Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Travis wrote: "The organized political groups that are as mired in hate and ignorance as the religious ones ( I'm looking at you Birthers) "
As an aside, I remember, after McCain got the nomination, that people started going crazy about whether or not he could become president. It was reported that his father was in the military at the time of his birth, and his parents were stationed oversees. Certain democrats tried to make some hay out of that. I remember thinking, "Are you kidding? They waited until after his nomination to bring that up!" People went round and round about that in the media here for a bit. Some saying he shouldn't be allowed to continue due to being born outside the US. Some saying his father was in the military and deployed and he was born on a base ... therefore ... he was born as a US citizen on "US soil" ....
I'm not making excuses for Birthers. However, people tend to forget where the "Birther" movement began ... in the democratic party ... and they weren't going there for religious reasons. It was pure politics.
As an aside ....
As an aside, I remember, after McCain got the nomination, that people started going crazy about whether or not he could become president. It was reported that his father was in the military at the time of his birth, and his parents were stationed oversees. Certain democrats tried to make some hay out of that. I remember thinking, "Are you kidding? They waited until after his nomination to bring that up!" People went round and round about that in the media here for a bit. Some saying he shouldn't be allowed to continue due to being born outside the US. Some saying his father was in the military and deployed and he was born on a base ... therefore ... he was born as a US citizen on "US soil" ....
I'm not making excuses for Birthers. However, people tend to forget where the "Birther" movement began ... in the democratic party ... and they weren't going there for religious reasons. It was pure politics.
As an aside ....
Gary wrote: "polytheism has a tendency to be less directly aggressive"
Except, of course, for all those pesky human sacrifices, among other aggressive acts ....
??
Except, of course, for all those pesky human sacrifices, among other aggressive acts ....
??
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "The organized political groups that are as mired in hate and ignorance as the religious ones ( I'm looking at you Birthers) "As an aside, I remember, after McCain got the nominatio..."
The birther movement started with the democrats...?
Seriously?
the Mccain thing lasted five minutes and mostly came about as a retaliation, hoping to show people how ridiculous the birther thing was and is.
Four years in and people are still spewing this nonsense, hounding poor John McCain...oh wait...they aren't.
and I am well aware that I've gone all ranty, but I have no tolerance for the birthers. It's not politics, it's racism.
Graham wrote: "Go on, have a read of my review of Armstrong's book. It will save me having to repeat ideas from it:"Already done. :-) In absence of the opportunity or time to read her book myself at this time I opted for sampling some of the other reviews. Quite quickly I found a review which articulated some of the immediate objections I had to the general thesis.
"Except that it is never clear in The Case For God when this golden age of non-literalism took place. The Apostles' Creed from the Book of Common Prayer is quite specific about God being creator of Heaven and Earth with Jesus sitting at His right hand having risen from the dead, so it had already gone wrong by its publication in 1662. However, the Nicene Creed of 325 CE contains most of the absurdities of the current version, so this supposedly modern error of mistaking metaphor for fact seems to have been a problem for religion from its earliest times"
(You will recall this was my immediate response to the allegation that biblical literalism is entirely a recent phenomena.)
"Armstrong's claim that atheists' theology - of all things - is poor and that they do not understand what they criticise is one that you will see repeated on Christian websites and indeed book reviews, and I was disappointed to see an academic I used to respect sink to this level. Atheism is a rejection of the idea of supernatural gods, so to argue that sophisticated believers see God as symbolic, while doubtless true, misses the point. Atheists don't have a problem with symbolic gods, just the supernatural ones. And to claim that atheism is fundamentalist is meaningless mudslinging:"
I have to agree with that too, I have often heard the claim that atheists that speak out are just as fundamentalist as Christian literalists but the whole point is not that atheists are claiming to have the truth, they are claiming that faith in dogmatic authoritarianism is a poor way of finding the truth.
It is telling that the main shock of atheists speaking out is the daring to denounce faith as a virtue, when it has been ingrained into our society that Faith and Belief should be inviolate. However, this is not really true even amongst theists, as long as the person questioning another's faith professes a faith of their own.
Graham wrote: "However, now I've spent a few years back in the less religious UK and I've had more exposure to academic science and philosophical scepticism I'm more interested in moving forward, rather going over old ground."
Moving forward is an admirable goal, but it only works when the metaphorical handbrake is off. The Secretary of State has just squandered 370,000 pounds on distributing Bibles to UK schools in the demonstrably untrue belief that the Bible is a guide to good morality. Christian influenced South Korea has just passed the removal of certain references to evolution in their teaching materials. The Christian influenced republicans in the US are repealing equal rights laws for women, trying to enshrine religions right to be intolerant, voting to remove human rights from their gay citizens and hypocritically supporting government interference but only in the regard to female reproductive rights. Meanwhile the Taliban practice the barbaric application of Mosaic law and support the murder of people based on what their faith tells them.
I think religion has failed, it has failed us for two thousand years or more. Meanwhile religious moderates would have us just 'give it a little longer' while defending the same extremists that view the barbarism of the Taliban with a certain amount of envy.
Graham wrote: "Would you prefer to spend your time arguing against something you have a lot of confidence is nonsense, or moving forward with your own intellectual growth?"
Well because I think belief is a poor substitute for rationality and faith is not a virtue then I should be open to allow others to try and convince me otherwise.
Also, I was once struggling with faith and its conflicts and there was no one there for a long time who could give me guidance. I became an atheist even before I really knew the term, and then struggled with that too because I understood a theists version of atheism and agnosticism and did not realise the difference, and indeed the similarities between the two.
If I can help even one person with doubts to recognise that it is ok to doubt and to question then this exercise would have merit. Whether they eventually turn from religion or not.
Graham wrote: "I think it's more constructive to ignore the fundamentalists, reframe the issue and move the agenda forward."
If only we could ignore the fundamentalists. They will not ignore us. Whether it is them blowing up themselves and us because we are "wicked" or them teaching hate and intolerance to another generation we are still affected.
Are we not committing the most heinous intellectual crime of moral cowardice if we leave fundamentalist arguments unopposed leaving the credulous and the young to believe those arguments valid by the lack of dissent?
When they come for me, would you speak out?
In the end of course it is not the fundamentalists that are the problem. It is the moderates mute acceptance of the paradoxes of religion that allow more extreme views to flourish. Indeed often I have a grudging respect for the fundamentalist as they have done nothing more than take what the moderate believes to its logical conclusion. Then after the tragedy the moderate blames the extremist, never the faith or ideology that they simply had more fervent belief in.
Graham wrote: "But redefine religion as an epistemic practice that facilitates humble awareness of our sense of being within this unknowable reality (in a deeply sceptical ontological sense) and redefine faith as simply `trust, loyalty, engagement and commitment' to a practical way of life based on a shared compassion, and awe of nature and Being itself and you defuse the issue. "
Keeping the analogy of defusing, if you defuse your bomb by the above technique, you'd better hope that everyone else follows suit, or you are going to end up in bits.
Your thesis does not seem really humble, it has the same humility that a religious zealot has, believing that they are insignificant but since their god is great they reflect in that glory. The ultimate expression of the "my dad is bigger than yours" smugness that claims prominence while affecting humility. Again the arrogance of proclaiming something unknowable based on the fact that it is at this time out of our knowing is again an intellectual surrender and a dangerous one, because someone is always ready to supplant their certainty for your ineffability.
Religion, faith and belief are far too entrenched to be so fundamentally redefined into some sort of symbolic exercise. You can be sure if you could not express your concept simply within a paragraph then there will be many who will miss your point and retain the fundamentalism and literalism that you are attempting to slight-of-hand aside.
Moreover, the exercise in itself is pointless. Whether we believe the Bible is allegorical or literal, whether we believe that the concept of God is that of a personal entity or just a label for an ideal we are not communicating that idea in a way that will be unmistakable to others, let alone following generations.
My question to you would be how would you achieve this grand redefinition of faith and religion? If you simply advocate it then you are in competition with the fundamentalist and literalist who has no qualms in being confrontational, no interest in the mutual ground and whose thesis has the benefit of being simpler to understand and easier to turn into a jingoistic message.
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "The organized political groups that are as mired in hate and ignorance as the religious ones ( I'm looking at you Birthers) "
As an aside, I remember, after McCain g..."
I thought the McCain thing came first. I didn't hear about the Obama Birther thing until after he won the election. Am I wrong on that? Did it begin before? Hmmm.... Maybe my memory is faulty. I don't think so. I remember hearing people question McCain first. Then, I heard questioning of Obama. I remember thinking ... what the heck is going on around here. But, maybe they were questioning Obama's place of birth first and I didn't hear it until much later. Hmmm....
You're right in the "5 minute" thing. I mean, in actuality, it lasted about a week.
As an aside, I remember, after McCain g..."
I thought the McCain thing came first. I didn't hear about the Obama Birther thing until after he won the election. Am I wrong on that? Did it begin before? Hmmm.... Maybe my memory is faulty. I don't think so. I remember hearing people question McCain first. Then, I heard questioning of Obama. I remember thinking ... what the heck is going on around here. But, maybe they were questioning Obama's place of birth first and I didn't hear it until much later. Hmmm....
You're right in the "5 minute" thing. I mean, in actuality, it lasted about a week.
Marie-pier wrote: "Wow. I feel dumb right now"I wouldn't worry, I have had to read Graham's posts a few times myself before I thought I had a handle on them. The trouble with these kind of discussions is that often context is missing that the person does not even notice, because their own background, training and experience makes the context obvious from their point of view.
I do it myself, particularly when having to adjust to addressing people with a non-scientific background, from a different country or with a particular faith.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "The organized political groups that are as mired in hate and ignorance as the religious ones ( I'm looking at you Birthers) "As an aside, I remember,..."
The Obama thing came first, and then McCain was brought up, like I said, as a retaliation, hoping people would see how absurd it was.
Unfortunately, the McCain thing was brushed off as 'silly', but the black guy, he was obviously not from around here...it should be legal to just slap somebody the moment the bring up the birth certificate.
Just tried to find info on the Internet ... when did the Birther thing start.
Boy, oh, boy, was I ever surprised. Take a look at this ...
Origins of the claims
In 1991, Obama's literary agency, Acton & Dystel, printed a promotional booklet (later posted to their website, in a biography in place until April, 2007) which stated that Obama was "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."[21]
During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced that questioned Obama's citizenship in an attempt to revive Clinton's faltering primary election campaign. These and numerous other chain e-mails during the subsequent presidential election circulated false rumors about Obama's origin, religion and birth certificate.[22][23]
Jim Geraghty of the conservative website National Review Online may have sparked further speculation on June 9, 2008, when he asked that Obama release his birth certificate.[24][25] Geraghty wrote that releasing his birth certificate could debunk several false rumors circulating on the Internet, namely: that his middle name was originally Muhammad rather than Hussein; that his mother had originally named him "Barry" rather than "Barack"; and that Barack Obama, Sr. was not his biological father, as well as the rumor that Barack Obama was not a natural-born citizen.[25][26][27]
In October 2009, anonymous e-mails circulated claiming that the Associated Press (AP) had reported Obama was "Kenyan-Born".[28] The claims were based on an AP story that had appeared five years earlier in a Kenyan publication, The Standard.[28][29] The rumor-checking website Snopes.com found that the headline and lead-in sentence describing Obama as born in Kenya and misspelling his first name had been added by the Kenyan newspaper, and did not appear in the story issued by the AP or in any other contemporary newspaper that picked up the AP story.[28][30]
This was taken from ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_O...
Looks like it did start with the democrats. However, the republicans sure as sure picked it up and ran with it.
Then, I Googled the question with regard to McCain ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/...
Notice that article was written in February of 2008.
Sorry, Travis. It started with the democrats ....
Boy, oh, boy, was I ever surprised. Take a look at this ...
Origins of the claims
In 1991, Obama's literary agency, Acton & Dystel, printed a promotional booklet (later posted to their website, in a biography in place until April, 2007) which stated that Obama was "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."[21]
During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced that questioned Obama's citizenship in an attempt to revive Clinton's faltering primary election campaign. These and numerous other chain e-mails during the subsequent presidential election circulated false rumors about Obama's origin, religion and birth certificate.[22][23]
Jim Geraghty of the conservative website National Review Online may have sparked further speculation on June 9, 2008, when he asked that Obama release his birth certificate.[24][25] Geraghty wrote that releasing his birth certificate could debunk several false rumors circulating on the Internet, namely: that his middle name was originally Muhammad rather than Hussein; that his mother had originally named him "Barry" rather than "Barack"; and that Barack Obama, Sr. was not his biological father, as well as the rumor that Barack Obama was not a natural-born citizen.[25][26][27]
In October 2009, anonymous e-mails circulated claiming that the Associated Press (AP) had reported Obama was "Kenyan-Born".[28] The claims were based on an AP story that had appeared five years earlier in a Kenyan publication, The Standard.[28][29] The rumor-checking website Snopes.com found that the headline and lead-in sentence describing Obama as born in Kenya and misspelling his first name had been added by the Kenyan newspaper, and did not appear in the story issued by the AP or in any other contemporary newspaper that picked up the AP story.[28][30]
This was taken from ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_O...
Looks like it did start with the democrats. However, the republicans sure as sure picked it up and ran with it.
Then, I Googled the question with regard to McCain ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/...
Notice that article was written in February of 2008.
Sorry, Travis. It started with the democrats ....
Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "polytheism has a tendency to be less directly aggressive"Except, of course, for all those pesky human sacrifices, among other aggressive acts ....
??"
That is kind of a gross generalisation of hundreds of different religions covering tens of thousands of gods. It is also not a good equivalence as at least some of the human sacrifice was a form of capital punishment, you know the same thing proscribed in Mosaic law in the Old Testament.
Finally, the entire Christian religion (after getting rid of certain pesky sects like the gnostics) is based on the Human Sacrifice of Jesus to appease god for our sins!
Travis wrote: "You get used to it.Gary says things we are all thinking, but he just says it better and smarter sounding than what I would have sound.
which leaves you impressed while wanting to slap the know-it-all. "
I assumed she meant Graham, but thanks ... I think!
Gary wrote: "That is kind of a gross generalisation of hundreds of different religions covering tens of thousands of gods. It is also not a good equivalence as at least some of the human sacrifice was a form of capital punishment, you know the same thing proscribed in Mosaic law in the Old Testament.
Finally, the entire Christian religion (after getting rid of certain pesky sects like the gnostics) is based on the Human Sacrifice of Jesus to appease god for our sins! ""
That's the problem with gross generalizations, yes?
Finally, the entire Christian religion (after getting rid of certain pesky sects like the gnostics) is based on the Human Sacrifice of Jesus to appease god for our sins! ""
That's the problem with gross generalizations, yes?
Gary wrote: "the arrogance of proclaiming something unknowable based on the fact that it is at this time out of our knowing is again an intellectual surrender and a dangerous one..."It's a metaphysical problem and not a scientific one.
"We are acquainted only with our own perceptions, and never directly with the things which are supposed to lie beyond them. How can we hope for knowledge about those things, or even be justified in asserting their existence?" A.C. Grayling
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32...)
Like most scientists I'm an everyday 'realist', but when pushed to a deeper philosophical level I'll fall back to an 'instrumentalist' view of science. In theory we could develop models that are perfect instruments for predicting our observations, yet still not know if they are a mirror of *reality*. It would be interesting to meet an intelligent extraterrestrial and see if they had conceptualised the universe in the same way. Sure they'll have scientific instruments of prediction, most probably using equivalent mathematical tools, but will their conceptual models be similar?
I've never been a theist and I have difficulty understanding how anyone can maintain literalist beliefs. I suspect it's a bit like when I was a teenager and would only listen to one kind of music as that was my 'tribe' and 'culture'. I didn't broaden my horizons by being told my taste in music and clothes were crap. I broadened them by discovering the rich variety of other music and cultures for myself. Likewise, I suspect the best way to overcome fundamentalist views is to open people's eyes to the alternatives rather than attack their beliefs head on.
I'm not trying to achieve a grand redefinition of faith and religion, although that would be nice :) The semi-anonymous internet can make us susceptible to grand rhetoric, but I'm much more interested in finding common ground on the level of one-to-one conversations. I do think I can empathise with where you are coming from. I barely have to read your posts as I'm very familiar with your arguments, but I can understand how a strident tone could put someone off from beginning to explore our views. Yes, I know the argument that it only sounds 'strident' because we get too used to treating religion with deference. I can assure you I do not treat literalist religious-based beliefs with deference. I just think that there are many sides to religion and we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Gary wrote: "Travis wrote: "You get used to it.Gary says things we are all thinking, but he just says it better and smarter sounding than what I would have sound.
which leaves you impressed while wanting to s..."
I mostly mean it in a nice way.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "polytheism has a tendency to be less directly aggressive"Except, of course, for all those pesky human sacrifices, among other aggressive acts ....
??"
That is kind ..."
I always found that whole 'eat my body, drink my blood' stuff kind of creepy. Especially when it's being chanted by a bunch of white middle aged folk.
Not that I didn't appreciate the free grape juice when I was a kid...
Shannon wrote: "Just tried to find info on the Internet ... when did the Birther thing start.Boy, oh, boy, was I ever surprised. Take a look at this ...
Origins of the claims
In 1991, Obama's literary agency,..."
and yet, hearing 'The dems started it', doesn't make me feel any better about it or less likely to slap a birther.
Like the McCain thing, the dems wised up and dropped it after about five minutes and yet, it's still dragging on four years later.
Didn't think it would make you feel better, for sure. But, it is something people tend to forget.
Shannon wrote: "This might be a tad simplistic. First, it's a generalization. There are certain churches within Christianity, for example, that aren't oppressive. This proves a reason to be hopefully optimistic.
Context. I was talking about what generally Messianic Judaism became after Jesus' alleged reformation. Christianity abandoned much of its roots in Judaism and aggressively expanded, such expansion becoming explosive after the Edict of Milan and the subsequent adoption of Christianity as the Roman state religion.
The fact that there are less aggressive Christian Churches today is neither surprising nor encouraging. Christianity (in one form or another) has reigned supreme in the west for a thousand years, so its need for aggression is curbed. However it is still plainly there as can be seen by the quick surge of movements such as the "protection of traditional marriage" and "Creationists" against social or scientific challenges to its authority. Peaceful versions of Christianity are not a source for hope because, like most religious moderates, they provide the bulwark between rationality and the extremists, but that bulwark only protects the extremists it does nothing to protect us from them. For example when you get people like Rick Santorum, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, the Westboro baptist church etc. the moderates can never turn around and say "hey, the Bible is wrong about that" instead they always try to claim that the people are misguided, but are either misinterpreting or simple being too obviously aggressive about those things.
Shannon wrote: "One reason has to do with the fact that it was a religion and a new religion. Yes. But, many reasons have to do with the politics and economics of the time. Christianity was a tool for and used by very powerful men. It was a tool that worked. And, in order to get the ultimate results, in their minds, the tool needed to be aggressively promoted and very dogmatic. Let's remember history and the fact that it was used by "politicians" ... kings and invaders ... to bring together a "Europe" of many different tribes, etc... with many different cultures. "
Indeed let us remember history and recall that at this time much of Europe had already been unified under the Pax Romana (which was why Romans were even present in Judea). Those Romans had their religion and the peoples around them had their own religions, a lot of which had become partially or completely assimilated with the Roman version. (From the almost direct correlation between Mars & Ares of Hellenic myth, to provincial gods such as Mars Albiorix, or Mars Camulos which identified the Roman gods with their Celtic equivalents)
None of these religions became the all encompassing power that Christianity did, not even the monotheistic Judaism because it was by its nature self-limiting to the "chosen people". Now I agree that there may be certain evidence that Constintinus or at least his antecedents perhaps used Christianity in a cynical bid to consolidate power over a large fractious empire (from a selection of authoritative monotheistic cults that was present in the east of Rome.) However, whether it was deliberate choice or just the nature of monotheism by its nature brooking no rivalry from "false" gods, the fact is that monotheism freed from the shackles of being only applied to a chosen people became the 'perfect storm' for conquest and conversion.
After this time practically all thinking and philosophy was dedicated to the nature of Jesus and to God, Christian scholars rejoiced when places like the Library of Alexandria was burned as this cleared away the pagan teachings of old, leaving only Christian musings. Small wonder then that the technological expansion of the Roman Empire, slowed, recessed and then became the stagnation of the Dark Ages, until finally the Enlightenment was eventually seeded by translations from Arabic of lost classical Greek texts taken from the Muslims in the crusades.
Shannon wrote: "That's the problem with gross generalizations, yes? "Yep, but my generalisation of Christianity being more aggressively expansionist after the reformer (Jesus) preached against the authority of the time was based on the comparison between Judaism and the Early Christian cults up to the consolidation of Christianity into the Roman state religion. So I was talking about general Christianity at a time before many of its (successful) schisms.
You generalised polytheism which covers a variety of different discrete faiths and practices over ten thousand years of recorded history across the entire world. From Aztecs to Greeks, from Celts to Hindus, from North American Animists to Asatru.
It is also a common claim for Christians to throw at "pagan" faiths to try to show superior morality. Yet it conveniently ignores the central tenet of the Christian creed, and the fact that killing for god to punish divine crimes such as idolatry, abomination etc. that is still killing humans to appease god, so is therefore Human Sacrifice!
In fact when a Texan says that they support the death penalty for Christian reasons ("an eye for an eye", or "thou shalt not kill" are often posited) then that person is advocating human sacrifice in the context of religion, they just don't call it that because otherwise they would have to face the hypocrisy of it!
Travis wrote: "I always found that whole 'eat my body, drink my blood' stuff kind of creepy. Especially when it's being chanted by a bunch of white middle aged folk."Yup, human (or divine depending on how you look at it) sacrifice and cannibalism. Things that Christians often accuse pagans and Satanists of doing, yet all they have done is changed the labels! Next thing you know they will be practising idolatry by creating images of crosses, fishes or suspiciously white European looking crucified guys and directing the prayers at them. Whoops.
Apparently though almost half of Catholics do not know the "doctrine of the transubstantiation" means that they are meant to believe that the taking of the host is not symbolic in anyway (from 1215 and confirmed by the thirteenth session of the Council in 1551) with a convenient get out clause that the "real" blood and flesh retains its appearance and taste as wine and bread.
Gary wrote: "Gary wrote: "Small wonder then that the technological expansion of the Roman Empire, slowed, recessed and then became the stagnation of the Dark Ages"
Fascinating, Gary. In all the history courses I've taken ... and I've never attended a religious school in my life, Christianity was never given as one of the possible causes for the "Dark Ages" .... I can see that you'd make it the cause, though.
Fascinating, Gary. In all the history courses I've taken ... and I've never attended a religious school in my life, Christianity was never given as one of the possible causes for the "Dark Ages" .... I can see that you'd make it the cause, though.
Gary wrote: "Yep, but my generalisation of Christianity being more aggressively expansionist after the reformer (Jesus) preached against the authority of the time was based on the comparison between Judaism and the Early Christian cults up to the consolidation of Christianity into the Roman state religion. So I was talking about general Christianity at a time before many of its (successful) schisms."
Actually, you know, your post didn't just make a generalization about Christianity. You can look back.
This is the problem with generalizations ... and sometimes bias. Like your post about homeschooling, leading people to believe homeschool is all about extremist religious folk keeping the children at home and filling their heads with thoughts of the devil, etc.... While I'm sure there are extremist religious folk who homeschool, you painted with a very wide and biased brush on that one. Yes, I know you admitted to not having thought about or known about all of the other reasons, more common reasons, people homeschool. But, had I not posted in response, you likely would have left some people "believing" your gross overgeneralization. That would have been unfortunate, for several reasons.
Further, your generalization that polytheism is less aggressive is misleading, which was my point.
Actually, you know, your post didn't just make a generalization about Christianity. You can look back.
This is the problem with generalizations ... and sometimes bias. Like your post about homeschooling, leading people to believe homeschool is all about extremist religious folk keeping the children at home and filling their heads with thoughts of the devil, etc.... While I'm sure there are extremist religious folk who homeschool, you painted with a very wide and biased brush on that one. Yes, I know you admitted to not having thought about or known about all of the other reasons, more common reasons, people homeschool. But, had I not posted in response, you likely would have left some people "believing" your gross overgeneralization. That would have been unfortunate, for several reasons.
Further, your generalization that polytheism is less aggressive is misleading, which was my point.
Gary wrote: "It is also a common claim for Christians to throw at "pagan" faiths to try to show superior morality. Yet it conveniently ignores the central tenet of the Christian creed, and the fact that killing for god to punish divine crimes such as idolatry, abomination etc. that is still killing humans to appease god, so is therefore Human Sacrifice!
In fact when a Texan says that they support the death penalty for Christian reasons ("an eye for an eye", or "thou shalt not kill" are often posited) then that person is advocating human sacrifice in the context of religion, they just don't call it that because otherwise they would have to face the hypocrisy of it! "
So, is it aggressive to kill someone for faith or for reasons of capital punishment, which is allowed by faith, or is it not? Not aggressive for polytheistic religions who practiced it but aggressive for Christians.
Personally, I'd say it's aggressive for both.
In fact when a Texan says that they support the death penalty for Christian reasons ("an eye for an eye", or "thou shalt not kill" are often posited) then that person is advocating human sacrifice in the context of religion, they just don't call it that because otherwise they would have to face the hypocrisy of it! "
So, is it aggressive to kill someone for faith or for reasons of capital punishment, which is allowed by faith, or is it not? Not aggressive for polytheistic religions who practiced it but aggressive for Christians.
Personally, I'd say it's aggressive for both.
Shannon wrote: "Didn't think it would make you feel better, for sure. But, it is something people tend to forget."I think they tend to forget due to the sigh of relief that dems collectively made when the republicans latched on to it and started screaming it from the roof tops.
amazingly, it's one of the few things the republicans seem proud to own and they aren't trying to say is all dems fault.
Irony.
Gary wrote: "the bulwark only protects the extremists it does nothing to protect us from them...."Gary, you do seem to have a penchant for grand narratives and rhetoric. I agree with much of what you think about fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity, but you sometimes sound as if you are talking about an 'evil empire' rather than simply other people like you and I. It's the fundamentalists that believe in 'evil', not atheists.
Try bringing your focus of attention down a scale and think about the majority of individuals that you meet day-to-day in your local community and not the ideologies, hate-figures and strawmen you have encountered through the media and on the internet. Take a trip to your local Anglican church or Hindu temple (I'd love to celebrate Diwali in Leicester). Imagine yourself in a discussion with a friend you have met there and how you would talk to them one-to-one in the pub or in the park if you were both trying to figure out what life is all about for your mutual advantage.
Polarisation of opinion is being facilitated by the influence of the internet and it seems to be a huge problem for America in particular. I'd hate to see the same thing happen in the UK. The way we express ourselves can either encourage or discourage polarisation. I hope that as rationalists and skeptics we are able to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "That's the problem with gross generalizations, yes? "Yep, but my generalisation of Christianity being more aggressively expansionist after the reformer (Jesus) preached against th..."
That whole 'thou shalt not kill' thing seems at odds with the love of the death penalty and enthusiasm for war.
Course, It's hard to say if that's a christian thing, a gun culture thing or just Texas being Texas.
Shannon, at no point did Gary say that it wasn't aggressive in either case, what he said is that claiming that pagan faiths were aggressive because of it is disingenuous when it is preached in the bible, and is a central tenet of belief within christianity in the act of using Jesus as the ultimate scape goat.
Hazel wrote: "Shannon, at no point did Gary say that it wasn't aggressive in either case, what he said is that claiming that pagan faiths were aggressive because of it is disingenuous when it is preached in the ..."That and his argument seems to be more about how christianity is as aggressive as or more aggressive than the pagan beliefs that christians tend to snicker at for being 'primitive'.
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Didn't think it would make you feel better, for sure. But, it is something people tend to forget."
I think they tend to forget due to the sigh of relief that dems collectively mad..."
Travis ....
I'm not a democrat or a republican. I'm proud to say I'm an independent.
Also, what I'm not forgetting is the truth. That's something people often forget. I'm blessed ... or cursed ... with a freakish memory.
People today believe the Birther movement began with those extremist Christians, who tend toward racism, don't you know.
Well, the truth of the matter is ....
It started with the democrats. The Clinton campaign, not filled with extremist Christians, who tend to be racists, don't you know. It started with the democrats against John McCain, who was born while his father, who was serving our country, was deployed. Wow.
Now, as I said, did the republicans take it and run with it? Yes. Heck, yes. I also said ... I wasn't going to make excuses for Birthers.
However, there is something known as the truth.
I understand why you and so many in the country and the world think it started with the extreme religious right ... and, therefore, might have a racist element. Yikes on that last part. But, the ultimate reality is ... it didn't start there. Has it been there the last four years. Yup. But, that's not where it started, which is, as far as I'm concerned, five shades of fascinating.
It's interesting when we look at the full picture.
I think they tend to forget due to the sigh of relief that dems collectively mad..."
Travis ....
I'm not a democrat or a republican. I'm proud to say I'm an independent.
Also, what I'm not forgetting is the truth. That's something people often forget. I'm blessed ... or cursed ... with a freakish memory.
People today believe the Birther movement began with those extremist Christians, who tend toward racism, don't you know.
Well, the truth of the matter is ....
It started with the democrats. The Clinton campaign, not filled with extremist Christians, who tend to be racists, don't you know. It started with the democrats against John McCain, who was born while his father, who was serving our country, was deployed. Wow.
Now, as I said, did the republicans take it and run with it? Yes. Heck, yes. I also said ... I wasn't going to make excuses for Birthers.
However, there is something known as the truth.
I understand why you and so many in the country and the world think it started with the extreme religious right ... and, therefore, might have a racist element. Yikes on that last part. But, the ultimate reality is ... it didn't start there. Has it been there the last four years. Yup. But, that's not where it started, which is, as far as I'm concerned, five shades of fascinating.
It's interesting when we look at the full picture.
Travis wrote: "Hazel wrote: "beliefs that christians tend to snicker at for being 'primitive'""
Sadly, snickering seems to be a human trait, regardless of standpoint.
But, I have to run off to work ... and won't be snickering as I just remembered I was supposed to leave early (and didn't) since they're paving the two roads that surround my workplace this morning. :(
Sadly, snickering seems to be a human trait, regardless of standpoint.
But, I have to run off to work ... and won't be snickering as I just remembered I was supposed to leave early (and didn't) since they're paving the two roads that surround my workplace this morning. :(
Graham wrote: "It's a metaphysical problem and not a scientific one."Only if you artificially constrain science. Science is often thought of as a religion with textbooks replacing scripture, trained scientists replacing trained priests and the laity (literally laypersons) are just meant to listen and believe.
Old habits are indeed hard to break.
However science is not those things, they are just one of the results. Science is the methodology of removing belief from investigations and trying to find truth beyond our own ego and expectations.
Graham wrote: "We are acquainted only with our own perceptions, and never directly with the things which are supposed to lie beyond them. How can we hope for knowledge about those things, or even be justified in asserting their existence?" A.C. Grayling"
Actually that statement is empirically and demonstrably wrong.
We are not acquainted with our own senses at all as anyone who has saw an optical illusion can relate. What we see around us is not directly from our senses but from the "Virtual reality" that our mind creates from the raw input of those senses. The eyes work in ways to pick out objects, assign their colour despite changes in light colour and intensity, and extrapolate their dimensions and location. Your hearing is adapted to make subtle distinctions between some sounds and yet is completely unaware of others. This is why speakers of foreign languages often have accents that are next to impossible to eliminate because they literally cannot hear the difference between certain sounds that speakers of other languages can hear clearly. Smell and taste barely work at a conscious level at all and are heavily influenced by our assumptions based on that virtual reality. Touch is actually a conglomeration of a myriad different kinds of sensation which is laughably described as a single sense.
I could go on, but I think the point has been made.
So we do make assumptions all of the time. We assume that things we can touch and see are real, because it is convenient to do so, not because it is really true. We already have the technology to fake both anyway.
So with apologies to Grayling we cannot be sure of the existence of anything. Not even ourselves. Psycho-neurological experiments have demonstrated that what we think of as "I" is just a label for a myriad of impulses and thoughts. Recent papers even demonstrate that thinking in another language can significantly alter the nature of "who we are", the me that speaks German may be noticeably different in attitude than the me that speaks Latin. Because language effects thought and vice-versa. It is a complicit relationship.
Graham wrote: "Like most scientists I'm an everyday 'realist', but when pushed to a deeper philosophical level I'll fall back to an 'instrumentalist' view of science."
This is old news to quantum physicists. For decades now it has been known that what we perceive as reality and what reality is may be totally different.
Metaphysics may argue the point about "what is real and what isn't" but the actual question is obsolete, and it was never a good question to start with. Everything we perceive, including ourselves, could just be part of a sophisticated simulation whether within something as mundane as a computer or a construct outside the imagination of those that exist inside. In fact the entire universe could have been created one second ago with all the memories that we have and appearance of history. There are endless possibilities, but that does not mean we should believe in any of them, or to discard the pursuit of knowledge as pointless.
The pursuit of knowledge has to the best of our perceptions had a positive effect on us. If ultimately this is not true that does not matter because it looks to be true even when we try to make a dispassionate assessment.
Therefore the scientific methodology of observation, hypothesis, testing, theorem, applies. Not just to the fields that we commonly lump together as "science" but for everything. This is after all what people have been doing, whether they are talking about technology, astronomy, ethics or even religion.
Religion is a hobbled version of science. We go from observation to hypothesis but then belief jumps in before the essential part of testing. No one simply "believes in god" for thousands of years the concept of a single god was not recorded anywhere we know until Akhenaten. People believe in religions because they "observe" temples and the hypotheses of those who came before them. Yet unlike science they are told to accept these things as the ultimate reality and not to test them.
Graham wrote: "In theory we could develop models that are perfect instruments for predicting our observations, yet still not know if they are a mirror of *reality*."
But the point would be that it would mirror our experience of reality, and that is what we need to progress and comprehend our experience of reality.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31...
The holographic principle of cosmology shows that any region of 3d space can be described by its projection onto a 2d cosmological boundary. This may be a valid way of describing our reality and yet says our reality is vastly different to our experience of it. Yet the very fact we can even make that hypothesis means that by our limited senses we can still make sense and predictions about reality even if it is vastly different from our mundane perceptions.
Graham wrote: "It would be interesting to meet an intelligent extraterrestrial and see if they had conceptualised the universe in the same way."
At this point we cannot even communicate with dolphins enough to understand if they are even capable of conceptualisation, and if they are that conceptualisation is likely to be remarkably different from our own, and they share this planet with us. What chance would we have with true aliens?
People assume that intelligence is again simply a scale, when in fact it is a collection of myriad factors that are incredibly hard to define or quantify.
Graham wrote: "I've never been a theist and I have difficulty understanding how anyone can maintain literalist beliefs. ... Likewise, I suspect the best way to overcome fundamentalist views is to open people's eyes to the alternatives rather than attack their beliefs head on.
I have and again the problem is not the fundamentalist. The fundamentalist is just the ultimate expression of a given set of beliefs. A fundamentalist cannot be changed by their very nature, the only way you can defeat fundamentalism is by starving the beliefs on which they subsist.
You don't stop conspiracy theorists by showing them proof or attacking their ideas, you marginalise them by showing other people who may be convinced the flaws in their belief system. To do this you must be willing to stand up and speak out when somebody makes a flawed argument.
If you look back over this thread, I do not "attack" the beliefs of fundamentalists or others head on at all. As much as it may seem that way. What I dispute is the conclusions that they derive from these beliefs. I have never said "God doesn't exist" because it is a hypothesis so ill defined that it is just as impossible to disprove as it is to prove since all you need to do is redefine whatever your claim is.
What I do is dispute the regular claims made about god and religion, because there exists evidence there. The existence of god is a hypothesis, just like the myriad of other religious hypotheses that exist and also the non-religious cosmologies. Theists claim that religion leads to increased morality, the evidence does not support this. Theists claim that religion explains our genesis and that of the universe, but the evidence does not support their thesis more than any other model, and other models explain a lot themselves and may one day explain more.
If you cede the ground even to moderate religion you are supporting the idea of believing in authority without question. You may take it all symbolically but many (probably the majority) will take it literally at some point.
If someone stands in front of you and says "I was just following orders", do you blame the master for the atrocity committed or do you portion some blame to the person who carried out those orders without question or conscience?
Graham wrote: "I just think that there are many sides to religion and we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater."
I have asked this before, but I have heard the claim that religion has its benefits and yet I have never had a clear concise answer to what these benefits are, whether they are unique to religion, and whether they are worth the risk and price religion exacts.
The problem to my mind is belief, because belief is just a surrender to authority. The analogy could be a botnet spread by an internet virus, or a distributed processing network. Each one can take the power of many individuals and put them to work for fair means or foul. However the virus takes control while the distributed network requires a voluntary participation that must convince the participant to take part.
Reason is our antivirus to belief.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Didn't think it would make you feel better, for sure. But, it is something people tend to forget."I think they tend to forget due to the sigh of relief that dems c..."
I don't think people are too worried about where the birthers began as they are with the fact that this BS is still going on.
Not a case of anyone trying to deny the truth, it's just we are too busy having to explain to grown adults ( and Donald Trump) that they are wrong about this issue every five minutes.
I do find it fascinating that fox news has not tried to use the 'the dems started it' argument, as the are also big fans of blaming the Clintons for everything, and yet they seem proud to claim this as their own.
and the only full picture part of this that I find interesting is that, it's a huge song and dance people use so they don't have to deal with the racism element.
The Mccain claim lasted five minutes, and is that due to logic prevailing or the fact that he's a white guy?
Besides, I've been told all the dems are in on the Obama conspiracy, so them leaking the story is the perfect double bluff.
It's very similar to the arguments people put forward against gay rights. Rather than being honest about what is bugging them, they come up with these elaborate, and for the most part, illogical arguments.
If instead of the whole 'he was rocketed here from a doomed planet' thing, somebody would honestly admit it's because he's black, I would at least respect their honesty and we could have an honest discussion and the birthers could go back to proving the moon landing was faked.
Gary wrote: "Only if you artificially constrain science. and Actually that statement is empirically and demonstrably wrong...."Hi Gary,
Sorry, you appear to have missed the point of the statement as Grayling intended it. I sometimes get the impression you are looking for a fight, rather than looking for points of agreement from which to move forward. It makes talking to you a little hard work... and I agree with a lot of what you say. Imagine what it must feel like to someone to whom your ideas are new! You almost reach the point I was trying to make in your further comments, and this convinces me that we are fairly close but with one or two road blocks in the way...some of them semantic. If I may, I'd like to recommened a couple of books, the first is about the philosophy of science:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13...
The second book is about our e-personalities:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10...
I enjoyed reading both and they helped me to become more self aware on the internet and develop a more nuanced perspective on science.
As to the potential benefits of religion...well you have to move away from the idea that religion is defined in terms of belief. The potential of religion as I see it is to provide a focus of support and mutual exploration in those aspects of life to which we have no simple answers...morality, meaning, metaphysics etc. My guess is that you don't like using the word 'religion' for this purpose, for much the same reasons that I don't like Armstrong's use of the word 'God'. Whilst I don't think the avatar of a personal (ususally anthropomorphic and masculine) deity is very helpful, I am comfortable with religion maintaining some of its traditional role in society...minus belief.
I think we are at the point of diminishing returns in this conversation. All the best Graham
Shannon wrote: "Fascinating, Gary. In all the history courses I've taken ... and I've never attended a religious school in my life, Christianity was never given as one of the possible causes for the "Dark Ages" .... I can see that you'd make it the cause, though. "Actually I wouldn't "make" it "the" cause. I am well aware that there are likely many causes, and some may be more influential than others. However, I would say from historical evidence and logical reasoning that the rise of Christianity did have a strong negative impact on technology and development. Before Christianity the Roman Empire was advanced and still developing technologically. They had the same problems with barbarians and internal strife as did the post-christian empire however within a relatively short period the technological status of the empire recessed and stagnated. Was this just a sign of the times? Not really as the middle east caught up and then surpassed Christian Europe in development.
During the Dark Ages the Christian Church was effectively Europe's only resource for learning and scholarship, this can be seen in all the scholarship of the period. What is also easily seen is that the Church was actively denouncing and punishing people who had heretical ideas that went against the Churches literal beliefs. The only books really in circulation were those written by accepted Christian scholars. This state of affairs continued and technology did not change until the works of pre-christian Greece and Rome were "rediscovered" by the west in quantities enough for the Church not to be able to counter them. Thus was born the enlightenment.
I realise the truth is always going to be more complicated, however the studies I have read convinced me that Christianity had a large role to play.
"It would be good for religion if many books that seem useful were destroyed. When there were not so many books and not so many arguments and disputes, religion grew more quickly than it has since." - Girolamo Savonarola
"Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has vanished from the face of the earth." - St John Chrysostom, rejoicing that the Christians had destroyed the Library at Alexandria and most other collections of human knowledge, leaving the world with only the writings of Christians.
Shannon wrote: "While I'm sure there are extremist religious folk who homeschool, you painted with a very wide and biased brush on that one."Wide yes, bias ... well ... in all my years of discussing such things you were the first person to bring up an alternate reason for homeschooling in any of my discussions.
Now I ceded that perhaps I hadn't thought as much about the alternative reasons, yet saying that I also know it is a major push of the religious right to get around first amendment laws in the US regarding publicly funded schools.
Now looking at the US gov surveys (2003) it does say that 72% of homeschoolers do so for reasons of "religious or moral education" and the only reason that comes out higher is "concern about the school environment". 72% is still a huge majority.
So over generalisation maybe, gross definitely not.
Shannon wrote: "Further, your generalization that polytheism is less aggressive is misleading, which was my point."
How is it misleading? Polytheistic religions tend to grown by assimilation rather than conquest. Now both can have aggressive elements, but the very concept of their being only one god and everyone else is wrong is at the core of the increased general aggression for obvious reasons.
As of 2012 over half the world believes in a monotheistic religion despite monotheism being quite rare only 2000 years ago. The third largest general religion can be monotheistic, polytheistic or even non-theistic (Hinduism). Islamic terrorism, crusades, the holocaust, sectarianism, Irish troubles, the English civil war, Catholic versus Protestant in the middle ages and even the Christian vs Muslim conflicts can all be traced (at least in part) to monotheistic influence.
If you can name a single war based on polytheism in the last thousand years I would like to hear it. (There may be one or two, but I can't think of any off the top of my head).
Shannon wrote: "Personally, I'd say it's aggressive for both. "
I agree entirely. My point wasn't that polytheistic religion was blameless, I don't think any religion is a good idea. However, the defence that "polytheism practices human sacrifice" is a generalisation of epic proportions (14% of the world currently practices a form of Hinduism, and a reasonable percentage are polytheists, I am unaware of Hindu practices of human sacrifice, or capital punishment for religious crimes).
This of course leaves aside the hundreds of other polytheistic religions that do not practice human sacrifice.
So I think the defence that polytheistic religion is more or equally aggressive because it practices human sacrifice is wrong for the large extent.
My point about Monotheism being more aggressive was based on the simple fact that by its nature monotheism is intolerant of the idea of other gods while polytheism isn't by its very nature.
Gary wrote: "This state of affairs continued and technology did not change until the works of pre-christian Greece and Rome were "rediscovered" by the west in quantities enough for the Church not to be able to counter them. Thus was born the enlightenment...."...transmitted by Moslem scholars of course.
I was fascinated to visit the Al Karaouine madrasah in Fez earlier this year which was founded in 859 and where Aristotle was studied before being introduced to Christian Europe.
Graham wrote: "Gary, you do seem to have a penchant for grand narratives and rhetoric. I agree with much of what you think about fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity, but you sometimes sound as if you are talking about an 'evil empire' rather than simply other people like you and I. It's the fundamentalists that believe in 'evil', not atheists."Careful! http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-ho...
:-)
Graham wrote: "Take a trip to your local Anglican church or Hindu temple (I'd love to celebrate Diwali in Leicester). Imagine yourself in a discussion with a friend you have met there and how you would talk to them one-to-one in the pub or in the park if you were both trying to figure out what life is all about for your mutual advantage."
Now you are making the assumption I don't do that. I have had meetings with Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims and a lot more. Both normal people and trained apologists.
You seem to be perpetuating the same illusion that most theists maintain. The moderate religious person tends to excuse religion and blame people. Personally I blame religion and excuse people. Look back on this thread and you will see regular attacks on "atheists" as if they were the "evil empire" you allude to.
I have Christian (and Muslim, and Pagan, and Buddhist and etc. etc.) friends and I have met people from all kinds of faith who are wonderful people. I also only tend to have this kind of discussion when somebody tries to preach to me.
I may have strong opinions and well thought out points but I have been doing this a long time, and I am happy for any of my points to be questioned.
Graham wrote: "I hope that as rationalists and skeptics we are able to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. "
For years sceptics (little "c" for reasonable sceptics, "k" for hardliners) and rationalists have been marginalised and ignored because they have been afraid to speak out for fear of being thought of as radicals. Therefore, apart from a few notable folk, the majority have neither been part of the problem or part of the solution.
It's time to change the parameters of the debate. Theists (often sincerely) believe that their religion grants moral authority. This is demonstrably not true in the majority of cases (based on current religious trends). Theists believe that science is a strictly materialistic position while still using a crippled form of science to justify their beliefs, this is not true.
The answer is to invite people to think, and to question. Not to tell them what they should think, otherwise you are just replacing belief with belief.
Teach a man what to think and you have a slave, and a slave can always be made to serve a new master. Teach a man how to think then he is his own master and own responsibility.
Gary wrote: "(little "c" for reasonable sceptics, "k" for hardliners)..."English and American english.
Thank you for giving me a hint of what it was like to talk to myself 6 or 7 years ago. I'll be moving to the States to lecture in geology in a month or so. Our conversation has made me even more determined to try and interact in a way which depolarises issues and seeks common ground to build upon. I'm sure it is going to take a lot of patience and practice. I'm not very good at it yet.
Graham wrote: "English and American english.Time to move on..."
Good point, I have just come across people who have made the distinction I mentioned. :-)
We could survive in a world without religion but we could not survive in a world without science.
I would rather live without religion. So many bad things were/are done under the veil of religion. Science is proving religion wrong, and it is only a matter of time before people realize that everything they believed was based on conjecture, not fact.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "While I'm sure there are extremist religious folk who homeschool, you painted with a very wide and biased brush on that one."Wide yes, bias ... well ... in all my years of discuss..."
That and the fact that there are so few polythesistic cultures these days is because the christians came along and beat the crap out of them... I mean converted them.
Graham wrote: "Gary wrote: "This state of affairs continued and technology did not change until the works of pre-christian Greece and Rome were "rediscovered" by the west in quantities enough for the Church not t..."That sounds cool.
Seen some travel shows that visited madrasahs and some Hindu temples and they always interested me., both as places and because of the history.
Definitely need to win the lottery so I can visit more parts of the planet.
That and I want to be able to tell people I vacationed in Fez.
Travis wrote: "The Mccain claim lasted five minutes, and is that due to logic prevailing or the fact that he's a white guy?"
So, before I comment, as I've mentioned before, I have American Indian ancestry. I've actually dealt with racism, very direct racism. I say this because, well, it was pointed out that I might have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to things of this nature. I don't know if I have a chip on my shoulder or not. But, I do know my perceptions regarding such things are, perhaps, "colored" by my experiences. I'm just putting that out there.
When I first stated this started with the dems calling out on McCain, you said it was the other way around. And, you said the only reason the dems did it was out of retaliation. Interestingly, when I proved it actually did start with the dems, it wasn't, in your mind, about retaliation for the republicans ... retaliating against the dems for their attack on McCain, it's about racism.
I'm left guessing as to the reason. If it was retaliation for one, couldn't it be retaliation for the other? Is it not retaliation for the other due to how long this has persisted? I'm not sure. I'm guessing the time thing figures into your perceptions.
While there might be a racist element involved, no, I don't believe it lasted "five minutes" with regard to McCain because he was a white guy.
Go back in your memory bank. Or, read articles and posts that were written at the time. It didn't last with McCain because the American people were sorely ticked off. Were they sorely ticked off because he was white? No. I'm crying bull**** on that one. They were royally pi**ed off because the dems were messing with a member of the military.
To say that the child of a man, who was serving his country and deployed, wasn't an American citizen/born on American soil/what have you, because he was born on a base while deployed, well, that was outside of enough. Further, both republicans AND democrats came out against it.
Let's not forget the '60's and how horribly we treated our returning soldiers. That wounded America and Americans deeply. Look at how we've treated our soldiers since. The first gulf war and Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Americans, including myself, have been against some or all of these wars. However, we will not abide by people messing with our troops. Everyone, literally everyone, can back the truck up on that one ... that's the sentiment of the vast majority of the American people, due to our past.
So, a boatload of average Americans got totally and completely ticked, based on that, and the democrats who started it backed off. Why? A) No support. B) Dems didn't want to be seen as the wishy-washy party, weak on defense ... and sure as shoot didn't want to be seen as messing with members of the military.
To say it was all about racism, Travis, is just plain wrong. To say the questioning of McCain lasted for five minutes because he's a white guy ... well, it doesn't even begin to look at the full picture. Not even a little bit.
Here's the "chip" part .... Give the fact that I've actually dealt with racism before, I get totally ticked off more than you or anyone can likely grasp when people cry racism when it's not there. In this case, it plays a role. But, it does not, in my opinion and as someone who actually has had experiences with this, play the key role.
If all of those republicans were so racist, why did so many stay home and not vote for the white guy? Why did so many independents vote for Obama? Why did so many gun toting and Bible beating republicans want Colin Powell to run instead of McCain? Why did so many Birthers want that guy from Florida to run? What's his name? African-American, former military, glasses.
Yes, yes, yes, it plays a part in this. But, it did not and does not play the role you suggest.
So, before I comment, as I've mentioned before, I have American Indian ancestry. I've actually dealt with racism, very direct racism. I say this because, well, it was pointed out that I might have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to things of this nature. I don't know if I have a chip on my shoulder or not. But, I do know my perceptions regarding such things are, perhaps, "colored" by my experiences. I'm just putting that out there.
When I first stated this started with the dems calling out on McCain, you said it was the other way around. And, you said the only reason the dems did it was out of retaliation. Interestingly, when I proved it actually did start with the dems, it wasn't, in your mind, about retaliation for the republicans ... retaliating against the dems for their attack on McCain, it's about racism.
I'm left guessing as to the reason. If it was retaliation for one, couldn't it be retaliation for the other? Is it not retaliation for the other due to how long this has persisted? I'm not sure. I'm guessing the time thing figures into your perceptions.
While there might be a racist element involved, no, I don't believe it lasted "five minutes" with regard to McCain because he was a white guy.
Go back in your memory bank. Or, read articles and posts that were written at the time. It didn't last with McCain because the American people were sorely ticked off. Were they sorely ticked off because he was white? No. I'm crying bull**** on that one. They were royally pi**ed off because the dems were messing with a member of the military.
To say that the child of a man, who was serving his country and deployed, wasn't an American citizen/born on American soil/what have you, because he was born on a base while deployed, well, that was outside of enough. Further, both republicans AND democrats came out against it.
Let's not forget the '60's and how horribly we treated our returning soldiers. That wounded America and Americans deeply. Look at how we've treated our soldiers since. The first gulf war and Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Americans, including myself, have been against some or all of these wars. However, we will not abide by people messing with our troops. Everyone, literally everyone, can back the truck up on that one ... that's the sentiment of the vast majority of the American people, due to our past.
So, a boatload of average Americans got totally and completely ticked, based on that, and the democrats who started it backed off. Why? A) No support. B) Dems didn't want to be seen as the wishy-washy party, weak on defense ... and sure as shoot didn't want to be seen as messing with members of the military.
To say it was all about racism, Travis, is just plain wrong. To say the questioning of McCain lasted for five minutes because he's a white guy ... well, it doesn't even begin to look at the full picture. Not even a little bit.
Here's the "chip" part .... Give the fact that I've actually dealt with racism before, I get totally ticked off more than you or anyone can likely grasp when people cry racism when it's not there. In this case, it plays a role. But, it does not, in my opinion and as someone who actually has had experiences with this, play the key role.
If all of those republicans were so racist, why did so many stay home and not vote for the white guy? Why did so many independents vote for Obama? Why did so many gun toting and Bible beating republicans want Colin Powell to run instead of McCain? Why did so many Birthers want that guy from Florida to run? What's his name? African-American, former military, glasses.
Yes, yes, yes, it plays a part in this. But, it did not and does not play the role you suggest.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "While I'm sure there are extremist religious folk who homeschool, you painted with a very wide and biased brush on that one."
Wide yes, bias ... well ... in all my years of discuss..."
http://www.homeeddirectory.com/blog/w...
And ...
"In 2007, the most common reason parents gave as the most important was a desire to provide religious or moral instruction (36 percent of students). This reason was followed by a concern about the school environment (such as safety, drugs, or negative peer pressure) (21 percent), dissatisfaction with academic instruction (17 percent), and "other reasons" including family time, finances, travel, and distance (14 percent).[21] Other reasons include more flexibility in educational practices and family core stability for children with learning disabilities or prolonged chronic illnesses, or for children of missionaries, military families, or families who move often, as frequently as every two years."
Taken from ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homescho...
Your 2003 data is old, as you can see in the above. It was 36% in 2007. And, 36% is some different from 72%.
Now, it would be interesting to see what that percentage is now. As I mentioned previously, I know a family who pulled their children to homeschool this year due to gangs and violence in their schools. We also have a student who is pulled off and on due to cancer. But, those are personal anecdotes. I'll rest with 36% ... until we see figures after 2007.
Had you not seen the 2007 data?
Wide yes, bias ... well ... in all my years of discuss..."
http://www.homeeddirectory.com/blog/w...
And ...
"In 2007, the most common reason parents gave as the most important was a desire to provide religious or moral instruction (36 percent of students). This reason was followed by a concern about the school environment (such as safety, drugs, or negative peer pressure) (21 percent), dissatisfaction with academic instruction (17 percent), and "other reasons" including family time, finances, travel, and distance (14 percent).[21] Other reasons include more flexibility in educational practices and family core stability for children with learning disabilities or prolonged chronic illnesses, or for children of missionaries, military families, or families who move often, as frequently as every two years."
Taken from ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homescho...
Your 2003 data is old, as you can see in the above. It was 36% in 2007. And, 36% is some different from 72%.
Now, it would be interesting to see what that percentage is now. As I mentioned previously, I know a family who pulled their children to homeschool this year due to gangs and violence in their schools. We also have a student who is pulled off and on due to cancer. But, those are personal anecdotes. I'll rest with 36% ... until we see figures after 2007.
Had you not seen the 2007 data?
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "The Mccain claim lasted five minutes, and is that due to logic prevailing or the fact that he's a white guy?"So, before I comment, as I've mentioned before, I have American Indian ..."
If you can give me another reason for the birther thing to be going so strong, besides racism, I'd love to hear it.
I have yet to hear an argument defending birtherism that didn't boil down to racism or just plain crazy.
If you got the 'Dems started it' info from the wikkipedia article I saw, then I'm still sticking to my Mccain retaliation story, as A) it's wikipedia and B) the article discusses a conservative commentator/writer who was running with the birther idea during 2008 as well.
The whole respect for the military thing is shaky as it was the republicans that went after Mccain's record, as well as circulating the claims that his adopted daughter, who is black, was actually the result of an affair Mccain had.
This was 2,000, when W was running for his first term.
and the american people rallied around Mccain for...wait they didn't, almost nobody called W on it and he won.
The argument that the repubs were running black guys, so they can't be racist is weak as Obama was doing great in the polls, and they were polling really low with minorities, so they needed to get a black guy of their own.
So, they trotted out the three black guys in the republican party and then promptly sidelined them when Obama won.
They didn't vote the white guy because he was a weak white guy that picked a crazy lady, and a whole other rant, for his VP.
Also, a lot of the hardcore birthers and tea party vote saw Mccain backing away from the 'Obama is a a secret Kenyan Muslim' as weakness.
Birtherism is about racism. You can it isn't, but before I'm going to believe that you need to be able to tell me what it is.
Gary wrote: "(14% of the world currently practices a form of Hinduism, and a reasonable percentage are polytheists, I am unaware of Hindu practices of human sacrifice, or capital punishment for religious crimes)"
Right .... So, first, you were talking about the religions from which Christianity and Islam sprang, that being a very long, long time ago, and you were talking about Christianity and Islam in relation to polytheistic religions.
If you'd like to switch that to the present, we can. Hindus, for example, don't practice human sacrifice.
Shall we talk history? What about all of the women who were burned alive on their Hindu husbands' funeral pyres? Or, do you not think that's human sacrifice based on polytheism? Was that just about culture? Prior to answering that last question, let's think what the answer would be if Christian women were burned alive on their husbands' funeral pyres. Would that be about Christianity or culture?
Right .... So, first, you were talking about the religions from which Christianity and Islam sprang, that being a very long, long time ago, and you were talking about Christianity and Islam in relation to polytheistic religions.
If you'd like to switch that to the present, we can. Hindus, for example, don't practice human sacrifice.
Shall we talk history? What about all of the women who were burned alive on their Hindu husbands' funeral pyres? Or, do you not think that's human sacrifice based on polytheism? Was that just about culture? Prior to answering that last question, let's think what the answer would be if Christian women were burned alive on their husbands' funeral pyres. Would that be about Christianity or culture?
Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "(14% of the world currently practices a form of Hinduism, and a reasonable percentage are polytheists, I am unaware of Hindu practices of human sacrifice, or capital punishment for rel..."Christians did burn women. They called them witches and Joan of Arc.
Travis wrote: "If you got the 'Dems started it' info from the wikkipedia article I saw, then I'm still sticking to my Mccain retaliation story, as A) it's wikipedia and B) the article discusses a conservative commentator/writer who was running with the birther idea during 2008 as well."
Was actually going on my memory, but I hit Google after you questioned that. Now, this is going to sound flip, but I truly don't mean it to be. I've never used Wiki ... never trusted it. However, it has been used by atheists here several times. Atheists who talk about truth and facts and proof. When I saw that, I started to wonder. Maybe all things Wiki were trustworthy. I've always told my students to steer clear of it. However, they just told me within the last month that Wiki now has monitors who check the veracity of posts, so .... What's true? I don't know.
But, here are some articles. Not Wiki .... Remember the McCain article in the NYT was dated in February of 2008.
http://blogs.starbulletin.com/inpolit...
http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-...
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaig...#
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...
I was unable to find in these articles or on Google when the rumors first started to circulate. And, I'm not going to continue to look. It's taking too much time and it's not something I want to spend that much time upon.
Now, Travis, we're switching things up here a bit. Remember, I was talking about when and where it started. Right? I think it's important to acknowledge that dirty little truth. And, it is dirty. Doesn't fit the narrative. It didn't start as a result of racism. Might that have played a role, as I stated? YES. It was not THE instigating fact. It was not THE role. At the start.
Okay?
Is it a role today, with regard to the Birthers today, who keep it going and going and going? Yup. I bet it is.
Please remember ... this started with my saying ... I'm not going to make excuses for Birthers, but I find it interesting that the dems started it. You said no. And, you threw out the racist Christians. I looked into it. Nope, it started with the dems ... not the racist Christians. You said ....
At this point, it's an argument for the sake of argument.
Now, if you really want me to address your last point, you need to be clear.
Before you believe it's something other than racism, I need to prove what it is.
Hmmm....
Do you mean it started, at the very beginning, as racism? I say no. That was about politics.
Or ....
Are you going at the McCain thing lasting five minutes ... and only lasting five minutes due to the fact that he was a white guy? That's what I cried bull**** on. I still do.
Or ....
Are you saying the Birther movement, as practiced by the most extremist elephants among our citizenry over the past four years, is racist? If that is what you're saying, Travis, if that's it, I'd likely agree with you.
I'm not; however, going there with you regarding the very beginning of it. No. That was politics ... on both sides. Unfortunately, there were republicans, some racists among them ... maybe many racists among them, who took it and ran with it and will not stop. I truly believe; however, that it started as a political ploy ... on both sides.
Was actually going on my memory, but I hit Google after you questioned that. Now, this is going to sound flip, but I truly don't mean it to be. I've never used Wiki ... never trusted it. However, it has been used by atheists here several times. Atheists who talk about truth and facts and proof. When I saw that, I started to wonder. Maybe all things Wiki were trustworthy. I've always told my students to steer clear of it. However, they just told me within the last month that Wiki now has monitors who check the veracity of posts, so .... What's true? I don't know.
But, here are some articles. Not Wiki .... Remember the McCain article in the NYT was dated in February of 2008.
http://blogs.starbulletin.com/inpolit...
http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-...
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaig...#
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...
I was unable to find in these articles or on Google when the rumors first started to circulate. And, I'm not going to continue to look. It's taking too much time and it's not something I want to spend that much time upon.
Now, Travis, we're switching things up here a bit. Remember, I was talking about when and where it started. Right? I think it's important to acknowledge that dirty little truth. And, it is dirty. Doesn't fit the narrative. It didn't start as a result of racism. Might that have played a role, as I stated? YES. It was not THE instigating fact. It was not THE role. At the start.
Okay?
Is it a role today, with regard to the Birthers today, who keep it going and going and going? Yup. I bet it is.
Please remember ... this started with my saying ... I'm not going to make excuses for Birthers, but I find it interesting that the dems started it. You said no. And, you threw out the racist Christians. I looked into it. Nope, it started with the dems ... not the racist Christians. You said ....
At this point, it's an argument for the sake of argument.
Now, if you really want me to address your last point, you need to be clear.
Before you believe it's something other than racism, I need to prove what it is.
Hmmm....
Do you mean it started, at the very beginning, as racism? I say no. That was about politics.
Or ....
Are you going at the McCain thing lasting five minutes ... and only lasting five minutes due to the fact that he was a white guy? That's what I cried bull**** on. I still do.
Or ....
Are you saying the Birther movement, as practiced by the most extremist elephants among our citizenry over the past four years, is racist? If that is what you're saying, Travis, if that's it, I'd likely agree with you.
I'm not; however, going there with you regarding the very beginning of it. No. That was politics ... on both sides. Unfortunately, there were republicans, some racists among them ... maybe many racists among them, who took it and ran with it and will not stop. I truly believe; however, that it started as a political ploy ... on both sides.
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...
This might be a tad simplistic.
First, it's a generalization. There are certain churches within Christianity, for example, that aren't oppressive. This proves a reason to be hopefully optimistic.
In addition, the reasons they became more aggressive and dogmatic, if true, deal with some fairly complicated reasons and events. In reading your post, one could assume you meant that Christianity, for example, became more aggressive and dogmatic for one reason and one reason only. It's was a religion and a new religion. And, perhaps there was something inherently nasty about Christianity that made in such an aggressive faith. There are many reasons; however, for the aggressive dogmatism of Christianity. (Islam, too, but perhaps someone of that faith could address it. It started with the crusades, I believe. Not the faith but the aggressive and dogmatic nature of the faith.)
One reason has to do with the fact that it was a religion and a new religion. Yes. But, many reasons have to do with the politics and economics of the time. Christianity was a tool for and used by very powerful men. It was a tool that worked. And, in order to get the ultimate results, in their minds, the tool needed to be aggressively promoted and very dogmatic. Let's remember history and the fact that it was used by "politicians" ... kings and invaders ... to bring together a "Europe" of many different tribes, etc... with many different cultures.