Skip to Content
Register · Login
About Theme

A Letterboxing Community

Atlas Quest
Search Edit Search

Read Thread: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????

Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232676 by Mr Yuk
May 31, 2008 11:20pm
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote In third world countries, God is downright aloof or even cruel.


That's because all those people are heathens.
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232793 by FamilyMan
May 31, 2008 11:33pm
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote Sidebar: Christians are not so small a percentage--fully a quarter to one-third of the world's peoples are Christian (Catholic and other Christian traditions).


Really? I didn't think it was that high. I understood that Bhuddism, Hindu, and Islam were all larger percentages, which would relegate Christianity to less than a quarter at most. Or are you counting Islam as Christian?
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232841 by Kirbert
May 31, 2008 11:55pm
Thread (disabled) Board
Really? I didn't think it was that high. I understood that Bhuddism, Hindu, and Islam were all larger percentages, which would relegate Christianity to less than a quarter at most. Or are you counting Islam as Christian?


You know, for someone who likes facts, I'm kind of surprised you didn't bother to check any. According to the CIA's World Factbook:

Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)


Now stop harassing people and play nice. =)

-- Ryan
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232832 by Kirbert
Jun 1, 2008 12:30am
Thread (disabled) Board
mr. yuk said:

In third world countries, God is downright aloof or even cruel


kirbert said

That's because all those people are heathen


I know that when you said heathen, you were playing into the rhetoric or something. It's probably not your personal view. But I take umbrage with such an uncritical representation. It's one thing to deconstruct religions, but it's quite another to thing to call a whole group of people unenlightened or unprincipled, lacking a culture etc (a connotation of heathen) without specific explanation.

The tone of this debate has been serious and I think it's appropriate to keep it that way. :)
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232843 by Green Tortuga
Jun 1, 2008 1:13am
Thread (disabled) Board
Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)


I wonder where the CIA is counting mormons...in the 11.78% of "other" or somewhere in the 72.45% of un-accounted-for Christians (which is where they belong)

romana
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232497 by Kirbert
Jun 1, 2008 2:14am
Thread (disabled) Board
*sigh*...really tired of the debate....but we limp along.

Quote Excellent. And why is there a cultural bias, and why is "everyone" saying it?


There are lots of reasons for cultural bias. Part of that is religion, sure. But the way we communicate is substantially different, as well; so when we say "potato," they might hear, "I want to conquer your sister." Part of that is because we developed with substantial geographic separation, and in different environments. Like, in Japan, apparently making big motions is considered aggressive, where in Italy it's seen as a sign of passion and interest. The situation in many cases is ripe for misunderstanding.

It's one of those 'more than one way to open a can of soup' things. If you grow up in a separate place (kept apart by desert, mountains, or whatever), you tend to develop a different way of doing things. There's also the fact that one group of people who tend to do a lot of contacting new peoples is con artists; always looking for new victims. This can lead people to develop an insular attitude.

As far as why "everyone" is saying it, I've seen rumors based on nothing destroy reputation and ruin attitudes; if you're prone to be suspicious of outsiders, rumors like this are more likely to get started, and more likely to spread. And self-defense against the rumors is made more complicated by the culture issue; if I say something, it is more likely to be misunderstood. I might condemn myself in their eyes accidentally....like the time a reporter showed the bottom of his shoe to a Muslim leader; which is a sign of great disrespect.

Also, different environments can change attitudes. Difficult environments tend to polarize attitudes; either everyone is conservative about taking risks of trying new things (except for a few 'heroic' characters) because small errors can result in the death of the whole society, or everyone becomes obsessed with risk-taking, as strength is seen as the only way to defeat one's environment.

Lots of these things. Only a few being religious.

Quote Perhaps a different definition of "innocent"? Perhaps we insist on finding and eliminating the ringleaders while they consider everyone who supports a policy, even passively, as responsible for that policy?


Maybe. I don't know. Differences in accepted methods can be a source of resentment.

Quote Nobody in the Twin Towers worked for the CIA, the KGB, and so on. And even when exterminating the guilty, a rational response would be solemn rather than joyous, would it not?


Well, now, what emotional response is most rational depends on your definition of rational. A warlike society (polarized, you see, to see two types of obstacles: those not dealt with, and those destroyed) might find great joy in the destruction of an enemy. And, again, this attitude is more likely in an extreme environment; since any problem in these environments may mean death, extreme action may be the only one they're used to taking.

Quote Nobody in the Twin Towers worked for the CIA, the KGB, and so on. And even when exterminating the guilty, a rational response would be solemn rather than joyous, would it not?


Well, now. You're talking about secretive organizations. Who knows where they are? Maybe they just see wealthy people, whom they consider enemies, and begin to associate "enemy" with "wealth." As a money target, it makes sense.

Or, maybe they are big believers in corporate responsibility. Since we vote, they may consider all of us part of the problem. I dunno. But these are possible answers.

Quote Do we enjoy hearing about all the Iraqis that have been killed over the past several years? Or all the Spanish killed in the train bombings? Or the misery in Darfur?


Some racist people, no doubt, do. And if you're hating an enemy, it's not a smart bomb. There's collateral damage. "Those people" are the problem. "Over there" somewhere. Which of them? "Do you think I care enough about my enemy to differentiate between those who are directly assaulting me, and those who merely support them? Kill 'em all!" If you get my point.

Of course, not all of these people hate us. Some are moderate in response and belief about us; they don't appear to be in the majority. And problems with corruption of Iraqi politicians which we support exacerbate the problem....

Quote And why are they poor and uneducated? They go to school for many years just as we do. "Taliban" translates into "student".


I will grant that this is, partly, a religious issue. Most of their education does appear to be religious. Their poverty, of course, is not caused by their religion, it's caused by their politicians taking more money than their share....basic greed.

Of course, there are many things to study; understanding one's neighbors and enemies requires you to spend most of your time in studying current events, politics, and other similar topics. Even a well-educated populace which didn't study these things (which don't create a great deal of wealth, on their own) might have trouble accepting those with a different culture. And an insular society might view those who studied such things with suspicion, making their opinions less valued.

And sociology and politics encompass facts from which it is possible to draw multitudinous conclusions. Which can be filtered through one's own prejudices. Check out the many books on these topics which are mutually contradictory, in America, alone.

Quote Why are we "other"? Why aren't we all brethren -- as pretty much every religion claims we should be?

Gee, you didn't even mention forcing the nation of Israel into their midst -- which for them is the big issue.


We are "other" because we're from "somewhere else." We are "other" because we have different ways of communicating feelings and intentions -- if I'm expecting something from you based on what you did, and you meant something different by it, I can use that as proof that you are deceitful. Or you might accidentally insult me.

We are also "other" for a bunch of other reasons; appearance, dress, military policy, and more. The Scots saw anyone who didn't charge into battle as a pansy. There're lots of things other than religion involved, there.

As far as Israel, sure, that's a big religious issue. But it's also a "war" issue. War and resentment and revenge are self-perpetuating. I'll not argue that religion is big in that one, though. As far as "forcing them" on the people of the area, that was a reward (which Balfour promised) for them mobilizing with the Allies in WWII.....there's a mix of things, there; religion, practicality, money, and so on. Religion, sure. But a lot more, too.

Heck, I think one of the reasons they're our allies is that, a.) they make at least an attempt at a stable political system (based upon more than despotism and corruption, though, they're far from perfect), and b.) they're one of the only ones in the region that doesn't decide, once every generation or two, to hate our guts. Oh...and c.) they don't accept political pressure to support those who like bombing airports, just to be left alone by those same nutcases.

Religion might be involved, there. But it's hard to forget that Syria supports those who do bombings; Saudi Arabia does, and so do most of the countries in the region. Whether or not they want to is another issue...for some, it might be blackmail...but it's still a reason to support someone who doesn't do it...even with their killing of locals...but I don't look for simple solutions to unsolvable problems. Random bombings do tend to make one overreact. They shot gramma, NUKE 'EM ALL! A common reaction, if you get my drift. Moderation is hard to value in both Iraq and Israel (and other places with shooting).
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232502 by Kirbert
Jun 1, 2008 2:18am
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote ) Either now or sometime in the past, such a spiritual need or longing was helpful to his survival, and those specimens of the human race lacking that particular trait tended to die without reproducing. Perhaps prayer helped him find food or water? Or perhaps the act of worship brought unity to his tribe that helped it survive?


Hmm....that begs the question, is such a spiritual need still helpful to man's survival? I mean, obviously we're experiencing some trouble with religion, but might it also be necessary? Again, dunno.
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232507 by Kayak Bandit
Jun 1, 2008 2:24am
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote I do feel a little bit badly that people are “ ganging up”on Kirbert.


I'll agree with Kay Ban, here. It does appear that Kirbirt is outnumbered by people who disagree with him, but then, that's not something we did on purpose. And as far as ganging, hmmm...do you mean we're being mean by disagreeing? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

We're not being intentionally rude or mean, if that helps.

And thanks for the support, kb....although I'm terrible at taking compliments, I appreciate the support. Now, all i need is your credit card....:) heh heh....

And, lest I get too big a head, I have TONS of flaws, so, let's not make more of me than is appropriate....worst case, I might believe ya.
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232559 by Kirbert
Jun 1, 2008 2:30am
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote It's not that I believe in no god -- although I do. It's that I require at least some evidence or reason to support the things I do accept as true -- and there is zero evidence or reason to believe in a "creator". The only reason anyone believes it is, as someone else put it here, "because everyone is saying it."


Well, now; that's a heck of an assumption. Knowing that, for sure, requires both omniscience and telepathy.

In which case, do you have the next Derby winners?

Perhaps people have subjective or experiential reasons for believing in a deity. Perhaps, in the absence of "primary evidence" (directly supporting the belief), they make do with "secondary evidence" (circumstantial, perhaps, or things that might imply the existence of the supernatural, or whatever).
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232620 by Kirbert
Jun 1, 2008 3:54am
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote That's not true at all. This sort of misunderstanding comes from a common misinterpretation of the word "theory" as though it's synonymous with "hypothesis". Occurrences can be proven -- and it's easily proven that creatures have evolved. "Theory" is the term applied to the line of reasoning offered to explain why those occurrences happened. As such, a theory inherently cannot be proven, since you can never be sure there isn't another explanation -- but theories can be disproven (by demonstrating that the explanation doesn't work), and they can be confirmed or validated usually by using the theory to predict future occurrences. There is no doubt at all that the theory of evolution is a valid explanation for the way creatures change over time; it has been confirmed and validated literally hundreds of times, and there has never been even a shred of evidence indicating any weakness in it at all. As of this time, nobody has proposed an alternative theory of any sort. Its acceptance among people whose minds aren't clouded by mythology is not just widespread, it is in fact 100%.


Well, actually, a number of problems with Darwin's theory; even most evolutionists agree that evolution, if true, is different than Darwin imagined. There are too many problems with the fossil record, and with intermediate states, and with the actual observed occurence of new species without influence of breeding or survival of fittest.

As far as Creation vs. Evolution, comparison of the Gospels with Genesis shows that they aren't necessarily in any conflict, except to state that God was responsible for what DID happen. Luke remarks that his recounting is important, in that it is chronological (in order) which implies that old Hebrew writings may have jumped around a bit....which would explain the variations in the gospels (if they were written topically), and would make a much more interesting reading of Genesis....if the Bible implies that things may not, always, have included all details, and may be jumping around, timewise, I have to figure it's a guideline, contained IN the text, for READING the text....

Evolution theory, as it stands, is incomplete; Creation theory, as it stands, is poorly written and researched. I think they're both junk science; people want to defend their positions, and so reach conclusions pre-emptively, and before the science part has been completed....

Besides; the theist - antitheist debate is really looking into infinity and guessing what lies beyond it...what Christians dislike is the arrogance of the scientific community in saying "This is fact" in a time that the "fact" is still being tested; the tendency to draw conclusions and state them as fact, rather than theory (two points in a straight line could mean a line, a ray, a segment, a sinewave, or a Ford Taurus), the tendency to equate science with antitheism (when you can't prove God one way or the other; Christians who claim science proves God annoy me), and their own lack of questioning something that seems to prove their pet theory (especially if they believe that it disproves God). Scientists need to remember how to say, "We THINK this is what this means."

I hate the whole argument; people spend so much time defending their trenches, that the other (non-religion-debate-related), more important implications of findings are ignored. And the tendency to hypnotize on the debate keeps us from doing the intermediate, and non-associated science.

It is always necessary to question science; destructive testing (much as I'd hate it, if it was MY finding) keeps us from going more wacko than we already do.
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232676 by Mr Yuk
Jun 1, 2008 4:28am
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote Not only did I find it hard to believe humanity could abide this, but what about this LOVING God letting innocents suffer and die everyday. Original Sin is nice to parlay about in a discussion with your bridge group, but it's a hard sell when looking at a kid who has bugs crawling in and out of his leg.

I think our priviledged society allows Westerners to accept the theory of a loving God. In early American times, God was a heck of a lot more vengeful. In third world countries, God is downright aloof or even cruel.


Well, actually, I did some soul-searching about this, and I came to some rather difficult conclusions. As in, difficult to bear.

First, God gives us an ability to choose. That is a hard thing. If he is to have people with whom he has a relationship, they have to be non-puppets. Socializing with puppets is unsatisfying, for anyone over the age of 12.

Second, if God keeps us from USING the ability to choose, we simply have a more complicated puppet relationship with him. And he's basically given us a self-defeating trait.

If we are immediately punished for doing bad, but rewarded for doing good, how can he, as the judge of the living, prove whether we are doing good because we're greedy, or because we are 'of goodwill?'

Why is he the judge of the living? One: he made us, so he has authority granted by that. Two: he has more power than anyone, so he has the ability to enforce. Three: he was here first, so any precedence of law is in his favor. Four: He is omniscient, so only he has the necessary perspective to judge justly. Five: ultimately, there is no further "up" people can go, when they make their complaints about what is injust.

That's one reason that he does, sometimes, interfere with human history. As the Bible says, "and their cry came up unto God..." But there are a number of reasons he doesn't do it, much. One, it creates great suffering. Think about Pharaoh's armies; those men died in the Red (or Reed) Sea; what happened to their families? The plagues also gave suffering. So he seems to save it for times when it is the last of the last choices.

Two, if he interferes, too much, again we are puppets. He must give us, to judge, "enough rope to hang ourselves." And if he makes it too obvious that only good will succeed, you'll end up with folks parroting good to hide their bad. We already have that with politicians.

That's one of the reasons we're supposed to be "the hands of Christ." Since God keeps himself in certain behaviors to preserve his role as judge and to preserve our ability to choose, WE are supposed to be the ones who fix all this stuff, since we are not limited by being affected by the ethical requirements of being the judge of the universe. This suffering is on US, not God.

There's more, but this is the key issue, for me. And, I know, many atheists will pooh-pooh this argument, because they do not believe that a cosmic judge is NECESSARY. As someone who has seen some of the evil that people do, I really feel that a cosmic judge IS necessary. Not out of vindictiveness, but sheer necessity.
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232829 by Kirbert
Jun 1, 2008 4:46am
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote What an irrational mind would do, apparently, is continue to insist over and over that somebody needs to provide concrete proof that leprechans don't exist.



Actually, a truly rational mind would admit to the POSSIBILITY of the existence of leprechauns (and I do) and decide, based on criteria, the LIKELIHOOD of that existence, and decide on a course of action or inaction based upon what makes most sense, given the situation.

Put it to you another way; I've never met a cannibal, either. Or a penguin. Or a polar bear. Or a unicorn, or a vampire. But I must admit that it's possible for such things to exist. Oh, sure; I don't really BELIEVE in penguins. But I have to admit to the possibility that they exist. Well, I mean, real ones. Outside of snow globes.

I mean, maybe they're just far away; further than anyone I know has gone. Or they're very good at hiding. Or their interests or foraging keeps them in the kind of places I don't look. Maybe penguins can be found in the Railroad Laws section of the library.

Should I carry a sea lion, just in case? They're awfully heavy.
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232830 by Kirbert
Jun 1, 2008 4:49am
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote Because people believing in such things are having a ruinous effect on mankind. To use a current example, we wouldn't have our soldiers shedding their blood in Iraq and Afghanistan right now if it weren't for such beliefs. And unfortunately, that particular situation is likely to get progressively and significantly worse for the foreseeable future until nukes are detonated -- and it won't stop then. The only possible way to bring this madness to an end is for everyone everywhere to reject the various mythologies that cause them conflict.


You're KIDDING. You think religion is the ONLY reason we have trouble over there? Goodness gracious, there are TONS of reasons we are having trouble. Religion is, of course, one of them.

The problem is, religion is making all the other reasons we have trouble over there WORSE. That's partly because religion helps make people determined. This can be good AND bad. In this case, mostly bad. But there are other things, happening elsewhere, that it's almost solely good.

I've been seen at a religious hospital, for one.
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232829 by Kirbert
Jun 1, 2008 6:39am
Thread (disabled) Board
I think you're still missing the point of my posts. I don't know how many ways there are to say this. I very clearly stated the point of my posts was not to debate the existence or non-existence of God, leprechauns, or any other figure you choose to present. Just that there was no proof either way and that you asking others to defend the existence of God was just as futile as me asking you to defend the non-existence of God.

Quote What an irrational mind would do, apparently, is continue to insist over and over that somebody needs to provide concrete proof that leprechans don't exist.


Again, this statement could be turned back to you as well. I want to make it very clear - I am not turning this statement around to you. I'm just saying that it COULD apply to your statements also. Engaging in mature, rational debate does not include insulting others. I have not and will not insult you.

However, I do understand your reasoning. You correctly feel as if you are being asked the impossible and cannot "win" this debate so you choose to insult hoping to get somebody's emotions going and distract from the true point of the debate. I understood from the beginning that I could not "win" this debate - neither of us or anyone else was going to "win". People feel very passionately about what they hold true and it is nearly impossible to change someone's mind - no one was going to walk away from the "table" saying "Wow, he/she was right. I'm going to change my whole belief system." I enjoy a good debate and I was merely presenting the other side.

Thanks for the mind exercise,
and yet still respectfully,
Mumma & Bunny Boy =D
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232920 by Mumma and Bunny Boy
Jun 1, 2008 7:11am
Thread (disabled) Board
Hey Folks,
I have the hard facts about evolution. I am converted to Kirberts viewpoint. Evolution is real. I am watching this post evolve. That proves it. Those that believe God exists are wrong.
Kayak Bandit '(*!*)'
Was free to say now "Birds"
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232873 by pika rampant sinister
Jun 1, 2008 9:27am
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote a number of problems with Darwin's theory


I tend toward a combination of Darwinism and Creationism, but would like something explained regarding evolution. This question is pondered by many in the Evolution camp and there has never been a good answer.

Evolution in creatures is generally believed to be created by diet and circumstances. In the circumstances category many changes can occur due to smaller creatures being chased and eaten by bigger creatures. Thus smaller creatures adapt by getting sneakier, longer legs to increase speed, so on and so forth.

Birds have wings, and many folks believe those wings grew over a period of time (evolved) so that birds could escape predators. Birds present condition of being "flighted" is certainly beneficial for their survival.
If that is the case with birds having legs evolve into wings then one has to wonder how fast was this evolution. Having a half wing or very small wing would have no benefit, in fact it probably would be a detriment. Seems like those birds would have been better off by running on 4 good legs rather than hopping and trying to fly with those stubby little wings that have not fully developed into real wings. A 1/2 wing would absolutely be no benefit to survival.


One could say that maybe it wasn't a 'circumstance' reason that wings developed, but it certainly was a 'circumstance' reason that flightless birds evolved into stubby wings.
A good example is 'flightless commorants' (spelling?) located in the Galapagos. They no longer fly due to a lack of predators there. Their 'evolution' is returning to a flightless mode.

So all you evolutionists, and there have been many that failed to answer this question, that is your conundrum. Explain Birds.

For all you Creationists, in the future, I would appreciate any mention of me and my family in your Sunday visits.

Don
Re: Was free to say now "Birds"
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232979 by Don and Gwen
Jun 1, 2008 9:50am
Thread (disabled) Board
Think about current flightless birds, like ostriches; I think that their wings, while they would never get them off the ground, probably serve as a bit of a stabilizer. Perhaps back in the dawn of birds, the bipedal dinosaur-like ones who kept developing longer and longer stabilizers then found that they could give them a little boost. The ones whose proto-wings stayed too short for flight continued to use them for balance and stabilizing.

I completely made this up; I honestly have no idea. :)

d.a.
Re: Was free to say now "Birds"
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232983 by dorks anonymous
Jun 1, 2008 10:11am
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote I completely made this up; I honestly have no idea. :)

d.a.


Good try, but no cigar. I knew the thought of a conundrum would get some folks interested.

You have to consider which road ostriches are on.

Have they lost the ability to fly and are having wings recede, or were they always flightless?

Don
Re: Was free to say now "Birds"
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232994 by Don and Gwen
Jun 1, 2008 10:22am
Thread (disabled) Board
I'm guessing that if the theory that birds were descendants of dinosaurs is maybe sorta true, then I would guess that they all started out flightless (as there were no dinosaurs who could actually fly), and some developed the ability. I'd guess ostriches are closer to the dinobird than, say, a robin or an eagle.

d.a.
Re: Was free to say now "Birds"
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #233006 by dorks anonymous
Jun 1, 2008 10:31am
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote (as there were no dinosaurs who could actually fly),


I believe there were dinos that could fly/soar. You still have to consider if ostriches never flew, or have they lost their flight capabilities?

If they all started out flightless then why evolve to flight? Ostriches can run like crazy and need no wings, so why evolve to where they are now? Unless they could fly at one time, grew bigger, grew better running legs so they could then stay on the ground?
If that is the case then at one time they could fly and if so why did they evolve into flying and then ..What about those 1/2 wings?

Catch 22

Don
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232829 by Kirbert
Jun 1, 2008 10:52am
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote Here, for simplicity let's talk about leprechans.


This argument is bogus. If there were leprechauns then certainly in all likelihood, their existence would have been proved by now. However, how can one capture god and put god on display for proof? Certainly the technology does not yet, and perhaps will never exist to do so for any normal definition of god. Indeed, your leprechaun argument could have at one time been used to "prove" that the atom was indeed the smallest possible particle, after all if it wasn't surely someone would have split it already.
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232831 by Kirbert
Jun 1, 2008 10:57am
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote Clearly I'm having trouble explaining that. I have no problem with believing in things that actually exist independent of belief; I have a problem with believing in something that requires belief for its very existence.


But why can't god exist independent of belief?
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232884 by pika rampant sinister
Jun 1, 2008 11:09am
Thread (disabled) Board
I nominate post #232884 for the funniest AQ post of the year award.
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232843 by Green Tortuga
Jun 1, 2008 11:19am
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote According to the CIA's World Factbook:
Quote Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)


Interesting. There's about 1.2 billion Chinese, right? And a billion people in India? What religions does the CIA Factbook ascribe to those people?
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #233042 by Kirbert
Jun 1, 2008 11:26am
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote Interesting. There's about 1.2 billion Chinese, right? And a billion people in India? What religions does the CIA Factbook ascribe to those people?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232858 by pika rampant sinister
Jun 1, 2008 11:55am
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote *sigh*...really tired of the debate....but we limp along.


Gee, I was gonna drop it altogether, but you've actually made some great responses here!

Quote But the way we communicate is substantially different, as well; so when we say "potato," they might hear, "I want to conquer your sister."


We here in the US tend not to get along with the French. They speak a different language and seem to hold Americans in contempt whenever we visit their country. But we don't kill each other. The question isn't whether or not everyone can ever agree with each other; the question is how such disagreements can be manipulated by powerseekers into hatred and war upon each other. And no, I don't believe war will be eliminated if religions go away -- there have been wars that didn't involve religious differences. But statistically, religion was a key factor in a great many in the past -- and present.

Quote Like, in Japan, apparently making big motions is considered aggressive, where in Italy it's seen as a sign of passion and interest. The situation in many cases is ripe for misunderstanding.


And Americans are famous for our insensitivity to cultural differences such as this. But as part of the surrender agreements after WWII, Japan was to never refer to its emperor as a god again. And lo and behold, Japan is now one of the most peaceful countries on earth.

Quote if you're prone to be suspicious of outsiders, rumors like this are more likely to get started, and more likely to spread.


And what would make one prone to be suspicious of outsiders?

Quote "Those people" are the problem. "Over there" somewhere. Which of them? "Do you think I care enough about my enemy to differentiate between those who are directly assaulting me, and those who merely support them? Kill 'em all!" If you get my point.


You most clearly have gotten my point!

Quote Of course, not all of these people hate us. Some are moderate in response and belief about us; they don't appear to be in the majority.


Now, about the folks who really hate us: Would you say these people are among the most devout, the "fundamentalists" as we like to call them? And the ones that don't hate us all that much are, by contrast, the folks with only a relatively passive attitude towards their religion, they're more concerned about making a living, providing for their families, etc.?

Quote Most of their education does appear to be religious. Their poverty, of course, is not caused by their religion, it's caused by their politicians taking more money than their share....basic greed.


Their poverty is caused by their religion, one way or the other! They support corrupt politicians based on religious teachings!

Quote We are "other" because we're from "somewhere else."


True, but being from "somewhere else" rarely results in conflict or war. The natural inclination for human beings is to be wary but welcoming to strangers. But when those strangers start trying to preach -- threatening the monopoly of the embedded sect -- that's when things get ugly.

Quote As far as Israel, sure, that's a big religious issue. But it's also a "war" issue. War and resentment and revenge are self-perpetuating. I'll not argue that religion is big in that one, though. As far as "forcing them" on the people of the area, that was a reward (which Balfour promised) for them mobilizing with the Allies in WWII.....there's a mix of things, there; religion, practicality, money, and so on. Religion, sure. But a lot more, too.


All of these things stemmed from the religion issue!

Quote Religion might be involved, there. But it's hard to forget that Syria supports those who do bombings; Saudi Arabia does, and so do most of the countries in the region.


All for religious reasons! These people don't use the word "jihad" lightly!

Quote I don't look for simple solutions to unsolvable problems.


I do. I look at the problems and ask myself why they appear to be unsolvable. And there is one very big common denominator.
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232860 by pika rampant sinister
Jun 1, 2008 11:58am
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote is such a spiritual need still helpful to man's survival? I mean, obviously we're experiencing some trouble with religion, but might it also be necessary?


Well, I don't suppose I need to express my opinion on that question. But if we presume it is, might it be possible to meet such spiritual needs without inciting mistrust, hatred, conflict and war?
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232863 by pika rampant sinister
Jun 1, 2008 12:00pm
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote Perhaps, in the absence of "primary evidence" (directly supporting the belief), they make do with "secondary evidence" (circumstantial, perhaps, or things that might imply the existence of the supernatural, or whatever).


There is none.
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232873 by pika rampant sinister
Jun 1, 2008 12:16pm
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote Well, actually, a number of problems with Darwin's theory; even most evolutionists agree that evolution, if true, is different than Darwin imagined. There are too many problems with the fossil record, and with intermediate states, and with the actual observed occurence of new species without influence of breeding or survival of fittest.


This is all misconception. There is no disagreement whatsoever among evolutionists that evolution is perfectly valid. There is disagreement -- considerable -- about the details, and there are lots of details, evolution is a very complex and involved concept. And no, Darwin didn't get every detail exactly right the first time. The overall concept, though, is as strong as any theory known to science.

Quote Evolution theory, as it stands, is incomplete; Creation theory, as it stands, is poorly written and researched. I think they're both junk science;


Putting those two on anything even resembling equal footing is so wrong as to be outrageous. Evolution theory is incomplete and will probably continue to be incomplete for the foreseeable future; it's a broad, nearly all-encompassing concept that envelops so many things that scientists can continue to expand on it and fill in the details for hundreds of years to come. That doesn't make it wrong; quite the contrary, it makes it perhaps as right as a theory can possibly get. Creation theory, OTOH, isn't even a theory at all, and it would be rather pointless to bother to put any research toward it. There's not really anything about it you could research.

Quote ...what Christians dislike is the arrogance of the scientific community in saying "This is fact" in a time that the "fact" is still being tested;


Scientists don't do that. What a scientist considers a "fact" is a matter of actual existence, something that can be seen or felt or proven. Such things scarcely concern them except when they can be used to validate or disprove a theory.
Re: free to say what you want in a LB or HH?????
Board: Dead Horses, Lemurs, and Kittens!
Reply to: #232885 by pika rampant sinister
Jun 1, 2008 12:31pm
Thread (disabled) Board
Quote You're KIDDING. You think religion is the ONLY reason we have trouble over there?


Yes.

Quote The problem is, religion is making all the other reasons we have trouble over there WORSE.


Religion is making all the other reasons we have trouble over there problems. Without the religious differences, all of the other problems could have been easily dealt with long ago via reasoned compromise and negotiation.

Quote That's partly because religion helps make people determined. This can be good AND bad.


Determination can be good or bad. But determination is only good when it's in support of a worthwhile cause -- and a worthwhile cause doesn't require religion to incite determination. Causes that require religion to incite determination are usually bad. I'd say "always" rather than "usually", but I haven't thought about it long enough to see if I could come up with an example where religion inciting determination where otherwise there would have been none was a good thing.

Quote I've been seen at a religious hospital, for one.


Without religion, do you believe the hospital would not have existed?

This is one of the fallacies about religion: that without faith, such things as charity and concern for others would not exist. Charity and concern for others existed before the church; the problem is that the church has commandeered these movements for their own purposes. Hence, they claim that you have to be involved with them in order to be charitable and compassionate. And they make sure that any beneficiary of such charity knows that it's the church and God that deserve thanks, not the individuals actually providing the care.