This thread is a place for careful, clear, respectful discussions of difficult topics. It is not a place for having two-fisted no-holds-barred discussions.
MBers should be able to express their opinions without attacking others personally, and be able to listen to people who disagree with them without feeling personally attacked.
Easier said than done, of course. But MuseBlog is a good place to practice trying.
Continued from version 2009.4.
Okay, I actually doubt this is the first post, but just in case, First Post?
So, I don’t think we’ve talked about this in awhile (not that we need a new topic, but this is a new thread, after all)—What are everbody’s opinoin on Sex Ed. in elementry/ middle school?
And if that’s to lame, what about the (weak, but existant) debate over mandatory military service and whether or not the US should adpat a mandatory service policey? I’m doing a persuasive essay on the topic and would like your opinons.
Sex ed. – essential. Start early. Teen pregnancies happen because kids are shagging each other’s brains out and never heard of a condom. Or the pill. Or a diaphragm. Or a spiral. Sex needs to stop being such a taboo topic.
Military service – The US should maintain a volunteer formed army, it would be less professional to institute a draft. Although Switzerland has obligatory military service, but who are we gonna fight?
I agree with EES for once, I think the earlier the better (I mean, obviously it has to be at an age when the kids can actually understand SE. In California we did it in 5th grade; in Singapore it only happens in High School. And I also agree that if kids learn about it earlier it will stop being such a difficult concept to discuss.
Hmm. Our school doesn’t even HAVE Sex Ed. (i’m in middle school). We have “Human Growth and Development”, and for the last two years at the start of the unit they’ve handed us pieces of paper with everything we’re supposed to learn about. The paper included “Sexual Intercourse (physics of)”, “Prevention”, etc., but we never actually went over it. Honestly, if not for my friends/the internet, I would still not know what sex even was, let alone the importance of prevention. Most people at my school are grateful for it, since it is avoiding a very awkward conversation. But I see a lot of problems with that, especially as there are currently many relationships going on (I mean come on, it’s middle school!) and no one knows exactly how long everyone’s going to wait until…anyway, yeah. I see problems. Do you see problems?
Sex Ed is essential, preferably in elementary school. If the kid doesn’t already know about it by then, then they need to before puberty starts. For example, if a young female doesn’t know about such things, then when she starts PMSing, she’ll think shes going insane. And seriously, once you’re in middle school, you’re going to be exposed to it, so one really doesn’t need to walk around being so naive. It’s better to be told by a professional then by some jerk woodchuck (term for middleschooler in my town) Although, I think that parents should be the first ones to tell kids, not some school nurse, but that’s just me. .
Ever seen the film “Carrie”? That shower locker room scene is exactly why sex ed at an early age is so important.
To those lacking this essential piece of film culture, Carrie’s mother is a religious nutjob who keeps her in the dark about everything until one day Carrie starts bleeding in the shower after gym practice. Needless to say, she starts screaming and wailing, much to the amusement of her classmates, who begin taunting her.
It’s a Stephen King story, so you can guess how the overall story progresses.
A new thread already? Well then. Why haven’t people posted on it yet? I think about six months of mandatory military service is a good idea. I wouldn’t mind. Unless you could prove you were unable, or something. But I’m sure some other people could give you a more persuasive argument…
What if someone was unwilling? What if someone didn’t want to leave their home for six months to do pointless training that they will never use?
It’s not pointless, you learn a lot about discipline, structure and collaboration in the military.
If you’re unwilling? Man up and go anyway. Switzerland offers alternatives, though- civil protection or civil service.
I agree with doing civil services and stuff like that. Not only does it teach dicipline, but it also can teach skills. Besides, a person needs to do soemthing for their country and that is the best way to do it. Heck, it’s better then going on welfare.
Why should everybody be forced to serve, even if they don’t want to live in the US past the age of 18? It doesn’t affect me because I have dual-citizenship (I can give up the US one and become fully English, then get US back later [or vice versa]), but it’s still a problem, in my eyes.
Singapore has mandatory military service too. In fact, I live near one of the many firing ranges- something I shall never understand is why they insist on setting off high-range artillery at two in the morning. They seem to require all young men to serve before college. Apparently you can get a longer sentence for getting arrested around then. Women can get sent as an alternative to jail (for small sentences, not like murder or anything) or volunteer. I don’t know why Singapore even bothers, because if any other country attacks them- pretty much regardless of the state of that country’s army- Singapore will lose. There aren’t as many people here as you might think.
I wouldn’t want to fight in a war I didn’t believe in and potentially lose my life doing so. I wouldn’t want to fight in a war at all. I doubt the draft will be reinstated any time soon though.
sex ed, people need to get over it and figure out the facts of life. i don’t get the puritanical mentality that we must protect the children and all that. I knew about most of that crap before I took those classes anyway. there’s nothing wrong with it unless they’re like “oh yeah have sex all the time” or something, which never happens.
I don’t understand why men have to register for the draft while women don’t.
I agree that it is completely unjust, but at the same time, I’m glad that I don’t.
I think the original reasoning was that women are for childbearing and couldn’t handle warfare anyway. I assume the draft would be modified if ever reinstated. Doesn’t Israel require all citizens to participate for a certain amount of time?
Yes, Israel does have that policy, and thus has one of the best militaries in the world. But what’s the point of modifying the draft after it’s reinstated? Wouldn’t it make infinitely more sense to fix it while no one is being drafted instead of waiting to fix it before all that? The only two solutions that I can see to make it fair would be to either make men and women both register for the draft or to eliminate the draft altogether. The first choice seems more practical and sensible to me.
Not one of the best, but the best. With Switzerland coming in second. Both have obligatory military service. Interesting.
Not requiring women to join the army is a remnant of older, more sexist times. Of course, if sexism works in favour of the women, no one’s complaining.
In fact, many feminists have complained, believing that women would never be treated as fully equal citizens as long as they were exempt from being drafted.
Haha. On the opposite side, I would be fine with women having to register for the draft if we actually were fully equal citizens! However…
(2) On a practical note, six months of service would not be worth the high cost of training. Another consideration, could the military absorb that many new personnel at one time?
We have mandatory military service as well, probably because otherwise our “army” would have about ten people in it (okay, hyperbole, but you get the idea). Women don’t have to go though (but you can always do so if you want), and you can do longer volunteer service as well. I think that the main problem is that, if austria were involved in a war, most people’s answer would be along the lines of “move to Switzerland/ Germany/ Italy/ hide somewhere in the alps”. Introducing a mandatory policy in American would be interesting because I bet you’d have much less wars that way, but I don’t think anyone would vote for it.
Re: Sex Ed- Yes. God yes. But we need a Sex Ed that actually teaches about sex and not how you shouldn’t have sex. If you want wait, good for you. Most people won’t. So we should learn about how to be safe.
We just started our FLE unit and they have this into that explains what we’re going to be learning. Phrases that jumped out at me were ‘”Ugly!” “STDs!” “How not to have a baby!” “Yuck!” and similar. Quick, think of three words that come into your mind when you think about the word “sex”. If it’s any of the mentioned words, you’ve had American Sex Education.
I think of “giggling girls, tampons, and pads.”
You probably don’t want to know what I think of. (Keeping in mind I probably am one of those “giggling girls.” Well, sort of. I’m 13 for cake’s sake, what do you expect? Ha ha.)
I’m 12.
Actually, to tell the truth, getting my “period” scares me a little. Oh cake, that’s probably going to trigger a flood of “It’s not that bad,” and “You’ll get used to it,” posts. Oh, well.
Don’t be. I’m 12 too, and I wasn’t freaked out at all when it started.
*shudders* “it” is such a scary word sometimes.
Why?
The word is just kind of creepy sometimes. Like, “Here it comes!” you don’t know what “it” is. *shudders*
Well, I dunno about “It’s not that bad,” but it’s not scary. Major annoyance, yes. #1 way to ruin your favorite bedsheets, yes. As well as #1 way to manage to ruin underwear/pants.
Do you get used to it? Yes, I suppose you do, but I still find it quite annoying, as it seems like you always get it at the most inconvenient time. *grumbles*
To be fair, it’s not like that for everyone.
True. And at least I don’t get cramps and the like.
I have the horrible feeling I will. I’m one of those girls who actually wants to get her period, but I can see how annoying it could be.
I wanted to get it for a while because I felt my mom didn’t think of me as a responsible adult until I did. Which pissed me off on its own, but…yeah.
I remember thinking about it for such a long time and being all worried. Then I sort of decided “whatever, when it comes, it comes”, and when it did, my only thoughts’actions were “oh, crap. heeeere we go.” and to reach for the pads. No panic, no nothing.calmness…
and then I started being undernourished and it stopped. oh, weren’t THOSE fun times… *glares*
you lucky duck.
They say you get used to it-I’ve had mine for 2 years and you get more used to it, but it’s still really uncomfortable and inconvinceing.
Mostly it’s just annoying, yeah. You get pretty good at scrubbing blood out of underpants.
Trust me, the only thing that really sucks about it has the knack of coming exactly at the wrong time.
*****, ******, and handcuffs.
****,*****, condom.
stopwatches, tape measures, naked hide-and-seek
And I’ve obviously been watching too much Torchwood.
How about losing your soul?
That too. But I tend to think of TW before BtVS. Sorry…..
Having a mandatory military service- I personally have no problem with that, I’m planning to join up anyhow. if there was a mandatory military service, i think that those who are able should have to do it, but people with disabilities should be excused.
Sex Ed- Should probably be started when you’re younger.
Sorry about this being off topic, but didn’t we just make a new one of these like, 15 days ago? That can’t be right…
https://musefanpage.com/blog/?p=4769
I was pretty embarrassed, thinking that there had been some announcement made, until I clicked on the link. Then I was even more embarrassed. Here I go.
Sex Ed- I think it’s mandatory for young people to have this class during middle school. I come from a conservative family and didn’t even know what it WAS until I was twelve, and believe me, that was embarrassing. Kids need to be informed about sex at an early age so that when the time comes for them to make the decision to have sex, they can do it safely and prevent teenage pregnancy. This also ensures that if they choose not to wear a condom, they know what they’re doing and will take on the responsibility if they get pregnant. Sex ed cannot only prevent pregnancy, but it can help prevent more abortions, too.
Agreed. In middle school, it’s not like people are walking around talking about sex freely like they would about the newest couple or whatever (Or at least, not at my school although it probably differs where you went.) but the subject is hardly avoidable. We’re taking Life Science this year, and its amazing the number of times you can reference sex without the actual word “sex” or saying exactly what it is. Everyone I know has known what it is, but I’d bet on the number of kids who don’t truly know all the facts. I found out about sex from a girl in my class when I was 7! If I was to go back, I definitely wouldn’t have chosen to go that route. Hearing about sex from a parent or teacher would have been ten times more preferable, and I definitely wasn’t ready to hear the shock in such an unexpected way when I was 7. By the time you’ve hit puberty, it’s definitely important to know about it.
8.2.1- I haven’t gotten mine yet so I can’t say, but my doc told me I will soon. Honestly I figure, the longer I don’t have my period, the better. It sounds incredibly annoying, and my mom said that she would have preferred to get it when she was 14 or 15, not 13 when she did.
I just think about how fortuneate I am compared to my mom, who got her’s when she was 9 (I got mine at 11)
Wow. That’s pretty young.
Yeah, she’s always griping about it ( 31+ years and you’d figure she’d have gotten over it, but no.)
Hmm. I know a girl who’s about 15 who is complaining that “My period started at eleven, and my breasts started forming at fourteen. I hate my body.”
I’m grateful I didn’t get mine until i was 15. It’s good not to have to worry about going through the day with it, especially when you’re first starting high school.
Eh it’s a big nuisance.
Twelve, seventh grade. I’d prefer never and adopting kids, really.
Huh, that’s funny. Me too.
Anything that makes people want to have less abortions is fine with me…actually, that’s probably a better solution than outlawing it or whatever, because a lot of people would be angry. You could persuade people NOT to have abortions. I read about a clinic that does that.
No, wait – we should have a nationwide vote, no politicians involved, where the PEOPLE can decide whether or not to have abortion in the US. Hey, just blame the voters.
No. No country wide vote. Too much chance of cheating, and we’re too evenly divided.
SE: Definitely.
We;re doing it in gym right now, coincidentally…
Zallie) Are women not fully equal citizens? In America?
I have friends who will be serving in the Israeli military. It’s just how they do things.
Some of my friends’ brothers, however, who are in yeshiva, don’t have to enlist.
I don’t believe America needs a draft, because while it is good for discipline, etc, we have enough volunteers to make a draft unnecessary.
Smaller countries may need one because, though they might have the same proportionate amounts of volunteers, they may still not have enough.
Women in the military: I see both sides of the issue, and I see redeeming points in both arguments. Drafting women, though… I think it’s a bad idea. Not all women are cut out for the military, even the desk jobs (I’m not saying all men are, but the average man is).
Re: Sex Ed: To tell ya the truth, we had an “Understanding Your Bodies” thing in middle school, but no sex ed. Of course, I go to an all-girls, Orthodox Jewish high school, so it isn’t really an issue.
I think it’s sad that it’s so necessary, but the way things are going, I think it’s important to have an adult give older middle schoolers the facts, rather than an entire class being misinformed by a couple of kids.
I make no sense. And I have not been here in forever. Stupid school.
“Average man”? I’m afraid that in America the average man is most likely overweight and lazy–definitely not cut out for the military. Or so the media stereotypes have taught me.
“Beware the average man, the average woman, for their love is average. Because of this they will think your love incomplete, and they will hate you for it. And their hate will be pure and sharp, like a diamond. But there is genius in their hatred, enough genius to kill a man.”
– Charles Bukowski
That’s…interesting…*twitch*
*shrug* There are a lot of overwieght people in America, but there are also a ton of people who are fit and crazy about keeping that way. Especially for kids that are interested in getting a free education, there are TONS of peoiple who are signing up for the army. Heck, if they would train me in vetenary medicine I would join the army.
While men tend to be stronger, women have more endurance. I don’t think that the whole “average man” thing makes any sense. Personnally, I think the whole training is a good thing. However, if you serve in a military or have once served in one, some countries give you trouble *coughcoughguesswhocoughcough* with citizenship. Besides, patriotism doesn’t come naturally to me.
Hm, patriotism. There’s a good topic of discussion. It’s always felt off to me as well. I can be sitting in math class when I notice the American flag just looming over us all. For some reason my mind always jumps to North Korea, where they have portraits of Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il in every room. Why would anyone adore a country so much? A country’s just a country. I can love its policies or its culture, but the actual country, as in the actual government? It just doesn’t feel right to me. It always seems to border fascism, and it’s hard to tell where it crosses the line.
Yeah, I’ve never been fond of patriotism. How about the pledge of allegiance? Even without the “under God” clause, you’re still pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth. Does anyone else see a problem here?
My main problem is that I have family in about 5 countries (at least the ones I know personally) and many friends in other countries. To pick one country… just seems wrong for me.
That’s what I’ve always thought too. Why exactly do we pledge allegiance to a peice of cloth? Because this whole patriotism thing has gone too far, that’s why. And the whole “God bless America” and “One nation, under God” thing ticks me off. How about “God bless the whole world” instead?
Interesting… In Judaism, there’s a prayer/song called “O Se Shalom.” It talks about how we want God to bring us peace and one of the lines is “V’al kol Yisrael,” which translates to “To all of Israel.” The interesting thing is that it implies that peace in Israel (or in a looser translation, the Jewish people) is what is really important is peace only among Israelis and/or Jews, and peace everywhere else isn’t important. It’s interesting…
I know. It feels like it’s one step away from forcing propaganda down everyone’s throats, Big Brother-style.
I keep telling you all, MBers need to leave earth and make a colony on a new planet or something.
Seriously, though, some patriotism is good, especially if it encompasses the values and freedom the country holds dear. However, if patriotism is blind nationalism, there we encounter problems. One can be proud of their country (for example, when said country does a great and good thing) and respect/admire the leaders, but blind devotion without seeing flaws? No. I do hope this post made sense.
That would be… interesting. There are few enough of us that we would probably start to get on each other’s nerves, frankly.
The truth is, I like this world. You’ve got… dog racing, Manchester United. And you’ve got people, billions of people walking around like Happy Meals with legs. It’s all right here. (You can probably figure out what this is from…)
Lemme, guess–it’s a quote from Buffy? Probably Spike?
Happy Meals with legs, eh? But Happy Meals are so tiny they don’t even begin to fill a person up. And despite McDonalds tasting good (yes, I like it–gotta problem with that?), even when you eat a full meal there…..It just doesn’t fill you up very long.
For instance, I just ate there around five, and I’ve just realized I’m quite hungry again. So much for the two cheeseburgers (like the kind you get in a Happy Meal), large fries, and large coke……
No wonder vampires are so insatiable.
Once in a great while I throw my scruples to the wind and eat a Big Mac. And every time I feel so bloated and horrible, I won’t go near a McDonald’s for at least a year, more likely several. And yet, eventually I will forget… (I suppose this should go on Guilty Pleasures, except it’s not really a pleasure, just a weird, inexplicable impulse.)
I’ve eaten at McDonalds *counts* 5 times in the last week and a half?
And if you count the time I just got fries….Make that six. Yeep. But it tastes so yummy……Even if it’s not at all filling. *sigh*
I don’t hate the US. I appreciate our history, founding principals, freedom of speech/press and all that. Honest. However, I still want to leave as quickly as possible (preferably to london) I don’t like how inefficent our lawmaking system is (but hey, it’s supposedly fair!) and I really hate how hypocritical both our government officals and our laws are. I , I don’t know, just feel this extreme urge to run, to leave… I don’t know why.
Patriotism is important to me. I’m glad that I’m an American. It’s a good place to be and live. Despite its flaws, it’s a free country that protects my rights and allows me to live my life the way I want it as long as I work hard for it. That’s more then can be said for other countries. It soemtimes makes me mad when people say that they don’t care abouot their country when it’s not only their home, but also a home that not only is well off, but also paid for this thousands of lives. Yes, we aren’t perfect, no country is perfect, and our politicians are jerks, but that’s hardly anything to complain about considering the problems that other people ahve to deal with.
Nor is it anything to praise to considering the problems you have that other countries don’t have to deal with.
Yeah, but they have problems too that America doesn’t have as well. So, you can either look at it as every single country in the world being a mess and not worth being proud of, or you can view a country as being pretty alright considering all the good things about it and be proud of it. HEck, it’s you home for Pete’s sake! That has some meaning to y’all doesn’t it? Do you guys get food to eat? Clothes to wear? Roof over your head? Then you’ve got it good. You should be greatful that you’re living in a country that can provide that for you. The poorest person in America is considered wealthy in other countries. I mean, our system isn’t perfect, but it’s not all that bad. Think about the milestones that America has crossed! The spreading of rights, the ending of slavery, etc. Our country has come a long way and done a ton of good. A lot of people tend to focus on the bad things that are publicized in the news and not about the overwhelming good things that are done on the sidelines.
Yes, but you could say that for lots of other countries too. Besides, it’s not just my country that provides for me, it’s my family. Also, the poorest person in America might not be able to afford healthcare, which en might be able to get elsewhere. As for it being home; where is that? I was raised about 50/50 here and there. So is it the country where I currently live? The one where I was born? The one where I have more relatives? I just feel like I’m from two countries, and don’t see why I should have to pledge alleigance to one and not the other.
Again, the same: The fact that some things are better and some things are worse doesn’t mean the US deserves praise. In fact, given its position as an economic force, it should be expected to adhere to higher standards than the rest of the advanced world. Scandinavia and Central-Northern Europe should be looking up to the US for guidance.
From what I’ve seen, everyone’s politicians are jerks.
“Are women not fully equal citizens? In America?”
“I think it’s a bad idea. Not all women are cut out for the military, even the desk jobs (I’m not saying all men are, but the average man is).”
case in point. it’s based on the person, not gender.
No, I really don’t think women are completely equal citizens. I am very glad to be a woman in America, but I think we have a long way to go before ‘equality.’
For example, Sarah Palin’s clothing got a lot of press time. There was a lot of focus on her as a woman, as a mother, and then some as a candidate. The male candidates? All their press-time was about their campaigns.
You could make the same argument about race. As long as we keep talking about what color skin a person has–even if it’s someone saying they’re “proud” of it–racism isn’t going to go away. Morgan Freeman talked about this on 60 Minutes once–search on Youtube for “Morgan Freeman on Race and Black History Month”.
Same with religion.
I was going to bring that up, actually. Sexism is institutionalized in the same way that racism is, I think. I don’t think women and men are ever going to be treated completely the same (because biologically, we are different), but there are still many instances where women are considered inferior to men. For example, in Illinois, women only earn $0.71 for every $1.00 that men earn. There’s good explanation for that.
There will always be someone who thinks women are inferior to men (and someone who believes the opposite), but that doesn’t mean we can’t fight for (more) equal treatment.
There are signs that the pay gap is changing. I just received some interesting research from a group that advises museums about demographics. It happened to mention that for young adults “in most major metropolitan areas, the gender gap has reversed, and women in their 20s outearn men in their 20s,” in some cases as much as $1.20 to $1.00. For the same age group, women are “nearly 50% more likely to have a college degree than men.” If that trend persists, it’s likely to shake things up down the road.
and same with homosexulaity
14.2.1 and responses- Well, it gives Americans something to stand for and believe in, and makes them think they are something more than a motley mash of rebellious British colonies. Of course, there are radicals who overdo it. There always are.
14.2.1.3.1.1.1- There should be an “Inexplicable Impulses to Eat Obesitizing Foods” thread.
14.4, 14.4.1, 14.4.1.1- It’s inherited culture; there’s still some old, traditional notions about gender, race, religion, etc. Don’t worry, in 40 years the ideas of our generation will be commonplace, and our kids will be complaining about our medieval beliefs…
Still, somehow it seems strange. Why just Americans? I can’t think of any european country has a flag in every classroom. I just… why should you feel proud of living in a country just because it’s a country? I don’t really believe in the whole my-country-is-best things. They all have good, bad and awful facts about them, but none of them is the overwhelming best.
It has a lot to do with history… and with the different experiences of European nations during WWI and especially WWII. You live in Austria, correct? I’ve read that both Austria and Germany are extremely careful with nationalism and that kind of thing because of their experiences. While Europe has experienced territorial wars for ages, Americans basically chased out/ decimated whoever was hanging out in the area and that’s that. America being a relatively young country probably has something to do with it as well. There’s more to this, certainly…
For me, it’s not a “my country is best thing” because I know that’s not true. I’m just proud to be part of America. It’s my home and I like it.
You country’s accomplishments are not your accomplishments. Why attribute importance or a sense of worth to something that is, ultimately, a matter of geo-biological chance?
Geo-biological chance? *sigh* If you’re going to introduce existentialism into this argument we’re going to get very off-topic.
Do you choose where you’re born? No. Do you choose your parents? No. Do you have anything to do with the accomplishments and mistakes of the country you happened to be born in? No. Patriotism is wank.
Okay, I see what you mean there. I misinterpreted your original post. I agree with you.
I’m glad I live in America, since it’s a lot better than some other places I could be living in. I’m not glad I’m in America because it’s America, but because it doesn’t violate my human rights.
That’s weird that you should talk about pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth, because that just occurred to me a few days ago. It really kind of freaked me out, actually…one calls to mind all those scifi movies with all the automaton people going “PRAISE NAME. PRAISE NAME.” or whatever. As for patriotism, though, I see no reason to be unpatriotic…just think of all the places that are WORSE than America, where they HAVE to “worship” Kim Jong Il, and where women are shot if they look at a man. America is a free country – not perfect by any means – but most people live well here, and usually aren’t shot for being gay or wearing pants.
LONG REMEMBER FRANCES PERKINS!
Yes, but there are also countries that don’t constantly have wars going on somewhere, ones that don’t have the death penalty, ones that make healthcare affordable to everyone. Just because your’s is good (and great in some ways) it doesn’t mean that it’s the best.
16- *agrees wholeheartedly*
I don’t think any country is better or worse than any other country – same with religion. I have a Jewish friend that always says to me, “Your religion is second-best.” It annoys me – like, who’s to say that HER religion is any better than mine? ALL religions are the best. Mine is just the best for me personally, if anyone knows what I mean.
Clearly some religion is right, clearly some countries are better than others are at certain things, and clearly some countries are better to live in. You got to discard this American crap about everything’s as good as everything else. It isn’t. Give it up.
Clearly nothing, unless we have empirical ways of establishing quantitative difference. Can you do so with countries? To a certain extent, yes. Religions? Not so much.
Like your imperialistic thought patterns, though. Keep up the good work, you’re well on your way to becoming a bigot.
We certainly have absolute measures of ‘goodness’ at certain things. GDP per capita. Energy sources. Etc., etc.
Now there’s a leap of logic you’re taking here. Just because one country is better at something than another country doesn’t mean that the people are actually better.
As for imperialism, To justify that you have to look at the big picture, ignoring all the small details. The thing is, those small details, like people dying, are things I’m not prepared to overlook.
Some countries may be better to live in than others, but keep in mind that at one point in history, all countries were developing into coutries that are deemed “good” to live in BY THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE. Some are closer to that point than others.
As for religions, some appear better to an outsider than others, but none is actually, quanitatively, objectively better than another one.
This is because religion is throughly a matter of opinoin… no matter how hard anyone tries, no religion is at any point 100% verifiyible fact. So religion is the definition of subjectivity, as, for that matter, is the word better. So religion cannot be argued the way other topics can, there’s simply no soild fact.
Clare de Lune: So a religion that practices human sacrifice is neither better nor worse than one that preaches peace and tolerance? If both were asking for charitable donations, you’d give the same amount of money to each?
That depends, as I mentioned, on one’s standpoint. To me personally, human sacrifice is completely unacceptable and I’d give money only to the other one. I am sure that many people would feel the same way. However, from the standpoint of someone practicing said human-sacrificing religon, that religon is better TO THEM… as I mentioned, it’s all depends completely on one’s personal experiances and beliefs and is, as such, totally subjective.
Where something like human sacrifice is concerned, I’d have to say that the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity doesn’t strike me as particularly useful. (And, of course, the priest who performs the sacrifice might experience the religion a bit differently from the sacrificial victim.)
Then what about Sucicide? If the sacrifical victim wants desprately to be sacrificed(and have been given other explanations and options, a long chat with a doctor, and has been declared by a judge as sane), then is there still an issue?
Sacrifice is a bit much, but in general as long as no laws are broken and nobody is bothered who doesn’t want to be, than I don’t have an issue with any religon. Once it becomes controlling or inconvienceing of people who do not wish to be affiliated with it, then I think it’s stepped outside it’s bounds. However, That’s usually more of an issue with individual people than it is an issue with the religon.
For instance, I have an issue with all terrorists, even (and escpecially) those who excuse terrorism with religon. Some religons, such as Islam, seem to, if you read their holy texts one way, encourage terrorism. But I still don’t have a problem with Islam. I have a problemm with people who enterpert and act upon segments of the holy text. (any holy text, for that matter) as well as people who take every word of a text as being literal and absolute. But I don’t have issues w/ the religon.
1. If the “victim” actively wants to be sacrificed, I find it difficult to point out any inherent immorality.
2. You don’t have issues with the religion, but what is the religion without adherents interpreting it? The way I see it, if a religion is even slightly conducive to violence or oppression of any kind (see sexuality in Christianity, for example), then it should not be allowed to continue existing, as its positive consequences are entirely replaceable in a secular context, whereas many of their negative effects can only happen with the presence of that particular faith.
You say, “It should not be allowed to continue existing”, but who does the judging of that? And is it moral to force people to stop practicing their religion based on what may or may not happen? You can certainly discourage negative expression of the religion in that matter, however.
I would also disagree with the positive contexts being entirely replaceable. Many religious people believe that it’s their religion that encourages them to do good. And negative consequences do not occur entirely because of faith. Some people feel the need to impose their philosophies on others regardless of religion.
You know, you really are a master of doublethink, Elias. I could point out that antitheism is conducive to oppression, and thus antitheism should, by your thought, not be allowed to continue existing. Please, sir, realize that all of your arguments apply to everyone, not just people who aren’t you.
1. If an ideology is found to have negative consequences, it is panned globally. Look at nazism. Of course, the question is can we forcefully stop people from practicing their religion? IMO that would be counter-productive. Education is the key, that and conversational intolerance.
2. Any moral acts religious people do are also done by nonreligious people. But many immoral acts religious people do are only done by religious people, and because of their faith. No one will ever blow themselves up for “secularism”, there’s no logical connection between the concept and violence, whereas in many religions there are connections, and in all religions there is the danger of perverting a value system by ascribing more moral importance to legacies of scripture rather than human suffering.
What I’m saying is (a, agreeing with point 1) and B, that religions are not and cannot be inherently bad because they leave so much up to interpretation. Sure, certain religons are commonly interpreted in certain ways, but the interpretation is soley up to the interpreter nonetheless. Though I myself am not religous, I have seen religon help to many people through unfairly rough times to believe it is inherently evil.
For example, I had a good friend that is Morman. I say “had” because when she found out I was gay she stoped speaking to me based on her religous principals. However, I still do not hate mormanism because I saw how much it helped her and her family when her little brother suddenly died of cancer. I am not overexagerating when I say that I am sure that without her faith, it would have been very hard for her and her family to function well at all. Instead, thoughout their entire immidetate mourning period what struck me was how well they handled everything, which was helped by their belifs concerning heaven.
18.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.3–Maybe not themselves. But people have blown other things up for secular reasons. Like the Unabomber. He wasn’t mailing bombs to people for religious reasons, he was doing it because he believed that modern society was fundamentally corrupt…
Either way, it’s not good. Most people agree on this.
I I apologize for the double post, but …Communism is also a secular ideology that has committed acts of violence. Massacres in Cambodia, continuing repression in China of religious and ethnic minorities like the Tibetans and the Uighur…
I don’t think there’s a logical connection between violence and anything, but it seems to be something humanity tends to anyhow.
1. Religion can be said to be inherently bad for the following reason. Belief in an extra-human value standard can and will pervert the intra human moral context. I.e. if you believe in the God of the Bible, you will believe that what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults is more ethically objectionable than oppressing people’s individual rights. You see where I’m getting at? If a non-human concept is awarded higher moral importance than human life and rights, it’s almost inevitable that violence and/or immorality will ensue.
On the interpretation issue, since there is no way to establish which interpretation is correct, it is impossible to tell violence-conducive interpretations that they’re incorrect.
2. While it was her Mormonism that drove her to rejecting you because of your sexuality, her Mormonism was not the only thing that could have helped her during troubled times. Plenty of nonreligious people find ways to get through tragedies like that, without the side effect of bigoted homophobia.
3. Believing that modern society is fundamentally corrupt is not a “secular reason”.
4. Ah yes, the communism fallacy. First of all, the way Communism was set up as an ideology is scarily similar to the way religions are set up. Bertrand Russell wrote about this at length in The Practice And Theory Of Bolshevism. Every action is excused with a reference to the “holy” texts of Marx and Engels, interpreted at will, according to the political necessities at the moment. Utter devotion to the Communist Ideal as God, and to first Lenin, then Stalin, as its pope, was de rigeur in Soviet Russia, as was the danger of perverting moral priorities as mentioned in point 1. Similar to this is the current condition of North Korea. A cult of personality is still a cult, and functions like a religion. So the violence it spawned was due to a religious-like devotion to unbased, dogmatic, unarguable notions.
3–The definition of secular according to Merriam-Webster online.
1. of or relating to the worldly or temporal b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not ecclesiastical or clerical
While believing that modern society is corrupt does not have to be a secular concept, Theodore Kacynzski was using it in a way that was no overtly or specifically religious, was relating to the worldly and temporal, and was into ecclesiastical or clerical. Therefore, it was secular.
4-According to that theory, anything set up like a religion is ‘wrong’ then, and it is the structure of religion that is incorrect rather than religion itself.
Regardless of whether it is secular or not. (see above definition)
You may have a different definition of ‘secular’ than I do. Please define, if that is the case.
Secularism is the concept that the political (hence public, ideally) sphere and the religious sphere should be kept separate. It is NOT the same as atheism. Regardless, the bomber example you brought was incorrect.
Yes, religion is bad because of its structure, in part. And any similarly structured institution runs the risk of committing the same moral obscenities. This doesn’t excuse religion, by the way. And when you say “it’s the structure that’s wrong, not the religion”, what is religion for you? Organized shared faith is the definition I’ve been going with. Differentiating between “a religion’s structure” and “a religion” is a false dichotomy. It’s like saying “it wasn’t Nazism itself that was bad, it was the way it was carried out/structured/whatever that was bad”. But here we get into the philosophical- can an ideal exist without a practical application?
Actually, I can logically prove that no religion is right. A religion asserts the existence of some form of infinite supernatural being or beings. If no such being or beings exist, than no religion is correct. If something is infinite, people cannot fully comprehend it. If people cannot fully comprehend something, then they cannot give a fully accurate description of it. Any religion is basically a person trying to describe something infinite. However, this description cannot be fully accurate, so no religion is “right”. QED.
speller73: Are you sure about your premises? As far as I know, some religions (certain schools of Buddhism, for example) don’t assert the existence of supernatural beings, or don’t think that their existence or nonexistence matters very much. Some (such as the ancient Greeks and Romans) have believed in supernatural beings, but not infinite ones. And some cheerfully admit that their infinite being is inconceivable and indescribable but hold that that being has spoken to people and that it’s advisable to do what the being tells you to.
Yes, well, if there is an infinite afterlife it is probably best to ingratiate yourself to whoever decides your eternal fate.
Your logic sounds scarily like Pascal’s Wager.
‘A religion asserts the existence of some form of infinite supernatural being or beings.’
Not all religions, but sure, I’ll accept that premise.
‘If no such being or beings exist, than no religion is correct.’
So in there case there is a correct religion-none.
‘If something is infinite, people cannot fully comprehend it.’
Again, not really true, but I’ll accept that for the sake of argument.
‘If people cannot fully comprehend something, then they cannot give a fully accurate description of it.’
Good so far.
‘Any religion is basically a person trying to describe something infinite.’
I beg to differ. Abrahamic religions claim that their basis is from God, not man.
‘However, this description cannot be fully accurate, so no religion is “rightâ€.’
There’s a real problem with your definition of ‘right’.
So yes, it was to be demonstrated, but it was not, al least not by this.
Lack of religion is not a religion.
Even if a religion claims that its basis is from God, it is still explained and interpreted by humans.
“Right” means accurate. As I have explained, nobody can accurately describe any possible infinite supernatural beings, so a religion, which is a description of infinite supernatural beings, cannot be right.
a) For my purposes, it is.
b) 1. Not according to them,
2. Apparently, God transmits in such a way that we can interpret it without corrupting it.
c) I don’t agree.
Besides, religions are not descriptions of God.
They must contain descriptions of God, as without them, there no one would know what it is they were worshiping.
Definitions, not descriptions. Big difference.
SFTDP
If we interpret the religion through the view of the religion, then of course it makes sense. Christianity, when interpreted by Christians, makes perfect sense to them. Judaism, when interpreted by Jews, makes perfect sense. Looking at a religion through that religion does not prove anything. It is circular.
Therefore, if something is tautological, it makes sense. I’m not trying to prove them true.
Your argument is the same for lack of religion. Looking at atheism or agnosticism from a Catholic point of view seems completely bizarre. But looking at it from an atheistic point of view is perfectly sensible. But that’s “circular”. You must apply your logic to all situations, Enc.
Bzz, wrong. The interesting contradiction is that while subjective observation of an ideology might not make sense outside of that ideology, one must engage in objective observation of the ideology- objective standards for observation being empiricism and rationalism, as any epistemologist, philosopher or scientist will tell you.
Next, the real implications of the argument Enc was making is that proving a religion right by assuming the truthfulness of its own premises is a fallacy of circular logic. Atheism does not assume the truth of any premise, in fact, atheism is not a religion, and there is no “atheistic point of view”. It is not a claim about a certain structural institution, it is merely an acknowledgment of ignorance in certain matters. It becomes “militant” when he get the gall to point out to others that the answers they claim to have are also completely unfounded and very probably untrue.
You’re trying to say that the only acceptable observation of any given ideology is from an unbiased point of view. I would like to point out that that is impossible. Everyone has a bias based on their personal beliefs, philosophies, etc. No one can be completely logical. Not you, not I, not anyone. I know you love to think of yourself as purely logical, but that’s not true. Therefore we must accept the fact that any observation will be biased one way or another.
As for my comment on an “atheistic point of view”, I’m generalizing. Just as no two Catholics think in exactly the same way, no two atheists think in exactly the same way. But if I’m allowed to group Catholics as a whole, I will take the liberty of grouping atheists as a whole, to keep the discussion manageable. Now, I could argue that atheism is indeed a religion, but we’ve already discussed that elsewhere.
Oh, and as a sidenote, most people do not appreciate someone else saying without ritual, “No. You’re wrong.” I fully realize your zeal in supporting your personal beliefs, but in discussion etiquette is as important as logic.
So? What does that prove? Of course everyone has their illogical quirks. But that doesn’t matter. In order to make a claim of those proportions about the metaphysics of the universe, you need evidence. Either evidence or airtight logic to back it up. Just saying that “oh, no one’s ever totally logical” doesn’t cut it.
Atheism is a religion the way baldness is a hair colour. Remember that. And I can generalize about Catholic beliefs because there is a generalizing Catholic doctrine that says what Catholics should believe. There is no such thing for atheists. In fact, I don’t even like the term “atheist”. It’s like saying “non-alchemist” or “a-leprechaunist”. I’m just not superstitious, thank you.
Okay, then. You say that if you cannot accurately describe something then you cannot be right.
In that case, find someone who can accurately explain the Big Bang. Or someone who can accurately explain gravity. Or black holes. Even if someone can give a complete and thorough explanation of something, how are we to know if it is accurate or otherwise? By your logic, since I cannot accurately explain the Big Bang in all its complexities, the Big Bang cannot have existed.
More or less, I think what you’re trying to say is that anything complicated cannot exist. I must say I disagree.
No, I’m not saying it can’t exist. I’m just saying it’s not “right”. It can even be 99.999% likely to be right. But it can’t be right.
If something’s not right, it does not exist. For instance, I could say that there is a giant balloon alligator hovering over my head right now. Am I right? No. Thus the alligator does not exist.
Your statement is not right. Unless, the alligator is asserting something, there is nothing for the alligator to be right a bout. If you were to make such a statement, it would would be not right.
Speller: So, if we set aside the emotionally loaded words “right” (and by implication “wrong”), what you’re actually saying is that any religion that asserts the existence of an infinite supernatural being cannot give a 100% accurate-to-the-last-decimal place description of that being.
That doesn’t seem particularly controversial to me. If you read their scriptures, I think you’ll find that they don’t even try to do that.
Piggy: But suppose you had a giant balloon crocodile hovering over your head. By speller73’s definition, it wouldn’t be “right” to call it an alligator, but it would still exist.
Okay, let me define some terms here.
Religion: a group of assertions concerning the nature of a deity or deities
Right: Accurate (This term can only be used to describe statements or ideas, not concrete objects.)
What I’m trying to argue is that religion by definition cannot be right, because members of a religion cannot comprehend and articulate the entirety ideas well enough for them to be able to say that the religion as a whole is “right”.
Many religions exist which have no concern about the existence or nonexistence of any sort of deities.
Let’s just use “accurate” instead of “right”. The connotations of “right” have been and will continue to be leading to confusion and heat.
Thinking about it, supernatural would be a better term than deity. But yes, a religion requires some discussion of the supernatural. There is a distinction between a religion and a belief system.
I might also suggest that what you’re talking about sounds more like theology than religion.
I suppose I am talking about theology. But the portion of religion that excludes theology is basically a system of values. Clearly, values cannot be universally “right” or “wrong”, since everyone has different values.
(1) Do people have different values? Very different ones? (2) If they do, how does the existence of differences imply that none are better than others? (3) You haven’t mentioned the part of religion that consists of poetry, stories, rituals, and personal experience and feelings. It seems to me that those are important ingredients, too.
1. Yes, people have different values.
2. Values can’t have one better than another, because you can’t look at your values or other values without those getting in the way.
Values can be better than one another. Come off all this equality stuff.
It’s not equality, it’s a matter of inherent morality. Where do values come from?
I mean equality of different value systems.
I agree with you, but for the sake of debate… How do you justify one cultural context over another?
I’m not sure you can…..Actually, I’m pretty sure you can’t because any arugement formatted to justify cultural contexts would have at least one or two subjective elements. And, even if it were an objective arguement, there would be enough people living by the other cultural context to ignore or disclaim your agruement.
Values are created by people, or by organizations. At least that’s how I see it. They are used to set (or justify) someone’s behavior.
Of course values can be right or wrong. They can be inconsistent or consistent.
Why would consistency define rightness? I am very inconsistent in numerous things. But that doesn’t mean I’m necessarily right or wrong. Just inconsistent.
A person’s values can be consistent with what? With each other? Yes, but that’s just a matter of logic, not of “rightness”. With the world? Well, aren’t values based our perceptions of the world, which vary from person to person?
Speller is treading on the outskirts of moral relativism. My advice would be to research the area a little more.
As far as my take on the matter:
What makes a value inherently wrong or right? The absence of an objective arbiter suggests that there is no universal moral standard, but biology suggests otherwise. Intra-human relations are relative to nerves, suffering, and the empathy gene. If there is no suffering, there is no immorality. This is why Brave New World is such a shocking book- there is nothing inherently or obviously wrong with such a society, as everyone is happy, despite the inequalities.
What’s the empathy gene? I’m not doubting that it exists, I’m just surprised that it would be limited to one particular gene.
There is a specific gene that regulates the amount of empathy a person has or feels. It depends on various chemical reactions, and some people have more or less of it. I’ve got the article somewhere, it’s just in Italian…
I assume that that’s not the only gene involved in empathy?
What do you mean? Different genes code for different parts of a person. And there’s a gene that codes for empathy.
I’m saying there are several genes that determine levels of empathy, not just one.
A gene is a sequence of DNA. There is one particular sequence of DNA that defines empathy. What is your point?
There are several genes determining height, correct?
I’m not a genetics expert, but I’d assume there’s a collection of genes that determine various parts of your body that will affect your height. Leg bones, spine, etc. Height isn’t comparable to empathy.
What’s your point?
My point is, height is comparable-empathy is multi faceted.
On what basis do you make that claim? Empathy is the ability to understand the feelings of others. Why should that be multi-faceted?
The whole idea of an empathy gene is ludicrous. Empathy comes from intelligence, altruism, etc., not from some particular strand of DNA.
While the findings are not as cut and dried as Elias makes it sound, several studies indeed suggest that empathy is at least partially based in genetics. In a recent study, a single gene did correlate with measurable differences in empathy. You can read about it in this brief article: futurity.org/society-culture/are-we-hard-wired-for-empathy/. You can find the abstract of the study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. pnas.org/content/106/50/21437.abstract?sid=70829f61-6f1e-4f15-a099-2695c4e82610. From what I’ve read, no one has claimed that one gene is the sole cause of empathy. Why should the idea be ludicrous? The other factors you mention, intelligence and altruism, also appear to have genetic components. But genes never tell the whole story. Even the genetically predisposed individual will have to learn behaviors that express empathy (or intelligence or altruism) in the real world.
It’s not really a question of “cut and dried” results, rather the metaphysical implications of such a discovery that I was emphasizing. It’s yet another example of scientific evidence supporting monism over dualism.
There have been studies that point to the probable existence of a gene that affects empathy. From the LA times:
“A study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found a single coding variation in the human genome that appears responsible, at least in part, for individual variations in such personality and behavior traits as empathy and response to stress.
The gene they looked at — the OXTR gene — carries the design and production blueprint for cells scattered throughout the heart, uterus, spinal cord and brain that serve as docking stations for a chemical called oxytocin.
Scientists have long known oxytocin as the chemical of bonding and nurture.”
And so on
Denying the veracity of a scientific discovery simply because you can’t comprehend the concept of a non-physiological phenomenon having biological origins is ludicrous, in my opinion. Well, it’s more than my opinion. But whatever.
Oh, and all those things you mentioned, like intelligence and altruism, also have biological origins. In fact, in altruism’s case, it’s probably a direct consequence of empathy.
En’s not saying it can’t exist, they are saying that since it’s impossible to describe them accurately, no description can be accurate. If no description can be accurate, then no description can be right in the sense of “right for everything”, the right implied by a religion.
bubblebabe: Do you really think that 2009 Norway isn’t any better or worse than 2009 Somalia?
Well, one religion must eventually turn out to be right (if you include atheism).
Atheism is not a religion; it is a belief. You can have a religion and be an atheist. You can not be and atheist and not belong to any religion.
Also, what if there was, to pick a rather ridiculous example, a giant supernatural backpack our lives. I’m pretty sure that there’s no religion that believes that. (By the way, please do not start a “Church of the Backpack”.
Not really, you can’t. Look up religion in a dictionary.
Religion is a system of belief in a god or in supernatural powers.
Theology is the study of the nature of God.
You can’t have a religion and be atheist.
Not all the definitions refer specifically to the supernatural. The two dictionaries closest to hand include the meanings “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” or “a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by.” Similarly, “theology” can refer to other aspects of religious thought. I’m not defending any particular definition, just pointing out the pitfalls of relying on dictionary definitions for an entity as complex as religion.
You can certainly be an atheist and have a religion. I, for example, am a Jewish atheist. I celebrate Jewish holidays and follow Jewish traditions. Most of my values line up with those put forth by Judaism. I merely reject the theology.
But the values are a consequence of the theology. Isn’t that hypocritical?
Having a religion implies belief in the religion. Without the belief, all that’s left is the cultural structure. Dawkins himself defined himself as a “Cultural Christian”, but he would never claim to “have the religion”.
I agree with you here.
I think that there is a diffeence between being happy to live somewhere and being proud to live somewhere.
I completely agree.
Me too. I’m happy to be living in America, but honestly, I think America is a bit *coughcoughbossy-mcbossypantscoughcough* sometimes.
Wait- You’re calling America Bossy McBossyPants?
I like your approach to politics.
I’m 12. Politics bore me. I wasn’t even thinking abut politics then. I was thinking more of war.
I’ve got to say, Nationalism and its later evolution, Patriotism, are racism (with a lowercase r).
“Nationalism” has a few different meanings. For example, it can mean wanting to live in an independent, self-governing country instead of being part of somebody else’s empire. Saying “we want our own place” is different from saying “we’re the best.” (Of course, deciding who “we” are and who gets to live in “our own place” can be complicated and sometimes ugly.)
For me, it means the things that it meant in the 1860’s-each culture says it’s better and therefore has more rights than other cultures.
Even back then, I think, one meaning of nationalism was the idea that culturally similar people who want their own country ought to have it. That’s certainly what it meant for the many anticolonial movements of the 20th century. Just be aware when you read the word that the writer might be using it in a different sense from the way you do.
Yes, I’d be wary of assigning a single definition to “nationalism” during an era in which the meaning of the word “nation” was still a matter of intense debate.
On teh Patriotism point, I think its pointless. I’m personally not”Patriotic” to anywhere. Pseudonym and I even made our own Pledge. Here:
“I am the Walrus of Queen Frank, and her mighty State of Hysteria. And to the Swamp-noodle on which she Sits, one Lawn mower, over Land, with Candy and Windows for None.” Seriously, you should try making one up, its fun!
I pledge my grievances to The Bag and The Delighted Crate of Utopia, and to the Pedestal on which it stands: One Ration, made of Frogs, Invisible, without Squares and Circles for all.
I pledge allegiance to Sir Craig, of The Righted Steps to Dystopia, and to the Steps on which he Sits, one Walk, over Steps that are invisible, with equal passage for all.
Ooh, pledging allegiance to frogs! Yay!
I hate saying the Pledge of Allegiance. I leave out half the parts, including the “Under God” bit. Actually, I usually don’t say the Pledge at all. (I mean, pledge allegiance to a random rectangle of fabric that for some reason represents our country? Come on…) It’s kind of freaky to see all of my classmates saying it every morning and if asked, half of them wouldn’t even know what they’re saying. (It’s true, I asked every single person in my homeroom that. Barely any of them could tell me what “indivisible” means.) I’m sorry, I feel kind of negative but I have been pondering this for days. This is my version of it:
I pledge allegiance to the world
And the united state of being
And to the soil
On which I stand
We are but one speck in the universe
–Invisible–
With peace and love to all.
I say all of the pledge except for “under god”, because I think of it as pledging allegiance to the idea of America, what it would be like in an idealistic world, instead of pledging to what it is.
I like that one! thanks Silver Lining!
Thank you. You’re welcome.
I don’t really say the pledge, or even look at the flag. I just think it’s a little bit hypocritical. I mean, “Under God?” Wouldn’t that include everyone in the world? And “liberty and justice for all?” What about
crazymentally unstable people? They probably don’t feel very justified. And also people with parents who abuse them.“I pledge condescendence of Lord Wupp, and geckos’ mighty State of Malaria. And to the swampland for the Crumpet’s band, one station, without sod, with Melodiousness and Harmony for none.”
“I shout my grievances to The Tag and its mighty state of Finanziaria. And to the bubbles of the Stump, nine mushrooms, without chloropyll, and with Sparkles and Ponies to all.”
Ummm, here we go;
I love the science
Of the World
And all the animals, also.
And to the rescuers
Of so many animals.
Each working
So very hard
With food and shelter to all.
Wow, that turned a bit, uh, animal-y.
Wow, Keiffer, I was just talking about that today! Only I thought it was “I pledge allegiance, to Queen Fragg, and her mighty state of hysteria..” on the subject of comics Pledge of Allegiances:
“I pledge allegiance to the can
Of the perfect food that is tuna.
And to the fishy
Of which it cans
One portion
Just for me
With lemon juice
And pickles
On top.”
That’s for you, Silver Lining, and let me know if I’ve misquoted it.
Ha ha. Bucky Katt, I presume? *is not quite sure*
It’s actually “olive oil and crackers on top.”
This reminds me of the prayers of the Church of Googlism (I’m not part of it, by the way). Go look it up–it’s very funny.
I agree with nolagirl17 about patriotism.
I love that one from Calvin and Hobbes:
“I pledge allegiance to Queen Fragg
and her mighty state of hysteria”
I personally didn’t say the pledge when I lived in the US because of the reference to God and of course the “liberty and justice for all” part… but now that I live in Singapore but go to an “international” school of a certain country that shall not be named, we’re required to say the pledge of that country daily at morning assembly, and you get your hand smacked with a ruler if you don’t. Needless to say my hand has a permanent red mark, which is a problem when one plays very fast pieces on the violin. I think I’ll complain.
Best country, best religion- Personally, I think that some are better than others, but in the current state of affairs I don’t think there’s a “best” country. Same goes for religions. Think of it this way: if you had a basket of fruit with oranges, pears and poisonous berries, then you could say that the oranges (and pears) would be better (to consume) than the poisonous berries, but you could keep arguing forever the pros and cons of oranges vs pears. You can stick with what you’ve always had, choose something new or whatever/whichever you think is best, which depends on you current state of being.
I see the poetry, stories, rituals, etc more as a culture related with the religion, but again, how can a ritual be “right” unless you bring in theology?
Are ethics objective? is the real question. I’d say only when in the context of physical pain- nerves are nerves, after all. Everything else is merely up to cultural conditioning and inter-cultural qualitative differences- although it is possible to establish superiority of one ethical context over another, it’s a matter of Darwinian sociology, or memetics, if you like. There’s an excellent TED talk on the matter, given by Dan Dennett.
(Referring mainly to Enceladus’s note down there at the bottom):
Many MBers on this thread seem to think that people have no way of compensating for their mental biases. Is that really true? When you go to a football game, you see people cheering loudly for different teams. Clearly, they have strong, and opposing, biases. Yet they agree on the rules of football, and most of the time they agree on how the plays turn out. Sometimes it won’t be clear what happened, and the referees will have to settle it — and some fans might disagree with the decision. In those cases, their biases very likely will influence how they see things. But the biases don’t make it impossible to play the game.
In football, there are preestablished rules. We, however, have no objective rules of morality. Therefore, not only do I think that it is impossible to have an unbiased view, I think there is no unbiased view.
The rules of football aren’t objective in the sense of being written in the fabric of the universe, either. They’re something that people developed over time and decided on, based on things that human beings know about themselves (roughly similar size and mass, ability to run, inability to fly, etc.) and things that people have discovered make for a good game. Couldn’t moral rules be like that?
Yes, but in that case they only apply within the context of existing consensus.
But all people already agreed on those-no one actually disagrees with any rules in the rulebook. However, people even disagree on the objective of moral rules. How could we agree on the rules themselves?
People didn’t agree in the beginning. They compromised in various ways to come up with the official rules — which continue to change (often causing considerable controversy) because people continue to argue about them.
Those disagreements, however, are not usually caused by allegiance to some particular team.
The football metaphor isn’t exact, and I didn’t mean it to imply that it’s possible to establish one set of ethical rules for all of humanity (though my moral-philosophy professor in college thought so). I was talking about bias, and whether it’s possible to become aware of your own biases, see things (at least approximately) from another person’s point of view, identify areas of agreement and disagreement, and analyze them on the whole fairly and dispassionately. I brought football into it as a way of showing that people with exactly opposite biases, often strong ones, can still agree on the “facts on the ground” most of the time.
If you look closely, they often are, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary. People tend to approve or disapprove of a rule because of their allegiance to the traditions of their team or league, rather than to any demonstrable superiority of the rule itself. For example, every argument I’ve heard about the designated-hitter rule in baseball ultimately revolved around whether the person speaking supported the American League or the National League.
(( Thanks, darling POSOC! I lost the book. ))
18.1.2.2.1.1.2.2.1.2 (Elias Eiholzer-Silver)–“Atheism is a religion the way baldness is a hair colour. Remember that. And I can generalize about Catholic beliefs because there is a generalizing Catholic doctrine that says what Catholics should believe. There is no such thing for atheists. In fact, I don’t even like the term “atheistâ€. It’s like saying “non-alchemist†or “a-leprechaunistâ€. I’m just not superstitious, thank you.”
So you believe that Atheists are exempt from religious categorization because they follow a science-based philosophy? That sounds rather egotistical. What makes an Atheist’s notion of a “looping big bang universe” more likely than a Christian’s “omnipotent omniscient God” or a Hindu’s “servant from a flower in Vishnu’s navel”? Scientific evidence? No matter how many astronomers we have looking through telescopes and interpreting star wavelengths, we can never be 100% certain that there is no explanation for our existence besides what (we think) we see. Atheists are no different than people of any other religion, except they put their faith in man’s knowledge rather than deities.
21.2.3- But not everyone in the world is “Under God,” are they? And it’s impossible to guarantee complete “Liberty and Justice for all” for everyone, because the US government is not omnipotent; it’s barely unipotent as it is.
29- That is assuming we don’t we consciences, which is a religious matter…see above argument.
ibcf:
Elias isn’t saying that he believes in any particular scientific model of the universe. He’s saying that he doesn’t believe in any god, God, or gods. Etymologically, atheism means “godlessness.” It’s a description of what a person doesn’t believe.
As for science — well, I work for a magazine called Science, so I may be biased. But as far as I know, science isn’t a body of knowledge that claims to be 100% reliable. It’s a way of finding out about things, usually through a lot of hard work.
“Atheists are no different than people of any other religion, except they put their faith in man’s knowledge rather than deities.”
They dont’ believe those deities exist at all. However, man’s knowledge is something that is concrete, and we know it exists.
Because “atheists” do not “follow” any sort of philosophy. Atheist simply means you do not believe in god. Scientism is not inherently implied, although there is quite often a correlation.
However, to answer your attempted question, there are levels of probability, and there is quite a lot of evidence for the big bang theory, while there is no evidence whatsoever for religious creation theories. Not to mention the utter absurdity of most of them.
Oh, and you also follow a “science-based philosophy”. You engage in induction every waking moment of your life, choosing to walk, choosing to get up, choosing to eat certain things rather than certain other things. of course we can never be 100% certain, I know my skepticism. But to assume that because of that every single bloody crackpot theory, from David Icke’s reptilians to the holy trinity, deserves the admission of possibility and should be treated as a possible answer is wank. In fact, scientism is superior to other theories because an integral part of the scientific method is the active recognition of the provisionality of its conclusions- science recognizes that it might be wrong, and will adapt its theories accordingly with new observations. Unlike religious answers, which are dogmatic and unchanging.
But again, there is no imperative adherence to the scientism in the concept of atheism, nor is atheism an inherent consequence of scientism- just look at Francis Collins. However, it is true that 97% of the American Scientists’ Association (or whatever it’s called) are either atheists or agnostics, and no science nobel winners have ever been religious, except for one pseudo-pantheist. This is because an awareness of the scientific method and its necessity as a way for establishing the closest possible type of truth we can reach will almost invariably lead to atheism- NOT the other way around. Even outside of the scientific fields we find this trend- according to recent polls, around 70% of American academics are atheists or agnostics. This is irrelevant, however, because at the end of the day, science works, and religion does not.
As for consciences, that is not by any means exclusively a religious matter. Morals exist regardless of religion.
32.1- I apologize for misusing the term; atheism is often listed as a “religion” (even here on MuseBlog), and in general, most atheists seem to think on the same plane, whatever their specific beliefs. I’m just arguing that
atheiststhis group of similar-minded people shouldn’t be seen as nonreligious exceptions.There is a correlation, true, because usually atheism is reached by thinking in similar terms. But regardless.
I don’t quite understand what you’re arguing- what do you mean by “nonreligious exceptions”?
I’d say there are many roads to atheism, some grow up in atheistic families, some are “convinced” (to borrow a Quaker term), some have conversion experiences they can’t explain, some are simply apathetic about religious questions in general. I’m sure there are other paths, those are just examples from people I’ve known. And I’m not sure “similar minded” would fit anything except lack of belief in a deity, though certainly there are subsets of atheism who share similar outlooks.
values vary by culture, religon, and upbringing. there is no complete equality, because everything varies by person. for example-a kid values their dog over their mother, at first sight its considered “not right” by culture and people, but what if the kids mother ditched him at the side of the road one day, and his dog has helped through his struggles (i know its kinda corny, but whatever). i mean you need to know a persons life to consider what their values should be based upon, but there are basic values, water, food, shelter.
We are talking about what people do in the same situation. Therefore, that example has nothing to do with this. I don’t see how food, water, and shelter are ‘values’. Also, please capitalize.
Has anyone here read ‘Ethics’?
Disappearing numbers again…
What do you mean?
The posts below are lacking numbers.
The sludge of numberless comments building up at the bottom of the page.
Ah, they hadn’t shown up until I refreshed the page just now. I thought cromwell was referring to something within his previous post.
SFTDP but this topic seems sort of dead…. We could talk about the pros and cons of same-sex only schools until something else comes up.
Okay, so I just posted an (unnumbered for some reason) comment (not a reply, a comment) and it appeared above 8 other (unnumbered) comments, not below them. GAPAs?
Rogue comments. Anything posted in reply to an unnumbered comment will join the slush pile at the bottom of the page. Explained here among other places.
How about this one: What is the purpose of our justice system?
It SHOULD be to rehabilitate. Of course, whether it does so is up for debate.
I can’t remember who it was that said “A nation’s greatness is measured by the conditions of its prisons.” Oscar Wilde, perhaps?
In that case, the US is not such a great nation
(refering to Guantamimo Bay prior to the Supreme court ruling that prisoners had to actually be charged and given a trail (note that I did not say “fair” trail… Congress set up a special court system after that ruling and wether it’s actually fair or not is up to debate.))
I believe the purpose is to protect criminals.
Laziness…. that’s a Hot Topic. Like how I’m too lazy to read all of these posts….
32.3- 1. “However, to answer your attempted question, there are levels of probability, and there is quite a lot of evidence for the big bang theory, while there is no evidence whatsoever for religious creation theories. Not to mention the utter absurdity of most of them.”
As a matter of fact, I do believe in the big bang theory, and even possibly the repeating universe. Are they proof that a deity can’t exist, though? Couldn’t God, or the giant turtle, or whatever, have caused these things? Science asks what, and religion asks why. They should always be kept separate. Science can’t prove anything when it comes to apparently untangible, invisible beings, so
AtheismScientism is therefore just another philosophy, equal to any other religion. The only thing I would say makes a lot of sense is agnosticism.2. “Oh, and you also follow a “science-based philosophyâ€. You engage in induction every waking moment of your life, choosing to walk, choosing to get up, choosing to eat certain things rather than certain other things. of course we can never be 100% certain, I know my skepticism. But to assume that because of that every single bloody crackpot theory, from David Icke’s reptilians to the holy trinity, deserves the admission of possibility and should be treated as a possible answer is wank. In fact, scientism is superior to other theories because an integral part of the scientific method is the active recognition of the provisionality of its conclusions- science recognizes that it might be wrong, and will adapt its theories accordingly with new observations. Unlike religious answers, which are dogmatic and unchanging.”
There is a difference between David Icke’s reptilians and the holy trinity. The trinity is a religious belief, while Icke’s lizards are a scientific claim. As I stated before, science and religion are completely separate fields, and are inapplicable to each other. Religion isn’t a theory; it asks why things happen. If the trinity was real, could science explain it? And for your second point, “dogmatic religious answers” are always changing: do you think modern Christianity is the same as it was 500 years ago? And then we have all the different sects…
3. “But again, there is no imperative adherence to the scientism in the concept of atheism, nor is atheism an inherent consequence of scientism- just look at Francis Collins. However, it is true that 97% of the American Scientists’ Association (or whatever it’s called) are either atheists or agnostics, and no science nobel winners have ever been religious, except for one pseudo-pantheist. This is because an awareness of the scientific method and its necessity as a way for establishing the closest possible type of truth we can reach will almost invariably lead to atheism- NOT the other way around. Even outside of the scientific fields we find this trend- according to recent polls, around 70% of American academics are atheists or agnostics. This is irrelevant, however, because at the end of the day, science works, and religion does not.”
Well, given that I previously argued that the scientific method cannot disprove or explain religion, you can’t say that it will establish the “closest possible type of truth.” Truth for me is about deeper meanings, not visible material. Religion may have no proof, but it works just as well as no religion (if you don’t see how, look at the recurring message in my arguments). Therefore, scientism cannot claim to be superior to other religions in any way. And pure science has nothing to do with either.
33.1- Anything that tries to disprove religion is a religion itself. Scientism claims to be a better “why” than Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, etc., so it is leaving the boundary of pure science (which only explains “what,” as I said before) and heading into religious territory.
33.1.1- I’m arguing against all the subsets of Atheism that believe that science can be used to prove their beliefs.
Religion makes a claim that it is unable to back up. End of story. Of course God could have caused these things. But there is absolutely no reason to assume that it is so.
Icke’s reptilian bollocks is not a scientific claim. It does not adhere to the Popperian principle of disprovability, and entirely ignores Kuhn. Second, the only reason Christianity has changed is because it has found that its concrete, metaphysical claims about the actual structure of the universe and existence are false, and have to be changed. Woops, we know that the earth is far older than 6000 years. Alright, I guess it must be a metaphor. Or whatever.
Truth for you? Why should truth for you be different than truth for anyone else? Aside from the wank that is epistemic relativity, this argument is a pure ad hoc fallacy.
“Anything that tries to disprove religion is a religion itself”. Why, pray tell? Scientism does not offer a “why”, it is merely a system of thought, and may I add, the system that has produced the best results so far. You’re bringing up the NOMA (Non Overlapping Magisteria, as Stephen Jay Gould coined it) argument, i.e. that science and religion can coexist in different territories. But even there religious apologists are constantly grappling to realign their beliefs with actual facts about the world, not to mention the big question that no one ever asks- why should religion automatically have more authority on “why” questions than anything else?
And finally, you miss the point again. Atheism is, by definition, the lack of beliefs. Atheism is not the attempt to “prove” anything, it is simply pointing out the lack of proof in religious assertions of knowledge.
41.1- 1. “Religion makes a claim that it is unable to back up. End of story. Of course God could have caused these things. But there is absolutely no reason to assume that it is so.”
Of course not. But there is not reason to assume it isn’t so, either. I’m not trying to claim it is superior, I am just saying it is an equal.
2. “Icke’s reptilian bollocks is not a scientific claim. It does not adhere to the Popperian principle of disprovability, and entirely ignores Kuhn. Second, the only reason Christianity has changed is because it has found that its concrete, metaphysical claims about the actual structure of the universe and existence are false, and have to be changed. Woops, we know that the earth is far older than 6000 years. Alright, I guess it must be a metaphor. Or whatever.”
Hmm. I assumed you were trying to compare Religion to crackpot science theories, but now that I actually READ about it, Icke’s reptillian whatsit is more of a religion…indeed, I can’t definitely say that he is right or wrong. But I’m not arguing about the merits of Icke’s claim, I’m arguing about science being used to make religious claims. For Christianity…does it really make any concrete, metaphysical claims, outside of our interpretation of it? I don’t know of any passage in the Bible that infers that the Earth is 6000 years old. Have you actually read the Bible? Or any religious book? Not just the quotes that people use to attack them? I can’t speak for the Koran or the Torah, but I can say that the Bible is careful to distance itself from science. What little science there is can hardly be seen as valid to our understanding. That’s not the point. There’s a reason the description of creation is so short.
“Truth for you? Why should truth for you be different than truth for anyone else? Aside from the wank that is epistemic relativity, this argument is a pure ad hoc fallacy.”
So there is one universal truth for everyone, in every culture, throughout all of history? In my opinion, that sounds rather dogmatic.
““Anything that tries to disprove religion is a religion itselfâ€. Why, pray tell? Scientism does not offer a “whyâ€, it is merely a system of thought, and may I add, the system that has produced the best results so far. You’re bringing up the NOMA (Non Overlapping Magisteria, as Stephen Jay Gould coined it) argument, i.e. that science and religion can coexist in different territories. But even there religious apologists are constantly grappling to realign their beliefs with actual facts about the world, not to mention the big question that no one ever asks- why should religion automatically have more authority on “why†questions than anything else?”
Scientism says there is no “why,” therefore it isn’t a “why.” That is like saying “0” is no number, therefore it isn’t a number. Religion explains the deep meaning of our existence. If there is no deep meaning, that’s still a meaning, isn’t it? Also, what makes Scientism the religion/system that has produced the “best results so far”? Are these results necessarily good for everyone? Not just in accordance with Scientism? In the case of religious apologists–it seems to me that they are not essentially trying to “realign their beliefs with actual facts,” but they are instead attempting to make their religions more appealing to the current trend. They’ve done it before; look at the supposedly Christian holiday traditions of Easter and Christmas. Lastly: Whenever science begins going into the “why’s” rather than the “how’s,” it crosses the border into religion.
“And finally, you miss the point again. Atheism is, by definition, the lack of beliefs. Atheism is not the attempt to “prove†anything, it is simply pointing out the lack of proof in religious assertions of knowledge.”
I didn’t use the term “Atheism” in my last post. I did say “
AthesimScientism” and “subsets of Atheism,” but not “Atheism” itself.You can track time in the Bible from the ‘Creation’ to events verifiable by other methods. You get the answer of ~5916 years ago.
I don’t see why believing in absolute truth is bad. See, there’s a difference between fact and belief. As my brother said, “A fact is something you can see, taste, smell, etc. A belief is something you feel inside.”
For example, math, geometry, morality, etc.
So believing in absolute truth is not bad. It’s the confusion between ‘belief’ and ‘fact’.
I don’t know if anybody has discussed this already, and I am rarely on here at all, but….
Lots of commercials/businesses/people say “Happy Holidays!” during winter and such. A lot of people absolutely hate this and think the only thing that is correct is “Merry Christmas!” Sadly, my Dad is strongly for only saying the latter…. but I honestly have no problem with either one. If you say “Merry Christmas!” are you really going to offend someone? And what is the argument for only saying “Merry Christmas!”? How has saying “Happy Holidays!” actually become offensive?
Christmas is a Christian holiday, and presuming everyone else to celebrate Christian holidays is ignorant at best and bigoted at worst.
43 – Agreed. WHY on Earth should it be offensive to say “happy holidays” if people are just trying to be INoffensive? Christmas is a holiday so technically they ARE saying “merry Christmas.” Grrrrr.
44) I know! This drives me insane! And how businesses like banks aren’t supposed to put up Christmas trees anymore because it’s a “Christian symbol” which technically isn’t true anyway, because it was originally considered a pagan tradition. And also how Obama made the Christmas tree at the White House a “Holiday Tree” and forbid the artists that were going to decorate the ornaments from putting Christian symbols on them. Plus, how Santa is now supposed to say “Ha Ha Ha” instead of “Ho Ho Ho” because someone was offended. ARG! *throws hands in the air*
SFTRandomP GAPA’s? I think the thread is starting to rebel. New one, please?
Oh wait! SFTDP, I think it was just my computer. Never mind!
That gets me, the holiday tree thing. Because it’s NOT a holiday tree, it’s a Christmas tree, and Obama is Christian, so why is he calling it a holiday tree? I don’t mind the bank thing. But I think everyone has gone a little crazy with the whole “politically correct” thing. Religion is a big part of everyone’s culture, and suppressing it this much is sort of ridiculous.
Both Snopes.com and Factcheck.org have looked into the “holiday tree” rumors and say they are false. Some people seem awfully eager to believe them, however.
As for the story about Santas’ being instructed to say “ha ha ha” (thirty Santas in Sydney, Australia, to be precise), the company that trained them says that’s not true, either.
AND a lot of non-Christian countries celebrate Christmas just as a holiday, not a Christian holiday! And they put up trees.*groan*
I’m confused.
Hey! Why do my posts jump up the page? I mean, I just posted something and it jumped up to under Robert’s comment.
See? It did it again!
This thread hasn’t been posted on in awhile…probably because Less Educated People GAPA Bless Their Souls don’t understand the discussions ( me ). So allow me to open up a discussion about the Native Americans and all the ways the English were cruel to them when they came.
1) We came and killed many of them with diseases.
2) We forced them off their native land.
3) Then we forced them to fight in our wars.
4) Then we refused to give them land as compensation.
5) So they went west.
6) Then we had battles with them over their land.
7) We won.
8) Now they live on reservations, which are only a fraction of the land they used to have.
9) And reservation sounds like it’s for animals.
*feels bad for Native Americans*
Well, might makes right, doesn’t it? Look at what came from it. The US is arguably the most technologically advanced country in the world. If we had been ‘nice’ to the Native Americans, would we be where we are now? Who, then would have issued the Monroe Doctrine? Who would have stopped Hitler? Who would have stopped the USSR? The Native Americans? I don’t think so.
But does the end justify the means? The means being mass genocide, outrageous theft, completely ignoring dozens of treaties, centuries of extreme racism, forced assimilation, and now the highest (by far) poverty, alcoholism, and suicide rates of any group in the entire nation?
(Also, I would argue that Japan is more technologically advanced than the US, but that’s neither here nor there.)
Well, first of all, most of the Native Americans were killed by diseases, which we couldn’t control.
Second of all, wouldn’t things be worse if no-one (stupid spell-check) stopped Hitler or the Great Red Menace?
Third of all, Japan is the most technologically advanced because of us.
You’re postulating a causal relationship between two historic events where there is none.
Oh and, the Great Red Menace? Are you kidding me? There never was a menace, only American paranoia.
It must be said, though, that while the white man did in fact inflict all those things on Native Americans, the red man got back by presenting us with tobacco.
“For us, it is a sacred herb, but for you it will be a lethal narcotic. Enjoy!”
You’re right. I quite enjoy smoking.
*facepalm*
No, might does NOT “make right”. Jesus. You’re saying that cruelty to the Native Americans enabled the US to become a modern economic and industrial superpower? I suggest you go back and study the history of the US’s industrially formative years.
Guys, I just want to tell you I don’t really believe this, I just made it up.
Devil’s advocate? You can do better than that
Hey, I convinced you. And, by the way, the USSR was pretty bad.
This sounds like a topic for the “Alternate History” thread. POSOC and TMFA probably would enjoy playing with some of the possibilities. For example, if the early United States hadn’t expanded westward so aggressively, maybe the issue of slavery in the new territories wouldn’t have been such a divisive issues. Maybe the Civil War could have been avoided and the country would have wound up stronger. Who knows?
Or perhaps a weaker United States would have stayed out of World War I, resulting in a German victory. No Treaty of Versailles, no German humiliation, no Nazis, no Hitler. Perhaps a victorious Germany would even have forced the Bolsheviks out of power in Russia. There’s no way to know.
Gah, it’s been too long since American History… let me go google “Manifest Destiny.”
John Quincy Adams is an influential figure in American expansion… we just need to get him out of the way before he starts negotiating treaties.
Or maybe if we prevent the Louisiana purchase somehow… *walks away, muttering to self*
The thing is, most people can say that all values are equally moral and come up with a viable explanation to back up that claim, but I’m guessing that everybody here- every single one of us- intuits in our hearts and souls that our own morals are superior to everybody elses. Its just how morals work.
Not really. I recognize that my morals might be incorrect, and if arguing with somebody I realize that I am in the wrong, I will actually attempt to re-elaborate my position.
The problem is that many “explanations” are not so viable after all.
Thsi si a quiote form Yahoo! News:
“Starting Monday, all passengers on U.S.-bound international flights will be subject to random screening. Airports are also directed to increase “threat-based” screening of passengers who may be acting in a suspicious manner.
In addition, anyone traveling from or though nations regarded as state sponsors of terrorism [Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria]— as well as “other countries of interest”[Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen, to name a few] — will be required to go through enhanced screening. The TSA said those techniques include full-body pat-downs, carry-on bag searches, full-body scanning and explosive detection technology.”
I think we’re drifting pretty close to ethnic and cultural profiling. How about you?
Some cultures are more conducive to terrorism. *shrugs*. Not much we can do.
As long as profiling is more efficient, it is often useful. After all, most terrorists come from those countries.
Who believes Yahoo anyway?
I think it’s less to do w/ ethnicity and more to do w/ governments with less rigorous screening and places that it’s easier to purchase explosives/set up an underground terrorist organization. terrorists come from all over.
42.1- 1. 2 Peter 3:8 says “…with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day…”
That could be 7000 extra years for the seven days of creation, if one interprets it that way.
2. And then if you look at the first part of Genesis…
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good…” etc. etc.
Pay attention to the bit in bold…it doesn’t specify the time it took for the Earth to form; that could be billions of unmentioned years within a single verse. That’s the “gap theory,” as you may know…it tends to be overlooked in “5000-year old creation” arguments. Some people say it could even explain the dinosaur period, and such…
3. Do you really think we can accurately determine dates in an ancient religious manuscript?
4. (Absolute truth/facts/belief issue): That was my original debate: Treating belief of all known facts, and nothing else as absolute truth/without admitting it is a religion, is what mixes everything up.
1. I’ve heard that argument, and I’m not too convinced.
2. That’s ridiculous, because the part about the Earth actually forming comes later.
Anyway, your translation is wrong.
The real translation is-
In the beginning of God’s creating of the heavens and the earth-
(And the world was formless and void, and darkness on the surface of the deep, and the God’s spirit was hovering over the face of the waters)
And God said, “There was light,†and there was light. God saw the light {and saw} that it was good, etc.
3. Well, Genesis lists all the ages of the twenty generations between Adam and Abraham when they gave birth. It lists the ages of Abraham, and Isaac when they gave birth, then it lists when Joseph dies. After that there are 210 years of slavery, then 40 years in the desert, the Joshua’s conquest of the land, then Judges lists the years under them (a few hundred), then you have the records of the Kings up to the destruction of the first temple. This, we know, was about 570 B.C.E. Then there are 150 years unaccounted for, then we have the books of Daniel, Ezra, the Apocrypha, and some others until the Romans come. Then and throughout Kings and Chronicles we have verifiable dates.
4. No, that’s not a religion.
51.1- 1. Well, it’s up to interpretation.
2. No. Genesis 3 and everything after that talk about God putting plants, animals, etc…on the planet. The only times geographical features are hinted are in Genesis 1 (heaven and earth) and 2 (formless and void, etc.), which aren’t part of the “seven days.”
3. The generations are a given, but we can’t assume
Brilliant, if it’s not airtight, specific, and coherent, it’s “up for interpretation”.
1. The Gospels were written hundreds of years later-you can’t use them.
2. That’s actually not true-just read it with a good translation, i.e. something actually translated from the Hebrew, rather than Latin or Greek.
3. I just showed you how it’s counted. It’s not assuming, It’s there.
52.1- Yes, indeed. That’s because it is an ancient book that nobody understands. Also, it leaves many scientific questions fairly open-ended, as it focuses more on God and morals and whatnot. In my opinion, the story of creation could have several equally plausible meanings–some of which are compatible with proven concrete evidence. If that’s the case, with any religion, then one cannot necessarily say that science “debunks” it. If the possibility is there, it can’t be ignored…like how nobody has yet given me reason to believe that a repeating universe that has existed forever by itself is more likely than a deity creating one. Anyhow, religion and science should just let each other live, peacefully…
It does not ‘have several equally plausible meanings–some of which are compatible with proven concrete evidence’. It gives a description of how the Earth was formed, and it’s wrong.
I agree with everything you just said. I’ve never understood why people see religion and science as two opposing and completely incompatible forces. I mean, if a person believes their religion is true, then it would have to agree with other things that are true. That’s pretty obvious.
Ha, that reminds me, a few months ago a spokesman for the Vatican said that extraterrestrial life would be entirely possible and not disagree with Catholic belief. I think that’s pretty awesome.
52- Did I not finish that post? Must have accidentally deleted some of it…I meant to say:
3- The generations are a given, but we can’t assume that that’s how old the earth itself is according to the Bible.
4- Yes it is, it’s Scientism.
52.1- And Elias: It’s not like I’m suddenly making up these interpretations for the sake of argument. I’m just stating the facts: the Bible does say that a day is 1000 years to God, and some people do apply that to creation.
3. Yes, we can. I’m sorry, but the logic is flawless. You’re wrong.
4. That’s not a religion. What are you talking about?
I’ve yet to see a logically coherent reason for which the Bible can be thought to have sort of factual value, and be treated as more than bronze-age literature.
And if one more person says that science is a religion I’ll blow a gasket.
An important point to make in discussing the age of creation based on what the Bible says is that a thousand doesn’t equal a thousand.
What I mean is that in this quote: “…with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day,” a thousand does not mean 1000. That number was used by many early civilizations to mean “a helluva lot”. Thus “seven days” could mean many different large numbers, including, say, 14 billion years. Besides, even setting that aside, the quote by itself just says that God is not limited to time as we perceive it.
Plus the Bible was originally written down by people, correct? And before that wasn’t it oral history? Things could easily have gotten misquoted or misunderstood throughout the years. It shouldn’t change our beliefs (i.e., that God created the world). Say, for instance, science was your religion, and your holy book was an article you’d read online. If there was one typo saying a “dish” had gills and was evolved from bacteria, instead of “fish,” you wouldn’t go around sticking dishes in saltwater so they could breathe. I for sure don’t believe everything in the Bible – that a woman is inferior, that it’s a sin to wear clothes of two different fabrics woven together, that Israel is “a race above all other races”.
Science is not a religion? Why why does everyone think that?
I think it might be considered not a religion because science is based on facts that have been proven again and again. Religions are more based on the faith that the Bible or whatever you believe in is true, without knowing if you’re right or not.
Religion-‘belief in a supernatural power or powers’.
I don’t think science is a religion, I was just using an example.
53.1- It describes how life on earth was formed, not the earth itself. And some (mostly the same people who believe in the gap theory) think that it only describes the creation of the current life.
54.1- 3- Um…what makes me so wrong? If the earth is 5916 years old according to the Bible, then everything in the first two verses has to have happened in less than a year. What makes the gap theory so implausible? The Bible makes no mention of time (“days,” which might not necessarily be earth days, as suggested in 2 Peter 3:8) until the third verse.
4- I concluded that in post #42. Feel free to argue otherwise.
You’re arguing theology, which is like the textile subtleties of the emperor’s new clothes.
3. Well, it says ‘there was night and there was day, the first day.’ The FIRST day. And yes, the first DAY. There’s no question.
4. You did not conclude that, you just made it up. Nice try, but to say that something is right, you have to actually prove it, not just try to.
Scientism says there is no “why,†therefore it isn’t a “why.— That is like saying “0″ is no number, therefore it isn’t a number.
Let’s pretend that actually means something, although I can’t really see what.
Religion explains the deep meaning of our existence. If there is no deep meaning, that’s still a meaning, isn’t it?
I’ll just ignore all the unintelligible parts until we get to an actual argument.
Also, what makes Scientism the religion/system that has produced the “best results so far� Are these results necessarily good for everyone? Not just in accordance with Scientism?
Scientism? What’s that? I never heard of it? Is it the belief in common sense?
In the case of religious apologists–it seems to me that they are not essentially trying to “realign their beliefs with actual facts,†but they are instead attempting to make their religions more appealing to the current trend.
…and logic and the scientific method are the ‘current trend’ that the poor apologetics have to conform to…
They’ve done it before; look at the supposedly Christian holiday traditions of Easter and Christmas.
In other words, it’s okay to compromise eternal truths just so you can convert people by pretending pagan holidays are Christian.
Lastly: Whenever science begins going into the “why’s†rather than the “how’s,†it crosses the border into religion.
‘Science’. The evil product of human nature. It has its own mind and can even cross the border into religion!!
I argued otherwise. Happy?
54.2- Well, maybe order, conduct, morality, personal incentive, the hope for reward, life lessons, etc. But that’s an entirely different topic, better suited to the religions thread.
55.1.1- Since when did “everyone think that”? I’m the only person on this thread who has in any way inferred that “science is a religion,” and I’ve never meant science itself, I meant the BELIEF THAT GOD CAN’T EXIST DUE TO SCIENCE, which I assumed Elias defined as “Scientism” earlier, but I seem to have been mistaken. I’ll blow a gasket myself the next time someone jumps to a conclusion.
56.1- Nice one.
But if every religious claim automatically becomes invalid, we might as well end this debate because our views are totally incompatible with each other.
In post #41, I argued that “anything that tries to disprove religion is a religion itself.” When science starts to interfere with theology, it is no longer science. Perhaps it can, however, conflict somewhat with scientific claims made by religions, which is why I defended Christianity in posts #52, #53, #54, and #56. But when it starts making greater assumptions, such as “there is no God,” it becomes theological–how can science determine the presence or non-presence of a divine being? (See posts #32, #33, #41, and others) Atheism, Scientism, or whatever you call it, is a religion in this way. I’m fine with that, but some people of this faith (or non-faith) like to affiliate their beliefs with science, often as a means to attack other religions. True science should not have anything to do with religion. Saying “God doesn’t exist” is still a theological claim.
Oh, I see. You’re saying science needs proof, but it can’t interfere with religion, because religion is defined as having nothing to do with truth or logic. I thought you were arguing for religion.
(57, 56, 55, …) About religion and science: I think there’s some confusion here (and not only here!) about just what science is. As a news editor at a journal called Science, I talk to a lot of scientists and people who write about science. From my point of view, science doesn’t “say” anything in particular about the world. It’s not a body of knowledge — it’s a way of finding things out, by making and testing hypotheses. If you have a question and want to try to answer it using a scientific approach, you have to follow certain rules.
One of the rules is that the answer to the question “How does X happen?” is not allowed to be “It just happens” or “It’s a miracle.” That’s not because scientists don’t believe in miracles — some do, some don’t. It’s because saying that something just happened or happened because of a miracle doesn’t explain it in a way that scientists consider useful and satisfying. In particular, it’s not something that other scientists can check for themselves (an important part of the scientific process).
Another rule is that the answer to the question “How do you know X?” can’t be “I just know” or “I heard about it from somebody else who just knows.” Again, it’s not because scientists don’t believe in intuition, enlightenment, or divine revelation — some do, some don’t. But that’s not the kind of evidence a scientist is going to put in a scientific paper, because it’s also not something that other scientists can check.
As a result, whenever you see a scientific answer to a question, that answer is going to be framed in natural terms, not supernatural ones. It’s not because scientists don’t believe that anything supernatural exists — some do, some don’t. But science is designed to explain the natural world in natural terms. That’s what it’s good for, and that’s all most scientists ever try to do when they’re on the job.
A new topic, someone? P*ese? There is/was a thread for religions and atheism, but right now there must be something else to talk about.
Pick-
The meaning of Justice
Utopia
drug gangs/legalization
health care
economy
Cold War ethics
I don’t know, think of one yourself.
Time for a new thread, I’d say.