| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/06/2012 08:51:24 PM · #676 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Am I missing the significance of your quote? |
As always, and seizing upon a reference to God only emphasizes that you don't get it. People must be free to make their own choices without having the beliefs of others imposed upon them. Jefferson famously and consistently rejected the idea of using government to espouse religious beliefs. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 09:03:49 PM · #677 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
It's not extreme if you don't believe in God/s. It's very rational then. I would assume (though I know what that entails) that the majority of atheists feel this way. |
Some atheists are religious. See Buddhists. Others may feel that their opinion (religion is nonsense) is no more valid than the opposite opinion (religion makes sense) and, thus, would allow both at the table of public discourse to hash out their differences. |
It's not really the habit of Buddhists to push their "religious" agendas on the general public, kind of goes against the whole philosophy of it. The Dalai Lama himself said he'd throw out any tradition that was shown to be proven wrong by science. Wish I could find the exact quote but it was in a book of mine. There have also been amazing works with Buddhists and scientists coming together. (Meditation IS good for you and your brain!) Christianity can't generally say the same. It's supporters fight tooth and nail in the face of mountains of scientific evidence and scientists.
In any case, it's not religious beliefs that are the problem, as I said above, it's religious beliefs devoid of rational argument, or even defiantly oppositional to rational arguments. There are a many rational arguments for why murder, stealing, lying, etc are bad. But how many for why being gay or smoking pot is wrong?
"If you have a particular faith or religion, that is good. But you can survive without it."
Dalai Lama
"My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness."
Dalai Lama
Here is a different science quote:
"Buddhism does not accept a theory of God, or a creator. According to Buddhism, one's own actions are the creator, ultimately. Some people say that, from a certain angle, Buddhism is not a religion but rather a science of mind. Religion has much involvement with faith. Sometimes it seems that there is quite a distance between a way of thinking based on faith and one entirely based on experiment, remaining skeptical. Unless you find something through investigation, you do not want to accept it as fact. From one viewpoint, Buddhism is a religion, from another viewpoint Buddhism is a science of mind and not a religion. Buddhism can be a bridge between these two sides. Therefore, with this conviction I try to
have closer ties with scientists, mainly in the fields of cosmology, psychology, neurobiology and physics. In these fields there are insights to share, and to a certain extent we can work together."--
His Holiness the Dalai Lama, from "The Dalai Lama: A Policy of Kindness"
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 21:07:33. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 09:05:00 PM · #678 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Do any of you people have day jobs? |
I just finished my year of teaching ESL in Korea. So I'm on a different time zone AND I don't have a job currently. :P But I'll be on a plane to LA for a loooong time so you won't have to hear from me for a while.
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 21:07:53. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 09:12:14 PM · #679 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Some atheists are religious. See Buddhists. |
Sure... just like all people are atheists. See babies, who no more believe in gods than kumquats. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 09:16:08 PM · #680 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Some atheists are religious. See Buddhists. |
Sure... just like all people are atheists. See babies, who no more believe in gods than kumquats. |
Are you implying that we are shaped by our place in time and space and babies wouldn't be born Christians believing in God if they lived in a tribe who'd never heard of such a thing? Blasphemy! (Ps where do those people go who have never heard of Jesus and therefor cannot love him... I forget?)
|
|
|
|
03/06/2012 09:19:51 PM · #681 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Ps where do those people go who have never heard of Jesus and therefor cannot love him... I forget?) |
Wall Street. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 09:20:01 PM · #682 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Rick Santorum is looney toones bat shit crazy no matter what the op-ed says. |
Completely. Foxes don't bring home the body of a baby that lived only two hours, introduce it to their kids as a brother and then sleep with the corpse. |
You cannot be serious... |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 09:21:14 PM · #683 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Rick Santorum is looney toones bat shit crazy no matter what the op-ed says. |
Completely. Foxes don't bring home the body of a baby that lived only two hours, introduce it to their kids as a brother and then sleep with the corpse. |
You cannot be serious... |
Scary, isn't it? The guy just won Oklahoma and Tennessee. Could get Ohio, too. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 09:22:38 PM · #684 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Having, or even offering, religious opinions is fine with me, but they should not influence government: "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities." Everyone has a natural right to maintain and express opinions, whatever the source, but when it comes to policy you'd better have something more than, "God said so" as grounds for a course of action. |
+100 |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 09:25:40 PM · #685 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
But I'll be on a plane to LA for a loooong time so you won't have to hear from me for a while. |
How long are you going to be in LA? |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 09:30:37 PM · #686 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
But I'll be on a plane to LA for a loooong time so you won't have to hear from me for a while. |
How long are you going to be in LA? |
About 3 weeks. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 09:31:22 PM · #687 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Rick Santorum is looney toones bat shit crazy no matter what the op-ed says. |
Completely. Foxes don't bring home the body of a baby that lived only two hours, introduce it to their kids as a brother and then sleep with the corpse. |
You cannot be serious... |
Scary, isn't it? The guy just won Oklahoma and Tennessee. Could get Ohio, too. |
Wait... link me to something here I have no idea what you're talking about.
Nevermind googled it. Hmmm. You know, grief does funny things to people. On this one, I actually don't think that was the terrible part. The terrible part is talking about it and using it for political gain.
Similar to a guy I know: He took photos of his miscarried fetus(around the same gestation age as Santorum's) and posted photos of just the hands and feet with a memorial type script underneath and promised he wouldn't show the rest, they were personal. Ok, fine. But several months later when he had spiraled down the rabbit hole of extreme anti-abortionism, he posted those photos with anti-abortion sentiments underneath them. I was appalled and disgusted that he would use those photos in such a way.
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 21:48:07. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 09:34:09 PM · #688 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Some atheists are religious. See Buddhists. |
Sure... just like all people are atheists. See babies, who no more believe in gods than kumquats. |
I don't know, I've heard rumors (from uncomfortable moms-to-be) that Muslim fetuses turn to face Mecca five times a day ... (j/k) |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 09:48:08 PM · #689 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Scary, isn't it? The guy just won Oklahoma and Tennessee. Could get Ohio, too. |
Wait... link me to something here I have no idea what you're talking about. |
Not sure which you're referring to- the dead baby or winning three states.
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 21:48:29. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 09:49:01 PM · #690 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Scary, isn't it? The guy just won Oklahoma and Tennessee. Could get Ohio, too. |
Wait... link me to something here I have no idea what you're talking about. |
Not sure which you're referring to- the dead baby or winning three states. |
Edited my post above. Got it. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 09:53:59 PM · #691 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Am I missing the significance of your quote? |
As always, and seizing upon a reference to God only emphasizes that you don't get it. People must be free to make their own choices without having the beliefs of others imposed upon them. Jefferson famously and consistently rejected the idea of using government to espouse religious beliefs. |
So to support your position that political acts should be free from religious reason you quote a passage from a state statute that has, located within, a statement of religious reason? You don't find a difficulty with that? |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 09:56:53 PM · #692 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
You know, grief does funny things to people. On this one, I actually don't think that was the terrible part. The terrible part is talking about it and using it for political gain. |
I don't think they did actually... it was part of Mrs. Santorum's book that only became a political issue later when someone else brought it up. Agreed that grief can lead to extreme behavior, but sleeping with a corpse is just creepy in general. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 10:01:55 PM · #693 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
You know, grief does funny things to people. On this one, I actually don't think that was the terrible part. The terrible part is talking about it and using it for political gain. |
I don't think they did actually... it was part of Mrs. Santorum's book that only became a political issue later when someone else brought it up. Agreed that grief can lead to extreme behavior, but sleeping with a corpse is just creepy in general. |
I'm not sure the extent of it but one of the articles I looked up had him in a video talking about it to a group, with his wife correcting him and crying with her daughter on the side. I thought it was terrible. He didn't say anything about sleeping with a corpse though. At one point his wife said something was "so inappropriate" but I couldn't tell who she was directing the comment at. Could have been someone in the audience, could have been her husband.
Video Link
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 22:03:30. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 10:26:15 PM · #694 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So to support your position that political acts should be free from religious reason you quote a passage from a state statute that has, located within, a statement of religious reason? You don't find a difficulty with that? |
Religious reason is an oxymoron. "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."- House M.D. ;-)
Stating that the mind is free to reason is an empirical observation, not a religious opinion. That this man, one of the Age of Enlightenment's most prominent figures, would refer to a creator or God does not presuppose a belief in anything remotely similar to the sort of deity you'd like to envision handing down rules of morality for human pets to follow. Jefferson was adamant that the key to a decent and just society would be found in human reasoning and compassion for the rights of others, NOT religious dogma and superstition. In other words, even if a creator is acknowledged, no god is necessary to achieve enlightenment in the wordly affairs of man... the same basic principle of Buddhists you consider atheists. So, no, I don't have any problem with that at all.
To elaborate, I also wouldn't have a problem with his statement if it had been written by Mike Huckabee or Billy Graham. You're completely ignoring the point that religious opinions must not affect their civil roles, just as we expect from judges or anyone else tasked with serving people of alternate (or no) religious belief. If you think Jefferson's intro indicated a dependence on 'religious reasoning,' one need only consider, "Whereas, Almighty Allah hath created the mind free..." to realize the inherent problem with the religious opinion of a majority dictating policy in a free and diverse society. Sharia anyone?
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 22:49:02. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 10:40:55 PM · #695 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So to support your position that political acts should be free from religious reason you quote a passage from a state statute that has, located within, a statement of religious reason? You don't find a difficulty with that? |
Religious reason is an oxymoron. "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."- House M.D. ;-)
Stating that the mind is free to reason is an empirical observation, not a religious opinion. That this man, one of the Age of Enlightenment's most prominent figures, would refer to a creator or God does not presuppose a belief in anything remotely similar to the sort of deity you'd like to envision handing down rules of morality for human pets to follow. Jefferson was adamant that the key to a decent and just society would be found in human reasoning and compassion for the rights of others, NOT religious dogma and superstition. In other words, even if a creator is acknowledged, no god is necessary to achieve enlightenment in the wordly affairs of man... the same basic principle of Buddhists you consider atheists. So, no, I don't have any problem with that at all. |
Hey ray, this is part and parcel of what I consider to be the bizarro world of DPC...
I'm well aware of Jefferson's deist views. However, they ARE religious in nature, no? AND it is a statement of reason, no? (why should we accept this statute? The author tells us it is because God created us with free minds). You can't really squirm out of those facts. The reality is you very likely have misinterpreted the passage you quoted to mean something the author had no intention of saying. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 10:48:09 PM · #696 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So to support your position that political acts should be free from religious reason you quote a passage from a state statute that has, located within, a statement of religious reason? You don't find a difficulty with that? |
Religious reason is an oxymoron. "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."- House M.D. ;-)
Stating that the mind is free to reason is an empirical observation, not a religious opinion. That this man, one of the Age of Enlightenment's most prominent figures, would refer to a creator or God does not presuppose a belief in anything remotely similar to the sort of deity you'd like to envision handing down rules of morality for human pets to follow. Jefferson was adamant that the key to a decent and just society would be found in human reasoning and compassion for the rights of others, NOT religious dogma and superstition. In other words, even if a creator is acknowledged, no god is necessary to achieve enlightenment in the wordly affairs of man... the same basic principle of Buddhists you consider atheists. So, no, I don't have any problem with that at all. |
Hey ray, this is part and parcel of what I consider to be the bizarro world of DPC...
I'm well aware of Jefferson's deist views. However, they ARE religious in nature, no? AND it is a statement of reason, no? (why should we accept this statute? The author tells us it is because God created us with free minds). You can't really squirm out of those facts. The reality is you very likely have misinterpreted the passage you quoted to mean something the author had no intention of saying. |
What's so bizarre about saying a moral and just society can be had without religion? As in, it's not necessary. Not that it has to go away entirely. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 10:55:00 PM · #697 |
| No, the bizarre part is how Shannon thinks the fact Jefferson mentions God as the creator of the reason for the statute doesn't mean anything with regard to not having religious thought in politics... |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 10:55:37 PM · #698 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm well aware of Jefferson's deist views. However, they ARE religious in nature, no? |
No, quite the opposite. Jefferson's final words were an outright repudiation of religion in favor of self-determination:
"May [the Declaration of Independence] be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day [July 4th] forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them...."
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The reality is you very likely have misinterpreted the passage you quoted to mean something the author had no intention of saying. |
Somebody sure did. See prior edit. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 10:56:18 PM · #699 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
What's so bizarre about saying a moral and just society can be had without religion? As in, it's not necessary. Not that it has to go away entirely. |
The bizarro part is to see Shannon so de-contextualize Jefferson's words as to suggest there was NO "religious" context to his rational beliefs. This is nothing less than the rewriting of history to flack a personal agenda, and it's incredible to watch.
R.
ETA:
Shannon, HE'S NOT REPUDIATING GOD! He's repudiating organized "big religion" that, for centuries, had lorded it over the common man.
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 22:58:37.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2012 11:06:43 PM · #700 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Shannon, HE'S NOT REPUDIATING GOD! He's repudiating organized "big religion" that, for centuries, had lorded it over the common man. |
And what did I write, loudmouth? |
|
