Reformation of Sciforum Nation

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by (Q), Nov 1, 2009.

  1. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    This is interesting. Why do you feel you best friend should be forced to choose between his faith and evolution when the Pope himself has said that the theory of evolution is compatible with catholicism?

    It leads me to wonder why certain athiestas feel it is necessary to force others to make choices (ah but if force is involved then it's not a choice) just as I wonder why certain religionistas feel it is necessary to force others to adhere to their belief sytems.

    Choice. Does it matter at all?

    I find if you try to force things; something tightens..... resolve for one.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Sorry sniffy. There is a clear definition for theocracy, one which you cannot warp and bend to your will.

    The USA is a secular federal republic. That religion permeates our culture and seeps into politics is a fact of life. People are religious, I wish that they were not (since I'm non-religious/without religion), but freedom of religion allows people to take that religion into office with them and use it in their decision making process. We aren't frakking Vulcans. People don't check their personalities at the door!

    Whatever. You're describing morality issues, one which I would not attempt to argue with you since I don't support most of the American international efforts right now. Not a peacenik, just not a warmonger.

    As I said, words have clear definitions and you've not supported your claim that the USA is a "theocracy".

    ~String
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Where did I say he should be forced, Sniffy? Did I even hint that people should be forced to confront their dicotomies. We are all walking, talking, hypocritical conundrums. That's just human! I like to believe I'm sorting mine out, but I'm not so foolish as to believe I'll ever get close before I die.

    Me too! That's why I think people should be allowed to live their lives, prejudices and all. It's why I'm okay with homophobia, racism and other sundry human flaws. It's not so much that I like them, rather I know it's like tilting at windmills to try to cure everybody of their various bigotries!

    I'm one of the FEW atheists who believe that militant atheism is a bad thing. The people who want to chisel "In god we trust", the Ten Commandments and religious imagery off of government monuments are crybabies and need to calm down. Christianity is a part of our culture, whether we like it or not. Hopefully one day people will stop being theists, but until then I'll be patient and respect the good aspects of religion. I'm a HUGE fan of Christ. My brother and I talk about him all the time (last night, in fact). I have read a great deal on his life. I don't think he's a god, but I am still fascinated by his life.

    Yeah. . . I don't know where you pulled this notion of "forcing" people to choose out of, but. . . well, that's more on you than me.

    ~String
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    Define what your clear definition is then and we will continue. In the meantime:

    Well I'd be checking if I were you and I were voting in your 'republic'. Perhaps religion should not be taken into office and used in decision making process because when it is you get policy decisions based on religion. Oh such as being homosexual is bad; marriage and adoption is only for heterosexuals etc etc. There may be other policy decisions based solely on the religion of your 'elected representatives' that are on your statute books right now.
     
  8. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945


    Bigotry does not require a cure. Evidence and dialogue usually suffice.

    That you are one of only a 'few'? Evidence please. Or do you mean the few here on sci? I live in a whole country of such people. There are pockets of reliogious types here and there but religion is kept well away from government and as far away as possible from education. We do swing a bit sometimes though.


    Lots of things are part of a culture; christianity is not the only contributor to culture, or even the original culture, of the US. It just replaced what was already there as cultures do. Lets face it some things you might not want chiselled anywhere!


    For sure people will stop being one thing and become something else. Will they ever become respectful? I doubt it. Individuals might though.

    I'm not sure that christ even existed. I've never seen any evidence that such a person did exist other than as an ideal conjured up by St Paul and St Paul's anti- jewish agenda. If christ did exist he was a jew before he was a christian.



    Lots of people would like to force lots of others to do things. With varying degrees of success. It is a human flaw; one that can be fatal.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2009
  9. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    And you have made a claim without

    1) demonstrating correlation
    2) coming remotely near demonstrating causation

    I get to be skeptical about that as long as we are all speculating.

    Or are your claims immune for some reason.
     
  10. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,391
    So, what would satisfy your nit-picking today?
     
  11. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Even if that were demonstrated - rather than simply claimed - it does not support a claim that the reason the scholarly and intelligent poster left - another claimed so far only claimed - left because of them.

    I never said that. I wrote - I thought clearly - that the hypothetical scholarly and intelligent atheist, seeing the thread, has quite a bit of control over his or her experiences. If posts such as one is likely to find in such a thread would drive such a person away, one would think an intelligent poster would avoid the thread. If they were interesting in sparring with a creationists, but only if they were intelligent, they could hop in and look around.

    Again. My skepticism is aimed at the idea that threads in philosophy were causal in the driving away of these intelligent and scholarly posters.
    I am quite skeptical that Plato would find N rational. I think he would find him presenting ideas in an improper way and that many of his notions, if not most of them would not merely incorrect but dangerous. I don't think either process or content would pass muster. Let alone the deconstuctivists.

    Sure, but other philosophers would disagree. I find it hard to imagine how the first axiom, at least, would not be a value judgment - something coming from desire about how the world might be.

    Again, I was talking about the first axioms. I think you are interpreting me uncharitably. I was not saying the total system is non-rational, just that to begin one must create or accept a desire - such as humans shall thrive or suffering is to be avoided (because I don't like it).

    But I never hear that the discourse in politics has driven away the hypothetical past ideal posters.

    So what is it you have learned beyond the facts.

    An assertion has been made:

    Religious nutters have caused the loss in participation of a significant number of intelligent and scholarly posters.

    Which breaks down into 2 assertions that need to be supported

    1) There were more intelligent and scholarly posters in the past
    2) Religious nutters cut into their numbers
    ( 3) Implicit is Religious nutters are worse now.)

    I have seen nothing demonstrating 1 or 3.
    I have seen nothing demonstrating correlation in relation to 2, LET ALONG DEMONSTRATING CAUSATION.

    Imagine you are held to the same standards as you would like theists to be and demonstrate this.
     
  12. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Are you now asserting that requests for are nitpicking? I thought the whole point was that people were supposed to back up claims in an intelligent and scholarly way.
     
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,391
    So, you want me to wade through thousands of posts, glean those that are relevant and place them on a platter for your perusal?

    How many fingers am I holding up?
     
  14. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Of course you can do whatever you like. I am merely pointing out that people are speculating. I can think of much easier ways to begin providing some evidence - for example exit posts of some of these intelligent and scholarly posters who make it clear why they are leaving. I presume some of the people here remember the names of some of these people who are missed. This would be anecdotal, but would be something. It is not my fault that your claim is not backed up by evidence. You drew a conclusion via some process you consider rational enough to simply make the claim without qualification. You seem absolutely certain these people left because of 'nutters'. If you are certain and rational, you should also be capable of demonstrating why others should also be certain. Or is it the case that you have a belief (a certain one) that you cannot demonstrate to others?

    EDIT:
    One could also approach the issue via deduction.

    There are more nutters now
    There are less scholarly and intelligent posters

    Therefore: The nutters drove away the S&I posters.

    IOW no other possible causes are involved because
    1
    2
    3

    I doubt this can be demonstrated, but it is implicit in most of the arguments so far that one can deduce this to be the case. Of course some support for the first two statement is necessary, but demonstrating that the two statements necessarily lead to the third would be something.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2009
  15. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    I was referring to the members of Sciforums. American atheists are few and far between.

    Great, and we, especially me, were not even talking about them. We were, however, talking about the positive contributions of Christians in society. Moreover, my statements were in reference to your thoughts that I was somehow a proponent of forcing other people to make a choice, which is ridiculous. I'm a libertarian and a secular humanist. People should be left, mostly, to their own devices.

    Then you've never really studied history. Start with Josephus, a Jew and acclaimed, contemporary, Roman historian Tacitus. There are other non-direct sources of the era as well that mention Christians and why they existed, first to mind is Pliny The Younger. The Romans kept amazing records. Only the uninitiated and ignorant can venture to make the claim that Jesus didn't exist. Even the most ardent atheist cannot deny he existed, and didn't form Christianity. Where there is doubt is in his godhead.

    Great. We aren't discussing them, Sniffy. See, that was called a "rhetorical dodge", a "non sequitur" or a "red herring". All three apply. We were discussing me, and your claims that I wanted to "force" people to confront their internal contradictions. I don't. Humans, as I pointed our, a big bags of internal hypocrisy and contradictions. It's what makes us human. So, if you can demonstrate how I want to "force" people to change, then do so. Go ahead and talk about "other people" to. . . well, other people, not me.

    ~String
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Seriously? You believe this guy?
     
  17. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    He's known to have flaws and to filter a bit of his philosophy and passions into his view of history, so one has to allow for that fact. His writings about Masada are specious (he was never there, or even near there), but when the guy talks about larger events that can be corroborated in other areas, it's worth noting that they may well be fact. No, I wouldn't take the minutia of his writings as fact, but the overall historical writings are a strong indicator of what was going on at the time.

    ~String
     
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    I'd restrict myself to the historical evidence if I were you. Josephus seems to have been rather flexible in his dealings and memories. Would you recommend a good read on his work?
     
  19. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    I clearly stated, SAM, that a lot of his work is specious. That doesn't mean it's not worth reading.

    Other than his surviving writings (translated--of course--unless you also speak Latin along with your fifty other languages)? No. I'm out of my "Roman" stage and am into my Mideast stage. Recently read a book on Richard & Saladin and am on to a biography of Mehmed II.

    ~String
     
  20. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    its not just that....you gotta ask...to what end?

    -------------------------------------------------


    frakkin perfect
    why bother with evidence when talking outta one's ass is so much easier
    frakkin woo woo

    /sneer
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2009
  21. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    Then America is a theocrasy whether you would like to admit that or not.



    And if people are actually left to their own devices where might that leave you, or I, for that matter? If people are left to believe in the laws of christianity they might decide that you or I have to behave in certain ways in order to conform to the 'laws' of christianity. Worry you at all that prospect? What exactly do you think secular humanism evolved from.....? Hint: christianity...secular humanism will evolve into something esle no doubt.

    Don't you see how the statement 'People should be left' is a version of 'forcing people' to conform to your views? How does such a statement differ from 'people should not be theists' or 'people should be theists'.....



    Haven't I? Does six years working in museums (and not as a janitor) qualify as studying history? Assume much do you? Again.




    I didn't claim that Jesus didn't exist. I claimed christ didn't. Thanks for backing me up on that point.

    Christianity as a 'faith' was formed largely by St Paul to suit his own personal agenda. 'Jesus' (may even have been more than one person) would certainly have been Jewish for his entire life. He would bear little relation to that 'chap' many of your fellow Americans, and others, claim to worship.



    Some people (but not you?) would like to force your friend to choose between evolution and catholicism? Is that correct? He, however, is comfortable not bothering to choose. Q would have that your friend is insane because he is a catholic. Is this friend insane? Or is Q a bullying atheist trying to force others around to his way of thinking just like any ardent theist might? Pots, you see, often call kettle black.

    Some atheists try to force their views upon people; some theists try to force their views upon people. It's a human trait, forcing. I asked why? I also partially answered it: Human trait. There are other answers related to politics.

    Is there anything that can be done about this propensity to force others to 'one's' way of thinking? Now there is a question.
     
  22. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,940
    so is there any proof that all these brilliant folks who left didn't just die or get abducted by aliens or somethin'?
     
  23. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,391
    And, like I said, I'm not about to go wading through posts to satisfy your nit-picking. You are free to do so. If you feel you want to believe that people have not left here due to nutters, that is your prerogative.
     

Share This Page