| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/05/2012 12:39:34 AM · #601 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Yeah, go figure. Something weird is going on here... |
I figure that "something" is the nature of news these days. In the past, you had national networks and newspapers that catered to overall regions and so had to provide general coverage that didn't lean too far one way or the other. Now with the internet and fragmented cable networks, it's easier to find "news" that only agrees with what you already believe and tune out any competing messages or contradictory facts. This obviously results in increased polarization and conviction in beliefs that may be completely false (see creationists, birthers, global warming deniers and so on). I'm all for freedom of speech, but I also think that journalists shouldn't be allowed to lie. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 01:25:20 AM · #602 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I think this is a valid point and it raises an interesting situation: the current frontrunner for the Republicans is a Mormon, who believes in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Are you comfortable with the probability that his decisions will be influenced by a book not normally associated with main-line Christianity? How would you feel if the book of his faith was the Torah? This isn't being asked of just Jason, by the way. |
I shouldn't mind except I would be disappointed Obama had lost reelection. I understand Mormon morality enough to know it is very similar to my own on most accounts. You see, people like Shannon twist my position to make it seem like I am looking to set up a theocracy, when I want nothing of the sort. I think any proposition for society should rise or fall on its own merits and acceptability. It should not garner favored status merely because it is religious, nor should it be cast aside. If something should pass legislation only because it enjoys a plurality of likeminded people(a hard notion to fathom these days), the courts are there to weed out what should not be. In essence, I have a remaining kernal of faith in the way the system works.
However, I am quite welcoming of the notion that for many people their faith, whatever that may be, means something to them. It advises them, in large part or small. This is all I've advocated for. If people from GWB to Barack to Mitt want to consult scriptures (the gospel, the torah, the Pearl of Great Price, whatever), I understand they have that right.
I don't fear religion (even those which aren't mine). It is not some boogey man to me as it is to others here.
Message edited by author 2012-03-05 01:26:14. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 05:47:14 AM · #603 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Easy like taking wet out of water, right? You can't avoid who you are and in this case why would I ever want to? |
Actually a better analogy would be to compare it to a synthetic element. Like religion, a synthetic element is man-made and is created by bombarding or ripping apart the natural state of something that already exist in order to create something new that is often unstable and wouldn't have existed otherwise. Hence why it should remain quarantined. |
You can't be serious? As long as there has been mankind, there has been religion. The urge towards religion has been one of the constants in the long, history of humanity. It is actually easier to argue that the "natural to state of things" is to believe in God, or gods, than it is to argue your position above. And I don't mean by that to be saying it's easy to argue that God EXISTS (because it isn't), but just that man's belief in God has been with us for a long, long time.
R. |
As long as there has been mankind or as long as there has been agricultural mankind?
10,000 years+ ago pre-writing, pre-ownership, pre-govt. you think there was religion? At least religion as we know it today?
This myth is as pervasive and annoying to me as the monogamy myth. We take our culture and what we've grown up with and extrapolate it back in time and think it's always been this way. It hasn't.
And we haven't always been so uptight about sex either. It's a means of societal control. The powers that be think they are losing their grip on that control. That's what these kinds of fights are about. Control. NOT freedom. Anyone with eyes can see that (unless they're shut).
Message edited by author 2012-03-05 06:40:23. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 06:44:53 AM · #604 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
As long as there has been mankind or as long as there has been agricultural mankind?
10,000 years+ ago pre-writing, pre-ownership, pre-govt. you think there was religion? At least religion as we know it today?
|
You are assuming everyone believes mankind has been around for 10000+ years. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 07:48:02 AM · #605 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
As long as there has been mankind or as long as there has been agricultural mankind?
10,000 years+ ago pre-writing, pre-ownership, pre-govt. you think there was religion? At least religion as we know it today? |
The evidence suggests that the "religious urge" has always been with us, yes. "As we know it today"? Of course not. The manifestation of the religious urge has obviously changed as mankind itself has evolved socially.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2012 08:00:16 AM · #606 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
As long as there has been mankind or as long as there has been agricultural mankind?
10,000 years+ ago pre-writing, pre-ownership, pre-govt. you think there was religion? At least religion as we know it today? |
The evidence suggests that the "religious urge" has always been with us, yes. "As we know it today"? Of course not. The manifestation of the religious urge has obviously changed as mankind itself has evolved socially.
R. |
I wouldn't really call it a religious urge. It was more like a "What the heck was that? And how do I explain it?" urge. If man didn't know where big boom in sky come from, God is an easy answer. (Look at me, talking like Grog, LOL). |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 09:46:49 AM · #607 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
As long as there has been mankind or as long as there has been agricultural mankind?
10,000 years+ ago pre-writing, pre-ownership, pre-govt. you think there was religion? At least religion as we know it today?
|
You are assuming everyone believes mankind has been around for 10000+ years. |
Audible sigh. Yes, and I also assume people believe in dinosaurs, that the Earth is round and rotates around the Sun, that the Holocaust DID happen, etc. I start at these very basic assumptions because they are the truth. I can't take into account everyone else's whacky beliefs or I'd be sitting around all day debating spaghetti monsters. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 10:02:09 AM · #608 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think any proposition for society should rise or fall on its own merits and acceptability. It should not garner favored status merely because it is religious, nor should it be cast aside. If something should pass legislation only because it enjoys a plurality of likeminded people(a hard notion to fathom these days), the courts are there to weed out what should not be. In essence, I have a remaining kernal of faith in the way the system works. |
Ah, so the way the system works is that many people lean on cherry-picked selections of the Bronze age texts they were taught as children for their ideology. The larger denominations then create policies as a majority according to their own beliefs and over the wishes or needs of minorities. These people are incapable of divorcing themselves from their indoctrinated faiths enough to recognize discrimination and the rights of others, so we have non-religious courts to keep the theocrats in check and protect people from any particular group imposing their narrow view. Ya' know... every once in a rare while you post something that's at least accurate even if you don't seem to recognize the implications of what you're saying. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 10:41:29 AM · #609 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
As long as there has been mankind or as long as there has been agricultural mankind?
10,000 years+ ago pre-writing, pre-ownership, pre-govt. you think there was religion? At least religion as we know it today?
|
You are assuming everyone believes mankind has been around for 10000+ years. |
Audible sigh. Yes, and I also assume people believe in dinosaurs, that the Earth is round and rotates around the Sun, that the Holocaust DID happen, etc. I start at these very basic assumptions because they are the truth. I can't take into account everyone else's whacky beliefs or I'd be sitting around all day debating spaghetti monsters. |
Ill take into account your lack of age when considering your condescending tone, just because I believe in creation does not mean I don't believe in dino's etc.
I realize when you're under 30 that everyone over 30 is hoplessly outdated and undereducated. However, you have alot to learn about a civil give and take, I don't believe I demonstrated any lack of respect to you. I was simply pointing out that you need to establish a common ground before you can hope to convince someone of your argument. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 11:04:01 AM · #610 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Ill take into account your lack of age when considering your condescending tone, just because I believe in creation does not mean I don't believe in dino's etc. |
"Just because I believe the earth is flat does not mean not mean I don't believe in dino's." <-- Surely you can understand that whether you believe all the myths does not make the remaining one(s) less subject to criticism. There is a difference between ridiculing a particular position (creationism, flat earth, egocentricity...) and disrespecting a person. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 11:17:06 AM · #611 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think any proposition for society should rise or fall on its own merits and acceptability. It should not garner favored status merely because it is religious, nor should it be cast aside. If something should pass legislation only because it enjoys a plurality of likeminded people(a hard notion to fathom these days), the courts are there to weed out what should not be. In essence, I have a remaining kernal of faith in the way the system works. |
Ah, so the way the system works is that many people lean on cherry-picked selections of the Bronze age texts they were taught as children for their ideology. The larger denominations then create policies as a majority according to their own beliefs and over the wishes or needs of minorities. These people are incapable of divorcing themselves from their indoctrinated faiths enough to recognize discrimination and the rights of others, so we have non-religious courts to keep the theocrats in check and protect people from any particular group imposing their narrow view. Ya' know... every once in a rare while you post something that's at least accurate even if you don't seem to recognize the implications of what you're saying. |
It doesn't sound as good when it's the scoffings of a cynic, but that's ok. Bitterness is like a cancer, it eats upon the host. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 11:35:02 AM · #612 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Bitterness is like a cancer, it eats upon the host. |
Agreed again... and lately you've been taking shots at atheism in threads that weren't even discussing the topic. That's behavior typically limited to the nuts obsessed with fringe politics or global warming denial. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 11:40:59 AM · #613 |
| I'm doing no such thing. You like to jump in and you missed where I was asked a direct question by Ray... |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 11:43:37 AM · #614 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm doing no such thing. You like to jump in and you missed where I was asked a direct question by Ray... |
Ahem. Fourth post. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 12:14:48 PM · #615 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm doing no such thing. You like to jump in and you missed where I was asked a direct question by Ray... |
Ahem. Fourth post. |
Haha. Really? I'd think you had tougher skin than that. Btw, that was a factual statement. This SCOTUS did make such a ruling.
And this was hardly out of the blue like you said when the OP wrote a list of "major religions" and included atheism. I was good naturedly pointing out the error.
Message edited by author 2012-03-05 12:16:19. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 12:23:07 PM · #616 |
But hold on. I do need to issue an apology. Not for what Shannon claims, but for being factually wrong. Exactly wrong actually. In 1961 the SCOTUS ruled that atheism IS a religion. Torcaso v Watkins. Which actually brings up a whole slew of separation of church and state questions including the one at hand about allowing your religion (now I don't need to say "or lack thereof") to inform your political views.
Actually its a delicious irony and I chuckle at being wrong. We really do have all the underpinnings of a religion. We have the high priests (Dawkins, Dennet, Harris). Someone in France wants to build a church to atheism. And we have the rabid proselytes here on DPC In people like Shannon. Really it makes quite a bit of sense.
Ok, I admit that last paragraph was a potshot...
Message edited by author 2012-03-05 12:25:54. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 12:42:42 PM · #617 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In 1961 the SCOTUS ruled that atheism IS a religion. Torcaso v Watkins. |
From the Wikipedia article on this Supreme Court case:
It has occasionally been argued that the Supreme Court, in Torcaso v Watkins, "found" Secular Humanism to be a religion. This assertion is based on a reference, by Justice Black, in a footnote (number 11) to the court's finding, to court cases where organized groups of self-identified Humanists, or Ethicists, meeting on a regular basis to share and celebrate their beliefs, have been granted religious-based tax exemptions.
Justice Black's use of the term "secular humanism" in his footnote has been seized upon by some religious groups, such as those supporting causes such as teaching creationism in schools, as a "finding" that any secular or science-based activity is, in fact, religion.
However, such attempts to conflate non-religious, secular or scientific ideas and activities with religion have been explicitly rejected by subsequent courts, most notably Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (see Wikipedia "Intelligent Design"). In fact, prior to its use by Justice Black, the term "Secular Humanism" had never before been used in any court case, and it is unclear why Justice Black used the term in this instance, other than to perhaps emphasize the groups' non-belief in any divine force. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 01:01:45 PM · #618 |
| Well, dangit, was I right and the wrong, or was I wrong and then right? :) |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 01:15:31 PM · #619 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In 1961 the SCOTUS ruled that atheism IS a religion. |
Can we go down this path? Oh, please say yes. You'll regret it. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 02:43:33 PM · #620 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But hold on.... |
OK, and the SCOTUS has also ruled that tomatoes are "vegetables" and not fruits ... do you plan to change your prescribing practices when they rule that viruses are bacteria ...? |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 03:05:10 PM · #621 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We really do have all the underpinnings of a religion. We have the high priests (Dawkins, Dennet, Harris). |
Retarded. If some writer or scientist is popular with atheists because he can articulate reasoned arguments better than the average person, that doesn't make him a "priest". How many people do you think would start eating turds and emasculating themselves because one of these "high priests" said it was the way to "atheist enlightenment"? Exactly. How many do you think would do it because Pope Benedict said it, or Ayatollah whoever, or Pastor Koresh, or any number of other loons? Exactly. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 03:05:57 PM · #622 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In 1961 the SCOTUS ruled that atheism IS a religion. |
Can we go down this path? Oh, please say yes. You'll regret it. |
Well clearly I am up against Limbaughian level rhetoric so there is no winning. I'll let it lie instead. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 03:09:18 PM · #623 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We really do have all the underpinnings of a religion. We have the high priests (Dawkins, Dennet, Harris). |
Retarded. If some writer or scientist is popular with atheists because he can articulate reasoned arguments better than the average person, that doesn't make him a "priest". How many people do you think would start eating turds and emasculating themselves because one of these "high priests" said it was the way to "atheist enlightenment"? Exactly. How many do you think would do it because Pope Benedict said it, or Ayatollah whoever, or Pastor Koresh, or any number of other loons? Exactly. |
You know the analogy would lose all it's power if you wouldn't let it make yo so darn grumpy. :P
Of course I can't claim to have originated the phrase. Here's one of many examples of it in Forbes of all places.
The high priests of atheism
A little clip: The high priest of British atheism is Richard Dawkins, an Oxford academic and author. Recently I took a tilt against him in a book and received some sulfurous hate letters from some of his supporters. Oddly enough, the cult around Dawkins is reminiscent of that which surrounded Oliver Cromwell. Dawkinsites have a puritanical zeal. They brook no dissent.
Message edited by author 2012-03-05 15:14:07. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 04:19:23 PM · #624 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Of course I can't claim to have originated the phrase. Here's one of many examples of it in Forbes of all places. |
Interesting source for establishing criteria by which one attains "priesthood" ... though in a country which worships money more than any other diety I suppose it makes a little sense.
Still, don't you think the members of a "congregation" are better-qualified to decide who their priests are? Can the editors of Mother Jones declare who is qualified to be Pope -- to the extent you'd want to cite it as a valid evaluation? |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 05:28:12 PM · #625 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Of course I can't claim to have originated the phrase. Here's one of many examples of it in Forbes of all places. |
Interesting source for establishing criteria by which one attains "priesthood" ... though in a country which worships money more than any other diety I suppose it makes a little sense.
Still, don't you think the members of a "congregation" are better-qualified to decide who their priests are? Can the editors of Mother Jones declare who is qualified to be Pope -- to the extent you'd want to cite it as a valid evaluation? |
I don't think the good doc said Forbes was *qualified* to appoint atheistic grand-poohbahs, LOL. It was just an example of prior usage to establish that he (the good doc) had not originated the phrase, nor claimed that he had :-)
R.
|
|
