Pastafarian miracles
- Thread starter TFL
- Start date
One can observe the effect religion has on a population in the newspaper.
Possibly, in extremis. The accused do make the direct object that they are not addressing all people of faith, but the extremes. Answers at least has made this clear.
Yes, but it's the text that we were discussing. In any event, this is a sideline.
Naturally. (But then, of course, so is that of the anti-theists, if one calls them that.) How am I to tell the empiricists that their views are objectionable? They're free, in their frame of reference, to believe as they like. And, more importantly, the accused here specify that they're referring to the irrationals - the evangelists and the like. I share their views on many of these people. You could argue that it's bigoted to accuse shit of smelling, but what is the alternative? If you think I'm arguing 'reasonable limits', then I guess I am.
Okay: I can agree with that, naturally. My expectation is that the issue is the projection of that unverifiable reality into the real world; the alternative sounding a lot like ignorance for the sake of politeness.
I say: reasonable limits. If something argues with me, I intend to give it its fair shake as to being called real. If it tries to sell me Nokia phones in every second post, I will re-evaluate as appropriate.
Well, you're arguing bigotry: the coin of which, as you state above - compassion, understanding - is the hurt of other people's feelings, reasonable or wrong-headed.
Giggle!
No. Many people have quite reasonable fears about religion. And Republicans, unless I much miss my guess. Communism, Fascism: the list goes on and on. Either live up - using your own humanity and understanding - to the standards of reasonability, or be justifiably or unjustifiably pilloried.
The problem with all such discussions is that they inevitably devolve to some common ground of disinterest, that being hey, don't be an asshole in this particular case. Can you really hold to your present pillar of tolerance in every case that touches on your psyche and your perceptions? No.
Are you telling me that you've never made unsupported assertions? Why not give the condemned a breath before he draws on the cigarette to explain what he's about?
The two are not exclusive - again, common ground - and sense can mask as either, depending on - as you allude to above - the frame of reference. Maybe the better question is - as I allude to above, seeking the middle - what is the appropriate frame of reference?
Maybe. Does every issue of merit fall into the same pigeonhole? No.
Damn you.
I was thinking: what's a recent one? Scientology never frigging crossed my mind. But maybe Hubbard was just batshit crazy? But then again, the new crop definitely smells like a bunch of treehouse totalitarians.
All right: fine. Touche. But then the FSM is a damnation of Scientology and not any old faith, innit? Take that!
.
lol, hehe, ok then, but i kinda find it like, irrational discussion in here, everyone is attacking the other, like in war.
really hilarous, i mean, why would athesist, even kare of what theists think, do they want, or mayeb you want, to force your thoghts on otehrs, liek dictators? dictatorship, also trying to get the attetion, and to make people think like he think, is also have sicological backgrounds, maybe in their real life, they have a lack of conversation, and maybe they cant find people that think like them, so they start to try to change the people's beleifs, thinking, or whatever, it's not even a problem, theists, or atheists, who kares??!! why don't they take kare of their own buisness? you have your thoght, i have my thoght, he or she have her or his thoght, etc... why is it a problem? and why are you always trying to attack such kidn of topics, and why do always try to attack who's a theist, or an atheist? is it a problem, i mean, if he or she beleived in god, or didnt, or had a relegion that he think it's terrorism, according ot his brainwhased ideas about them for example, we are all people, different races, different languages, different thoghts, different opinions, etc... that's what makes things better and great, why cant you accept tha fact, that, there's no difference, between athesist and theists; we are all people, that's truly hilarous how things run aound here in such kind of topics, really, very hilarous...
lol, hehe, ok then, but i kinda find it like, irrational discussion in here, everyone is attacking the other, like in war.
really hilarous, i mean, why would athesist, even kare of what theists think, do they want, or mayeb you want, to force your thoghts on otehrs, liek dictators? dictatorship, also trying to get the attetion, and to make people think like he think, is also have sicological backgrounds, maybe in their real life, they have a lack of conversation, and maybe they cant find people that think like them, so they start to try to change the people's beleifs, thinking, or whatever, it's not even a problem, theists, or atheists, who kares??!! why don't they take kare of their own buisness? you have your thoght, i have my thoght, he or she have her or his thoght, etc... why is it a problem? and why are you always trying to attack such kidn of topics, and why do always try to attack who's a theist, or an atheist? is it a problem, i mean, if he or she beleived in god, or didnt, or had a relegion that he think it's terrorism, according ot his brainwhased ideas about them for example, we are all people, different races, different languages, different thoghts, different opinions, etc... that's what makes things better and great, why cant you accept tha fact, that, there's no difference, between athesist and theists; we are all people, that's truly hilarous how things run aound here in such kind of topics, really, very hilarous...
Last edited:
Do you find what is happening in the quote below funny as well?
His crime: making predictions. Does SciForums have religious police?
No religions would mean no religious police for one thing, no religious law, no pilgrimages either. Thus this man could stay home and predict for the rest of his life if he wanted. IOW he wouldn't be on death row.
Last edited:
.
ok... i'm not even from the middle-east, and true, if what you said is true, why woul thy kare, afterall, if he maked something bad, moral bad, don't mean a killing, cause law should surely arrest him, but about morzlity and stuff it's between him and god, i know it's hilaous too,
anyway what's your point? ??
that you should continue doing this hilarous discussion about forcing theists not to beleive in god? or attacking other people?
gosh, that's truly hilatou,s nad the moe i stay on sciforums, i more get sure of that... weird...
ok... i'm not even from the middle-east, and true, if what you said is true, why woul thy kare, afterall, if he maked something bad, moral bad, don't mean a killing, cause law should surely arrest him, but about morzlity and stuff it's between him and god, i know it's hilaous too,
anyway what's your point? ??
that you should continue doing this hilarous discussion about forcing theists not to beleive in god? or attacking other people?
gosh, that's truly hilatou,s nad the moe i stay on sciforums, i more get sure of that... weird...
If religion would mind it's own business, that would be fine, but it doesn't. Religious people try to force their ideas on the rest of the population. New Atheists aren't trying to dictate what you think, they are making a stand for science and reason. Hopefully, some people will be persuaded.
Last edited:
Shadow1 learn how to type before your criticize others. If english isn't your first language then all well and good, but those posts of yours were hardly readable it's hard to know exactly what you're trying to say.
Also it's in the nature of debates to get heated, I've seen political debates get just as heated as religious debates.
Personally I have a very deep and intense hatred for religion and the believers of those religions that are: hypocritical, violent, self-righteous, and those who are using their ignorant religious views to stop the progress of science.
However my best friend is a Christian, and my entire family is Christian. They however do not share the religious characteristics that I hate.
Also it's in the nature of debates to get heated, I've seen political debates get just as heated as religious debates.
Personally I have a very deep and intense hatred for religion and the believers of those religions that are: hypocritical, violent, self-righteous, and those who are using their ignorant religious views to stop the progress of science.
However my best friend is a Christian, and my entire family is Christian. They however do not share the religious characteristics that I hate.
Apparently, they do care. Is this not clear?
Yes. His family must be struck by the hilaousity of the situation.
Shadow...it isn't hilarious for him. Or for anyone acquainted with relative freedom of speech.
Forcing? Who, exactly, among the atheists on this thread, is forcing you not to believe in god?
This is absurd. Skilled or unskilled in English, shadow is unskilled in logic and humanity.
no, i didnt mean forcing, or, not to say anything he wants, spech-freedom, but i meant, that they should really respect the others opinions, and beleifs, even if tehy were theists or atheists, discuss about the existence of god, yes, and anything else, yes, but starting to attack ,and start agressive chat, no... that's what i meant, and what i meant by hilarous, is your agressive speches, or posts, also your attacking and agressive acts, ...
It's the internet, get used to it. Why should irrational ideas be respected?
.
lol, ok, anyway, i'm leavign sciforums, i'm bored of it
bye for all,arivaderchi, maybe i'll be back some other times
lol, ok, anyway, i'm leavign sciforums, i'm bored of it
bye for all,arivaderchi, maybe i'll be back some other times
Yes, SF is a bit boring at the moment.
I was thinking that this morning.
But it gets boring, and then it gets interesting again.
Shadow. Goodbye forever.
Take good care of Keke.
See you tomorrow.
I was thinking that this morning.
But it gets boring, and then it gets interesting again.
Shadow. Goodbye forever.
Take good care of Keke.
See you tomorrow.
Last edited:
This is your new god "WORSHIP HIM"
(Insert Title Here)
I don't think he's made it clear, given his half-assed appeal to authority and attempts to denigrate not just the extremists, but religion in general.
I would suggest you are referring to a holy book, while the broader topic pertains to religion in general.
As such, I think your counterpoint focuses too directly on the Qur'an—and your personal view thereof—compared to the larger text from which you extracted my statement.
I would ask, as such, that you attend the context of my remarks to Scifes.
I would only suggest that if you evaluate assertions made by another, applying only your perception of your own reality, you greatly increase the chances for failure of communication or understanding of the idea.
One of the great problems of human communication is that we tend to expect of others so much more than we expect of ourselves. Obviously, the religious could do a better job of explaining their perspectives, but the atheistic approach often seems to depict everything as ouroboros. This is fine if you're examining the logic exclusive of human experience, but provides no pathway to view the entry to and development of that cycle.
My larger problem is one of efficacy.
When one is faced with a problem, is the object to solve the problem, or to perpetuate it in pursuit of job security?
I want these problems solved. Remember, the consequence of religious fantasy is its human effect. Which means people will continue to suffer under the tyranny of religion—
—while the allegedly clear-eyed sit back and enjoy chuckling at how clever they are.
There comes a point when one's behavior is an obstacle, a stumbling block, to the progress asserted by their beliefs. And this is where the contemporary atheistic mass movement is presently. They are not doing themselves, or anyone else, any genuine favors.
I can easily stand on my history of discussing religion at Sciforums. Not that anyone is expected to read every damn post, but I'm not going to reiterate all of it in order to satisfy the personal insecurities of various atheists every time I want to make a point about where the effort is going.
Think of it this way. I've dabbled with cocaine before. By the youthful, angry, myopic, rebellious outlook, I am disqualified from ever telling my daughter to not use cocaine.
However, I managed to walk away from the stuff without falling too deeply into it. That actually makes me one of the lucky ones. Hopefully, I will be able to tell my daughter why she should avoid cocaine.
To the other, though, I will have much less standing to steer her away from cocaine if I'm stopping halfway through the lecture to pop off and snort a couple lines.
Not all human frailties should be indicted according to the same terminology. Indeed, as the saying goes, "Everything in moderation." In that record I can easily stand on—and including this thread—you can find my participation in FSM jokes.
But there comes a point when an issue is pushed too far. This need not be a moral boundary, but can easily be a practical observation. This thread's manner of ridicule, especially in such explicit and concentrated performance, only has the effect of closing down avenues for communicating with the other side of the dispute. And if that's what people want, well, that's what they want. But there is nothing admirable in that method.
And how many times should the sun rise and set while we sit there listening to him breathe?
I would not claim they are exclusive. Indeed, the paranoia can lead to the hatred, which reinforces the paranoia, or even invents new forms thereof.
And there is something rational to be found in paranoia. Certes, I might someday come to believe that everyone is out to get me, but I would hope to find something better to do about it than self-destruct and hope to take as many of them with me as possible. Or, perhaps less severely, I would hope to find something better to do about it than give them a reason to want to get me.
Of course not. But to what degree does falling back on such generalization allow us to escape the specific issues before us?
___________________
Notes:
Goldman, Emma. "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For". Anarchism and Other Essays. 1910. New York: Dover, 1969. Anarchy Archives. April 6, 2010. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/goldman/Goldmanbiblio.html
GeoffP said:
I don't think he's made it clear, given his half-assed appeal to authority and attempts to denigrate not just the extremists, but religion in general.
I would suggest you are referring to a holy book, while the broader topic pertains to religion in general.
As such, I think your counterpoint focuses too directly on the Qur'an—and your personal view thereof—compared to the larger text from which you extracted my statement.
I would ask, as such, that you attend the context of my remarks to Scifes.
I would only suggest that if you evaluate assertions made by another, applying only your perception of your own reality, you greatly increase the chances for failure of communication or understanding of the idea.
One of the great problems of human communication is that we tend to expect of others so much more than we expect of ourselves. Obviously, the religious could do a better job of explaining their perspectives, but the atheistic approach often seems to depict everything as ouroboros. This is fine if you're examining the logic exclusive of human experience, but provides no pathway to view the entry to and development of that cycle.
My larger problem is one of efficacy.
When one is faced with a problem, is the object to solve the problem, or to perpetuate it in pursuit of job security?
I want these problems solved. Remember, the consequence of religious fantasy is its human effect. Which means people will continue to suffer under the tyranny of religion—
Religion, the dominion of the human mind .... Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began. Break your mental fetters ... for not until you think and judge for yourself will you get rid of the dominion of darkness, the greatest obstacle to all progress.
(Goldman)
(Goldman)
—while the allegedly clear-eyed sit back and enjoy chuckling at how clever they are.
There comes a point when one's behavior is an obstacle, a stumbling block, to the progress asserted by their beliefs. And this is where the contemporary atheistic mass movement is presently. They are not doing themselves, or anyone else, any genuine favors.
I can easily stand on my history of discussing religion at Sciforums. Not that anyone is expected to read every damn post, but I'm not going to reiterate all of it in order to satisfy the personal insecurities of various atheists every time I want to make a point about where the effort is going.
Think of it this way. I've dabbled with cocaine before. By the youthful, angry, myopic, rebellious outlook, I am disqualified from ever telling my daughter to not use cocaine.
However, I managed to walk away from the stuff without falling too deeply into it. That actually makes me one of the lucky ones. Hopefully, I will be able to tell my daughter why she should avoid cocaine.
To the other, though, I will have much less standing to steer her away from cocaine if I'm stopping halfway through the lecture to pop off and snort a couple lines.
Not all human frailties should be indicted according to the same terminology. Indeed, as the saying goes, "Everything in moderation." In that record I can easily stand on—and including this thread—you can find my participation in FSM jokes.
But there comes a point when an issue is pushed too far. This need not be a moral boundary, but can easily be a practical observation. This thread's manner of ridicule, especially in such explicit and concentrated performance, only has the effect of closing down avenues for communicating with the other side of the dispute. And if that's what people want, well, that's what they want. But there is nothing admirable in that method.
And how many times should the sun rise and set while we sit there listening to him breathe?
I would not claim they are exclusive. Indeed, the paranoia can lead to the hatred, which reinforces the paranoia, or even invents new forms thereof.
And there is something rational to be found in paranoia. Certes, I might someday come to believe that everyone is out to get me, but I would hope to find something better to do about it than self-destruct and hope to take as many of them with me as possible. Or, perhaps less severely, I would hope to find something better to do about it than give them a reason to want to get me.
Of course not. But to what degree does falling back on such generalization allow us to escape the specific issues before us?
___________________
Notes:
Goldman, Emma. "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For". Anarchism and Other Essays. 1910. New York: Dover, 1969. Anarchy Archives. April 6, 2010. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/goldman/Goldmanbiblio.html
Pigeons? Really?
I just wanted to make sure you are referring to Skinner's experiments concerning "'Superstition' in the Pigeon". The one doubted by Staddon and Simmelhag's 1971 investigation, which was refined and reinforced in 1980 by Douglas Fenner.
For starters, that would mean you are comparing religious people to pigeons, a dubious suggestion in itself.
____________________
Notes:
Skinner, B. F. "'Superstition' in the Pigeon". Journal of Experimental Psychology. Vol. 38. 1947. PsychClassics.ASU.edu. April 7, 2010. http://psychclassics.asu.edu/Skinner/Pigeon/
Fenner, Douglas. "The Role of Contingencies and 'Principles of Behavioral Variation' in Pigeons' Pecking". Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. Vol. 34, No. 1. July, 1980. NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov. April 7, 2010. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1332940/pdf/jeabehav00081-0003.pdf
Answers said:
I just wanted to make sure you are referring to Skinner's experiments concerning "'Superstition' in the Pigeon". The one doubted by Staddon and Simmelhag's 1971 investigation, which was refined and reinforced in 1980 by Douglas Fenner.
For starters, that would mean you are comparing religious people to pigeons, a dubious suggestion in itself.
____________________
Notes:
Skinner, B. F. "'Superstition' in the Pigeon". Journal of Experimental Psychology. Vol. 38. 1947. PsychClassics.ASU.edu. April 7, 2010. http://psychclassics.asu.edu/Skinner/Pigeon/
Fenner, Douglas. "The Role of Contingencies and 'Principles of Behavioral Variation' in Pigeons' Pecking". Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. Vol. 34, No. 1. July, 1980. NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov. April 7, 2010. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1332940/pdf/jeabehav00081-0003.pdf
True - the pigeons might object to such a characterization...
*************
M*W: Is "sicological heath" an oxymoron or is it just ewe?
(Betcha won't get this one either... ha ha!).