An what about the Mother... whare in hell did SHE come from :grumble:
[Enter cluelusshusbund]
Oo Oo... i bet i know... the word "Poof" rang out... an GOD :itold: apeared :worship:
A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
An what about the Mother... whare in hell did SHE come from :grumble:
[Enter cluelusshusbund]
Oo Oo... i bet i know... the word "Poof" rang out... an GOD :itold: apeared :worship:
The problem is Christ's teaching isn't part of the ideology for many. Another problem is the politicizing of the ideology and then trying to shove it down everybody's throat. Then there is the Pope. A great religious leader. The ideologues should pay attention.
Or, maybe...
Sadly you are correct - as I stated previously, people take it and attempt to use it to their advantage... ultimately, it is a people problem. If people could stop being greedy and malevolent, things would be much improved.
As for the "Where God Came From" question - simple... He came from another part of the Multiverse
Woud this place of wonder an discovery be limited to meet "Gods" standards.???
Sounds grate... an in my heaven you coud "relive" particular past experiences wit those people... or create new experiences wit those people to enjoy.!!!
"Mindless drone" sounds like bein in church praizin God 24/7/365/eternity... but in my heaven its a never endin experience of exactly what you "choose" (Gods approval not required).!!!
PS:::
It sounds like our beliefs are not that much differfent... so how about it... we are curently in a open enrollment period an thers never been a beter time to join NACA... eh
Kittamaru, I don't know the answer to this. There are even similarities between Sumerian and Chinese writing. I’m not too keen on the history of writing. Fraggle may know.
This theory notes that unlike the Sumerian-Egyptian and Phoenician-Greek situations, the distance does make any influence seem unlikely. The author thinks that a more reasonable explanation is that two peoples independently thought up somewhat similar solutions to somewhat similar problems.
Why would religion be any different?
http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/m20/defancis1989_oneness_chinese.pdf
Now now... dont be putin wrong thouts in peoples heads or nobody will join my church :bawl:
*shrugs* Couldn't tell ya Trooper
I mean, it could lean a few ways. If the Tower of Babel story is to be believed, among other religious stories, we had a much longer period of time of common ancestry than evolution would suggestion; likewise, it's possible that, as a species, we just continued to evolve along the same path even though we were in different areas.
OMG... i bet you'r a hansome guy... sinse we thank so much alike thers a good chance we are identical twins :cheers:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Like I said, none of Sciforums' moderators are willing to utter any criticism of Tiassa.
I don't recall ever insulting theists or "religionists" on Sciforums. (Feel free to read through my posts if you don't believe me.) I've gone out of my way to defend and support them when I thought that they were being treated unfairly.
Well, Tiassa did "call out" every one of us, with no concern for (or interest in) what our thinking is or what our behavior had actually been. Grouping all of us together in one 'atheist' bundle was his idea. It's obvious that in his mind, at least at the time he wrote this thread's first post, 'atheist' was little more than a caricature.
What you and he don't seem to realize is that's precisely how some of the louder and more aggressive atheists think. They believe that they are fully justified in leveling righteous criticisms at the worst abuses of 'religion' and 'religionists'. So God help somebody if they are identified as a 'religionist', they are gonna eat double-ought buckshot at point blank range. Real-life people inadvertantly find themselves standing in for a stereotype and find themselves on the receiving end of all the anger associated with it.
I would have preferred that he make his point without his posts exemplifying precisely the traits that he thought that he was criticizing. I would have preferred that he make his points persuasively and well.
I'm not insulted by it. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in Tiassa reducing atheists to caricatures because some atheists treat "religionists" as caricatures. If it's wrong when atheists do it, then how can it not be wrong when Tiassa does it? If it's not wrong when Tiassa does it, how can it be wrong when an atheist does it?
The point is both simple and obvious. Both Tiassa and yourself are criticizing atheists in general for being intolerant of, hostile towards and creating a very unfriendly environment on the religion fora for theists and "religionists". While at the same time, Tiassa puts great effort into ensuring that the political fora are intolerant of, hostile towards and an unfriendly environment for people whose political views are different than his.
Bells
Staff member
And like I said, you would be wrong.
The issue with LG is more than recent proof of that. You can ask Tiassa about the many times I have disagreed with him vehemently about certain things.
Yes. I know this. Everyone knows this and you are often on the receiving end of abuse by others for speaking out against the way some atheists have gone after theists on this site. So why are you applying his OP to yourself?
Yes, including myself.
I think many here forget that Tiassa is also an atheist. And he is also guilty of what he is calling us out for on many occasions.
He could have named names, had a list. But the people that OP were meant for knew who he was talking about. I know that one of Tiassa's concerns has been how many atheists represent the others on this site. I don't know about you, but there are certain atheists who post here who would embarrass Dwarkins because they are that abusive.
It had gotten to the point where something had to be done. Many also forget the ermmm political climate in this sub-forum at the time this thread was started. We were hardly in a position to demand something from a certain someone while atheists were quite literally running rampant in the most abusive and offensive manner imaginable.
And it is to those atheists that the OP was aimed at. And I think that is what you may not have realised.
To be frank, I would have preferred that to. But here we are.
So what are we going to do about it? Are we going to demand that atheists not post in such an embarrassing fashion, abusing theists or religionists simply for believing in their God of choice? Or are we going to complain about one sentence in the OP because 1) it was a moderator who started the thread and 2) he didn't name names and lumped all atheists together by his wording?
That is a very good point.
I would argue that many atheists on this site have reduced atheism to caricatures, and embarrassingly loud ones at that. They are the predominant voices in this sub-forum.
Secondly, Tiassa is an atheist. And atheists have been doing it on this site for a very long time. A very long time. Myself included in that list.
I didn't realise that atheists were above criticism because of their atheism.
The religion sub-forum was hostile towards theists for a very long time because atheists made it so for them. Do you think an atheist calling out his fellow atheists for our collective behaviour is going to make life harder for 'religionists'?
As for the politics sub-forum. I disagree with you. If you are incapable of defending your political ideology and providing evidence to support your political ideology, then you would be right to make that complaint. However you are an exceptionally bright person Yazata and I find your comments to be bizarre. Why not just defend your political views? We do, including Tiassa.
*Actually laughing* Agreement? Agreement?
See, I take issue with the whole "respectfully" part in particular. So often we have it rammed down our throats, this whole "respect" business. In fact, the only purpose "respectfully disagreeing" with something serves (other than communal harmony), is to allow it to continue to exist. effectively, you're putting your religious neighbors' well being and peace of mind before the pursuit of knowledge.
I say fuck 'em. I find no practical purpose whatsoever in religion continuing to exist. We'd all grow out of it a whole lot faster if people would stop bloody talking about it all the time.
And then, finally, we'd all be a hell of a lot more honest about what we're really fighting about.
D'ye not understand yet, lass?
Religion still exists only because we insist it does. Because we keep arguing about it. Because it's there, because we keep it there.
I'm all for the feral children argument. As an experiment, grow some children in an environment completely devoid of adults, and religion. See if they come up with the same notion of god, or, more importantly, if they conceive of god at all.
And put the whole ridiculous argument to rest.
(singing) And he did it.... myyyyyyy waaaaaay....
That whole post above, is aimed at you as well, Bells.
Know what would be really interesting?
Let's meld the entire debate into another - why this site exists to begin with.
Tee hee?
Bells
Staff member
Don't ruin Blue Eyes. I kill joo!
This can go several ways. We can beat them into submission or we can just let them be and leave them to their own devices.
The issues arise when they apply their religious beliefs into the laws of the land, so to speak. I do agree this needs to stop. However when you have politicians praising Jeebus to get elected, there is an issue. However I don't think the 'fix' is to beat theists until they are black and blue and bleeding on the floor.
Frankly, they should just ban lobby groups.
As for your feral children test. We know ancient humans had beliefs in things... God is not exactly a modern concept. Beliefs in deity's existed for a very long time. Feral children would find something to worship. Granted, it could be minecraft, but still, they would still find something to worship.
Swear I already replied to this.
Dammit. what did I say...
In all documented cases, none showed any understanding of the concept.
In cases where they were specifically taught it (there was at least one, from memory) - they still did not. Could not grasp it.
The argument "nature versus nurture" is not often understood to involve far more than simple parenthood... it's millenia of social evolution.
Deprived of that...
My first thought was that we should be able to put mods on ignore.
Bells
Staff member
No but they believe that there is something who created the stars, etc. It's lack of knowledge of the world around them. Ancient tribes had beliefs in deity's. Burials from even Neanderthal's showed a belief in something or other. Why would feral children be any different?
[Enter cluelusshusbund] :huh:
I was a Dam near feral child an i believed in God.!!!
Ok sure... i got the idea from seein Bible stories on tv an Jesus type thangs people around me woud say... but by 8 i suspected that this "Jesus-God" was less than real.!!!
Ive never felt pressured to have God beliefs an ive never had a desire to go on a quest for a real-God... just as i never had a desire to search for a real Santa Clause... lol.!!!
As far as respect for beliefs in fairy-tails... i got none.!!!
However... i have no prollem bein respectful to children or backward/uneducated adults who have beliefs in mumbo-jumbo... so maybe the result of this thred is that people will beter understand if the respect they may feel they have for ther religious beliefs is real or fake.!!!
Edit:::
Good pont.!!!
Bells
Staff member
Mods also feel the same about many members.
At the end of the day, we need to decide if we want the individuals who have been the most vocal and the ones who have not been presenting atheism in a positive light, to be the ones who represent or to have that bigger voice on this site.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Both began as pictographs. Pictographs are symbols representing specific objects, conditions, instructions, etc., such as our stylized male and female figures meaning "use this restroom if you look like this" and our arrow with a slash meaing "no left turn." Actually my examples are really ideograms, which typically evolve from pictographs to represent more complex subjects.
A pictograph or an ideogram can usually be correctly read by anyone who is a member of the same or similar culture, regardless of which language they speak. Thus an American, an Egyptian and a Korean can all read the symbol for "airport," despite speaking unrelated languages, whereas a hunter-gatherer in the Amazon basin cannot.
Unfortunately the Sumerian system died out so it has no modern descendants to analyze. It was replaced by the Phoenician abjad (a phonetic "alphabet" with only consonants, ideal for the Afroasiatic language family in which vowels are not phonemic) whose origin is murky.
However, the Chinese system of pictographs-->ideograms stayed in use. Ultimately they became logograms, a writing system in which each symbol represents one word. Chinese is a highly synthetic language in which 5,000 words are combined into a vocabulary of hundreds of thousands of compounds, so 5,000 symbols is all the average college graduate needs to be able to read and write.
But back to the question, since pictographs are, indeed pictures, it's not surprising that two cultures who have never made contact would nonetheless develop similar pictures for the same referents.
Almost all phonetic alphabets are descended from Phoenician--which is probably an evolution of Egyptian logograms (which we usually call "hieroglyphics") since the letters are named after animals and things whose words begin with that letter. (In Hebrew, beth means house and gimel means "camel.") Korean is the only exception I can cite; when they decided to dump Chinese logograms (just a few centuries ago) they assigned their own scholars to develop a phonetic alphabet. You can spot Korean in a second, since the letters are squashed in various directions to fit into a square spiral instead of a straight line.
Syllabaries (in which each symbol represents an entire syllable) tend to be unique inventions of each culture that uses them. Japanese kana has no similarity to the Cherokee syllabary invented by Chief Sequoia--which for several decades made the Cherokee literacy rate higher than that of their Euro-American neighbors.
Abugidas (in which each symbol represents a consonant followed by a vowel) are common in the languages of India and some of them are shared by more than one language.
As I noted, the first writing systems are typically pictographs. Two cultures on the same planet with the same level of technology are likely to represent the same objects the in same way.
The so-called "hieroglyphics" of the Maya are a mixture of logograms with a syllabary, like Japanese writing.
Jung tells us that the same legends, images and rituals develop in virtually every society in virtually every era. He calls these archetypes and the geneticists who came after him explain that they are hard-wired into our brains by our DNA, perhaps the result of genetic drift or a genetic bottleneck--of which our species has undergone at least two. Most instincts can easily be explained as survival traits, such as predators not eating the brightly-colored poison-dart tree frogs, because they are poisonous and that signal helps both predator and prey survive. Perhaps there was an event in our distant past that favored the survival of humans who believed in the supernatural.
Huh? I'm not sure who you mean by "we," but all non-African humans are descended from the San, a tribe that still lives in Africa, some of whose more adventurous adventurers migrated to Asia 50KYA. [I oversimplified. The Native Australians are descended from a troupe who made their migration 10KY earlier, but they were members of the same tribe, apparently an adventurous bunch.*shrugs* Couldn't tell ya Trooper
]I know you're a real scientist, so you surely know that our species is very roughly 150KY old, giving the outer limit of our "common ancestry." In addition there was a population collapse around 70KYA (disease? drought? angry gorillas who didn't appreciate the competition?) in which the gene pool was greatly reduced.
Actually we have done just that. Our species has remarkably little genetic diversity--very likely from that population crisis, 10KY before the first cohort of us managed to establish a new colony in Australia, vastly improving our odds of survival. Especially since the largest predator there was the thylacine, a marsupial about the size of a mastiff.
We all have to promise not to do that before we're appointed. Seriously, the moderators get into heated arguments all the time. But we have our own super-secret Moderators' Subforum so you only see us when we're holding hands and singing "Kumbaya."
No one would ever say that about me. I coined the phrase "Religious Redneck Retard Revival" for the horrifying resurgence of religion in the USA at the end of the era of Love, Peace and Acid Rock around 1980.
Nonetheless I restrict this attitude to SciForums, because this is a place of science and I have absolutely no patience with people who try to muddle up the science with superstition (at best) and utter lunacy (at worst). The religionists out in the real world seldom bother me enough to make me angry, and I maintain this equilibrium by staying as far away as possible from the Bible Belt and the Middle East.
Indeed. I've raised a few eyebrows by saying such things as "I love Jesus, and it doesn't matter if he's not real. Kermit the Frog is not real either, but he gives good advice and I love him too."
Well there are lots of us who treat religious people kindly, if only because they outnumber us in double-digits and it doesn't make sense to court their wrath--but also because the vast majority of them really don't bring their religion into real life except in the most hygienically filtered manner, such as believing in "turning the other cheek" or "doing unto others as you would have others do unto you"--mottos which I happily also endorse.
So continue to harangue Tiassa. It ain't gonna bother me none. The dude can stand up for himself and doesn't need my help. He doesn't even need help with his writing, which is the excuse I usually invoke for criticizing most people.
Not when they outnumber us so greatly. And especially in a country where a much higher percentage of them own guns than we do.
You might miss an important notice. But you're welcome to PM us, since the rule applies both ways: we can't put you on Ignore either.
So that explains your spelling and punctuation. Seriously, I hope you understand that when people read, we capture each word as a unit, rather than identifying the individual letters. When you misspell a word we have to stop and puzzle it out. An entire post written like that takes ten times as long to read as one that is written properly. Eventually many people just get tired of expending the effort--or simply don't have enough time for it--and they start skipping your posts.
A word to the wise.
This is why it's so much harder to read a foreign language, even one you've studied for years and speak like a native. Your brain has never built the neural pathway to read the words the fast way that you use for your native language. I've tried reading a few articles in the Spanish version of Wikipedia that happen to be more complete than the English versions. But I gave up because it took too long.
This is exactly what it's like reading one of your posts!
- Status