| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/23/2009 12:05:12 PM · #751 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
No, I'm just trying to nail you down to something. |
You mean sort of like I've been trying to get you to admit that you pretty much have no use for anyone outside your way of faith?
Or that you never seem to post anything positive, upbeat, and indicative of any human kindness like what your faith, as I understand it to be, preaches?
Originally posted by Nullix:
Everytime I answer a question, that gives you an opportunity to cut me and my answer down. |
I only object when you make those lovely judgmental and ridiculous statements that make it clear that you will not accept any other view other than your own.
Originally posted by Nullix:
I thought the question was a pretty simple and straight forward.
Why do you care about your fellow man? |
It is a very simple and straightforward question.
It's a trait that was imparted to me from my mother. I was adopted, so I can't say what all of my behaviors are genetic other than some of the things like my eye for photography or the fact that I can spell well, but my attitude toward others is directly from my Mom. My father is pretty much of an elitist, so I got a chance to see firsthand how appalling that behavior is, and I didn't much like it, so I did not want to be like him, although I can be snotty and elitist pretty much on command when pushed. But that's usually causal behavior in my case.
Point is.....I care about my fellow man because I have feelings, and empathy, which means that I can put myself in others' shoes, and I also have a natural curiosity as to how they manage life.
I also believe in God, but my understanding of God is usually met with scorn and derision by people like you because I don't buy into the same elitist types of behavior my father demonstrated socially, in a religion.
So, you see.......your attitudes and behaviors towards me, and anyone else outside of your approved standards, make me think that if that's what God really wants from me, I want no part of it.
Somehow, that just doesn't fit into my understanding, so I choose to reject your God, and all that it stands for if it means that I'm to treat people the way you lead me to believe your religion does.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 12:09:22 PM · #752 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I'm dismayed at all the high-fiving with Bear_Music when his post essentially promotes the supernatural in favour of reason untarnished by what in my mind is a delusion. |
I don't think that's the case at all.....I believe that his point is that not giving the historical signifigance to the religions of the world a place in education isn't necessarily a good thing.
Originally posted by Louis:
We should keep religion out of schools if it's not taught in a historical context. |
But it's also important to understand why a lot of societal changes and ways of being have come to pass because of religion. Historical context is good.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 12:09:26 PM · #753 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The current status quo would be afraid to teach such things in class because (gasp) the concept of God will be brought up. But we're not supposed to do that! they say. We might get sued! That attitude is doing nothing but ruining our kid's minds. |
I don't consider philosophy's main pervue to be the study of god. Sam Harris and Dan Dennett are examples of philosophers who are decidedly atheist, but they still explore issues of importance to people. Perhaps you *gasp* too at the thought that your kids might be exposed to the philosophies of the godless in school? |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 12:13:51 PM · #754 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I thought the question was a pretty simple and straight forward.
Why do you care about your fellow man? |
So a non-beleiver is not supposed to care for his fellow man? Does that mean that a beleiver care for his fellow beacause it's what his religion tells him to do? So we have a atheist that care for his fellow beacause he wants to and a theist who cares because he's told to...
does that mean that theist are selfish but obedient? Because what I understand from the question is that without his God, Nullix would not see the need to care for his fellow man.
Most "mainstream" religions ask to care for each other beacause it is the decent thing to do, not the other way around: it's not the decent thing to do just because the religion says so.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 12:30:43 PM · #755 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The current status quo would be afraid to teach such things in class because (gasp) the concept of God will be brought up. But we're not supposed to do that! they say. We might get sued! That attitude is doing nothing but ruining our kid's minds. |
I don't consider philosophy's main pervue to be the study of god. Sam Harris and Dan Dennett are examples of philosophers who are decidedly atheist, but they still explore issues of importance to people. Perhaps you *gasp* too at the thought that your kids might be exposed to the philosophies of the godless in school? |
I guess I disagree to some extent. The concept of God has occupied a great deal of the minds of our greatest thinkers over the millenia. Even when it wasn't the direct question it indirectly suffused how they thought. I'm not denying people like Harris (although I don't like him), I was just saying that some possible aversion to teaching philosophy in our public schools is that you could not do a good job without significantly talking about the concept of God.
Message edited by author 2009-10-23 12:31:40. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 12:38:41 PM · #756 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The current status quo would be afraid to teach such things in class because (gasp) the concept of God will be brought up. But we're not supposed to do that! they say. We might get sued! That attitude is doing nothing but ruining our kid's minds. |
I don't consider philosophy's main pervue to be the study of god. Sam Harris and Dan Dennett are examples of philosophers who are decidedly atheist, but they still explore issues of importance to people. Perhaps you *gasp* too at the thought that your kids might be exposed to the philosophies of the godless in school? |
I guess I disagree to some extent. The concept of God has occupied a great deal of the minds of our greatest thinkers over the millenia. Even when it wasn't the direct question it indirectly suffused how they thought. I'm not denying people like Harris (although I don't like him), I was just saying that some possible aversion to teaching philosophy in our public schools is that you could not do a good job without significantly talking about the concept of God. |
Totally agree with you on that. When you try to think about the meaning of life or the purpose of life or whatever, it's hard not to at least explore the concept of God (Or any superior being), even if it's in a confronting way. Philosophy is not about finding the answers, it's about asking the questions. Sooner or later, one of those question is bound to be about God (or the absence of...).
Here in quebec, the philosophy courses are given at the collegial level. Where people had the time to mature and where there is a great mix of culture. Sooner tahn that would be too soon, IMO.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 01:25:37 PM · #757 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
I'm dismayed at all the high-fiving with Bear_Music when his post essentially promotes the supernatural in favour of reason untarnished by what in my mind is a delusion. We should keep religion out of schools if it's not taught in a historical context. Religious observance of any kind does not belong in a place of learning. And quite frankly, the equation with "Nazis" for all things on the opposite side of one's viewpoint is getting old. |
From what I know about Robert, I highly doubt he's advocating the teaching of religion in the classroom. I also highly doubt he's advocating the teaching of religion in science class (someone above seemed to get that impression). What he is advocating (although he can speak for himself) is to teach philosophy. What have the great thinkers of our history thought about things (including God) and why? I bet he'd want to include great atheist minds as well. But how much of this do our children get? Zip. Even in Undergrad I had one Philosophy 101 class which was mainly a joke. Everything I know about past thinkers has come from self-teaching. This is a travesty, IMO. We may do a barely passable job of teaching the scientific method, but do we teach our kids how to think?
The current status quo would be afraid to teach such things in class because (gasp) the concept of God will be brought up. But we're not supposed to do that! they say. We might get sued! That attitude is doing nothing but ruining our kid's minds. |
Doc's correct. I am not advocating the "teaching of religion" as religion in our school classrooms, especially not in the public schools. But I am definitely saying that you cannot consider yourself an enlightened, educated human being if you don't have a reasonable grasp of what religion is, of the huge, dominant role it has played throughout human history, and so forth. Our schools are not educating our children in the context of our shared history, and that's a shame. No, it's a crime.
I was well-grounded in this stuff, but only because I attended a British boarding school in Switzerland (Ecole Internationale de Geneve) for several years, and *they* understood the importance of educating us regarding our place, our position, in the continuum of human history.
School's NOT all about "science" and "grammar" and "math" and such, though obviously that's a big part of it, or at least it shouldn't be. It also needs to be about broader issues, about placing our existence in context, so that we may at least attempt to be properly humble creatures within our environment. The hubris of modern mankind, especially the American flavor of it, is mind-boggling to be.
That's my position, and I'm sticking to it :-)
R. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 01:29:25 PM · #758 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Why do you care about your fellow man? |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It is a very simple and straightforward question.
It's a trait that was imparted to me from my mother. I was adopted, so I can't say what all of my behaviors are genetic other than some of the things like my eye for photography or the fact that I can spell well, but my attitude toward others is directly from my Mom. My father is pretty much of an elitist, so I got a chance to see firsthand how appalling that behavior is, and I didn't much like it, so I did not want to be like him, although I can be snotty and elitist pretty much on command when pushed. But that's usually causal behavior in my case.
Point is.....I care about my fellow man because I have feelings, and empathy, which means that I can put myself in others' shoes, and I also have a natural curiosity as to how they manage life.
I also believe in God, but my understanding of God is usually met with scorn and derision by people like you because I don't buy into the same elitist types of behavior my father demonstrated socially, in a religion.
So, you see.......your attitudes and behaviors towards me, and anyone else outside of your approved standards, make me think that if that's what God really wants from me, I want no part of it.
Somehow, that just doesn't fit into my understanding, so I choose to reject your God, and all that it stands for if it means that I'm to treat people the way you lead me to believe your religion does. |
That is a beautiful testament. I would like to think that I reject that god of elitist behavior.
Maybe this thread is living up to it's title (at least for me). |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 01:48:39 PM · #759 |
| On the flip side Jeb, some of the rejection you receive for your position probably comes because people who have a firm grasp of what they believe and a structured worldview are not necessarily "elitist" or "closedminded" or any of a few other terms that get thrown their way. Certainly they could be, but so could anybody including someone with your own views. The struggle over whether philosphy has concrete truths is strong and it's probably easy for either side to get their undies in a knot. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 01:57:05 PM · #760 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I thought the question was a pretty simple and straight forward.
Why do you care about your fellow man? |
Originally posted by merchillio:
So a non-beleiver is not supposed to care for his fellow man? Does that mean that a beleiver care for his fellow beacause it's what his religion tells him to do? So we have a atheist that care for his fellow beacause he wants to and a theist who cares because he's told to...
does that mean that theist are selfish but obedient? |
When you say someone cares for their fellow man because they want to, what about the person who doesn't care because they don't want to. As a theist, I can't deal with the "Because I want to" answer.
What will happen if you meet someone you don't want to care for? Will you treat them the same? There are many examples in history of people not caring for certain groups because they didn't want to.
I'd like to think I don't do things because of my wants. I (at least most of the time, I'm still working on it) give myself and my wants up for others. I see many examples of this in my religion and God. I guess I'm caring for my fellow humans because I'm told to, but I like to think I'm not following my wants, but a higher power.
Originally posted by merchillio:
...without his God, Nullix would not see the need to care for his fellow man. |
You're right. If there is no God and there is no point to our universe, I don't see the point in caring for others. It would be every man for himself.
Now I need to mentally chew on what NikonJeb has been saying.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:00:02 PM · #761 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On the flip side Jeb, some of the rejection you receive for your position probably comes because people who have a firm grasp of what they believe and a structured worldview are not necessarily "elitist" or "closedminded" or any of a few other terms that get thrown their way. Certainly they could be, but so could anybody including someone with your own views. The struggle over whether philosphy has concrete truths is strong and it's probably easy for either side to get their undies in a knot. |
But I think what Jeb is saying is he rejects out of hand any worldview that follows the form "If you don't believe as I believe, you are *damned*!" And I agree with this. That's bullshit. Not saying *you* preach that flavor, of course, but plenty of others, including some of our "scientists", do. When I see science-championing individuals ridiculing believers, which has happened a lot on this thread, then I see that as EXACTLY the same sort of behavior as a "Bible-thumper" excoriating others not of his/her faith.
And I don't CARE how much s0-called "logic" and "science" these supposed rational thinkers have on their side, because for me it's not a win/lose game. I believe in respecting the beliefs and positions of others, in respecting their sincerity and commitment, as much as possible. I don't understand why the "scientists" feel they have to lash out and tear down the "believers". I just don't...
R. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:10:32 PM · #762 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
I'm dismayed at all the high-fiving with Bear_Music when his post essentially promotes the supernatural in favour of reason untarnished by what in my mind is a delusion. We should keep religion out of schools if it's not taught in a historical context. Religious observance of any kind does not belong in a place of learning. And quite frankly, the equation with "Nazis" for all things on the opposite side of one's viewpoint is getting old. |
From what I know about Robert, I highly doubt he's advocating the teaching of religion in the classroom. I also highly doubt he's advocating the teaching of religion in science class (someone above seemed to get that impression). What he is advocating (although he can speak for himself) is to teach philosophy. What have the great thinkers of our history thought about things (including God) and why? I bet he'd want to include great atheist minds as well. But how much of this do our children get? Zip. Even in Undergrad I had one Philosophy 101 class which was mainly a joke. Everything I know about past thinkers has come from self-teaching. This is a travesty, IMO. We may do a barely passable job of teaching the scientific method, but do we teach our kids how to think?
The current status quo would be afraid to teach such things in class because (gasp) the concept of God will be brought up. But we're not supposed to do that! they say. We might get sued! That attitude is doing nothing but ruining our kid's minds. |
Doc's correct. I am not advocating the "teaching of religion" as religion in our school classrooms, especially not in the public schools. But I am definitely saying that you cannot consider yourself an enlightened, educated human being if you don't have a reasonable grasp of what religion is, of the huge, dominant role it has played throughout human history, and so forth. Our schools are not educating our children in the context of our shared history, and that's a shame. No, it's a crime.
I was well-grounded in this stuff, but only because I attended a British boarding school in Switzerland (Ecole Internationale de Geneve) for several years, and *they* understood the importance of educating us regarding our place, our position, in the continuum of human history.
School's NOT all about "science" and "grammar" and "math" and such, though obviously that's a big part of it, or at least it shouldn't be. It also needs to be about broader issues, about placing our existence in context, so that we may at least attempt to be properly humble creatures within our environment. The hubris of modern mankind, especially the American flavor of it, is mind-boggling to be.
That's my position, and I'm sticking to it :-)
R. |
You're both right. We don't teach our kids to think, only to remember certain facts and formulas so we can pass certain exams and get certain jobs. We are just a nation of resume builders, the prettiest one wins.
Message edited by author 2009-10-23 14:12:13.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:13:02 PM · #763 |
Well, I hear ya Robert and I do try hard to listen and understand the other positions as well as know the tenuous nature of my own position. However, at the end of the day, Christianity DOES profess a "it's my way or the highway" creed (at least concerning salvation). There is no getting around it and it is both the religion's strength and what makes it abhorrent to others.
Still, I believe it's possible to "validate" another view while at the same time disagreeing with it.
Message edited by author 2009-10-23 14:14:41. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:13:23 PM · #764 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On the flip side Jeb, some of the rejection you receive for your position probably comes because people who have a firm grasp of what they believe and a structured worldview are not necessarily "elitist" or "closedminded" or any of a few other terms that get thrown their way. Certainly they could be, but so could anybody including someone with your own views. The struggle over whether philosphy has concrete truths is strong and it's probably easy for either side to get their undies in a knot. |
But I think what Jeb is saying is he rejects out of hand any worldview that follows the form "If you don't believe as I believe, you are *damned*!" And I agree with this. That's bullshit. Not saying *you* preach that flavor, of course, but plenty of others, including some of our "scientists", do. When I see science-championing individuals ridiculing believers, which has happened a lot on this thread, then I see that as EXACTLY the same sort of behavior as a "Bible-thumper" excoriating others not of his/her faith.
And I don't CARE how much s0-called "logic" and "science" these supposed rational thinkers have on their side, because for me it's not a win/lose game. I believe in respecting the beliefs and positions of others, in respecting their sincerity and commitment, as much as possible. I don't understand why the "scientists" feel they have to lash out and tear down the "believers". I just don't...
R. |
And I don' either. I could only guess it's because scientists feel that everything MUST be proven otherwise its a blasphemy. I attended a few Remote Viewing and Noetic science seminars and asked myself...How could this be a science? "Is there a science to remote viewing"? Or do they have to label it a science to keep it conservative enough so the "Scientists" dont lash out. But If there is a scientific method to remote viewing then fine, but I doubt there is. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:16:12 PM · #765 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I hear ya Robert and I do try hard to listen and understand the other positions as well as know the tenuous nature of my own position. However, at the end of the day, Christianity DOES profess a "it's my way or the highway" creed (at least concerning salvation). There is no getting around it and it is both the religion's strength and what makes it abhorrent to others.
Still, I believe it's possible to "validate" another view while at the same time disagreeing with it. |
Absolutely: the thing of it is, being a Christian doesn't preclude respecting the beliefs of others as you follow your path. As you have often shown us, in these threads.
R. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:20:01 PM · #766 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
When I see science-championing individuals ridiculing believers, which has happened a lot on this thread, then I see that as EXACTLY the same sort of behavior as a "Bible-thumper" excoriating others not of his/her faith. |
Who in this thread is guilty of this?
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:22:11 PM · #767 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
When I see science-championing individuals ridiculing believers, which has happened a lot on this thread, then I see that as EXACTLY the same sort of behavior as a "Bible-thumper" excoriating others not of his/her faith. |
What I think you are seeing is a new phenomenon, an "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" kind of attitude. You must admit that you've heard nothing from vocal atheists before, say, ten years ago. Militancy of any kind is indefensible, but an intellectual backlash against religious adherents who have had a stranglehold on culture and society is at least understandable.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And I don't CARE how much s0-called "logic" and "science" these supposed rational thinkers have on their side, because for me it's not a win/lose game. I believe in respecting the beliefs and positions of others, in respecting their sincerity and commitment, as much as possible. I don't understand why the "scientists" feel they have to lash out and tear down the "believers". I just don't... |
See above. Also, perhaps because the believers are at the ready, lashing out and tearing down the scientists, or in all hubris claiming that non-believers are just stubborn believers, or so belittling the world views of anyone even slightly out of alignment with them as to make them seem shrill and unbalanced. There is no requirement to respect any position that is that myopic and that hostile, not to mention completely ludicrous. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:27:59 PM · #768 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I hear ya Robert and I do try hard to listen and understand the other positions as well as know the tenuous nature of my own position. However, at the end of the day, Christianity DOES profess a "it's my way or the highway" creed (at least concerning salvation). There is no getting around it and it is both the religion's strength and what makes it abhorrent to others.
Still, I believe it's possible to "validate" another view while at the same time disagreeing with it. |
But validating another viewpoint means more than just lip service. It means you don't actively and politically try to superimpose your belief system over another's (ex. gay marriage). Would you agree?
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:29:45 PM · #769 |
| I've gotten to know you enough Louis that it doesn't bother me as much, but just be aware that some of what Robert is speaking about is the use such strong words as "delusion" and "ludicrous" which you, yourself, have used in your last half dozen posts. It doesn't advance the conversation very well. If there ever is going to be understanding and acceptance between the two camps we all probably need to "stand down" a bit. I'm not saying I'm never guilty of this either and Robert is probably the best example of the proper spirit. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:33:21 PM · #770 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I hear ya Robert and I do try hard to listen and understand the other positions as well as know the tenuous nature of my own position. However, at the end of the day, Christianity DOES profess a "it's my way or the highway" creed (at least concerning salvation). There is no getting around it and it is both the religion's strength and what makes it abhorrent to others.
Still, I believe it's possible to "validate" another view while at the same time disagreeing with it. |
But validating another viewpoint means more than just lip service. It means you don't actively and politically try to superimpose your belief system over another's (ex. gay marriage). Would you agree? |
Yes and no. ;) I actually think we have the right to actively and politically advocate for our belief system, but everybody should have that ability, not just the majority. Democracy is messy business and I don't see how we can possibly tell a group, "no, you are not allowed to advocate your position". Who would be the arbiter of that justice and wouldn't we just be advocating their position? |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:41:11 PM · #771 |
| Yes, you have to stand by your beliefs, you can't look at everything from a 3rd party perspective; I mean...you can, but that borders on being apathetic. Just speak your mind without the belittling words. But If someone's beliefs aren't proven by science, that doesn't warrant the excuse to shut down one's faith just because its not provable. And perhaps science shouldn't try to prove the supernatural anyways. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:45:17 PM · #772 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
If there is no God and there is no point to our universe, I don't see the point in caring for others. It would be every man for himself. |
Why not?
I am of the belief that there is inherent worth, dignity, and goodness in every human being.
I feel that the evil that men do is of their own free will.
I know that there are people who astonish me with their self-centered ways, but there are also people who astound me with their goodness.
Maybe there isn't any point in being a good and decent person in the grand scheme......but isn't it nice that there are people who just live that way?
I know people who are incredibly decent and giving to their fellow man......and they don't check to see if they're people of faith first. I'm not necessarily sure that they are all people of any specific faith that demands their compassion as part of its due, either.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:49:18 PM · #773 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
When I see science-championing individuals ridiculing believers, which has happened a lot on this thread, then I see that as EXACTLY the same sort of behavior as a "Bible-thumper" excoriating others not of his/her faith. |
Who in this thread is guilty of this? |
I'm not going to go there. Feel free to use your own judgment.
R.
ETA: Should have said "these threads" to include all the God-based rant threads; this one's actually not that bad, actually.
Message edited by author 2009-10-23 14:50:19. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:51:45 PM · #774 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I hear ya Robert and I do try hard to listen and understand the other positions as well as know the tenuous nature of my own position. However, at the end of the day, Christianity DOES profess a "it's my way or the highway" creed (at least concerning salvation). There is no getting around it and it is both the religion's strength and what makes it abhorrent to others. |
That is the big problem that I have with Christianity. I tried to use an example earlier in a reply to Darren of the seeker (Me) trying to ascertain what is different between a good, devout, caring man of the Christiuan faith, and the same in the Muslim or Jewish faith.
I have a hard time reconciling that out of these three good and decent, caring and compassionate men, that two of them are going to burn in Hell.
The other serious issue for me is.......if I'm gonna try and cover my ass, which one do I pick?????
They've all got thousands of years of history and teachings, and many good people in all three faiths....which one is right?
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 02:54:09 PM · #775 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I hear ya Robert and I do try hard to listen and understand the other positions as well as know the tenuous nature of my own position. However, at the end of the day, Christianity DOES profess a "it's my way or the highway" creed (at least concerning salvation). There is no getting around it and it is both the religion's strength and what makes it abhorrent to others.
Still, I believe it's possible to "validate" another view while at the same time disagreeing with it. |
But validating another viewpoint means more than just lip service. It means you don't actively and politically try to superimpose your belief system over another's (ex. gay marriage). Would you agree? |
Yes and no. ;) I actually think we have the right to actively and politically advocate for our belief system, but everybody should have that ability, not just the majority. Democracy is messy business and I don't see how we can possibly tell a group, "no, you are not allowed to advocate your position". Who would be the arbiter of that justice and wouldn't we just be advocating their position? |
I'd hope the arbiter would be someone who can put their own personal feelings, beliefs and desires aside and decide on what's best for society as a whole. Do you think this isn't possible? Have you ever had to rule over a dispute? Do you always side with just what benefits you personally?
|
|
