Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Regarding Sati ...
http://www.datamationfoundation.org/w...
Note the recorded numbers of lives sacrificed. Also, note the religious links.
http://www.datamationfoundation.org/w...
Note the recorded numbers of lives sacrificed. Also, note the religious links.
Travis wrote: "Christians did burn women. They called them witches and Joan of Arc. "
They did, Travis. I mentioned that in previous posts. I've not mentioned this, but .... I'm 99% certain that, if I lived then, I'd have been one of the first to be burned ... or drowned. In fact, after I knew of something that was going to happen, before it happened, and told people ... and, then, it happened ... my father said, "If you lived back when they burned women, you would have been burned. You have to keep this quiet!"
I said, "Don't worry, Dad. They likely would have drowned me. More were drowned."
And, I don't keep quiet about the other, sometimes, because I get reckless sometimes ... because it's 2012 ... and I'm a woman in 2012 ... and it ticks me off, royally, that I'd need to keep that quiet ... else face the stigma and dangers faced by women 500,000 years ago.
As an aside ....
Again, my point wasn't that monotheistic religions are warm and fuzzy and all good. My point wasn't that polytheistic religions are horrid and evil. My point ... both have a dark side.
And, in my mind, both have a dark side because people are involved and all people have a dark side. I don't believe that for religious reasons. I believe that because I have a functioning brain-stem and have seen the way people interact with one another.
They did, Travis. I mentioned that in previous posts. I've not mentioned this, but .... I'm 99% certain that, if I lived then, I'd have been one of the first to be burned ... or drowned. In fact, after I knew of something that was going to happen, before it happened, and told people ... and, then, it happened ... my father said, "If you lived back when they burned women, you would have been burned. You have to keep this quiet!"
I said, "Don't worry, Dad. They likely would have drowned me. More were drowned."
And, I don't keep quiet about the other, sometimes, because I get reckless sometimes ... because it's 2012 ... and I'm a woman in 2012 ... and it ticks me off, royally, that I'd need to keep that quiet ... else face the stigma and dangers faced by women 500,000 years ago.
As an aside ....
Again, my point wasn't that monotheistic religions are warm and fuzzy and all good. My point wasn't that polytheistic religions are horrid and evil. My point ... both have a dark side.
And, in my mind, both have a dark side because people are involved and all people have a dark side. I don't believe that for religious reasons. I believe that because I have a functioning brain-stem and have seen the way people interact with one another.
Shannon wrote: ". else face the stigma and dangers faced by women 500,000 years ago."you may want to take 3 zeros off the end of that, 500,000 years ago Homo sapiens hadn't evolved yet...
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Christians did burn women. They called them witches and Joan of Arc. "They did, Travis. I mentioned that in previous posts. I've not mentioned this, but .... I'm 99% certain tha..."
I'm not picking sides in the argument, cause really there is no religion that wasn't built on a big pile of bodies.
(Maybe the Buddhists...and the Amish.)
Just see no point in trying for degrees of aggressiveness or pointing out some bad thing another religion did.
If that wasn't what you were going for then, no problem.
Shannon wrote: "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 c..."Looking back, I have been grumpier with you over this than you deserve.
It is a topic that tends to set me off and the 'dems started it' pushed a button when that wasn't really what you were trying to do.
You weren't trying to be the spokesmen for the birthers, but just said the wrong thing and set me off.
I personally don't care too much who started it, as it has now gotten so beyond that that it matters as much as blaming women for Eve and the apple incident.
We just accept that you are a bunch of troublemakers and...joking, joking...better stop typing, my wife visits this site.
To be clear, birtherism is racism. I have heard the denials, but have yet to hear a counter argument that isn't a big song and dance to hide the fact that it's racism.
Most times, people don't bother to present a counter argument, they just say 'no it isn't'.
. It may have started as mere politics, but has evolved into something ugly, that never would have continued if the President was Johan Knickerbocker and his father was a native of Sweden.
Hazel wrote: "Shannon wrote: ". else face the stigma and dangers faced by women 500,000 years ago."
you may want to take 3 zeros off the end of that, 500,000 years ago Homo sapiens hadn't evolved yet..."
Are you saying I exaggerated, Hazel?
Guilty. ;)
you may want to take 3 zeros off the end of that, 500,000 years ago Homo sapiens hadn't evolved yet..."
Are you saying I exaggerated, Hazel?
Guilty. ;)
Travis wrote: "Just see no point in trying for degrees of aggressiveness or pointing out some bad thing another religion did.
If that wasn't what you were going for then, no problem. "
I think Gary was pointing out degrees of aggressiveness, which is his right.
If that wasn't what you were going for then, no problem. "
I think Gary was pointing out degrees of aggressiveness, which is his right.
Travis wrote: "It may have started as mere politics, but has evolved into something ugly"
Agreed.
When I see something that's bad, I tend to want to find the root of it. I want to do that in order to fix it. In my mind, we need to find the starting point in order to truly stop whatever is ugly. I've mentioned that before here. I don't know why, but I tend to be wedded to this. I've gone rounds with my mother about it. The idea that I need to find the root of any problem and deal with it ... in order to fix the thing. Why not just fix the thing? That's her question. Why do you have to find the root? Just deal with the problem.
Yes, I think the root of the current Birther business is racism.
It started with politics, though, and that's important to a certain degree. What degree? Politicians ... even just ordinary people ... need to be careful. Words have great power. They should be used wisely and with an idea toward consequences.
In this instance, politicians, on both sides, used birth/place of birth as a political ploy. They used it carelessly, recklessly. They knew racism existed here ... or should have known. They knew ... or should have known ... that some would take this and turn it into the ugly thing it has become. They either didn't think it through, or they didn't give a flying fig what the consequences might be.
That's a HUGE problem in my mind. That's something that the politicians and political types, I'm including "journalists" and journalists here, need to admit to themselves ... if not take responsibility for it. Because, in my mind, if they don't and don't learn a lesson from this, they'll not be more mindful of what stunts they use in the future and might pull something that could lead others, who aren't quite right in the head or in the heart, to turn it into something ugly.
That's why I think it's important to acknowledge the root ... in this case initial ... cause. In my mind, one must do this in order to truly solve the problem. If the politicians hadn't pulled this to begin with, would the racists who use it now even have thought of it ... would there even be a Birther movement? I think they'd still be stuck on whether or not he was "born" a Muslim, which is also ugly, and would not have even questioned where he was born. I might be wrong on that, but ... I might be right.
Regarding buttons ... I get buttons. You don't need to apologize. I'm not the average believer, I don't think. Having lived your life hearing the arguments and dealing with the, hmmm, moral aires of many religious folk who think they're right and you're wrong, at best, ... that you're in league with everything that's evil, at worst ... well, I can see why it's easy, especially if a button is pushed, to see that, see what you usually have to deal with from many of the believers you encounter.
I'm glad you were able to see me in the end.
I think that's one of the real points of everything. (Though I think an argument was just made for not knowing what's real and what's not, etc.... But, that makes my brain hurt. And, personally, I think some things and some people are real ... perception, I know ...)
Agreed.
When I see something that's bad, I tend to want to find the root of it. I want to do that in order to fix it. In my mind, we need to find the starting point in order to truly stop whatever is ugly. I've mentioned that before here. I don't know why, but I tend to be wedded to this. I've gone rounds with my mother about it. The idea that I need to find the root of any problem and deal with it ... in order to fix the thing. Why not just fix the thing? That's her question. Why do you have to find the root? Just deal with the problem.
Yes, I think the root of the current Birther business is racism.
It started with politics, though, and that's important to a certain degree. What degree? Politicians ... even just ordinary people ... need to be careful. Words have great power. They should be used wisely and with an idea toward consequences.
In this instance, politicians, on both sides, used birth/place of birth as a political ploy. They used it carelessly, recklessly. They knew racism existed here ... or should have known. They knew ... or should have known ... that some would take this and turn it into the ugly thing it has become. They either didn't think it through, or they didn't give a flying fig what the consequences might be.
That's a HUGE problem in my mind. That's something that the politicians and political types, I'm including "journalists" and journalists here, need to admit to themselves ... if not take responsibility for it. Because, in my mind, if they don't and don't learn a lesson from this, they'll not be more mindful of what stunts they use in the future and might pull something that could lead others, who aren't quite right in the head or in the heart, to turn it into something ugly.
That's why I think it's important to acknowledge the root ... in this case initial ... cause. In my mind, one must do this in order to truly solve the problem. If the politicians hadn't pulled this to begin with, would the racists who use it now even have thought of it ... would there even be a Birther movement? I think they'd still be stuck on whether or not he was "born" a Muslim, which is also ugly, and would not have even questioned where he was born. I might be wrong on that, but ... I might be right.
Regarding buttons ... I get buttons. You don't need to apologize. I'm not the average believer, I don't think. Having lived your life hearing the arguments and dealing with the, hmmm, moral aires of many religious folk who think they're right and you're wrong, at best, ... that you're in league with everything that's evil, at worst ... well, I can see why it's easy, especially if a button is pushed, to see that, see what you usually have to deal with from many of the believers you encounter.
I'm glad you were able to see me in the end.
I think that's one of the real points of everything. (Though I think an argument was just made for not knowing what's real and what's not, etc.... But, that makes my brain hurt. And, personally, I think some things and some people are real ... perception, I know ...)
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "It may have started as mere politics, but has evolved into something ugly"Agreed.
When I see something that's bad, I tend to want to find the root of it. I want to do that in ord..."
Oh, the muslim thing isn't something I see as seperate from the racism. Most people see the muslim religion as something foreign, not a 'good american' religion'.
Look at al the crying and gnashing of teeth whenever they try to build a mosque.
Heck, Mitt Romney isn't getting a tenth of the grief over his religion and he actually is mormon, whereas Obama isn't a muslim.
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Oh, the muslim thing isn't something I see as seperate from the racism. "
I see the two as separate, but I can see why you link the two.
One of the reasons I see them as different is due to all the training I get, every year, regarding bullying and harassment. Discrimination against one's religion and race fall under harassment, but both are considered individual "protected categories" within harassment. There are others, like sexual orientation, etc.... At any rate, due to that, in part, I see racism and discrimination against someone for his/her religion to be separate and apart.
I also view it that way due to the fact that so many religious people ... well, you pick ... look down their noses at, don't accept, are obnoxious to, discriminate against ... people of other religions. Christian against Jew. Muslim against Christian. Etc.... Then, you have the Catholics against the protestants, etc.... My great-grandmother, who was originally English with some Welsh, was a protestant. When my uncle was going to marry a woman, of French ancestry, who was Catholic, my great-grandmother threatened to cut him from the family and not go to the wedding. Both women were white.
I can, though, given the fact that Obama is white and African-American, and born to a non-Muslim woman and a Muslim man, see why you're connecting the two ... and maybe there is a connection. For some who are racist, I'm sure the idea that he was raised Muslim, or was he, is also somehow tied to his race. However, I think, had he been white, totally, and his mother had married a Muslim man and raised him in a Muslim country for several years, that the questions about whether or not he was Muslim would still have been an issue. I might be wrong. But, after 9/11, I'm pretty sure it would still have been a problem.
I don't know about Romney and Mormonism. I mean, I've heard a lot of talk over the years about his Mormonism. There have been jokes about whether or not we could really elect a president who has "special" underwear. Would the Christian right truly accept a Mormon? Etc...
I can say; however, that the commentary about Romney's religion, in my opinion, as not been nearly as bitter and hateful as the attacks on Obama for his faith ... whether that be the fact that he doesn't go to church, at least visibly, or whether it be questions regarding whether or not he's Muslim or Christian.
Personally, I'm totally and completely disgusted by all talk of religion when it comes to politics. We, as Americans, are supposed to support people's freedom to practice a religion, any religion, or choose to not to practice a religion. To question our political leaders or potential political leaders based on their religion, in my mind, goes against what we're supposed to believe in.
I see the two as separate, but I can see why you link the two.
One of the reasons I see them as different is due to all the training I get, every year, regarding bullying and harassment. Discrimination against one's religion and race fall under harassment, but both are considered individual "protected categories" within harassment. There are others, like sexual orientation, etc.... At any rate, due to that, in part, I see racism and discrimination against someone for his/her religion to be separate and apart.
I also view it that way due to the fact that so many religious people ... well, you pick ... look down their noses at, don't accept, are obnoxious to, discriminate against ... people of other religions. Christian against Jew. Muslim against Christian. Etc.... Then, you have the Catholics against the protestants, etc.... My great-grandmother, who was originally English with some Welsh, was a protestant. When my uncle was going to marry a woman, of French ancestry, who was Catholic, my great-grandmother threatened to cut him from the family and not go to the wedding. Both women were white.
I can, though, given the fact that Obama is white and African-American, and born to a non-Muslim woman and a Muslim man, see why you're connecting the two ... and maybe there is a connection. For some who are racist, I'm sure the idea that he was raised Muslim, or was he, is also somehow tied to his race. However, I think, had he been white, totally, and his mother had married a Muslim man and raised him in a Muslim country for several years, that the questions about whether or not he was Muslim would still have been an issue. I might be wrong. But, after 9/11, I'm pretty sure it would still have been a problem.
I don't know about Romney and Mormonism. I mean, I've heard a lot of talk over the years about his Mormonism. There have been jokes about whether or not we could really elect a president who has "special" underwear. Would the Christian right truly accept a Mormon? Etc...
I can say; however, that the commentary about Romney's religion, in my opinion, as not been nearly as bitter and hateful as the attacks on Obama for his faith ... whether that be the fact that he doesn't go to church, at least visibly, or whether it be questions regarding whether or not he's Muslim or Christian.
Personally, I'm totally and completely disgusted by all talk of religion when it comes to politics. We, as Americans, are supposed to support people's freedom to practice a religion, any religion, or choose to not to practice a religion. To question our political leaders or potential political leaders based on their religion, in my mind, goes against what we're supposed to believe in.
Our world is dominated by monolithic religions. These religions have a proper beginning and founders. But Hinduism has no founders. Simply because it is not a religion but a way of life. It talks more about day-to-day problems. It deals with questions that every human being ask at sometime in life like ‘Who am I?’Many people find it difficult to understand Hinduism because of the numerous deities, scriptures and schools of thought. The difficulty is primarily due to the popular concept of God – that there is a God sitting somewhere up in the heavens and controlling the happenings on earth. In fact majority of Hindus too believe in a ‘God sitting above’ but the sole difference that a Hindu can choose a personal God or Gods from the numerous deities in the Hindu pantheon who are all the representative of the Supreme Being – Brahman.
more info. can be gathered from http://www.hindu-blog.com/2008/05/und...
Anjali wrote: "Our world is dominated by monolithic religions. These religions have a proper beginning and founders. But Hinduism has no founders. Simply because it is not a religion but a way of life. It talks m..."The caste system is obscene. For that reason, Hinduism is an evil religion too.
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "It may have started as mere politics, but has evolved into something ugly"Agreed.
When I see something that's bad, I tend to want to find the root of it. I want t..."
I see them as having the same root as xenophobia, but are two distinct issues. Muslims like Christians can be of any race & in many cases you wouldn't know a person's religion unless you ask. I think an issue is many people do not distinct the moderates & liberals with fanatics in Islam as in Christianity, and the Obama stuff is also because some people (including fundamentalist Muslims) believe that everyone born with Muslim father must be a Muslim, which is legally true in most Muslim-majority countries (maybe with the exception of Turkey) but not in a country with freedom of conscience like the US.
As to Hinduism, AFAIK the more reformed sects in it have already ditched the caste, sati & other sexist and racist garbage. I don't know much else about Hinduism, but AFAIK some other non-monolithic eastern faiths like Buddhism & Taoism also have a huge amount of texts that few, if any, living persons can claim to have read them all, and many conflicting schools of thoughts in it that hardly agree on anything, hence modernists and reformists can basically do whatever they like to make their benign versions of them.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Oh, the muslim thing isn't something I see as seperate from the racism. "I see the two as separate, but I can see why you link the two.
One of the reasons I see ..."
While there has been mention of Romney being mormon, there hasn't been anywhere near the hate speech, as Obama ( who isn't a muslim) has received. Romney is getting off scott free, as people want to be respectful.
Which sends the needle on my irony meter into the red.
Muslims have unfortunately been linked with terrorism in a lot of peoples minds and since the vast majority of muslims tend to be brown people, it is constantly linked with race.
Try as we might, it's been near impossible to seperate the two.
So, basically Obama's crime is being brown and secretly being involved in a brown religion.
these protests were going on since day one, which makes it tricky to make it about the job he's done when they were protesting while he was being sworn in.
Off topic ...
Science question ...
I was in the bookstore and saw a book by Bryan Sykes about genetics and anthropology. I was somewhat intrigued, but .... Do any of you, especially those into science, know if he's a good scientist, meaning does he write about "good" science? I'm going to try to do some research on him, but I thought one of you might know. What I'm getting at is ... does he do true science ... without bias? (You know how someone found info on evolution a week or so ago that was biased. I don't want that.)
Science question ...
I was in the bookstore and saw a book by Bryan Sykes about genetics and anthropology. I was somewhat intrigued, but .... Do any of you, especially those into science, know if he's a good scientist, meaning does he write about "good" science? I'm going to try to do some research on him, but I thought one of you might know. What I'm getting at is ... does he do true science ... without bias? (You know how someone found info on evolution a week or so ago that was biased. I don't want that.)
I would love to have the chance to live in a world without religion! Strip away that layer of denial and see what we are really about!!
Shannon wrote: "Off topic ...Science question ...
I was in the bookstore and saw a book by Bryan Sykes about genetics and anthropology. I was somewhat intrigued, but .... Do any of you, especially those into ..."
I understand he was a Professor of Human Genetics at Oxford, in which case he would have had to have published many peer reviewed papers. I understand he made his name by being the first to characterise DNA from archaeological bones. Thanks for reminding me that I want to read The Seven Daughters of Eve sometime. Even Oxford Profs can have maverick ideas of course and so alway good to read with a critical mind.
Thanks for the info, Graham, and I've put Armstrong's book on my TBR list. :)
Apologies, away for a busy weekend!Graham wrote: "As to the potential benefits of religion...well you have to move away from the idea that religion is defined in terms of belief."
Here is one of the key problems. I have quoted here before the dictionary definition of religion and it references "belief" directly in 4 out of 5 definitions and the 5th refers indirectly to believers "nuns or monks".
Now I appreciate that you seem to wish to entirely redefine religion to serve a new function but I do not think that will be effective as there will always be a large amount of inertia in such a change and it will take a long time before everyone agrees with your new interpretation. You only have to look at the recent mainstream religions acceptance of evolution as the "way god created life" and the story of Genesis as being symbolic and yet Creationism still is going strong.
With such a radical redefinition of religion, it would seem that the discarding of religion for something new would be an easier prospect than trying to change the entrenched definition of thousands of years of belief.
Graham wrote: "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'."
The reason I do not like it is that religion has long been assumed to give simple answers to those questions and yet those answers evaporate as soon as you look closely at them. Religious morality equates to nothing more than the stick of inescapable justice and the carrot of post-mortem bliss, both supporting a mortality that is assumed on authority not merit. "Meaning" also evaporates into a circular rationale of presumptive meaning by divine but incomprehensible purpose or "meaning" defined by submission. A lot of Metaphysicsis merely asking the ultimate questions that actual physics is still striving toward but without the discipline of waiting for results, the rest of metaphysics is simply the discussion of questions that by their nature have no final answer that can be sought.
Personally I would rather have in matters of morality, religion cede ground to a study of ethics and justice. Though many Americans would like to believe that their laws are based on the ten commandments, they are not. American and indeed most of Western jurisprudence are based on the laws of Ancient Rome written with the most advanced ethical understanding of their time.
Morality without comprehension is not ethics. It is not enough to know we shouldn't commit injustice, we need to know why we shouldn't. By this understanding we inoculate ourselves against the blind obedience to authoritative rule which may or may not be moral.
Meaning is something which can only truly come from within ourselves, yet has long been subverted by authority and control whether religious, political or even military. As part of human nature we seem to crave that sense of meaning and community that this authority brings. Ask soldiers why they serve and that sense of belonging and comradeliness is overwhelming (and certainly more important compared to the modern risks and recompense). Here religion should cede ground to community, where our sense of meaning is put back where it should be. Instead of being wasted on political or religious ideals, we should instead find meaning in mutual respect and a desire to help each other thereby ultimately helping ourselves as well.
Metaphysics, well metaphysics is fine, but Religion has long been the enemy of metaphysics masquerading as an answer (god) something which is ultimately an unanswerable question (what is god). Cosmology and astrophysics has already reached grounds that metaphysical philosophers had never even dreamed of, therefore discarding our primitive religious preconceptions for a honest search for understanding would be a far better, and more humble, path.
Graham wrote: " 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."
What is religion without belief? Why do people go to Church or allow unelected, unqualified authorities to influence their attitudes and understanding? How do you envision this newly hobbled version of religion existing or enduring? How do you prevent religious adherents from believing whether you want them to or not.
There are those who believe that Jesus never claimed divinity and indeed that his message of mutual respect and peace was subsumed and drowned by his deification. Many people sigh and shake their heads whenever extremists rise, but ultimately extremists are just a part of belief. Belief can indeed move mountains, but not through supernatural means, belief just is a convenient yoke to which a multitude can be chained.
Shannon wrote: "Again, my point wasn't that monotheistic religions are warm and fuzzy and all good. My point wasn't that polytheistic religions are horrid and evil. My point ... both have a dark side."Agreed. My point was really only that monotheistic religions have an additional point to be aggressive, their idea that only they are right (i.e. whichever sect) this also means that monotheistic religions are more prone to schisms, purges and sectarian violence (religious civil war) over differing views of who knows gods mind best.
However, you won't find me defending any type of religion being completely good :-)
Shannon wrote: "And, in my mind, both have a dark side because people are involved and all people have a dark side. I don't believe that for religious reasons."
I agree. We all have a dark side, the problem with religion is that by blind belief it can then act as justification for the worst excesses of human nature.
Psychologically speaking the only effective preventative to this is understanding. There appears to be a link between a more educated society and a more moral one.
Shannon wrote: "Yes, I think the root of the current Birther business is racism."And a reasonable amount of "sour grapes". :-)
Gary wrote: "What is religion without belief?..."Yep, that's what I'd like to talk about.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Yes, I think the root of the current Birther business is racism."And a reasonable amount of "sour grapes". :-)"
You and I have very different ideas of 'reasonable'.
Anjali wrote: "Our world is dominated by monolithic religions. These religions have a proper beginning and founders. But Hinduism has no founders. "Surely this means it has myriad founders rather than none? Just as the Egyptian polytheistic religion had different gods that appeared, waxed and waned in power and influence over the millennia of its existence.
Anjali wrote: "Simply because it is not a religion but a way of life. It talks more about day-to-day problems. It deals with questions that every human being ask at sometime in life like ‘Who am I?’"
Every religion has claim on being a way of life, most have views on day-to-day problems, (most advocating prayer for intercession, or reciting scripture to control ones own desires), almost all claim to deal with the "big" questions.
What you say is in no way unique to Hinduism or even remarkably different.
Anjali wrote: "sole difference that a Hindu can choose a personal God or Gods from the numerous deities in the Hindu pantheon who are all the representative of the Supreme Being – Brahman."
So this merely places a hierarchy of mystical beings between the worshipper and the ultimate mystical being. Again this is identical to many monotheistic religions with their pantheon of saints and angels. Islam believes that Muhammed was told by Jibril (Gabrael) the will of Allah (God). Christians believe the angels act as messengers to and from God, some Christians believe in Patron Saints or Guardian Angels that assume the same kind of role as personal Gods (the concept of which has been around since at least the Genii in Roman Religion). Catholics even pray to saints or to Mother Mary to intercede in a tradition reminiscent of Ancient Roman polytheism.
None of this is particularly different from Hinduism. Just the names and details are slightly different.
Travis wrote: "You and I have very different ideas of 'reasonable'."Perhaps I chose the wrong word :-) Then again "reasonable" means with a reason, not necessarily a "good" reason!
But criticism accepted.
Whenever I see Birthers (whether Democrat or Republican) all I see is people sulking. "He can't be really our leader because he's a foreigner!" The entire concept is undemocratic.
Then again, partisan politics is getting so bad that both sides approach religious fervour, while spouting their love of "democracy and freedom" with no sense of irony. I remember seeing an interview with a bunch of military veterans who were talking about the fact they fought for freedom and democracy, then when asked who'd they'd vote for they responded "President Bush, because he's our commander-in-chief" without any signs of the cognitive dissonance in such a comment.
Birthers should get into the same sack as moon hoax conspiracy theorists and homoeopathists and be beaten with sticks :-)
Graham wrote: "Yep, that's what I'd like to talk about. "Yup. So what is it?
Gary wrote: "Yup. So what is it?"I was about to say 'a desire, rather than an answer' but then of course, buddhism is about letting go of the desire. It offers social structures and practices that help alleviate the loneliness of our solitary consciousness? The point is that there is plenty of room for constructive discussion.
If all you want to do is say how silly literalist belief is then I don't know how to move the conversation forward. I agree. What more is there to be said?
Graham wrote: "If all you want to do is say how silly literalist belief is then I don't know how to move the conversation forward. I agree. What more is there to be said? "Instead of attacking the points you think I am trying to make, why not instead state the point you are trying to make.
I am not trying to say that "literalist" belief is silly, I am trying to say that belief is - in its very essence - dangerous because belief requires the suspending of critical faculties that defend us from becoming part of a movement that may turn out to be morally corrupt or morally corruptible.
Buddhism is a belief structure that is at least a lot less corruptible than some others, but it still uses belief in an afterlife and a belief in the moral rightness of certain behaviours without recourse to rational definition. This can lead to the same sort of baseless moral judgement that other faiths can make.
You have stated that in your opinion there is a role for religion without the necessity for belief, the conversation can only 'move forward' if you actually define what you mean by this role and how its methodology would be addressed within society without requiring belief or authority to enact.
Gary wrote: "I am trying to say that belief is - in its very essence - dangerous because belief requires the suspending of critical faculties..."That's sort of what I was saying, but in more colloquial language. I'm just trying to have a conversation. I'm not challenging you. Please, please, don't reply to every sentence. You are not debating a creationist here. I'm not interested in what you think of everything I say. Pick and choose what interests you. I'm interested in hearing your free flow of thought. I'm not answering your points about the pros and cons (erm, I means only cons :) of religious belief, because I generally agree and it's not what I'm really interested in right now.
'Belief' is a funny word. Believing in anything 100%, all of the time, without any give and take is dangerous, as you say. But on some level we all place at least temporary trust in particular 'beliefs'...otherwise we'd all be solipsists and could never move forward. Even Popper agreed that ‘He who gives up a theory too easily in the face of apparent refutations will never discover the possibilities inherent in his theory’ (e.g. Uranus didn’t conform to Newton’s laws - the discovery of Neptune). But, do we really in practice live as if everything has a set probablity assigned to it? Can we even assign probabilies in an absolute sense, or only relative to a priori models (frequentist vs Bayesian stats)?
Ok, let's imagine a world where everyone understands the basis of scientific epistemology and agrees it is the best route to assess the liklihood of positivist claims. Wonderful! Yeah, we no longer have to go on ad infinitum about 'belief' ;-) Now, is there something missing? I would argue, yes...and I've never been to church!
Wouldn't it be nice to get together once a week or more and remember we aren't alone in this existence. We all share the experience of life, we all ask ourselves difficult questions about meaning, morality and the nature of being. Doesn't structure in our life help to give our life meaning. Doesn't sharing our doubt help to alleviate the burden of doubt? I guess you don't have to call it 'religion' if you don't want... but it seems very close to the traditional role played by religion. More social evolution than revolution. I think we do benefit from some kind of social structure to encourage empathy, social responsibility and a sense of community. How do we guard against the re-emergance of divisive beliefs? Good question.
Shannon wrote: "Thanks for the info, Graham, and I've put Armstrong's book on my TBR list. :)"I'd be interested to hear what you make of it. I have a little different perspective on a lot of what she says. It's certainly possible to question the historical accuracy of her thesis as I did in my review and Gary did in a previous post here. Nevertheless, true or not, I can see where she is coming from and it seemed like a positive and constructive addition to the discussion to me.
Graham wrote: "Please, please, don't reply to every sentence. You are not debating a creationist here."No disrespect intended, in fact I try to reply point by point just because it is easy to lose track of things in this style of discussion and some people have a habit of cherry picking the point they wish to contend and glossing over questions in return. I feel its intellectually dishonest to do so, therefore I try to reply directly to points made where I can.
Graham wrote: "But on some level we all place at least temporary trust in particular 'beliefs'...otherwise we'd all be solipsists and could never move forward."
Indeed. This is the hard part to get across to some theists however, the ones who try to equate an even footing between science and religion. This is why I consciously try to steer clear of phrases like "I believe (x)". I accept scientific ideas based on a system of merit and consensus of experts, but always keeping an open mind to radical ideas. The important part is the "consensus" and "expert". For example a huge amount of non-biologists support the idea of creationism, and even a few scientists. However, there is yet to be a single peer reviewed published paper on the "theory" of Intelligent Design.
Do we really live as if everything has a set probablity assigned to it? Can we even assign probabilies in an absolute sense, or only relative to a priori models (frequentist vs Bayesian stats)?
Graham wrote: "I think we do benefit from some kind of social structure to encourage empathy, social responsibility and a sense of community. How do we guard against the re-emergance of divisive beliefs? Good question."
I feel this is the core issue that we diverge on. My feeling in that rather than serving as a structure for the community to come together around, religion has actively subverted this facility for its own propagation.
Once the forum was a regular meeting place that people could attend to discuss political, philosophical or even ...yes... religious ideas. However the general rise of monotheism led to the Church and Mosque where sermons replaced ideas and preaching replaced discussion.
Ironically it seems that the Internet's electronic forums are indeed largely replacing that missing need.
The problem with retaining the "religion" label is that this then carries with it the burden of the concept of sermons and authoritarianism. Whereas there are secular clubs, gatherings, pub meetings, "cafe scientifiques" and other fora that eschew the religious label and I think benefit from standing apart.
In an ideal world perhaps such a gentle redefinition could be successful, but the type of people who could make the transition easily are the type of people that are not an issue in the first place.
In the real world the force of religious belief are powerful, unreasonable and not conducive to being quietly altered to a more benign ideology. We are already at the point where in a modern supposedly educated society with a healthy respect for science and technology we have a huge movement for patently absurd ideas such as creationism and a political culture where moderate people will defend the right for somebody to be intolerant and bigoted as long as the belief is religious rather than political. Religious groups are demanding the rights to practice prejudice against people that would be instantly decried for the hate speech if there belief was based on secular concepts instead of supernatural ones.
Thanks Gary, I must try and resist the temptation to post just now as I have work to do. Cheers
Gary wrote: "Travis wrote: "You and I have very different ideas of 'reasonable'."Perhaps I chose the wrong word :-) Then again "reasonable" means with a reason, not necessarily a "good" reason!
But criticis..."
Don't put all the conspiracy nuts in the sack. We need to keep a couple around to keep things fun.
Big fan of Area 51 and Roswell myself.
I'm filling in the irrational slot.
Gary wrote: "military veterans who were talking about the fact they fought for freedom and democracy, then when asked who'd they'd vote for they responded "President Bush, because he's our commander-in-chief" without any signs of the cognitive dissonance in such a comment."
Unfortunately, I think there are rules and/or laws about people in this type of position speaking out against the president. The cognitive dissonance should be on the part of the American people, our leadership and our presidents.
My cousin's husband is in the State Department. They won't say, even to us, anything about the president, whichever president is in office. They won't even say who they're going to vote for. My cousin told me they're not to speak out in any way, shape or form against the president. To say they weren't voting for a sitting president could be seen as negative speech.
And ... I just heard a news story a few weeks ago about a member of the military who posted negative views of President Obama on FB or something like that. I believe they were looking at court martial or dismissal or something.
So, the men you saw might be fully aware of the ridiculousness of such a statement. However, they might also want to keep their jobs and their benefits and their pensions. (Just realized that should have been past tense.)
Unfortunately, I think there are rules and/or laws about people in this type of position speaking out against the president. The cognitive dissonance should be on the part of the American people, our leadership and our presidents.
My cousin's husband is in the State Department. They won't say, even to us, anything about the president, whichever president is in office. They won't even say who they're going to vote for. My cousin told me they're not to speak out in any way, shape or form against the president. To say they weren't voting for a sitting president could be seen as negative speech.
And ... I just heard a news story a few weeks ago about a member of the military who posted negative views of President Obama on FB or something like that. I believe they were looking at court martial or dismissal or something.
So, the men you saw might be fully aware of the ridiculousness of such a statement. However, they might also want to keep their jobs and their benefits and their pensions. (Just realized that should have been past tense.)
Gary wrote: "The problem with retaining the "religion" label is that this then carries with it the burden of the concept of sermons and authoritarianism. Whereas there are secular clubs, gatherings, pub meetings, "cafe scientifiques" and other fora that eschew the religious label and I think benefit from standing apart."
Hate to say this, Gary, but ....
While I can't speak to pub meetings and "cafe scientifiques" ....
Have you been to a secular club meeting or gathering lately? I have. I've been to secular club meetings and gatherings off and on over the past several years. Talk about authoritarian. I mean, seriously? I'm guessing you've not been for awhile.
Who is going to be president? Who will take notes? Keep the time? Take the dues? Then, we have the ... what do we do with members who don't read the books ... or enough books ... or don't contribute enough ... or are always late.
I agree that churches, etc... are very authoritarian, at least most can be and are.
However, ... and it's a big however ... secular groups are definitely about power and control. Big time. Heck! We even see it in neighborhoods now. There are all of these neighborhoods here that create a neighborhood society ... there's leadership ... they come up with rules about everything. (No, I'm not talking about condos. I'm talking about neighborhoods.) Colors to paint houses, how many cars can be parked in the drive, if you can have a basketball hoop. My grandparents used to live in one of these neighborhoods. Guess what? They were given a list of what types of flowers they could plant, and they could only have two hanging plants. And, no, it wasn't a gated community. It was a normal neighborhood. Crazy!
Just wanted to throw that out there ....
Hate to say this, Gary, but ....
While I can't speak to pub meetings and "cafe scientifiques" ....
Have you been to a secular club meeting or gathering lately? I have. I've been to secular club meetings and gatherings off and on over the past several years. Talk about authoritarian. I mean, seriously? I'm guessing you've not been for awhile.
Who is going to be president? Who will take notes? Keep the time? Take the dues? Then, we have the ... what do we do with members who don't read the books ... or enough books ... or don't contribute enough ... or are always late.
I agree that churches, etc... are very authoritarian, at least most can be and are.
However, ... and it's a big however ... secular groups are definitely about power and control. Big time. Heck! We even see it in neighborhoods now. There are all of these neighborhoods here that create a neighborhood society ... there's leadership ... they come up with rules about everything. (No, I'm not talking about condos. I'm talking about neighborhoods.) Colors to paint houses, how many cars can be parked in the drive, if you can have a basketball hoop. My grandparents used to live in one of these neighborhoods. Guess what? They were given a list of what types of flowers they could plant, and they could only have two hanging plants. And, no, it wasn't a gated community. It was a normal neighborhood. Crazy!
Just wanted to throw that out there ....
Travis wrote: "Big fan of Area 51 and Roswell myself. "
Wonder if Sean Bean has ever been to either place?
Wonder if Sean Bean has ever been to either place?
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Big fan of Area 51 and Roswell myself. "Wonder if Sean Bean has ever been to either place?"
Sean Bean is everywhere, isn't he?
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Big fan of Area 51 and Roswell myself. "Wonder if Sean Bean has ever been to either place?"
Yes, as we all know Sean Bean was rocketed to earth from a doomed planet.
Although, it must be said ....
I don't believe I'd even allow Sean Bean to tell me what flowers I could plant or whether or not I could have a basketball hoop, etc.... Frankly, I think I'd put up five hoops and dig up my lawn just on principle ... even if Sean Bean was "president" of our neighborhood society.
;)
Of course, I just realized, if I did that, I'd likely have a lot of face time with Sean Bean ... as he'd constantly be taking me to task for my misbehavior.
Ahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't believe I'd even allow Sean Bean to tell me what flowers I could plant or whether or not I could have a basketball hoop, etc.... Frankly, I think I'd put up five hoops and dig up my lawn just on principle ... even if Sean Bean was "president" of our neighborhood society.
;)
Of course, I just realized, if I did that, I'd likely have a lot of face time with Sean Bean ... as he'd constantly be taking me to task for my misbehavior.
Ahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regarding American soldiers and politics ...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01...
http://www.interesting-people.org/arc...
I wonder if this is unique to America or if it's seen elsewhere. I'm sure it holds true in many countries, sadly.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01...
http://www.interesting-people.org/arc...
I wonder if this is unique to America or if it's seen elsewhere. I'm sure it holds true in many countries, sadly.
Shannon wrote: "Although, it must be said ....I don't believe I'd even allow Sean Bean to tell me what flowers I could plant or whether or not I could have a basketball hoop, etc.... Frankly, I think I'd put up..."
I suspect that you spent some time while writing this, and after writing this,sat with a beatific smile on your face, with the following going through your head
Sean: Shannon, you've been a very naughty girl
You: Yes, sir, I have been wicked, I need punishing
...
I shall leave the rest to your imagination, because if you weren't already playing that scenario out in your head, you damn well are now ;P
Edit: actually it would be more like "Shannon, yev bin a reet naughty lass"
Hazel wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Although, it must be said ....I don't believe I'd even allow Sean Bean to tell me what flowers I could plant or whether or not I could have a basketball hoop, etc.... Frankly, I ..."
Did I click on the discussion thread for 'Fifty shades of grey' by mistake?
Think I'll just move along until you two ladies have this out of your system...
(where's the emoticon for 'slowly backing away, looking anxious'?)
Travis wrote: "Did I click on the discussion thread for 'Fifty shades of grey' by mistake?"
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
I so didn't mean it that way! Well, I, for the most part, didn't mean it that way. I was envisioning Sean Bean at my door with a notice telling me I couldn't have a basketball hoop ... then, another day, he'd come with a notice about my hanging flowers ... then, another day, he'd show up with a paper saying I'd violated the parking in my drive rule. On each occasion, I'd invite him in to tea. Very innocent.
;)
BUT!
Now, I'm ... blushing ... and playing the following over and over and over in my head ...
"Shannon, yev bin a reet naughty lass."
I can practically hear the accent and see his smile ... sigh!
I mean, really, Hazel! (Sigh...)
To be clear ... I've not read Fifty Shades of .... Some of my colleagues and friends have, though. They said they could fill me in on everything that happened in one minute. One said ... if the character "bit her lip" one more time, she was going to throw the book out. Of course, it must be noted that she didn't throw the book out. Hmmm....
Hey, wait just one minute. TRAVIS! Did you read Fifty Shades of Gray?!
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
I so didn't mean it that way! Well, I, for the most part, didn't mean it that way. I was envisioning Sean Bean at my door with a notice telling me I couldn't have a basketball hoop ... then, another day, he'd come with a notice about my hanging flowers ... then, another day, he'd show up with a paper saying I'd violated the parking in my drive rule. On each occasion, I'd invite him in to tea. Very innocent.
;)
BUT!
Now, I'm ... blushing ... and playing the following over and over and over in my head ...
"Shannon, yev bin a reet naughty lass."
I can practically hear the accent and see his smile ... sigh!
I mean, really, Hazel! (Sigh...)
To be clear ... I've not read Fifty Shades of .... Some of my colleagues and friends have, though. They said they could fill me in on everything that happened in one minute. One said ... if the character "bit her lip" one more time, she was going to throw the book out. Of course, it must be noted that she didn't throw the book out. Hmmm....
Hey, wait just one minute. TRAVIS! Did you read Fifty Shades of Gray?!
I hadn't even heard of Fifty Shades of Gray until people started a discussion about it on GR about a week ago or so. Doesn't sound like a book I'll bother with.
Hazel wrote: "I hadn't even heard of Fifty Shades of Gray until people started a discussion about it on GR about a week ago or so. Doesn't sound like a book I'll bother with."
I agree. Wonder what Travis thinks ... and if he's given up slowly backing away for a dead run?
;)
I agree. Wonder what Travis thinks ... and if he's given up slowly backing away for a dead run?
;)
Kristal wrote: "I feel I should mention that I think Dan Brown is an insultingly bad writer. Just a cheerful note to add to the discussion. :>"YES. He is.
Joan wrote: "Kristal wrote: "I feel I should mention that I think Dan Brown is an insultingly bad writer. Just a cheerful note to add to the discussion. :>"YES. He is."
There is an interesting page: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php...
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...
Practiced genocide on my ancestors. So, yeah, believe me, I get that.
Gary and Travis,
Getting the feeling that you think I'm saying monotheistic religions aren't aggressive and violent. When thinking over my posts over the past several months, I'm not entirely sure where you get that from.
I'm saying ....
Please don't generalize. Please don't overgeneralize. If you feel the need to do so, you might mention, I know this is a generalization, but ....
Some on this site make statements as if they're fact ... and the only fact. Some who read this site might take those statements as fact ... as the only fact.
I think that poses a problem. And, please note, as an aside, even though I believe Jesus lived, for example, I always have stated things like ... I believe Jesus lived ... when Jesus allegedly stated ... etc.... I'm not into, as a general rule, making statements that sound like the absolute truth ... the only truth ... unless I am certain. I'd appreciate it if others did so. However, it's all about choice. I say this to explain my intent behind saying ....
Except those pesky human sacrifices ...
My intent behind mentioning the fact that not all Christian churches are extremist and aggressive. (Now, I realize Gary also finds moderate churches ... more than moderate, I'd say ... to be a huge problem in that they allow the nasty and dirty extremist churches to hide, etc...)
My whole point ... let's give the whole picture ... instead of generalizing and making arguments based in bias. But, hey, that's just how I feel about it.