| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/04/2007 07:54:19 AM · #1 |
Uh-oh, I'm raising a thread from the dead.
-I just wanted to say that I have no belief system and do not think you need one to be a functioning person. If you say "you have to have one!!" then I suppose I could say, "My belief system is that I have no belief system". I think. I think rather than believe because I don't think it's logical to divulge one's full trust into any one thing.
-I was not raised under religion as a child, but there were occasions where I would find myself in church (grandmother visits, easter, christmas, baptisms, etc.) and when I was about 7, I remember looking around and wondering, "why do people believe in this?"
-You could say that I'm an athiest, but that wouldn't be accurate. I prefer the term agnostic because, like I said, I don't believe that there is a god a.k.a higher power, but I am not completely dissmissing it either. I consider myself to be a logical person, so I will neither confirm nor deny the extreme presence or lack of something. Here is what I think:
-The Bible is a book. Just a well written book, written by very persuasive authors.
-I think Jesus was a probably a real person, but I think he was just a man who claimed he was the son of God.
-From dictionary.com, Faith: belief that is not based on proof. In every sermon I've heard, or book of the bible I have read, there is always the word faith. Why should I be persuaded into believing something that makes no sense?
-I feel that proof is esential to me and others to even begin to think something is indeed true. Call me untrustworthy, but if somebody you knew very well said that you were a piece of ravioli, would you instantly believe them, or first listen and be on guard? Give me proof.
-I think most people use religion because they were raised at a very young age to believe such things, or were born-agains (like my aunt). For those who were raised to believe it, I think they were too young to really know any better at 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, etc. But why is it that more and more of these kids as teenagers and adults lose their religious tendencies? Is it just for when their older and they make a mistake or feel weak, they can can pull god out of their pocket because the idea gave them feelings of nostalgia and comfort from when they were young? This is when most born-agains seem to 'find' Jesus or god again, or maybe for the first time. They are vulnerable and often feel alone, and think the only way they can solve their problems is to give themselves to thir religion. I have been thru many hardships, and can honestly say, that I have never once thought of turning to religion. I (along with many others) have a strong conscious all by myself.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:30:38 PM · #2 |
From the LATimes Their Own Version of a Big Bang.
Originally posted by latimes:
WAYNE, N.J. — Evangelist Ken Ham smiled at the 2,300 elementary students packed into pews, their faces rapt. With dinosaur puppets and silly cartoons, he was training them to reject much of geology, paleontology and evolutionary biology as a sinister tangle of lies.
"Boys and girls," Ham said. If a teacher so much as mentions evolution, or the Big Bang, or an era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, "you put your hand up and you say, 'Excuse me, were you there?' Can you remember that?"
The children roared their assent.
"Sometimes people will answer, 'No, but you weren't there either,' " Ham told them. "Then you say, 'No, I wasn't, but I know someone who was, and I have his book about the history of the world.' " He waved his Bible in the air.
"Who's the only one who's always been there?" Ham asked.
"God!" the boys and girls shouted.
"Who's the only one who knows everything?"
"God!"
"So who should you always trust, God or the scientists?"
The children answered with a thundering: "God!"
A former high-school biology teacher, Ham travels the nation training children as young as 5 to challenge science orthodoxy. He doesn't engage in the political and legal fights that have erupted over the teaching of evolution. His strategy is more subtle: He aims to give people who trust the biblical account of creation the confidence to defend their views — aggressively. |
One has to wonder what good that does. The bad is cleary evident.
U.S. may lose its global lead in science
Originally posted by physorg.com:
The Washington-based National Academies, the nation's leading science advisory group, is warning the United States may lose its global lead in science.
The 20-member panel, in a report released Wednesday, cited examples of emerging scientific and industrial power abroad and listed 20 steps the United States should take to maintain its global leadership in science.
"Decisive action is needed now," the report warned, explaining the nation's old advantages "are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength." |
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 10:27:41 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Richard Dawkins:
If you look at the causes of wars and similar conflicts you can say that, in many cases, they are due to, for example, economic disputes or national vendettas or something of that sort … and that is true. But, for a start, it is very often the case that the only label that people manage to find to tie onto themselves and to their enemies are religious labels. |
|
We frequently used to ask ourselves what the differences really were between us and the Soviets. Even then I was aware, as was Goldwater, that the differences were marginal, so we wanted to spell them out. But the more we discussed it, the harder it became. I mean, they have a secret police, we have a secret police. They can vote for only one candidate, here we have two -- which makes us twice as good but not absolutely better, especially since our candidates are selected in such a peculiar fashion. We kept pressing each other for differences and when we got right down to it, for Goldwater, the difference was religion: "We are the children of light and they are the children of darkness."
--Karl Hess (1976 interview) |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 10:08:53 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:02:47 AM · #5 |
I just finished listening to a podcast from Point of Inquiry featuring an interview with Professor Dawkins and I thought this quote was interesting concerning the choosing of the title for his show and the show itself. (Around minute 18)
Originally posted by Richard Dawkins:
First of all, I should say, that the title “Root of All Evil” was not mine and I actually fought vigorously against it … against the television company and they insisted on it. I managed to get them to insert a question mark at the end which was the sole concession to my misgivings about this … what I regarded, and still do regard, as an indefensible title. Religion is certainly not the root of all evil. No single thing is the root of all anything. But I do think that you can make a case that religion is the root of a great deal of evil … certainly throughout history … and certainly today. If you look at the causes of wars and similar conflicts you can say that, in many cases, they are due to, for example, economic disputes or national vendettas or something of that sort … and that is true. But, for a start, it is very often the case that the only label that people manage to find to tie onto themselves and to their enemies are religious labels. |
|
|
|
|
02/10/2006 01:36:19 PM · #6 |
As long as theSaj does not start on the subject of copyright...
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
You will also need to download and install this Codec Pack to make sure you have whats required to play the movie. |
Downloaded it and works perfectly. Nice looking picture, too. Thanks for the help. |
No problem, I hope others will download and watch it too. Seems silly afterall commenting on a documentary one hasnt seen. |
|
|
|
|
02/10/2006 12:53:15 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
You will also need to download and install this Codec Pack to make sure you have whats required to play the movie. |
Downloaded it and works perfectly. Nice looking picture, too. Thanks for the help. |
No problem, I hope others will download and watch it too. Seems silly afterall commenting on a documentary one hasnt seen.
Message edited by author 2006-02-10 12:55:49. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 12:20:12 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
You will also need to download and install this Codec Pack to make sure you have whats required to play the movie. |
Downloaded it and works perfectly. Nice looking picture, too. Thanks for the help. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 09:43:16 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Why do we even bother... |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With this statement my respect for you has been quadrupled. This is perhaps your most adroit statement. lol |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 08:21:35 PM · #10 |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 07:42:02 PM · #11 |
Speak about misleading. take a look at the concerned boobyheads who are attributing earth warming to our way of life. Well here is a stellar little observation to consider:
Mars must be inhabited by greedy Americans driving big SUVs and pumping big fumes into their atmosphere because mars is going through a warming cycle. lol
It was at the start of this very thread wherein the scientist displayed fear of religion gaining ground.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 07:22:43 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
I got the bit torrent you suggested and listened to the first part last night. I guess I need a plug-in to watch the video, but I'm not sure what I need. I plan to download the second part and listen (watch) it this weekend.
The interview with the Islamic Jew was scary (... I never knew that women who dressed themselves in the West were "whores" and that atheists would allow people to have "sex in the middle of the street" ... funny, the things your learn ...) |
Milo, I forgot to add people would probably need a Codec. Download and install this Codec Pack and you should be able to view the movie normally. Sorry bout that. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 07:10:37 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Yeah Im in for golf! |
Uh oh! I'm terrible (at golf).
Perhaps it deserves its own thread, but I believe there's a viable case to be made for golf being the root of all evil ... |
You might be right General. You might be right. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 07:08:05 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Yeah Im in for golf! |
Uh oh! I'm terrible (at golf).
Perhaps it deserves its own thread, but I believe there's a viable case to be made for golf being the root of all evil ...
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 19:09:14. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 07:01:44 PM · #15 |
Yeah Im in for golf!
I will get us a tee time at the TPC in Scottsdale. Cool with you guys?
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 19:09:55. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 07:01:07 PM · #16 |
Yeah Pat is a Nut Job no doubt about it. Thanks for thinking of me.
The Wazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:54:25 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Thanks. But I'd have to at least share the job with MadMordegon and thegrandwazoo, whose talents at diagnosis may actually be BETTER than mine ( if one is to believe their own postings ). |
It would make a fascinating film to see the three of you interview for the job ... if I joined you we could have a foursome for golf afterwards : ) |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:48:25 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I'm sorry but Carl Sagan in no way is on any sort of the same playing field as Pat Robertson. It shows alot though that you think that. |
Ah, but I never said he was. You asked for the name of a scientist who was 1/8 ( i.e. 12.5% ) as crazy as Pat Robertson, not 100% as crazy. And I while I agree that he ( Carl ) was not 100% as crazy, I DO maintain that he was at least 12.5% as crazy. |
Quantitative post-mortem psychoanalysis!
Your talents are wasted here for sure -- the tabloids surely have a keyboard ready for your diagnosis of a number of popular personalities ... |
Thanks. But I'd have to at least share the job with MadMordegon and thegrandwazoo, whose talents at diagnosis may actually be BETTER than mine ( if one is to believe their own postings ). |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:42:58 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I'm sorry but Carl Sagan in no way is on any sort of the same playing field as Pat Robertson. It shows alot though that you think that. |
Ah, but I never said he was. You asked for the name of a scientist who was 1/8 ( i.e. 12.5% ) as crazy as Pat Robertson, not 100% as crazy. And I while I agree that he ( Carl ) was not 100% as crazy, I DO maintain that he was at least 12.5% as crazy. |
Quantitative post-mortem psychoanalysis!
Your talents are wasted here for sure -- the tabloids surely have a keyboard ready for your diagnosis of a number of popular personalities ... |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:17:26 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I'm sorry but Carl Sagan in no way is on any sort of the same playing field as Pat Robertson. It shows alot though that you think that. |
Ah, but I never said he was. You asked for the name of a scientist who was 1/8 ( i.e. 12.5% ) as crazy as Pat Robertson, not 100% as crazy. And I while I agree that he ( Carl ) was not 100% as crazy, I DO maintain that he was at least 12.5% as crazy. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:12:19 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
I didn't say that the papers were peer reviewed. I said that his claims were made in a peer-reviewed journal - as they were. |
Do you deny that you were attempting to imply that the statements themselves were peer-reviewed, despite the knowledge that only "papers" submitted to such journals -- not every ad, letter, or press release -- are actually subject to such scrutiny? Talk about "misleading" ... |
Not at all. By saying "claims", of course I meant to imply that the statements ( claims ) were peer-reviewed.
First of all, if one is to believe the journal's own hype, then the claims / statements / papers must have been "peer-reviewed" else they would not have been published.
Secondly, Science didn't publish just ONE paper, but TWO ( not counting the one about cloning dogs ).
And, thirdly, since many have discounted the credibility of non "peer-reviewed" literature in the past,
- as in this quotation leveled against me in another thread:
Originally posted by milo655321:
"Again, what mainstream science texts and peer-reviewed literature are you getting these ideas from?" |
- I didn't want to miss the opportunity to point out that "peer-reviewed" does not automatically mean "true" or "factual", no matter how many "peers" "review" the claims / statements / papers.
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 18:14:34. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:08:45 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Also just as another friendly reminder, the Richard Dawkins documentary that this thread was started about can be downloaded with the following instructions. |
I got the bit torrent you suggested and listened to the first part last night. I guess I need a plug-in to watch the video, but I'm not sure what I need. I plan to download the second part and listen (watch) it this weekend.
The interview with the Islamic Jew was scary (... I never knew that women who dressed themselves in the West were "whores" and that atheists would allow people to have "sex in the middle of the street" ... funny, the things your learn ...) |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:02:51 PM · #23 |
Also just as another friendly reminder, the Richard Dawkins documentary that this thread was started about can be downloaded with the following instructions.
I think it would be wise for people to know what the subject matter is they are suppost to be discussing:
Originally posted by milo655321:
MM,
How do you do the bit-torrent thing? Thanks. |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
This is bittorrent; Wiki Bittorrent.
Download this tiny free program; uTorrent and install. More info on uTorrent here; www.utorrent.com
When you click on the links I provided to download the Dawkins movie, use uTorrent to open. It's fairly easy.
Here is "The Root of all Evil?"
Part 1
Part 2
|
You will also need to download and install this Codec Pack to make sure you have whats required to play the movie.
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 19:24:11. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:01:19 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
And show me examples of mainstream science purposely misinforming the populace at large or else that’s more BS. |
Originally posted by RonB:
Hwang Woo-suk - who claimed, in a peer-reviewed journal, to have successfuly cloned human stem cells. |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
(…) those papers were not peer reviewed (…) |
Originally posted by RonB:
I didn't say that the papers were peer reviewed. I said that his claims were made in a peer-reviewed journal - as they were. |
LOL! Bravo, sir, bravo! Have you ever considered becoming a street hawker playing three card monte with the tourists?
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:00:10 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
I didn't say that the papers were peer reviewed. I said that his claims were made in a peer-reviewed journal - as they were. |
Do you deny that you were attempting to imply that the statements themselves were peer-reviewed, despite the knowledge that only "papers" submitted to such journals -- not every ad, letter, or press release -- are actually subject to such scrutiny? Talk about "misleading" ... |
welcome to the fair and balanced no-spin zone |
|
