To Be Irreligious, Stupididy Helps

[Foxfyre]

Oh, and the only thing I REALLY didn't like in the OP was the thread title. A bit extreme.

But it did get a lot of you to look at the thread who might not have otherwise done so.

 

[Madeline]

Some here that I admire and appreciate a great deal seem to object to and be heaping a great deal of judgmentalism on the OP. But they mostly accuse the author rather than address the points offered for discussion.

I don't necessarily agree with every point in the OP, but I saw all presented as provocative and a catalyst allowing for a good exchange of opinions, ideas, observations, or whatever.

I do agree with the basic point of the OP that it requires every bit as much faith to deny the existence of a deity as it does to believe in the existence of a deity.

And the depths of the faith and the lengths to which some will go to to demonize or denigrate the religious believer are a most interesting phenomenon.

If that were the only point offered in the OP I'd say it would be a good point for debate. The insistence, however, that those who do not believe in a deity elevate a substitute to religious status in its place AND the strong implication that because of this false assertion there is something defective about the position is where a concept that might make a meaningful discussion turns into troll bait, as far as I'm concerned.

Does it take a leap of faith to believe there is no deity? I'm not sure on that one. As has already been pointed out, skepticism is not faith. It is actually the antithesis of faith.

Religion and faith meet emotional needs in humans (fairly universal ones, considering how rapidly any new group of humans develops a religion). However, not all humans have the same emotional make up and even among those that do, they don't all meet them in the same way. I can apparently tolerate having less explained to me than PC can....doesn't make me superior to her, but it certainly doesn't imbue her fairy tale with any more "reliability" than any of the others going.

It is annoying to have my belief in evolution compared to PC's belief in whatever (presumably some rendition of the Story of Genesis) when both of us are equally capable of looking at dinosaur bones and the results of carbon-dating tests. PC's beliefs arise from what is doubtless a sincere and deeply-felt need she has, but mine are based on my own observations and confidence in the teachers and schoolbooks I have had. If tomorrow she transfers her belief to a Pagan-style Mother Earth, does that also invalidate my belief in science?

 

[Foxfyre]

Some here that I admire and appreciate a great deal seem to object to and be heaping a great deal of judgmentalism on the OP. But they mostly accuse the author rather than address the points offered for discussion.

I don't necessarily agree with every point in the OP, but I saw all presented as provocative and a catalyst allowing for a good exchange of opinions, ideas, observations, or whatever.

I do agree with the basic point of the OP that it requires every bit as much faith to deny the existence of a deity as it does to believe in the existence of a deity.

And the depths of the faith and the lengths to which some will go to to demonize or denigrate the religious believer are a most interesting phenomenon.

If that were the only point offered in the OP I'd say it would be a good point for debate. The insistence, however, that those who do not believe in a deity elevate a substitute to religious status in its place AND the strong implication that because of this false assertion there is something defective about the position is where a concept that might make a meaningful discussion turns into troll bait, as far as I'm concerned.

Does it take a leap of faith to believe there is no deity? I'm not sure on that one. As has already been pointed out, skepticism is not faith. It is actually the antithesis of faith.

Religion and faith meet emotional needs in humans (fairly universal ones, considering how rapidly any new group of humans develops a religion). However, not all humans have the same emotional make up and even among those that do, they don't all meet them in the same way. I can apparently tolerate having less explained to me than PC can....doesn't make me superior to her, but it certainly doesn't imbue her fairy tale with any more "reliability" than any of the others going.

It is annoying to have my belief in evolution compared to PC's belief in whatever (presumably some rendition of the Story of Genesis) when both of us are equally capable of looking at dinosaur bones and the results of carbon-dating tests. PC's beliefs arise from what is doubtless a sincere and deeply-felt need she has, but mine are based on my own observations and confidence in the teachers and schoolbooks I have had. If tomorrow she transfers her belief to a Pagan-style Mother Earth, does that also invalidate my belief in science?

I don't have a clue what PC's views of Genesis are. But why make PC the subject of the thread which she has now become? I didn't want to discuss PC. I wanted to discuss a very interesting thread topic that she offered.

Why is it that some can't seem to separate a concept or idea from the person presenting it?

 

[goldcatt]

Some here that I admire and appreciate a great deal seem to object to and be heaping a great deal of judgmentalism on the OP. But they mostly accuse the author rather than address the points offered for discussion.

I don't necessarily agree with every point in the OP, but I saw all presented as provocative and a catalyst allowing for a good exchange of opinions, ideas, observations, or whatever.

I do agree with the basic point of the OP that it requires every bit as much faith to deny the existence of a deity as it does to believe in the existence of a deity.

And the depths of the faith and the lengths to which some will go to to demonize or denigrate the religious believer are a most interesting phenomenon.

If that were the only point offered in the OP I'd say it would be a good point for debate. The insistence, however, that those who do not believe in a deity elevate a substitute to religious status in its place AND the strong implication that because of this false assertion there is something defective about the position is where a concept that might make a meaningful discussion turns into troll bait, as far as I'm concerned.

Does it take a leap of faith to believe there is no deity? I'm not sure on that one. As has already been pointed out, skepticism is not faith. It is actually the antithesis of faith.

Then you read the OP much differently than I did. It offers a broad perspective from various sources and offers a wide variety of ways to look at the issue.

If even hundreds of people reported a physical sympton, even though he had not experienced it, would you not think a physician would be more rational to believe that the symptom existed than to disbelieve it simply because he had not experienced it himself? Would it not require a huge leap of faith on his part to declare that no such symptom existed despite the fact that a cause had not been identified?

It is in the same way that the Atheist appears to be irrational to declare the non existence of a deity in the face of billions of people who believe. Give such a cloud of witnesses, does it not require a huge leap of faith to disbelieve?

The definition of 'irreligious' is one hostile to or indifferent to religion. I think the definition itself is overly ambiguous because hostile to and indifferent to are two entirely different things. The anti-religious want to stamp out religion; believe the world would be a better place if all were Atheists. (Of course that flies in the face of historical experience but that is a different subject.) Such often insert a toxic element into discussions like this and are not interested at all in looking at any possibilities other than what they have adopted as belief.

The non-religious, however, are uncurious about and not the least bit bothered by what anybody else believes about religion and could care less what I or anybody else think about it. They can be intensely interested in the history and social phenomena related to religion without embracing any judgmentalism about it whatsoever. Such people are quite pleasant to be around, comfortable in almost any setting, and rarely are thread trolls.

I certainly wouldn't call anyone irrational who fails to accept at face value the testimony of another person's opinion, or even the opinion of many. Belief in something that cannot be proven empirically (or lack thereof) is individual, not collective.

You may be thoroughly convinced of your belief, and that's good for you (and there's no sarcasm implicit in that statement). But that doesn't mean it's a leap of faith for anyone else to fail to accept it. In fact, I would state the opposite - that it's rational and healthy to question the perceptions of others, and that only blind faith would inspire another person to take your word for the existence of something that cannot be proven.

I would agree with you on the difference between the anti-religious and the non-religious, although I would beg to differ that all non-religious people are uncurious as to what anybody else believes about religion. There seems to be quite a spectrum of curiosity. Just as we're speculating why and how unbelievers take that position, don't you think many non-believers are curious about what motivates a believer to believe? It's human nature to be curious, and the mark of an intelligent and open minded person to pursue knowledge rather than project - regardless of belief.

Which takes me back to my original point. We are all individuals dealing with a matter as personal as it gets. No group can be painted with as broad a brush as the OP and others on all sides sometimes do. There are simply too many points on the spectrum and shades of gray.

 

[Madeline]

If that were the only point offered in the OP I'd say it would be a good point for debate. The insistence, however, that those who do not believe in a deity elevate a substitute to religious status in its place AND the strong implication that because of this false assertion there is something defective about the position is where a concept that might make a meaningful discussion turns into troll bait, as far as I'm concerned.

Does it take a leap of faith to believe there is no deity? I'm not sure on that one. As has already been pointed out, skepticism is not faith. It is actually the antithesis of faith.

Religion and faith meet emotional needs in humans (fairly universal ones, considering how rapidly any new group of humans develops a religion). However, not all humans have the same emotional make up and even among those that do, they don't all meet them in the same way. I can apparently tolerate having less explained to me than PC can....doesn't make me superior to her, but it certainly doesn't imbue her fairy tale with any more "reliability" than any of the others going.

It is annoying to have my belief in evolution compared to PC's belief in whatever (presumably some rendition of the Story of Genesis) when both of us are equally capable of looking at dinosaur bones and the results of carbon-dating tests. PC's beliefs arise from what is doubtless a sincere and deeply-felt need she has, but mine are based on my own observations and confidence in the teachers and schoolbooks I have had. If tomorrow she transfers her belief to a Pagan-style Mother Earth, does that also invalidate my belief in science?

I don't have a clue what PC's views of Genesis are. But why make PC the subject of the thread which she has now become? I didn't want to discuss PC. I wanted to discuss a very interesting thread topic that she offered.

Why is it that some can't seem to separate a concept or idea from the person presenting it?

I like PC and have enjoyed many a convo with her, foxfyre. My back is up because she wrote a snotty and condescending Op. I'll get over it -- but this thread likely ain't the place to discuss whichever discussion-worthy concept you sifted out of her Op.

Start over, make a new Op -- that's my advice.

 

[Madeline]

goldcatt wrote:

I certainly wouldn't call anyone irrational who fails to accept at face value the testimony of another person's opinion, or even the opinion of many. Belief in something that cannot be proven empirically (or lack thereof) is individual, not collective.

You may be thoroughly convinced of your belief, and that's good for you (and there's no sarcasm implicit in that statement). But that doesn't mean it's a leap of faith for anyone else to fail to accept it. In fact, I would state the opposite - that it's rational and healthy to question the perceptions of others, and that only blind faith would inspire another person to take your word for the existence of something that cannot be proven.

I would agree with you on the difference between the anti-religious and the non-religious, although I would beg to differ that all non-religious people are uncurious as to what anybody else believes about religion. There seems to be quite a spectrum of curiosity. Just as we're speculating why and how unbelievers take that position, don't you think many non-believers are curious about what motivates a believer to believe? It's human nature to be curious, and the mark of an intelligent and open minded person to pursue knowledge rather than project - regardless of belief.

Which takes me back to my original point. We are all individuals dealing with a matter as personal as it gets. No group can be painted with as broad a brush as the OP and others on all sides sometimes do. There are simply too many points on the spectrum and shades of gray.

 

[Foxfyre]

I certainly wouldn't call anyone irrational who fails to accept at face value the testimony of another person's opinion, or even the opinion of many. Belief in something that cannot be proven empirically (or lack thereof) is individual, not collective.

You may be thoroughly convinced of your belief, and that's good for you (and there's no sarcasm implicit in that statement). But that doesn't mean it's a leap of faith for anyone else to fail to accept it. In fact, I would state the opposite - that it's rational and healthy to question the perceptions of others, and that only blind faith would inspire another person to take your word for the existence of something that cannot be proven.

I would agree with you on the difference between the anti-religious and the non-religious, although I would beg to differ that all non-religious people are uncurious as to what anybody else believes about religion. There seems to be quite a spectrum of curiosity. Just as we're speculating why and how unbelievers take that position, don't you think many non-believers are curious about what motivates a believer to believe? It's human nature to be curious, and the mark of an intelligent and open minded person to pursue knowledge rather than project - regardless of belief.

Which takes me back to my original point. We are all individuals dealing with a matter as personal as it gets. No group can be painted with as broad a brush as the OP and others on all sides sometimes do. There are simply too many points on the spectrum and shades of gray.

Going back to the illustration of the physician dealing with numerous patients reporting the same symptoms, it can be irrational to dismiss such reports out of hand purely because one has not experience the symptom himself or herself. If you told me there was a pink elephant in the next room, it would not be irrational to disbelieve you. But if numerous credible unrelated people reported the same phenomenon, a point would be reached in which it would be irrational to not at least hold open the possibility that the reports were true or that there was some basis for them. At that point, before I check it out, it would require a leap of faith to believe. Or not believe.

The uncurious wouldn't care, might shrug and not bother to check it out. Which is what the few truly unreligious people do. They don't care whether a God exists or not or whether there is validity in any religious beliefs and they aren't interested in exploring the subject. Maybe there is a God. Maybe not. Makes no difference to them. They don't make the leap of faith to reach a conclusion one way or the other.

In this context I am not promoting nor expressing any specific religious belief. My interest here is in whether it requires faith to believe or disbelieve.

How many of us, for instance, have opportunity to evaluate dinosaur bones or the expertise to do experimentation on them to assess their place and role in universal history? Yet many, perhaps most, of us choose to believe what others tell us about these things. There isn't a whole lot of skepticism or dissent about them from those who have studied or experienced them making it fully rational to believe, but it still requires a leap of faith to believe. Or not believe.

In the case of global warming theories, for instance, there is a huge amount of skepticism and dissent among credentialed scientists and therefore, in my opinion, a degree of skepticism is appropriate. And again, unless we have the expertise and opportunity to do the research and analysis ourselves, we are dependent on the opinions of those who have done it. And it requires a leap of faith to believe one opinion and reject an opposing opinion. In this case I remain among those who don't know and haven't picked a side but who think one side has made a better case than the other so far.

Given the history of the world, I think those who believe in a Deity have made a better case than those who do not. For that reason I believe it is a larger leap of faith to not believe than to believe and, for those who have not experienced a deity, it is rational to keep an open mind on the subject.

 

[PoliticalChic]

and yet, no rebuttal was offered. if i was to offer one, i'd offer it to the actual author, not some wannabe c & p *artiste* who probably has to sound out many of the larger words.

would you like more straw, rapunzel?

Talk is cheap!

Let's see that rebuttal.

He makes a good point, PC. Your threads and posts consist of the thoughts and writings of others and not your own.

Why don't you make an effort to put your own thoughts down? Most of us suspect you have none of your own.

Is it possible that you don't understand that the words I post are based on great amounts of study, which I do daily, and ideas that I accept, believe...

Your post implies that these quotes are selected at random...you certainly don't suggest something as silly as that, do you?

When an idea appeals to me, as having interest for a broad selection of folks on the board, I serve it up with appropriate links and documentation. I research, and - admittedly- try not to present it in a bland manner.

I'm always happy to defend ideas that I post, and the anger that some engender is an indication of interest. But I always look forward to a good debate.

I always appreciate your input, as well.

Finally, I have no interest in allowing anyone else to dictate the form of my post.

 

[Foxfyre]

Religion and faith meet emotional needs in humans (fairly universal ones, considering how rapidly any new group of humans develops a religion). However, not all humans have the same emotional make up and even among those that do, they don't all meet them in the same way. I can apparently tolerate having less explained to me than PC can....doesn't make me superior to her, but it certainly doesn't imbue her fairy tale with any more "reliability" than any of the others going.

It is annoying to have my belief in evolution compared to PC's belief in whatever (presumably some rendition of the Story of Genesis) when both of us are equally capable of looking at dinosaur bones and the results of carbon-dating tests. PC's beliefs arise from what is doubtless a sincere and deeply-felt need she has, but mine are based on my own observations and confidence in the teachers and schoolbooks I have had. If tomorrow she transfers her belief to a Pagan-style Mother Earth, does that also invalidate my belief in science?

I don't have a clue what PC's views of Genesis are. But why make PC the subject of the thread which she has now become? I didn't want to discuss PC. I wanted to discuss a very interesting thread topic that she offered.

Why is it that some can't seem to separate a concept or idea from the person presenting it?

I like PC and have enjoyed many a convo with her, foxfyre. My back is up because she wrote a snotty and condescending Op. I'll get over it -- but this thread likely ain't the place to discuss whichever discussion-worthy concept you sifted out of her Op.

Start over, make a new Op -- that's my advice.

Sorry, but other than the thread title, I didn't see it as snotty at all. I think it is interesting, provocative, and inspires discussion to those who can look at it objectively and not judgmentally. I would like for those who have a burr under their saddle re PC to go find something else to do because I enjoy the kind of discussion she offered.

 

[Madeline]

Foxfyre, I dun see what you are after here. Why are you at all interested in attempting to "prove" God exists? Even assuming it could be done, what would be the upside?

Faith is a gift; a choice. Why diminish that for those who have it?

 

[Toro]

I'm going to suggest that you read the thread, as there are several posts which would obviate yours.

Really? Where? I had read the thread and went through it again and the only thing I saw was a quote from a scientist stating that he had faith that naturalism would one day explain all life. But that is different than saying one has the same faith in science as in religion. His faith that in naturalism is based upon a body of scientific work leading him to a conclusion. There is no body of work which leads one to believe in the existence of God. It is entirely based on faith. Likewise, the debate on macroevolution is based on microevolution. It may turn out to be totally wrong, but at least it is a foundation. There is no foundation for religion other than faith. Again, you don't need faith to believe in photosynthesis. You need total faith to believe in God.

 

[Madeline]

I don't have a clue what PC's views of Genesis are. But why make PC the subject of the thread which she has now become? I didn't want to discuss PC. I wanted to discuss a very interesting thread topic that she offered.

Why is it that some can't seem to separate a concept or idea from the person presenting it?

I like PC and have enjoyed many a convo with her, foxfyre. My back is up because she wrote a snotty and condescending Op. I'll get over it -- but this thread likely ain't the place to discuss whichever discussion-worthy concept you sifted out of her Op.

Start over, make a new Op -- that's my advice.

Sorry, but other than the thread title, I didn't see it as snotty at all. I think it is interesting, provocative, and inspires discussion to those who can look at it objectively and not judgmentally. I would like for those who have a burr under their saddle re PC to go find something else to do because I enjoy the kind of discussion she offered.

So many clearly did not read the Op as "100% snot-free". Are we all wrong? I've already told you, I have no axe to grind with PC....why are you dogging me out?

She fucked up and threw a chicken into a foxhole and the fur began to fly. Ain't that pretty much what she should have expected, foxfyre? If the Op "could have" been written to provoke some less animated discussion, it ain't my responsibility to reword it. You want to, be my guest.

Nonetheless, I did try:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/141331-how-to-proletize.html

 

[Foxfyre]

I like PC and have enjoyed many a convo with her, foxfyre. My back is up because she wrote a snotty and condescending Op. I'll get over it -- but this thread likely ain't the place to discuss whichever discussion-worthy concept you sifted out of her Op.

Start over, make a new Op -- that's my advice.

Sorry, but other than the thread title, I didn't see it as snotty at all. I think it is interesting, provocative, and inspires discussion to those who can look at it objectively and not judgmentally. I would like for those who have a burr under their saddle re PC to go find something else to do because I enjoy the kind of discussion she offered.

So many clearly did not read the Op as "100% snot-free". Are we all wrong? I've already told you, I have no axe to grind with PC....why are you dogging me out?

She fucked up and threw a chicken into a foxhole and the fur began to fly. Ain't that pretty much what she should have expected, foxfyre? If the Op "could have" been written to provoke some less animated discussion, it ain't my responsibility to reword it. You want to, be my guest.

Nonetheless, I did try:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/141331-how-to-proletize.html

Dogging you? You addressed the post to me. I disagreed with you. That's dogging you? I strongly disagreed that she fucked up or presented anything other than a provocative subject for discussion. You have chosen to make it about her. I objected and still object to ignoring the topic and ragging on her. If that's 'dogging you', then so be it. I like the topic and would like to discuss the topic and I have said so.

 

[Madeline]

Sorry, but other than the thread title, I didn't see it as snotty at all. I think it is interesting, provocative, and inspires discussion to those who can look at it objectively and not judgmentally. I would like for those who have a burr under their saddle re PC to go find something else to do because I enjoy the kind of discussion she offered.

So many clearly did not read the Op as "100% snot-free". Are we all wrong? I've already told you, I have no axe to grind with PC....why are you dogging me out?

She fucked up and threw a chicken into a foxhole and the fur began to fly. Ain't that pretty much what she should have expected, foxfyre? If the Op "could have" been written to provoke some less animated discussion, it ain't my responsibility to reword it. You want to, be my guest.

Nonetheless, I did try:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/141331-how-to-proletize.html

Dogging you? You addressed the post to me. I disagreed with you. That's dogging you? I strongly disagreed that she fucked up or presented anything other than a provocative subject for discussion. You have chosen to make it about her. I objected and still object to ignoring the topic and ragging on her. If that's 'dogging you', then so be it. I like the topic and would like to discuss the topic and I have said so.

Fine. IYO, what is the topic, then?

 

[Foxfyre]

So many clearly did not read the Op as "100% snot-free". Are we all wrong? I've already told you, I have no axe to grind with PC....why are you dogging me out?

She fucked up and threw a chicken into a foxhole and the fur began to fly. Ain't that pretty much what she should have expected, foxfyre? If the Op "could have" been written to provoke some less animated discussion, it ain't my responsibility to reword it. You want to, be my guest.

Nonetheless, I did try:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/141331-how-to-proletize.html

Dogging you? You addressed the post to me. I disagreed with you. That's dogging you? I strongly disagreed that she fucked up or presented anything other than a provocative subject for discussion. You have chosen to make it about her. I objected and still object to ignoring the topic and ragging on her. If that's 'dogging you', then so be it. I like the topic and would like to discuss the topic and I have said so.

Fine. IYO, what is the topic, then?

Well PC may have a different perspective in which case I would encourage her to clarify it, but I took the OP to be the pervasiveness of faith among Americans and how that has formed our sense of morality and values.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The premise that it takes more brains to belong to a religion is just as flawed as the premise that it takes more brains to be an atheist, Political Chic. The sort of spiritual quest someone like Sky Dancer undertook might take more brains, but what is required to knee-jerk choose as an adult to belong to the faith you were raised in?

Religion and spirituality address certain emotional needs of humans, in various ways depending upon that human. We are never going to find a cure for AIDS just by praying about it. And asserting that evolution is a lie "because the Bible says so" just makes the speaker look foolish. Religion should confine itself to what it does best -- teaching ethics to its adherents -- and not attempt to change the US into a theocracy.

"but what is required to knee-jerk choose as an adult to belong to the faith you were raised in?"

In order to pose the above question, you must consciously ignore the various links that I have provided...and I understand the tempation to do so, else you might have to reconsider many of your closely held beliefs (I use the term 'beliefs' advisedly).

"...certain emotional needs of humans,..."

Exactly what I suggest is true of empiricism, especially those with limited knowledge of science.

"...asserting that evolution is a lie "because the Bible says so" ..."
Maddy, to sink to a straw-argument?
Juvenile at the very least...where did I claim what you state?

But, I would be happy to instruct you on the weaknesses of the Darwinian thesis if you like.


"...and not attempt to change the US into a theocracy..."

Consider the link between secularism and tyranny, for if moral knowledge is not possible, then we are left with only political and legal measures to coerce people into compliance, i.e. the better course that the elites envision. Thus, the folks who claim that they wish to be free of what they refer to as oppressive moral codes, such as yourself, are setting the scene for new forms of oppression. One accepts moral relativism to be tolerant and non-judgmental…but this ultimately leads to a politics of manipulation and coercion.

Think not? All totalist philosophies always know what is better for folks...does liberalism pop into your mind?

Arrogant much, Political Chic? You dun even know what the hell I believe, though if you ask me nicely, I will tell you. WTF makes you think that you have startling new arguments that if I would just honestly ponder, would prompt me to run back to the RCC or whichever christian church you are here shilling for? (It is ALWAYS a christian religion. The day a Muslim, Buddist or Jew proletizes to me I will fall down in a dead faint.) You seem to think I have arrived at my spiritual depot carelessly and thoughtlessly -- and I assure you, such is far from the case.

By means of what training and education exactly to you claim to be able to out-science the scientists? I always wonder about you evolution-deniers...what the hell do you tell you kids at the dinosaur exhibit at your local Natural History Museum? Or do you just avoid the place as it is too taxing on your religion-based thinking?

What right do you have to tar every non-christian as a "moral relativist", nevermind me personally? When it comes to right and wrong, I doubt you'd find many as rigid as I am....IMO, very few actual ethical quandries exist in this world, though we do like to bullshit ourselves elsewise.

Get the hell off your high horse, Political Chic. T'aint becoming to you to presume a superiority you have not earned.

Now, now, calm down...

I have the feeling that you are purposely mischaracterizing my posts...I guess it is easier to do so than to repond or rebut same.

1. Each statement of mine deals directly with a statement of yours.

2. "...you think that you have startling new arguments that if I would just honestly ponder,..."
I'm going to guess that you have never been confronted with the idea that the Enlightenment took Western thought in a new direction, i.e., the dichotomy of fact/values.

As far as whether you will ponder same, that depends on your character, doesn't it.

3. "...christian church you are here shilling for?"
Which of us brought up Christian? Ah, yes, it was you.
What makes you so sensitive to same?

4. "...training and education..."
What, exaclty, is the resume required to post?
Isn't being able to read, and think, good enough?

5. "...about you evolution-deniers..."
Now, see...look how you show your weakness. You are reduced to making things up, as I have yet to deny evolution...or can you show where I have?
You seem so hostile to new ideas, or a presentation of facts that you have not considered before....
Is this what you learned in school?

6. "What right do you have to tar every non-christian as a "moral relativist", nevermind me personally?"
Ah, but it really is about you, isn't it? One rarely becomes so incensed about some hypothetical 'non-christians,' does one.

7. "... to presume a superiority ..."
Since I didn't claim such, how did you devine (pun intended) that? Was it the ideas? The links? What?
But if you did, well, I'm blushing.


I'm guessing that I made some points that you will, actually, ponder.
Be well.

 

[midcan5]

Why do some feel the constant need to argue religion? If one is certain of something argument isn't required, and religion is faith, it is a leap into the unknown for surely so many religions require a balanced, tolerant view. And the constant argument that morality is not possible without religion forgets that in this real world, the religious do as much harm as the non-religious, maybe more for when one is certain one can act.

Interesting point counterpoint below.

Rick Warren on a life of purpose | Video on TED.com

Dan Dennett's response to Rick Warren | Video on TED.com


"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion." Abraham Lincoln

 

[Madeline]

I'd agree, we have a legal system that is (mostly) grounded in Judeo-Christian morality. You can draw a line from the constitution to the Magna Carta to the OT to the Code of Hammurabi. This is not universal all over Planet Earth; there are legal systems with very different ideas of family and property that have existed and do exist today.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm going to suggest that you read the thread, as there are several posts which would obviate yours.

Really? Where? I had read the thread and went through it again and the only thing I saw was a quote from a scientist stating that he had faith that naturalism would one day explain all life. But that is different than saying one has the same faith in science as in religion. His faith that in naturalism is based upon a body of scientific work leading him to a conclusion. There is no body of work which leads one to believe in the existence of God. It is entirely based on faith. Likewise, the debate on macroevolution is based on microevolution. It may turn out to be totally wrong, but at least it is a foundation. There is no foundation for religion other than faith. Again, you don't need faith to believe in photosynthesis. You need total faith to believe in God.

Check out the post on the weaknesses in the theory of evolution...significant, as it represents the idea that generally separates believers from non-believers.

And, of course, consider the dearth of scientific theory as to the creation of the universe itself...a pretty good question, no?

 

[goldcatt]

I don't have a clue what PC's views of Genesis are. But why make PC the subject of the thread which she has now become? I didn't want to discuss PC. I wanted to discuss a very interesting thread topic that she offered.

Why is it that some can't seem to separate a concept or idea from the person presenting it?

I like PC and have enjoyed many a convo with her, foxfyre. My back is up because she wrote a snotty and condescending Op. I'll get over it -- but this thread likely ain't the place to discuss whichever discussion-worthy concept you sifted out of her Op.

Start over, make a new Op -- that's my advice.

Sorry, but other than the thread title, I didn't see it as snotty at all. I think it is interesting, provocative, and inspires discussion to those who can look at it objectively and not judgmentally. I would like for those who have a burr under their saddle re PC to go find something else to do because I enjoy the kind of discussion she offered.

Sorry, Fox. But I would speculate the reason you don't see it or the follow-up posts in relation to it as snotty is because you agree with it. Your POV masks the tone.

Those who do not agree that empiricism or "science" is a faith-based religion to all non-believers, and probably some who do, tend find the overbroad projection and the method of expressing opinion as incontrovertible fact and the sneer of condescension at the "great unwashed" who actually hold and articulate those beliefs rather than read about them online and copy and paste what others have come up with more than a bit smug. How do you feel when you tell somebody what you believe and why, and they tell you that you're wrong, inane and stupid because THEY read about it somewhere and therefore know you better than you know yourself?

Not to mention the OP comes across as more than a tad hypocritical when calling others incapable of debate while not demonstrating any capability of critical thought or articulation of an idea on her own merits. I remember a certain poster referred to as PI who also fatuously and repeatedly declared victory without offering a shred of real debate, but he at least stood by his own words - not somebody else's op-ed.

The poster who uses these methods is treated with the derision he or she richly deserves. She has demonstrated no interest in debate, only in very slightly veiled contempt. You don't have to agree, but that's how many of "us regular folks" tend to operate.

I'll get back to your other point on the other post in a few. While we disagree often, I always appreciate the fact that you debate with careful thought and respect and therefore like to take the time and effort to put the same into my posts directed at you. As ye give, so shall ye receive, so sayeth the unwritten law of the internet message board.