A Sad Day For Free Speech In Italy
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Perhaps we coudl take a civilization which had been historically associated with a religion, than remove that religion and measure the results.
I would suggest that may already be happening. Consider that significantly more complex and effective medical interventions are possible simply because we have rejected the mindset that accompanies dogmatic religious belief when studying medicine. One can only imagine what we could accomplish if that were to translate to other fields of human endeavor. I would argue that the groupthink necessarily associated with religious thought is anathema to the free critical exchange of ideas necessary for human beings to challenge and enrich their knowledge and understanding of the universe. (edit example: compare the effectiveness of modern medicine to that of homeopathy, a rigidly dogmatic discipline established over 200 years ago and little changed by advances in anatomy and physiology, homeopathy is essentially equivalent to a religion by its adherents)
Stan Shannon wrote:
Does my degree in biology count?
Of course. I was simply making a joke at your expense. Such things tend to happen in this den of thieves and inequity.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
I would suggest that may already be happening. Consider that significantly more complex and effective medical interventions are possible simply because we have rejected the mindset that accompanies dogmatic religious belief when studying medicine. One can only imagine what we could accomplish if that were to translate to other fields of human endeavor.
And I would suggest that such progress is only possible in a stable civilization. It is social stability that is the prerequisite for such progress. Therefore, I submit that it would be important to understand better what the source of that stability is. Does the prescence of religion engender such stability (which is my hypothesis, supported by research) or would the abscence of religion provide for a more stable society? I think that is a valid question for scientific investigation. I believe that the less religious a society becomes, the less inherently stable it becomes and therefore the less rational it becomes. It becomes more chaotic and less able to support the conditions necessary for advanced human endeavors.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
I would suggest that may already be happening. Consider that significantly more complex and effective medical interventions are possible simply because we have rejected the mindset that accompanies dogmatic religious belief when studying medicine. One can only imagine what we could accomplish if that were to translate to other fields of human endeavor.
And I would suggest that such progress is only possible in a stable civilization. It is social stability that is the prerequisite for such progress. Therefore, I submit that it would be important to understand better what the source of that stability is. Does the prescence of religion engender such stability (which is my hypothesis, supported by research) or would the abscence of religion provide for a more stable society? I think that is a valid question for scientific investigation. I believe that the less religious a society becomes, the less inherently stable it becomes and therefore the less rational it becomes. It becomes more chaotic and less able to support the conditions necessary for advanced human endeavors.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
which is my hypothesis, supported by research
It didn't work last time, so I guess I'll make it bigger: Citations, plz And don't try a bait-and-switch by proposing sociological research with vague, indeterminate endpoints and poorly defined, unmeasurable variables and then attempting to give yourself some undeserved credibility by labeling it a "scientific" investigation. What you've outlined is nothing of the sort. I anxiously await the publication of your hypothesis in any number of leading journals.
- F
-
Al Beback wrote:
You act as if the only way for humans to experience warmth, companionship, and hope is by believing in supernatural caretakers. Have you ever met a happy atheist?
As a matter of fact I have not ever met a happy atheist. The problem with your prespective is that it assumes a far greater commonaility of human psychology than actually exists. Human nature abhors a vacume. If the universe is meaningless, than our existence is meaningless. It does not matter how we live our lives, or what we do, or how nice we are to one another. It is all for nothing.
Al Beback wrote:
Imagine if all of us believed of ourselves what we already assume is the case for all other living creatures in this planet -- that this is it, that there's nothing beyond our lives. Wouldn't more of us seek ways to make our time here as fruitful and pleasant as possible?
Actually, I think being a battle ax swinging barbarian, hacking my way through the next village and making off with their cattle and their women, would be a hell of a lot more enjoyable way to deal with meaninglessness than would trying to win the annual "World's Most Tolerant Person" award.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As a matter of fact I have not ever met a happy atheist.
Well, you have now. I love life; I see great meaning in what I do every single day. One doesn't need to abandon meaningful aspects of the human experience to be an atheist.
- F
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You're an idiot. You miss the point entirely.
No, you're the one missing the point. You bereat Ravel for not believing by saying he's making an "error in judgment". Hardly the mark of someone tollerant. You complain about "organized religion" and "churches" yet I it sounds like you aren't a congregation of one. I seem to remember talk about pastor, church, etc, so sounds like yours has some organization to it as well. You, like so many of your kind, claim to know not only the one true religion but the one true christianity. What gives you such marvelous insight? All the person who sold it to you did, I assume you're not the inventor, was take a product already in the market and tweak it a bit to generate his niche for brand loyalty. We're better than those other guys because we eat our eggs from the little end. Now pass the collection plate. Catholics aren't christians, my ass. They invented it. You protestants are the usurpers here. When you split, you just couldn't bring yourself to claim a different name, at least Mohammed called his islam. All you've shown is a relentless ability to ignore reason and claim that your religion is reason. And when someone gets a little close, you get all Ilion on them and resort to calling them an idiot. How very christian of you! :zzz:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Tim Craig wrote:
You bereat Ravel for not believing by saying he's making an "error in judgment". Hardly the mark of someone tollerant.
So, wait. you're saying I'm not allowed to have a belief system, or that I have to pretend not to believe it ? This is the sort of arrogance that I see in atheists all the time, and it annoys me, because you want to talk about tolerance, but I'm not allowed to politely tell someone I think they are wrong ? If you think my reference to his being mistaken is me berating someone, you are sorely mistaken. If I berate someone, it's not as limp as that.
Tim Craig wrote:
You, like so many of your kind, claim to know not only the one true religion but the one true christianity
Well, again, you're denying me the right to an opinion, what the hell is that about ?
Tim Craig wrote:
We're better than those other guys
I've never claimed to be better than anyone, this is more atheist propaganda/arrogance/ignorance. Thanks, you're proving my point.
Tim Craig wrote:
Catholics aren't christians, my ass. They invented it
See, this is the issue. You have no freakin' idea. The church started long before Catholicism was invented, and Catholicism has changed much over the years, because the Roman government would take aspects of the religions of people they conquered, and rename the figures to make them part of the state religion. so, things like Mary worship, are based on non Christian religions and have nothing to do with Christianity.
Tim Craig wrote:
When you split, you just couldn't bring yourself to claim a different name, at least Mohammed called his islam.
We 'split' because people started to read the Bible, which the Catholics killed people for reading. No, you're not getting under my skin, I'm just amused at how much you tink you know, and how you like to berate me for the things you apparently believe you have a right to, and I do not ( such as an opinion )
Tim Craig wrote:
All you've shown is a relentless ability to ignore reason and claim that your religion is reason
Gosh - where did I say that ?
Tim Craig wrote:
And when someone gets a little close, you get all
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Perhaps, as I said above, any scientific journal seems to me to make war on religion in any way possible, I notice it in almost every article I read. I'd hope that there are scientists who are not this combative, as there are Christians who do not oppose science. this merely illustrates my point, that there are irrational people on both sides, and there is no moral high ground to be automatically had in either position ( i.e. my core point again ).
Articles in science journals very rarely mention religion. Scientific American is not a science journal. It is a popular science magazine with a very different mission to a science journal. Science in the US is under attack from the religious right and has endured 8 years of attacks from the Bush Administration under the influence of the religious right. That scientists defend themselves from such attacks is hardly surprising. The religious right wishes to colonise science for religious purposes, compromising the fundamental mission of science of evidence-based analysis. In this dispute, I disagree that "there is no moral high ground to be automatically had in either position". The high moral ground is occupied by the scientists.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, they have an excuse, and I, as a Christian, do not ?
I don't get too fussed about people on either side showing irritation.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The high moral ground is occupied by the scientists.
That can be the case, assuming they don't abandon it through the sort of snide insults I read in popular science journals, which are not hard science, but which I'd still hope could present facts without insults and self righteousness.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
You bereat Ravel for not believing by saying he's making an "error in judgment". Hardly the mark of someone tollerant.
So, wait. you're saying I'm not allowed to have a belief system, or that I have to pretend not to believe it ? This is the sort of arrogance that I see in atheists all the time, and it annoys me, because you want to talk about tolerance, but I'm not allowed to politely tell someone I think they are wrong ? If you think my reference to his being mistaken is me berating someone, you are sorely mistaken. If I berate someone, it's not as limp as that.
Tim Craig wrote:
You, like so many of your kind, claim to know not only the one true religion but the one true christianity
Well, again, you're denying me the right to an opinion, what the hell is that about ?
Tim Craig wrote:
We're better than those other guys
I've never claimed to be better than anyone, this is more atheist propaganda/arrogance/ignorance. Thanks, you're proving my point.
Tim Craig wrote:
Catholics aren't christians, my ass. They invented it
See, this is the issue. You have no freakin' idea. The church started long before Catholicism was invented, and Catholicism has changed much over the years, because the Roman government would take aspects of the religions of people they conquered, and rename the figures to make them part of the state religion. so, things like Mary worship, are based on non Christian religions and have nothing to do with Christianity.
Tim Craig wrote:
When you split, you just couldn't bring yourself to claim a different name, at least Mohammed called his islam.
We 'split' because people started to read the Bible, which the Catholics killed people for reading. No, you're not getting under my skin, I'm just amused at how much you tink you know, and how you like to berate me for the things you apparently believe you have a right to, and I do not ( such as an opinion )
Tim Craig wrote:
All you've shown is a relentless ability to ignore reason and claim that your religion is reason
Gosh - where did I say that ?
Tim Craig wrote:
And when someone gets a little close, you get all
You didn't say you simply disagreed with Ravel, you said he had "an error in judgment" to take the position he has. Characterizing it that way is a whole lot different. Or are you just always condescending to the younger crowd?
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, again, you're denying me the right to an opinion, what the hell is that about ?
I'm not denying you anything. I was just questioning your authority to place yourself as the prime arbiter of who's a christian and who isn't.
Christian Graus wrote:
I called you an idiot because you're being idiotic, and because I am sick of playing these games with you
Wow, just really going all Ilionesque on me, aren't you? Well, then just ignore me if you can't take it here. But when you say something stupid, I'll be there just the same.
Christian Graus wrote:
you typify every sort of arrogant athestic behaviour I refer to in my conversation with John Carson below. Perhaps you two should just talk, and I'll get back to my holiday
Oh, I know he and I agree on a good deal in this particular area. But then that would be preaching to the choir as some people have bitched about recently.
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't mean to tie arrogant and atheistic as if they are inevitably the same, I am more pointing out that they sometimes go hand in hand, even as some Christians also display these flaws, to the delight of hypocritical people such as yourself.
But apparently, you don't believe yourself to be one of those christian types. :rolleyes:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke