The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

I'm not going to go into the ID discussion anymore, but I do want to comment on this.

I'm all for treating people with at least basic decency, and I'm all for tolerating things that  do not hurt anyone, but why should we respect anyone's beliefs?
What "having faith" means is "I don't actually know anything of this, but it feels right, so I'm going to behave as it is true." Why is that worthy of respect?
I can see how it deserves fear, or ridiculing, or perhaps feeling sorry for, but why would it deserve respect? On what grounds?
I respect the street preacher for being out there all day long, every day, regardless of the weather, but I don't respect him for his preachings, and I certainly don't respect the preachings themselves.
To hell with political correctness.

Foolish PC hippies, you have woken the beast!
*Roar*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk) <-- The Atheists' Nightmare.

Now, I'm not Religious myself, but I'm not Atheist either. Spiritualism runs through my family (My Grandmother being a Spiritualist who worked as a Medium in a Church, the other atending said Churches). Now I don't really care if people decide that there is/isn't a God, I know what I believe, and that's exactly it. It's what I believe, it doesn't have to be anyone elses. Same as your belief's are yours.

I always assumed that idea was to respect someone's right to their beliefs, not the beliefs themselves. For instance, I respect the creationists right to believe in whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean I have to respect his belief.


I would respect having faith on the same level as I respect having love, trust or any other such emotion. It takes some courage (or stupidity) to open yourself up like that. But obviously, it doesn't deserve any special respect. Having faith doesn't make you any sort of special gifted person.


As you should. Always respect people for their actions. But if their actions are driven by faith, shouldn't that be credited as well? If someone does something horrid in the name of their faith, both they and that faith get blamed. For the sake of balance, shouldn't it work the other way around as well?

I think thats fairly accurate. Its just a matter of allowing people to believe, and voice their beliefs.

Well, if you take "respect" to mean "tolerate" or "admit the existence of" then I agree. But more often than not, people seem to use it to include that "respect" confers some additional "value".

Why not say you respect courage (whatever that means) (or stupidity)?
(And I think it takes a lot more "courage" to take responsibility for your own actions, and to face up to the possibility that life has no meaning, than to hide in the comfort of the unfounded belief that somehow it all does make sense, and if you stay on His good side, everything will work out for you).

Ah. The Iraq defense. "So they didn't have WMDs, but the Iraqi people are better off now, so we made the right decision when we went after the WMDs." (Don't flame me for the "better off now", I didn't make this up.)
You can credit a faith for having a positive result, but that doesn't make acting based on a self-deception ok.

But hating Christians is politically correct. Even Jesus knew his followers would be hated. (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=John+15:18&version=31) I’m not saying I like to being hated, but that’s the way it is. If you haven’t noticed the world has been trying to extinguish or pervert Jesus’ teachings since he spoke them. While a bunch of religious nonsense like evolution and global warming are taught at schools like they are scientific fact; which they are not.


I’ll pray for you.

Every time I see an arguement like this on the internet, I laugh a little on the inside because in honesty, no one knows what's after life. You will only ever know when you get to that point.

I don't hate Christians. I don't know where you got that idea. I don't even hate Christianity. It's just disturbing how many people, and especially how many people in power, seem to think it's ok to let their actions be led by unfounded ideas. And this isn't specific to Christianity, or religion even.

How do you know they haven't succeeded yet?

Your inspirational Bible quote of the day, Mathew 10:34 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mathew+10&version=50;):
Know what you believe.

How is either evolution or global warming religious? I'm not following on that one.

If I go take a cylinder of ice out of an ice cap, measure its CO2 versus temperature ratio, and determine that temperature has gone up in the past with C02 levels... how is that religious? And where did Jesus say that curbing pollution or being more efficient with energy is a sin?

I should note that I'm in no way anti-Christian... I'm marrying one this August. :)

You'll have the rest of your lives to convert her. :P

I didn’t mean to say you did. I was just saying Christian hating is quite common and generally ignored.

I take respect to mean "Respect can refer to the objective, unbiased consideration and regard for the rights, values, beliefs and property of all people. Kant's categorical imperative as well as what is commonly understood of being a gentleman incorporate the concept of respect." Source is wiki, crappy as it may be. Of course, If you rather see it as that you are merely tolerating others rights to say, freedom of expression, right to vote or right to coexist then you are essentially correct.


Because different things can inspire courage/stupidity in those who are not naturally courageous. Such things are love and faith. It would be incorrect for me to state that someone is an idiot because he did something foolish in the throes of passion. Equally well faith can inspire someone to deeds they might not otherwise have performed, be they good or bad. To simply ignore the reasons behind actions seems a tad foolish.


Because if you know that you will be judged for your actions in both life and afterlife, you don't have to take any responsibility for what you do? Wouldn't you be more prone to think about what you do? Also, I find it silly to say that lack of faith would mean a lack of meaning, we all make our own meanings. Not being an atheist I can't vouch for this, but I assume that our atheist brethren do have purposes of some sort in their life, be they mundane or not. I doubt they just walk around blindly going "Oh no meaning, oh no morals, woe are us!". Also, feel free to hide in the comfort of whatever belief of purpose/non-purpose that sustains you, but to assume that all beliefs are summed up that simply once again seems a tad silly.


And now I am supremely confused. I said "Judge people by their actions" and you make some sort of war case of it? Judging the Americans based on their actions in the war doesn't really justify it, unless you count "lying to start a extremely poorly planned war" to somehow be a virtuous action. Elaborate please?


That's because Christians are a powerful majority in a powerful part of the world. Few of the downtrodden enjoy their overlords company very much, even centuries after most grievances have been settled. As a side question, where does all this Christian bashing, hating and so forth take place? At least in Europe, Christians aren't a hated and despised group of lepers. And I would assuem they aren't in the US either.

Neonlare

Atheist means you believe there is/are no god(s) that exist or have ever existed or will ever exist outside of people's imaginations. A god is something that can do things not naturally possible, things that are "supernatural" (whatever little ground that term actually covers anymore). If you are unsure either way, then you are Agnostic.

A Spirit can have supernatural abilities or it cannot and I think it can even be either supernatural/natural itself. But it is at least supposed to be indestructible either way.

So you might be both an Atheist and a Spiritualist at the same time, depending on your personal definitions from what I understand.

Bioslayer

Everything else Bioslayer said after this is crap, but in the US at least, this much is true (except for the "hate" part, which is a wee bit strong). There is basically nothing you cannot say about Christianity, which is not the case at all for Juddaism and Islam, its older and younger sibling religions. Looking at the whole European Muhbombhead media firings, I would say the same is true in the EU nations as well. Interestingly, the same can probably be said for Atheists, it is not strongly politically incorrect to bash their beliefs either I don't think.

Do not know about non-middle-eastern religions like Hinduism and the various micro-religions of the world. Probably no one cares about them either way so they have no protection but are never verbally directly attacked anyway.

But us Agnostics, we don't have any beliefs to bash in the first place and are thus invincible. And because we do not put faith into anything, we are unaffected by delusional beliefs. We also have limited telekinesis and are considered highly desirable by all women.

Not really. Agnostics believe in the doctrine that the existence of the supernatural is unknown/unknowable. So they do have a belief too.
The only people that don't have any beliefs whatsoever are indifferent people, who don't care about these issues.

Yes indeed, Jesus' teachings led to many bloodshed, both Christian and non-Christian blood. This is in no way His fault.
"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." - What is your problem with this? God is by definition superior to any relatives. He is, after all, Creator, while parents are only those who gave birth to somebody. And His love knows no bounds.

Lukipela

Actually no. They are a big, often divided and manipulated minority in a now weak part of the world, which is mostly run by free market pirate capitalists at this point.

This is interesting. I always assumed spirits were strictly in the realm of the supernatural. I shall have to do some research on the subject.


I'd still say that the reason it is all right to speak out (sometimes quite harshly) about Christianity, is the same reason that it is much more acceptable to make racial jokes about white men than any other. Like it or not, both whites and Christians have been in a position of power for a very long time. Even though this isn't necessarily the case nowadays, old grudges die hard. And if your part of the majority, you can usually take a lot more than the minorities can dish out.


Hindus and Muslims really hate each other in some regions of the world, such as around the India/Pakistan border.


In fact, you are cowardly craven beings that are afraid of the opinion you secretly harbour in your petty little hearts. ;) Agnostic bashing is easy, fun, and (since they don't care and won't retaliate) completely safe! Fun for the whole family. Come on, come all, see the flip-flop fall!

I do not contest that courage/stupidity can be incited by various things. But saying you respect faith, because of the courage it can bring, is like saying you appreciate global warming because you appreciate warm weather.
Faith can have both positive and negative results. Why not say that you respect the positive results? That is what you actually mean, isn't it?

This was about "courage". If you do something because of how God will punish you, you're doing it out of fear, quite the opposite of courage. Similarly, if you do something because of how he will reward you, you trust that even if it goes wrong, it will work out in the end. That's not courage either.
Courage is doing something despite that it may turn out bad for you. Taking responsibility for your actions without a God to fall back on, is what takes courage (or stupidity).

I did not mean to imply that. Let's rephrase my line as "the possibility that all the meaning there is to life is what you give it yourself".

Note that I talked about the possibility of life heaving no (inherent) meaning. I never claimed I believed either way. (I try not to "believe" at all.)

I don't think I was summing anything up.

What I mean is that if you do something for the wrong reason, the fact that it worked out  right does not excuse doing it for those reasons. I was just making a point by analogy.

Actually, "atheism" can refer to both the belief that there is no god, and the lack of a belief in a god, depending on who's using the word. Just look it up in any dictionary.

I am not sure if that definition is the current common one anymore. Either way, what would you call people who do not know because the definitions of gods and what is naturally possible seems so unclear/changing?


If he is more important because he created the first people, then a grand parent is more important than a parent and a great grand parent even more important still. This seems contrary to how things work in real life, as a parent is going to be more impactful than a dead relative from 50 generations ago.

Sure, you should look at someone's motivation, but I think the way you presented it is a bit backwards.
Usually we judge one's actions based on their motivation, not the other way around.
If someone does something good, great and noble out of greed , does that make greed good, great and noble, or does his motivation make the actions not so good great or noble anymore?

Anyways the sort of respect you ask of wouldn't be half bad. It seems all you're asking for is an acknowledgement that good things can come out of it. I have no problem with that.

What irks me (and Meep, I think) is that the sort of respect people ask for faith, religion, beliefs, or often any opinions about anything, seems to be equivalent with censoring all criticism of it.
Yeah, everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, and voice their opinions/beliefs.
Unfortunately for some, this includes the right of the other guy to believe, and to say, that what they believe is wrong, rediculous, or just plain stupid.

Oooh, I get to derail a thread.
So, tell me comrade, what part of the world is run by those free market capitalists with eye-patches?

I mean, any part of the world that is either full of free market capitalists OR pirates would be cool enough to make me want to move there.
But a place full of free market capitalists and pirates at the same time sounds almost too good to be true.
Just tell me where it is, and I'll start packing my bags.

Isn't that a teensy bit contradictory with his supposed teachings of non-violence?

Ok, now try this one (Mark 11:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+11&version=50;)):
What's the lesson in that? No matter how unreasonable you are, have faith and your wishes will come true?


(Also, I agree completely with Ivan Ivanov just said in response to Lukipela.)

Lukipela

It is unclear, since the border between natural/supernatural is ever changing and many of these definitions are extremely old and vague.


No, simply put there is no reason. That is why the internet language is the way it is. ;)


As the minorities can too, I am sure, given that words have difficulty penetrating flesh, unless you believe they/we/whoever are inherently more fragile. Either way, unless you are a highly conforming robot, in a modern society you are a minority in more places than one and a majority in the others too. On one subject you have the 'people' behind you and on another you do not.


Well that is why I localized what I said to the US and EU to a lesser extent.


You lost someone to one of us supernaturally handsome Agnostics, didn't you?

meep-eep

I know, but on this subject I try to use the 'current' or 'common' definition (which is actually tomorrow's 'dictionary' or 'official' definition). When most people say "Atheist", they mean someone who believes there is no god, from what I understand. When they say "Agnostic" they mean someone who is somehow on the fence or does not care either way. I am usually classified by people as "Agnostic" because I am unsure if what exactly a god is or if it could someday be attainable through natural laws we are not fully aware of right now, or maybe long before when people first invented the concept.

Comrade Ivanov

The US and the EU, so no need to move. ;)
Just enjoy it all while it lasts, the world will probably come under a new dominant system once the US matches the EU in craptastic military strength after probably just about five or so years from now. ;D

No, why? This is just a remark about the violence that (unintentionally) His teaching will bring; simply saying this doesn't mean teaching violence.

The tree is meant to symbolize the Jewish people, who didn't recognize the Messiah; it had no spiritual fruits. See the correspondents of the parable in other gospels: Luke 13:6-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2013:6-13:9&version=31) (here this is not told as an action of Jesus), Matthew 21:18-22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2021:18-22;&version=31;) (this version emphasizes the miracle itself, less its significance).
I'd like to link to this page (http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Shamoun/q_jesus_figtree._curse.htm).

This may well deserve its own thread, but the EU isn't bound on bettering the US militarily, rather economically, which is, too, an utopia, since US is US, after all.

Jesus: "So be it. . .Fig Tree. If you will not be turned to the Dark Side. . .then you will be DESTROYED! (Force Lightning)"


No, I meant the US will decline to join the EU in strength level or lower, perhaps even dragging the later down to a lower level with it. This doesn't necessarily mean things will be worse for the people living in those places, just that their global reach or influence will be hugely diminished or non-existant, leaving exposed soil for new empires to grow.

I believe its called Somalia. I am sure the market there is as free as you like - and as a bonus, there's no government to collect your taxes. That's is a sweet deal! Of course there's a bit of a problem with all the warlords and genocide and so forth, but you can buy guns cheaply so safety won't be an issue...

So Jesus curses the Jewish people? I think I liked him better getting mad at a tree.


Edit: fix quoting tags

First I'd like to say that this is a pleasantly suprising topic coming from Meep-Eep. I've heard that in Europe atheism has been picking up a lot of steam recently due to an outright dislike of the American religious right and its effect on the world. Is there any truth to this?

I personally have three major reasons for not hating on the religious people I meet in day-to-day affairs:

1) As a citizen of the United States of America, it would be highly impractical for me to show disdain for religion in general and Christianity in particular. There are WAY more people of the faith here (and fundamentalists) than in Europe. To adopt such a position just isn't viable.

2) There are some serious crazy-ass fuckers like the Scientologists and Mormons* around to make your typical church-going family seem tame.

3) I'm agnostic, not an athiest. I do not share this urge to squeeze the life out of religiousity itself. Although I do appreciate the presence of athiests to serve as a counterbalance to the truly fanatical whack-jobs.

*If you don't believe me that Mormons are fucking weird, do some research. They have to wear magical underwear.

I think it would be extremely presumptuous to assume that atheism in Europe is a result of anti-Americanism. America is not so important a country as to affect people’s belief in God by merely having more religious fundamentalists. NZ is probably the world’s most secular country. Usually it’s not because we dislike religious folks, more because it’s been a while since we last went to church and we’ve simply forgotten what all the fuss was about – and we don’t miss it! Personally I’m an agnostic – which frankly is quite pathetic.

LOL! HAHAHA...Thank you Deus, thank you. ;D

Oh I know it's presumptious. A little arrogant too. But I bet there's truth to it. Our obnoxious foreign policy kind of forces other people to deal with us whether they like it or not. There's got to be an element of "OKAY GUYS, LET'S TRY NOT TO BE ANYTHING LIKE THOSE JERKS ACROSS THE WATER" to this.

Right, and I guess the only socialist countries are ones like Cuba and North Korea.

OK, sorry. I've reviewed some commentaries on the parable, it seems that the tree represents stubborn people who do not want to obey God's words. The "cursing" is a metaphor for the bad fate that awaits those who do like this.

While I'm opposed to religion in general and Christianity (as it is usually practised) in particular,
I think we should only poke fun at the weird stuff religious people actually do. No need to make stuff
up. Yeah, Mormons are a werid bunch, but magical underware? If you'd actualy done research on
this one, you'd know _some_ Mormons wear "temple garments" which are similar in
function to priestly robes of other faiths. The garments include underware, and are symbolic, but hardly magical.

You are trying to undermine my point, but I'm basically correct. They do have "magical" underwear. (http://mcsey.com/images/mormon-underwear.jpg) (Safe for work)

There are special symbols sewn into them. Two on the chest, one on the knee, and one about belly button level. I think.

Sure if thats what you think socialist means. How about France, Norway, Singapore or Sweden instead?

Meh, I don't buy that Mormons are more crazy than any other Christians. I used to live in Utah, and have lots of Mormon relatives. The only reason they seem weird is because we don't hear as much about their traditions. Plenty of wacky crap in vanilla Christianity as well, imo, we're just used to it. But as far as behavior/day-to-day stuff goes, I'd say Mormons if anything more boring than most other cultures.... trust me, they're not as spooky, weird, or exciting as people imagine. They're just Christians with a little extra religious text, which has stuff like telling people to avoid "strong drink." Ooooh, freaky! ;)

The Mormons thing is tangential to this topic, but if you're interested here is a Something Awful forum topic with a lot of dirt on the Church of Latter Day Saints by several ex-Mormons: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2460229

Meep, aren't you sanctioning bigotry in a way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

1st) My original quote was referring to Richard Dawkins who, unlike us, is a public figure. Thus his responsibilities are different than ours imo. I believe he should show some sensitivity to others no matter how "misinformed" or unfounded their faith may be. Especially if he expects to make his scientific case in areas that conflict with religious belief.

2nd) It also seems that ,following your post here, I should be able to rip on homosexuals because biologically speaking it's "wrong" or a biological mistake of some sort. And furthermore it is somthing I do not understand, just as Dawkins doesn't understand those with "irrational" faith over logic.

You are right that we don't have to respect the message, I was referring to respecting the messenger him/herself as a human being.

That's a very flimsy argument. How do you know that the presence of homosexuality is suboptimal for a species? If a small portion of males aren't competing for females (and vice versa), that may have a stabilizing effect on society.

I have to agree with Shiver here. We don't really know what impact homosexuality has on the gene pool of a species.

Back on topic:
You know I once went to a short seminar given by our university's campus crusade. It was a heart surgeon speaking on behalf on ID. Long story short, the guy was terrible. He had no clue how evolution worked, used classic (and easily defeated) ID arguments, and just flat out said stupid things. Now the crowd, obviously probably all very religious outside of myself, just ate it up. I thought it was sad because the uneducated was teaching the uneducated. (Goes to show you can be a competent adult and still be clueless about biology.)

Now, I'm all for people exploring the shortcomings of evolutionary theory, but until there's some actual science behind ID, I don't think it deserves the same respect as the theory of evolution.

Though I will say guys like Richard Dawkins are not helping the cause. I don't think there's anything stupid about religion (even if some people do stupid things in its name). So I think he tends to preach the the converted, much like the aforementioned ID speaker, rather than appeal to those who disagree with him. There just seems to be a big lack of uniting voices these days.

Well... no, at least according to your logic.
You see, if the only country with a free market is a war torn land full of warlords (I should have called you on the contradiction, by the way), then it means the only countries with socialism are those with complete control over the ecnonomy.

I don't follow Dawkins all that closely, so I'm curious, when did he say that religion is stupid?
Every time I saw him, he was very nice to people he talked to.

I think Dawkins is a nice example of what this 'respect' toward beliefs can lead to.
All he says is that he disagrees with religion, that it can lead to bad things, and he explains why he thinks so, and usually does that in an ultra-polite manner.
Yet people think he's an asshole... can someone explain this to me?

Maybe arguing that faith in God is a form of insanity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion) would do it?

Haha cool, that guys smart. Good thinker.
Holy crap, thats exactly how I put it once "how religion might spread like a "mind" virus across societies"

...and this is a problem how?  How else would an atheist or agnostic classify religion?  Dawkins makes arguments that are hard for many people to hear but that doesn't make them disrespectful.

Dawkins has a bad rep because people insecure in their own faith try to whitewash his arguments so that they don't have to listen.  End of story.

Shiver

Hahaha! There's no part of that sentence that isn't funny. ;)

1) The "American Religious Right" has NO power. The Pirate Capitalists (private sector political influence if you prefer) USE them for votes and soldiers and to stir up progressives (and you I suppose) so that the bad attention is off of them and so that the progressives will fight them by voting on the opposite sides of stupid and irrelevant issues. Likewise, they do much of the same things to the "Intellectual" Progressives or Liberals and make a killing in the process by using the US' remaining power for the financial and economic benefit of private sector overlords.

2) I think the amount that Europeans are really emotionally hurt by the stuff we do is just a bit exaggerated maybe? No one has that little of a life. There might be the occasional bruised ego that they can't any longer screw the world for the benefit of their upper class as we do now, but it's not like they aren't the most comfortable people of the "modern" world.

3) Anyone who would forsake their religion over crap like that was not religious in the first place or is a flake!


DEFIANT

No need to thank me, just stating the obvious. ;D

Dawkins' own peers rebuke him at times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik&mode=related&search=

Tyson agrees with everything Dawkins says but the difference is that Tyson has class, sensetivity and he presents an aire of respect  toward everyone.

That was pretty much my point. To the people complaining about Dawkins, his arguments appear disrespectful, even though they make sense from many other people's point of view.

I haven't noticed it. In fact, here in the Netherlands, the fear-mongering after 9/11 by the US goverment seems to have given the conservatives here more power (as well as the populists).

But Bush might actually prove to be a positive force in the end. Before Bush, the USA were usually blindly followed by European governments, whatever the USA did. And they certainly did things that should not be followed. But thanks to Bush, the USA is taken a lot less seriously, and the default seems to have become to question rather than to adopt. At least that's the impression I get.

Are you sure you are not confusing the effects of so called "fear-mongering" by the US with the so called "hate-mongering" by European Muslim immigrants or the violent actions taken by members of said group?


From what I have seen, it seems like before European nations put their moral support behind the US and now they do not as much. And even this is just in military actions, of which the modern world puts forth few with much time in between. Though you might not get that impression from watching or reading the news. The really big changes our two regions make to the world and ourselves is economic and basically only in ways that one might call negative. But that does not catch people's attentions like a relatively small but still bloody war in a small 3rd world nation involving a "western" nation.

Christian fundamentalists serve as a power base for the Bush administration. Without their support, it would not exist. If by some horrible fate another like-minded Republican such as John McCain (who I used to like!) becomes president, the US Supreme Court will very likely gain another conservative judge that will proceed to overturn abortion. You're telling me that isn't power?

Who cares about one particular corporate sponsored administration that has continued in the footsteps of its predecessors?


Well that would certainly suck for the handful of people within the administration, wouldn't it?


OMGZORS!1!1! So instead of killing thousands of our own babies with doctors, the more "Conservative" national government instead will focus on killing thousands of 3rd world babies with bombs! What a huge difference! Bombs aren't licensed to kill babies, damnit! !

. . .Or then again maybe it won't make any change after all, since lobbying by the private sector is what REALLY makes the difference, everything else is just a political game by little politicians so that they can get reelected and then get greased by big money some more.

As I keep telling people, if this country were a movie, then the "powerful" politicians would be the B actors, the political strategists like Karl Rove would be the directors and the upper class corporate folks would be the producers holding all the cards. And the liberal and conservative voters? They are the chumps who go to the movies to see the same old special effects and plot formulae and crap for the hundredth time.


You mean more powerful than a piss ant African military dictator who brings millions of a neighboring tribe to their deaths? Or more powerful than a media talking head on a morning show chatting about the latests overpriced gadgets for you to waste your money on? If the former, then no, if the later then yes.

There are gradations between automatic respect and bigotry. (This is also a reply to your other points  which I don't repeat here)

Why?
(Btw -- and I do not intend this as an argument for or against anything -- Dawkins probably wouldn't be such a public figure if he wasn't so confrontational.)

It depends on what you mean by "respect". (see my previous postings in this thread).

I actually see very little of that.

And I actually see very little of the fear mongering by the US government towards the people of the Netherlands. I did see the riots in France and the outrage over the depictions though.

Either way, no one ever said it takes that much of something to get people nervous. And it doesn't honestly take that much to place a vote either.

I'm pretty sure that when 'respect' is used in such a context, it's supposed to mean 'being polite and not constantly bashing on a person'. A person who bashes Christianity is basically being no better than Jack Chick.

Deus_Siddis, you spam posts everywhere as bad as Vallagar but at least he's halfway civil and easy to disregard if need be. Your posts on the other hand cause my eyes to bleed. Could you please sit and think a little bit before taking a virtual shit all over a topic? Or stop posting.


Yeah, you see this? I want this pretentious conspiracy theorist crap off my monitor.

Erm... the USA isn't fear-mongering towards the people of the Netherlands. What we get here is merely the side-effect of the fear-mongering towards the people of the USA itself. And that may not even be (completely) intentional.

Shiver

Are you drunk? I rarely post at all anymore. Like Death_999, my post count has been built up over years. I am not sure why you are bringing Vallagar into this either, though I have not been keeping up with this forum very much lately. Something is not spam if a person believes, it is well thought out and it is not repeated everywhere by that poster.

I apologize if I seemed uncivil before, that was not my intention and I had no reason to then. I just thought some of the stuff you said was funny.


Well right back at you, even if you don't like what I have to say, at least I try and make points and counterpoints instead of just spewing lame generic insults like "your posts make my eyes bleed" or "you're taking a virtual shit on this topic" that's not debating, that's just flamming.


Or you could try and post intelligent counter arguments instead of going ape shit with the help of your Pirate's Dictionary O' Cursin'.


That is easily remedied, just find a hard, heavy object and then give your screen two hard blows and the "crap" will no longer be visible on your monitor, I promise.

Anyway, what conspiracy theory? It is simply a matter of greed. Greed being the main driving force in our society (no secret there) makes money a very useful tool. But things like the media and politicians are tools with uses as well, especially for making more money when used efficiently. By putting money into these, you can increase awareness of your brand or product(s) (advertising) and get numerous special benefits from the government (contracts, favorable trade policies, etc.)

There is nothing exciting, secret or evil about it. That is why real conspiracy theorists can never make sense, they want to live in a dramatic universe full of darkness, mysteries and alien/cyborg/whatever villians. The real world is much less exciting then even you think it is.

You see, you are trying to peg me backwords, I am saying there is less going on, not more.

meep-eep

Hehehe, if true, that is pretty funny. Like run-off propaganda or something. Still, I think that the majority of Europeans are too removed/intelligent to be so affected by only the threat of something if they have not felt a hit from it in their own region. That doesn't make sense to me, but I am not living there as you are, so I could be wrong.

You are right, the comparison to Vallagar was pretty inept. I mentally filed you away as someone who posts way too much spew that isn't worth reading right next to him, but there are enough distinct traits to seperate the both of you. Vallagar is a fairly likeable poster in spite of his habit of flooding every topic, for instance.

The idea I was trying to get across to you before was simple, straighforward and basically true. Your response to this was antagonistic to an extreme and really did not make any sense. I said the American religious right could possibly lead to the end of abortion and you responded with:


Read this bit one more time and tell me you weren't being a major-league asshole. If abortion is a serious issue to you (which I doubt, making the above seem bizarre), state your case for it like an adult.


I see that now and it is to your credit, but you do tend to ramble and push tired cliches along the lines of "people? MORE LIEK SHEEPLE LOL". These are things commonly associated with conspiracy theorists.

Okay, you are not huge Vallagar or me fans then. I do not need everyone to like me, fair enough. Though this disdain you have for me seems a little sudden and spontaneous, I do not think I said anything that horrible a couple posts ago. Perhaps you were just having a bad day or are secretly much closer to the abortion issue than you have let on?


My response to that was that it was not very important of an issue when you are talking about the so called "power" of the country. And there is no moral improvement from the liberal and conservative sides, they are just opposite ends of a few issues that will keep them voting against each other for a long time to come. And in the meantime, these voters on the right and left wings of public opinion will not care about the issues that the private sector will be lobbying for and against, they will be so inflammed about abortion or another non-economic issue. And abortion does not affect corporate profits either way, so no, the real driving force does not care, meaning the politicians are clear to pass this issue back and forth two each other to continue to get votes, get reelected and then get more pay-offs.


I was not being a major league ass hole. If I had just not sarcastically and jokingly said the "1337" "OMGZORS!1!1!" thing you would have no reason to be upset and wouldn't be, I'm sure. That was just one mistake, I did not think you would take this as more than a joke/sarcasm. But if I did screw up somewhere else, please tell me where?


Abortion is seriously irrelevant to the issue of power. It is one issue with fairly balanced side on either end of it. Where was the religious right all these years that it has been in power? Either they just started up a few years ago or maybe there is an equally determined/demanding voter force on the other side stalemating them? You know, the folks who call themselves liberals or "progressives"? These two minorities prevent each other from ever having any real power, that is why they hate each other. They are also not as wealthy as other influences, so all they can really provide are votes, which is just one half of the equation for politicians.

As for what I think of abortion, it is in the line you just quoted. I honestly don't know what to think of it specifically but I know not to sugar coat it as an 'operation' and I know what moral impacts it has on everything else for someone with half a heart and a quarter of a brain.

So I think someone is two-faced if they want to complain about the collateral damage caused by US military action in Iraq to civilians while being pro choice. There's just no way around that, even though one side will say "oh its a woman's right to 'choose'" or "oh we have to protect our own people". So basically what I think on this issue is that if there is an excuse for killing your own innocent children (and thinking a late term baby can only feel once it takes its first breath is not the position of an intelligent person, lets be honest) then there is just as easily an excuse for doing a large variety of other things that involving killing people. So you have to decide if you accept violence against innocents as a whole or not, and then bicker over the details. Or just say you don't care about morallity or fairness at all.

Personally though, I don't know, I am trapped between my feelings and my knowledge of what a bloody place the world is and just how unrealistic it is to try and put up huge moral walls that might inhibit survival within it.


Wrong. Most of the people I did not mention, because they do not vote and thus make much less of a difference (they are apathetic for one reason or another). Those "SHEEPLE LOL" are not cowardly sheep at all, they are more like focused predators that are stalking one or a few specific issues or perhaps more like stalwart warriors who battle each other for indefinite periods of time because they do not want to give an inch of ground. Either way their dualistic narrowmindedness means they have no real power.

But you are right of course, I should not saying anything that sounds vaguely like something a conspiracy theorist might say. Do they use a lot of pronouns? Maybe I should stop using those as well. ;)

True, but if the scientific elite are condoned for such behavior, the thought is that it can be built upon by others and justified further and further until it gets out of hand.

Very true, his confrontational "style" probably makes his celebrity, but this is science we are talking about not Simon Cowell on American idol. Isn't the idea to popularize and arouse interest in science for all walks of life rather than humiliate and marginalize certain groups?


Seems we are talking mostly the same language here.

And about Bush. He's an extremist and that scares me as well. He thinks he's acting upon God's will.  Hell I'm a registered democrat, if I was to ever vote republican he or she would have to be very, very moderate.That said, don't let one bad apple spoil the apple cart. Most religious people I've met are kind and overall generous people. It may be different in your country.

Deus, shiver, cool it.

Deus: your post was out of line:
Shiver had a real point which you ignored, mockingly and with no substance. The religious right may not get everything it wants, but it does get something out of its relationship with the republican party. Its ability to get this is called 'power'.

Shiver:
DS hasn't been spamming. He's been on the bottom side of one argument recently, and that's it. So your post was a baseless accusation.

Now both of you stand in the corner and think about what you've done.

Apparently you are unaware of what thread you are on. Religion, Politics, welcome to the warzone my friend. 8)


My tact was off and I apologize for that, I was not being totally serious, but I did not lack substance, re-read what I said or be more specific about your critism.


It gets very, very little. The current administration and republican party have only paid them lip service in public and mocked them in private. Remember gay marriage from not too long ago? Where was their power there, they obviously cared about the issue.


If by power you mean media attention then yes. Otherwise, mostly no.


He already acknoledged that. And the bottom side of what argument? I haven't even been in anything recently.


I would but cyberspace is so not three-dimensional, which way is the corner again? :)

FALLACY DETECTED: slippery slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy); a jaywalker does not have to turn into a mass murderer.
And what do you mean by "such behavior"?

You're again replying to the aside while ignoring the actual question.

Whether his method is the most effective way to reach his goals is an entirely different matter.

Deus: Again you make a lot of points that are across the board. Some of them are interesting, but I'm trying to stick to one little thing. Even if the Republican politicians themselves don't care about abortion, most of the Republican nominees would definitely put another strictly conservative judge on SCOTUS. They would have to if they wanted to keep their base. The religious right is wacky but they aren't retarded. And since the judge that's most likely to drop dead next is Justice Stevens (a fairly liberal one), that would be enough to swing the balance so that all sorts of laws would be overturned. The only Republican I can see not doing this is Rudy Giulianni, given that he's publically pro-choice.


*Grumble*

Hmm, sorry for being gone for a bit, I see I'm slightly behind, still, I'll try to catch up. To begin with, I think I need to clear a few things up. When meep started this he asked why he should have to respect peoples beliefs. I replied with that he has to respect their right to beliefs, and then gave some reasons to respect belief itself. Just so we're clear, the first part (respect the right to belief) seems pretty clear, and if I read everything right we do agree on that (well, you tolerate it, but still)

The second part, why I think you should respect faith in itself, is clearly my own opinion. I'm not saying you have to respect faith, I'm just giving my personal opinions on why I think you should. Seeing as we're bound to have different opinions, I think it's wise to keep in mind that we're just debating opinions, and I'm not trying to present any of this as fact.


No, I respect the act of having faith. I think it takes courage to have faith, but I do not think that it takes only courage. Faith can of course have both positive and negative results, but I believe that the act of having faith (no mater the end result) is a good thing.



This is only true for faith if you assume that the only motivation for doing good is fear of God. That isn't necessarily true. I do good because I believe it is right. I'm sure God sees me in both my weakness and strength, and that he'll judge me one day, but that act of judgement isn't what makes me do what I do. I'm also unsure how believing in a supreme being means you don't take responsibility for your own actions. I would think it means that you do so, and that ultimately you're responsible to yourself. His judgement does not affect mine, just as mine does not affect his.


But that's true whether you believe or not. faith is a meaning you give yourself, just as any other. Some live for food, others for drink. Some live for love, and others for faith. We all make our own meaning.


Again, a higher purpose doesn't necessarily imply any other meaning than living. After all, we "know" God created us to inhabit the universe. Who is to say that our purpose is any more than that?


Ah, I was possibly confused by the fact that Iraq hasn't worked out so far. It all depends on your outlook on life I suppose. As long as something brings good, I am pleased by the goodness. The motive of a human mind is always murky at best, and no case is absolute of course, but even good from ill intentions is some good. I will judge him in my mind of course, but It is up to the person who did the deed to judge his own intentions, and see if he is lacking or not.

Shiver

I try and zoom out and look at the bigger and bigger picture until I can see enough to explain what I am seeing. I probably did not explain the connections of some of the things I mentioned well enough though.

My point with the abortion issue that you mentioned was that it is morally neutrally buoyant or perhaps has a slight tendency to float. For the right wing to push it up does not require much power.


Somewhat unrelated, but maybe the issue is more that the Supreme Court is overpowered? They are not elected by the people, they can stay as long as they want and they can "interpret" legislation to mean whatever they want or simply openly overwrite it as O'Connor did with that Affirmative Action Vs the 14 Ammendment case. It is like both a judicial and legislative branch in one.

So then anyone who managed to take the supreme court would own perhaps the most "powerful" branch of government. That does not make the religious right really that big of an issue on its own, it is just that whoever controls the SC would hold the cards in this area.

But this only means "power" in the sense of influencing a handful of issues that the majority of citizens and lobby forces really do not care about one way or the other.


Now if there was a real balance of power amoung the branches of government, that would not matter since the other side could use control of the legislative branch to enact new laws that the SC would have to follow.

But again, we are not exactly talking about a galactic empire sort of power and since the democrats with their different election base control the legistlative branch, I am not sure how they would take more SC seats anyway.

You're right in a way. If you do good, but are motivated by evil, you are obviously not necessarily a good person. But it doesn't mean you need not be.


True, but this doesn't just hold for faith. It holds for everything from Vegetarians to Linux fanboys. Everyone believes that their opinion is right, and that they are entitled to more than those that are wrong.

EDIT: Also, for Shiver regarding atheism in Europe as because of the US. You are certainly right that many things that are attached to the US in one way or another have gained some negative publicity. But we simply do not associate Christianity with the US in that way, so that connection isn't made. Your Christians (well the one that make it into the public eye, i.e. the small loud minority) are perceived as some sort of retarded offshoots of christianity, rather than representatives of christendom.

Lukipela

I am not sure what your definition of "faith" means? I think this has been one of the issues on this thread, some terms have too loose definitions. Do you mean faith the emotion, faith that is not in anyway based on reason or facts, faith that is earned, faith that given automatically?



These two statements seem like they do not fit together well, unless you are trying to argue from the points of two different positions/entities (which is unclear).

If you create your own meaning, what does it matter how God the god judges you (especially considering you are not afraid of any power he might have over you)?

You're greatly understating the seriousness of abortion to a point of absurdity. Stating that most people don't care about it is just flat out incorrect. You can ask pretty much any woman in the country about it; women tend to take abortion very seriously regardless of their stance on it. However, I only brought that up as an example of something the American religious right has sway over so I don't feel much inclined to argue over it any further.


This is also a tangent, but since we seem to agree here I will wrap it up nicely. A Supreme Court Justice needs only 50 senators supporting them to pass. If the requirement was 60 or even 55, Samuel Alito would not be sitting on the bench right now. I suppose you could call that "imbalanced" because it seems a little too easy to set these guys up. I don't know about SCOTUS being the most powerful branch of government -- Bush has done a hell of a job making the Legislative branch look irrelevant over his term and has pretty much gotten away with every crazy thing he could come up with. Then again, the Supreme Court hasn't really picked too many fights with him except for that one time they looked in his general direction and said "hey guy, that torture crap you're doing is illegal".

Well sure, if you're going to ask women ::)

Shiver

Oops sorry, that was a typo(s). I meant to say that there is no one way current concerning abortion. Even if you really are very pro choice, there is at least one person who is very pro life. So your effect is neutralized.

However since most people don't vote, they obviously don't care about the issue enough to go and spend an hour out of every two years on it. So I guess maybe the majority really doesn't care about abortion after all.

So what I am saying is I do not think the RR needs much power to push this issue back into the courts and reverse it to some degree, which they have not even been able to do over a number of decades now.


You are making Abortion out to be a religious issue. You forget that there is a secular humanitarianism side (or whatever you would call it) to this. You could be mixing up a growing trend based on ancient middle eastern mythology with a growing trend based on people who rationally and/or emotionally believe abortion is murderous.

Now look at gay marriage. This was more of a religious issue, probably far fewer seculars were against this. And it succeeded. The RR was completely run over by this. This seems like a much clearer measure of their power or perhaps more accurately, lack thereof.


And yet this Supreme Court has not picked fights with him even before there were fewer "conservative" judges on the bench. Obviously they could have if they wanted to. Perhaps the Court has not changed as much as you feared? Perhaps further changes will not make radical differences as well?

I am not trying to start another tangent with this, it just ties into my thoughts that the liberal/conservative conflict does not go too much beyond the fringe citizens who bother to vote and the politicians who pay them lip service either through announcements or small/temporary legislative changes.

They could very easily get it there at any time. The question is whether they would have a court that would give them the answer they want. And with the recent nominations, they are one seat closer, and now only one seat away, from having a good enough chance of getting it that it would be worth the risk.

It's a bit like saying, "Gee, if Zelnick really wanted to destroy the Sa-Matra, he'd have blown it up years ago" when he only just got the broken ultron.

This is a very silly thing to say. The Supreme Court is only deliberating about emotionally charged, headline-making issues like abortion *maybe* 1% of their time on the bench. Care to guess what they do for that other 99%? That's right; they interpret "boring" stuff like tax laws and other economic legislation. Thus, whether they realize it or not (and regardless of whether they bother to vote or not), *everyone* who lives and/or works in the US tends to find the decisions that the Supreme Court makes important, at least on April 15th of every year.

No offense, but you obviously didn't read what you quoted or what I have been saying very carefully, because we are basically saying the same thing. As I have already said, these are a few issues, being able to edge out a small victory on them is not what I would call "power". The Supreme Court is annoyingly more powerful than at least the Legislative, but that is just comparing one division of politicians with another.

Also, I think you would find that the mundane CSPAN stuff is what happens in even the executive branch as well. However, those "boring" economic legislation issues that no one cares about are where most of stuff happens that has the greatest governmentally originating effect on common people's lives directly (as in effecting them economically rather than emotionally).

Indeed, that's why I added the 'opinions about anything' part.
Tough there is a slight difference between these opinions and faith, and that's the gist of the problem.
Sure, many call Muslim terrorists insane, still it's not the kind of insane as, say, flying a plane inside a building because someone there didn't like Celine Dion.

A similar point as my original posting, made in a more entertaining way: Why does faith deserve respect? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg) (video).

Quotation from Wikipedia article - Religion and Science

"Spiritual supplication and improvement of health. Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Centre and the Pew Organisation conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[24] An analysis of over 200 social studies that "high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with life and a sense of well-being"[25] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of these studies showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem, and lower levels of hypertension, depression and clinical delinquency,[26][27] Surveys suggest a strong link between faith and altruism.[28] Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health.[29] Michael Argyle and others claim that there is little or no evidence that religion ever causes mental disorders.[30]"

Yet before this, it also stated;

"Scientific studies have been done on religiosity as a social or psychological phenomenon. These include studies on the correlation between religiosity and intelligence (often IQ, but also other factors). A recent study on serotonin levels and religiosity[23] suggests a correlation between low serotonin levels and intense religious experiences."

But this brings forth this question too. Prove there isn't a God. No one in this existance can or can not prove what happens after death, if there is a divine being, etc etc. There have been instances where people have seen objects on the roof of a hospital after clinically dying, objects which were out of sight from the ground. It's termed an Out of Body Experience, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience and it does baffle science still. There's also the "String Theory" which can't be proven as of yet, but is supposed to govern the behavior of our universe, and other universes aswell (another theory, that there are multiple universes). Theories are just that, theories, they're thoughts on how things may or may not work, and will remain that way until someone can physically prove them, which then it will become Fact, so these (to a certain extent) fit in with the ideas of God and likewise in that they can't be proven yet.

If being happy is all what you want your life to be about then living in a fantasy world is the way to go. Using psychotropic drugs, dreaming, escapism through works of fiction, or suffering from a disorder like Down's syndrome can all help you be happy.

Scientific theories aren't used because they are (supposedly) true, but because they work, meaning they make testable predictions. "Some god did it" doesn't fall into that category.

String theory is (or "are", as there are many variants) a work in progress. I might agree that it's not a scientific theory (just yet).

1 Likewise, there's still no evidence that there isn't a God, besides, that's hardly a friendly thing to say about someone you don't actually know, is it?

2 Some God did it doesn't fall into that category, and I agree with that, however, it requires an alternate universe which is theoretical and henceforth have no physical evidence as of yet to make them fact.

I'm not claiming that there definitely isn't a god. I can't prove that anymore than you can prove that there is one.  But I will claim that it makes no sense to pick one unprovable, unfalsifiable theory and let that determine how you lead your life.

What are you refering to? What am I saying about whom?

What is your point?

Impossible both ways if you define God to be omnipotent: whatever you observe, God could have produced it, so no observation can disprove His existence. Conversely, any sufficiently powerful being (e.g. one that can manipulate your observations arbitrarily) is indistinguishable from God.

There is some attractive-sounding anecdotal evidence for OBEs, but the only hard fact seems to be that fiddling with people's brain activity causes OBEs (strongly suggesting that an OBE is simply a malfunction of self-perception; the brain misplacing the body in its model of the world). I'm more inclined to believe, like in the case of remote viewing (where the evidence for the phenomenon is also in the subject having information he normally wouldn't have), that the experiment is badly controlled.

Strictly speaking, science never proves anything; a theory is simply a model of how something works that has been tested, tells you something you didn't know (predicts) and has not been found to be wrong (yet). The closest you can get to the "Fact" you describe is an undisputed observation or theory, and someone may find something new that contradicts this. Within the realm of maths and logic, of course, absolute proofs are the norm.

String theory, however, is definitely a mess. The basic problem is that quantum mechanics works in some contexts (a lot of subatomic weirdness actually becomes predictable) and is blatantly wrong in others (big stuff like orbital mechanics), while general relativity works well in more or less the opposite contexts. In other words, both these theories are known to be wrong but complement each other pretty well. String theory is an attempt to produce a theory that pretty much reduces to the old two in the contexts where they work but works under more general circumstances (i.e. you can set up experiments where the old theories break down but string theory work). Unfortunately, there are dozens of ideas of how string theory should look like and, as you mention, no good ways to test it (i.e. at best, it doesn't predict anything the old theories didn't). Worst case: string theory turns out to be a dead end. Best case (and I'm not very optimistic about this especially in the short term): someone sorts out the mathematical stuff, puts together a nice and simple theory, shows how the old ones approximate the shiny new one and then find something happening that the new theory predicts and the old ones don't.

1, I agree that we shouldn't 100% govern our actions based on the ideas of Religion. Because it's written by Man, it's not some bearded man on a cloud recording his own views, but an author who has written down a story which is supposed to carry a message throughout, I personally govern my life by goodwill, not what books tell me.

For 2, "If being happy is all what you want your life to be about then living in a fantasy world is the way to go. Using psychotropic drugs, dreaming, escapism through works of fiction, or suffering from a disorder like Down's syndrome can all helpyou be happy."

You're implying that I am looking for a way out, despite the fact you don't know my beliefs, who I am, etc. Also, don't ever use a Mental Disability as something that can make you "Happy." My mother works at a special needs school as a teaching assistant, and it is not true happiness, what you have just said there is sans politeness to people who do suffer from such disabilities, yes it does make them seem "optimistic" but let me tell you, they can also be wraught with sadness aswell. Also, there are a fair few high functioning Down's Syndrome sufferers, and if they were to read that, they would be very insulted (As I know a fair few as friends).

3 My point is that to have faith in a theory that can't be proven can be seen as much folly as being religious, because neither can be proved hence forth neither should be followed without taking it with a pinch of salt.

While a certain degree of scepticism is useful in most cases, the trick is to apply suitable amounts of it. The major problem with religions is that there are so many of them and precious little ways to evaluate them against each other. In science, you can use the amount of testing and criticism a theory has stood up to determine how big a pinch of salt you need.

Indeed, I like your approach to this, it's not like your typical "You're wrong because I think you are" sort of thing, and you are keeping a neutrality, which is needed for a Discussion, and not an Arguement.

Anyhow, there has been a high rate of recorded OBEs from clinical deaths, roughly 90%. Also, there's the ideals of "Spiritualism" which also comes across as odd. In Spiritualist Churches, the mediums that are there, who do readings and such, have an uncanny rate of accuracy. I've visited a Church like this myself, to expand my knowledge on religions, and when I went for my own private reading, the medium identified my father's name, my heightened interest in the Orient, certain personal events that have happened in my life (direct definitions, not just "did you have a dog?" thing that is usually seen on television) and such, it was my first reading aswell. I'm still sceptical about such things, but it was enough to shake me up a little, and I've seen this in other cases aswell. This could be put down to Psychic abilities, but then again, that's another thing that is still under debate right now.

Alas, what I dislike about the majority of these style topics, is the fact that it involves a lot of bringing up a currently un-answerable question. It's like kicking a dead-cow in the road, nothing's going to come from it. Infact I dislike the fact that this sort of discussion is on a forum dedicated to a video game, not religious/atheist discussions of what happened when and what exactly is real. If anything, I'd suggest a seperate forum section for this stuff, Phillosophy or such, and leave General Discussion to just that.

This sounds like the sort of random factoids you can pick up by listening in on conversations. The first thing I'd try to rule out is that the alleged medium hasn't simply been hanging around with his ears open (or has an accomplice in this role). Were the facts he mentioned well known to your friends, relatives or suchlike? Did he know your identity in advance?

Uh, this is the Starbase Café, which exists for more or less this purpose. That said, many of these discussions tend to go round in circles even among people who are supposedly experts on the subject.

Not at all, I've only recently moved into the area, none of anyone we knew went to the church, and the medium was female ;).

Interesting. If you just dropped in unannounced in a place where nobody knows you, and she managed to figure all that out, she definitely has some impressive information-gathering skills. It's hard to tell from where I'm sitting whether extrasensory perception was necessary or not, but she does seem to be good at what she does.

Indeed, right now I can't say she even knew who I was, if she did, then that would be extremely strange, especially about my interest in the Orient, because really only my family knew about it then. Anyhow, they could actually have these special abilities, or they could be ninjas! :o. Seriously though, it was really strange to get something that accurate :/.

This is a case of miscommunication. "You" wasn't refering to you personally, but rather to "someone" in general. No insult was intended, and I was not implying that you used religion as an escape.

I said can, not will always in every individual. I have personally seen how happy some of these people can get from simple things. I am not claiming that everyone who has Down's syndrome will react like this, and I am not claiming that the individuals who do are happy all the time. My point is that a condition like Down's syndrome can allow someone to be happy in situations where a "normal" person would not be so. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'll be the first one to stress that anything should be examined critically.
But I have explained to you the difference between a scientific theory, and a religious idea, namely the ability to make falsifiable predictions, which makes scientific theories meaningful, but not religious ideas.

1 Fair enough, although from the wording, it's easy to mistaken this.

2 Don't say this then. Because it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about here. You used Down's Syndrome as a derogative statement though, did you not say that "if being happy is all what you want in your life to be about then living in a fantasy world is the way to go"? After which you use examples.

3 Likewise, theories are just that right now, theories. They can't be proven yet.

3 Oh wait, did we just go full circle here?

It seems there's some confusion as to what, exactly, a "theory" means in scientific terminology. The day-to-day, informal use of the word "theory" is in fact closer to what scientists term a "hypothesis": An idea that has yet to be conclusively supported. A theory in science, on the other hand, is a logically consistent framework which is formulated to systematically explain observed, related phenomena, and which has been verified experimentally to such an extent that it has come to be widely, or even universally, accepted in the scientific community. Theories are testable and predictive -- it is possible to verify (or disprove) a theory using observations, and it is possible to predict future events using the theory. The theory of gravity, for example, systematically explains observations about planetary movements and falling objects, allows us to predict the movement of planets, and to predict that on a large body (such as a planet), objects will fall towards that body when dropped. As such, the term "theory of evolution" or "Big Bang theory" does not connote that these two frameworks are merely hunches or educated guesses, but that they are widely, nearly universally accepted systems of explanation, supported by firm observable evidence.

(A bit of a personal nit of mine -- this is why I cringe a little bit whenever someone talks about "string theory" -- "string theory" is, in fact, a hypothesis, since it is as of yet unverifiable. It also makes me mutter obscenities under my breath whenever some religious type attacks evolution on grounds that it's "just a theory" -- in scientific terminology, labelling something a "theory" means it's pretty much the best explanation we currently have. Yes, my blood pressure probably is too high.)

I like to say that the important difference between science and religion is that if a practicioner of science finds solid, conclusive evidence that proves the theory of relativity wrong, he'll get the Nobel Prize, whereas if a practicioner of religion find solid, conclusive evidence that a dogma of his religion is wrong, he will be excommunicated.

Science tends to applaud those who finds the errors in the scientific body of knowledge -- Copernicus, Einstein and Gödel are examples. This is why science will eventually work errors out of the system. Religion tends to treat even wild contradictions as immutable, eternal truths, and effectively resist refinements to their dogma for centuries or millennia.

That's because science and religion are very different things with very different aims.
Science starts from what can be perceived and tries to find truths; religion starts from truth/what is assumed as truth (being assumed as divine revelation or another sort of absolute revelation) and provides a way of life based on said truths.

Thus, what is today assumed as truth in science can tomorrow change. Religious truths are absolute within the context of the respective religion - and even wild contradictions can be assumed as true because an entity can be imagined which is above the laws of logic and can warp their functionality.
And if you cease believing in certain points of a specific religion, you've already excommunicated yourself in fact; you're basically creating another religion based on your former religion.

On the contrary, I would suggest that you not try to go around telling people what examples they may and may not use, especially since you are being reactive rather than reasoning: I would have no problem with you disputing the accuracy of Meep-Eep's statement, but to do it in this overbearing manner and without providing objective evidence is not the right way to go about it. It makes little sense to lump together all "mental disabilities", since what psychologists are willing to classify as a mental disability is rather inconsistent to say the least. You are overgeneralizing from the examples that you personally have experience with...

Then by all means, let them be insulted. I have no patience for people who let it get in the way of communication when they feel insulted based on a misinterpretation of what someone said. If someone made a derogatory statement about a "mental disability" I had, then I would be no more irritated than I always am when someone makes a technically incorrect statement. Besides, Meep-Eep's statement is neither derogatory nor technically incorrect. (Note that I am not specifying at this time whether or not I have any "mental disability", Down's syndrome or otherwise.)

Learn to quote. I've got no idea what you are refering to.

If by "derogative" you mean that I consider it better not to have Down's syndrome than to do, then you're absolutely right. What is your point?

No, it's just you repeating yourself. You're not actually responding to my arguments.

Woohoo, religion thread! :D

Exactly, which is why no-one in their right mind believes (in the religious way) in theories hypotheses . I am sure even the people who devise string theories realize they might be wrong.

Yes, but they can be proven or disproven sometime.

In science philosophy, what you can't possibly prove or disprove, is even less valid than what has already been disproven.

Alright, here goes.


Wrong, the fact that you coupled it with psychotropic drugs made it seem that you were comparing it with that, which isn't the same because you can't choose to have Down's syndrome.


Because there is no argument in the first place because there is no conclusive evidence of God not existing or existing, like I said, no amount of discussion on these boards will ever change that. Besides, you ignored my posts about the beneficial effects of Religion (altruism, etc) and Outer Body Experiences.

The major reason why I personally believe that the concept of God is beneficial, is that Humans have something to humble themselves to. Without the concept of a being that is higher than you, power would be the alternative "religion" anyone who had power would as such have no consequence to use it for his own will. With the ideas of a God that will punish you for your sins, people who might behave like this won't due to said force.

But there's no need for evidence of God not existing, for the same reason there's no need for evidence that flying tomatoes or Remultap the Fashionably Excellent Djinn do not exist: because there's no reason to believe they do exist in the first place.

Also, how do you disprove God's existence? I think a true believer would argue it's impossible to do so (which brings us back to the last point of my last message).


That didn't prevent priests from molesting children. And what about Islamists who think their purpose in life is killing people? My point is, there are moral and immoral people on both sides. There's no proof that religious people behave better than secular ones.

You're absolutely right. However, there's also no conclusive evidence that Santa Claus doesn't run a secret underground toy and thermonuclear weapon construction facility, manned by elven slave labour, hidden under the icy wastes of the North Pole. There's also no conclusive evidence against roaming gangs of tooth fairies running an underworld black market economy of children's teeth, or that the British Parliament is in fact being mind-controlled by an all-seeing tin of baked beans in orbit around Saturn.

No sane person believes in either of these, not because of evidence that they don't exist, but because of the absence of evidence that they do exist. Why should we believe in Yahweh, the deity of middle-eastern bronze age shepherds, any more than we should believe in Odin, Athena, Quetzalcoatl or Ba'al?

Humbling oneself before a fiction is not humility, it is humiliation.

I personally feel humble when reflecting on that when all comes to all, I am nothing more than a carbon-based lifeform living on a pale blue dot in orbit around an insignificant little yellow star, in a nondescript spiral arm of one of billions of galaxies -- a simple descendant of plains hunter-gatherers, pondering his place in an unimaginably vast universe. It seems to me that when my own spot in the universe is so tiny, it is entirely up to me to give my brief stay in existence meaning, and to make it as good as I possibly can.


In that case, religion has failed miserably. The abuses of power conducted by the Catholic Church in medieval times are well-documented, and modern-day powerful believers frequently engage in quite immoral acts. Much more so than the relatively individualist Christianity, Islam is founded on the premise that humans should humble themselves before God -- even the word "Islam" literally translates to "Submission". One look at the Middle East, with Shi'ites and Sunnites horrifically slaughtering and torturing each other, should show that religion does not stop people from immoral behaviour.

Blasphemer! Everyone knows it's a teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot).

Exactly, the major problem with religions is that there are so many to believe in! From a scientific and philosophical point of view, monotheism has at least one thing going for it: it cuts the amount of gods down to a minimum. The part I don't quite get is why an omnipotent and omniscient being has such a hard time getting people to behave the way He wants.

More to the point, the powerful beliefs don't need to be religious in nature; for horrifying atheist fanatics, check out the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Actually, atheism is one god better at that than monotheism. :-)

You have a good point with the first statement, although the theory of a supernatural being or somesuch goes so far back in our evolution, it's been entwined in most of our cultures.

Indeed. The thing is that Main stream religion is corrupt, simply because it's written by man, and it's run by man. Corruption amongst humanity is ever present, on both sides of the coin. Scientists aren't flawless themselves, and neither were Priests and so on. The thing is, to have something that puts you in an unrivaled amount of power (Such as being that one person who has "connections" with a God, or being the Scientist with too much praise) will most likely cause some people to become corrupt in their roles. Personaly, I disagree with the ideas of a Priest or the certain person you "need" to get in touch with in order to become closer to God (if in existance), there aren't any quick fixes in life, you have to guide yourself most of time, so the idea of that someone who can instantly forgive your sins seems fishy to me.

One question though for the Atheists here, even though you do not believe in a supernatural being (unless it can be proven), do some of you still believe in some form of Afterlife, be it off of this world, or reincarnation?

While I can't answer for all the atheists here, I personally believe that after this life, I will most likely be eaten by worms. My conscious self, an emergent property of the complexity of my brain, will be gone when my brain has ceased functioning.

It is technically possible to be an atheist and believe in the supernatural (such as an immaterial soul) -- as long as supernatural phenomena or entities are not considered divine. However, many atheists (myself included) are also naturalists, meaning we believe that anything that has an observable effect on this universe has a natural cause.

I believe people like the idea of the afterlife because of fear of death. We are programmed to be disgusted with the thought of losing our consciousness. You can't imagine yourself in a situation where you are no longer thinking, and that is unacceptable for many people.

I think it is easiest to understand death by thinking of it as going to sleep without dreaming or waking up.


By the way, I really dislike the term "atheist". First, because I don't like being labelled, and second, because one of its possible meanings is "one who believes God does not exist". That's not what describes me best; why would I be thinking anything about the existence of God without any data about it?

If I must be labelled, I'd rather be called an agnostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism).

The reason I prefer "atheist" to "agnostic" is because deities have no special place in my universe. I also have no data to disprove the existence of invisible Irish Leprechauns, and yet, I don't regard the question of Irish Leprechauns as a deep mystery I cannot know anything about. With no observable evidence for their existence, it is reasonable to assume that they do not exist.

I believe it was Douglas Adams who coined the term "tooth fairy agnostic" -- he considered himself agnostic about God in the same way as most adults are agnostic about the tooth fairy.

As for death, Epicurius said it best: "Why fear death? Where death is, I am not. Where I am, death is not. Why should I fear that which cannot be where I am?"

They all the more have no special place in an agnostic's universe: an agnostic refuses to even discuss them and their existence, which I think is a better attitude. It's like ignoring instead of arguing.


I completely agree when the analogy is for a "religious god", with all the specific manmade details. But the definition I mentioned was "one who believes God does not exist", i.e. any kind of god. Since the very existence of the universe makes no sense scientifically, there might as well be a creator. Who knows? Could we ever find out? I don't pretend to know such things, nor do I care about them. That's agnosticism and I love it. :D

I guess that makes you an apathetic agnostic (http://uctaa.net/).

Consider the following, which I shall call Serge's Salvation through Satan:

• a good god, being good, might forgive you for the evil things you did
• an evil god, being evil, is unlikely to tolerate your good acts

So if you assume that there is a god, and that it's either good or evil, your best chance is doing evil things.

Fortunately, I don't take this whole god thing very seriously, nor do I recognise the existance of such a thing as absolute good and evil.

Ack! It's like Pascal's Wager in reverse! ;D

:-\ I dislike this fragmentation of agnosticism. It's like the crazy amount of Linux distributions. One cannot see the wood for the trees.

I don't think I'm apathetic any more than any other agnostic should be. I mean, all agnostics say we don't know anything about the existence or non-existence of deities. So why would they care about something they know nothing about? It's only natural not to care.

Because agnosticism also represents a stance on the religious questions. Agnosticism doesn't just mean "not knowing" or "not caring" about religious questions, it means the stance that religious questions are unknowable. Many agnostics (including most agnostic philosophers) defend this stance with just as much zeal as religious thinkers and atheists defend theirs.

Although now that we're speaking about labels and the Judean People's Front vs. the People's Front of Judea, I suppose I am more accurately described as an antitheist rather than an atheist. Not only do I not believe in gods, I find that belief in gods is an actively destructive and dangerous force, not unlike a socially sanctioned mass psychosis, and a force which has proven itself to be inimical to free thought and reason. I view it as my intellectual duty to oppose it.

I agree with this notion. Let's start a new movement. :P

I still dislike "Xtheist", though, for semantic reasons. I prefer "antireligious". I really prefer no label at all, because there's nothing special about us. We're natural thinkers.

About agnosticism, it does make perfect sense to me to say religious matters are unknowable. Even if miracles start happening tomorrow, maybe it's some amazingly advanced alien race? Maybe it's the operator of the Matrix? It's just a reasonable trail of thought. I think that saying "I believe that God does not exist" is more of a stance.

Indeed.

The term "naturalist" is also a good way to describe my own stance about the nature of the universe, since I not only do not believe in gods, I also do not believe in magic crystal healing, ghosts and other new age junk that technically doesn't involve gods. It's just that in my native language, "naturalist" is practically never used, and is very close to the (much more frequently used) term for people who practice public nudity. :-P

I tend to use the terms atheist or antitheist when I'm specifically discussing religion.

It does make perfect sense, and strictly speaking, religious matters are unknowable. It's just that there is an infinite number of unknowables (like the existence of tooth fairies, Voboblax the Happy Balrog, hyperintelligent cows conducting clandestine experiments on farmers, Russell's Teapot, etc.), most of which are so profoundly silly that any sane person implicitly assumes they do not exist, unless evidence implies otherwise.

For me, these *silly unknowables* include Odin, Thor, Ra, Anubis, Zeus, Athena and all the others. Yahweh too.

Very interesting, but  I have nothing to add to the main thread.

A few pages back, someone said there are dozens of versions of string theory.

I'm sorry, but that's off by over a hundred orders of magnitude.

String theory is a theory. It is a framework for understanding phenomena. It contains definitions and laws. It is not a terribly specific theory. However, it implies a set of far more specific theories, each of which assumes a 'compactification'. Each of the alternate compactifications has additional laws which renders it far mroe specific.
Over 99.99% of these compactifications have been ruled out as inconsistent with our world. We have a lot further to go before we can rule out all, or all but one.

~~~~

Science does not have a term for what it considers to be true, because nothing deserves this layer of semantic protection.

Alternatively, we could discuss our favorite colours of lampshades.

Just sayin'. It would probably involve less arbitrary stances than this.

Orange!

*notices a part of this thread he actually understands*

Blue.

Question:

Why does every forum seem to have a space permanently reserved for what is believed to be theological dispute? It's dull, it's trite, and it gets nowhere. After following this ridiculous discourse for several pages, I can only come to the conclusion that nobody is really being open-minded, here. At all. I think it has something to do with having a religious epiphany on a Star Control forum that triggers one's brain to shut off entirely to very many new ideas.

It was something very simple that the original poster wanted to declare. If you'll pardon the presumption, I think he was just a little tired of what cannot be described any differently to be anything but "religious freaks", scraping our throats and promptly following this with increasingly more heavy doses of traditionalist hogwash and derisive rhetoric. All the while threatening your eternal soul to damnation.

I hope not to offend anyone in saying this, and I certainly hope not to presume to be speaking for the original poster, but it's what I believe to be what was on his mind.

That having been said, "Red".

My annoyance (at least the one I was posting about) was not so much with the spouting of religious ravings, but rather with the idea that holding something as true because it feels right is somehow supposed to be equally respectable as rational reasoning.

As for why religious discussions are everywhere, I suspect that's because it's a topic where everyone can join in. Everyone seems to have an opinion, and if you deem that believing is a good substitute for knowing, everyone is qualified to participate.

(http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/26/47/23474726.jpg)

green.

Okay, it made sense in the 'pussy' thread, but what's this for?

Since I don't want to infest this forum with threads, I guess I'll take this opportunity to announce that I've recently (i.e. last week) become an antireligious atheist.

That's great, another intolerent bastard that gives regular atheists a bad name.
Couldn't you just be atheist without being anti-religious?

i mean, I'm pretty much as non-God, non-great pumpkin as they come, but I'll
still invite missionaries in for tea water and cookies if they knock on my door.
Having an opposing view (whether pro or con religion) does not entitle you to
be a dick.

He might've meant "anti" in a passive way, i.e. "areligious". But I can't see how aspiring to rid the world of superstition is being a dick. :P

Also, I have to say it again: I really don't think people should give themselves titles just because they don't have certain superstitions. At least not nouns like "an atheist". It feels as if they're on some camp, equivalent to yet another religion. It's nothing like that, we simply accept the world as it is. We were born this way. It's like giving a title to people who aren't , say, cashiers.

"Hi, I'm an acashier. I don't handle purchases in a store. What are you?"

There is a difference between considering religion dangerous and considering religious people unworthy/dangerous/stupid/whatever. Just like hating leprosy doesn't equate to hating leprous people.

Ah, and, by the way, hating the blunt way Dutchmen use to criticize people doesn't mean hating Dutchmen. (I remember you were a Dutchman?)

There is a difference. The term "non-cashier" does not have (too much of) a practical application. It is necessary more often to refer to being skeptical about the existence of deities than to refer to not being a cashier. And what better way to refer to this sort of people than by using the term "atheist"? Of course, this term does have some limitations, such as not expanding the breadth of this skepticism to supernatural in general, but we have other terms for that as well.

Ok, that's obviously a snipe at me. Let me point out a few things for you:
1)  I am more subtle towards other people. I would even say that I am subtle by default.
2)  I was more subtle towards you originally.

If you say so... What's your rationale for disliking me? My verbosity? My love for finding unlikely links between completely unrelated things? Both of them? None of them? I see no reason for perpetuating this grudge.

EDIT: Ah, and I take it you understand that my "snipe" wasn't by any means intended to annoy you? It's just that I've read that old post (http://uqm.stack.nl/forum/index.php?topic=195.msg5488#msg5488) of yours.

I like this analogy. :D


My point is, there's no reason to refer to this "group" at all. It's like the term "black person" or "African American". Their very existence and use are redundant and wrong IMO. Even if they're not derogatory, they imply these people are different, a group. They are just people and we are just people.

I'm aware this is just semantics, but language is often used to make things seem different from what they really are, and it ticks me off.


- Are you Christian?
- I don't know, what is Christian?

If there is no logical reason at all for these terms, why do they arise?  There are quite a few perfectly clear reasons, you know.  Other than "evil, privileged oppressors seeking to perpetuate the socially inferior status of minority groups by deliberately preserving derogatory and repressive linguistic constructs", or some equivalent crap that you might hear from out-of-touch loons (you know, the kind that actually finds things like "Post-Colonial Studies" to be legitimate academic fields rather than glorified ways of politicizing one's ego; stuff like that).

Point is, there are factual and undeniable differences between groups of people; differences perfectly visible to reason.   This does not mean that acknowledging a plain difference automatically classifies a group as "inferior", "superior" or anything on that scale, despite what some Groucho-Marxists would have you believe.  Groups of people might plainly differ from each other ethnically, politically, linguistically, religiously and culturally and still remain "people", all of them, without any kind of value judgment.  Hell, most of these groups prevalently view themselves as distinct groups - including the one you gave as an example.   There is nothing morally 'wrong' about plainly and neutrally acknowledging the human diversity in our reality, nor does it contradict your saying that, on the bottom line, we're all people (a... "redundant" statement if I've ever heard one, by the way).


Yeah, like when people use language to impose their own utopian, out-of-touch, wishy-washy moral or political views upon reality.  Ticks me off too.

But hey, it can sometimes be immensely funny, too.  Like a couple of years ago when a few African Americans (sorry, I'll wash my hands after this post) proclaimed that they're offended by the terms "master" and "slave" used for hard drive and other IDE devices in the computer industry, because they automatically remind them of you-know-what.   As a non-American who looks at American political culture from the outside, that one really had me rolling on the floor....

Groups don't view.

Phrasing. "It is prevalent among members of these groups to view them as distinct", if you will.

To start off, "distinct groups" is impossibly vague - The group of people with dark brown hair is also a distinct group from the group of people with light brown hair, but that distinction isn't worth mentioning. Neither, of course, is the distinction between the "group" with dark brown skin and any other group. I grant there's a distinction, but if anyone thinks the distinction is significant, that's racism and I don't like it. No race functions in concert, and people who treat them as if they do are usually stupid.

As for the term "African American", I have no problem with it as long as people use it to refer to Americans of African descent. I definitely have a problem with it if anyone uses it to refer to people with dark skin, because some of them aren't American and some people of African descent have light skin, and there are probably some dark-skinned Americans who aren't of African descent too.

As for the term "black person", I have a problem with that term because both the person isn't black (only their skin) and the person isn't black (just dark brown). If you actually want to refer to that, call it like it is - a dark-skinned person. It's harder to hold racist view and other stupid views in general when you think about things as what they are rather than by stereotyping or categorizing them.

If you really want to know...
It's mostly because you don't seem to learn. The change in my attitude towards you from polite and subtle towards direct and blunt is mostly because I don't want to waste any more words on you, while it is sometimes still necessary to respond to you, if only to provide a different perspective for others.

I think you missed the point of that posting. The point was that there are very few taboos in present-day Dutch culture. I did not mean that Dutch people are crude.


You are absolutely right! Here I was, eating my red-skinned apple, sitting on my black-upholstered chair, playing chess as the beige side, writing down my moves with my blue-ink pen, all the while thinking I was eating my red apple on my black chair while playing chess using the white pieces, writing with my blue pen. How did people ever manage to understand me?

Language is for communication, transfering ideas from one person to the other. Shortcuts get taken all the time, and people call things as they appear on the furface, because the other person will know what you mean, and the idea gets across with the least effort. Most people won't make a problem out of that, because they know what you're trying to get across, and they know that the idea is central to the language. The only people that do make a problem are those who set out to do so.

I don't like the idea of trying to control people's thoughts by controlling their language (see also newspeak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak)). And I don't think it works anyhow (at least not like this), because the idea that people have in mind isn't what they are saying; when someone refers to a person as "black", he/she is not implying anything else than a superficial resemblance of their appearance to the colour black. Yes, it helps when people think about things as they are, but you're not changing what they are thinking; what they were saying never was what they were thinking.

On the other hand, you might simply have a not-quite-true vision of me, and you might try (consciously or unconsciously) to fit reality into your model, misinterpreting me. And maybe you also overreact at times. Don't bother replying to this if you don't want to.

My point exactly! :P

But seriously, I just don't see why there should be "African Americans" but not "European Americans". What's the difference?

(You seem to be quite agitated by my opinion, why?)

If the point is to be short, one can use the term "negro" - it has fewer syllables. ::)

Also, the stupid little situation in the paragraph I have not quoted both has a false premise and is obviously the result of reading into my post something which I neither said nor meant. If language is supposed to be for communication, it apparently isn't very good for the purpose.

Wait, refering to someone with dark skin tone as 'black' is considered derisive now? Sorry EP, you're on your own there.

Elvish Pillager

Alright, this is just getting nuts, I have had enough of hearing this repressive, elitist, thought-police kind of lunacy.

Is someone a fool or an amoral being if he does not use absolute precision in describing each individual object or person or if he uses prior experience or knowledge to guess at a future action?

If an army was brutally invading your country, do you think it would be advantageous to sit there and say, 'well I am not sure if everyone here is onboard with this invasion, I really need to interview each one of these armed men before I can decide my precise course of action?'


Don't you think that if millions of years of evolution has created the ability for humans to see connections and patterns between things, that this might be a worthy adaption? We are a product of natural evolution, we are animals. We were not made this way by an intelligence that could make mistakes or be 'wrong'. We evolved to be as we are from surviving so many tests that each part of us has an important purpose.

Further, if one thinks he is wiser than this, that he can decide what is 'bad' about mainstream human instincts and time-tested systems, then the influence of him and those of a similar belief on our species and world will most likely be very temporary.


meep-eep

I think meep has provided a good concept for you to consider. People are not machines that follow very specific and tested programming. We deal with much greater and diverse information than machines and compensate by choosing speed over absolute perfection in most cases.

Derisive? Repressive? No, it just annoys me a bit. What are you guys on about? Suddenly, me complaining about a figure of speech I don't like earns me multiple comparisons to the thought police?

Thoughts are reflected in words. Changing the words people use (newspeak, etc) won't change what they think, any more than stabbing someone's reflection will hurt them. On the other hand, it _is_ possible to gather information from a reflection.

Almost every time I've heard someone use the term "black person", they've been using it in a way closer to stereotyping than thoughtful communication. Every time I've heard someone stumble awkwardly over their words and then say "person with dark skin", their subsequent comment has been more sane. While it's likely that what I've personally seen is biased in that direction, it's also likely that such a relation exists. In short, people who are comfortable with the term "black person" are more likely (I don't know by how much) to owe to fix their thinking.

Maybe it depends on where you live? Over here, "he's the black guy" can be extremely useful, as most people aren't. It's the fastest and most efficient way to identify someone (who is black), but that doesn't mean it's neccesarily.


So what you are saying is that in your experience people who use the phrase "black person" is more likely to be racist than one who uses the phrase "person with dark skin"? I realize you're using a personal example, but do you have any clue as to wether there has been any sociological research into this area. It'd be an interesting read.

I would like to point out that changing the words people use can certainly change their
thought processes. Not over-night, but over a longer period of time, conditioning
will certainly change the way a person thinks.

Here's an example out of left field. Some people in my area refer to the supreme being
as Jehova. Some as "Our Father", others as God. they may be refering, roughly, to
the same concept/thing/entity, but the different labels direct thinking of this
being in different ways.

Here's a hint why the two distinctions up there are never going to be viewed by most people as equally insignificant: One of them has absoutely no bearing on human reality here and now.  The other involves groups which, like it or not, represent certain cultural characteristics that are shared by their respective members collectively (not individually - that is, not meaning "all individuals of group X are the same"); historically, socially and culturally, their existence as groups has been meaningful in the context of human affairs, has given them group identities], and has shaped our reality in one way or another.  Therefore, people are going to view such a distinction as a perfectly relevant tool of information exchange.


Funny, and there I was thinking that "racism" is the conviction that a certain race is superior or inferior to another - possibly justifying oppression, enslavement, genocide, and all that nasty stuff.   But hey, you make it seem quite innocent, really - if racism is merely a case of misplaced semantic distinctions, I guess it really isn't worth more than a couple points taken off on a language exam.  So that's what everyone's been making a fuss about??


No difference between racial or ethnical groups can be reduced to a mere simplification such as "skin color", and people who treat them as if they can - be they mere racists or kneejerk self-styled multiculturalists/anti-racists - are usually stupid, not to mention that they severely underestimate the cultural diversity in humanity.  It's especially bad when they also think that a shorthand figure of speech (as meep-eep has explained) is an example of just such a fallacy.

Well, since you're quite obviously non-sarcastic in your quest for an explanation, I've given you one up there. :P


*Shrugs* ask whoever governs the acceptance of terms in American political culture, I guess.  I'm not sure why the terms aren't perfectly aligned, gee.

And nah, I'm not particularly agitated by your opinion, it's just something I tend to hear too often, and it's usually accompanied by an acute case of clamoring at insignificant details while completely ignoring the existence of a big picture.  Happens enough in our country, too (I'm making an educated guess that you're Israeli as well).

I don't know, you do seem quite agitated to me (compare "kneejerk self-styled multiculturalists/anti-racists" to "mere racists"). I can't see why an attitude that aims to defend people deserves this loud protest.

As for  the big picture, I think I made my point with the meaningless "European American".

Maybe the peopel don't want to be defended? Saying that black people, white people, yellow people, orange people are all the same or that refering to people with these labels is racism is like saying caling one person a man and another a woman is sexism.

People aren't all the same and some (maybe most) are proud of the distintion. Racism comes
about when terms are used (or invented) to put a negative spin on those differences.

Maybe because you want to restrict free speech?

Pride in such a distinction is a dividing force. The differences that can be shown to correlate with "race" are dwarfed the fluctuations in identity from person to person. When you can judge by the qualities that you believe to be correlated with it, judging by "race" is useless.

Strawman fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman). Noone is talking about judging by race.
And what I for one am arguing is that there's no harm in saying something like "Who of those people is professor Johnson?", "- The black woman."

Yes, they are. They're talking about using race as a factor to determine anything about a person. That's a definition of "judging", and the one I intended to use; a less loaded word didn't come to mind at the time.

Also, my post wasn't answering your point; it was intended for VileRancour and Zeep-Eeep.

Oh? Unless I missed something they're only talking about using language to "determine things" about groups, not individuals.

Like one might talk about "Dutch culture", even though many of the properties in mind will not be specific to "Dutch culture" and/or will not be possessed by many Dutch people. But that does not mean that there aren't customs which are prevalent and notable here, and if you're refering to that aspect of life as a Dutchman, the term will work just fine.

Or you could look at the voting distribution in American presidential elections. Even though the difference doesn't come from the fact that their skins are of different colours¹, you can't deny that the distribution for "whites" is very much different from the one for "blacks". For these purposes, grouping by "race" makes a lot of sense. Again, you're determining things about groups, not individuals. (Although the determined distributions give you probabilities of an individual voting one way or another, and I don't see any problem with that either.)
Oh, and you're not going to convince me to say things like "The dark-brown-skinned vote goes for 65% to the republican candidate."

¹ Not directly at least; the reasons for voting differently is often dependant on the situtation one is in, which may depend on the treatment received from others based on skin colour.

I never said it was. I didn't say I was not talking about judging by race, I said noone was.
Or are you implying that I'm not allowed to respond because your remark wasn't directly directed at me?

That's exactly what you should say, because that's exactly whay what that silly statistic means! :(


Perhaps something like the Sentient Milieu is watching Earth, waiting for it to become a great democracy with no hunger or poverty or intolerance, before it makes its first contact. *gazes at the stars*

It was in response to your "And what I for one am arguing is..." comment.