I haven't. I clearly state the things which are just my opinion, which I'm entitled to and the things which are facts. Some of those facts are indisputable, specifically that religion, in my case the Abrahamic faiths, have waged a non-stop war against scientific truths. The largest case being, evolution. Most are dedicated to politics, but "insulting region". Since religion falls into the field of "opinion" I'm certainly entitled to express my thoughts on the matter. Doing such an act hardly accounts as "insulting", except, perhaps, in the few theocracies still existing on planet earth. ~String
Then you should leave, SAM. Go far far away. Why trouble yourself with the likes of us? At the end of the day, your posts usually contain some critique of how all of Sciforums is wrong for not going about things in a way which you insist is correct. Stop complaining and vote with your feet. ~String
Thats exactly what I wonder about atheists living in majority theist societies. Why don't they leave?
Tell you what: you try it out for a year then come back and tell us how it works out for you. ~String
Have you been following the discussion? What viciousness? I'm arguing a specific point since the last three pages. Its based on the analysis presented by two moderators and another liberal atheist here.
Yea, so? Where is it evidenced that countries in which atheists live are "run by insane people who set up crazy religious institutions"? It is complete nonsense, plus you're in the wrong thread. Your viciousness against atheists in general. It's rearing it's ugly head again.
This doesn't mean that all people are dangerously insane, it just means that they probably have a character flaw. Moreover, I pointed out that in any case where a person accepts emprical science while passively being a member of a religious group (i.e. Catholics or Jews) because of tradition, this is more an issue of not wanting to deal with the uncomfortable dichotomy than a denial of science. My best friend from High School is a superintendent of a public school system. He's Catholic by birth. He never goes to church except because of wedding, funerals, holidays etc., but accepts basically every tenet of science (i.e. evolution) because he just doesn't feel like moving beyond the comfortable fact that he was born a Catholic and will probably die one. This, I believe, it just because he's comfortable not forcing a choice between the two. Is this opinion a "fact"? It's my opinion and one I'm entitled to. I wouldn't try to sell it as fact and don't usually run around expressing it unless asked pointedly. But, it being my opinion doesn't mean I'm oppressing religion or somehow should be bound to prove every aspect of it, since I'm open to proof otherwise. ~String
Thats okay, when I apply that reasoning to homosexuals, it makes perfect sense to me. I mean clearly, whats more erroneous than a guy snogging a guy? Don't they know what sex is? sheesh! But more like not being wired right, I think, than a character flaw Clearly abnormal and unnatural. Some kind of genetic flaw?
It's scientifically possible that it's a genetic flaw, and arguable that it's unnatural. Clearly it's would not be the first evolutionary choice, nor the choice of most conceiving parents. But that, for me isn't a moral argument since we, as intelligent beings, have clearly transcended "nature" and "evolution". Our purpose goes beyond just existing within a natural cycle. Moreover, you do have religious beliefs which gravitate towards the Abrahamic variety, so it wouldn't surprise me to hear that you feel that way. While I don't relish such a fact, It's my opinion within the next fifty years that most parents will have the ability to genetically pre-screen their children. People often times get angry about this fact (we often times revolt against our more empathetic sides, especially when reality conflicts with our Utopian dreams). It's infuriating to think about parents deciding what traits their children should have, especially when it may be to the exclusion of certain qualities that large segments of the population currently value. Personally, I'm a realist and I think in order to step to the next level of evolution, we'll have to sacrifice some of our more touchy-feely notions of who we are and just accept the fact that some sub-cultures may end up disappearing (i.e. gays, deaf people), because science will remove those factors. Do I wish for it to happen? Not necessarily. But I'm also aware that most parents will want to secretly give their children every advantage and every chance at "normality." Sure, there will be those who potentially select for homosexuality, but realistically this segment of the population will shrink until it disappears. I've pointed out that I'm of the opinion that our shape and form will probably not survive the next 150 years. With the advent of nano and genetic technologies what it means to be "human" now may well go out the door. ~String
Yeah, normalcy is a point of view. I'm aware of that. Science has the potential to make everyone more normal and less distinct.
And probably will, one day. I'm not even sure we'll survive the arrival of singularity. I'm hoping, but I'm not holding my breath either. It may well be that the next stage of our evolution is the shedding of organic individualism, or the shedding of the organic altogether. Everything is temporary. Even if we remain "the same" until the end of time; at that time, we will end. Whether 150 years from now, or 150 billion years from now, we will end. I would hope that it comes not before we've made some semblance of peace with eachother. ~String
Sometimes it makes me glad to be in India, where abnormality is sacred and something to wonder at rather than put under a scalpel for correction.
It's only a matter of time before the industrial revolution catches up in India, and perhaps only a bit longer until the science arrives for Indians to chose the traits of their children. The power is too tempting. Homosexuals have a lesser chance of surviving in India than Europe or the US. I'm not sure what the chances are for Deaf children, but I'm betting it's equally infinitesimal. ~String
Not really. Indians are fatalists at heart. We're still chewing over what to do about gay marriage while gay marriages are already happening in the country.
You're telling me that in comparatively conservative India, where marriage and children are held in the highest honor, where family honor is--especially in the countryside--held up as the ultimate achievement, parents would not--when the opportunity arises--chose to ensure that their children are born heterosexual, with all senses and all body functions at, or above, par? This the nation of the compliment, "May you be the mother of a hundred sons." ~String
Yeah, its not an easy country to comprehend. We just decriminalised gay sex and we had gay marriages since at least the 1980s
String you do realise that as an American you are living in one of the biggest theocracies on earth? The country that you live in has used theocratic arguments (ie fallacies) to wage war on other theorcratic countries that don't happen, rather conveniently, to share opinions on which theocrat is the best theocrat?
