The left and the right.
good and bad.
dichotomy
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
subjective and objective.
free will.
Are we above, below, or are we made in the image of god.
Maybe we should be both proud and humble, with the mind of a child and the heart of a lion.
And if we open our eyes, we might be very thankful to have such unimaginable abundance and love.
Look into another person's eyes, you will find god.
300 Spartans had the way! Frank milller: Were all spoiled.
Moderator: Available
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
-
fivedragons
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:05 am
-
Stryke
-
fivedragons
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:05 am
That's true, but is there really any seperation?
There is "science", there is "faith", there is that little squigly line inbetween.
It seems to me that science has wholly been based on the faith of human infallibility, and faith has been based on the science of faith.
There has never ever ever ever been a war about religion, for instance.
There have only been wars about economics, greed, power, politics, fear, pride, and etc., which are the antithesis of every religious message.
One might say that religion was used as the means to control people's minds, but really anything will do, you don't need jesus. You could use the idea of terrorism for example. Or communism. Or whatever Jim Jones used.
Now I'm not saying that terrorism doesn't exist, as a matter of fact, as an american, I'm responsible for supporting, causing, and educating others in the methods of all kinds of insane and diabolical actions that would be considered terrorism if they were perpetrated against us,
But you see that other people don't really count the same as us.
That is a form of "religion".
Or is it patriotism?
Maybe just brainwashing.
Or you could call it "lies" if you wanted to.
No, you wouldn't want to call the accepted history of the world a lie.
That would mean that a lot of brave and courageous people, (warriors) died and killed for a few liars ( Punks).
That would be almost too much to bear.
There is "science", there is "faith", there is that little squigly line inbetween.
It seems to me that science has wholly been based on the faith of human infallibility, and faith has been based on the science of faith.
There has never ever ever ever been a war about religion, for instance.
There have only been wars about economics, greed, power, politics, fear, pride, and etc., which are the antithesis of every religious message.
One might say that religion was used as the means to control people's minds, but really anything will do, you don't need jesus. You could use the idea of terrorism for example. Or communism. Or whatever Jim Jones used.
Now I'm not saying that terrorism doesn't exist, as a matter of fact, as an american, I'm responsible for supporting, causing, and educating others in the methods of all kinds of insane and diabolical actions that would be considered terrorism if they were perpetrated against us,
But you see that other people don't really count the same as us.
That is a form of "religion".
Or is it patriotism?
Maybe just brainwashing.
Or you could call it "lies" if you wanted to.
No, you wouldn't want to call the accepted history of the world a lie.
That would mean that a lot of brave and courageous people, (warriors) died and killed for a few liars ( Punks).
That would be almost too much to bear.
-
fivedragons
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:05 am
Popes and kings, communists and capitalists.
If one looks back through history, one will find a bunch of popes who very obviously didn't believe in the message of Jesus Christ.
As a matter of fact, some of them were depraved.
But, because they were popes, they were able to LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE.
They didn't really have to LIE very hard, because they had economic and political power. In other words, they weren't the emmissaries of Christ, they where being ##### up the ass by satan and ##### everyone else in order to MAINTAIN THEIR POWER BASE. You see, everyone else is just a piece of crap pawn. It really doesn't matter what you believe in, how many children you have, how good of a person you are, you are nothing more than a useful tool to these monsters and the self righteous propagandists in their employ.
Propaganda: this is the subliminal manipulation of your mind through various media, such as ADVERTISING.
If you don't understand, there are triggers such as images that suggest archetypal intuitions of sex and violence.
Unfortunately, the lessons learned in advertising have been put to OUTSTANDING use in the war of idealogy and ignorance.
That is why there is a completely schizophrenic disconnect between the average U.S. citizen's BULLSHIT understanding of the world around him, and the rest of the ##### real and dying world.
If one looks back through history, one will find a bunch of popes who very obviously didn't believe in the message of Jesus Christ.
As a matter of fact, some of them were depraved.
But, because they were popes, they were able to LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE.
They didn't really have to LIE very hard, because they had economic and political power. In other words, they weren't the emmissaries of Christ, they where being ##### up the ass by satan and ##### everyone else in order to MAINTAIN THEIR POWER BASE. You see, everyone else is just a piece of crap pawn. It really doesn't matter what you believe in, how many children you have, how good of a person you are, you are nothing more than a useful tool to these monsters and the self righteous propagandists in their employ.
Propaganda: this is the subliminal manipulation of your mind through various media, such as ADVERTISING.
If you don't understand, there are triggers such as images that suggest archetypal intuitions of sex and violence.
Unfortunately,
the lessons learned in advertising have been put to OUTSTANDING use in the war of idealogy and ignorance.That is why there is a completely schizophrenic disconnect between the average U.S. citizen's BULLSHIT understanding of the world around him, and the rest of the ##### real and dying world.
-
fivedragons
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:05 am
The key is that it is horrible for our children to be killed by terrorist, but it is okay for us to drink beer and cheer while other children are being blown to little bits and burned while we watch an amazing lightshow on t.v.
Yeah!!!!!
Shock and Awe!!!!!!!!
Kill all those bad Iraqi people! They blew up the world trade center!
We rule!!!
Democracy!!
Oh yeah, while you're watching this, we'll be taking some of your "god given rights".
HAR HAR HARRRRRR....
Yeah!!!!!
Shock and Awe!!!!!!!!
Kill all those bad Iraqi people! They blew up the world trade center!
We rule!!!
Democracy!!
Oh yeah, while you're watching this, we'll be taking some of your "god given rights".
HAR HAR HARRRRRR....
-
fivedragons
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:05 am
Here's a little story that I think illustrates the psyche of AMERICA. I was talking to an Italian American dude who was in the back seat of his uncle's car in D.C. when he put on the brakes. The uncle got out of the car and beat the ##### out of an anti-war demonstrator. The guy I was talking to smiled and said "I thought it was pretty cool".
This was during the viet nam war.
The same guy has many reservations about the current situation, and probably has been influenced by his relatives who came back, and by the political situation that unfolded afterwards.
Personally, I'd like to beat the living ##### out of the uncle who got out of the car, and beat the ##### out of the anti-war demonstrator.
Maybe this country needs to dissolve into utter chaos, riots, brutality and torture, just like all the "banana republics" before it.
Maybe what we all need is a good dose of having our fathers and uncles tortured, our mothers and sisters raped, before we kick the living ##### out of all the ##### assholes who feel they have the right to stop there car, and beat the ##### out of an anti-war demonstrator.
This was during the viet nam war.
The same guy has many reservations about the current situation, and probably has been influenced by his relatives who came back, and by the political situation that unfolded afterwards.
Personally, I'd like to beat the living ##### out of the uncle who got out of the car, and beat the ##### out of the anti-war demonstrator.
Maybe this country needs to dissolve into utter chaos, riots, brutality and torture, just like all the "banana republics" before it.
Maybe what we all need is a good dose of having our fathers and uncles tortured, our mothers and sisters raped, before we kick the living ##### out of all the ##### assholes who feel they have the right to stop there car, and beat the ##### out of an anti-war demonstrator.
Five
Maybe "what we all need" is to take time for a deep breath before posting???
Got nothing against a good rant of course. I just don't get the point--maybe I have not had enough coffee this morning, but most of the above is so factually/logically error-ridden that it makes little sense at all.
Plus sicence is NOT "based on human infallibilty" is based on testing for ERROR--which is kinda the reverse of "infallability."
If anyone belived science was "infallible" then they would not be using the "scientific method" which INSISTS on in-depth testing and re-testing.
Maybe "what we all need" is to take time for a deep breath before posting???
Got nothing against a good rant of course. I just don't get the point--maybe I have not had enough coffee this morning, but most of the above is so factually/logically error-ridden that it makes little sense at all.
Plus sicence is NOT "based on human infallibilty" is based on testing for ERROR--which is kinda the reverse of "infallability."
If anyone belived science was "infallible" then they would not be using the "scientific method" which INSISTS on in-depth testing and re-testing.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
Re: As
I think part of what Ian's pointing out is that. people often treat religion as beyond reproach. The point isn't that religion does bad things, it's that when religion does bad things people often just throw up their hands and say "well that's their belief" and refuse to confront the issue any further. How I feel about it, is that a bad decision is a bad decision no matter its source.Bill Glasheen wrote: As to your list of things that religious people get wrong, well ponder the evils of several well-know secular governments such as that of the former Soviet Union as well as Communist China. Sorry... The religious don't have a corner on the market of extremism and stupidity.
Criticism of secular ideals is taken for granted, <i>as it should be</i>. Nobody looks at China's problems and just says "Well, it's secular communism, so let's try to be understanding" The problem, as I see it, is that religious ideals are not subject to similar scrutiny. This is a bad thing when religious ideals lead people to make decisions that are harmful for others. Those mistakes should be as open to criticism as secular mistakes.
Note that it's not the religion that needs to be open to criticism, but just the real-world consequences of belief.
An example: The state of sex education in this country is an abomination. You have people teaching teenagers that condoms don't work, masturbation is bad for them and all sorts of other outright lies about sexuality. And yet it's very difficult to criticize this practice, because religion is involved.
Similarly, the debate about teaching evolution. This is an embarassment to our education system, but you'll see a lot of people shrugging their shoulders and saying "it is what it is" because religion is the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about.
These are just a couple examples. Look back at Ian's list for other instances where there's a flaw in the way we're approaching something, but the influence of religion presents a roadblock to open discussion.
Val
Its not a question IMO of NOT "questioning" religion--religion is one of the most heavily questioned and commented on and oft villified areas of culture.
Not being a religious person myself--on a really good day I can be persuded to be agnostic
I find that seldom do wholly secular ideas and what are essentially secular "faiths" get the same amount of detailed critical focus as religions do.
Easy to start a dicsusson on the logical pitfalls, fallicies and historical shortcomings of various relgions.
But just see if anyone--even the most die-hard secularist is interested in an in-depth discussion of how THEIR world-view, ethical constuction, and viewpoints fail to withstand a serious questioning.
As I see it, almost NOBODY treats religionas "beyond reproach."
Quite the reverse actually--IMO only of course.
Your 100 percent right about the deplorable state of education in this country.
But its not all the fault of religion.
I have equal doubt that the secular aganda is any better---their track record for education is equally dismal--just in different areas.
Its not a question IMO of NOT "questioning" religion--religion is one of the most heavily questioned and commented on and oft villified areas of culture.
Not being a religious person myself--on a really good day I can be persuded to be agnostic
I find that seldom do wholly secular ideas and what are essentially secular "faiths" get the same amount of detailed critical focus as religions do.
Easy to start a dicsusson on the logical pitfalls, fallicies and historical shortcomings of various relgions.
But just see if anyone--even the most die-hard secularist is interested in an in-depth discussion of how THEIR world-view, ethical constuction, and viewpoints fail to withstand a serious questioning.
As I see it, almost NOBODY treats religionas "beyond reproach."
Quite the reverse actually--IMO only of course.
Your 100 percent right about the deplorable state of education in this country.
But its not all the fault of religion.
I have equal doubt that the secular aganda is any better---their track record for education is equally dismal--just in different areas.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
"There has never ever ever ever been a war about religion, for instance. There have only been wars about economics, greed, power, politics, fear, pride, and etc., which are the antithesis of every religious message."
Untrue. There are many instances where combatants would very happily tell you about their religious motivations for war. The current (terror) war is a good example. Everyone wants to know why they blew up the towers. They themselves made that very clear in statements. We're infidels, and if they kill us they go straight to paradise. Without religion, the motivation evaporates. Hate might not, but according to the combatants, it's hate, about religious rivalry. Same goes for the excuses of the Pope failings. "Well, if the religious person did something imperfect, they weren't religious. EVEN THE POPE!!" These are the perfect catholics of their time! Infallible by church policy! By definition what they do is christian, by definition they control the message of jesus. We should not retrospectively pardon religion for every instance in which religious people were not up to what we think the example of Christ was (heck, we all fail in that, isn't that the point?).
"I find that seldom do wholly secular ideas and what are essentially secular "faiths" get the same amount of detailed critical focus as religions do."
Then you haven't read any of the enormous controversy over Darwin in our schools. Or reviewed any of the millions of articles about politics or economics. Or dropped by the thread on global warming. Or you are referring to another issue which I would be eager to discuss (eg, Ann Coulter claimed women should not have been given the right to vote).
"But just see if anyone--even the most die-hard secularist is interested in an in-depth discussion of how THEIR world-view, ethical constuction, and viewpoints fail to withstand a serious questioning."
I'm game. I know you think religion gets critiqued and secular beliefs don't, but perhaps my personal experience will shed some light. There are many many laws in this country, in effect or proposed, to limit the rights of or critique people who feel romantic affection for others of the same sex. There is constant critique (but not only critique) of the concept in the media and from powerful political lobbies, and its still cool to mock adherents, and in some contexts discriminate or attack them. On the other hand, it's considered quite rude to point out that no substance underlies your average religious tradition. And the legal landscape is full of things some religious people take offense to (such as being taught science in a public school) but nothing remotely comparable, nothing along the lines of, say, taking their marriage rights, threats from fringe groups to enact reverse Biblical law and jail or execute them, frequent threats to their safety, prohibitions to public service, and other nonsense.
"If anyone belived science was "infallible" then they would not be using the "scientific method" which INSISTS on in-depth testing and re-testing."
The very times when science was shown to be in error--these are the times when science really shines. Did the bible overturn newtonian physics? No, it was einstein--thought and real experimentation. Science is the best tool for modifying and improving our knowledge. When science finds a hole in evolution, it's on science to show why; the religious retort is often that the hole proves creation and is basically celebrated (rather than investigated). Religion didn't want to know what centered the solar system; it already had an answer, and because it was faith driven, it was heresy to start thinking about alternatives. Science is the free market to religion's communism; while science is moving ahead, religion already (thinks it) has the answer, and has been proven less effective at advancing knowledge (or economic growth). It's not perfect--but science is the best method for moving forward.
"You (and others) aren't getting the point. I'm ambivalent to the concept of a God, Ian. But I believe in the power of personal faith (not external prayer) for health and well being."
It's hard to counter your points when I'm not sure what they are--perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "personal faith" that doesn't entail God or is agnostic. I've already said that I'm a believer in a positive mindset and a purpose. What I'm generally against is faith as usually employed, which means accepting that (usually) the jewish muslim or christian God exists, generally knows all, and interacts with us at least in thought, without any solid evidence to that effect, and certainly no evidence remotely proportionate to the certainty and detail offered up by adherents. I am especially disturbed by the idea that blind faith is an attribute, and better than curiosity, skepticism, and reason. If you're against ICP don't take any of my critiques personally, just join the chorus!
As for the failings of the USSR and Nazi Germany, yup, stalin appears to have been an atheist. That neither religion nor atheism is wholly good or evil should not deter us from trying to determine if one or the other is better. That is the case with almost every single choice we make in life (we take uechi instead of TKD, but that TKD guy did beat some guy once, and a Uechi guy has once lost, so, do we throw up our hands and call it even??). Plus, religion has done bad things in the name of religion, and religious people have done bad things too. Atheists make mistakes, like everyone--but I've never heard of an atheist doig soemthing awful for atheism's sake. Hitler, on the other hand, was a maybe. That guy made a lot of religious statements. There are two options (with apologies to Dawkins):
1) He meant them, and thus he was a Christian.
2) He didn't mean them, was an atheist, and the comments were only meant to sway the overwhelmingly christian nation of Germany, which carried out his orders.
Neither looks great for christianity either, you know whaddimean? The way I resolve this issue is to come out against slavish, unthinking devotion to any idea, whether faith in the supernatural or uncompromisingly unthinking devotion to a secular leader or idea. My two main principles are the golden rule and the scientific method or as close as you can come to it. Gotta start somewhere.
PS: Dan Savage isn't a pal but he is funny; his task in writing is to entertain and secure repeat readers. The review was about his take on the movie's culture and politics--he didn't say it wasn't fun, well made, or not worth seeing. In fact from knowin his work I'm sure he loved the costumes.
Untrue. There are many instances where combatants would very happily tell you about their religious motivations for war. The current (terror) war is a good example. Everyone wants to know why they blew up the towers. They themselves made that very clear in statements. We're infidels, and if they kill us they go straight to paradise. Without religion, the motivation evaporates. Hate might not, but according to the combatants, it's hate, about religious rivalry. Same goes for the excuses of the Pope failings. "Well, if the religious person did something imperfect, they weren't religious. EVEN THE POPE!!" These are the perfect catholics of their time! Infallible by church policy! By definition what they do is christian, by definition they control the message of jesus. We should not retrospectively pardon religion for every instance in which religious people were not up to what we think the example of Christ was (heck, we all fail in that, isn't that the point?).
"I find that seldom do wholly secular ideas and what are essentially secular "faiths" get the same amount of detailed critical focus as religions do."
Then you haven't read any of the enormous controversy over Darwin in our schools. Or reviewed any of the millions of articles about politics or economics. Or dropped by the thread on global warming. Or you are referring to another issue which I would be eager to discuss (eg, Ann Coulter claimed women should not have been given the right to vote).
"But just see if anyone--even the most die-hard secularist is interested in an in-depth discussion of how THEIR world-view, ethical constuction, and viewpoints fail to withstand a serious questioning."
I'm game. I know you think religion gets critiqued and secular beliefs don't, but perhaps my personal experience will shed some light. There are many many laws in this country, in effect or proposed, to limit the rights of or critique people who feel romantic affection for others of the same sex. There is constant critique (but not only critique) of the concept in the media and from powerful political lobbies, and its still cool to mock adherents, and in some contexts discriminate or attack them. On the other hand, it's considered quite rude to point out that no substance underlies your average religious tradition. And the legal landscape is full of things some religious people take offense to (such as being taught science in a public school) but nothing remotely comparable, nothing along the lines of, say, taking their marriage rights, threats from fringe groups to enact reverse Biblical law and jail or execute them, frequent threats to their safety, prohibitions to public service, and other nonsense.
"If anyone belived science was "infallible" then they would not be using the "scientific method" which INSISTS on in-depth testing and re-testing."
The very times when science was shown to be in error--these are the times when science really shines. Did the bible overturn newtonian physics? No, it was einstein--thought and real experimentation. Science is the best tool for modifying and improving our knowledge. When science finds a hole in evolution, it's on science to show why; the religious retort is often that the hole proves creation and is basically celebrated (rather than investigated). Religion didn't want to know what centered the solar system; it already had an answer, and because it was faith driven, it was heresy to start thinking about alternatives. Science is the free market to religion's communism; while science is moving ahead, religion already (thinks it) has the answer, and has been proven less effective at advancing knowledge (or economic growth). It's not perfect--but science is the best method for moving forward.
"You (and others) aren't getting the point. I'm ambivalent to the concept of a God, Ian. But I believe in the power of personal faith (not external prayer) for health and well being."
It's hard to counter your points when I'm not sure what they are--perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "personal faith" that doesn't entail God or is agnostic. I've already said that I'm a believer in a positive mindset and a purpose. What I'm generally against is faith as usually employed, which means accepting that (usually) the jewish muslim or christian God exists, generally knows all, and interacts with us at least in thought, without any solid evidence to that effect, and certainly no evidence remotely proportionate to the certainty and detail offered up by adherents. I am especially disturbed by the idea that blind faith is an attribute, and better than curiosity, skepticism, and reason. If you're against ICP don't take any of my critiques personally, just join the chorus!
As for the failings of the USSR and Nazi Germany, yup, stalin appears to have been an atheist. That neither religion nor atheism is wholly good or evil should not deter us from trying to determine if one or the other is better. That is the case with almost every single choice we make in life (we take uechi instead of TKD, but that TKD guy did beat some guy once, and a Uechi guy has once lost, so, do we throw up our hands and call it even??). Plus, religion has done bad things in the name of religion, and religious people have done bad things too. Atheists make mistakes, like everyone--but I've never heard of an atheist doig soemthing awful for atheism's sake. Hitler, on the other hand, was a maybe. That guy made a lot of religious statements. There are two options (with apologies to Dawkins):
1) He meant them, and thus he was a Christian.
2) He didn't mean them, was an atheist, and the comments were only meant to sway the overwhelmingly christian nation of Germany, which carried out his orders.
Neither looks great for christianity either, you know whaddimean? The way I resolve this issue is to come out against slavish, unthinking devotion to any idea, whether faith in the supernatural or uncompromisingly unthinking devotion to a secular leader or idea. My two main principles are the golden rule and the scientific method or as close as you can come to it. Gotta start somewhere.
PS: Dan Savage isn't a pal but he is funny; his task in writing is to entertain and secure repeat readers. The review was about his take on the movie's culture and politics--he didn't say it wasn't fun, well made, or not worth seeing. In fact from knowin his work I'm sure he loved the costumes.
--Ian
IJ
It would really help if you addresed your comments to specific people.
I almost didn't even read the above since the first section was a reply to someone ELSES post.
But to directly address that specific point---in context, the religion was not the motivating factor--it was the "EXCUSE/JUSTIFACTION" as it were.
In effect the poster is asserting that people create relgious sturctures that can be used to justify their own acts.
Remember that if there is no "god" then PEOPLE are the ones creating "religions" thus tragically flawed people are fundamentally responsible for what they create.
Nope, I'm saying that over the years relgion is by far more commented on than any secular---Global Warming for example is a pretty "new" topic while people have been bitching moaning and whineing baout relgion for many 1000's of years
Hey great that "your game" to discuss it---its my personal experience that most people don't wish to.
Your missing the enitre point on the "infallibilty" thing.
That was a direct, contextual response on my part to Fives wildly inncorrect assertion about people viewing science as "infallible."
Your twisting it into somethimg that its was not meant to do--or speak to for that matter
The rest of your diatribe about economics and "advancing knowloge" is another skewed rant that does not logically follow----many men and women of science also had equally strong relgious convictions, so belief seems to be little hinderence to scientific progress.
Newton and Einstein, if memory serves, professed belief in what is essentially "god."
In contrast the utterly secular Lysenko was a VERY poor scientist.
While one most certainly can't link belief with being "good" at science--by the same token--belief should not be held to automatical make some "bad" at science either.
It would really help if you addresed your comments to specific people.
I almost didn't even read the above since the first section was a reply to someone ELSES post.
But to directly address that specific point---in context, the religion was not the motivating factor--it was the "EXCUSE/JUSTIFACTION" as it were.
In effect the poster is asserting that people create relgious sturctures that can be used to justify their own acts.
Remember that if there is no "god" then PEOPLE are the ones creating "religions" thus tragically flawed people are fundamentally responsible for what they create.
Nope, I'm saying that over the years relgion is by far more commented on than any secular---Global Warming for example is a pretty "new" topic while people have been bitching moaning and whineing baout relgion for many 1000's of years
Hey great that "your game" to discuss it---its my personal experience that most people don't wish to.
Your missing the enitre point on the "infallibilty" thing.
That was a direct, contextual response on my part to Fives wildly inncorrect assertion about people viewing science as "infallible."
Your twisting it into somethimg that its was not meant to do--or speak to for that matter
The rest of your diatribe about economics and "advancing knowloge" is another skewed rant that does not logically follow----many men and women of science also had equally strong relgious convictions, so belief seems to be little hinderence to scientific progress.
Newton and Einstein, if memory serves, professed belief in what is essentially "god."
In contrast the utterly secular Lysenko was a VERY poor scientist.
While one most certainly can't link belief with being "good" at science--by the same token--belief should not be held to automatical make some "bad" at science either.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
