to maintain educational standards and interest
fiddler
the vastest expanses of space; I am interested. Biology, chemistry,
geology, genetics, water tables, the aborigines of Australia, the
composition of asteroids, tidal flows, diamond distribution, human
rights, Shakespearean tragedies, the breeding habits of piranha; all
of this I will study and learn.
My wife asked me why I need so many textbooks. "You aren't even taking
these courses!" She yells.
"But there is so damn much I don't know yet!" This is the only reply
that I can give.
I wish I could share this enthusiasm with everyone, and I will indeed
try, even if only with one person at a time. The other night I was
talking with my wife about a scientist who has a theory regarding
black holes and the possibility of them jump-starting new universes
with the singularities that form inside of them. As I explained some
of the prevailing theories and the physics behind them, I felt myself
becoming flushed with excitement. This is life! Discussion, learning,
theory, application of intellect; these concepts are the best of human
capability and what every human should be pursuing. Unfortunately,
there are people that refuse to allow you the option to learn and grow
and feel this excitement.
Whenever I see a perfectly good mind wasted on religion, I feel a deep
and abiding sadness. These people voluntarily surrender their
intellectual capacity; nothing is more anathema to investigation and
learning than the idea "I already know what I'm supposed to know." The
established religions know this and have throughout recorded history
insured an ignorant and enslaved membership primarily through
demonising knowledge and those that pursue it, while simultaneously
creating all sorts of "hells" and "eternal punishments" that a person
will enter if they violate dogma. The whole of the dark ages was held
forcefully back from innovation in medicine, culture, mechanics,
science, etc., the most common method of enforcement being the murder
of the intelligent or those who associated with them. Sadly, there is
a rise in these ignorant and disgusting theists that seek to keep
others in the dark. Many point to Islam as the example when I say
this, and yet American fundamentalist Christians are equally bad.
There is a group -not exactly a group as each faction has them, but
yet similar in stupidity- that is referred to as creationists. the
most despicable of these being the "young earth" variety. I despair my
children ever knowing scientific curiosity outside the home if these
people get their wish to replace science textbooks with the
superstitions of bronze age goat herders.
Almost as bad, are the segments of society that treat intelligence as
weak or unwanted in their members. The current wannabe "thugs" and
gang member cultures are a prime example. Constantly they decry
racism, sexism, social status, income limits, etc. as things unfairly
imposed upon them. And yet, whenever a member of their group shows
intelligence or a leaning toward a higher education, they are verbally
and physically abused and punished for daring to make the others in
the group appear stupid. This creates a situation in which the
oppressed oppress themselves; where it is indeed a slavery, but a
slavery of the mind and a self imposed one at that.
Both of these groups have the same root cause: a powerful few knowing
full well that an educated group of people will not remain subservient
to the corrupt leadership that those in power wish to maintain. The
social and racial component are being oppressed in reality, just not
in the manner they believe. Politicians of both sides in the
political divide here in America profit from the "lower classes"
remaining flat stupid; the democrats most of all. This last year, the
Obama administration used tax money to make sure that television
converter boxes are available to people in the middle and lower
classes. Not only is this an absolute waste of money by the federal
government (especially considering how cheap the boxes were to begin
with and how expensive after counting the "administrators" of the
program), it actively insures an ignorant populace. Nothing is more
stunting to the intellect than sitting for hours each day staring at a
box that provides the least information possible packed into 2.5
minute segments... when the people even bother to watch an informative
program which is rare in these days of "Bachelors", "Survivors",
"Simpsons", and Oprah.
There is little hope that people will throw off their shackles, as the
"need" for these shackles is pounded into us from infancy. There are
only two important actions that I see being successful, even showing
immediate results. The first is to turn off your televisions and get
moving, into anything. discover interests by actually doing and you
have the ability to mentor and spark a child's interest by doing.
Activity is an extremely important factor in education and gaining
knowledge, a factor that all too many people never learn about growing
up with a television as a baby sitter.
The second is also easy and is an equally crucial step that every
thinking non-zombieist (and even most zombieists) needs to undertake
immediately: vote against superstition being taught anywhere but a
mythology/theology course! It doesn't even matter if you happen to be
a theist, you MUST oppose the attempts to add any religion to any
class in school other than those specifically designed for teaching/
comparing mythology and religion. If you are shortsighted enough to
want your own religion taught in school, please realise that it won't
be the only creation myth taught and that eventually your children
will lose any hope of learning the basic mechanics of maintaining our
society. They will be far too busy learning about how wrong every
other group is to understand even basic mathematical and scientific
concepts, which by the way is close to the current state of America.
Hopefully more people will take both actions and this country and
world will move forward, out of the new dark ages that so many
politicians and creationists hope to force upon us. Even the simplest
and most devout followers of either group can make a difference, just
ask "how" once in a while.
archytas
reduced to a digital state, eventually being either on or off, by a
Cathar sect with the aim of defeating the Devil by returning to
nothingness Fiddler. I have many sympathies with what you say.
Slip Disc
archy, resigned to misanthropic sneering at disparaging political
detraction from social advancement, save for the advancement of the
advanced. Keeping the ignorant in the dark and too busy to be
attentive to the debacle of incompetent leadership is key to
maintaining a dysfunctional government. We've become so accustomed to
eating sour grapes that even the taste of bitter wine seems to satiate
the palate. We've descended to a social caste system without the
obvious indicators easily seen in other countries, camouflaged by
houses, cars and other amenities mortgaged to the hilt with high
percentage loans, the duping of a class strata, cajoled into believing
they are not living in poverty, when in fact everything they have is
owned by someone else, the idea being to attach every earned penny.
They have achieved the collective state of complacency through
satisfying materialistic wants. While I don't ascribe to any
religiosity, I contend that it would be a misguiding to erase religion
when it might be the only thing people have left to hold onto, else
chaos might ensue, a maelstrom of nihilistic bedlam. Then again the
guillotines are clamoring for some action and I'm all for some heads
rolling, ie; heads of state and such. I think religion can be useful
on a small scale, contained and confined, kept within the parameters
of its intention and not reaching the level of the behemoth that
scourged the land with crusades, witch hunts and now jihads, just a
mechanism to let's say, keep the peace. There is much complexity in
all you present and much to delve into, thanks for the array of
thoughts.
fiddler
content to be stuck in mediocrity. Should people follow science and
reason, they would be just as viable and content as those that sit on
a pew, week after week, wishing that some faerie somewhere would deign
to make itself known.
I detest the rampant materialism in western society. I am a capitalist
and I do not cry out about people being comfortable, but the recent
political idiocy of "spending ourselves out of debt" is a prime
example of a most basic wrong. The very first stimulus, a year or so
ago, was badly wasted in the tarp program. That money would have meant
$200k+ to every voting adult in America. Instead we have to borrow any
money we want, after it's taken from us of course, so that we pay
interest split between wealthy corporations and wealthy politicians.
This is all to say that your vision of heads rolling may not
necessarily be a bad thing.
fiddler
books about physics and astronomy while taking 3 courses and studying
out of 4 textbooks independently. But it is on my list, thank you. I
welcome any reading that allows me to either understand a little more
or that makes me ask just one more question lol.
archytas
snide critic! (snide laughter) ... I've just read a book called
'Panderer to Power' (on Alan Greenspan) that puts the figures to these
arguments.
If you haven't found it Fidd, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
online is free and has a lot on the history and philosophy of science
(try searching 'tropical fish realism' - honest - and 'structuralism
in physics').
In pack animals, the many are kept in mediocrity quite chemically by
the Alphas. So we might ask what the chemistry of religion is - some
have. If it's cryptic just to say this, my view is that we do not
explore the Kantian Sublime rather than fail to grasp science.
Lee
There is one small matter that perhaps you being a seemingly
intelegent person willing to learn all sorts about all sorts may be
able to clear up for me.
This view of yours that religion keeps mediocore people contet to
remain meiocore, you of course have solid proof for it? I mean it
cannot be mere unsubstanciated opinion can it? I mean you speak of
rationality and how we should all use it, so I beg of you please show
me the proofs by which you reached this rational.
> > > ask "how" once in a while.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Chris Jenkins
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
ornamentalmind
Lee, I think you've spent too much time with us materalists in here.”
– Chris
Me too Chris! I sent this out for my holiday cards this year! Here is
your copy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB6yW7C8Ids
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Lee
As you probably have guesed by now, and knowing rather fuller than any
of our new members(Welcome to you all BTW) the nature of Lee, my post
is really just to highlight this strange little thing about 'faith'.
As you know I belive we all act on it more than we relalise and when I
spy yet another poster giving the old Science vs Religion spiel it
tends to get my goat.
Here we have what I see as a strong opinion, and of course we are all
allowed to have them, yet when that opinion suggests that the
religious are some how dimmer or even unthinking well I would just
love to see the evidanc which leads to such a conclusion.
If there is none then I would love to see some intelectual honesty and
for the poster to admit that it is just a 'belife' that they hold. A
belife that may have been reached, in fact in all probabilty has been
reached via a long process of living and experiance, in other words
subjective opinion based on one persons lifetimes experiance.
Not very scientific at all really, although wholey rational. As I say
though I belive that we all opperate like this, so fess up people and
just say yes I too take some things on faith.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Chris Jenkins
fiddler
between what they are told to be true and what they discover to be
true. Not only that, the christian faith actively promotes mediocrity.
While any religion needs it's people well under control, the christian
faith promotes that which is most base in humanity. "the meek shall
inherit", "Turn the cheek", "Obey unquestioningly", all of these are
contrary to humans becoming more that they are.
> ...
>
> read more »
archytas
mediocrity, my own new work a classic of the genre - 'The Scarlet-
turbaned Pimpernickle' - they Sikh him here, they Sikh him there. My
protagonist and chicken-curry gormande is assiduously placing members
of the Royal Family back in their Germanic homeland in order to free
us from their tyranny, fighting off Eurocrats and other politically
correct lettuce eaters with sharpened nan bread. Cheeks are only
turned by this hero in order to fart in the general direction of
enemies ...
> ...
>
> read more »
Anna White
I definitely know what you mean here. I've been the same way ("Hey! I
think I'll read this book about bees today!") and have run into fairly
basic, discouraging responses--to be roughly summarized as "So what?"
I would propose that the "So what?" attack is more prevalent and
damaging than the religious or "thug" cultures, these being radical or
minority groups that don't so much contribute to the culture of
ignorance and apathy as provide genuine resistance to learning. The
latter group, I'd hypothesize (admittedly, with little knowledge of
the matter), has been deterred from academic study for some reason or
another, be it poor or ineffectual teaching or, more significantly, an
inability to relate to the subject matter.
I think the issue of academic relevance (I assume you're not referring
to the vocational or specialized areas of study that don't tend to
suffer when the majority of people ignore them?) is the major issue to
address. This comes up, even in advanced high school classes, with
students tolerating material of questionable relevance in order to
improve their opportunities for college. I've been trying to tease out
an argument for relevance, beyond your (true!) statement that "this is
life," as it seems that everyone would agree with such a statement yet
many would fail to see the prescription that follows from it. Greater
consciousness of the world does not garner much support from the
public when touted for its own sake, UNLESS (and this might be worth
considering further, but perhaps not in this context) it is linked to
a conception of purpose and value as self-created and variable (the
potential richness of ordinary experience, one might say).
But I do wonder if it is viable to construct moral prescriptions that
could give consciousness value. Perhaps: it is wrong not to acquire
sufficient knowledge and understanding of some area before making
choices in that area, or to remain ignorant of the state of existence
(thus avoiding having to make choices at all). Where knowledge leads
to increased consciousness, this leads to greater competency at making
choices concerning moral or ethical issues. The whole idea of being an
informed citizen, extended to a greater range of experiences.
Other things that came to mind:
Another response I've heard, particularly from rather well-read peers:
Plato's cave as knowledge-seeking--how much effort can one invest in
trying to free the ignorant while remaining morally proper? What if no
one particularly wants to see the light?
Religion: I have a shaky hypothesis Might not strong conceptions of
evil correspond with religions averse to knowledge-seekers? My
blatantly inadequate knowledge of Eastern thought supports this, and
my slightly greater familiarity with Nordic mythology definitely does.
Maybe an extension of a basic fearful response to the strange and
unusual leads to a connection between deviancy, knowledge, and evil?
Glad I'm not the only one fond of "unnecessary" and varied study!
Anna
fiddler
interest to both of us.
The "so-what" response is generally what I feel to be the "it doesn't
matter" response.
example:
A friend of mine was one of the most naturally gifted athletes I'd
ever met. He constantly moaned and cried about not understanding
mathematics and physics. "It doesn't matter!!!" he'd scream at me when
I stressed the importance of learning these - to me- basic
concepts. ... Finally one day at the Sacramento river, I saw him
amusing himself by throwing footballs across it, which is no mean
feat. I asked him to tell me how he could possibly keep hitting the
one person that was catching them. After 15 or so minutes of his
descriptions on wind, gravity, ball inflation, strength versus angle,
etc., I told him that he had a better grip on pure physics than our
instructor. When I showed him the mathematical equations that he used-
purely subconsciously and without thought- he started to cry (no I'm
not exaggerating). He had built this idea that complex math and
physics were merely beyond him, and this sick idea was aided by his
youth pastor who kept reinforcing the idea that he COULDN'T understand
the gifts god gave him!
No god allowed him to be a physics genius, he was naturally adept and
could never have developed his ideas were a god present in his life.
Whatever god that he was forced into believing in, could ,and did,
nearly cause him to be simply one more factory worker. I have since
only rarely met my match in debates and conceptual exercise. I do not,
by any means, intend to insult any of you reading, I'm merely stating
that I have yet to meet and debate you.
fiddler
It is completely unoriginal to call the Earth round, evolution true,
the moon landing as happened, and water wet; yet I applaud anyone
standing up for them against the morons that claim otherwise.
On Dec 30, 9:59 pm, Anna White <lady.and.scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Lee
exactly?
Heh I do find it funny though, I see it all the time, everywhere,
people using one religoin as a basis for their 'feelings' on all
religion. Now perhaps one of our enlightend members can put a name
to that particular fallacy as it escapes me at the moment.
You know the kind of thought I mean, it runs something like this.
'My dad was stabbed by a black man, therefore all black men are likely
to stab you'
Or perhaps.
'I percive faults in Christianity, therfore all religion is at fault'.
Onwards though and we see soem generalsation right here:
'While any religion needs it's people well under control'
Again I shall ask to see the proofs which have you conviced that this
is true?
What do you mean when you say 'Humans becoming more than they are'?
I can only do thoses things that it is in my power to do, I can only
achive that which is possible for me to achive.
I cannot, nor do I think I shall ever be able to, fly unaided.
On 30 Dec, 17:31, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Lee
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Lee
I thing I see it as much more basic than that. People are not equal.
I dare say that not one of our esteemed members here could bone out a
chicken qiucker or better than myself.
Not all of us want to 'philosophies'(or want of a better word), or get
involved with politics, or even thing about much, much less think
deeply.
I asked Neil(I think) some time last week, how can we force people to
care, the answer to that was we cannot. How can we then force people
to learn, to think, to become better educated, well we can't.
We can only ensure that everybody gets an equal shot at it, those who
want to will, and those who do not want to will not.
> > ask "how" once in a while.- Hide quoted text -
archytas
evil and crushing attitudes towards truth-seeking (at least of an
'unlicensed kind') Anna. It stems from Melanie Klein's reading of
Freud's notion that the 'depressive position' is reasonable (we can
hope for normal unhappiness) but many operate from the 'paranoid-
schizoid position' which tends to demonise opposition. Organisational
analysis ran with this for a long time. Lee's use of stereotyping
above goes some way to the mark, all the better for being specific
rather than abstract. "Boning chickens" mate? We can have a few
smirks over that! Even Blackadder would have had Baldrick arrested
over that one!
Forcing caring is probably possible Lee and we probably do it, much as
we force education down people's throats. I mean in the sense of
social mannering rather than subjective integrity and virtue, so I'd
guess your point still stands. All sorts of votaries claim to care
for us, whilst using public funds to buy duck houses. Yet what is
caring? The wailing idiots praying for our recovery, or the guy who
lances the boil with a knife, spits whiskey into the wound and tells
us the knife will have another purpose if we disturb his sleep again?
My own view is that we have forgotten what competence is and now
favour selfishness as a motivator.
> ...
>
> read more »
Lee
splitting the meat from the bones as well you know, somthing that I
can do in under two minutes thanks to my 'mad' knife skills honed over
many years in the butcher trade.
Is selfishness as motivator really a new thing though? I can't help
but feel that it is not. Going back to the do we do things to make
ourselves happy thread for a sec, I said a very positive yes to that
one, although I neglected to share why I think this.
The reasons are long and many, but in a nutshell it seems to me that
the majority of what we do, we do so for our own benifit, to further
our own causes, or simply so that we may live in a manor of our
choosing.
I work like the majority, I don't really choose to do it, but I must,
to make the money I need in order to survive and live in this world.
That is selfish, it is all about teh Lee, ahhh okay yes I have
dependants, so it is also all about the Douglas family. Yet the
reason I got married and had children was a sinmple one, for both of
them. I wanted to. I fulfuiled a desire by doing so.
As to comptence, again we are not all equal, some are competent, some
are not, some can be, some will never be.
I have talked about some of my brothers here before, I belive I have
even mentioned how I feel some envy towards the next brother down from
me. I envy the attitude he has, he does not want to think deeply about
many things, he is content just to live his life and watch the rest of
the world pass him by. Yet whilst I certianly do envy him this, this
and his easy nature, as a consequence he knows very little about the
things that he chooses not to let impact his life.
Who has the better life? I'm going to say me, yet if was to ask him
the same question, undoubtedly he would say 'Naaaaaa mate, it's me,
innit!'
All in all though I guess what I'm saying is that selfishness is the
main motivator, has always been so, and I guess utopian dreams (and
paradigm shifts) aside will always be the case.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
archytas
perhaps! Orn has something to say on something selfish yet not
selfish beyond the self. I agree with your analysis in terms of much
ordinary we do. There is another form of selfishness though and I am
unsure whether we can beat it, bend in its wind or whatever,
"internally". Vam, I think speaks of this regularly, but by the time
we discuss the internal-external, the One, or an 'over-socialised
concept of the individual' (the main reference to this when I was a
student was "Dr. Wrong" and I always smile in remembrance), we are in
danger of losing the plot in favour of playing word-games. There is
competition and cooperation in nature - the selfishness I fear is the
over-doing of competition and failing to recognize it too has rules.
There are many academic write-ups of the issues, but at some point it
comes down to something as simple as that as mates, we might once have
competed over 'our women', but know it would be wrong to do so now
(not least because of their views!).
In the 1980s/1990s something called the 'carry trade' was prevalent.
Some people could make fortunes over a weekend in this. It was all
done on borrowed money and was essentially a bet and based on insider
information the rest of us couldn't get. In complex econo-babble this
was all a 'good' and even kept the cost of government borrowing down
because the borrowing was linked to buying government stock. All this
stuff is really chronic selfishness of a bad kind, rationalized to the
hilt like the borrowing itself. It reminds me of pre-Inca societies
in Peru where an elite grabbed hold of the water rights and controlled
societies through them. Money that could have gone into new
industries and ways of living slipped into the control of these
unproductive worthies, leaving us with the drips from their affluent
lifestyles. It is in these levels of bull the selfishness I fear is
active, and we are being conned that it is what we need, that this
selfishness is the motivator - listen to those bwankers still claiming
our societies will collapse without their greed. This is pathology,
not people going about their business as we might, to see a grandson
smile. The pre-Incans were ritually slaughtered when their 'gods'
withheld the rain for a few decades. I would not be averse to seeing
a few bwankers learning about motivation with sledgehammers, a
rockpile and a 'fair day's bowl of boiled grass' for their efforts.
> ...
>
> read more »
fiddler
only the most base of a bad lot in my opinion.
As for what proofs there are: it is the very nature of religion to
need control over it's subscribers. You might as well demand what
proofs there are that elected officials require people to elect them.
While i have no doubt, especially having heard it said, that some
officials consider themselves elected by god, gods, fairies, and other
mythical, nonsensical literary creations; the simple fact remains that
this delusion has no place within the concept of election.
Similarly, as religion requires an obedience to dogma and doctrine, it
requires a measure of control or else people would feel free to
disregard dogma and doctrine whenever convenient. When god became
regarded as omnipotent by the christians -yes, they were the first to
invent such a god- they needed a concept such as eternal damnation to
be the ultimate punishment for non-belief. This insured the control of
many. Slaughtering those that disagreed was another method that every
religion has found useful. While many would fear the mystical
punishments or desire the mystical rewards, many wouldn't. therefore
the threat of violence, and the proven ability to deliver it, insured
sceptics remain silent.
> ...
>
> read more »
ornamentalmind
people using one religoin as a basis for their 'feelings' on all
religion. Now perhaps one of our enlightend members can put a name
Hola Lee! … without any claims to your hyperbolic attribute attributed
to ‘us’, there are a few fallacies that might apply…often I find
confused thinking = confused thinking!
Here is at least one that might apply:
(Argument by Generalization)
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#generalize
On Dec 31, 1:53 am, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
ornamentalmind
splitting the meat from the bones as well you know, somthing that I
can do in under two minutes thanks to my 'mad' knife skills honed
over
*** silently contemplates using a bandsaw on chicken carcasses in his
youth ***
ornamentalmind
A template for the USA psyche of the 80s and 90s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7upG01-XWbY
The irony of it all…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VvGW98D3XA&feature=related
…and from the Ministry of Truth…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y86B9E1Vtr0&feature=related
“Big”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dn6lI0YCO8&feature=related
ornamentalmind
fiddler
reality. There is no dogma to atheism. Many of the items on the list
are simple scientific principle. I could just as easily be accused of
being dogmatic about gravity, and frankly I do support gravity
unquestioningly. The difference between an atheists views and that of
dogma is that I have no problem dismissing the law of gravity should I
begin to float and never again touch ground.
This idea of an atheist dogma is nothing more than a group of people
attempting to diminish their own culpability or crimes or
inflexibility by pointing at others. Much like a speeder nearly always
proclaims"But officer! Can't you see that car that's moving MUCH
faster than mine was?"
> ...
>
> read more »
ornamentalmind
agreement there…at least in the current context. Of course, this is
true for the claim that there is no dogma to atheism too. As much as I
do appreciate your observation of “simple scientific principle[s]”,
therein is contained the doctrine of science. I have no problems at
all with the use of science…it is quite useful in fact! So too would
be the rejection of dogma when one *knows* otherwise. This latter can
be applied to all sorts of dogmatic thinking. So, in fact, in this
sense there is nothing special about atheism.
And, assigning an analogy to dogma, one that begs the question in
fact, is at best entertaining. So, at least, thanks for the chuckle! :
- )
Vamadevananda
Ironically, gravity itself has no need of such " support,"
questionably or unquestionably ! Perhaps, you mean ' belief in '
gravity.
> ...
>
> read more »
fiddler
creationist site was there to show me the error of my ways...
> ...
>
> read more »
Slip Disc
all that is invisible or not easily understood, ergo, people relegate
their lives to the beliefs, dogma and dictates of others. A secondary
resultant of this need is the creation of visible gods in physical and
material form. From totems, holy rocks to sports, movie and rock
stars the world is full of imagery representative of a belief. No one
sees angels, devils or gods but the world is full of pictorial
representations and iconic figures which in some obscure sense
substantiates their existence. I've had experience with apparitions
but assigning them a religious affiliation doesn't make any sense. My
neighbor is obsessed with dashboard idolatry and a house full of icons
and statuettes but seriously lacks any true understanding of it all.
Aside from the standard divinity rhetoric and casual droppings of
scriptural tidbits there is a huge void. My responses are as usual in
that getting up in the morning and just living should be enough; do I
really need to have a religion? Can't I just live without it? I can,
I do and I'm much happier without it.
> ...
>
> read more »
fiddler
belief that the entire universe, containing billions of galaxies, was
not made specifically for earthbound humans.
On Dec 31, 12:45 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »
Anna White
Sure, I'll concede that, in some circumstances, uncontrollable factors
may limit an individual's potential (hereditary issues and the like).
But it seems to me that the disparity in most situations arises from
different individual reactions to the question of relevance--some .
And to provide better answers about relevance or even persuade an
individual that such answers exist--this falls short of force, I
think. Not wanting to learn arises from the absence of a reason to
have that desire, and most explanations are superficial and unrelated
to the material under consideration. Forcing someone to care isn't
what I am considering, only working out why some do care, an argument
that, once examined, might be explained and extended beyond those whom
it currently motivates. I do not believe that the contemplative drive
that some possess is necessarily innate, so might it not be encouraged
to develop if its origins were determined in greater detail than they
currently are?
Anna
> ...
>
> read more »
archytas
Humans are not necessarily Earthbound Fidd. Relativity might provide
an escape and is compatible with atheism. I have no idea what we are
doing on this rock and can cope without knowing, though I'd rather it
turns out there was some purpose in making an effort. The term
'godforsaken' applies rather well to economics and most organised
religion. The wit in Fidd's definition is not lost on me.
Thought, in the Kantian sublime, can destablise anything, whether
religious, philosophical or scientific. Thinking of an experiment to
measure the one way speed of light in vacuum is an example that puts
Special Relativity to the potential sword - though I can do nothing
further with it. I might one day wander out in madness claiming to
have met god. No one has previously convinced me they have and I seem
to live in a history and present in which such claimants are mad,
after something or excusing war crimes like Moses in Numbers 31 or the
vile Blair or suicide bomber. Some of the maddest religionists I met
were Iranian Marxists.
Orn has just posted some links to a young woman who seems rather
profoundly religionist in telling her audience of 'great works' in
using science to stop old women being killed as witches (they kill
children too). We used to hang our own (I think there are only three
recorded burnings in the UK).
What we often agree on in here is that we should be trying to do the
'right things' (much as Orn's young lady). Much as we might want not
to be dogmatic, the 'wrong things' often make us so. I am often as
full of it as anyone else, but I hope not as rotten as many. I try to
be critical and nurturing with my grandson, much as I have with
students and as I rather fail with myself. I suspect politically
correct white liberalism is racist or at least colonialist because it
hasn't spotted its own 'superiority'. I'm a scientist, yet think the
world's problems are religious in nature and will have answers (if any
come) that are about spiritual agreement. This said, the major
blockages are ignorance, vested interests including religious ones and
a lack of open law and order. Religion and politics both play on fear
and ignorance. Science's great problem is failing to recognise most
are deprived of any way of knowing much if any of it and pretending
this can be done through education most could not benefit from because
it cannot free itself without recognising it is replete with values,
senses of purpose and ancient corruptions. Religions have noticed
this about themselves from time to time, but default easily to a
business as usual that underlies human society (but need not). Orn's
young feminist has not noticed we are all still killing 'demons' and
rationalising what we do against dogma of one kind or another. The
religion-atheism debate might look at itself from a point at which it
could see decent people divided and ruled.
> ...
>
> read more »
fiddler
Frederick Douglass!
> ...
>
> read more »
fiddler
noticed my contrarian tendencies. Especially I think that racism on
BOTH the right and left need excised from current politics.
> Science's great problem is failing to recognise most
> are deprived of any way of knowing much if any of it and pretending
> this can be done through education most could not benefit from because
> it cannot free itself without recognising it is replete with values,
> senses of purpose and ancient corruptions.
The problem here, as I see it, is that there is indeed a war being
waged between ants and humans...errr... excuse me... faith and
science. Whether or not ants declare war matters little, humans excel
at the destructions of smaller and/or inferior life forms. It is a
talent that does not require thought. As ants...errr faith... continue
this moronic war, science barely recognises such a war is even
occurring.
This is the heart of the problem, scientists recognise the inherent
truth of gravity while creationists continue to insist it is
impossible unless a creator forces gravity upon us. If you think I'm
exaggerating, you need to read some of the nonsense that christian
"scientists" propose. Hovind is the posterboy for scientific
illiteracy, yet from prison he still influences creationists. The
website that "proved" my "dogmatic" views used several of his
arguments, each founded in a "belief" that science cannot be proven
true. Because scientists know that these opinions on the veracity of
evidence matter not the slightest bit in the realm of reality, they do
not "attack" back. This, unfortunately, is one of the causes of a
largely, and scientifically, stupid western society.
Just for shits and giggles, please look up Hovinds views on the outer
earth ice shell, it should cure any thinking person of ever
contemplating creationists to be intelligent designs.
> and ignorance. Religions have noticed
> ...
>
> read more »
ornamentalmind
belief that the entire universe, containing billions of galaxies, was
Wow! Thanks Ken. I hadn’t heard that one before. Although I don’t
recall ever hearing an atheist make such a claim, perhaps you are
implying it underlies much thought? ….difficult to tell. To date, the
apparently unassailable memes of many online atheists I’ve read are
much more focused, simpler and limited in scope than such a global
commentary. Of course, it is all too possible that I feel a tugging at
my pants cuff…yes, yes…that’s the ticket! Oh, wait…I sense an
experiment coming up with something…uhhh…right….its…its….42!!!
fiddler
uttered...lmao.
I would, on a serious note, like to wish everyone a grand, new year.
May it be full of enlightenment and contain for you the possibility
that every known philosophy is wrong. There is not a single one of you
that is not a worthwhile human, and I stand, ultimately, for each of
you to be the absolute best you can be.
I adore the give and take of discussion, and if anyone feels
otherwise, I ask you to read what I write. I do try to intersperse my
declarations with tongue-in-cheek statements that poke fun at myself.
I look forward to a year of becoming acquainted with each of you much
better, as well as your individual concepts of reality.
On a separate note: I'm not sure what the "42" meant, yet I often use
that number in my example of theism vs. atheism. My example: Religion
is the art of convincing masses that 4+2 =42. Atheism is the practise
of taking the resulting 6-pack and sharing life with a friend. =-)
> ...
>
> read more »
ornamentalmind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy
And, on a more personal note Ken, even though it has been the year
5570 for a while now, happy new year to you and your Christian
counting system! ;-)
One more Q…do you take down your Christmas tree with the angel on the
top on January 1? Or are you visiting someone else’s house here?
http://smalldosesofsense.blogspot.com/
fiddler
a suitable replacement. The one you see there is my in-laws. I truly
enjoy Christmas, we do in fact celebrate every aspect of the holiday
other than Christ's Mass. I took down the Christmas tree today, as it
happens.
I keep track of calender time according to the "C.E." system, which of
course means "current era." The Jewish calender is terribly against
the grain of modern society, which is why the state of Israel
recognises the A.D. or C.E. calender in addition to it's own. The
whole of science found the need for one standard calender and this was
the largest game in town, as it were. Even the beleaguered students in
Iran
---WHICH BY THE WAY, NEED ALL THE SUPPORT AVAILABLE. PLEASE TURN YOUR
YOUTUBE AND OTHER MESSAGING/UPLOADING SITE ICONS GREEN TO SHOW
SUPPORT!!--
use the C.E. calender.
And thank you, I feel terrible for not recognising the reference now.
That was of course something that I should have known. Doug Adams was
a person that I held in great esteem. He is missed and his work
deserves remembrance...I stand abashed at my neglect...
On Dec 31, 11:26 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Re: 42
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_t...
>
> And, on a more personal note Ken, even though it has been the year
> 5570 for a while now, happy new year to you and your Christian
> counting system! ;-)
>
> One more Q…do you take down your Christmas tree with the angel on the
> top on January 1? Or are you visiting someone else’s house here?http://smalldosesofsense.blogspot.com/
> ...
>
> read more »
frantheman
On 1 Jan., 07:31, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just for shits and giggles, please look up Hovinds views on the outer
> earth ice shell, it should cure any thinking person of ever
> contemplating creationists to be intelligent designs.
>
Oh my, thanks for ruining my morning, fiddler ;-) This guy makes Homer
Simpson look like a genius. At least he's locked up at the moment. Now
if someone could just lose the key ...
Francis
archytas
once a crusader on the science side, mainly in reaction to the
dreadful lies of the Xtianity which was professed around me. There
was a bit more to this. I disliked school subjects that required me
to learn 'facts' without teaching me how to work out answers from some
kind of principles. I had rejected Xtianity by 12 and got my Dad to
write to school to get me out of RE. I had long been bunking Sunday
School to play soccer. I don't think I have ever recovered from the
dangerous lies I was told about Xtianity and have since found other
religions equally vapid. It's pretty obvious they all do much the
same things, often in almost identical manners. Yet science, in
practice, shares much with religions. I'd say this is hardly
surprising as all are human practices. It was not science that broke
me away from the chains of illusion, but vile contradictions in
religions themselves and the people practising them. In the recent
'Generation Kill', US Marines broadly see religion as 'gay' (in the
Cartman sense), the pastors as extra, unarmed bodies to care for (food
is short, presumably 'Stolen By Haliburton') and I along with that (I
mean quite literally, in the sense I see things in gay society that
remind me of priests and vicars - a kind of celebration of the phoney,
the campness and 'living lies'). We humans are very odd once off on
one in ritual. I see much the same 'things' at work in gay clubs as
rugby clubs, churches, Mosques, Synagogues - wherever humans play the
games of their forms of life. If 3 out of 4 women would recommend Max
Factor in the West (one doubts their research was any more scrupulous
than asking cat owners what their cats like to eat after giving the
cats a choice between Whiskas and ground glass), and half the women in
Bahrain want to retain the 'Shroud' (it's less), we might start
thinking make-up and black cloth bag preferences have something to do
with the societies people live in and have been conditioned by. I
have generally worked by 'going native', but generally found I do not
want to break with my basic values or justify anything from the very
different value systems I have witnessed. I am revolted by people who
exploit others and cannot find a basic moral code - and guess I am
still "religious" even if I can describe some cell chemistry in great
detail and most of how relativity comes about, including Einstein but
not fixated on him as the myth is.
Science does rely on evidence rather than 'piss and wind' stories told
by camp-fires or scratched in stone. Yet what is this evidence and
who decides, through what means (what 'court' one might ask) we have
evidence? This is not as clear as some might like - but we can also
ask why it "should" be clear - an overhang of religion may be
responsible for this. Science in principle is open to anyone's
evidence, though in practice it is not. We can generally get open
demonstration of science, though by no means always. And who is open
to the demonstration? Some guy who has barely learned to beat his
wife with the recommended width of stick? Or the guy who understands
how the spectrometer works? No doubt Orn and I can both demonstrate
that lead carbonate changes colour on heating, but how does he
demonstrate the 'light beyond self' and why does every miracle
miraculously never happen again (and more importantly to a scientist,
why do people make fools of themselves over and over in 'belief')?
We would have to go on and on to even begin to get the main points on
the table, let alone contain my friend's 'rays' on the bench in some
superfluid colder than a Bose-Einstein Condensate. Bill can tell us
how 'the light' comes and much of contemplation. I would probably
come up with some observation-based stuff about how religion works
based on Whitehead and a range of stuff we know about delusions. We
are not at war in such matters if we can retain a spirit of enquiry
and I believe it is this we have so little grasp of.
ornamentalmind
Not sure about the ‘beyond self’ part…however, the experiment is
available, has been repeated countless times by at least hundreds if
not thousands of people. Those who wish to explore and examine such
things can easily duplicate it. Well, ‘easily’ may be a bit of an
overstatement, but almost.
I have no idea when it comes to ‘miracles’ though…yet, beliefs and all
aspects of mind/psyche are addressed in the academy. Again, for those
who wish to explore such things…so, yes, “enquiry” in the true spirit
of Sophia *is* little understood today let alone used.
> > Francis- Hide quoted text -
archytas
devices in this experiment only raise a smile.
fiddler
lives science.
He explains well and clearly, at least I find it so.
http://www.youtube.com/user/C0nc0rdance#p/u/17/WqznURlEWI0
On Dec 31 2009, 10:38 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »
ornamentalmind
science is built upon the dogmatic foundation of evidence. As we all
know, there is nothing wrong with evidence per se. However, when it
comes to things ontological, to set up a false dichotomy between
theology and science…well, one gets just that result…one that can see
nothing else other than one pole or the other. While an interesting
juxtaposition and an instructive viewpoint for debate purposes, it
leaves out almost entirely the human experience. One ‘side’ is clouded
by fanciful, unexamined and dogmatic memes which require the use of a
shoe horn when it comes to the nature of reality. The same is true of
the other which, of course blithefully goes along not noticing the
blinders worn while in the lab that are being left on while examining
that for which current day scientific dogmatic methodology, self
admitted and proudly to boot, is ill equipped to shed any light upon
at all. This in no way suggests that those in lab coats cannot try
using the shoehorn of evidence when it comes to the arts, sociology,
psychology, epistemology, ontology, religion, philosophy in general
etc. but those not indoctrinated in the sect of materialism are much
better equipped to see, know and experience these and other areas of
the human experience than those who feel the need to rely upon an
epistemology methodology that is so limited in this arena.
So, in short, I agree that religion has no place in a biology class.
And, agree that comparative religion classes are of equal value when
it comes to preparing youth with necessary information. Yet both short
change us all when it comes to learning and wisdom. Looking at the
light emitted by stars long dead and understanding current day
theories about light speed is fine too. However it in no way tells the
entire story (let alone what light actually is!). Reading history
books that repeat the same old and tired utterances of the victors is
almost as useful. In all of these cases, one merely has acquired a bag
of beliefs with little to no actual examination. Of course, doing so
does help one to be able to adapt to the interchange within a society
although precious little else. Neil finds the pub an enlightening
venue for such things.
Back to the video that is peppered with fallacies too.** In one breath
‘science exists under the tyranny of evidence’ quickly followed by
‘there is no dogma in science’! At least it does admit that “…science
is not interested in ultimate realities, in explanations of meaning or
purpose.” Further, it does admit that ‘all science is reduced to
accurate model building’. One wonders if science addresses linguistics
or not…not really because it doesn’t. When one says, as the video
does, that science is objective on the one hand and then later that it
is not interested in ultimate realities, the entire lack of
involvement of emotions let alone mind as such itself is evident as is
the lack of interest in things ontological. Now, it is unfair to
criticize a self proclaimed and defined methodology for not being more
than it claims to be. This is a given. Of course, the same can be said
of theology. Those who wish theology to be scientific are imposing
something upon it for which it is also ill suited.
“We have no room in our world for unsupported views.” – also found in
the video is said with almost an arrogant and self righteous tone. In
fact, the use of ‘our world’ would imply such a ‘special’ grouping.
Again, there is nothing at all wrong with looking for support of one’s
views…in fact, such a pursuit is always intriguing at worst! And,
skeptics will assail all associated assumptions. And, the best and
most honest scientists admit to knowing precious little. Neil is
exemplary in this fashion often spouting how little we know…I am often
reminded of a similar atheist words and views. One set perhaps you
both would be attracted to is:
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1990----.htm
Yet, when it comes to pure skepticism…a fiddler’s adherence to
capitalism may cloud the full examination of such things as:
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm
** While not wonderful examples, these point us in the right
direction.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#fast
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#begging
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#they_say
On Jan 2, 10:18 pm, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A better source than a creationist site, by someone who knows and
> lives science.
> He explains well and clearly, at least I find it so.http://www.youtube.com/user/C0nc0rdance#p/u/17/WqznURlEWI0
Ash
education and society. The majority of education (as I've seen in the
US) is a meaningless hodgepodge of memorization standards and
conservative agendas, and that's not getting started on the
ineffectiveness of society at large to promote the student along their
way. My deepest gratitude for anyone who tries BTW.
Communication, in an radically reduced fashion may be expressed as: In
it we seek to be both at the same place and time.
That dialogue might be seen as an intimate state, with a fixed stare
on sympathy for another's personal experience. It takes a clear line
of communication, built on free expression and often a huge investment
in definition (conversation) to get to the root of personal
experience. The larger domains are of shared experience, the largest
and most rigorously tested/defined being scientific. The benefit of
science is its massive definitions and transparently rational
communication.
Ignorance seems a privilege. But if we could level the playing field
with powerful communication techniques toward those ends we might
begin to operate within a much broader cultural dialogue. We may
become navigators of a theatre of faceted actors. One day even the
concepts of Marvin the Martian, relativism, and the looking glass will
be rudimentary tools mastered by children (as the norm, one can
hope).
I recently read an unfinished paper that personally provided a bit of
insight into those workings. Not yet integrated into my broader
understanding but here nonetheless, Levels of Mind
http://www.knowledgetreeproject.org/book/levelsofmind.pdf.I think it's
right up that alley, reads like a journey!
Godspeed to us all
Best Regards,
Ash
On Dec 31 2009, 6:38 pm, Anna White <lady.and.scho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »
Vamadevananda
hodgepodge of memorization standards and conservative agendas, and
that's not getting started on the ineffectiveness of society at large
to promote the student along their way."
Watch 3 Idiots, a movie that might move you as much as entertain. If
it's released in an audi close to where you live or work.
> understanding but here nonetheless, Levels of Mindhttp://www.knowledgetreeproject.org/book/levelsofmind.pdf.Ithink it's
> ...
>
> read more »
Molly
> > understanding but here nonetheless, Levels of Mindhttp://www.knowledgetreeproject.org/book/levelsofmind.pdf.Ithinkit's
> ...
>
> read more »
Molly
is an interesting examination of consciousness, although I can't say
that I agree. What it has to do with educational standards, I am not
sure, except to say that I agree that our kids should be taught more
than regurgitation of facts. How to access information, how to
organize information, how to formulate ideas, how to memorize, how to
communicate, group dynamics, how to negotiate, cultural diversity are
all skills some schools teach well and others not at all here in the
US. If parents don't have these skills, they are unable themselves to
pass them along to children. Schools are constrained my finances,
time limits and state and federal mandates. Even with these
constraints, many schools manage to do a fine job of preparing our
kids for life, while others do not. We have a long way to go, and
have come a long way too.
> understanding but here nonetheless, Levels of Mindhttp://www.knowledgetreeproject.org/book/levelsofmind.pdf.Ithink it's
> ...
>
> read more »
archytas
my use of pubs. Behind their myth, they are broadly places of trauma,
sad souls licking wounds, one site in many to witness the wrongs of a
world with little enchantment, to serve penance and wait for the end.
One could choose churches, but chemical Interbrew is easy to swallow
than hypocrisy. My pub (actually I now have none) was once full of
academics trying to re-establish dignity after a week forcing Vam's
curriculum down throats of would-be millionaire 'entrepreneurs' with
dreams of opening an individualistic coffee franchise to join the
elite priests of Capitalist Paradise. We used to save a few souls,
doing unpaid overtime in pastoral care (while careerists took the
allowances for the same whist doing none). Even this has gone, or at
least we have had to recognise the catalyst that kept us going for the
poison it really is. Our best thoughts of each other now are that we
were just the foot-soldiers in a losing war, clinging on for pension
and what we could find of dignity in protecting the unwary young in
the grinding retreats they thought were the final acts of victory.
> > understanding but here nonetheless, Levels of Mindhttp://www.knowledgetreeproject.org/book/levelsofmind.pdf.Ithinkit's
> ...
>
> read more »
Vamadevananda
Many of us here in the east have been raised in an environment in
which one finds it odd, even diminishing, to hear " thank you " and "
sorry " from someone known as high and close.
I saw the movie with wife and sons. And, I did not even blink, all
through. The happier thing was that millions poured in and heard the
theme : let's think by ourself, let's learn of all, of ourself, for
ourselves and others.
> ...
>
> read more »
Vamadevananda
They have a vested interest higher than that of the organisation that
employs them. Which leaves little chance of them being true
professionals.
Professional : is one with Integrity, Commitment and Capability. I do
not know if the lexicon supports the meaning !
> ...
>
> read more »
Molly
away in my heart, and do my best with it.
> ...
>
> read more »
fiddler
one who makes money from an endeavour or career.
A careerist is generally someone that finds or carves out a niche,
from which they expect to retain a professional credibility. This is
often a very biased person, one that will tie him or herself to issues
without regard to new evidence unless it supports the prior belief.
A person with commitment, integrity, or capability is most often found
in low paying careers that they maintain for the benefit of others
(think ghetto doctors, nurses, teachers, etc.), or scientists that
must alter their (sometimes) long-held opinions and beliefs when new
evidence changes the equation.
No person that maintains an attitude of "I'm right and you never will
be" can be considered to hold any of the three positive attributes you
list, in my opinion. This attitude is precisely why I see politicians
and clergy are at their most fundamental level corrupt. Any evidence
that interferes in their opinionated and self assured superiority is
to be denied, scoffed at, jailed, fired, or threatened with hell.
Sadly, this is having a severe impact on education around the world.
In the more religious countries, of which America is soon to be
considered a ranking member, whole realms of reality are being
suppressed and denied as well as these nations having no true forms
of equal rights or civil rights. The result is fewer educated males
and an attitude of unwilling tolerance at women being educated.
> ...
>
> read more »
archytas
professional class. Our societies have a nomenclature who don't live
like the rest and have become parasitic and insular. Not all of them
are equally affected, but all of them know how to close ranks in their
general interest.
> ...
>
> read more »
ornamentalmind
sad souls licking wounds, one site in many to witness the wrongs of a
– archy
Perhaps because I tended bar at a gay pub, the projected ‘mood’ was a
tad bit more…well, gay. Although, the underlying ‘trauma’ of those
reduced to an omnipresent life therein is well documented…primarily by
my broken nose.
archytas
interested in becoming an Anglican Bishop. In conversations with an
old friend, the terms 'going down the pub' and 'doing anthropology'
are more or less interchangeable. There was a time when the pub was a
place you might change before and after cricket, rugby and soccer, eat
hotpot, show hospitality to the opposition. Now one would slide
downwards from the gutter into most. The really great places were the
recreation clubs of big firms where you could play in almost first-
class conditions, dozens of games, families, controlled prices, a bell
at 9 p.m. to send the kids home (or was it really the wives?). A
journeyman like me got to play with the best, and every now and then a
magnificent amateur side rolled over the best (been on both sides of
that). Even table-tennis down the YMCA - a truly gay experience!
Strangely, I think table-tennis issued the first warning of what was
to come, with obsessive Chinese practising 8 hours a day, Teflon bats
to counter their spin and points gleaned by the server after the ball
had crossed the net 245 times (a Swede was world champion at that
time, the game no doubt used to hone the skills of their notoriously
boring business people). All gone. In rugby league, the social clubs
funded the semi-pro players, until the Aussies allowed one-armed
bandits into theirs and turned fully pro.
The pubs and clubs used to restrict alcohol rather well. Now, amidst
moral political humbug, the supermarkets advertise enough booze for
$20 to get two younger versions of me as drunk as a skunk for two
days, or enough for $100 in a week to cost the NHS thousands a year
for as long as they can keep a vegetable alive. Tesco and the rest
are not expected to fund the NHS, but toss a few pennies at
'responsible drinking' charities. Now, even as a 'social experiment'
in understanding some of the culture, we could not walk the length of
Main Street in most British towns without disgust at the depravity and
violence, where once there was some (admittedly rough) live local
music, comedy, poetry and other character. There were even
restaurants run by the people who did the cooking. Now we would have
to do the experimental work viewing CCTV footage. And it's worse than
this sounds. There is no place for social intercourse, as there was
in the old territory. There is a weird business model in place, as
everything other than violent boozing moves out of town. Alcoholism
is on the rise just as there is nowhere worth having a drink. Now I
shall never be able to become a pub-brawler like Bill - will I be able
to bear the shame!
> ...
>
> read more »
Lee
dislikes that have manifested themslves as 'certian knowledge'. You
see as I have said, we all do this.
Lets take this as an example:
'it is the very nature of religion to need control over it's
subscribers.'
This does not constituet proof at all and is just a re-wording of your
original statements. You have made a statement and not showed me the
evidance to back this up, merely rehased your statement, isn't this
circular logic?
Can you show me any mechanisim that allows all 'relgions' to control
their subscribers?
Do you mean that agreeing to live life as per religious rules(dogma)
is in some fashion controling?
Isn't that like saying, because I am a law abiding citersen then the
state controls me?
The thing with this is, I can of course brake any law, that is my
desicion to make, and although I may have to pay the price for
brakeing the law, the threat of such a price need not detere me. In
other words, niether the state nor the law has control over my
actions, only I have that.
In a similar fashion, I have recently cut my hair, and trimmed my
beard. This is against the dogma of my own faith, yet I went right
ahead anyway. So in this case religious dogma certianly has not
managed to control me.
You infomation is sadly incorrect I'm afriad. The Christains were
certianly not the first with a concept of an ominpotent creative
diety.
As to violence or the the threat of violence towards the unbeliver,
yes there is a massive amount of history there for both Islam and
Christianty, but relying on what is really old, old, history to back
up your ideas NOW, is slightly mad isn't it?
Fear, well that too can be used to control, but yet again, if you do
not give way to fear then it really cannot be used to control you.
The gist of this boils down to a question I asked a few months back.
Is it possible to 'force' anybody into saying or doing something that
they do not wish to do. My answer was a clear no, as I posit that at
the exact time you say or do this action, then you have made your mind
up, and so you say or do in accordance with your own will.
However all that you have mentioned here is applicable to any form of
governing body, goverment, clubs, armed forces, employment. Would you
then agree that this control you speak of is prevelant throughout
society and on many levels?
Almost done bear with me. Remember that my only reason for engaging
you thus, is to highlight that the charges you level at religion, are
also applicable elsewhere, and that your issues(with religion) do not
stem from a place of 'reason' other wise you would be speaking in a
similar manor about all sorts.
No my freind you have a bee in your bonet about religion (for whatever
reasons) and really that is fine and cool with me, but please sir,
religion is just an idea, and like all other ideas, some will agree
with it and some will not, but to state blantantly that religion
causes people to be 'unthinking' is frankly not a 'reasonable' thing
to say, and highlighs ones own 'unthinking' attitudes.
For what it is worth, I know this may appear to be having a go at you,
it is not, I have exactly the same thing going on when it comes to
bigotry, ohhh ohh and the whole gun issue and abortion.
I realise that some of my belifes are not 'reasonable' what I say is,
neither are some of yours, and this is quite normal.
> > > > > > On Dec 26, 10:57 pm, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Everything intrigues me. From the method of molecules combining, to
> > > > > > > the vastest expanses of space; I am interested. Biology, chemistry,
> > > > > > > geology, genetics, water tables, the aborigines of Australia, the
> > > > > > > composition of asteroids, tidal flows, diamond distribution, human
> > > > > > > rights, Shakespearean tragedies, the breeding habits of piranha; all
> > > > > > > of this I will study and learn.
>
> > > > > > > My wife asked me why I need so many textbooks. "You aren't even taking
> > > > > > > these courses!" She yells.
> > > > > > > "But there is so damn much I don't know yet!" This is the only reply
> > > > > > > that I can give.
>
> > > > > > > I wish I could share this enthusiasm with everyone, and I will indeed
> > > > > > > try, even if only with one person at a time. The other night I was
> > > > > > > talking with my wife about a scientist who has a theory regarding
> > > > > > > black holes and the possibility of them jump-starting new universes
> > > > > > > with the singularities that form inside of them. As I explained some
> > > > > > > of the prevailing theories and the physics behind them, I felt myself
> > > > > > > becoming flushed with excitement. This is life! Discussion, learning,
> > > > > > > theory, application of intellect; these concepts are the best of human
> > > > > > > capability and what every human should be pursuing. Unfortunately,
> > > > > > > there are people that refuse to allow you the option to learn and grow
> > > > > > > and feel this excitement.
>
> > > > > > > Whenever I see a perfectly good mind wasted on religion, I feel a deep
> > > > > > > and abiding sadness. These people voluntarily surrender their
> > > > > > > intellectual capacity; nothing is more anathema to investigation and
> > > > > > > learning than the idea "I already know what I'm supposed to know." The
> > > > > > > established religions know this and have throughout recorded history
> > > > > > > insured an ignorant and enslaved membership primarily through
> > > > > > > demonising knowledge and those that pursue it, while simultaneously
> > > > > > > creating all sorts of "hells" and "eternal punishments" that a person
> > > > > > > will enter if they violate dogma. The whole of the dark ages was held
> > > > > > > forcefully back from innovation in medicine, culture, mechanics,
> > > > > > > science, etc., the most common method of enforcement being the murder
> > > > > > > of the intelligent or those who associated with them. Sadly, there is
> > > > > > > a rise in these ignorant and disgusting theists that seek to keep
> > > > > > > others in the dark. Many point to Islam as the example when I say
> > > > > > > this, and yet American fundamentalist Christians are equally bad.
> > > > > > > There is a group -not exactly a group as each faction has them, but
> > > > > > > yet similar in stupidity- that is referred to as creationists. the
> > > > > > > most despicable of these being the "young earth" variety. I despair my
> > > > > > > children ever knowing scientific curiosity outside the home if these
> > > > > > > people get their wish to replace science textbooks with the
> > > > > > > superstitions of bronze age goat herders.
>
Lee
surly be up to the individual.
This though seems a little odd, and again rather like an
unsubstanciated belife of yours:
'.....people relegate their lives to the beliefs, dogma and dictates
of others'
I mean do you do this yourself? If not then perhaps you should have
said some people?
On 31 Dec 2009, 22:41, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The human dilemma is that of needing the seeing eye dog in life for
> all that is invisible or not easily understood, ergo, people relegate
> their lives to the beliefs, dogma and dictates of others. A secondary
> resultant of this need is the creation of visible gods in physical and
> material form. From totems, holy rocks to sports, movie and rock
> stars the world is full of imagery representative of a belief. No one
> sees angels, devils or gods but the world is full of pictorial
> representations and iconic figures which in some obscure sense
> substantiates their existence. I've had experience with apparitions
> but assigning them a religious affiliation doesn't make any sense. My
> neighbor is obsessed with dashboard idolatry and a house full of icons
> and statuettes but seriously lacks any true understanding of it all.
> Aside from the standard divinity rhetoric and casual droppings of
> scriptural tidbits there is a huge void. My responses are as usual in
> that getting up in the morning and just living should be enough; do I
> really need to have a religion? Can't I just live without it? I can,
> I do and I'm much happier without it.
>
> On Dec 31, 3:59 pm, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well, it's a good thing that this nonsense, fallacy filled,
> > creationist site was there to show me the error of my ways...
> > > > On Dec 31, 10:38 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Yes, dogma exists…
>
> > > > >http://www.the-reality-check.com/Dogma.html
>
Ash
Please excuse the malformed URL, it was for Anna since she expressed
an interest in the subject. I hadn't read anything quite like that
before and considered it a contribution.
I don't fool myself to be a professional in the field of psychology,
and would like to hear more about your disagreement with the paper. It
lended greater access to my prior knowledge in a broader perspective,
at various points many practical examples were running through my
mind. I tend to like those more, as they offer a greater sense of
empowerment. :)
Best Regards,
Ash
> > understanding but here nonetheless, Levels of Mindhttp://www.knowledgetreeproject.org/book/levelsofmind.pdf.Ithinkit's
> ...
>
> read more »
Ash
spirit in many ways. I agree with your entire post, and would have to
add that I have a strongly spiritual side (a mad jumble of various
meditative and romantic perspectives). On that note, I find myself
agreeing with much of what is said in this group and am inspired
often.
I think you are getting close to the importance of an educated
populace in this work and would like to add for consideration.
Hopefully more interesting than baffling this time.
Much of my opinion regarding US education is based on personal
experience, each of the sociological institutions failed me miserably
and I've seen many others failed. I dont believe I'm coming from some
position of utopian idealism here when I say, it need NOT be so.
The dispassionate part of me says, "survival of the fittest" and
"sacrifice of the few for the many" but that journey ends there...
However the compassionate part is enraged by the decadent arrogance of
social darwinism, to let so many fall through the cracks, knowingly
turning away from human beings being reduced to animal-like states of
existence.
Excuse the pop-reference but sometimes it makes me want to yell, "I'm
mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" in outrage to the
whole ridiculous, pointless drama.
We should lay out a plan, put it in action, and as obstacles present
themselves mark them down for what (or who) they are. I'm not
promoting myself here, you wouldn't want someone with a fractured
sense of identity out there taking names and cracking heads, who knows
where it would (should?) end.
What I think we need is to implement systems of merit, from the ground
up. If it merits the collective to invest qualitatively in the
individual, then invest. There seems to be a lot of wasted potential
in retirement homes, unemployment and such, why not reallocate the
wealth from going to prisons and apply it to mentorship for our
youths, especially the at-risk ones. Why not provide some meaning in
classroom curriculum rather than preparing for a life of
disappointment? Norms and status-quos, why not an exceptional
standard?? The education system should be propelling them forward, not
resigning them to a life of idiot savant taskwork.
We need meritocratically elected, well-informed representatives who
are held responsible for deviating from the best proposed solutions-
Not selling us out financially/intellectually to a feudal estate
system and sensationalised mob mentality.
I think we should demand this from ourselves and our leaders. I think
we have all the tools needed, we need a unifying vision. There is a
place for us all at that table, I think.
Best Regards,
Ash
On Dec 26 2009, 11:57 pm, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Everything intrigues me. From the method of molecules combining, to
> the vastest expanses of space; I am interested. Biology, chemistry,
> geology, genetics, water tables, the aborigines of Australia, the
> composition of asteroids, tidal flows, diamond distribution, human
> rights, Shakespearean tragedies, the breeding habits of piranha; all
> of this I will study and learn.
>
> My wife asked me why I need so many textbooks. "You aren't even taking
> these courses!" She yells.
> "But there is so damn much I don't know yet!" This is the only reply
> that I can give.
>
> I wish I could share this enthusiasm with everyone, and I will indeed
> try, even if only with one person at a time. The other night I was
> talking with my wife about a scientist who has a theory regarding
> black holes and the possibility of them jump-starting new universes
> with the singularities that form inside of them. As I explained some
> of the prevailing theories and the physics behind them, I felt myself
> becoming flushed with excitement. This is life! Discussion, learning,
> theory, application of intellect; these concepts are the best of human
> capability and what every human should be pursuing. Unfortunately,
> there are people that refuse to allow you the option to learn and grow
> and feel this excitement.
>
> Whenever I see a perfectly good mind wasted on religion, I feel a deep
> and abiding sadness. These people voluntarily surrender their
> intellectual capacity; nothing is more anathema to investigation and
> learning than the idea "I already know what I'm supposed to know." The
> established religions know this and have throughout recorded history
> insured an ignorant and enslaved membership primarily through
> demonising knowledge and those that pursue it, while simultaneously
> creating all sorts of "hells" and "eternal punishments" that a person
> will enter if they violate dogma. The whole of the dark ages was held
> forcefully back from innovation in medicine, culture, mechanics,
> science, etc., the most common method of enforcement being the murder
> of the intelligent or those who associated with them. Sadly, there is
> a rise in these ignorant and disgusting theists that seek to keep
> others in the dark. Many point to Islam as the example when I say
> this, and yet American fundamentalist Christians are equally bad.
> There is a group -not exactly a group as each faction has them, but
> yet similar in stupidity- that is referred to as creationists. the
> most despicable of these being the "young earth" variety. I despair my
> children ever knowing scientific curiosity outside the home if these
> people get their wish to replace science textbooks with the
> superstitions of bronze age goat herders.
>
> minute segments... when the people even bother to watch an informative
> program which is rare in these days of "Bachelors", "Survivors",
> "Simpsons", and Oprah.
>
> There is little hope that people will throw off their shackles, as the
> "need" for these shackles is pounded into us from infancy. There are
> only two important actions that I see being successful, even showing
> immediate results. The first is to turn off your televisions and get
> moving, into anything. discover interests by actually doing and you
> have the ability to mentor and spark a child's interest by doing.
> Activity is an extremely important factor in education and gaining
> knowledge, a factor that all too many people never learn about growing
> up with a television as a baby sitter.
> The second is also easy and is an equally crucial step that every
> thinking non-zombieist (and even most zombieists) needs to undertake
> immediately: vote against superstition being taught anywhere but a
> mythology/theology course! It doesn't even matter if you happen to be
> a theist, you MUST oppose the attempts to add any religion to any
> class in school other than those specifically designed for teaching/
> comparing mythology and religion. If you are shortsighted enough to
> want your own religion taught in school, please realise that it won't
> be the only creation myth taught and that eventually your children
> will lose any hope of learning the basic mechanics of maintaining our
> society. They will be far too busy learning about how wrong every
> other group is to understand even basic mathematical and scientific
> concepts, which by the way is close to the current state of America.
>
> Hopefully more people will take both actions and this country and
> world will move forward, out of the new dark ages that so many
> politicians and creationists hope to force upon us. Even the simplest
> and most devout followers of either group can make a difference, just
> ask "how" once in a while.
fiddler
said "prove they don't."
It is in the nature of the beast, but no matter what example I give,
you will present a separate one.
A friend of mine had 13 sheep and 2 cattle die in the span of half a
year to a predatory wolf. When I explained that this wolf was rogue
and that the nature of wolves was to run in packs and away from fenced
land, he actually drew a gun on me for "defending the vicious,
disgusting beasts."
You have decided otherwise and good luck to you, but I will not engage
in an idiotic argument that demands proof of the founding principles
or concepts for a particular topic. Religion requires obedience to
dogma and doctrine, when such obedience is not forthcoming the sword
provides impetus (do not protest that guns are preferred over
swords...).
> ...
>
> read more »
fiddler
>certianly not the first with a concept of an ominpotent creative
>diety.
Actually, I am correct. An omnipotent deity never existed until
christianity proclaimed one. There were gods of creation, gods of
death, gods of thunder, etc., but no omnipotent god. The jewish god
(which is commonly mistaken to be similar in form to christian
concept) was one that was DEFINITELY not omnipotent. Please read the
bible, you'll notice times that he didn't think ahead to the future
(eve), couldn't over power a mortal(wrestling), didn't foresee his
people as belligerent(golden calf among hundreds of examples),
wantonly destructive (hardening pharaohs heart simply to kill more
people), unable to distinguish his own tribe( passover blood),
forgetful(rainbows are to remind HIM of his promise not US), etc.
On Jan 4, 5:18 am, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »
Lee
Let us remind ourselves of just what has gone here, the abridged
version.
You: All religious people are idiots and religon turns people into
unthinking louts due to the control over them that it excirsies.
Me: Is that a rational conclusion you have reached or a belife of
yours without rationality behind it? Would you show me your proofs
that led you to this conclusion?
You: The proof is that religion DOES seek to control it's adherenats.
Me: Isn't that a circular argument? Help me out I do not understand
your POV. Do you mean that Dogma is rules and by obeying rules we are
then controled? If that is the case then why procliam only about
religon when any body of people also gives us rules to live by. I
gave several examples.
You: I aint playin'.
Come on now my freind, your initial start here was basicly one of
rationality vs irraltionality, yet when I ask you to give me examples
of the rational proofs that have led you to this conlcusion you simply
refuse to do so, why?
Let me remind you once more my intent here is niether to defend
relgion nor to have a go at you personly, I am deeply mystified how
one can preach rationality above all else and then not be able to
provide a rational reason for the statements he has made.
I think personal that for whatever reasons you just have a dislike for
religion, I really don't mind at all, the thing is I have seen exactly
the same sort of points all over the place, and I like to challenge
them wherever I encounter them, as I truley thing that all of us hold
to some beliefs not based on rational thought. In short my freind I
am attempting to get you to examine yourself a tad more. Ohhhh and
of course being a religios man, I'm certianly not going to just say
nowt when somebody ups and calls me an unthinking, controled sheep!
Molly
dogma and doctrine, when such obedience is not forthcoming the sword
provides impetus (do not protest that guns are preferred over
I have to agree with Lee and say that this is a gross generalization.
I have belonged to several churches in my life, and most of my beliefs
have developed along different lines than the church tenets. There
was never a gun or a sword raised when I presented a different view to
a group in church, and always found the priests to be willing to
listen even when they did not agree. The Catholic and Christian
community churches that I belonged to in the US over the years
encouraged dialogue on doctrine and dogma. No one ever forced me to
do or think anything that was not of my choosing. Maybe you have to
have experience belonging to a church and exercising faith to
understand this.
> ...
>
> read more »
Lee
That may well be the one I had in mind.
The thought process I was thinking of runs similar to this:
A black man once stabbed my father, therefore all black men are
stabbers.
Or to put it back into context:
Both Christianity and Islam have a history of violence towards those
who do not share the same faith, therefore all religions still
practice this.
On 31 Dec 2009, 17:36, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> “…Heh I do find it funny though, I see it all the time, everywhere,
> people using one religoin as a basis for their 'feelings' on all
> religion. Now perhaps one of our enlightend members can put a name
> to that particular fallacy as it escapes me at the moment….” – Lee
>
> Hola Lee! … without any claims to your hyperbolic attribute attributed
> to ‘us’, there are a few fallacies that might apply…often I find
> confused thinking = confused thinking!
>
> Here is at least one that might apply:
>
> (Argument by Generalization)http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#generalize
> > > > > > attentive to the debacle of incompetent leadership is key to
> > > > > > maintaining a dysfunctional government. We've become so accustomed to
> > > > > > eating sour grapes that even the taste of bitter wine seems to satiate
> > > > > > the palate. We've descended to a social caste system without the
> > > > > > obvious indicators easily seen in other countries, camouflaged by
> > > > > > houses, cars and other amenities mortgaged to the hilt with high
> > > > > > percentage loans, the duping of a class strata, cajoled into believing
> > > > > > they are not living in poverty, when in fact everything they have is
> > > > > > owned by someone else, the idea being to attach every earned penny.
> > > > > > They have achieved the collective state of complacency through
> > > > > > satisfying materialistic wants. While I don't ascribe to any
> > > > > > religiosity, I contend that it would be a misguiding to erase religion
> > > > > > when it might be the only thing people have left to hold onto, else
> > > > > > chaos might ensue, a maelstrom of nihilistic bedlam. Then again the
> > > > > > guillotines are clamoring for some action and I'm all for some heads
> > > > > > rolling, ie; heads of state and such. I think religion can be useful
> > > > > > on a small scale, contained and confined, kept within the parameters
> > > > > > of its intention and not reaching the level of the behemoth that
> > > > > > scourged the land with crusades, witch hunts and now jihads, just a
> > > > > > mechanism to let's say, keep the peace. There is much complexity in
> > > > > > all you present and much to delve into, thanks for the array of
> > > > > > thoughts.
>
Don Johnson
> "Religion requires obedience to
> dogma and doctrine, when such obedience is not forthcoming the sword
> provides impetus (do not protest that guns are preferred over
> swords...). " fiddler
>
> I have to agree with Lee and say that this is a gross generalization.
> I have belonged to several churches in my life, and most of my beliefs
> have developed along different lines than the church tenets. There
> was never a gun or a sword raised when I presented a different view to
> a group in church, and always found the priests to be willing to
> listen even when they did not agree. The Catholic and Christian
> community churches that I belonged to in the US over the years
> encouraged dialogue on doctrine and dogma. No one ever forced me to
> do or think anything that was not of my choosing. Maybe you have to
> have experience belonging to a church and exercising faith to
> understand this.
>
I support this sentiment. In fact, in my experience and talking with
others involved in Sunday School classes(AKA Bible study) discussion
is the name of the game. With a biblical and historical(most often
not the same thing) flavor, of course. Agnostics and atheists are
welcome(indeed, it is encouraged as these folks are seen as needing
ministering too) as long as they aren't rude. Personally I don't see
the attraction for a person like me participating in such. I neither
feel the need to be convinced or the need to convince on this subject.
I am content to let folks believe what they want to.
-Don
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
> To post to this group, send email to mind...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
>
>
>
Molly
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=218948&title=power---the-revenger
On Jan 5, 11:11 am, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »
fiddler
It would be interesting to hear what your definition of control is.
Threats of physical pain and eternal punishment are integral to the
abrahamic trilogy, as well as promises of rewards for good behaviour.
The catholic church still controls it's members by means of threat and
excommunication. Baptists, evangelists, adventists, etc., all promise
dire consequences for not obeying. Apostasy in islam is punishable by
what? yep, physical coercion right up front and in plain view.
When I call someone names for being religious, which I haven't yet
here, I use the term sheeple. The term is accurate for 90% of
religious people, they either blindly or under coercion follow
whatever the pastor/preacher says.
As for not pushing religion by the sword, every religion that entered
the world stage did so by force and murder, bar none. Islam is still
spread by fear and death, and in the case of most American converts in
prison, the promise of delivering such. Since it is unacceptable in
the western world to do this, the law is instead the preferred method
of force. The detestable and incredibly stupid young earth
creationists trying to get ID forced into schools is a good example.
On Jan 5, 3:15 am, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> You will not play which game?
>
> Let us remind ourselves of just what has gone here, the abridged
> version.
>
> You: and religon turns people into
> ...
>
> read more »
Molly
last spoke of them, including
#3: Debates about a person's deeply held values, beliefs, or way of
life, should be tempered with a high level of respect and civility.
These debates have been some of our most interesting over the years,
and they work, or not, based upon the level of mutual respect and
honesty extended by each side. If your motive is to ridicule members,
or spread bad feeling, please do not bother to post.
Your colorful statement "The detestable and incredibly stupid young
earth
creationists trying to get ID forced into schools is a good example. "
does not include respect and civility
and #8: Do not preach or proselytize: we are here to discuss ideas,
not be recruited to your particular religion no matter how great you
think it is or how much peril you believe our eternal souls to be in.
"The term is accurate for 90% of
religious people, they either blindly or under coercion follow
whatever the pastor/preacher says" this offensive statement is
unfounded and untrue as all of the church going folks that I know
belong to the congregation to dialogue with the community about their
spirituality and are not coerced in any form. If this is your
experience, or if you have credible statistical research to back up
your statements say so, or do not make the statements.
and #9: Do not patronise our members. The membership of Mind's Eye is
fantastically diverse in terms of members' ages, levels of education,
forms of spirituality, life experience, and professional vocations.
Even if you think you know the answer to life, the universe, and
everything, you'll be stirring all kinds of bad feeling if your tone
is smug or condescending. Assuming the role of "teacher" is often
unpopular.
"The catholic church still controls it's members by means of threat
and
excommunication." This sweeping generalization about the catholic
church is untrue. After having spent over half a century in it and
pushed most of the boundaries, I can tell you that I have never been
threatened at all, or threatened with excommunication and never known
another catholic in this situation. If you have some statistics from
a credible source about how the church does this, include them with
the statement. Otherwise, refrain from generalizing in this way that
may offend.
I encourage you again to read the entire document of the group
guidelines http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye/web/posting-guidelines
so that you understand that what we are asking you to do is operate
within them when we ask you not to generalize or make statements that
offend the values of others.
> ...
>
> read more »
gabbydott
of 7. The way fiddler is welcomed here in this group reminds me very
much of the situational disposition back then. We changed school
altogether.
> guidelineshttp://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye/web/posting-guidelines
> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »
frantheman
On 5 Jan., 19:28, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The catholic church still controls it's members by means of threat and
> excommunication.
In the interests of fairness, fiddler, I must testify - as someone who
is, according to Canon Law, formally excommunicated [it happened on
the day that I - as a Catholic (ex-)priest - married in a registry
office without any formal dispensation from the Church] - that this
has made absolutely no difference to my still-Catholic family (well,
most of them would still describe themselves as being, in some form,
Catholic :-)), friends, and indeed most of my former brethren within
the religious order of which I was a member and where I am still
received with great warm and friendliness by the vast majority when I
frequently drop in for a visit to the monastry in Dublin where I spent
seven years. Excommunication just isn't an issue for most Catholics -
the basic attitude is, "so what?"
Francis
fiddler
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/us/14priest.html
http://www.feministing.com/archives/014073.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/that_inhuman_monolith.php
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/dec/06120801.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/27/national/main3303553.shtml
http://www.hprweb.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=159:excommunication-and-the-catholic-church-by-edward-n-peters&catid=44:o-p&Itemid=55
note that rape victims, divorcees, and people who dare presume women
to not be inferior are excommunicated whereas paedophiles are
protected as a treasured resource. The level of offence one feels is
often directly related to their abilities in critical thinking.
Montaigne's view, which I definitely see as relevant.
So, where I to speak poorly of a flat-earther it wouldn't be offensive
but to criticise people that think a dimetrodon was book ended by
lions and penguins on a boat that couldn't have carried the food
supplies for those creatures alone is?
> guidelineshttp://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye/web/posting-guidelines
> ...
>
> read more »
archytas
'brute' do Gabby? Kick over the tables in the milk monitor's racket
or call his Teddy Bear after the prophet?
I occasionally grab my blind mate by the arm in traffic Fidd. This is
the height of blasphemy in PC treatment of the blind. He seems to be
able to get over my transgressions on the basis we might both get
killed waiting from him to grab mine. The Guide Dog is yet to
approach this union to launch a demarcation grievance. Politeness is
how the churches managed the cover-up.
I agree Don, though note we have cops to ensure they don't sit around
plotting holy war.
On 5 Jan, 23:37, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article78.htmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/us/14priest.htmlhttp://www.feministing.com/archives/014073.htmlhttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/that_inhuman_monolith.phphttp://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/dec/06120801.htmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/27/national/main3303553.shtmlhttp://www.hprweb.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15...
> ...
>
> read more »
James Lynch
I recently withdrew from conversation on a topic that took me for
quite a ride this yuletide. The reason was a concern that in my
insatiable seeking I might shrug my burden (as I see it) and project
it onto the minds of others. In analysing my motives it became clear
that I was seeking retribution, a primal affirmation.
In my own unending hunger for more sometimes simple truths elude and
the zealous pursuit of what one can overpowers what one ought. My
writing has been reprehensible in that sense, for lack of courage I
may knowingly commit the greater cruelty of advising one to jump ship
without a liferaft.
Orn, Molly, Fran, and Arch's (especially recent) haunting reminders of
reservedness and examples of well couched diplomacy is a rarity where
I'm from and we would do well to learn from it. Being frank is a bold
move, I think, not bad in itself but to be pursued with caution. For
fear of extinguishing good will, the demise of open communication, and
nullification of free expression.
But to share in that journey with others, I am indebted to kindness,
this I pray not to forget. My recent journey was reduced simply by
speaking with my fiancee, as always. Summarised here. With great
concern and worry:
Me: What if I've found the end of a logical discussion on meaning and
existence? I think it means that there is no meaning to life.
Her: It wouldn't bother me so much more as an atheist. (rationalizes
agnostically, believes atheistically)
Now tonight I understand on another dimension, after a little space
between me and the trauma, that in pursuing the battle heartily I lost
sight of the war. I come to acknowledge that I may know and believe
things which I do not believe in. To me 'belief in' means to invest
meaning into, an experiential world, romantic and meditative. What
authority I can demand from such, being of very little 'force' amounts
to naught, but to share and inspire as an example though there is much
more.
With a chuckle at myself I begin again, a visitor in a new place that
echoes with memories of a past self doomed to become each inspired,
disillusioned, bitter, broken, reminded then inspired again.
This is of course a narrative of my own personal experiences,
challenge me and I will defend the experience, and everyone's right to
the same. I have no doubt that you are capable of rising to the
occasion in your assertions, having done much of the research myself
and reaching many of the same conclusions. I hope you will find the
time to condescend.
Best Regards,
Ash
Molly
the subject of the statement is not taken from your own experience,
provide a credible reference that substantiates it. Orn has posted a
link several times recently that is a good reference for argument
fallacy. Using it is a very good way to understand the strengths and
weakness in our own arguments. For instance, while it is true that
pedophilia has gotten much press and is an ongoing problem in several
religious orders, most of us who follow a religion are never touched
by the issue in our lifetime. The real numbers are just not there for
you to make the statement that is so general. As Francis pointed out,
excommunication is rarely an issue in the Catholic church, and finding
a few articles about it do not lend credence to your view that all
Catholics are threatened with it as a matter of course in practicing
their faith.
You have a distinct interpretation of biblical scripture. I read the
bible very differently. Even within this group, I hear different
interpretations of biblical scripture and also opinion that it isn't
of value at all. The point is, that we are each entitled to our view
point. And in here, we are expected to present opposing viewpoints
"tempered with a high level of respect and civility." These are the
parameters that keep us going year after year and they seem to work
for us. My hope is that you can find your way with them. My
experience with this group, is that being a member is meaningful.
On Jan 5, 6:37 pm, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article78.htmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/us/14priest.htmlhttp://www.feministing.com/archives/014073.htmlhttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/that_inhuman_monolith.phphttp://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/dec/06120801.htmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/27/national/main3303553.shtmlhttp://www.hprweb.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15...
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Molly
> pedophilia has gotten much press and is an ongoing problem in several
> religious orders, most of us who follow a religion are never touched
> by the issue in our lifetime. The real numbers are just not there for
> you to make the statement that is so general."
I would also add that I certainly do find the issue of pedophilia
offensive. My point is, that in the day to day practice of the
average catholic, it is not a problem that effects their direct
experience with the church. It is not used to control the majority of
practicing catholics. This does not mean that in the basic human
rights of the victims, like any victim of this crime, are not
violated. It is certainly a problem and one that has been discussed
in this group, and Francis has given us great insight into the ongoing
disclosure and trials in Ireland on the matter.
> >http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article78.htmhttp://www.nytime......
> ...
>
> read more »
frantheman
I'm addressing you personally here because I genuinely like a lot of
what you post, have a lot of respect for your learning and intellect,
and because I am in agreement with you on many issues.
Honestly, we don't really need passionate broadsides against all
things religious here. A lot of the regular posters are atheistic or
agnostically inclined anyway, and many (most) of the others are
pretty ... er, eclectic, heretical, unconventional, call it what you
will, with respect to the "religious" traditions into which one might,
very tentatively, classify them! We do get the odd ranting
fundamentalist here, but they generally don't tend to hang around too
long. You don't need to set up straw men for us and then proceed to
knock them down. If you're really into flame-wars with rapture-
professing, hell-fire preaching, converting-at-all-costs-those-who-
would-otherwise-be-damned religious believers, then you can always get
that kind of action at sites like "Atheism vs. Christianity."
Personally, that's not my thing, and I don't think it's the general
tone of this group - one of the reasons why I've stuck around here for
over two years now.
One of our weaknesses, in my view, is that we don't have enough
committed thinking posters who represent the major conventional
religious traditions. People you can really engage with in a dialogue.
This is, unfortunately, particularly true of Islam and I, for one,
would deeply welcome thinking Muslims who were prepared to really open
themselves to discussion - in many cases, hard discussion at that. I
think this is what has inspired Vam (who is not a Muslim) recently to
put forward more nuanced views concerning Islamic positions on things.
I know it's what has moved me to occasionally respond to what I
perceive to be inaccuracies in presenting Christian (particularly
Catholic) positions. I used to be what one might call a professional
Catholic, studied theology for six years [which means that I can
appreciate a lot of deep thought and intellectual subtlety in this
area], even if I would today regard myself as someone who has who has,
in terms of my own life history, grown beyond it. Call it an urge to
play the devil's (angel's? :-)) advocate, if you like! So, please,
don't scare them off.
Cool down a bit and enjoy the depth and learning possibilites in real
intellectual dialogue, rather than just engaging in reactive argument.
ME is not, in my view, a debating club, where you win or lose, it is
rather (at its best) a kind of university of ideas. A real place to
mintain educational standards and interests!
Francis
On 6 Jan., 00:37, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article78.htmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/us/14priest.htmlhttp://www.feministing.com/archives/014073.htmlhttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/that_inhuman_monolith.phphttp://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/dec/06120801.htmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/27/national/main3303553.shtmlhttp://www.hprweb.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15...
>
> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »
Lee
Yes I guess you did not use those exact words, I was as I said
paraphrasing. You did say this though.
'Whenever I see a perfectly good mind wasted on religion, I feel a
deep and abiding sadness. These people voluntarily surrender their
intellectual capacity'
Words and language as we know are a strange beast. Within the English
language it is possible to say much in many ways. Now I must ask what
sort of people would 'voluntarily surrender their intellectual
capacity'? Well only an idiot would do that surly? Hence you sir,
even though you now claim this is valid for 90% of religious people,
certianly did suggest that all religious people are idiots.
Of course you may not have intended it to look like it, and the fault
may all be mine, however I can only go on the words which you choose
to use to interpret your meaning.
Control of people, I'm not even sure that this is possible, without
some form or physicality happening. Are rewards and threats really
control? If for example some bloke slapped your partner whilst you
were all haveing a quiet drink in the pub. Knowing that assault is
agianst the law does the threat of arrest and maybe imprisionment help
you to control your actions, or are you likely to go and grab the
bloke anyway?
I won't deny that violence has been used in regards to religon, yet
one of the points I am trying to make here is that religion is not the
sole divisive idea that has lead to violence. Why then choose to
highlight only religion? I'm guessing because you have a deep dislike
for it.
This is just plainly incorrect:
'...every religion that entered the world stage did so by force and
murder, bar none'
What like the Jains, and the Sikhs and the Bhudists? To name just
three.
ornamentalmind
a strange notion indeed, in almost every way we all are ‘controlled’
daily. I say this based on the notion of manufacturing consent which
is used through every outlet from word of mouth to the media in
general. Further, IF advertising wasn’t extremely effective, it
wouldn’t be a trillion dollar industry. I have great doubts that we
know of most of the ways we are ‘controlled’ at almost every turn.
And, I say this even though I'm sure most would protest the idea.
1CellOfMany
etc., is an important part of being human. When I hear or read of
people spouting superstitious opposition to rigorously established
scientific knowledge, I can only hope that their followers have little
power over public policy. That they do so in the name of their
religion is most appalling to me. Religion is a powerful force in any
society. Religious organizations claim to represent the will and
guidance the highest authority in existence. The very fact that
different denominations of any religion diverge so widely in their
interpretations of the same scriptures suggests that none of them
could possibly be right. Many denominations have created
interpretations of the scripture they claim to follow that are in
conflict with a) science, b) common sense, and c) the obvious intent
of the scripture itself as seen by a detached reader. When the
leaders of religion add and teach such interpretations, they cause
divisiveness amongst the followers of religion, and they cause
reasonable people, like yourself, to turn away from religion.
I believe that one can gain wisdom and inspiration from reading
scripture when one is in the right frame of mind. I also believe that
many religions influence their followers to behave in ways that
promote cooperation and enable the advancement of human society and
civilization. I also believe that there are stages in the life of a
religion, and that both Christianity and Islam are presently in the
same debased stage that Judism was in at the advent of Christ. With
that thought in mind, I offer some wisdom from the Baha'i scriptures:
“Knowledge is as wings to man’s life, and a ladder for his ascent. Its
acquisition is incumbent upon everyone. The knowledge of such
sciences, however, should be acquired as can profit the peoples of the
earth, and not those which begin with words and end with words. Great
indeed is the claim of scientists and craftsmen on the peoples of the
world. ... In truth, knowledge is a veritable treasure for man, and a
source of glory, of bounty, of joy, of exaltation, of cheer and
gladness unto him.” “The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The
fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to
safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and
to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not
to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity.”
On Dec 26 2009, 11:57 pm, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Everything intrigues me. From the method of molecules combining, to
> the vastest expanses of space; I am interested. Biology, chemistry,
> geology, genetics, water tables, the aborigines of Australia, the
> composition of asteroids, tidal flows, diamond distribution, human
> rights, Shakespearean tragedies, the breeding habits of piranha; all
> of this I will study and learn.
>
> My wife asked me why I need so many textbooks. "You aren't even taking
> these courses!" She yells.
> "But there is so damn much I don't know yet!" This is the only reply
> that I can give.
>
> I wish I could share this enthusiasm with everyone, and I will indeed
> try, even if only with one person at a time. The other night I was
> talking with my wife about a scientist who has a theory regarding
> black holes and the possibility of them jump-starting new universes
> with the singularities that form inside of them. As I explained some
> of the prevailing theories and the physics behind them, I felt myself
> becoming flushed with excitement. This is life! Discussion, learning,
> theory, application of intellect; these concepts are the best of human
> capability and what every human should be pursuing. Unfortunately,
> there are people that refuse to allow you the option to learn and grow
> and feel this excitement.
>
> Whenever I see a perfectly good mind wasted on religion, I feel a deep
> and abiding sadness. These people voluntarily surrender their
fiddler
I disagree about stages. Judaism went through the "kill em all" stage
just before the christ myth gained supremacy, and christianity held on
to it's "kill em all" stage FAR longer. It didn't end until 2
centuries ago in fact. Islam reversed the trend; going through a
renaissance (yes I know the word means rebirth) first, and a murderous
stage later. Sadly, their "kill em all" stage happens to be in a time
where swords and muzzle loaders aren't the preferred weapon. I fear
the fact we have a religion that is intent on killing all opposition,
and that includes in this opposition the "good" members, during a
period that has invented nuclear, biological, and "distance" weaponry.
I do wish that there were some supreme being, some moderator of
events. Sadly, none has ever concerned itself with human affairs and I
don't see one doing so in the near future. I will believe in such a
being when I'm shown cancer being cured at a higher rate among
believers than nonbelievers, nuclear weapons going inert in mid use,
limbs being restored instead of mysterious internal ailments being
"cured"(none of the internal ailments have yet been cured either that
any doctor can tell, most "cured" people die at the same point a non-
cured, still diseased, liar would die), or a deity finally making
itself known in a method that billions of others don't claim some
other deity showed itself (or aliens, demons, succubi, unicorns,
saints, angels, djinn, etc.).
Finally, and to explain why this matters so strongly to me: there was
a woman that tried to get a bill forced into my states (Washington)
law that demanded every textbook give credit to a supreme being. That
might seem innocuous, but it would violate everything that makes
America any better than a theocracy. The fact that she worshipped a
minor desert god that called for genocide, rape, infanticide,
matricide, patricide, the selling of rape victims to their rapist,
etc., makes me (and any good person) shudder in horror. SHE WAS CLOSE
TO SUCCEEDING! This cannot and will not be allowed! No god has
dominion here! This is the very purpose that we became a separate
nation... well, that and rich people wanting to pay less taxes.
Our "founding fathers" were overwhelmingly deist, giving lip service
to a creator and not obliging people to worship it. Science and reason
have evolved since then and I have no doubt, having read their
writings, that they would now be -at the very least- agnostic deists.
Lee
old butchers backslang is alive and kicking over there or is it just a
London thing?(as I have long suspected)
On 31 Dec 2009, 17:40, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> “…Hah hah ohhh Neil, I mean taking the carcas of a chicken, and
> splitting the meat from the bones as well you know, somthing that I
> can do in under two minutes thanks to my 'mad' knife skills honed
> over
> many years in the butcher trade…” – Lee
>
> *** silently contemplates using a bandsaw on chicken carcasses in his
> youth ***
>
> On Dec 31, 5:26 am, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hah hah ohhh Neil, I mean taking the carcas of a chicken, and
> > splitting the meat from the bones as well you know, somthing that I
> > can do in under two minutes thanks to my 'mad' knife skills honed over
> > many years in the butcher trade.
>
> > Is selfishness as motivator really a new thing though? I can't help
> > but feel that it is not. Going back to the do we do things to make
> > ourselves happy thread for a sec, I said a very positive yes to that
> > one, although I neglected to share why I think this.
>
> > The reasons are long and many, but in a nutshell it seems to me that
> > the majority of what we do, we do so for our own benifit, to further
> > our own causes, or simply so that we may live in a manor of our
> > choosing.
>
> > I work like the majority, I don't really choose to do it, but I must,
> > to make the money I need in order to survive and live in this world.
> > That is selfish, it is all about teh Lee, ahhh okay yes I have
> > dependants, so it is also all about the Douglas family. Yet the
> > reason I got married and had children was a sinmple one, for both of
> > them. I wanted to. I fulfuiled a desire by doing so.
>
> > As to comptence, again we are not all equal, some are competent, some
> > are not, some can be, some will never be.
>
> > I have talked about some of my brothers here before, I belive I have
> > even mentioned how I feel some envy towards the next brother down from
> > me. I envy the attitude he has, he does not want to think deeply about
> > many things, he is content just to live his life and watch the rest of
> > the world pass him by. Yet whilst I certianly do envy him this, this
> > and his easy nature, as a consequence he knows very little about the
> > things that he chooses not to let impact his life.
>
> > Who has the better life? I'm going to say me, yet if was to ask him
> > the same question, undoubtedly he would say 'Naaaaaa mate, it's me,
> > innit!'
>
> > All in all though I guess what I'm saying is that selfishness is the
> > main motivator, has always been so, and I guess utopian dreams (and
> > paradigm shifts) aside will always be the case.
>
> > On 31 Dec, 13:02, archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > There is academic support for your notion of strong conceptions of
> > > evil and crushing attitudes towards truth-seeking (at least of an
> > > 'unlicensed kind') Anna. It stems from Melanie Klein's reading of
> > > Freud's notion that the 'depressive position' is reasonable (we can
> > > hope for normal unhappiness) but many operate from the 'paranoid-
> > > schizoid position' which tends to demonise opposition. Organisational
> > > analysis ran with this for a long time. Lee's use of stereotyping
> > > above goes some way to the mark, all the better for being specific
> > > rather than abstract. "Boning chickens" mate? We can have a few
> > > smirks over that! Even Blackadder would have had Baldrick arrested
> > > over that one!
> > > Forcing caring is probably possible Lee and we probably do it, much as
> > > we force education down people's throats. I mean in the sense of
> > > social mannering rather than subjective integrity and virtue, so I'd
> > > guess your point still stands. All sorts of votaries claim to care
> > > for us, whilst using public funds to buy duck houses. Yet what is
> > > caring? The wailing idiots praying for our recovery, or the guy who
> > > lances the boil with a knife, spits whiskey into the wound and tells
> > > us the knife will have another purpose if we disturb his sleep again?
> > > My own view is that we have forgotten what competence is and now
> > > favour selfishness as a motivator.
> > > > > On Dec 26, 8:57 pm, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Everything intrigues me. From the method of molecules combining, to
> > > > > > the vastest expanses of space; I am interested. Biology, chemistry,
> > > > > > geology, genetics, water tables, the aborigines of Australia, the
> > > > > > composition of asteroids, tidal flows, diamond distribution, human
> > > > > > rights, Shakespearean tragedies, the breeding habits of piranha; all
> > > > > > of this I will study and learn.
>
> > > > > > My wife asked me why I need so many textbooks. "You aren't even taking
> > > > > > these courses!" She yells.
> > > > > > "But there is so damn much I don't know yet!" This is the only reply
> > > > > > that I can give.
>
> > > > > > I wish I could share this enthusiasm with everyone, and I will indeed
> > > > > > try, even if only with one person at a time. The other night I was
> > > > > > talking with my wife about a scientist who has a theory regarding
> > > > > > black holes and the possibility of them jump-starting new universes
> > > > > > with the singularities that form inside of them. As I explained some
> > > > > > of the prevailing theories and the physics behind them, I felt myself
> > > > > > becoming flushed with excitement. This is life! Discussion, learning,
> > > > > > theory, application of intellect; these concepts are the best of human
> > > > > > capability and what every human should be pursuing. Unfortunately,
> > > > > > there are people that refuse to allow you the option to learn and grow
> > > > > > and feel this excitement.
>
> > > > > > Whenever I see a perfectly good mind wasted on religion, I feel a deep
> > > > > > and abiding sadness.
>
Lee
the ways that we are controled, isn't it safe to say instead that we
choose?
And if e choose are we really being controled?
ornamentalmind
respond to your question. Sorry.
ornamentalmind
As far as I can tell, not only do few do so, often I’m not so sure
about myself either. And, carrying the notion a bit further, in some
ways it is true that we are not exactly ‘controlled’ but instead and
more to the point, merely adapt to our environments…and not due to our
own will.
1CellOfMany
Chomsky! (I know, I am way behind the discussion on this thread, but
I am trying to catch up when I can.) What I appreciate most about Mr.
Chomsky's responses is that he keeps things clear. For example, when
asked whether he believes in God, he makes it quite clear that the
term “God” has so many different meanings, saying “Can't answer, I'm
afraid. I'm not being flippant, but I don't understand the question.
What is it that I am supposed to believe or not believe in?” (I have
religious friends that, when presented by atheists with their
descriptions of God, will reply, “That god that you don't believe in:
I don't believe in that god either.”)
I also appreciate that Chomsky is forthright about discussing the many
positive things that have come out of religious organizations. I will
be the first to admit that organizations that base their authority on
the Christian religion have done many atrocious things. When I
compare such actions to what was taught by Christ (according to the
Gospels), the disparity is obvious, but my experience has been that
most churches and most Christians are trying to treat others as they
would wish to be treated, and put time and energy into making the
world a better place.
As I think you will agree, religion and religious organizations have a
powerful influence on society. Many people feel the need to join a
church for the social network, the camaraderie, for the moral
influence of religion on their children, and for many other reasons.
Many will seek out a church that holds beliefs that they can agree
with. (My parents, for example, being intelligent college graduates,
chose a Christian church which encourages its members to interpret the
scriptures for themselves.) When the leaders of an organization claim
to be guiding their followers along the path ordained by their
creator, they wield a certain power over those that agree to follow
them. Just because the organization claims such authority does not
mean that they are what I would call “religious”. It is up to
individuals to read the scriptures of the religion, detached from the
opinions of others, and use their own understanding of those
scriptures to judge the organization by that standard. Many do not
bother to do such research and follow through blind imitation of their
parents or peers. Some may be drawn into psuedo-religious
organiations through the inluence of “predatory marketing”.
I wonder what draws certain people to denominations that adhere to the
sort of dogma which Fiddler and many others find so repugnant. Much
research, both practical and scientifically rigorous, has led to the
development of tools to influence people's beliefs and actions. (The
science of social psychology is devoted to such, as is the technology
of marketing.) If I recall my basic Soc.-psych. theory correctly,
loyalty is increased when the members of a group feel that their group
is being opposed or oppressed by the people around them. (“Those
damned evolutionists!”) On the other hand, Fundamentalists that I
have conversed with have said that their literal interpretation of the
Bible is a response to all the “loose” interpretations that other
denominations have.
Christ refered to the clergy of his time and of the “end times” as
being “wolves in sheeps clothing.” Bahá’u’lláh abolished the clergy,
and leaders in each Bahá’í communty are elected from all the adults in
that community. He also admonishes us to “see with thine own eyes and
not through the eyes of others, and ... know of thine own knowledge
and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy
heart; how it behooveth thee to be.”
On Jan 3, 6:56 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes, in many ways, the video is yet another clear example of how
> science is built upon the dogmatic foundation of evidence. As we all
> know, there is nothing wrong with evidence per se. However, when it
> comes to things ontological, to set up a false dichotomy between
> theology and science…well, one gets just that result…one that can see
> nothing else other than one pole or the other. While an interesting
> juxtaposition and an instructive viewpoint for debate purposes, it
> leaves out almost entirely the human experience. One ‘side’ is clouded
> by fanciful, unexamined and dogmatic memes which require the use of a
> shoe horn when it comes to the nature of reality. The same is true of
> the other which, of course blithefully goes along not noticing the
> blinders worn while in the lab that are being left on while examining
> that for which current day scientific dogmatic methodology, self
> admitted and proudly to boot, is ill equipped to shed any light upon
> at all. This in no way suggests that those in lab coats cannot try
> using the shoehorn of evidence when it comes to the arts, sociology,
> psychology, epistemology, ontology, religion, philosophy in general
> etc. but those not indoctrinated in the sect of materialism are much
> better equipped to see, know and experience these and other areas of
> the human experience than those who feel the need to rely upon an
> epistemology methodology that is so limited in this arena.
>
> So, in short, I agree that religion has no place in a biology class.
> And, agree that comparative religion classes are of equal value when
> it comes to preparing youth with necessary information. Yet both short
> change us all when it comes to learning and wisdom. Looking at the
> light emitted by stars long dead and understanding current day
> theories about light speed is fine too. However it in no way tells the
> entire story (let alone what light actually is!). Reading history
> books that repeat the same old and tired utterances of the victors is
> almost as useful. In all of these cases, one merely has acquired a bag
> of beliefs with little to no actual examination. Of course, doing so
> does help one to be able to adapt to the interchange within a society
> although precious little else. Neil finds the pub an enlightening
> venue for such things.
>
> Back to the video that is peppered with fallacies too.** In one breath
> ‘science exists under the tyranny of evidence’ quickly followed by
> ‘there is no dogma in science’! At least it does admit that “…science
> is not interested in ultimate realities, in explanations of meaning or
> purpose.” Further, it does admit that ‘all science is reduced to
> accurate model building’. One wonders if science addresses linguistics
> or not…not really because it doesn’t. When one says, as the video
> does, that science is objective on the one hand and then later that it
> is not interested in ultimate realities, the entire lack of
> involvement of emotions let alone mind as such itself is evident as is
> the lack of interest in things ontological. Now, it is unfair to
> criticize a self proclaimed and defined methodology for not being more
> than it claims to be. This is a given. Of course, the same can be said
> of theology. Those who wish theology to be scientific are imposing
> something upon it for which it is also ill suited.
>
> “We have no room in our world for unsupported views.” – also found in
> the video is said with almost an arrogant and self righteous tone. In
> fact, the use of ‘our world’ would imply such a ‘special’ grouping.
> Again, there is nothing at all wrong with looking for support of one’s
> views…in fact, such a pursuit is always intriguing at worst! And,
> skeptics will assail all associated assumptions. And, the best and
> most honest scientists admit to knowing precious little. Neil is
> exemplary in this fashion often spouting how little we know…I am often
> reminded of a similar atheist words and views. One set perhaps you
> both would be attracted to is:http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1990----.htm
>
> Yet, when it comes to pure skepticism…a fiddler’s adherence to
> capitalism may cloud the full examination of such things as:http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm
>
> ** While not wonderful examples, these point us in the right
> direction.http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#fasthttp://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#begginghttp://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#they_say
>
> On Jan 2, 10:18 pm, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A better source than a creationist site, by someone who knows and
> > lives science.
> > He explains well and clearly, at least I find it so.http://www.youtube.com/user/C0nc0rdance#p/u/17/WqznURlEWI0
>
> > On Dec 31 2009, 10:38 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Yes, dogma exists…
>
> > >http://www.the-reality-check.com/Dogma.html
> > > > > You know the kind of thought I mean, it runs something like this.
>
> > > > > 'My dad was stabbed by a black man, therefore all black men are likely
> > > > > to stab you'
>
> > > > > Or perhaps.
>
> > > > > 'I percive faults in Christianity, therfore all religion is at fault'.
>
> > > > > Onwards though and we see soem generalsation right here:
>
> > > > > 'While any religion needs it's people well under control'
>
> > > > > Again I shall ask to see the proofs which have you conviced that this
> > > > > is true?
>
> > > > > What do you mean when you say 'Humans becoming more than they are'?
>
> > > > > I can only do thoses things that it is in my power to do, I can only
> > > > > achive that which is possible for me to achive.
>
> > > > > I cannot, nor do I think I shall ever be able to, fly unaided.
>
> > > > > On 30 Dec, 17:31, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > A multitude of students and scientists that must eventually choose
> > > > > > between what they are told to be true and what they discover to be
> > > > > > true. Not only that, the christian faith actively promotes mediocrity.
> > > > > > While any religion needs it's people well under control, the christian
> > > > > > faith promotes that which is most base in humanity. "the meek shall
> > > > > > inherit", "Turn the cheek", "Obey unquestioningly", all of these are
> > > > > > contrary to humans becoming more that they are.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 29, 2:27 am, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Ohh Ohh fiddler you are a naughty one.
>
> > > > > > > There is one small matter that perhaps you being a seemingly
> > > > > > > intelegent person willing to learn all sorts about all sorts may be
> > > > > > > able to clear up for me.
>
> > > > > > > This view of yours that religion keeps mediocore people contet to
> > > > > > > remain meiocore, you of course have solid proof for it? I mean it
> > > > > > > cannot be mere unsubstanciated opinion can it? I mean you speak of
> > > > > > > rationality and how we should all use it, so I beg of you please show
> > > > > > > me the proofs by which you reached this rational.
>
> > > > > > > On 29 Dec, 01:25, fiddler <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I do not think religion is good, although it does keep mediocre people
> > > > > > > > content to be stuck in mediocrity. Should people follow science and
> > > > > > > > reason, they would be just as viable and content as those that sit on
> > > > > > > > a pew, week after week, wishing that some faerie somewhere would deign
> > > > > > > > to make itself known.
> > > > > > > > I detest the rampant materialism in western society. I am a capitalist
> > > > > > > > and I do not cry out about people being comfortable, but the recent
> > > > > > > > political idiocy of "spending ourselves out of debt" is a prime
> > > > > > > > example of a most basic wrong. The very first stimulus, a year or so
> > > > > > > > ago, was badly wasted in the tarp program. That money would have meant
> > > > > > > > $200k+ to every voting adult in America. Instead we have to borrow any
> > > > > > > > money we want, after it's taken from us of course, so that we pay
> > > > > > > > interest split between wealthy corporations and
>
> ...
>
> read more »