TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- creationism making a comeback in texas
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Wow.

i think we'd be fooling ourselves if we didn't admit that a brand of islam like this certainly exists.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN a brand of islam

Key words, right?

I don't know, I just get tired of the preponderance of religious criticism to substitute the part as the whole, focusing on radical elements in order to make sweeping generalizations about that entire religion. It just comes off as naive, and there's absolutely no incentive to engage such people in discussion, because their fundamental assumption is simply wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Key words, right? I don't know, I just get tired of the preponderance of religious criticism to substitute the part as the whole, focusing on radical elements in order to make sweeping generalizations about that entire religion. It just comes off as naive, and there's absolutely no incentive to engage such people in discussion, because their fundamental assumption is simply wrong.

Indeed. This; however, is the case with pretty much any philosophy or ideology; some people who disagree (usually those without the intellectual wherewith-all to understand the subtleties of said ideology/philosophy) will focus on the most radical elements or isolated disagreeable aspects in an effort to discredit the whole. The truly terrible thing is that people who already hold a position and are only looking to strengthen their conviction to same will accept these (superficial) arguments as being profound and substantial then propagate them as though they actually were in any way valid. Ultimately, this works against them as any thinking person can see the folly in the arguments; however, it's never the thinking persons that are the most vocal and the end result is the entire "debate" gets dumbed down.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Key words, right? I don't know, I just get tired of the preponderance of religious criticism to substitute the part as the whole, focusing on radical elements in order to make sweeping generalizations about that entire religion. It just comes off as naive, and there's absolutely no incentive to engage such people in discussion, because their fundamental assumption is simply wrong.

i know, i know! after centuries of having all opposition firmly beneath the boot it takes some getting used to but dont you worry, the UN is one step ahead of you regarding the criticism of religion (read: islam).

seriously tho i do agree, and i think people are too hasty (or lazy) with their words when expressing themselves.

that said, i still think that moderate religion is the cesspool from which extremism is born. but i guess that's just me not understanding the 'subtleties' of people that do things like corrupt our education system

with that out of the way, a word from our sponsor

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that said, i still think that moderate religion is the cesspool from which extremism is born. but i guess that's just me not understanding the 'subtleties' of people that do things like corrupt our education system

I would suggest to you that anyone seeking to corrupt the education system does not qualify as "moderate religion" (as you term it). I would further suggest that radical elements are usually born of some motivation other then faith and faith is co-opted as a means to that end... that said; my position is based on nothing more then my observances, I cannot back it up empirically so please apply whatever weight you wish to it. Oddly, many of your criticisms of religion I also hold; however, I tend to focus on the offensive elements rather then the larger whole.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I would suggest to you that anyone seeking to corrupt the education system does not qualify as "moderate religion" (as you term it). I would further suggest that radical elements are usually born of some motivation other then faith and faith is co-opted as a means to that end... that said; my position is based on nothing more then my observances, I cannot back it up empirically so please apply whatever weight you wish to it. Oddly, many of your criticisms of religion I also hold; however, I tend to focus on the offensive elements rather then the larger whole.

yeah, i think you're absolutely right.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, i think you're absolutely right.

I'm not sure if it is, ultimately, encouraging or frustrating that we are so often much closer in position then either of us would care to believe.

haha, well its not frustrating from my end coz you're one of those awesome specimens, the rational theist. very rarely seen in the wild, and i enjoy spending time with you in your natural habitat.

ultimately, i think the main thing is we're both good people (or at least you are) and i think that's all anyone can ask.

What constitutes a 'good person'? Undoubtedly Xtian-based criteria... incoming!

*snores loudly*

*wakes up from snoring, opens one eye*

*picks nose*

*falls back to sleep......................................*

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On What constitutes a 'good person'? Undoubtedly Xtian-based criteria... incoming!

"love thy neighbour as yourself." -Mark 12:31... Duh.

While I do ascribe to the above; I would argue that since "good" is not an objective description the criteria upon which one determines whether or not someone is "good" must be determined by each individual seeking to classify others as either "good" or "dirty rat-fink bastard".... the rat-fink bastard thing is also subjective.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard the rat-fink bastard thing is also subjective.

I can think of a few people around here where this isn't quite accurate... myself probably being one of them.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Key words, right? I don't know, I just get tired of the preponderance of religious criticism to substitute the part as the whole, focusing on radical elements in order to make sweeping generalizations about that entire religion. It just comes off as naive, and there's absolutely no incentive to engage such people in discussion, because their fundamental assumption is simply wrong.

Religion is quite often guilty of this exact same thing though - the preponderance of its judgments seem to vilify outsiders and non-believers; those critical of its "truth" in the first place. Sort of a who do you think you are, questioning the authority of GOD? thing. This isn't necessarily a part of any religion though; it's merely human nature poking out.

And besides, how 'radical' an element is, is entirely subjective. Of course there is a relative consensus among some modes of thought, but religion is one of those institutions that incites particular modes of thought in the first place - it is foremost a social dynamic among human beings (though some would of course claim is primarily spiritual... but that's a different argument!) that is known to urge people to groupthink and to react as a larger social organism. When you find yourself outside of this organism and utterly opposed to it, you are merely a meal waiting to happen. This isn't exclusive to religion, however - it's just that religion has one of the strongest tendencies to establish a hegemony of sorts wherever it springs up, and no matter what particular brand of faith it may be. It is a relative taboo to question any hegemony - in fact, it is this taboo quality that defines the resilience of any given society though, the "strength" of a given doctrine supposed in the relative wealth of its opposition. But why are radical beliefs - even those not resulting in direct violence - forbidden to disbelieve? Why is it unfair to criticize both the doctrine as well as the believers, when it comes to things like talking snakes and vengeful deities for which there is no tangible evidence to support? What is it that makes these things so acceptable, so vanilla... but other beliefs, other actions, so radical?

And who is to blame? Are the critics being unfair? Are the followers far too biased? Is it the fault of the religion in question? I am hesitant to blame religion itself, despite the enormous amount of flaws I personally see in it, as people's (mis?)interpretations of it have almost always been the conflict in question. The sad truth about the world however, is that violence is all too often met by the beliefs that people hold; that your life is only yours so far as somebody else allows you to keep living it, and that the beliefs of others - no matter how true or untrue you think them to be - shall always be a form of tyranny, especially when so many are pushed to the point of violence as a means to exact their beliefs upon the inconvertible. And violence is perhaps the supreme force - one always exacted by the hand of one belief or another.

Excellent post below.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Religion is quite often guilty of this exact same thing though - the preponderance of its judgments seem to vilify outsiders and non-believers; those critical of its "truth" in the first place. Sort of a who do you think you are, questioning the authority of GOD? thing. This isn't necessarily a part of any religion though; it's merely human nature poking out.

Agreed; partially... adherents of religions are often guilty of the exact same thing; however, none of the great religions (I'll stick to the great religions because I know them, I cannot speak to what one little tribe in the deep forests of New Guinea believes) flat out vilify outsiders... even Islam despite the celebrated Qu'ranic verses referring to killing the infidels. Sure there are sects full of nuts who do exactly what you say; however, criticism of same must be directed at said sect not the over-riding belief system (as these sects are, generally, at odds with the core values of the religion they claim to be a part of... the "God hates fags" people are a good example of this).

quote:

And besides, how 'radical' an element is, is entirely subjective. Of course there is a relative consensus among some modes of thought, but religion is one of those institutions that incites particular modes of thought in the first place - it is foremost a social dynamic among human beings (though some would of course claim is primarily spiritual... but that's a different argument!)

FYI, the largest religious body in the world agrees with you on this point.

quote:

that is known to urge people to groupthink and to react as a larger social organism. When you find yourself outside of this organism and utterly opposed to it, you are merely a meal waiting to happen. This isn't exclusive to religion, however - it's just that religion has one of the strongest tendencies to establish a hegemony of sorts wherever it springs up, and no matter what particular brand of faith it may be. It is a relative taboo to question any hegemony - in fact, it is this taboo quality that defines the resilience of any given society though, the "strength" of a given doctrine supposed in the relative wealth of its opposition.

While I agree with you for the most part here the fact that questioning hegemony is taboo is a product of human social interaction rather then religious dogma.

quote:

But why are radical beliefs - even those not resulting in direct violence - forbidden to disbelieve? Why is it unfair to criticize both the doctrine as well as the believers, when it comes to things like talking snakes and vengeful deities for which there is no tangible evidence to support? What is it that makes these things so acceptable, so vanilla... but other beliefs, other actions, so radical?

I would submit to you that it is not unfair to question any of those things and that no beliefs are forbidden; however, I would further submit that the radical beliefs are normally born out of an imperfect, perhaps even flawed, understanding of the teachings of a given faith; similarly, criticisms of small insignificant points (a la talking snake) are usually born of the same lack of understanding. Don't get me wrong, it should not be expected that everyone fully understand everything; however, the correct approach when faced with something that one does not understand is to seek understanding rather then to write it off is being entirely false or, conversely, to ignore those elements which one does not understand and simply trust that the scripture must be correct and intended exactly as written because you were taught as a child that God is infallible.

quote:

And who is to blame? Are the critics being unfair? Are the followers far too biased?

usually both

quote:

Is it the fault of the religion in question? I am hesitant to blame religion itself, despite the enormous amount of flaws I personally see in it, as people's (mis?)interpretations of it have almost always been the conflict in question. The sad truth about the world however, is that violence is all too often met by the beliefs that people hold; that your life is only yours so far as somebody else allows you to keep living it, and that the beliefs of others - no matter how true or untrue you think them to be - shall always be a form of tyranny, especially when so many are pushed to the point of violence as a means to exact their beliefs upon the inconvertible. And violence is perhaps the supreme force - one always exacted by the hand of one belief or another.

I agree with all the above except your use of the "always."

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Excellent post below.

Ah-ah-ah, vanity!

quote:

Agreed; partially... adherents of religions are often guilty of the exact same thing; however, none of the great religions (I'll stick to the great religions because I know them, I cannot speak to what one little tribe in the deep forests of New Guinea believes) flat out vilify outsiders... even Islam despite the celebrated Qu'ranic verses referring to killing the infidels. Sure there are sects full of nuts who do exactly what you say; however, criticism of same must be directed at said sect not the over-riding belief system (as these sects are, generally, at odds with the core values of the religion they claim to be a part of... the "God hates fags" people are a good example of this).

And you are right, the major religions do not "vilify all outsiders", but rather tolerate them or merely see people as a crop to convert. This is of course not true of all scenarios nor every religion, but relgion - as with just about any social phonomenon - has an inherently assimilative nature about it. Philosophy and debate and politics and prime-time television all have this very same nature: you're either part of the solution or part of the problem, no? I see this in almost every American machination - the polarization of that fickle agreement we so patently refer to as "morality" being at the forefront of such conversions. Am I saying that it is religion's fault, that this is at the top of every religion's rulebook? Of course not. "Radical sects" are indeed in the minority - their outcries and ammunition beaing heard over all other forms of reason. This is indeed a tragic fault of mankind's nature, not necessarily that of religion, but the fact persists that wherever you have religion, you shall have religious intolerance and fanaticism, no matter how moderate the religion may seem.

quote:

While I agree with you for the most part here the fact that questioning hegemony is taboo is a product of human social interaction rather then religious dogma.

Indeed, religion rarely teaches this explicitly. But it is implied to a point - doubt and sin and disagreement being forms of heresy. Things have no doubt changed with time - your church especially - but still there lingers an alienation, a sort of shelter of wisdom as it were, warding from certain thoughts and speech under penalty of social scrutiny. Once more though, this is no specific fault of religious dogma, but that of any social movement; political affiliations work in much the same way. But just because religion does not tell people to take this action, this thought, doesn't exempt religion from the reality of this dynamic. Christianity is somewhat exclusive in this regard, in that it brought about a revisionist approach - one analagous with rebirth, of course - to accept all into its fold who accept the love of Christ, regardless of social status. It's really the only way the organism has survived for so long. But it seems as though the wealth of modern Christianity is in appealing to the heart-strings so you can hook more believers - pad the flock. And through this, comes that almighty 'control' people like me are always harking about. It's not that religion is merely a tool to control people or milk them for cash, etc; It's just that men use it as such to the effect of quite radical agendas, subtle though they may be.

quote:

I would submit to you that it is not unfair to question any of those things and that no beliefs are forbidden; however, I would further submit that the radical beliefs are normally born out of an imperfect, perhaps even flawed, understanding of the teachings of a given faith; similarly, criticisms of small insignificant points (a la talking snake) are usually born of the same lack of understanding. Don't get me wrong, it should not be expected that everyone fully understand everything; however, the correct approach when faced with something that one does not understand is to seek understanding rather then to write it off is being entirely false or, conversely, to ignore those elements which one does not understand and simply trust that the scripture must be correct and intended exactly as written because you were taught as a child that God is infallible.

Whilst I certainly agree there is hypocrisy to be found on either side of the debate, I am not certain that full understanding on everyone's part would alleviate things. True, it's a step in the right direction, and one should always seek to understand as much as one can before commencing with rote and haphazard commentary, but there comes a point of conscience where I, and many others to be sure, believe Christianity (for example) to be utterly incorrect. No study on the subtleties and the structure, no matter how eloquent or interesting they may be to me, shall ever cause me to believe that there is at least one God and that he loves us in any comprehensible way.

quote:

I agree with all the above except your use of the "always."

When I speak of "belief", I do not necessarily mean it in a religious sense. It seems to me that everyone who picks up (much less uses) a weapon does so out of some personal holding - be it the "virtue" of self-defense, the call to defend one's region from would-be occupants, or any other reasoning - no matter how radical - cannot be sifted from the personal belief that what one is doing is right and necessary. People do not kill without their convictions - it's the only way that otherwise sane people can bring themselves to committ some of the atrocities that history reflects. But this is not the fault of religion.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Can't we all agree that it's not a good idea to teach creationism (or any other theory with no evidence) in a science class?

dude - what are talking about? The bible has been around for almost 2000 years. Evidence of creationism was around way before Darwin was even born.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 dude - what are talking about? The bible has been around for almost 2000 years. Evidence of creationism was around way before Darwin was even born.

I'm sorry, I don't know you well enough to know.... you're fuckin' kidding, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I'm sorry, I don't know you well enough to know.... you're fuckin' kidding, right?

of course - maybe i should have made use of a little yellow face thingy.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I'm sorry, I don't know you well enough to know.... you're fuckin' kidding, right?

I was thinking the same thing... that MUST be sarcasm; jerz is a pretty logical thinking dude.


Edit: I knew it! haha

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I was thinking the same thing... that MUST be sarcasm; jerz is a pretty logical thinking dude. Edit: I knew it! haha

i couldn't even recite a verse from the bible. I don't think I've ever willingly read any part of the bible (I say willingly because perhaps I was forced to read the bible in CCD classes).

haha... same here. I also went to Catholic school from 1st grade to 3rd grade, then back for all 4 years of high school. Studied that stupid book cover to cover.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss haha... same here. I also went to Catholic school from 1st grade to 3rd grade, then back for all 4 years of high school. Studied that stupid book cover to cover.

Didn't you also go to some militant Xtian College in Georgia for a while as well?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Didn't you also go to some militant Xtian College in Georgia for a while as well?

LOL!!! Nah man, 2 state universities for me.

Right, I knew you went to University Of.. Florida... or something, but then there was some clown college before that...

There's no way I could be thinking of someone else.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Ah-ah-ah, vanity!

Actually, my "excellent post below" was intended to convey my views on your post, which I was quoting below... not my own.

quote:

"Radical sects" are indeed in the minority - their outcries and ammunition beaing heard over all other forms of reason. This is indeed a tragic fault of mankind's nature, not necessarily that of religion, but the fact persists that wherever you have religion, you shall have religious intolerance and fanaticism, no matter how moderate the religion may seem.

I fully agree; however, this statement should really be broadened out to include all ideologies, philosophies, and doctrines.

quote:

Indeed, religion rarely teaches this explicitly. But it is implied to a point - doubt and sin and disagreement being forms of heresy. Things have no doubt changed with time - your church especially - but still there lingers an alienation, a sort of shelter of wisdom as it were, warding from certain thoughts and speech under penalty of social scrutiny. Once more though, this is no specific fault of religious dogma, but that of any social movement; political affiliations work in much the same way. But just because religion does not tell people to take this action, this thought, doesn't exempt religion from the reality of this dynamic. Christianity is somewhat exclusive in this regard, in that it brought about a revisionist approach - one analagous with rebirth, of course - to accept all into its fold who accept the love of Christ, regardless of social status. It's really the only way the organism has survived for so long. But it seems as though the wealth of modern Christianity is in appealing to the heart-strings so you can hook more believers - pad the flock. And through this, comes that almighty 'control' people like me are always harking about. It's not that religion is merely a tool to control people or milk them for cash, etc; It's just that men use it as such to the effect of quite radical agendas, subtle though they may be.

All of what you say here is true; however, these are the actions of men; not of the religion. While it is true that there are people abuse religion to influence others for their own gain; there are any number of non-religious systems of thought/belief that are abused in the exact same way. What one needs to apply is the legal test of "if not for"... would unscrupulous individuals be able to influence and manipulate groups of people to their own gain if not for the existence of religion.... the answer - of course - is yes; therefore, one must conclude that the fact that these abuses take place is not the fault of religion. Since that is the case then the argument really should not be against religion; rather, it should be against those individual malfeasors who by any means manipulate others to their prejudice for their own gain.

quote:

Whilst I certainly agree there is hypocrisy to be found on either side of the debate, I am not certain that full understanding on everyone's part would alleviate things. True, it's a step in the right direction, and one should always seek to understand as much as one can before commencing with rote and haphazard commentary, but there comes a point of conscience where I, and many others to be sure, believe Christianity (for example) to be utterly incorrect. No study on the subtleties and the structure, no matter how eloquent or interesting they may be to me, shall ever cause me to believe that there is at least one God and that he loves us in any comprehensible way.

Of course a fuller understanding of both sides from both sides would not end the debate; there will always be contention, as rational thinking persons will inevitably come to different conclusions as they apply more or less weight to the "arguments" and "evidence" then others would. This is natural and born directly from ones experience and frame of reference. What each side actively seeking a fuller understanding of both their own and the other side's positions/beliefs would do is eliminate the pot-shots from those that simply don't get either side... you know; the "you're saying we evolved from monkeys?" and "so god made women by carving up a rib," (or to be fair to the Vedic faiths... "so you're saying the world was formed by the vibration of god's voice"), shit arguments which do nothing to advance anything because they don't actually address any real belief. Without question, a full understanding of one's own and another's position won't end the debate (I'm a good example of this as I have a very good understanding of many faiths and non-faith based philosophies yet I am not an atheist, Hindu, Shinto, communist, humanist, etc.) nor should anyone ever expect it to.... what it would achieve; however, is an enriching of the debate as people could appreciate where the commonalities are (truth is always found in commonalities) and then the debate would only be over the differences, which would likely be a much more productive debate. Will any side "win?"... of course not; however, that's not to say that there is nothing to be gained from the exercise if it is done correctly; the problem now is that the exercise is not done correctly... radical elements and irrational people using poorly conceived arguments to try and discredit what they believe the other side's position is (and invariably they are wrong) just serve to bring what could be a great intellectual argument down to a shouting match and test of wills where actions are ultimately taken based on how many people are yelling and how loudly rather then based on the merit of what they are saying.

quote:

When I speak of "belief", I do not necessarily mean it in a religious sense. It seems to me that everyone who picks up (much less uses) a weapon does so out of some personal holding - be it the "virtue" of self-defense, the call to defend one's region from would-be occupants, or any other reasoning - no matter how radical - cannot be sifted from the personal belief that what one is doing is right and necessary. People do not kill without their convictions - it's the only way that otherwise sane people can bring themselves to committ some of the atrocities that history reflects. But this is not the fault of religion.

No, no, I knew exactly what you meant... I only objected to the use of the word "always" because I am too optimistic to concede that this will never change... I prefer to think humanity will progress beyond that... of course this is improbable but if we resign ourselves to believe that this is a condition that cannot be changed then the incentive to try is reduced; and there is simply too much to be gained by the attempt to allow that opportunity to pass due to apathy.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.