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 2009.5.
It’s insane how fast you guys move through these.
That’s why it’s called the “Hot Topics Thread”, not just the “Topics Thread”
From last thread: “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.”
I wasn’t arguing for religion. I was saying that the atheist/scientism religion (and please don’t get on my back again for misusing the term because I’m sure you know what I mean by now) is equal to other religions, because they are theological philosophies that you can either believe or not. REAL science, which needs proof, is not religion. It has nothing to do with this. I am arguing on the basis that most theological things cannot be explained by truth or logic, including atheism/scientism.
It’s not a religion. ‘Scientism’ is not a religion. ‘Scientism’ is not a religion. How many more times should I repeat it?
You must have missed ibcf’s plea: “Please don’t get on my back again for misusing the term because I’m sure you know what I mean by now.”
(2) A small technical point: Scientists don’t talk about proof; they talk about evidence. Mathematicians prove things. Scientists only make observations that support one hypothesis or another.
(Theologians talk about evidence, too, of course. As far as I can tell, the main difference between scientists and theologians is that they accept different kinds of evidence. I talked about that a little near the end of Hot Topics 2009.5.)
I think you’re limiting the scope of scientific inquiry in an overall epistemological context a bit too much. Now, I don’t want to endorse positivism, but the scientific method works by philosophical patterns that, apart from being used every day in every little aspect of the quotidian, are simply necessary for establishing any sort of knowledge, knowledge being justified true belief, and the key concept there being “justified”. At the end of the day, science is a preferable method to achieving knowledge than anything else (I almost said “almost anything else”, but checked myself, as I couldn’t actually think of anything), most definitely religion, as it glorifies the exact opposite characteristics of good science as having some sort of superior moral value.
Evidence is evidence, and what is true for one person should be true for the next, or it cannot be said to be true.
I just checked out the last thread and saw that ibcf has just about the same creation viewpoint that I do…
3- But when people use scientific methods to find evidence against theological beliefs, that causes problems. As science and religion are different worlds apart, the “evidences” don’t really apply to each other.
Does that actually happen? Many MBers seem to think that scientists are trying to undermine religion, but nobody ever supplies any details. Can anyone can cite one scientific study aimed at discrediting a single specific tenet of religious belief?
I don’t think it’s not really any specific study disproving a tenet, its the implications that several scientific studies have. Studies about paleoanthropology involving humans evolving from a common ancestor as apes (not the apes themselves) contradicts creation stories found in the Bible and Quran. Big Bang theory also puts a dent into it the six-day creation story.
But aren’t a lot of religions made to explain things that science has now explained?
Science explains how, religion explains why.
“sigh” I guess your right…:(
Hooray for clichés.
Why should religion explain why? What grants religion greater authority over ethical questions than anyone else? If anything, we should be turning to the applied ethics faculty at Oxford for the “why”. Is it tradition? Dogma? Cultural importance? You will find an absence of justification in any case.
Piggy, for you personally I recommend you go on youtube and look up the debate held at Oxford (I think it was) for the Intelligence Squared debates, specifically the one entitled “Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?” with Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry on one side of the panel and Anne Widdecombe (Conservative British PM, for the Yanks) and some African Bishop whose name eludes me.
So should science explain “why”? Please, outline your viewpoint instead of merely criticizing others. It makes for much more enjoyable discussion.
Oh, and I assume it’s Archbishop Desmond Tutu who was in the debate. He’s quite well-known.
It depends on what sort of “why” you’re talking about. As I’m sure Elias’s philosophical studies have revealed to him, “why” comes in several different varieties.
True. For the sake of the current discussion, I assumed “why” was to be taken as an ethical question.
What do you consider a “why” question? Also, if science can’t explain it, why does it follow that religion should? And which religion?
And, indeed, why are science and religion different worlds? A lot of religious questions – not all, but many – have answers that could, hypothetically, be found through the scientific method. Dawkins gives an example of imagining that some forensic archaeologists found DNA evidence showing that Jesus really lacked a biological father. Would science still have nothing to do with religion, then? Would the “evidences” still not apply to each other?
No, “science” should not explain why, because science as such an entity does not exist. It is a thought pattern, a system of logic.
The “why” to many things is of yet unknown, although progress is being made every day. As such, it is preferable to take a stance of admitted ignorance rather than leap to conclusions and assume that a god of the gaps did it. This is why I criticize more often then presenting my own opinions- more often than not, they are fraught with the awareness of ignorance and the provisional nature of my own conclusions. All I can do is point out dangerous assertions of knowledge being made by others who have no right to do so, and definitely no suitable justification for it.
As far as morality goes, well, it can’t be objective, because it lacks an objective arbiter. So it must be defined by human contexts. While neurology, memetics and evolutionary biology is doing its best to discover how our brains function when it comes to morality, until we gain a certain level of concrete knowledge from scientific sources it makes more sense to listen to people like Peter Singer than bronze age literature, which has done more harm than good as far as being a moral guide goes.
The debate can be found here (remove spaces):
http://www .intelligencesquared. com/iq2-video/2009/catholic-church
From the site:
“Initial Vote: 678 For, 1102 Against, Undecided 346
Final Vote: 268 For, 1876 Against, Undecided 34
Arguing in favour of the motion are Archbishop John Onaiyekan and the Rt Hon. Ann Widdecombe MP.
Archbishop Onaiyekan begins by insisting that if the Catholic Church were not a force for good, he would not have devoted his entire life to serving it. He says that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church exists because of its 1.6 billion members worldwide, rather than in spite of them. He points not only to the spiritual assistance that his Church provides, but also to the tangible aid that is given internationally through Catholic projects. Finally, he admits that Catholics are not infallible, but are by necessity sinners trying to improve themselves through their faith.
Ann Widdecombe suggests that in trawling all the way back to the Crusades to find something to blame the Catholic Church for, Christopher Hitchens merely demonstrates how flimsy his argument really is. Why would the Pope have hidden 3,000 Jews in his summer palace during the Second World War if the Catholic Church was an antisemitic organisation? Admittedly, the New Testament does blame a Jew for the death of Christ; but it also blames a Roman, Pontius Pilate. Are we to infer then that Catholicism is anti-Italian as well as antisemitic? Widdecombe insists that the actions of the Catholic Church in the past should be judged with a degree of historical relativism; they were not the only people to murder and torture those deemed guilty of wrongdoing. She entreats us to imagine a world without the benefits of the Catholic Church, which provides hope, education and medical relief all over the globe.
Arguing against the motion are Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry.
Christopher Hitchens asserts that any argument trying to identify the merits of the Catholic Church must begin with a long list of sincere apologies for its past crimes, including but not limited to: the Crusades; the Spanish inquisition; the persecution of Jews and the forced conversion of peoples to Catholicism, especially in South America. He illustrates the vacuity of recent Catholic apologies by drawing on the case of Cardinal Bernard Law – shamed out of office in the US for his part in covering up the institutionalised sexual abuse of children – whose punishment from the Vatican was to be appointed a supreme vicar in Rome, and who was among those assembled in the 2005 Papal Conclave to choose the next Pope. Hitchens concludes by reminding the Archbishop that his own Church has been responsible for the death of millions of his African brothers and sisters, citing the Church’s disastrous stance on Aids prevention, as well as the ongoing trials in Rwanda in which Catholic priests stand accused of inciting massacre during the 1994 genocide.
Stephen Fry concedes that his opposition to the motion is a deeply personal and emotional one. He criticises the Catholic Church not only for the horrors it has perpetrated in the past, but also for its ideology, and for its sinister temerity to preach that there is no salvation outside of the Church. With two words he refutes Anne Widdecombe’s suggestion that the Catholic Church does not have the powers of a nation state: “The Vaticanâ€. As a homosexual, Fry reflects how bizarre it is to be accused of being “immoral†and “a pervert†by an institution that has persistently hushed up the rape and abuse of children under its care, and whose leading members, abstentious nuns and priests, all share an attitude towards sex that is utterly unnatural and dysfunctional. He concludes by questioning whether Jesus, as a humble Jewish carpenter, would have approved of all the pomp and excess of the Catholic Church, and whether he would even have been accepted by such an arrogant organisation.”
Yes yes, I watched the debate on Youtube. I didn’t gain anything from it that I had not already heard, so it was unfortunately a waste of an hour of my life. (Incidentally, that summary is quite at odds with the actual debate.)
I should specify what I mean by “why”. I mean “why”. Not how, why. Obviously science can explain how the universe does what it does, but not why. How does the universe exist? That can be explained by natural scientific means. But why does it exist? That cannot be explained by natural logic. On the contrary–such a question is somewhat illogical. That’s where, I believe, religion has come in. Religion (speaking on broad terms) takes it upon itself to explain the “why” of the universe. It’s not a matter of necessity–that, since science cannot explain “why”, it follows that religion must–but rather that religion has taken up that gauntlet.
Furthermore, morals are only fluid in your eyes because you reject the idea of any sort of god. I’m not going to debate this or anything; I’m merely making an offhand observation.
Oh, and by the way, what do you have against ancient times? Many of the fundamentals of science were worked out millenia ago. Does that mean we must reject these basics due to their age? Of course not. It’s the same thing with religion. Just because the fundamentals were worked out millenia ago does not mean they are any less valid today.
Justify your claim that science cannot explain why; that religion as a consequence must; and answer my initial criticism of religion’s lack of authority to do so.
As far as “why does the universe exist”- it seems unlikely that there be such an answer, and when it comes to questions like this I tend to throw in with the existentialists or the absurdists, which is essentially “make your own meaning in life”. Assuming religion to be the answer to a so-far unanswerable question is a bad case of confirmation bias.
But morals are material things, analyzable by science, dependent on biology and chemistry. It’s not “in my eyes”, it’s a fact, the way DNA is a fact.
Ancient times? First of all, the fundamentals of science were not worked out millennia ago, the scientific method as we know first gained any sort of philosophical body with Karl Popper, and was then revised by Kuhn. Ancient wisdom tells us that bird’s vomit cures leprosy, that witches are to blame for calamity, and that the gods demand sacrifices to ensure our continued well-being. Name me some other bronze-age sources that provide practical knowledge today, apart from historical sources.
Bronze working/ blacksmithing are still used today, though limitedly.
Either things are true, or they’re not. While technically speaking possibilities are endless, we cannot make a claim without direct empirical sustenance or rational cohesiveness. However, we can disprove logically incoherent claims, and dispute the validity of factual claims that lack an empirical or rational basis.
As far as the idea that science is counteractive to religion, well, it is. It’s substituting the vague fantasies and fairytales of bronze age ignorance with concrete, understandable, and reliable facts. Everything from why the sun goes up to the creation of the world to how our morals function either can or will be traced back to materialistic origins, very probably with scientific explanations.
I know. Try to prove that something Doesn’t exist!
An entity that is both omniscient and omnipotent cannot logically exist- omniscience implies knowledge chronological structures, a knowledge that intervention allowed by omnipotence would interrupt and render useless. For example, and omniscient being both knows the future and would be able to change it. But changing it would render the previous knowledge incorrect, hence invalidating the assumed omniscience.
Therefore, such a being cannot possibly exist.
Nor can things like “a bottle of red” or “5 kilos of love” exist.
Hey!
Er, your first sentence didn’t quite hold together. Could you please reread and rephrase it? Thanks.
But you’ve misinterpreted a portion of omnipotence. A being that is limited to chronology is not omnipotent.
Sorry, there’s on “of” missing. “Omniscience implies knowledge of chronological structures”.
It’s not a question of being limited to chronology, it’s a question of knowing it and being able to change it. If changes are made, the knowledge is wrong.
I love how the answer to any logical disproof of a god is an ad hoc “but he exists outside of [insert metaphysical parameters here]”. If he does, then his existence is totally irrelevant, not to mention that his existing outside of the parameters of his own creation would nullify the claim that the creation is perfect.
“The past is a fiction created to account for the discrepancy between our physical circumstances and our state of mind”
Douglas Adams.
By extrapolation, the future is a fiction created to account for the discrepancy between the past and the present.
So the future doesn’t exist. Or, better, yet God exists out of time. But,
“If he does, then his existence is totally irrelevant, not to mention that his existing outside of the parameters of his own creation would nullify the claim that the creation is perfect.”
I never believed that his creation was perfect, but I don’t see how his existing out of it makes it imperfect, or how you even proved he existed out of it.
The problem I have with science is that it was based of the idea ‘A cause for every effect, an effect for every cause’ and that’s not true.
How is it not true? Can there be uncaused events? Can there be events that just end and not do anything?
Also, science isn’t based on the second part, “an effect for every cause”. In science, people look for causes from another event, but they don’t automatically assume a cause.
Why does a single atom decay? And yes, if something happens, it doesn’t just disappear. An effect for every cause.
This post shows exactly how much you know about “science” or the scientific method.
And this post is one of the least useful comments ever posted on a Hot Topics thread. It doesn’t try to address the issue or enlighten the person to whom it responds. It’s a condescending, disrespectful putdown, designed to shut someone else up. That’s not what MuseBlog is about.
Given the multitude of lengthy posts already written attempting to explain the central structure of the scientific method which seem to have been entirely ignored, my exasperation is comprehensible. I accept the rebuke, however, and had there been an edit button I would have altered it.
6 – I’m somewhat confused where you got that idea – I’ve never heard it before. Can you elaborate?
(also, FS, academic vocabulary != moral superiority)
I never assumed it did. I assumed that “more extensive vocabulary = greater precision in language”.
It depends. Precision can be gained from the use of more specific terms, but more specific doesn’t necessarily imply that the word be longer, more complex, etc. Jargon has its [necessary, important] use, but it’s important to distinguish jargon from an over-reliance on a thesaurus. Cases like Calvin and Hobbes’ “The Dynamics of Interbeing and Monological Imperatives in Dick and Jane: A Study in Psychic Transrelational Gender Modes” are basically verbal fluff: using complex words to disguise the fact that nothing much is being said, a sort of verbal masturbation intended to inflate the ego, a “tale, […] full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” You can miss precision either way.
(which brings me to Lizzie’s paper-writing for English class tip of the day: Pedantry can sometimes disguise a lack of content.)
Not when I’m your editor!
I only use that trick when I’m fairly certain that I’m smarter than the teacher
I enjoy linguistic acrobatics, true, but so far I feel I’ve been quite clear.
Your critique, by the way, is my main gripe with Italian academic styles. Just saying.
I heard it in an argument against determinism.
From anyone here over age 18, infinite patience is expected.
Quite a generous assessment of my capabilities, IMHO.
Noted, however.
6.2.1.1:Now you’re blaming the Gapas for not including an edit button??
Not blaming anyone. I’m used to writing on php forums, which include edit buttons, a function I assume is not incorporated into wordpress.
Hey, he appologised, and I don’t think he was trying to blame anyone…let him be.
Hey, woah, not to be an officer here, but remember; We’re all Musers here. So, I think we’re talking about science vs. religion…?
Look, There are a few core beliefs of modern science (at least a hundred years ago, these were thought to be true).
More proof means more plausible.
Experimentation is better proof than observation.
A cause for every effect, an effect for every cause. (Which we now no longer believe)
Every action can be measured.
Newton’s, Kepler’s etc. Laws determined by observation. (Some of these are disproved by special relativity, but it’s no big deal.)
So what are the rules of religion?
I don’t really think that “a hundred years ago” falls under “modern science.” I mean, 100 years ago was 1910; a huge amount has changed since then in our knowledge of the universe. We didn’t have a clear idea of the nature of the atom, mechanical flight hadn’t been invented, the theory of general relativity didn’t exist, we didn’t know about black holes, DNA, etc.
Aside from that, I’m not so sure about no. 2 or no. 4 in your list. (And I’m also not sure that science has core beliefs – to me, it’s more a way of approaching problems than a dogma)
Rules of religion?
1. Propagation is good.
2. Rely on faith, not thought or reason.
3. ???
4. Profit!
5.1- No. Science does not undermine religion. Religion undermines religion (as I’ve asserted before, the non-belief of God is a religion). In this case, one religion is trying to misleads people into thinking it is science. It extensively utilizes science, but that’s not what it is.
5.1.2.1.2- It’s not tradition, dogma, or cultural importance, it’s just fact. It’s what they are. Science is not defined as theology or philosophy. That is why I have repeatedly expressed that scientism and derivations of atheism are religions. They explain the “why” (by saying there is none). Science plays a major part in their beliefs, but science is not their religion.
5.1.2.1.2.1.1.2- Science itself doesn’t have anything to do with religion, but it can have religious implications, as FantasyFan pointed out. But I could argue against those implications all day.
5.1.2.1.2.1.2- What about other useful effects of religion? Cultural diversity, values, work ethic, a feeling of purpose and self-confidence, etc…And I’m not going to argue about the Crusades again; I’m not a Catholic, anyhow.
5.1.2.1.2.1.2.1.1- What makes it so unlikely that there is a reason for the universe? Everything, even in science, has some sort of reason.
5.2.1.1, 5.2.1.1.2.1- If something were omnipotent, why would it even have to let rules and technicalities apply?
6.2.1.1.1.1.1- It sounds just as intellectual if you can precisely get the point across in simple way.
I haven’t been around for all of these discussions, so maybe could you give me a brief rundown of why you think that non-belief is a religion? Basically, the way I think it’s different is that if a god were to appear in front of me, speak to me, smite me with lightning, whatever – in other words, if I had incontrovertible proof of his/her/its/their existence – I would accept the proof and change my opinion. Religion, however, prides itself on holding its values even in the face of definite opposing evidence.
re:re:5.121212 – I don’t really see how any of those necessarily stem from religion or how religion is necessary to have any of those. Cultural diversity comes from having different backgrounds; many religions try to convert everyone and create as homogeneous a society as possible. Values and work ethic? Is fear of punishment after death, or hope of reward, the only reason you don’t steal, don’t murder, etc etc etc? Is that really the only reason you strive to better yourself, to accomplish stuff, to make the world a better place? It certainly isn’t for me. Feeling of purpose and self-confidence: One gets self-confidence from succeeding, from doing well, from living a productive life, etc. As for purpose, James Watson, of Watson and Crick, and of the Human Genome project, said, “You can say, ‘Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don’t think there’s a purpose.’ But I’m anticipating having a good lunch.” And one also gets a sense of purpose from goals, etc etc etc.
I like the idea that religion is based on “faith”, and science is based on “facts” or “proof.” I put it in quotation marks because, you can’t really prove anything or disprove anything with only our human senses. As an example, we could just be a brief daydream by some super-bug in a whole different universe, or our universe could be an experiment in some lab somewhere.
I know what you mean. The Earth very much could be a singe particle in some supreme being’s body.
“…in simple way…” …figures that I’d have a typo there.
I think Lizzie made an important point back in comment 9.1: “science … [is] more a way of approaching problems than a dogma.”
Exactly. Science isn’t a body of knowledge; it’s a way of answering questions about the world by noticing patterns in the world, making up special kinds of stories (hypotheses) to explain the patterns, and then — here’s the important part — making more observations to support or refute the stories, and finally publishing your methods and results so other scientists can check what you’ve done and find your mistakes.
In that sense, I’d say that 1910 scientists were doing modern science. They didn’t know as much as scientists do now, but they went about investigating the questions in exactly the same way.
Oh yeah, that’s right! To 1910 scientists, that was modern science because that’s what they were trying to answer!
I agree. But that way of approaching knowledge has certain methods. For example, when scientists see effects, they look for causes. When scientists think something is happening, they look for a way to measure it. And they are more likely to believe prof by experimentation rather than proof by observation.
Some sciences can only be proof by observation, such as cosmology. But why do scientists tend to believe proof by experimentations rather than observations? Aren’t observations part of experimentation?
Observations are as vital a part to the scientific method than experimentation.
But experimentation is more believable.
I’m having trouble following this. Examples?
String theory. Most people are willing to suspend judgement until it is testable.
Or until effects caused by it are observed/ not observed, by experimentation, or plain observation.
10.1- Everyone has a philosophy of why the universe exists, what our purpose is, and so forth. If a person doesn’t believe in deities or the supernatural, that is still a view on the “why,” isn’t it? Science is not a “why,” it is a system of approaching problems, as you said. But the conclusions we make about the “why” through science are the religious part of non-belief.
“why” is not necessarily religious. If anything, it is philosophical.
ibcf: All of these abstractions are confusing me. Could you give an example of conclusions someone makes about the “why” through science?
15- Well, here’s one simple example: We find such evidence as animal fossils that predate the alleged creation times, bones that suggest humans descended from monkeys, technicalities that wouldn’t allow an all-powerful deity to exist, etc. etc., and use it to conclude that our religions are false and that our universe is causeless and meaningless. A philosophical belief about the cosmos, even one that says it is meaningless, is still a belief, right?
It’s not that I have anything wrong with that; everyone is entitled to their own philosophy. But occasionally these people say that their belief is scientific rather than religious. Science is not a belief. It is a system. Religion is a belief.
I see. The scientific part of that example is the support for the hypothesis that human being descended from earlier primates (and other organisms). The rest — conclusions about the nature, role, and existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities or the meaning of life — is all philosophy. Scientists might believe it or might not (just as anybody else might or might not). But you won’t find grandiose conclusions like those in scientific papers.
17- Scientific papers don’t make religious conclusions, but their implications can.
That sounds like the opposite of what you said in comment 5. I’m not playing “gotcha,” just trying to figure out what you really mean.
So with this whole science and religion thing….
I would like to point out that science and religion are not, have never been, and will likely never be, mutrally exclusive.
For instance… yes, nebular theory states that the universe “began”(in qoutes because hey, for all I know there could have been something before then) with the big bang aprox. 12 billion years ago, and the bible states that god created earth in a week. By the same token, if you stop thinking of the bible as a literal text and start thinking of it as a metaphor, than that week could easily have been a few billion years. Even evolution does not compete with the bible, because if you take the clay that god used to create humans in a not-so-literal sense, than clay can be natural selection.
So, I used examples from the christian faith because i’m most familiar with them, but from my experiance as soon as a text becomes metaphorical it can mean anything as long as you have enough creativity and text-based evidence.
I know the whole “not mutually exclusive” arguement can be a bit of an afterthought, it sure as heck didn’t stop me from fleeing christianity at a run, but it is a way to cool down some arguements.
Only because of religious thinking’s wonderful ability to redefine itself whenever a contrasting scientific theory shows up.
I urge everyone unfamiliar with the term to look up what “ad hoc” means.
Yeah, but that’s not a neccesarily bad thing.
I never said it was bad or good. What it is, though, is incoherent and wrong.
Incoherent yes, inconsistant, yes, but as for wrong, I completely disagree. In my opinon, it is simply a way to balance fact and belief while simoultainiously haveing belief evolove so that it does not contradict fact. I perfer when belief and fact are balanced in this way to when people disregard fact in favor of belief… Sure, it would be nicer if they were to disregard belief in favor of fact, but I don’t see that as realisticly able to happen any time soon, so having belief evolove is a better comprimise in the mean time.
Wouldn’t it be better to believe facts? Are we so scared of knowledge? To quote Tim Minchin:
“Life is full of mystery, yeah,
but,
there are answers out there.
And they won’t be found,
By people sitting around,
Looking serious,
And saying: Isn’t life mysterious,
Let’s sit here and hope,
Let’s call up the bloody Pope,
Let’s go on Oprah,
And Interview Deepak Chopra.
If you must watch telly,
you should watch Scooby-Doo,
That show was so cool!
Because every time
There was a church with a ghoul,
Or a ghost in a school,
They looked beneath the mask.
And what was inside?
The bloody janitor,
or the dude who ran the water slide!
Because,
throughout history,
every mystery
ever solved,
Has turned out to be –
Not Magic!
Does the idea that
there might be knowledge frighten you?
Does the idea that
one afternoon on Wiki-bleeding-pedia
Might enlighten you,
Frighten you?
Does the notion that there might not be a supernatural,
so blow your hippy noodle,
that you’d rather just stand in the fog of your
Inability to google?
Isn’t this enough?
Just,
this world?
Just this,
Beautiful,
Complex,
Wonderfully Unfathomable,
Natural World?
How does it so fail to hold our attention
That we have to diminish it
with the invention
of cheap man-made
myths and monsters?
If you’re so into your Shakespeare,
Lend me your ear
To gild refined gold,
To paint the lily,
To throw perfume on the violet,
Is just bloody silly
Or something like that.
Or what about Satchmo?
I see trees of green,
Red roses too…
And fine, if you wish to,
Glorify Krishna and Vishnu,
In a post-colonial,
Condescending,
Bottled-up-and-labeled
kind of way,
Whatever, That’s okay.
But, here’s what gives me a CENSORED,
I’m a tiny, insignificant
Ignorant bit of carbon.
I have one life,
And it is short and unimportant,
But thanks to recent scientific advances…
I get to live twice as long,
As my great-great-great-great
uncleses and auntses.
Twice as long!
To live this life of mine,
Twice as long,
To love this wife of mine.
Twice as many years,
Of friends, of wine.”
What is wrong with facts? Why should they be shunted to the side to make way for incorrect, absurd and potentially harmful beliefs?
18.1- Forgive me for being unclear; in comment #5, I was arguing that “scientific methods” that attack religion don’t make sense, because science and religion are incompatible with each other, and so forth–As such, these “scientific methods” are really just theological attacks that pretend to be science. Not real science. REAL science includes the things I mentioned in post #16.
19- Those are theological interpretations that concede with science, not actual science.
I see — I think. And your example in comment 16, the paleontologist who finds a fossil and interprets it as an ancestor of human beings — where does that fall, according to your definition?
Actual science=geological age of the earth
actual science=age estimate on evolution of homo sapien sapiens
actual science= species evolove.
Yes, theological intepertations of the bible allow the foundation of belief set in the bible to not interfer with proven scientific principals. My point exactly. I’m not saying science and religoin should mix—i’m nonreligious anyway so I think the literal biblical interpretations thing is pretty nonsensical, but that’s a personal opinon. As i mentioned in 19.1.1.1.1, I’m good with belief evoloving so that it does not interfere with science, but science should (in my opinoin) never need to evolove to accomodate religion.
20.1- Scientific, as long as he doesn’t give it any theological connotation.
(Or she.) Got it.
14.1- That depends on your definition of philosophy and religion. For me, both religion and philosophy extend to any theological beliefs about the universe, including non-belief.
19.1- There’s also a good deal of ad nauseum as this debate swings back and forth…in my opinion, the important part of religion is less it’s compatibility with scientific inferences than it’s general theological message. It would only use ad hoc to preserve itself. (Don’t confuse this with science that directly attacks religion, which isn’t really science)…
Just for the record, I read, write for, and edit science magazines for a living, and I have never seen an example of “science that directly attacks religion.” I’ve never seen a scientific paper that even mentions religion.
In fact, I’d say that science doesn’t do anything. Science isn’t a thing or a being; it’s a procedure. So it seems to me.
Theology plays a minuscule part in philosophy.
For a nonreligious person such as yourself, yes; but if you were to ask, say, Aquinas whether theology played a role in philosophy, I think you’d find that different people have different opinions on philosophy. (Astonishing, isn’t it?)
A single philosopher does not represent the entirety of philosophy. Even one sub-field; take existentialism: For Kierkegaard, it has theological implications. For Sartre and Camus, it doesn’t. But in the entire field of philosophy itself, theology plays a minor role. What aspects define the various “genres” of philosophy are not up for subjective opinion. Philosophy extends to the arts, to ethics, to epistemology, to metaphysics… Theology shows up quite rarely, and is in fact dismissed by most philosophers as a non-philosophical field anyway.
22.1- That’s why I said it “…isn’t really science.” It’s theology, which would like us to think it is science. Or scientific evidence. Well, is “scientific evidence” actually part of science, or is it just the conclusions and inferences that we draw from the procedure?
22.2- How is that? I think each totally encompasses the other.
What if you think of religion as a science where people are committed to proving that it is the “True Religion”. That is why it is based on so called facts and evidence. Just a thought…
I’d say that deciding what the truth is and then looking for evidence to support it is not a scientific approach.
Yeah, but when Issac Newton got an apple on his head he then looked for for more evidence to prove the exciestence of gavaity.
Newton wasn’t trying to prove the existence of gravity; he was trying to understand how it works.
The apple provided the necessary intuition for him to come up with a falsifiable theory that so far has always been shown to be correct. Are you saying he decided that gravity was true and then began looking for evidence? Understandable, but the difference is that Newton postulated a theory, a possibility, whereas religions preach an absolute truth.
“I’d say that deciding what is the truth and then looking for evidence to support it is not a scientific approach.” *snurk*
Sounds like string theory.
Actually, it doesn’t sound like string theory. String theorists don’t insist that their theory is true; they say it’s a mathematically attractive (or, as physicists and mathematicians like to put it, “elegant”) way of unifying things scientists have found out about energy and matter. And they aren’t looking for evidence to support it; they’re looking for ways to test it. The way to do that is to get it to predict something that you haven’t observed yet, and then see whether you actually observe it. Unfortunately, string theory is too good at explaining things. It can explain not only everything physicists have observed so far, but everything they can imagine observing. Physicists have started holding conferences to discuss what they call “phenomenology,” which in this context basically means how to test different theories with observations.
There’s nothing wrong with poking fun at string theorists, of course, and people do. But there’s no denying that they are very smart and good at what they do. Basically, they are mathematicians. Most mathematicians don’t care very much whether what they are working on is true, as long as it generates beautiful patterns.
Who here has heard of noetic science? It’s a fairly new branch of science that is dedicated to finding out if people really have souls, if thoughts can affect matter, and that kind of thing – lots of things that parallel with religion. Kind of a fusing of religion/supernatural/spirituality and hardcore science.
I’ve only heard of it from The Lost Symbol, and I doubt that was very accurate.
While the term “noetic science” sounds like a misappropriation of the philosophical field of “noetic theory”, there is an interesting field called neurotheology, which studies the way the brain works when undergoing religious stimuli. While it is still being developed, early conclusions postulate shared patterns between religious beliefs and psychotic delusions.
“Noetic science” sounds like a new name for parapsychology, which still hasn’t made the grade as a respectable science, in most people’s opinion. I’d say “handle with care.”
Robert, I’m currently writing an essay (for epistemology) about the provisional nature of conclusions in science (based on something Michael Shermer said). I was wondering if you had anything to say about that?
forgive my ignorance, but, (to satisfy curiosity) what exactly is epistemology?
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with figuring out how people know things. It asks questions such as “what can we know?” and “how do we know that we know something?” It’s one of the main fields of philosophy. Another is metaphysics, which tries to figure out what really exists.
(As usual, Wikipedia can help here: en . wikipedia .org/wiki/Epistemology .)
Yes, and it’s damned disheartening. Coming to terms with what I can actually claim to know is a depressing business.
Anyway, I’d just like to get some direct feedback from scientists or people involved in the scientific field themselves- do you acknowledge the provisional nature of your conclusions when working? Do you maintain an awareness of the problems of induction, working with observational claims as it is? Or do you feel that Kuhn’s explanation, about scientists working under an overarching umbrella of a single paradigm in between scientific revolutions to be more accurate?
In other news, Sarah Palin has just signed on as a Fox News commentator.
They’ve sunk to a new low.
Source: news.bbc.co.uk /2/hi/americas/8453223.stm
Hey, at least now she can lie about anything she wants and get paid a ton of money for it, since that’s what Fox does anyway. Hopefully this means she won’t be running for president in 2012, if she’s happy enough with this job…
Aaaaand the Pope said something retarded on gay rights:
www. pinknews.co.uk /2010/01/11/pope-calls-gay-marriage-an-attack-on-creation/
“Pope calls gay marriage an ‘attack on creation’
By Jessica Geen • January 11, 2010 – 12:17
Pope Benedict XVI has called gay marriage laws an “attack” on the natural differences between men and women.
Speaking just after Portugal’s parliament voted to legalise same-sex marriage, the pontiff addressed the comments to the Vatican diplomatic corps in a message which focused on environmental issues.
This is not the first time he has used environmental messages to preach about the sins of gay people.
In an end-of year address in 2008, he said that the existence of gay people threatens humanity as much as the destruction of the rainforests does and that “blurring” genders through acceptance of transgender people would kill off the human race.
According to AFP, he spoke about protecting or endangering creatures including humans in today’s address and said: “One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes.”
He cited “certain countries in Europe or North and South America”, which is assumed to mean Portugal and Mexico City, which legalised gay marriage last month.
The Pope is due to visit the Catholic country of Portugal in April, a month after a law allowing gay marriage is expected to come into force.
He is also expected to visit the UK this year, and humanist groups have already announced their plans to protest.
Similar demonstrations were held when Pope John Paul II visited Britain in 1982.
In March, the Pope provoked anger when he spoke out about his view on HIV.
While on a flight to Africa in March, he told journalists that condoms “aggravate” the problem of HIV. He was roundly condemned for the statement, while respected medical journal The Lancet demanded that he retract the comments.
The Pope has previously counselled that abstinence is the only way to counter the spread of the disease.”
Uggh. I dislike the pope. I especially dislike how he comments on everything (including the movie Avatar) so that he can think for the faithful.
Rather ironic, Fridgey, that you are angry at the Pope for attacking homosexuality while you freely use another “persecuted” (for lack of a better term) group, the mentally handicapped, as a source for offhand name-calling. Do you have some bizarre belief about mental retardation, or was it an accident? In either case I would ask you to watch yourself.
“Retarded” has another meaning, a more correct one, that hasn’t been overwhelmed by slang- “A retard – delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment.” Which is a perfect adjective for what the Pope said, and was chosen as such.
Don’t evade the issue- you can’t escape the fact that what the Pope said is disgusting.
Fridgey, I don’t care. I just want to ask you to try to be less offensive.
It’s not bloody offensive. When I say “fag”, I’m referring to cigarettes, not homosexuals. When I say “retarded”, I mean backwards and counter-progressive, not handicapped. I don’t care what you think it is, but I’m not being offensive, or abusing of anyone’s personal lifestyles. Stop with the bloody red herrings.
Take this conversation to the bottom of the thread, where you can read posts about the word “retarded”.
so, I have to write an essay on the causes of terrorism. I’m saying that religion is a primary cause of terrorism. Anyone else have any ideas?
Effectiveness.
Why don’t you list the major terrorist groups and incidents of (say) the past 40 years and see what they were trying to accomplish?
Unfortuneatly, I don’t really have that much time.
I’m also using religion-conected state sponsered examples, such as the Spanish Inquisition, which was set up by Pope Gregory IX in 1231 and was church-run until Ferdinad and Isabella of spain took over.
You could go on Wikipedia and find out everything you needed to know in half an hour. But as you wish.
(I will say, though, that the Spanish Inquisition isn’t a good example of terrorism. It’s state-sponsored terror — a different phenomenon. Still, maybe it doesn’t matter for this assignment.)
I’m not sure but I’ll check.
Wikipedia is great, but looks awful in a bibliography….
It often points toward other sources, however.
I’d agree that if the question is about the causes of terrorism, the inquisition example might not be very helpful. Certainly the state can terrorize its people, but the causes, objectives, and “rewards” are likely to be very different from what most people consider terrorism (though there is plenty of disagreement on the definition).
I’d be careful–showing religion as the sole cause of terrorism is incorrect and misleading. What about late nineteenth-century anarchists? What about the Oklahoma City bombing? Or Weather Underground? Or the Black Liberation Party? Or the KKK? The 2001 anthrax attacks? The Unabomber? The Chechnyan separatists? The Red Army Faction? The Tamil Tigers? The IRA?
Both the KKK and the IRA were religiously motivated (although I resent applying the term “terrorists” to the IRA).
I agree, however, that religion is not the sole cause of terrorism- although this is not what Clare is claiming. “Primary” =/= “sole”
1. What does lynching black people have to do with religion? I’m aware they also hated Catholics and Jews, but their primary focus was race.
2. I’m aware that that is not what Clare de Lune is claiming. I’m just giving another point to consider while writing her essay.
The KKK is a Christian organization, motivated by a certain subsect of American Christianity that interprets the Bible to be a proponent of racial superiority for whites. They use Christian flags, and strive for a what they believe to be a “Christian” world. There’s enough documentation on the matter.
Oh, for God’s sake… now you’re trying to cause guilt by association–the KKK was Christian, therefore Christians are akin to the KKK. Fridgey, I think you’ve outdone yourself in outlandish and offensive statements. And your argumentation is horrendously sloppy there, much lower than your usual standard.
He did specify “a certain subsect of American Christianity.” While it’s hardly representative of mainstream Christianity, the KKK certainly considers itself a Christian organization and proclaims across the top of its web page “bringing a message of hope to white Christian America.”
That all is true, but I still view his statement as a converse guilt by association.
I’m not saying it’s the sole cause of terrorism… Just the oppisite, in fact, I’m saying that there are many causes of terrorism and recently it seems as though religion has been central to terrorist attacks, either as a cause or an excuse.
Although religion is one of the primary causes of terrorism today, it’s usually not the religion itself that sends out the the suicide bombers, et cetera, to my knowledge. Usually, it’s religious extremists that commit the crimes, but do you really think that a book that encourages peace (read:possibly your or a terrorist’s holy book, if any) encourages suicide bombings? It’s more likely to be individuals that want to cause terror, and use others to achieve their needs. Many terrorists are drawn into their terrorist ?cells? by the same means that cult-members are drawn into cults, I’m guessing.
I was having a discussion about this with my grandmother, who said that “no Christian extremists were still Christians.” She also made a reference to another religious group as “a bunch of terrorists waiting to happen.” I don’t agree with her viewpoints, but you can probably use basically two categories to label terrorists. Either they will do things because their religion told them to, or they will do things because someone has warped it around.
Or, you know, they could be doing it with no outside influence.
Freedom — where should it end, what pushes it too far, and do we really need it?
I think that we need less freedom to be stronger, in some cases, but then again, I’m a silly person. But, if we had less freedom, that would mean less chance for errors, right?
Freedom to do what? Which of your choices would you consider having restricted, and by whom?
I’m thinking of freedom of speech and free trade, by some sort of government. Or less choices, from various persons and places.
If you limit free speech too much, people would get angry. Not enough, and people are always swearing in public — it’d be like hearing “cake” every four or five words. These are probably extremes, but eh.
For free trade, if we truly allow people to trade as freely as they need or want, cultures may be damaged, as does commonly happen when lots of foreign goods are imported, and people with small companies may lose them, et cetera.
On a smaller scale, if there was only one, say, brand of shampoo in stores, people could make decisions quickly. If there were, say, at least twenty different brands, it would leave for a large probability for picking an inferior product, and a longer time spent choosing a product.
Another problem with free trade: It only benefits the big nations that have a big population, and gets taxes. If small nations don’t tax imports, then the govt. won’t have enough money to support itself. Even today, big rich nations sing the benefits of free trade. They keep power, and their little competitors loose out on everything.
Freedom of speech: How would you enforce people not swearing too much? You couldn’t have police watching, arresting anybody who swears a lot.
Probably being restricted by the government. Grrrrrrrrrrr!
Is it just me, or have only about five assorted people posted multiple times on this thread? Elias, Piggy, Robert, cromwell…anyway.
Sarah Palin is utterly ridiculous. I mean…she’s utterly ridiculous. McCain never should have brought her into the public eye. Then she’d be still shut up in Alaska, doing whatever it is she did, not bothering anyone. *sigh*
By not bothering anyone, do you mean being governor of the largest state?
I think that she stopped doing harm when she entered the public eye. That’s when she basically lost most of her power, by aiming efforts away from things that she could do as governor, to things she said that she’d do as a vice-president. She resigned on July 26, 2009. Right now, she’s just a best-selling author. Kind of like the kid who wrote Eragon.
I was thinking. You hear a lot about whether people are gay or bi or straight. There’s a lot of debate about it. But what about people who don’t fall under any of these categories? People who aren’t attracted to anyone? I think it’s only natural that you hear less about them because the ethics of marriage wouldn’t apply. But I want to hear what people think about it.
Seems pretty normal to me. I heard of people who are asexual marrying other asexuals because of tax or insurance reasons, or because they wanted to have children. That seems like it would be easy, or, like…convenient.
Also, I would like to discuss…self-image issues. I watched part of this documentary which said that 50% of girls ages 13-18 don’t like their bodies. I think this is so sad, because … those girls hate themselves, and your body is kind of a hard thing to change…they think that boys will only like them if they look like Kim Kardashian – who, may I add, looks like Ariel the Little Mermaid, minus the tail. They should have special counseling classes in school to teach girls not to have self-esteem issues if they don’t look like Beyoncé. Ugh. It’s just so terrible when my friends think they are fat or ugly or whatever when they’re really, really not.
I agree about self-image issues. However, I would like to note that self-image problems aren’t restricted to girls. They also aren’t restricted to appearance. I’ve met guys who think that nobody will like them unless they’re super-jocks or something. Whenever I meet someone who has these kinds of problems, I do my best to help them. Raise their self esteem. Assure them that not only do they not have a problem, but most people wouldn’t care if they did. As a result, people like to come to me when they need extra support in that area. I think if you are just nice to those people, and tell them what you think, you can really help out. And you strike me as the sort of person who would be really good at that kind of thing.
I agree with what you mean about the self image issues. Yesterday, one of the most popular girls spent about a half hour flipping out about her weight, saying that she wouldn’t even eat a salad because it was too fattening…it was kind of sad, but I also felt really annoyed that she thought she had to lose weight. (She’s thinner than me, by the way, and I’m definitely not fat.)
Kyla? I feel SO bad for her.
Just because someone doesn’t like their body, it doesn’t mean that they hate it. I mean, I don’t like my body, but I don’t hate it. I just put up with it.
But I do agree that when people who are thin complain about being fat, it’s annoying. And somewhat offensive to people who aren’t toothpicks, might I add.
asexuals still experience romantic/emotional attachments,guys. that’s why they’re asexual, not apathetic.
Is it just me, or is anyone else getting really annoyed at the media response to the Haiti earthquake? I don’t mean the general coverage “As tension rose in the battered Haitian capital Port-Au-Prince, relief workers scrambled Friday to deliver desperately needed food, water, and medical care, recover survivors still trapped in the rubble and collect thousands of decaying bodies from the streets” stuff. (That’s from the San Francisco Chronicle, by the way, so don’t sue me for copyright.) I mean how so much of the commentary seems to be “This is what’s happening in Haiti… and here’s what America is doing to help… and here’s what other countries should be doing to help but aren’t, I wonder why, I guess it’s just our natural amazingness…” or the vague “Here’s what’s happening in Haiti… and here’s why it’s someone else’s fault for not giving them infrastructure before the quake…” or even Pat Robertson’s “Haiti made a pact with the DEVIL and that’s why there was an earthquake!”
I mean, has anyone really got to comment on it? Can’t we just say, “Oh my God! Let’s send some aid! Maybe we should help out Haiti’s infrastructure when we’ve got things less insane so that it won’t be quite so devastating when it happens again! What a horrible tragedy!” I don’t see where morals come into any of it, and it’s starting to annoy me and lower my faith in humanity. (And after just finishing Lord of the Flies in English and taking a whole semester of World Cultures, my faith in humanity isn’t the greatest to start out with.)
I know! Here in Singapore the article read something like this:
“President S.R. Nathan- oh, how wonderful he is- sent a letter of condolence to the Haitian government. Singapore will be donating $50,000 to the relief fund. Aren’t we great? Singapore is an open, caring, wonderful, beautiful country! Yay us! Oh, by the way, there was a big earthquake or something in Haiti. Here’s a picture of the president looking traumatized!”
I don’t know. It drives me crazy too, but I think the media coverage will help people realize what is happening and donate money to send aid. It’s just… there’s always pie happening somewhere in the world, and that’s the way it is. People have to talk about something, I guess.
I think it’s a shame that there isn’t a hell for Pat Robertson to burn in.
That said, I’m still waiting for the Vatican to send some form of tangible aid. Other than that, I can’t really do much other than send around links to facilitate donations and help.
http :// givingaid.richarddawkins .net/
I don’t think it’s just you
Oh, I totally agree. I think this is just another testament to taking advantage of someone else’s trouble to bring themselves higher. I think the media should stop thinking about how to use other people’s misfortunes to help themselves, and start thinking about how to help those in need.
38-I disagree.
The media has no responsibility to society. Their goal should be to advance their values to make a better world, and if that involves hype or stretching the truth, that is what they will do and therefore, should do.
I am actually planning to write a short novel about it along with another about government.
It annoys me when people use words like “retarded” and “gay” to mean “stupid” and “boring”. Grrrrrgh.
I think that terms such as “stupid”, “dumb”, and “idiotic” were once used to describe people of lower mental — I don’t know the PC term — than “retarded”.
Also, when people make complaints against the word gay as a negative term, they have to realize that they’re probably going to change the offenders’ actions as much as yelling at a brick wall would make it collapse.
I’m not in favor of these words being used as they are today, but you must realize that the English language is ever-changing, and trying to destroy or alter some words is often seen as censorship.
If you don’t like the terms, don’t use them — but just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean that you should force them to change their ways.
Retarded is an OK word, but not to mean offensively – as in, “That’s retarded!” while someone in special ed is IN the ROOM. Just to mean someone with a moderately severe learning disability.
It hurts me when people use “gay” to mean stupid or generally uncool… It’s like having someone punch your self-confidence,not so much as to really do it major damage, but those punches add up. It’s sort of my cruel reminder that popular culture still hates me, even though I go to a school filled with people who either don’t hate me or hate me for other reasons.
(oh, and in case anyone didn’t know and so is hopelessly confused, i am lesbian)
As for retarded, my friend has a little sister with down syndrome(I think), and the use of “retarded” really irks her because it perpetuates a stereotype (so does the conotatively negitive use of “gay”) as well as reminding her that her little sister probably won’t live past her twenties.
Back to the Haiti topic…
Has anyone heard about any effort to evacuate Haitians/kids out of the country? Are any countries opening their borders to help/welcome them? I was just wondering, b/c I think we should be but I haven’t heard about it at all, and I assume the gov’t is afraid of jobs being taken away by foreigners and all these “illegals” not paying the proper taxes… I can’t believe things like that are put over the lives of kids in a neighboring country
Elizabeth: Haitians already in the United States (either legally or illegally) can now apply for “temporary protected status” that will let them stay here for a year or 18 months before returning home. I haven’t heard of any efforts, or offers, to evacuate Haitians to other countries.
Not exactly a hot topic, but close enough. I do remember ACORN being brought up, if not on this thread, then in the past. Fresh off of reddit: nola. com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/acorn_gotcha_man_arrested_for.html
We have CNN playing in the JH locker bay (I want it to bee changed to FOX for comic value), and the story before school was ‘Breaking News: Pimp Busted’.
Did anyone watch/listen to Obama’s State of the Union address? What are your thoughts?
First, Obama gives beautiful speeches.
Second, I agree with the direction in which he’s trying to take the country. I think that not everything he proposed in his speech (like troops home by August) will happen, but I approve of the goals he outlined.
I really hope he gets the troops out of Iraq. That war is such a huge drain on the country, and I wonder why no one talks about it when it’s time to point fingers at who is wasting the most money.
Pulling out of Iraq now might seem irresponsible, removing a source of order in a country struggling with a vicious civil war.
Iraq’s actually been doing fairly well lately (relative to the past seven or eight years, anyway). I think it is certainly time to start the withdrawal process. Slowly, of course. Iraq’s not quite a utopia yet.
Nowhere’s utopia yet.
Technically speaking, since utopia is a fairly subjective phrase, it is darn near impossible (though not completely impossible) for somewhere to truely become a utopia, because everyone in said region has a slightly different definition of utopia.
I hope he does too. I just think August is an unrealistic goal. But the thing is, no matter how long we remain there, as soon as we leave things are going to escalate into really terrible violence. We have to get out sooner or later; why not soon?
Just get the troops out now, I say. They’re not helping the Iraqis. The Iraqis are killing them. The war is not helping us. What’s the point?
32- Speech should be completely free. Everyone should have the right to criticize. Of course, we should be able to sue for slander.
‘Speech should be completely free’?
What if someone has classified information?
I think you’re thinking along the wrong lines. ‘Speech should be completely free’ is not the same as ‘everyone should be forced to say everything they know, including classified information, personal secrets, etc.’
No, but are they allowed to tell anyone about, say, an upcoming strike on Iran set to happen at 1630 GMT on February 23, 2010?
They should be able to, but you have to worry about who it is ethical to tell.
If they want to or need to, sure.
We don’t know what’s gonna happen when America pulls the troops out. No one’s gonna be happy no matter when they leave, though. It’s already been too long but not long enough to make a big enough difference, and by leaving them there we’re going nowhere, u know?
I really have no idea what the best thing to do is and I’m glad I don’t have to decide.
(This is really a rant/complaint, but it’s more debatable so I’m putting it here.)
You know what really irks me? Obama’s been in office for a year, a week, and a day – that’s 373 days. And you know how many public appearances he’s made?
Over 400.
I mean, when the hell do you get any work done if you’re giving a speech/lecture/party at least once a day?
Are those 400 including the ones he made during his campaign?
Anyway, I’d rather have a president that communicates with the people than one who gets his press secretary to churn out textbook evasions to any tough question.
What does everyone think of this supposed “Recovery Act” that he’s supposed to have implemented? I say bring back Frances Perkins!
GO FRANCES PERKINS
Princess_M: It’s not supposed, it’s actual: a law (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) that Congress passed and the President signed almost a year ago. You can read about it on Wikipedia (en. wikipedia. org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009).
Cool!
YAY FRANCES!
No, that’s over 400 since he was inaugurated.
And I agree, it’s good when a president communicates with the people directly. But at the same time, there’s a point where you need to just stop talking to the public and get to your agenda as President.
What, are you claiming he hasn’t been doing his job? Hah.
I didn’t say that. What I’m saying is that he’s over-publicizing himself – do you really need to tell everyone what’s happening with the government every few days or so?
No, but if people don’t hear you speak and see you appear they’ll asume you’re NOT doing your job-not the other way around. Being a public figure is one of the jobs of the president. I’m sure that (since most speeches don’t last more than an hour or two and being president is a 24/7 job) the president has plenty of time to get work done.
I agree with everything you said. But still, if you’re giving 7 or more speeches a week, you’re really just trying more than anything to build and maintain a public image of yourself. And I’m starting to get kind of sick of it.
that’s understandable…. Watch BBC news, they only seem to report the really important speeches (I know this doesn’t help the fact that he’s giving the speeches, but it may: A) stop you from losing your mind and B) give you a nice external view of the US)
Flippin’ heck, did anyone see Obama talk at the Republican retreat in Baltimore? It was like watching Uma Thurman cutting down people left and right in Kill Bill. Severe ownage was caused. Here’s the transcript:
www .huffingtonpost .com/2010/01/29/transcript-of-president-o_n_442423.html
Read the whole thing. It’s vindicating.
Oooh, crowned.
Go Obama.
“The problem is, I couldn’t find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made.” – REJECTED.
How many times will they thank the President for being there?
The people sure accused Obama lots…
The discussion about the president’s personal appearances seems to need some context: what is meant by “personal appearance”? how does his record compare with other presidents?
An article from USA Today in August made the following tallies from the first six months in office of our last three presidents. The numbers include interviews, short Q&A sessions, press conferences, and addresses. ( “Addresses” includes “the important addresses to Congress, commencement addresses, addresses to the nation, but also Saturday and other radio addresses, plus remarks. ‘Remarks’ are by far the largest category and they include the small Rose Garden two-minute statements plus regular speeches.”)
TOTALS
Mr. Obama: 424 (“addresses” only — 282)
Mr. Bush: 422 (“addresses” only — 299)
Mr. Clinton: 451 (“addresses” only — 242)
(source: content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/08/68496430/1)
Okay, this topic seems kinda dead.
Moving on….
So, I’m openly lesbian, but no one at my school teases me for it. Instead they tease me by saying I’m bi, and I curse at them, cause I honestly do not get what they’re issue is. My friend, who IS bi says that she gets the same thing… honestly people, what IS your issue?
Moving on, I heard (and this is unconfirmed, so if anyone else has heard about this please to let me know) that a gay dating site was told they couldn’t buy a superbowel comercial, but an anti-abortion comerical was either purchased or nearly purchased, I can’t remember which. And I’m thinking What? if this is true, then who thought that one up, I mean, honestly.
And in case you were wondering, yes I’ve had a long and….interesting day, and no I’m not quite myself. I’m alittle more ticked than usual….
Okay, I have a question for you, Clare. Well, more like a situation on which I need an opinion. I’m rather confused about my sexuality right now. I’ve always had crushes on guys, but in most cases it is always about their personality with no physical attraction involved. I find the female body more attractive and fantasize about things with women, but I have never ‘liked’ a girl.
Do you have any opinion here, or is this just a weird question?
Well, for one thing, sexuality isn’t a fixed thing at all. It can change from one day to the next and only 5% of the population is either all the way straight or all the way gay, most are somewhere in the middle. Think of a spectrum of light, almost.
It sounds to me (and by the way I crush on personalities too) that maybe you just haven’t found a girl with a personality attractive to you yet, or maybe your mind still isn’t all the way used to being attracted to women yet. That takes time.
Just know that everyone (just about) gets confused about their sexuality at one point, so that’s normal. In time you will probably work it out, but if not, that’s okay too.
In the mean time, I’ve always found it enlightening, almost, as to what others think of aspects of me and how others deal with situations I’m in, by reading booksc(often fiction)
So here’s a suggested reading list:
Annie on My Mind (Nancy Garden, one of my favorites, realistic and heartwarming)
Ash (Malinda Lo)
Am I Blue (a collection of stories, a bit outdated)
Between Mom and Jo (don’t know who wrote this one, a sad book)
Gay America (nonfiction, the most enlightening book I’ve ever read)
Totally Joe (another unknown aurthor)
And many more. But I’ve got to go now (suppertime) so I hope this is helpful, and good luck
Empress of the World – Sara Ryan! It is about nerd camp. And there are gbltq relationships in it.
This is probably either a laid-back Californian thing or a San-Francisco-is-gay-and-loving-it thing, or just a my-parents-are-way-too-conscientiously-open-minded thing, but I try not to classify people in sexualities at all. For instance, I only realized recently that most people automatically assume others around them are heterosexual, and I had to be told this in Gender Studies class in Hebrew School. I never really assume that anyone is straight or gay. I’m not even assuming that I’m straight or gay. I’ve never liked a girl and I think guys are more attractive in that way, so presumably I’m straight, but hey, why worry?
Just my POV.
that’s probably a better idea for everyone involoved.
Oh, and I meant to say in my earlier post (50.1.1) Just don’t stress about it, which I know is really hard, but there’s nothing to stress over.
SFTDP- yes, everyone(just about) assumes everyone else is heterosexual. Why? because for so many centuries being anything else was widely considered unlawful and sinnful, and for most people, unheard of. (there are some civilaizations that are acceptions to this, ie. ancient rome) And because, from a evolutionary standpoint, being heterosexual is certianally favorable–survival of the speicies and all that.
I was in advisory once and someone called someone gay, and that person said, mockingly “everyone’s gay” as a way of turnning the “insult” around. Then someone else said “hey don’t insult everyone, that’s not nice” And I said “what about being gay is an insult?” and he stammered a bit then said “It’s just saying everyone is gay is like assuming something about someone that maybe isn’t true and…” “but everyone assumes everyone else is striaght” I interjected, “True,” he said, “sorry about that” “It’s fine.” I finished.
I like beating people at thier own game.
I also like beating people at their own game. And, I’m pretty accepting about all sexualities. One of my best friends is lesbian, and very open about it.
I hope someday, homosexuality will be so common that every third person is GLBT. And it will be one of the things you say when you go around the classroom in high school.
“Hi, I’m Leslie, my favorite color is blue, and I’m straight.”
“Hi, I’m Gerald, my favorite color is purple, and I’m questioning.”
Etc.
homosexuality is really common, people just aren’t commonly open about it yet. And I’m not sure stating your sexual orientation will ever be like you mentioned simply because that’s kind of like asking someone to tell you, their favorite memory, for instance, or the last person they dated. It’s great if they want to tell you, but a bit of a privacy invasion if you ask.
Actually homosexuality plays its part in evolution as well. For example, it’s an important factor in social relationships within certain species.
Just putting that out there. The argument against homosexuality I hear most is that it’s “unnatural” or some other such pseudo-Darwinian claptrap.
that’s pretty cool. A book about gay penguins was banned, so of course my entire middle school read it (the intended age range is like, 4-7 or something)
The whole “unnatural” arguement is, in my mind, total BS, but I might be a little biased.
Tango Makes Three was banned? How could they?
Biased? No kidding.
I come into contact with some truly disgusting individuals- plain bigots, and proud of it. And then there are the well-meaning people who truly think that a child growing up with same-sex parents can’t really develop fully.
Seriously, people, LGBT marriage and LGBT couples with children are two different (though I guess related…) debates. And I’m pretty sure that as long as you’ve got a family that loves and supports you, you’ll develop just fine.
Oh, yeah, maybe only a little-make-that-a-whole-lot biased
Another (possible) argument is from devout Christians. I went to some high school to take the SAT or ACT or what have you once, and on the wall of the classroom there was a poster that said, “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” (Actually, it also had another line somewhere, but I can’t remember what that one was).
I mean, really, you should not argue against something just because it’s not in the Bible.
They argue that way because there’s a section in the Bible against homosexuality. Romans, I think?
Romans and Levaticus.
I’d like to point out that the bible blantenly contradicts itself in Genisis 1&2 (and a few other places besides, I don’t quite remember where), so you can’t really call it a reliable source. Oh, and said bible is also sexist enough not to enclude women in many of its disscussions about homosexuality (it might not include women at all, I don’t know off the top of my head) So if I’m ever in a less-than-philosophical arguement regarding homosexuality and the bible I can just say that god only specified what was okay for men to do, therefore, the whole bible agruement is unapplicable (actually I’d only do that for comic relief–more likely than not I’d say “well I don’t belief in god, so i don’t give a damn.”)
They put that in a HIGH SCHOOL? even the catholic schools around where I am wouldn’t DARE put that up… we try so very hard to be politically correct (to the point of absurdness) and non-descriminatory in the Northwest.
Probably not an evolutionary advantage for some animals…
Parrotfish…
About the anti-abortion commercial – 3 things:
1) It was purchased, but I think it got into a lot of hot water before it was shown, so maybe they felt that compensated for things.
2) I heard that the mother in the anti-abortion commercial went on to become an NFL player, so that may have helped…
3) It’s all about having enough money. Money makes the world go round. Sometimes, however, it makes it go a little too round and slingshots it past black holes. Where our money gets sucked away. Which is the real reason why we have recessions/depression
what I heard was that the website HAD enough money, but they were denied the comercial because they weren’t a goverment-registered nationalized buisness or something stupid and fairly clearly made-up like that.
I was kind of joking about the third point, but in that case it is pretty stupid.
The anti-abortion ad is dangerous- the mother in question had abortion recommended to her because her condition usually proves fatal to both mother and child during childbirth. Her luck was a huge fluke, and recommending abstaining from abortion in such cases to other women is idiotic.
Not to mention that I believe that the woman in the ad was in a country where abortion was illegal, so you really shouldn’t compare her situation to the situation of someone in the United States.
She would seriously do that? Endanger her life AND the child’s life?? As you know I’m not a fan of abortion, but that’s kind of…ridiculous…
Erm, that’s debatable. A bit foolish? Perhaps. Brave? In my opinion, yes. And I think that what she did was admirable, although it doesn’t seem like anybody else on here would/will agree with me… But to each ens own. I’m pretty much against abortion, but in that case I think it could be justified – however I’m certainly happy that she didn’t go through with it and survived. And her son ended up winning the Heisman.
She got lucky. Was she brave? Hell yes. Does that mean abortion is bad OR that her descision was good? Hell no.
Not brave, just stupid. Incredibly stupid, and incredibly misguided, regardless of the outcome.
To risk your life to potentially save someone else’s counts as brave in my book. Which doesn’t mean it isn’t stupid and doesn’t mean it’s something I would do, but I’ve known enough of premature death to know that contemplating your own death is terrifiying and painful. She may be an idiot, she may have made idiotic choices and gotten lucky, but give the woman credit for being brave.
What would have been brave would have been the courage to make the right decision in the face of religious moralizers and irrational maternal guilt. With an abortion, the mother would have survived. With giving birth, they both would’ve died, had it not been for a combination of absurd luck and impressive medical skills on behalf of those who oversaw the pregnancy. True bravery would have been to make the right decision and not run from the guilt.
There are many ways to be brave… in her situation, any choice at all would be a brave choice, some choices are just less stupid than others.
I agree with Clare de Lune here. She deserves the credit of being brave. What you’re saying is so ridiculous – what is more brave “not running from guilt” or sacrificing her life and potentially someone else’s but giving someone a chance to live? Who cares about the scientifical statistics, (which yes, I know, were against her) but to say she was not brave is saying something with absolutely no heart or real life to it.
For someone like you, it seems like you need the cold hard facts. I understand that. And looking at the cold hard facts, sure, she wasn’t making the best choice, logically speaking. But if you look at this from an emotional perspective (which I strongly doubt, based on your other posts, you’re able to do) I think most people would agree – no matter how foolish she was, she was certainly brave.
Like Clare said, there are many different types of bravery. And this is just one of them.
What’s abortion? *is most likely a stupid question, but is asked anyway*
Well, it’s a pretty controversial subject, (As you can probably notice), and so I won’t get into the details, but it’s basically when a pregnant woman has the child surgically removed from her.
To say that abortion is when a pregnant woman has the child surgically removed from her really isn’t necessarily accurate. For many reasons: One, that description would fit perfectly with a cesarean section–a child is surgically removed from the mother. But it’s not abortion.
Not to mention, abortion is not necessarily a surgical procedure.
LBK: abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.To say that abortion is when a pregnant woman has the child surgically removed from her really isn’t necessarily accurate. For many reasons: One, that description would fit perfectly with a cesarean section–a child is surgically removed from the mother. But it’s not abortion.
Not to mention, unless I’m much mistaken, abortion is not necessarily a surgical procedure.
LBK: abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.
Repeat post inside one post?
Ummmm……Apparently. I think I know what must have happened, though. See, I’d started typing a reply, and then my lab partner came over to copy my observations from lab (well, I spilt toxic crap all over his lab notebook, so….), and this took a goodly portion of time. Then I came back, finished my post, but then copied it and refreshed the page (in case somebody had made a reply in that period of time, at which point I was going to ditch my response). When I pasted my reply back into the comment box, I must’ve accidentally done so twice…..Yeah…..
Yeah…
Oh, yeah, I actually googles it right after I posted. Thank you, guys!
It’s the same procedure as if they found someone had miscarried before the baby/corpse leaves the womb. *winces* think “vacuumed”
sorry about that less than apeitizing image.
*squeak* Ew!
Hey Elias, I Googled you, and is that your band on YouTube covering songs like Song 2? They were really good! If that’s you, what instrument are you playing? (For some reason, I kept looking for the bearded guy that’s your avatar in the band…)
Yeah, that was me. It’s not my band, but a project I threw together when I was in Berlin for three weeks last summer. I’m with the long hair, white shirt, playing guitar and singing.
This and the atheism/religion threads must be the only threads where people think they can get Elias’s attention…
It really is. I didn’t know you spoke German, Elias. And that you used that much language off of the Internet…
I speak German and Italian fluently, and I swear a LOT. Part of living south of the alps for 10 years, you pick up a different attitude to vulgarity.
Funny-90% of the German words I know are swear words (this comes from reading The Book Thief many times and having a mother, who especially when I was little, didn’t want to swear in front of me so swore in german instead)
Wait… I just found a certain Web site (you know what I’m talking about, Elias) where I realized that it’s not just off the Internet.
We strongly discourage both discussion of and references or allusions to websites other than MuseBlog.
For lack of a better idea at the present….
This is relevant because of the globalness of the olympics, by the way…
What do people make of the Isreali/Palestinain conflict? Anyone here support a particular solution?
I support a two-state solution. I strongly dislike the way Israel is “handling” the conflict.
I’m also a bit for the two-state solution…let the palestinains go home (if Isreal hasn’t already demolished their homes) maybe have Jerusalem be a country of it’s own, a city-state (’cause everyone wants access to Jerusalem, as it’s everyone’s holy city) and figure out some sort of comprimise on the occupied territories… loan them from the countries you stole them from or something…problem is, no matter what you do, someone’s going to unhappy enough with you to blow you up.
Personally, though I sympathieze with both sides, niether has a right to do what they’ve done…. It’s interesting because there’s this fiercely zionist boy in my class, and whenever Isrealies killing children because they threw stones, for instance, is mentioned, he attempts to justify it. So we say “No, no matter how much you support a cause, said cause can still comit unjustifyible acts and you’re just going to have to deal with it”
Israel are taking too many liberties, but Palestine has no sympathy from me. Bah.
I’ve heard a lot of people say a three-state solution…
I’m not too thrilled about either side, given that they’re both racist.
Not racist necesarily, just full of “My religion is the chosen religion, which makes me better than you and gives me the right to do whatever the hell I want because it is God’s will”
Drives me crazy. I have a pretty strongly Zionist mom, who is Zionist mostly because she feels that she owes some sort of debt to her grandparents and great-grandparents and all the ancestors before them, who were persecuted pretty strongly, given that they were Jews hanging around in Eastern Europe for quite a few centuries. I also feel that I ought to be supporting Israel, because I’m Jewish (on the outside. On the inside I’m an atheist. Mostly I’m in on the Judaism for the latkes. :D) On the other hand, both Israel and Palestine have done some pretty horrible stuff to each other.
I guess I’m for screaming at them, “You’re both human! Now stop killing each other and start working stuff out without calling each other unholy! Unjustifiable things on one side are unjustifiable on the other side! No, I don’t care if it’s justifiable because it’s you doing it! No freaking excuses!”
Unfortunately, given that I have no faith in human nature, I don’t believe this will ever actually happen.
Depressingly enough, though I have a slight quanity of faith in human nature, I still don’t believe that will happen, at least not in our life times.
And latkes are good