. On all counts.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "This is generally brought about through the courts."Historically...? No. More recently? Yes."
Well in that case, let's keep the conversation recent then.
I've been wrong enough for one day.
Travis wrote: "Well, why didn't you just tell me this instead of ranting on about your grandmothers sacrifice? "
I did. Yesterday. Twice.
I did. Yesterday. Twice.
All amendments to the Constitution are through ratification, votes. So, all of the amendments, abolishing slavery, African-American men getting the vote, women getting the vote, etc... were done through ratification, voting.
And, yes, it's very hard. That's why, more likely than not, more and more people have chosen in recent years to go through the courts. The decisions made by the courts, though, are not amendments and do not change the Bill of Rights.
And, yes, it's very hard. That's why, more likely than not, more and more people have chosen in recent years to go through the courts. The decisions made by the courts, though, are not amendments and do not change the Bill of Rights.
Hi Shannon - welcome back! I knew you couldn't stay away. :)
"So concepts of gods and spirits are made more relevant by the organisation of our moral understandings, which by themselves do not especially require any gods or sprits."Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought
I would recommend this book to both sides of the religion/science debate. It is by no means anti-religious before anyone dismisses it straight out-of-hand.
cerebus wrote: "This is a good example of why religion and science are not the same, and should be kept separate."
Feel I need to add the disclaimer ... I hold with evolution ... prior to beginning.
Did anyone find it odd that MSN didn't name the school? Did anyone find it odd that MSN is using snoops.com as a "source" for this article? Did anyone find the sheep comment in the article to be a bit off considering there wasn't a question regarding dinosaurs being the size of sheep on the test?
I find myself wondering how many American children attend religious schools and how many attend public schools. I also found myself wondering if all religious schools teach science in this way. I don't know. And, of course, MSN didn't clear any of that up with this article.
Urban legend verified ....
Well, ....
We know a lot of religious people believe in creationism, etc.... A lot of religious people also believe in the theories put forth by evolution.
I think what is necessary is to educate. After all, we know all sorts of people believe all sorts of things. Like, people believing that religion has caused all or most wars....
Personally, I don't know that the key is separation. I think it might be education. The question ... how that education would take place. What would it look like? I'd start with the clerics, actually. I think. Not sure.
Feel I need to add the disclaimer ... I hold with evolution ... prior to beginning.
Did anyone find it odd that MSN didn't name the school? Did anyone find it odd that MSN is using snoops.com as a "source" for this article? Did anyone find the sheep comment in the article to be a bit off considering there wasn't a question regarding dinosaurs being the size of sheep on the test?
I find myself wondering how many American children attend religious schools and how many attend public schools. I also found myself wondering if all religious schools teach science in this way. I don't know. And, of course, MSN didn't clear any of that up with this article.
Urban legend verified ....
Well, ....
We know a lot of religious people believe in creationism, etc.... A lot of religious people also believe in the theories put forth by evolution.
I think what is necessary is to educate. After all, we know all sorts of people believe all sorts of things. Like, people believing that religion has caused all or most wars....
Personally, I don't know that the key is separation. I think it might be education. The question ... how that education would take place. What would it look like? I'd start with the clerics, actually. I think. Not sure.
cerebus wrote: "It is by no means anti-religious before anyone dismisses it straight out-of-hand. "
Could you share examples of the author's pro-religious stance?
Could you share examples of the author's pro-religious stance?
I didn't say he was pro-religious, I said he wasn't anti-religious.
cerebus wrote: "I didn't say he was pro-religious, I said he wasn't anti-religious."
Oh.
Oh.
cerebus wrote: "I didn't say he was pro-religious, I said he wasn't anti-religious."
Just took a peek at the stuff on GR. Would you say he simply details why religion came to be, citing things like brain function, the need for social ties, etc... (with no possibility for "God's" existence)? The scientific, including anthropological, and sociological evidence for the emergence of religion, ... without the vilification of religion and the religious as found in some of the writings of the more popular atheist authors? The scientific facts, as currently known, without the venom and extremism?
Just took a peek at the stuff on GR. Would you say he simply details why religion came to be, citing things like brain function, the need for social ties, etc... (with no possibility for "God's" existence)? The scientific, including anthropological, and sociological evidence for the emergence of religion, ... without the vilification of religion and the religious as found in some of the writings of the more popular atheist authors? The scientific facts, as currently known, without the venom and extremism?
Gay marriage ....
I got an e-mail on Monday, interestingly enough. Gay marriage was debated here all weekend, and there it was in my inbox. I didn't post anything about it at the time for a reason. I wanted to digest it and investigate a bit.
Several of my family members are pretty conservative. Further, they know of my pro-gay marriage stance. So, there was an e-mail regarding a gay rights "activist's" claims regarding gay marriage. It was from Glenn Beck's The Blaze.
Needless to say, on the one hand, Glenn Beck is extremely conservative. On the other hand, he's quite the Libertarian, I think. At any rate, I found it possibly suspect, potentially biased. Here it is, though.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/...
So, I had some time the last hour and was interested. I mean, I've known and worked with gay people. Some have wanted civil unions/marriage; some haven't. Those who wanted a union/marriage were very committed, had or adopted children, etc.... Most, to my knowledge, are still together. That was my background knowledge....
Yes, I've heard people say it's wrong for religious reasons, etc.... More recently, we've seen cHriS state it would harm the institution of marriage. How? Why?
Then, all of a sudden, bam, this landed in my e-mail.
I'd never heard of Masha Gessen before. The post I received labeled her a "lesbian activist" .... Well, in my initial hunting around, I found she's a writer, a journalist. I discovered she's been given a contract to write a book about the Boston bombers. It seemed to me that she's more author than activist, but I don't know.
I tried to find articles about the above that weren't put out by biased organizations. Also, had she followed up on her comments? Not real lucky on those fronts.
I did find the following. Not sure if this organization is liberal, conservative, or neither. I've never heard of it before and didn't find much on it. This is what they wrote.
http://www.inquisitr.com/641413/gay-m...
Finally, I found this radio interview with Gessen regarding gay marriage in Russia. Ummm.... You've got to be kidding me! I totally and completely did not know this was going on. Dang! This clip doesn't mention her views on marriage... But, I did find it eye-opening.
http://www.theworld.org/2013/03/gay-m...
Regarding the biased articles out there on this topic, .... I'm not copying them here. You can find them if you want. Some phrased things in ways that I didn't appreciate. I thought they could possibly be hurtful to gay individuals who might read them. The upshot. I've not really been able to discover why people think the push for gay marriage is a conspiracy to do away with marriage nor did I find information to explain Gessen's comments regarding what is planned, marriage elasticity, etc....
Other than, ....
The argument I made the other day.... If marriage rights are given to gay couples who love one another and are consenting adults, everyone who is an adult and is consenting will need to be given those rights, including polygamous and incestuous people. (The incestuous part was their argument, not mine. My mind hadn't even gone there.) They didn't, however, connect the dots for me regarding how that would destroy the institution of marriage. They, meaning the authors of the conservative articles, only said it would.
I'm left not knowing how to feel about Gessen's assertion that the push for gay marriage is a lie. As if there's some conspiracy ....
First, let me say, I know one thing. I'm so sick and tired of lies and half truths that I could go to the top of the nearest mountain and scream. What the heck is wrong with people? Why play games? Damn! If you have an agenda, regardless of what it might be, why not just come out with it. Let people decide on the merits. I mean, seriously.
With regard to this, ... Gessen is one person. I need more info, and I know, in my heart, that the people I've known didn't have a hidden agenda, an agenda which was to do away with marriage.
My next feeling ....
Even if some within the gay community have an hidden agenda and want to do away with marriage, I don't know that that's a reason to change my mind on the issue. Oh, I'd find it pretty darned despicable. I also find it fascinating, in a negative way. It gives me something to think about.
But, ... should the bull**** games of some lead me to make a decision regarding this, either way?
It gives me pause .... Just like finding out movers and shakers within atheism wrote books that included the whole idea that religion is the root of all evil and has caused most or all wars. Really? Because ... saying there's not evidence for "God" wasn't a strong enough argument. Throwing lies into the mix might convince more people to turn on their faith, so .... Why not? I mean, was that their agenda? Or, were they just uneducated? Finding the latter hard to believe, but .... Just like, what..... Certain religious leaders, males, have argued for five shades of forever that women should ... you name it ... cover their heads else they tempt angels, obey their fathers and husbands, etc.... I mean, cool deal if you're a man and a religious leader. Get to keep all that power, ... going way back, ... You get to wrest all that power from the women who had it to begin with, in some cultures, at least.
Hidden agendas abound. But, ... So what? What if there are a bunch of gay people who are sitting around and laughing over this ... ha, ha ... we're going to take down marriage ... that's the plan? Do I allow that to color my decision making regarding rights for others?
Just don't know ....
However, ...
It just became a bit more complicated. And, I'm guessing, this might be one of the reasons some might be against it ... the reason some might think it will hurt marriage. Oh, yeah. Some think it's icky. But, some could be worried more about this bull than about what pairings are kissing behind closed doors.
I got an e-mail on Monday, interestingly enough. Gay marriage was debated here all weekend, and there it was in my inbox. I didn't post anything about it at the time for a reason. I wanted to digest it and investigate a bit.
Several of my family members are pretty conservative. Further, they know of my pro-gay marriage stance. So, there was an e-mail regarding a gay rights "activist's" claims regarding gay marriage. It was from Glenn Beck's The Blaze.
Needless to say, on the one hand, Glenn Beck is extremely conservative. On the other hand, he's quite the Libertarian, I think. At any rate, I found it possibly suspect, potentially biased. Here it is, though.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/...
So, I had some time the last hour and was interested. I mean, I've known and worked with gay people. Some have wanted civil unions/marriage; some haven't. Those who wanted a union/marriage were very committed, had or adopted children, etc.... Most, to my knowledge, are still together. That was my background knowledge....
Yes, I've heard people say it's wrong for religious reasons, etc.... More recently, we've seen cHriS state it would harm the institution of marriage. How? Why?
Then, all of a sudden, bam, this landed in my e-mail.
I'd never heard of Masha Gessen before. The post I received labeled her a "lesbian activist" .... Well, in my initial hunting around, I found she's a writer, a journalist. I discovered she's been given a contract to write a book about the Boston bombers. It seemed to me that she's more author than activist, but I don't know.
I tried to find articles about the above that weren't put out by biased organizations. Also, had she followed up on her comments? Not real lucky on those fronts.
I did find the following. Not sure if this organization is liberal, conservative, or neither. I've never heard of it before and didn't find much on it. This is what they wrote.
http://www.inquisitr.com/641413/gay-m...
Finally, I found this radio interview with Gessen regarding gay marriage in Russia. Ummm.... You've got to be kidding me! I totally and completely did not know this was going on. Dang! This clip doesn't mention her views on marriage... But, I did find it eye-opening.
http://www.theworld.org/2013/03/gay-m...
Regarding the biased articles out there on this topic, .... I'm not copying them here. You can find them if you want. Some phrased things in ways that I didn't appreciate. I thought they could possibly be hurtful to gay individuals who might read them. The upshot. I've not really been able to discover why people think the push for gay marriage is a conspiracy to do away with marriage nor did I find information to explain Gessen's comments regarding what is planned, marriage elasticity, etc....
Other than, ....
The argument I made the other day.... If marriage rights are given to gay couples who love one another and are consenting adults, everyone who is an adult and is consenting will need to be given those rights, including polygamous and incestuous people. (The incestuous part was their argument, not mine. My mind hadn't even gone there.) They didn't, however, connect the dots for me regarding how that would destroy the institution of marriage. They, meaning the authors of the conservative articles, only said it would.
I'm left not knowing how to feel about Gessen's assertion that the push for gay marriage is a lie. As if there's some conspiracy ....
First, let me say, I know one thing. I'm so sick and tired of lies and half truths that I could go to the top of the nearest mountain and scream. What the heck is wrong with people? Why play games? Damn! If you have an agenda, regardless of what it might be, why not just come out with it. Let people decide on the merits. I mean, seriously.
With regard to this, ... Gessen is one person. I need more info, and I know, in my heart, that the people I've known didn't have a hidden agenda, an agenda which was to do away with marriage.
My next feeling ....
Even if some within the gay community have an hidden agenda and want to do away with marriage, I don't know that that's a reason to change my mind on the issue. Oh, I'd find it pretty darned despicable. I also find it fascinating, in a negative way. It gives me something to think about.
But, ... should the bull**** games of some lead me to make a decision regarding this, either way?
It gives me pause .... Just like finding out movers and shakers within atheism wrote books that included the whole idea that religion is the root of all evil and has caused most or all wars. Really? Because ... saying there's not evidence for "God" wasn't a strong enough argument. Throwing lies into the mix might convince more people to turn on their faith, so .... Why not? I mean, was that their agenda? Or, were they just uneducated? Finding the latter hard to believe, but .... Just like, what..... Certain religious leaders, males, have argued for five shades of forever that women should ... you name it ... cover their heads else they tempt angels, obey their fathers and husbands, etc.... I mean, cool deal if you're a man and a religious leader. Get to keep all that power, ... going way back, ... You get to wrest all that power from the women who had it to begin with, in some cultures, at least.
Hidden agendas abound. But, ... So what? What if there are a bunch of gay people who are sitting around and laughing over this ... ha, ha ... we're going to take down marriage ... that's the plan? Do I allow that to color my decision making regarding rights for others?
Just don't know ....
However, ...
It just became a bit more complicated. And, I'm guessing, this might be one of the reasons some might be against it ... the reason some might think it will hurt marriage. Oh, yeah. Some think it's icky. But, some could be worried more about this bull than about what pairings are kissing behind closed doors.
There are genetic implications for the offspring of an incestuous relationship, so I would not put it in the same category as same-sex marriage. Polygamy on the other hand is down to the people involved, so I have no particular issues with that....it would need to have a legal framework that would ensure fairness (I.e. no financial incentives, e.g. tax) but other than that, it doesn't bother me.
Yes, for the 'Religion Explained' book, I would agree with your summary.
Sorry, just re-read your summary of the book, and should clarify, whilst I am not finished, the author has not yet taken any position on the existence or otherwise of a deity. That is, your summary of his use of anthropology, cognitive science etc is correct, but none of it (so far, about 2/3 of the way through the book) relates to the actual existence or otherwise of a god.
cerebus wrote: "There are genetic implications for the offspring of an incestuous relationship, so I would not put it in the same category as same-sex marriage. Polygamy on the other hand is down to the people inv..."Anyone else a bit concerned that any conversation about gay marriage always leads to incest and group marriage?
Do people really see it as an 'A to B to C' progression?
Or is there a big incest lobby that I'm not aware of?
If it was one person bringing it up, I could understand, but it's a mix of unconnected people and it's a bit baffling to me.
Travis wrote: "cerebus wrote: "There are genetic implications for the offspring of an incestuous relationship, so I would not put it in the same category as same-sex marriage. Polygamy on the other hand is down t..."It's to be expected as it is one of the most common objections, based on assumptions of it being a slippery slope....the "well, it *might* be ok, but if we allow it then we'll end up with church weddings of a sheep and a toaster!". It's wrong, it's irrelevant, but it's not surprising.
And considering polygamy is often related to specific religions or beliefs, then you'd think believers would be all for it....
Do either of you have information regarding Gessen and her comments?
I mean, .... I know where the other comes from. Yes, there are genetic implications with regard to incest. And, frankly, I'll be the first to say I find it icky. Understatement. Times a million. Regarding polygamy, well, I'm guessing there are financial and psychological issues with that. By psychological, I mean ... jealousy, etc.... Of course, it's also been abused throughout history. You know, all the old men who liked marrying bunches of teenage girls. Not to be credited only to the religious. After all, from my reading, there are all sorts of sex slave operations going on all over the place. Positive not all of the men partaking in that are religious. Today, they don't need to marry in order to .... Though, I just read a particularly nasty article about one month contracted "marriages" of Indian girls, girls to old men, of course. But, I think I digress. Suffice it to say, I think I might find polygamy to be icky. Definitely find abusive polygamy to be icky. Unclear about the other.
But, yeah, ultimately, ... if it's about consenting adults and only consenting adults and the rights of said adults, shouldn't those rights be given to all? Regarding incestuous relationships and genetic implications, ... Do we have rules or laws regarding people who will likely pass on genetic defects, low IQ, etc...? Two heterosexuals, for example, with seriously low IQ's? Do they get to get married? Yes. So, ...? Really, if we're going to change the definition of and the laws regarding marriage, to, basically, include consenting adults, period, it needs to extend past the current group who is lobbying for the change and past our comfort level. Or, does it?
What I don't get ....
Don't know where Gessen's statements come from. What's up with what she said and the crowd's response?
And, what are your thoughts on hidden agendas, if they exist, and what part they should play in decision making?
I mean, .... I know where the other comes from. Yes, there are genetic implications with regard to incest. And, frankly, I'll be the first to say I find it icky. Understatement. Times a million. Regarding polygamy, well, I'm guessing there are financial and psychological issues with that. By psychological, I mean ... jealousy, etc.... Of course, it's also been abused throughout history. You know, all the old men who liked marrying bunches of teenage girls. Not to be credited only to the religious. After all, from my reading, there are all sorts of sex slave operations going on all over the place. Positive not all of the men partaking in that are religious. Today, they don't need to marry in order to .... Though, I just read a particularly nasty article about one month contracted "marriages" of Indian girls, girls to old men, of course. But, I think I digress. Suffice it to say, I think I might find polygamy to be icky. Definitely find abusive polygamy to be icky. Unclear about the other.
But, yeah, ultimately, ... if it's about consenting adults and only consenting adults and the rights of said adults, shouldn't those rights be given to all? Regarding incestuous relationships and genetic implications, ... Do we have rules or laws regarding people who will likely pass on genetic defects, low IQ, etc...? Two heterosexuals, for example, with seriously low IQ's? Do they get to get married? Yes. So, ...? Really, if we're going to change the definition of and the laws regarding marriage, to, basically, include consenting adults, period, it needs to extend past the current group who is lobbying for the change and past our comfort level. Or, does it?
What I don't get ....
Don't know where Gessen's statements come from. What's up with what she said and the crowd's response?
And, what are your thoughts on hidden agendas, if they exist, and what part they should play in decision making?
Travis wrote: "Anyone else a bit concerned that any conversation about gay marriage always leads to incest and group marriage?"
Until today, I didn't realize any conversation about gay marriage always leads to incest. As I mentioned, my mind never went there.
Do they? All conversations? I've heard polygamy before but not that. Is this a thing that's been part of the discussion for a long time? If so, where have I been? But, perhaps I've not been following the discussion as closely ... given where I live, it's not been discussed as much, perhaps, as in areas without civil unions and gay marriage. I don't know.
Until today, I didn't realize any conversation about gay marriage always leads to incest. As I mentioned, my mind never went there.
Do they? All conversations? I've heard polygamy before but not that. Is this a thing that's been part of the discussion for a long time? If so, where have I been? But, perhaps I've not been following the discussion as closely ... given where I live, it's not been discussed as much, perhaps, as in areas without civil unions and gay marriage. I don't know.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Anyone else a bit concerned that any conversation about gay marriage always leads to incest and group marriage?"Until today, I didn't realize any conversation about gay marriage al..."
It's happened a couple times on this thread.
It just strikes me as odd, as it's been from people scattered across the spectrum, but is just reeled off in conversation, like it's a common word grouping, like 'Bacon, lettuce and tomato'.
I'd heard it done by people freaking out on Fox news, but to see it in a more conversational setting was just jarring.
Just got me wondering.
Shannon wrote: "Do either of you have information regarding Gessen and the her comments?I mean, .... I know where the other comes from. Yes, there are genetic implications with regard to incest. And, frankly,..."
Much as I enjoy a good conspiracy, and one featuring a radical lesbian and the end of marriage as we know it is doubly entertaining, but the little bit of the article I skimmed gave her the vibe of being a kind of Ann Coulter, saying stuff to get a rise out of people.
To be honest, the minute you say 'Glenn Beck', I kind of tune out, as he sees conspiracies in everything and he and I are generally on the opposite ends of most issues.
How effective can a conspiracy be if you are announcing that you are a conspiracy?
Next time my gay friends have another dinner party I could ask them, but they seem too busy raising their kids and training their new dog to do much marriage destroying.
Travis wrote: "I'd heard it done by people freaking out on Fox news, but to see it in a more conversational setting was just jarring.
Just got me wondering."
I've not seen it here, but, honestly, I sometimes skim and skip some of the extremist posts. Not overly interested.
Regarding my bringing it up in conversation, .... I'd not have seen the argument if I hadn't gotten the e-mail and decided to research it. It? Gessen's comments about the ultimate goals regarding gay marriage. In that research, as I detailed, I found that argument.
I'm thinking we need to have a broader discussion. By we, I mean the people at large. Is this just about homosexuals? Gay marriage? That's it. That's all. Or, should we be thinking about other groups? I'll say people who want to enter into polygamous marriages. We know they exist. Are there reasons to stop some people from this right? Maybe there are. I don't know. I've not researched it, so I have nothing to point to and no real feeling about it. Other than, ....
If it's about rights, it's about rights. If it's really and truly about rights, whose rights are we discussing? The rights of all people? Or, just the rights of homosexuals? Heck, I don't even know the stance of other countries, though after listening to that clip, I can guess where Russia stands. cHriS has discussed civil unions in the UK and has told us that the rights offered are the same. Do those unions extend to all people? I'm guessing not, given his posts. People have discussed Canada. Do all people get to marry? Or, do just heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to be couples get to marry?
Do we consider some acts and relationships to be abhorrent? Even when dealing with consenting adults? I'll go on the record and say I consider incestuous relations to be abhorrent. Even if those involved are adults, given family dynamics, there might be power issues, etc.... However, I find myself stopping .... How many heterosexual couples, who are in unhealthy relationships with horrid power issues, marry every single day? A lot. I know some.
It should be discussed, openly and honestly, in my opinion. Has it been? Have other countries had the discussions? Openly and honestly. Where did the discussions lead?
Ultimately, in my opinion, either it's about gay couples or it's about the rights of adults. A case can be made for either. Why not let the decision succeed or fail based on the merits? Should gay couples have the right to marry, because they're just like us? Or, should all consenting adults have the right to marry, regardless? Or, are we, the people in general not here, afraid to have the discussion? Afraid it will scuttle the chances for gay couples or afraid of looking close-minded regarding relationships that might make us feel uncomfortable? But, hey, maybe there are, purely and simply, icky relationships that should never see the light of day. Don't know....
Just got me wondering."
I've not seen it here, but, honestly, I sometimes skim and skip some of the extremist posts. Not overly interested.
Regarding my bringing it up in conversation, .... I'd not have seen the argument if I hadn't gotten the e-mail and decided to research it. It? Gessen's comments about the ultimate goals regarding gay marriage. In that research, as I detailed, I found that argument.
I'm thinking we need to have a broader discussion. By we, I mean the people at large. Is this just about homosexuals? Gay marriage? That's it. That's all. Or, should we be thinking about other groups? I'll say people who want to enter into polygamous marriages. We know they exist. Are there reasons to stop some people from this right? Maybe there are. I don't know. I've not researched it, so I have nothing to point to and no real feeling about it. Other than, ....
If it's about rights, it's about rights. If it's really and truly about rights, whose rights are we discussing? The rights of all people? Or, just the rights of homosexuals? Heck, I don't even know the stance of other countries, though after listening to that clip, I can guess where Russia stands. cHriS has discussed civil unions in the UK and has told us that the rights offered are the same. Do those unions extend to all people? I'm guessing not, given his posts. People have discussed Canada. Do all people get to marry? Or, do just heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to be couples get to marry?
Do we consider some acts and relationships to be abhorrent? Even when dealing with consenting adults? I'll go on the record and say I consider incestuous relations to be abhorrent. Even if those involved are adults, given family dynamics, there might be power issues, etc.... However, I find myself stopping .... How many heterosexual couples, who are in unhealthy relationships with horrid power issues, marry every single day? A lot. I know some.
It should be discussed, openly and honestly, in my opinion. Has it been? Have other countries had the discussions? Openly and honestly. Where did the discussions lead?
Ultimately, in my opinion, either it's about gay couples or it's about the rights of adults. A case can be made for either. Why not let the decision succeed or fail based on the merits? Should gay couples have the right to marry, because they're just like us? Or, should all consenting adults have the right to marry, regardless? Or, are we, the people in general not here, afraid to have the discussion? Afraid it will scuttle the chances for gay couples or afraid of looking close-minded regarding relationships that might make us feel uncomfortable? But, hey, maybe there are, purely and simply, icky relationships that should never see the light of day. Don't know....
Travis wrote: "Much as I enjoy a good conspiracy, and one featuring a radical lesbian and the end of marriage as we know it is doubly entertaining, but the little bit of the article I skimmed gave her the vibe of being a kind of Ann Coulter, saying stuff to get a rise out of people.
To be honest, the minute you say 'Glenn Beck', I kind of tune out, as he sees conspiracies in everything and he and I are generally on the opposite ends of most issues.
How effective can a conspiracy be if you are announcing that you are a conspiracy?"
Was wondering about Gessen.... As I said, I'd not heard of her until this week or read about her until today and, for the most part, only read about her writing, etc.... Maybe she's a Coulter. I don't know.
Regarding Beck, .... There's a reason I disclosed the source of the email. I believe in full disclosure. And, ... that's why I wanted to do some looking before posting. Yes, he does see lots of conspiracies. Interestingly enough, though, he's sometimes right. Which, is pretty darned frightening. Example .... A couple years ago, he was going on an on about the fact that our grocery bills would double. Everyone said he was full of it. Guess what? Our grocery bills doubled. No clue about this, though. Her words do speak for themselves, regardless of Beck. She said it. And, when she said it, the crowd went wild. I just don't know why....
To be honest, the minute you say 'Glenn Beck', I kind of tune out, as he sees conspiracies in everything and he and I are generally on the opposite ends of most issues.
How effective can a conspiracy be if you are announcing that you are a conspiracy?"
Was wondering about Gessen.... As I said, I'd not heard of her until this week or read about her until today and, for the most part, only read about her writing, etc.... Maybe she's a Coulter. I don't know.
Regarding Beck, .... There's a reason I disclosed the source of the email. I believe in full disclosure. And, ... that's why I wanted to do some looking before posting. Yes, he does see lots of conspiracies. Interestingly enough, though, he's sometimes right. Which, is pretty darned frightening. Example .... A couple years ago, he was going on an on about the fact that our grocery bills would double. Everyone said he was full of it. Guess what? Our grocery bills doubled. No clue about this, though. Her words do speak for themselves, regardless of Beck. She said it. And, when she said it, the crowd went wild. I just don't know why....
By wild, I mean, they clapped enthusiastically. In support of her statement. They didn't sound shocked or scandalized. Just don't know....
cerebus wrote: "An example of where religious belief impacts all of us."
From the link ....
“'[I]t stands to reason that most nonbelievers would support preserving the Earth for future generations, but that end-times believers would rationally perceive such efforts to be ultimately futile, and hence ill-advised," Barker and Bearce explained.
That very sentiment has been expressed by federal legislators. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) said in 2010 that he opposed action on climate change because “the Earth will end only when God declares it to be over.” He is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy."
My first question ... does it stand to reason and only stand to reason? Or, was there a question in this study that asked these believers if they didn't want to act on climate change due to their belief in the second coming and end times? It stands to reason...? When dealing with other things, from nuclear proliferation to ... I don't know ... do believers say, "It really doesn't matter. Jesus is coming and the end times are upon us."
Now, we do have this representative saying the world will end when God says so.
My grandfather used to say that, too. He was a pilot. My grandmother used to get nervous, fearful he'd crash. His job was to investigate the crashes in our state. He'd say, "I believe God has a plan. I'll go when it's my time." Interestingly, though, he still went to work, payed the bills, saved money, sent his kids to college, painted the house, etc....
A bit different save one thing .... Anecdote. I know some look down their noses at anecdote.
Again, I'd want to know more. What, exactly, was said? Maybe he really is a schmuck, this guy. For sure. How many more of them are there? How many republicans in power are against moving on climate change due to the second coming? How many have said schmuck-like things?
Anecdote ....
I know people who are against climate change. I've never once heard Jesus and end times as a reason. Never. Once.
I've heard two things.
First, the bull**** games played in this country at the start. When people said, "What do you mean climate change is caused by humans, there has always been climate change. Look at the ice ages," people didn't address it properly. It's all about delivery, you see. What happened? Climate change folk kept making their same statement, over and over. Then, they started saying the people who'd raise such questions were illiterate. Even said they weren't right. Well, actually, they were right. We've always had climate change. Anyone who is intellectually honest and has a lick of education and common sense knows that. Say it. But, no, instead of admitting that, they dug in, denied it and called people stupid. That led people to believe it was all a hoax to begin with. Instead of taking the risk of explaining it as it really is ... explaining that, throughout history, humans never had such an footprint and that just might tip us over the edge, games were played. In the US. The people I know who are against this don't follow liars. They took this one thing and assumed the promoters were lying about everything, if they were lying about something as simple as that.
The second thing I've heard ... the economy. Do you know how much we pay for gas? How much people in California pay for gas? California has a ton of restrictions on their gas. Making it as clean as possible, etc..., etc... in order to save the planet. Well, they pay an arm and a leg. Maybe that's right. Regardless of right and wrong, people say they don't have the money to live like that.
So, ....
While interesting, I'd want more information on this study prior to giving up all hope in the common sense of believers in America. It reads like ... Do you believe in end times? Oh, this percentage of Americans believe in end times. Therefore, it stands to reason that they'd not move on climate change.
Speaking of climate change, ... a weird article was in the paper the other day ... though I didn't research it. A scientist said the computer models or math formulas were off. Were they? What does that mean?
Guessing you don't have thoughts to share on rights and Gessen. True?
From the link ....
“'[I]t stands to reason that most nonbelievers would support preserving the Earth for future generations, but that end-times believers would rationally perceive such efforts to be ultimately futile, and hence ill-advised," Barker and Bearce explained.
That very sentiment has been expressed by federal legislators. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) said in 2010 that he opposed action on climate change because “the Earth will end only when God declares it to be over.” He is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy."
My first question ... does it stand to reason and only stand to reason? Or, was there a question in this study that asked these believers if they didn't want to act on climate change due to their belief in the second coming and end times? It stands to reason...? When dealing with other things, from nuclear proliferation to ... I don't know ... do believers say, "It really doesn't matter. Jesus is coming and the end times are upon us."
Now, we do have this representative saying the world will end when God says so.
My grandfather used to say that, too. He was a pilot. My grandmother used to get nervous, fearful he'd crash. His job was to investigate the crashes in our state. He'd say, "I believe God has a plan. I'll go when it's my time." Interestingly, though, he still went to work, payed the bills, saved money, sent his kids to college, painted the house, etc....
A bit different save one thing .... Anecdote. I know some look down their noses at anecdote.
Again, I'd want to know more. What, exactly, was said? Maybe he really is a schmuck, this guy. For sure. How many more of them are there? How many republicans in power are against moving on climate change due to the second coming? How many have said schmuck-like things?
Anecdote ....
I know people who are against climate change. I've never once heard Jesus and end times as a reason. Never. Once.
I've heard two things.
First, the bull**** games played in this country at the start. When people said, "What do you mean climate change is caused by humans, there has always been climate change. Look at the ice ages," people didn't address it properly. It's all about delivery, you see. What happened? Climate change folk kept making their same statement, over and over. Then, they started saying the people who'd raise such questions were illiterate. Even said they weren't right. Well, actually, they were right. We've always had climate change. Anyone who is intellectually honest and has a lick of education and common sense knows that. Say it. But, no, instead of admitting that, they dug in, denied it and called people stupid. That led people to believe it was all a hoax to begin with. Instead of taking the risk of explaining it as it really is ... explaining that, throughout history, humans never had such an footprint and that just might tip us over the edge, games were played. In the US. The people I know who are against this don't follow liars. They took this one thing and assumed the promoters were lying about everything, if they were lying about something as simple as that.
The second thing I've heard ... the economy. Do you know how much we pay for gas? How much people in California pay for gas? California has a ton of restrictions on their gas. Making it as clean as possible, etc..., etc... in order to save the planet. Well, they pay an arm and a leg. Maybe that's right. Regardless of right and wrong, people say they don't have the money to live like that.
So, ....
While interesting, I'd want more information on this study prior to giving up all hope in the common sense of believers in America. It reads like ... Do you believe in end times? Oh, this percentage of Americans believe in end times. Therefore, it stands to reason that they'd not move on climate change.
Speaking of climate change, ... a weird article was in the paper the other day ... though I didn't research it. A scientist said the computer models or math formulas were off. Were they? What does that mean?
Guessing you don't have thoughts to share on rights and Gessen. True?
cerebus wrote: "An example of where religious belief impacts all of us."Maybe cows and cars have more to do with it, but I guess the blame will be more the fault of those dam religious cows.
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...
The right of women to vote was decided by votes.