Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Shannon wrote: "Is that all that would be different? No theists and no atheists? Hmmm....
If some get their wish and religion goes poof, how will the world be different and how will our lives be better? In g..."
The AIDS epidemic could be slowed in Africa, if religion were gone and then those people could actually see there their loved ones in this life, oh and the familial ostracization of homosexuals by religious families could largely stop enabling people to see their loved ones in this life. Religiously justified killings of homosexuals, "witches", children denied medical care, women then they could enjoy their loved one in this life.
Oh the thousands in 9/11, the victims of Tokyo sarin attacks, Jonestown, Waco, Theo Van Gogh, might all be alive to see their loved one in this life.
Pure speculation but if science had been allowed to progress unmolested by religion we might have a cure for cancer, AIDS may have been nipped in the bud, we might have a handle on how to live on this planet without destroying it if the doctrine of "all is here to serve man" hadn't been enshrined and pursued.
Who knows what might be? And yes the bad aspects human nature would still exist but they wouldn't have mode of justification that is OK with some.
Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "It has a few meanings. I am using it in the context:'survival of those who are better equipped for surviving'
Those who are the least burden on society."
"no survival of the fittest ..."
no survival of the fittest is very specific to evolution, and has no meaning within the context you wish to use."
Ok so you have googled 'survival of the fittest' and have found some connection to Darwin and from the little you have digested in a few minutes you conclude that there is no other meaning outside of your findings. phew
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepoli...http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/...
http://content.usatoday.com/communiti...
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2...
message 2855:
by
aPriL does feral sometimes
(last edited Apr 21, 2012 04:24PM)
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
A major difference would be more than half of the terrorist attacks in the world would cease, and ppl in Sudan, Nigeria, Thailand, Pakistan and many, many other countries would stop killing each other for believing in different god(s) or worshiping the same god in different ways.
There wouldn't be American leaders blaming natural disasters on LBGT community, or abortion. Women's access to health care being eroded it only be a matter of time before women's deaths can be directly linked to christian conservative's erosion of planned parenthood and basic medical care, "don't worry you'll see you Mom in the afterlife, but we refuse to save her in this one, but she died doing what we deemed the right thing" Will be poor comfort for her children.We spend to much time concentrating on an afterlife we have no evidence for to the detriment of what is actually real, in front of us and and far as we KNOW is all we get.
Shanna wrote: "Oh the thousands in 9/11, the victims of Tokyo sarin attacks, Jonestown, Waco, Theo Van Gogh, might all be alive to see their loved one in this life.Pure speculation but if science had been allowed to progress unmolested by religion we might have a cure for cancer, AIDS may have been nipped in the bud, we might have a handle on how to live on this planet without destroying it if the doctrine of "all is here to serve man" hadn't been enshrined and pursued. "
Again, Shana, I'm talking about now. As I mentioned, other than acknowledging the past, we have no control over what happened in the past.
The question, for those who hope for a future world without religion, is what would be different? How would that world be better?
You have a point in regard to homosexuality. Of course, not all religious people are against homosexuality. The United Methodist Church, for example, has established itself as a "reconciling" church. And, I wonder if some would ostracize homosexuals even without religion. As humans, we tend not to appreciate those with differing thoughts, beliefs, and lifestyles. But, largely, you have a point with regard to that.
Not sure I understand how the AIDS epidemic would slow in Africa if religion were eradicated. I heard or read that many African men believe, if they had sex with a virgin, they'll rid themselves of AIDS. That's why, I read, so many African men with AIDS were raping little girls. Is that a religious belief?
Another reason AIDS is ravaging people of African descent has to do with science. Well, not science itself, but .... I saw an incredible show on PBS several years ago and did subsequent reading on the subject. Scientists found that some never get AIDS. What? They started doing research and tied it all back to the Black Death that ravaged much of Europe. They looked specifically at a town in England and the people of the town whose ancestors went back to that time. That particular town, the inhabitants of the town, stayed put during the outbreaks. Scientists found, excuse my simplistic explanation, that those who had a special strand of DNA got sick but survived. Those who had two strands of this special DNA, who were born to parents who each had a strand, never got sick. Well, of course, those who lacked the special strand (can't remember the name) died. Died in large numbers, as we're aware. That left, largely, people with one or two strands of this DNA. How does that link with AIDS today? You hear of people who don't show signs of the illness until 10 years out. Those people have one strand of the DNA. (Strand might be the wrong word. But, you get my point.) This man they were working with ... he had two ... or ... had it from both his mother and father. You could inject him with tainted blood every day and he would never develop the disease. At any rate, one of the reasons AIDS is decimating people of African descent is the fact that, largely, they did not suffer the Black Death when European did. I'm not saying that's the only reason. But, it is a reason.
So.... Ultimately, I still ask the question. Let's look at the idea, espoused by some, that religion should be done away with. Let's take it and try to make it practical. Who is going to be the first? Who is going to turn to the person whose life has been torn apart and say ... you know ... you shouldn't believe in God, you shouldn't believe there's a meaning to this life beyond life, you shouldn't have faith that you'll be reunited with your loved one ... that's all bunk! And, if we did away with religion, people with homosexual family members could enjoy them in this life. There. Does that comfort you and give you solace?
Ultimately, that's what we'd be doing. Right? It's one thing to say it would be just ducky if we lived in a world without religion!! After all, there'd be no wars. Not. There'd be no violence. Not. There'd be no delusional people who believe in things that can't be proven. Not. Okay. Forget all of that. At least there wouldn't be religion! At least there wouldn't be people running round doing things in the name of religion? They'd just switch things up. Do it in the name of greed ... in their own names .... Phew. That makes me feel so much better. Oh, but it doesn't.
Ummm.... So, now, we come down to this ....
On my nightly news a few nights ago, there was a story about a New England family whose son just died. He'd battled some horrid disease for years. I think he was around five or six. He'd become "famous" when he was a baby. He needed bone marrow, and there was a huge search for people who would be tested. Over one hundred people's lives were saved from the search for bone marrow for this little boy. His father, who was interviewed, said that gave him solace. He knew his boy's life had meaning. He helped save over a hundred people. His mother? She was also interviewed, crying. She said she got comfort from the fact that he was "in heaven with Jesus" and that she's see him again.
So, again, I ask .... It's one thing to say it on this thread ... I live for the day that we don't live in a world with religion!! Yippeee!! Okay... And...? So...? Is it just an ideal? One you've not really thought through. Something to say. An idea that you don't intend to try to make happen. Or, are you going to turn to this mother and say she shouldn't believe? I'm guessing the answer to that is no. No, when it comes right down to it, I'm guessing you'd not have the stomach to say that to a grieving mother, a believer. Right?
Because, ultimately, it's one thing to talk about it. It's another thing to do it. Doing that ... wouldn't be respectful ... wouldn't be responsible. It wouldn't be right. Right?
And ... that's what we're talking about .... Taking it down to that one person .... And, ultimately, would the world be a better place and would your lives be better if that woman didn't believe? If so, how?
I see ATCM has posted several sites. I must go and see if they explain flying cars and talking cats.
Again, Shana, I'm talking about now. As I mentioned, other than acknowledging the past, we have no control over what happened in the past.
The question, for those who hope for a future world without religion, is what would be different? How would that world be better?
You have a point in regard to homosexuality. Of course, not all religious people are against homosexuality. The United Methodist Church, for example, has established itself as a "reconciling" church. And, I wonder if some would ostracize homosexuals even without religion. As humans, we tend not to appreciate those with differing thoughts, beliefs, and lifestyles. But, largely, you have a point with regard to that.
Not sure I understand how the AIDS epidemic would slow in Africa if religion were eradicated. I heard or read that many African men believe, if they had sex with a virgin, they'll rid themselves of AIDS. That's why, I read, so many African men with AIDS were raping little girls. Is that a religious belief?
Another reason AIDS is ravaging people of African descent has to do with science. Well, not science itself, but .... I saw an incredible show on PBS several years ago and did subsequent reading on the subject. Scientists found that some never get AIDS. What? They started doing research and tied it all back to the Black Death that ravaged much of Europe. They looked specifically at a town in England and the people of the town whose ancestors went back to that time. That particular town, the inhabitants of the town, stayed put during the outbreaks. Scientists found, excuse my simplistic explanation, that those who had a special strand of DNA got sick but survived. Those who had two strands of this special DNA, who were born to parents who each had a strand, never got sick. Well, of course, those who lacked the special strand (can't remember the name) died. Died in large numbers, as we're aware. That left, largely, people with one or two strands of this DNA. How does that link with AIDS today? You hear of people who don't show signs of the illness until 10 years out. Those people have one strand of the DNA. (Strand might be the wrong word. But, you get my point.) This man they were working with ... he had two ... or ... had it from both his mother and father. You could inject him with tainted blood every day and he would never develop the disease. At any rate, one of the reasons AIDS is decimating people of African descent is the fact that, largely, they did not suffer the Black Death when European did. I'm not saying that's the only reason. But, it is a reason.
So.... Ultimately, I still ask the question. Let's look at the idea, espoused by some, that religion should be done away with. Let's take it and try to make it practical. Who is going to be the first? Who is going to turn to the person whose life has been torn apart and say ... you know ... you shouldn't believe in God, you shouldn't believe there's a meaning to this life beyond life, you shouldn't have faith that you'll be reunited with your loved one ... that's all bunk! And, if we did away with religion, people with homosexual family members could enjoy them in this life. There. Does that comfort you and give you solace?
Ultimately, that's what we'd be doing. Right? It's one thing to say it would be just ducky if we lived in a world without religion!! After all, there'd be no wars. Not. There'd be no violence. Not. There'd be no delusional people who believe in things that can't be proven. Not. Okay. Forget all of that. At least there wouldn't be religion! At least there wouldn't be people running round doing things in the name of religion? They'd just switch things up. Do it in the name of greed ... in their own names .... Phew. That makes me feel so much better. Oh, but it doesn't.
Ummm.... So, now, we come down to this ....
On my nightly news a few nights ago, there was a story about a New England family whose son just died. He'd battled some horrid disease for years. I think he was around five or six. He'd become "famous" when he was a baby. He needed bone marrow, and there was a huge search for people who would be tested. Over one hundred people's lives were saved from the search for bone marrow for this little boy. His father, who was interviewed, said that gave him solace. He knew his boy's life had meaning. He helped save over a hundred people. His mother? She was also interviewed, crying. She said she got comfort from the fact that he was "in heaven with Jesus" and that she's see him again.
So, again, I ask .... It's one thing to say it on this thread ... I live for the day that we don't live in a world with religion!! Yippeee!! Okay... And...? So...? Is it just an ideal? One you've not really thought through. Something to say. An idea that you don't intend to try to make happen. Or, are you going to turn to this mother and say she shouldn't believe? I'm guessing the answer to that is no. No, when it comes right down to it, I'm guessing you'd not have the stomach to say that to a grieving mother, a believer. Right?
Because, ultimately, it's one thing to talk about it. It's another thing to do it. Doing that ... wouldn't be respectful ... wouldn't be responsible. It wouldn't be right. Right?
And ... that's what we're talking about .... Taking it down to that one person .... And, ultimately, would the world be a better place and would your lives be better if that woman didn't believe? If so, how?
I see ATCM has posted several sites. I must go and see if they explain flying cars and talking cats.
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/educatio..."
I'm aware of our current standings. Of course, I'm also aware that some countries don't include all of their students in their testing data. But, I guess that's an aside.
I'm still at a loss. What is the lowest common denominator? Hmmm...? Is there proof that religion is to blame for test scores? Don't think I saw that in the article I looked at? One wouldn't load for me. But, if you're aware of how religion is linked with low test scores and if you'd like to tell me what you meant by the "lowest common denominator" ... and I hope you didn't mean children ... I'm more than willing to listen.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/educatio..."
I'm aware of our current standings. Of course, I'm also aware that some countries don't include all of their students in their testing data. But, I guess that's an aside.
I'm still at a loss. What is the lowest common denominator? Hmmm...? Is there proof that religion is to blame for test scores? Don't think I saw that in the article I looked at? One wouldn't load for me. But, if you're aware of how religion is linked with low test scores and if you'd like to tell me what you meant by the "lowest common denominator" ... and I hope you didn't mean children ... I'm more than willing to listen.
AIDS in africa is spread by the condemnation of the Catholic Church of the only method that effectively prevents it, condoms. Raping little girls is a common superstition though out various times (I believe one or more of the Popes and several kings "slept" with maids in the hope of ridding themselves disease presumably passing it on the maids, without care for them), promulgated by ignorance and the idea that you can give it away, again science would knock this on the head.Yeah I saw that documentary (and it was facinating) too but what has that to do with the fact the condoms are the only effective way prevent transmission and the Catholic church condemns their usage telling their faithful they'll go to hell or the flat out lie that they don't work. All in a country with poor medical care, little access to anti retrovirals, while telling wives they must submit to husbands.
Where is the comfort that some god would effectively torture a child with a horrible death rather than say take those donors and seed the idea of getting tested and donating while driving in their car listening to a radio advert, or giving them their own personal health scare that when cleared up prompted them to want to help others, no he tortured a child with a horrid illness, if I buy into the god bit.
It's not about having the stomach to say something to her, it's common decency in the midst of grieving. Her thinking that her son is in heaven doesn't make it true and if she sat down and thought about it at some stage there is no comfort in god torturing a child to help others when presumably had other methods at his omnipotent disposal.
An individual's belief matter even if I wouldn't approach them in the throws of grief. It's individuals who flew plane in to the trade centre and it was individuals who died. It's individuals who burn witches, deny medical care to their children, kill homosexuals feeling justified by Leviticus, it's individuals who raped little girls to rid themselves of AIDS because the Catholic Church suppresses actual effective means and knowledge. It's other individual beliefs been forced on women in the American health care system at the moment .
Yes changing this this individual woman's mind right at this minute doesn't improve the world, but you can't say the same of the terrorists on 9/11 if they'd been changed just prior to boarding those planes. By the same token she may choose to attribute the "good" that came of her child's illness but when you break it down, it's science and human good will.
I'm curious how you think lowest common denominator refers to children. I'm thinking about that and I can't imagine how you are understanding a link of that sort ???????????
One of the links shows how states that consider themselves very religious are also the same states with the most poverty and poor graduation levels and the lowest test scores and the highest birth rates to girls under 18.
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "I'm curious how you think lowest common denominator refers to children. I'm thinking about that and I can't imagine how you are understanding a link of that sort ???????????"
Well, that's what happens ... when an educator who knows how little religion has to do with education sees someone write ...
"High school education that is equal to a college education, because there is no catering to the lowest common denominator of religious sensibilities."
That's the type of statement that would leave most educators grasping. What?
Especially when, as an educator, I hear parents and others bemoan the fact that special education students have been mainstreamed into the classroom and that many administrators in education today prefer heterogenous to homogenous classrooms. Often, given that, teachers teach to the middle ... or lower.
So ... that would be how I found myself wondering ... if you were referring to children.
And, ultimately, you've still not answered the question. What were you referring to, if I may ask?
Regarding the information that states "that consider themselves very religious" have high poverty rates and poor test scores, etc....
Hmmm.... Have there been studies that have proven a link between religion and poverty and poor test scores? Could there be other causes?
I'm guessing some of those states are in the deep South. Right? Could slavery and racism have anything to do with the poverty and low test scores found there? Hmmm...? (Did some religious people, like the Quakers, fight against both? As an aside ....) I'm guessing that years of not allowing certain people to learn how to read and write, followed by years of substandard schools, texts, facilities, etc, in the segregated South, might have a greater correlation to poverty and low test scores. Right?
And, I'm still waiting ....
Well, that's what happens ... when an educator who knows how little religion has to do with education sees someone write ...
"High school education that is equal to a college education, because there is no catering to the lowest common denominator of religious sensibilities."
That's the type of statement that would leave most educators grasping. What?
Especially when, as an educator, I hear parents and others bemoan the fact that special education students have been mainstreamed into the classroom and that many administrators in education today prefer heterogenous to homogenous classrooms. Often, given that, teachers teach to the middle ... or lower.
So ... that would be how I found myself wondering ... if you were referring to children.
And, ultimately, you've still not answered the question. What were you referring to, if I may ask?
Regarding the information that states "that consider themselves very religious" have high poverty rates and poor test scores, etc....
Hmmm.... Have there been studies that have proven a link between religion and poverty and poor test scores? Could there be other causes?
I'm guessing some of those states are in the deep South. Right? Could slavery and racism have anything to do with the poverty and low test scores found there? Hmmm...? (Did some religious people, like the Quakers, fight against both? As an aside ....) I'm guessing that years of not allowing certain people to learn how to read and write, followed by years of substandard schools, texts, facilities, etc, in the segregated South, might have a greater correlation to poverty and low test scores. Right?
And, I'm still waiting ....
You know ....
I find myself wondering, in addition to how the world will (future tense) be so much better without religion, is evidence required in order to believe in anything ...?
Or, is evidence required only when it comes to the belief in God, the Great Spirit, a higher power, etc...?
Do we need evidence to believe that religion is the reason students in the deep South of the United States have low test scores and live in poverty?
Do we need evidence to believe that the reason Scandinavian countries have lower crime rates is due to their supposedly being, largely, atheist ... despite percentiles of believers listed in encyclopedias, etc...? I mean, it couldn't have anything to do with anything else, could it? Including, until very recently, largely homogenous populations and other factors, such as population, etc....
Huh...?
I find myself wondering, in addition to how the world will (future tense) be so much better without religion, is evidence required in order to believe in anything ...?
Or, is evidence required only when it comes to the belief in God, the Great Spirit, a higher power, etc...?
Do we need evidence to believe that religion is the reason students in the deep South of the United States have low test scores and live in poverty?
Do we need evidence to believe that the reason Scandinavian countries have lower crime rates is due to their supposedly being, largely, atheist ... despite percentiles of believers listed in encyclopedias, etc...? I mean, it couldn't have anything to do with anything else, could it? Including, until very recently, largely homogenous populations and other factors, such as population, etc....
Huh...?
You have an amusing manner, Shannon.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!! You're not the first to notice.
cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "It has a few meanings. I am using it in the context:'survival of those who are better equipped for surviving'
Those who are the least burden on society."
"no sur..."
cs, you have no idea how many years of education in biology I have, I have a degree in biology, and very much enjoyed the evolutionary aspects of my degree, I didn't need to google to understand survival of the fittest, I only googled to find the quote I already knew existed, the quote by the man who defined survival of the fittest in the first place. Can you not conceive of someone knowing something without google because you don't know it?
survival of the fittest definition, first from merriam-webster
Definition of SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST
: natural selection
which of course leads us to checking what natural selection means, but I doubt I need to put that definition, as even you surely can't argue what that means.
from oxford english dictionary:
survival of the fittest
Biology the continued existence of organisms which are best adapted to their environment, with the extinction of others, as a concept in the Darwinian theory of evolution. Compare with natural selection.
Survival of the fittest is very much an evolutionary term. You can try to fit it to other things as much as you wish, its correct use is in evolution. As someone who elsewhere argued for hours about what words mean, I doubt this will make a difference, but if you're not happy with the meaning, take it up with the dictionary people if you think they've got it wrong.
social interaction can effect an individuals fitness, but seeing as humans are by nature social animals, we have innate behaviours that mean that we take care of each other. If someone behaves in a way that harms others, they tend to be excluded from the group, so harmful behaviour is removed from the social inclusion groups. In fact, this is essentially where morals come from, we have to live together to survive, so we need guidelines to make that co-existence possible. These come from us, not from an outside source.
And really, thats what you take from my post? Well done, we're back to you avoiding the issue again.
And ... I see my questions are still, largely, being avoided, something which I find fascinating.
Shannon wrote: "And ... I see my questions are still, largely, being avoided, something which I find fascinating."OK, lets forget the big things, like war etc, lets look at the little things, the every day people, the individuals. And these are a drop in the ocean.
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
[image error]
and this one that popped up on my facebook feed, its sick, the implications are horrible, and it preys on peoples insecurities[image error]
Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "It has a few meanings. I am using it in the context:'survival of those who are better equipped for surviving'
Those who are the least burden on society."
"n..."
You started by saying I am wrong in my use of the term 'survival of the fittest' then say lets hear what you mean by it anyway. That term has many interpretations, I used just one. You having a degree does not make my interpretation any less valid.
'gay' once meant, and maybe still does mean carefree or happy but that is no longer it's real usage. Maybe it's the same with the tern 'survival of the fittest'.
Shanna wrote: "AIDS in africa is spread by the condemnation of the Catholic Church of the only method that effectively prevents it, condoms. Raping little girls is a common superstition though out various times (..."What percentage of the 38,000,000 or so Catholics in Africa do not use condoms? I guess you would know this by reading your previous statement.
cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "It has a few meanings. I am using it in the context:'survival of those who are better equipped for surviving'
Those who are the least burde..."
nope, according to the dictionaries, gay has several meanings, including happy, and homosexual, whereas survival of the fittest has only the one. If you have an issue with that then take it up with the dictionary people.
You're use was wrong, and you're still avoiding the actual issue.
Hazel wrote: "and this one that popped up on my facebook feed, its sick, the implications are horrible, and it preys on peoples insecurities
"
Really? This is the answer. Really?
Regarding wars, I believe we determined as many wars and conflicts, if not more, are the result of greed and power. In fact, when cs made that statement, Hazel made a comment along the lines of ... that's already been covered.
I don't pretend that all wars are the result of greed and power. No. There have been religious wars and conflicts. There still are religious wars and conflicts. And, I believe I mentioned, without religion there would be fewer wars and conflicts. Of course, when people are open to and are filled with hate, I think they might continue to be so. Take religion away and, in many cases, people will still be different in some way, will still have different thoughts and beliefs, will still have more wealth, will still have less ... and all of that, if we don't deal with the true root of the problem, will still be there.
Having said that ... this is the answer to my questions?
Where did these posts come from, if I may ask?
There are people who, every day, say the most despicable things. Advocate for the most despicable things. Some, well, some are religious. Some aren't.
I'm guessing, Hazel, that you think all of this, the hateful posts you've found on FB or that some atheist site has found on FB, will disappear if religion disappears? This is the difference that will be made? This is how life will be better?
Really?
Okay. If that's your answer, ....
I still find myself wondering, ... how will turning to a woman who has just lost her child and telling her not to believe that he's in heaven and that she'll see him again make your life better?
'Cause we all know that life would be so much better if there were no religion. Right? No wars. Right? No bullying and harassment. Right? No one saying ugly things to or about people who are different. Right? No people with anger issues. Right? Actually, I'm pretty sure I could find a lot of truly nasty and hateful stuff out there that has nothing to do with religion. Right?
How, exactly, would your lives be better if this woman stopped believing? And, which of you is going to be the first one to say that?
Or, like I said, is it easy to say something like ... I live for the day when there is no religion ... yet, when one thinks it through, .... What does that mean, exactly? Thinking it through, would it mean telling grieving parents and spouses not to believe? Is that how we get to a world without religion? Hmmm....
Then, there's my lowest common denominator question. Still unanswered.
And, there's the question of evidence .... Are believers the only one's required to produce evidence for their beliefs? Or, is that a standard by which everyone is expected to function? If the latter, why would people believe religion is the cause of low test scores and poverty in the southern parts of the United States? Why do people say Scandinavian countries are largely atheist when encyclopedias say around 80% of the populace of said countries are believers of one faith or another? (There might be a reason. But, I have yet to hear it.) Why do people believe the low crime rates in Scandinavian countries are a result of supposed atheism and not something like ... homogenous populations? Has any, non-bias organization, done any research to prove any of these claims? Or, is this sort of like, mind you, I'm saying sort of like, hmmm...., personal anecdote as evidence?
Questions I find myself pondering ....
"
Really? This is the answer. Really?
Regarding wars, I believe we determined as many wars and conflicts, if not more, are the result of greed and power. In fact, when cs made that statement, Hazel made a comment along the lines of ... that's already been covered.
I don't pretend that all wars are the result of greed and power. No. There have been religious wars and conflicts. There still are religious wars and conflicts. And, I believe I mentioned, without religion there would be fewer wars and conflicts. Of course, when people are open to and are filled with hate, I think they might continue to be so. Take religion away and, in many cases, people will still be different in some way, will still have different thoughts and beliefs, will still have more wealth, will still have less ... and all of that, if we don't deal with the true root of the problem, will still be there.
Having said that ... this is the answer to my questions?
Where did these posts come from, if I may ask?
There are people who, every day, say the most despicable things. Advocate for the most despicable things. Some, well, some are religious. Some aren't.
I'm guessing, Hazel, that you think all of this, the hateful posts you've found on FB or that some atheist site has found on FB, will disappear if religion disappears? This is the difference that will be made? This is how life will be better?
Really?
Okay. If that's your answer, ....
I still find myself wondering, ... how will turning to a woman who has just lost her child and telling her not to believe that he's in heaven and that she'll see him again make your life better?
'Cause we all know that life would be so much better if there were no religion. Right? No wars. Right? No bullying and harassment. Right? No one saying ugly things to or about people who are different. Right? No people with anger issues. Right? Actually, I'm pretty sure I could find a lot of truly nasty and hateful stuff out there that has nothing to do with religion. Right?
How, exactly, would your lives be better if this woman stopped believing? And, which of you is going to be the first one to say that?
Or, like I said, is it easy to say something like ... I live for the day when there is no religion ... yet, when one thinks it through, .... What does that mean, exactly? Thinking it through, would it mean telling grieving parents and spouses not to believe? Is that how we get to a world without religion? Hmmm....
Then, there's my lowest common denominator question. Still unanswered.
And, there's the question of evidence .... Are believers the only one's required to produce evidence for their beliefs? Or, is that a standard by which everyone is expected to function? If the latter, why would people believe religion is the cause of low test scores and poverty in the southern parts of the United States? Why do people say Scandinavian countries are largely atheist when encyclopedias say around 80% of the populace of said countries are believers of one faith or another? (There might be a reason. But, I have yet to hear it.) Why do people believe the low crime rates in Scandinavian countries are a result of supposed atheism and not something like ... homogenous populations? Has any, non-bias organization, done any research to prove any of these claims? Or, is this sort of like, mind you, I'm saying sort of like, hmmm...., personal anecdote as evidence?
Questions I find myself pondering ....
on what to say to people who have lost someone, what about the truth?AARON FREEMAN:
You want a physicist to speak at your funeral. You want the physicist to talk to your grieving family about the conservation of energy, so they will understand that your energy has not died. You want the physicist to remind your sobbing mother about the first law of thermodynamics; that no energy gets created in the universe, and none is destroyed. You want your mother to know that all your energy, every vibration, every Btu of heat, every wave of every particle that was her beloved child remains with her in this world. You want the physicist to tell your weeping father that amid energies of the cosmos, you gave as good as you got.
And at one point you'd hope that the physicist would step down from the pulpit and walk to your brokenhearted spouse there in the pew and tell him that all the photons that ever bounced off your face, all the particles whose paths were interrupted by your smile, by the touch of your hair, hundreds of trillions of particles, have raced off like children, their ways forever changed by you. And as your widow rocks in the arms of a loving family, may the physicist let her know that all the photons that bounced from you were gathered in the particle detectors that are her eyes, that those photons created within her constellations of electromagnetically charged neurons whose energy will go on forever.
And the physicist will remind the congregation of how much of all our energy is given off as heat. There may be a few fanning themselves with their programs as he says it. And he will tell them that the warmth that flowed through you in life is still here, still part of all that we are, even as we who mourn continue the heat of our own lives.
And you'll want the physicist to explain to those who loved you that they need not have faith; indeed, they should not have faith. Let them know that they can measure, that scientists have measured precisely the conservation of energy and found it accurate, verifiable and consistent across space and time. You can hope your family will examine the evidence and satisfy themselves that the science is sound and that they'll be comforted to know your energy's still around. According to the law of the conservation of energy, not a bit of you is gone; you're just less orderly. Amen.
you see, the woman who lost her child believing that child has gone to heaven, makes shit all difference to anyones life, not really, but people saying that the childs death is a way of her learning something new (like the woman who gave up smoking while pregnant in one of the pictures above), thus it was necessary, thats sick and its wrong. And its not just extremists who make claims like this. "God has a plan" is a well used phrase.That aside though, if there were no religion (and theres no delusion that this is happening anytime soon, or at all), then we wouldn't have the religious right trying to push policies. We wouldn't have religious institutions leaning on governments to have the law written how they want it. DO you honestly think that trying to make abortion illegal doesn't have religious roots? Do you honestly think repression of women doesn't have religious roots? People still support slavery based on religious teachings.
Theres no delusion that religion disappearing would cure all the worlds ills, but education can combat religious teachings over sexuality, gender and race, as just a few examples. There are people with isms that aren't religious, but those isms came about through religious teachings, they have religious roots even if some of those clinging to said isms aren't religious. Those religious teachings were accepted by the majority for hundreds of years, as they were taught that the church held ultimate authority, and to question it was wrong, now we need to start teaching people to be tolerant, and possibly even to be accepting of all the things that religion set down as wrong, but which reasonable people know are not wrong. If religion weren't here, it would make that task easier, as there wouldn't be the churches etc teaching people these isms, so it wouldn't be a constant battle.
Hazel wrote: "on what to say to people who have lost someone, what about the truth?
AARON FREEMAN:
You want a physicist to speak at your funeral. You want the physicist to talk to your grieving family about th..."
Oh, Hazel .... Oh, Hazel ....
I'm going to tell you something. I'd like you to know that I mean what I'm about to say. It comes from my heart. Truly.
I know this isn't what you meant to have happen by this post, but ....
When I read this post, I was inspired. I smiled. I got all kinds of warm all over. I really and truly did.
Do you know why?
This post reminded me of the light I told you about months ago. When you asked why I believed, I told you about one of my first memories. Of this amazing light and a feeling of love and comfort and knowing that the "people" in the light would always take care of me.
It actually reaffirmed my faith.
AARON FREEMAN:
You want a physicist to speak at your funeral. You want the physicist to talk to your grieving family about th..."
Oh, Hazel .... Oh, Hazel ....
I'm going to tell you something. I'd like you to know that I mean what I'm about to say. It comes from my heart. Truly.
I know this isn't what you meant to have happen by this post, but ....
When I read this post, I was inspired. I smiled. I got all kinds of warm all over. I really and truly did.
Do you know why?
This post reminded me of the light I told you about months ago. When you asked why I believed, I told you about one of my first memories. Of this amazing light and a feeling of love and comfort and knowing that the "people" in the light would always take care of me.
It actually reaffirmed my faith.
good for you. Great that you find happiness in it.
Hazel wrote: "you see, the woman who lost her child believing that child has gone to heaven, makes shit all difference to anyones life, not really, but people saying that the childs death is a way of her learnin..."
I'm against the "isms" we speak of and against stripping women of their rights. Not just in word. I've actually taken a stand against these things, more times than I care to think about. Thinking about it actually makes me a bit ill. Because .... People were hurt. And .... Even though I'd not change my choices or my actions, I lost people.
I lost friends. I lost family members. Frankly, I lost several friends and several family members when I took a stand for the rights of others. I actually paid a huge price. Was it worth it to be true to myself and to be able to hold my head up? Yes. But, it was a price. If I were to be honest with you and with myself, I'd have to admit that it's sometimes been a crippling price.
I say that for a reason. I want people to know this part me and what's in my heart, prior to writing what comes next.
(Unlike someone who once posted to this thread, I've not devised a persona for myself when on the computer. I am who I am. My name is really Shannon. I'm really a woman from New England and a teacher. I really have American Indian ancestry. All I've said here has been the truth, 100% of it. And, much as my personal anecdotes are, hmmmm, more personal than most get on these threads, I don't quite know how to separate who I am and what is in my heart from my thoughts and beliefs and responses. And, I believe it's important to attempt to understand one another. Given that, I believe it's important to share who I am in order to further understanding.)
So ...
I wonder .... What came first? Religion or hate? What came first? Religion or the thirst for power? What came first? Religion or greed?
The chicken or the egg?
Has religion perpetuated the "isms" and the hate we've discussed?
Yes.
Over and over.
But, ultimately, I'm not sure we can prove it's the cause. I'm not sure there's evidence that proves religion is the original cause of hate and violence.
And ...
I wonder what would happen if, instead of focusing on religion, we focused on the root cause?
I'm against the "isms" we speak of and against stripping women of their rights. Not just in word. I've actually taken a stand against these things, more times than I care to think about. Thinking about it actually makes me a bit ill. Because .... People were hurt. And .... Even though I'd not change my choices or my actions, I lost people.
I lost friends. I lost family members. Frankly, I lost several friends and several family members when I took a stand for the rights of others. I actually paid a huge price. Was it worth it to be true to myself and to be able to hold my head up? Yes. But, it was a price. If I were to be honest with you and with myself, I'd have to admit that it's sometimes been a crippling price.
I say that for a reason. I want people to know this part me and what's in my heart, prior to writing what comes next.
(Unlike someone who once posted to this thread, I've not devised a persona for myself when on the computer. I am who I am. My name is really Shannon. I'm really a woman from New England and a teacher. I really have American Indian ancestry. All I've said here has been the truth, 100% of it. And, much as my personal anecdotes are, hmmmm, more personal than most get on these threads, I don't quite know how to separate who I am and what is in my heart from my thoughts and beliefs and responses. And, I believe it's important to attempt to understand one another. Given that, I believe it's important to share who I am in order to further understanding.)
So ...
I wonder .... What came first? Religion or hate? What came first? Religion or the thirst for power? What came first? Religion or greed?
The chicken or the egg?
Has religion perpetuated the "isms" and the hate we've discussed?
Yes.
Over and over.
But, ultimately, I'm not sure we can prove it's the cause. I'm not sure there's evidence that proves religion is the original cause of hate and violence.
And ...
I wonder what would happen if, instead of focusing on religion, we focused on the root cause?
either way, Shannon, over hundreds of years, these isms were propagated by religious teachings. Where we are now is that there are sections of religion (I know there are reasonable religious folk, yourself for example, you seem like a lovely person) that do teach that these isms are supported by god. If these were gone, then it would make the propagation of tolerance and acceptance far easier, on that I'm sure we can agree?The problem I see is that you cannot have the fringe extremists without the core moderates. Without the moderate beliefs, you wouldn't get people taking them to extremes. Thus in order to remove the dangerous extremists, you, hypothetically, would need to remove the moderate core too, as they are the bedrock on which the extremists build and this is where we come back to that cognitive dissonance we were talking about earlier about people being allowed to believe whatever they chose. I'd add "as long as what they believe doesn't result in the harm of others"
I'd like to add, I don't really want the removal of religious belief, I would just like there to be a removal of intolerance and hate, and many religious groups actively work against reducing such intolerance.
Disclaimer: yes, there are some hateful atheists, but they're not an organised group.
Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "It has a few meanings. I am using it in the context:'survival of those who are better equipped for surviving'
Those who are the leas..."
Why don't you google it, there is lots more info out there, rather than rely on your dictionary
why don't you address the main point? Actually no, don't bother, I'm bored of you and your avoidance dances now.
Shannon, I've been thinking about the woman of your local news, I think I've responded to the wrong facet of the problem.How does leaving this woman in a deluded state, about the after life or not of her child, make the world a better place?
Hazel wrote: "either way, Shannon, over hundreds of years, these isms were propagated by religious teachings. Where we are now is that there are sections of religion (I know there are reasonable religious folk, ..."
Well ....
I think there are some who, on this thread, advocate for a world without religion. Though, perhaps, they've not thought it through ... not truly thought about what that would mean, what it would look like.
Take me, for example. My faith has given me comfort. Great comfort, at certain times. I've not gone to war in the name of God. I've not protested in the name of God. Etc.... Further, I've taken a stand, time and again, regardless of personal cost, for the right of people to believe as they will. Or not. What would telling me that I shouldn't believe do for the world? How would it make the world a better place? How would it improve the lives of those who want a world without religion?
Oh, that's right. It wouldn't. But, that's what would happen, if we were to have a world without religion. And, ... would doing away with extremists be worth the price ... a price that wouldn't be paid by those who want this world ...? No. That price would be paid by people like me.
Would it be worth the price? Is that for anyone but me to decide? I, for one, think not.
(And, to clarify something .... I don't teach that isms are supported by God. I believe and acknowledge that certain religious leaders and believers support many "isms" .... I don't believe God supports such things. But, then, I'm a cherry picker, after all.)
Finally, I don't think it's about ... either way .... For me, it's about what is at the root of the matter. I just really and truly do not, for a second, believe it would be easier to deal with "isms" and hate and greed and those who are power hungry if we do away with religion, extremists, moderates or otherwise. The hate and the greed and the need to have more power than anyone one else will still be there. It will just be under a different name and a different guise.
So, what would we be left with? A world without religion ... yet it would still be a world with hate and greed and power struggles. We'd want to do that, we'd want to force that upon individuals ... like that mother ... like me ... why? To what end? What would truly be different? And, how would those who want this world truly benefit?
And, then .... There's the question of evidence .... I wonder... I wonder if all of us, religious and atheist alike, believe all sorts of things, without having scientific evidence or verifiable proof. I think that might be more true than not.
Well ....
I think there are some who, on this thread, advocate for a world without religion. Though, perhaps, they've not thought it through ... not truly thought about what that would mean, what it would look like.
Take me, for example. My faith has given me comfort. Great comfort, at certain times. I've not gone to war in the name of God. I've not protested in the name of God. Etc.... Further, I've taken a stand, time and again, regardless of personal cost, for the right of people to believe as they will. Or not. What would telling me that I shouldn't believe do for the world? How would it make the world a better place? How would it improve the lives of those who want a world without religion?
Oh, that's right. It wouldn't. But, that's what would happen, if we were to have a world without religion. And, ... would doing away with extremists be worth the price ... a price that wouldn't be paid by those who want this world ...? No. That price would be paid by people like me.
Would it be worth the price? Is that for anyone but me to decide? I, for one, think not.
(And, to clarify something .... I don't teach that isms are supported by God. I believe and acknowledge that certain religious leaders and believers support many "isms" .... I don't believe God supports such things. But, then, I'm a cherry picker, after all.)
Finally, I don't think it's about ... either way .... For me, it's about what is at the root of the matter. I just really and truly do not, for a second, believe it would be easier to deal with "isms" and hate and greed and those who are power hungry if we do away with religion, extremists, moderates or otherwise. The hate and the greed and the need to have more power than anyone one else will still be there. It will just be under a different name and a different guise.
So, what would we be left with? A world without religion ... yet it would still be a world with hate and greed and power struggles. We'd want to do that, we'd want to force that upon individuals ... like that mother ... like me ... why? To what end? What would truly be different? And, how would those who want this world truly benefit?
And, then .... There's the question of evidence .... I wonder... I wonder if all of us, religious and atheist alike, believe all sorts of things, without having scientific evidence or verifiable proof. I think that might be more true than not.
The woman isn't the one who is advocating for something, Shanna.
Certain people on this thread are advocating for a world without religion.
She, this woman, advocated for nothing, other than her son, when he was alive. She's just a woman, grieving for her son, who finds solace in her belief that he's in heaven and she'll see him again one day.
I should think, if people decide they want to go on the record and say we should eradicate religion, those very same people are the one's who should build a case for their position. How would the world be better if we told this woman she's delusional? How would we benefit?
And, are you going to be the first ... the first to say ... you know, I definitely want this world ... and, heck, yes, I'd tell the woman she was delusional?
Certain people on this thread are advocating for a world without religion.
She, this woman, advocated for nothing, other than her son, when he was alive. She's just a woman, grieving for her son, who finds solace in her belief that he's in heaven and she'll see him again one day.
I should think, if people decide they want to go on the record and say we should eradicate religion, those very same people are the one's who should build a case for their position. How would the world be better if we told this woman she's delusional? How would we benefit?
And, are you going to be the first ... the first to say ... you know, I definitely want this world ... and, heck, yes, I'd tell the woman she was delusional?
Yes but how does it make the world a better place? you posed the opposite question how does telling her make the world a better place I'm asking how does letting her hang on to her delusion make the world better? You wanted to bring it down to individuals so I'm obliging. How does letting this one individual woman hang onto her belief/delusion make the world better?
the thing is Shannon, you're building a bit of a strawman, only a heartless person would go to someone after they'd lost their child and tell them their belief system means they're delusional. Ideally, instead, the girl who became that woman would never have had her head filled with these unsubstantiated ideas in the first place, and would instead have been given a solid grounding in reality, and been taught to question such claims when they were made, and so the situation in which some heartless person tells her that her beliefs are delusional never arises, because she would have been taught how to be skeptical about such claims.We're working purely hypothetical here. Its not like people who would like to see religion gone want it just swept aside, that would be cruel, instead, over several generations, the encouragement of skeptical thinking, and the teaching of science and facts, and how knowledge is provisional, and how it is disingenuous and fundamentally dishonest to make unsubstantiated claims would achieve the same without being cruel or heartless to anyone. Its been shown in studies that higher education levels is generally correlated with higher levels of skepticism.
I am under no illusion that religion will ever disappear, and thus would never claim it as an aim, its a pipedream.
You're an intelligent woman, Shanna. You know what I'm getting at. People on this thread advocate for a world without religion and claim it would be a better world. Okay. Prove it. How will the world be different? How will it be better? And, we need to take it out of the realm of ideals and put it into practice, if we're to create that world. Right? What would that look like? It would look like telling this woman that she's delusional ... that she shouldn't believe.
But, hey, I'll answer your question. I believe I've consistently answered every question asked of me in this thread.
How would allowing this woman the right to believe in God, if she so chooses, make the world a better place?
It would make the world a better place, because it would support the rights of individuals.
Now, I could go on and make all sorts of guesses. Like, maybe her beliefs will allow her to go on, when, otherwise, she might give up. Maybe she'd continue to advocate that people be tested to see if they're bone marrow matches for people who are ill. Maybe she'll give interviews regarding how important her son was to her and how important it is to other mother's that people be tested and be willing to donate their bone marrow. Maybe that would save lives.
I'm not going to do that, though. Because, we don't know if she'll do those things.
I do know something, though. Individual rights are important. A world that allows, that supports, the rights of individuals is a world in which I want to live. It's a better world.
There. Question answered.
But, hey, I'll answer your question. I believe I've consistently answered every question asked of me in this thread.
How would allowing this woman the right to believe in God, if she so chooses, make the world a better place?
It would make the world a better place, because it would support the rights of individuals.
Now, I could go on and make all sorts of guesses. Like, maybe her beliefs will allow her to go on, when, otherwise, she might give up. Maybe she'd continue to advocate that people be tested to see if they're bone marrow matches for people who are ill. Maybe she'll give interviews regarding how important her son was to her and how important it is to other mother's that people be tested and be willing to donate their bone marrow. Maybe that would save lives.
I'm not going to do that, though. Because, we don't know if she'll do those things.
I do know something, though. Individual rights are important. A world that allows, that supports, the rights of individuals is a world in which I want to live. It's a better world.
There. Question answered.
Psychiatry always advocates the reorientation to time and place for delusional patients, it is not done for the benefit of the psychiatrist, or nurse. Telling this woman, and others like her, she is delusional has may benefits for all, reality is, well reality, dealing with it on it's own terms disempowers delusions mild and extreme, it may not prevent people people doing awful things but it takes away brainwashed acceptance and callousness or even, in those who would never do such a thing themselves, the passively induced approval "well her ankles were showing under her burkha" or "at least it was a bus of Palestinian children".
I don't pretend abolition of religion would remove all evil, but a good amount and some justification for it.
And your personal solace doesn't amount to hill of beans when compared to all the solace religion has destroyed with guilt, stigma, punishment meted out to all who don't believe the right way, and when you look at religion for results and not personal warm fuzzies, (I bet for at least every one person you could show me who find solace I could show you one who has had solace destroyed) it seems to me to be a little selfish to want solace at someone elses expense
Shannon wrote: "You're an intelligent woman, Shanna. You know what I'm getting at. People on this thread advocate for a world without religion and claim it would be a better world. Okay. Prove it. How will th..."Of course individaul rights are of the upmost importance, unless you're gay, a woman (especially a pregnant one), of other ethnicity, poor, a child (unless you're not yet born)or the wrong religion, is there anyone I missed?
Is it about solace? Or, is it about rights?
And ....
It's always easy for people who have no horse in the race and nothing to lose to make claims and advocate for a certain action.
Of course, atheists do have a horse in the race and do have something to lose. It might not be the solace offered through a belief in God. But, it is the right to, for example, believe or not. The right to make the choice ... and not have it forced upon you.
If my belief in individual rights and my having lived a life that supports individual rights, even at a price to myself, makes me selfish, I guess I'm selfish.
Fascinating .... Simply fascinating ....
And ....
It's always easy for people who have no horse in the race and nothing to lose to make claims and advocate for a certain action.
Of course, atheists do have a horse in the race and do have something to lose. It might not be the solace offered through a belief in God. But, it is the right to, for example, believe or not. The right to make the choice ... and not have it forced upon you.
If my belief in individual rights and my having lived a life that supports individual rights, even at a price to myself, makes me selfish, I guess I'm selfish.
Fascinating .... Simply fascinating ....
I don't have enough time in the next year and a half to answer the replies I feel are ridiculous. For example, "Have you ever noticed that even babies have distinct personalities? How is this explained scientifically?" A world without religion... I think Family guy explained it perfectly... A world without Christianity.
You are the one talking about being punished by having you solace removed. I'm not saying people don't have right to believe but their rights end where mine begin, and while YOU as an individual respect that boundry, religion on the whole, doesn't, look at what is happening in your country. I wouldn't be a pregnant woman for quids in America. Children are being kidnapped from bible class, by their church, and terrorized at gun point by their church to teach them a lesson.
Religious right scream blue murder about the war on religion every time their proposed legislation is not voted in, while being tax exempt, while picking and choosing which bits of health cover they'll provide employees (regardless of the employees beliefs or lack of) and church run businesses don't have to conform to OH&S and they can discriminate against other faiths when hiring and firing.
Religion runs helter skelter over peoples rights often with impunity and tacit approval of governing bodies and in your county it's becoming legislation. Imposing one set of beliefs on all, I think that you are reasonable and good, Shannon, I really do, I just think the belief system you subscribe to is not as good as you.
Shanna wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Of course individaul rights are of the upmost importance, unless you're gay, a woman (especially a pregnant one), of other ethnicity, poor, a child (unless you're not yet born)or the wrong religion, is there anyone I missed? "
Well, let's see....
I'm not gay. But, when a fellow teacher gave an interview to a paper when VT's Supreme Court upheld civil unions and said 15% or more of our staff was gay ... and the board chair threatened her and told her she had until 3:00 to give him a list of the names of all gay faculty members (she cc'd the faculty on the emails), I ....
Well, .... I replied (replied all) and stated I was almost sure the board chair's insistence on being given a list of gay faculty members was illegal. However, if he insisted, he could put my name at the top of the list.
I was in my first year ... and could have been fired without cause. Various faculty members called me and others ran to my room, encouraging me to hit "unsend" before he read it. They'd cover. I could lose my job! What was I thinking?
I let it stand.
I'm a woman, though I've never been and am not pregnant. Further, I'm a woman of American Indian ancestry, and I've been discriminated against as a result of my ancestry.
I fight for the rights of children. I have for years. I likely will for years. Even when it leads to my having to turn in fellow educators. Even when it has led to my being ostracized.
I don't belong to the "right" religion. In fact, I've never felt that I belonged to a religion. I've lost my relationship with family members who converted to Mormonism. My refusal to convert is part of the reason we're no longer, frankly, family. I loved them with all of my heart. And, I lost them. I lost one of my best friends when I realized she hated Jews and when she called a Jew a nasty and ugly name in my presence.
Despite all of this, I still believe in individual rights and will stand for those rights all of my life.
Well, let's see....
I'm not gay. But, when a fellow teacher gave an interview to a paper when VT's Supreme Court upheld civil unions and said 15% or more of our staff was gay ... and the board chair threatened her and told her she had until 3:00 to give him a list of the names of all gay faculty members (she cc'd the faculty on the emails), I ....
Well, .... I replied (replied all) and stated I was almost sure the board chair's insistence on being given a list of gay faculty members was illegal. However, if he insisted, he could put my name at the top of the list.
I was in my first year ... and could have been fired without cause. Various faculty members called me and others ran to my room, encouraging me to hit "unsend" before he read it. They'd cover. I could lose my job! What was I thinking?
I let it stand.
I'm a woman, though I've never been and am not pregnant. Further, I'm a woman of American Indian ancestry, and I've been discriminated against as a result of my ancestry.
I fight for the rights of children. I have for years. I likely will for years. Even when it leads to my having to turn in fellow educators. Even when it has led to my being ostracized.
I don't belong to the "right" religion. In fact, I've never felt that I belonged to a religion. I've lost my relationship with family members who converted to Mormonism. My refusal to convert is part of the reason we're no longer, frankly, family. I loved them with all of my heart. And, I lost them. I lost one of my best friends when I realized she hated Jews and when she called a Jew a nasty and ugly name in my presence.
Despite all of this, I still believe in individual rights and will stand for those rights all of my life.
Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Of course individaul rights are of the upmost importance, unless you're gay, a woman (especially a pregnant one), of other ethnicity, poor, a child (unless you're not..."You are taking this personally, I'm talking about religion as whole, not you.
Really? I'm not sure about that ....
Why say I'm taking this personally? Does saying I'm taking it personally, hmmm, take away from my point? Ahh, we don't need to listen to Shannon. She's just taking it personally. (Hmmm.... I know some men who would say ... just like a woman ... to get emotional and take something personally.)
Not sure if that's where you were going with that, Shanna, but I thought I'd point out the fact that ... some could take it that way.
Actually, I'm having a conversation and sharing bits and pieces of my life in order for you to understand me and where I'm coming from.
And, ultimately, we're not just talking about religion. Are we? When we talk about doing away with something, yes, we're talking about the thing ... but we're also talking about the individual people who exercise their right to believe in the thing.
Why say I'm taking this personally? Does saying I'm taking it personally, hmmm, take away from my point? Ahh, we don't need to listen to Shannon. She's just taking it personally. (Hmmm.... I know some men who would say ... just like a woman ... to get emotional and take something personally.)
Not sure if that's where you were going with that, Shanna, but I thought I'd point out the fact that ... some could take it that way.
Actually, I'm having a conversation and sharing bits and pieces of my life in order for you to understand me and where I'm coming from.
And, ultimately, we're not just talking about religion. Are we? When we talk about doing away with something, yes, we're talking about the thing ... but we're also talking about the individual people who exercise their right to believe in the thing.
I'm temporarily abandoning this conversation it's 1:30am here and I'm off to bed, I have to take the first born to kinder in seven hours and need the sleep. Night
Shannon wrote: "Really? I'm not sure about that ....Why say I'm taking this personally? Does saying I'm taking it personally, hmmm, take away from my point? Ahh, we don't need to listen to Shannon. She's jus..."
Your taking personally because your defending yourself with personal anecdotes like I'm attacking you and questioning your integrity, I'm not. I'm not even questioning the individuals right to believe I'm questioning the imposition of religion in America insidiously, over everyone via legislation, which you seem to be ignoring in favour of accusing me of wanting to take rights away , I don't, I've said I don't.
Personally faith is a lot of bunk and leads to some undesirable outcomes that is peculiar to it and it alone. But I personally wouldn't deny anyone rights either way, but surely you must see what religion is doing to erode rights in America?
Now I'm off to bed...
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...
'survival of those who are better equipped for surviving'
Those who are the least burden on society."
no survival of the fittest is very specific to evolution, and has no meaning within the context you wish to use. As Darwin himself put it:
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”
thats what survival of the fittest is, nothing to do with the strongest, fastest etc, but the most adaptable.
However, if I accept your definition for the moment of
'survival of those who are better equipped for surviving'
Those who are the least burden on society.
and then apply this to your original statement of
If you ment that religion and the belief in god went then you would be left with a world where the survival of the fittest ruled.
what you're doing is making the argument that we simply wouldn't look after each other without religion and/or god. This is essentially the "you can't be moral or socially aware without religion/god" argument. This is demonstrably not true, as the most charitable countries in the world are also the most secular and atheist countries, with Sweden ranking at the top. The countries with the best healthcare are the ones that are highly secular/atheists, again with the Scandinavian countries topping the bill. And the countries that have the highest general happiness among the population are... well you can see where this is going.