RE: Evolution vs. Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/3/2011 2:43:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If your questions are directed at me tazzy, it's not at all clear to me what they might be referring to. I have no idea what "it" in your first sentence refers to, not do I understand what "yours" in the question refers to either.

Edited to change 'question' to sentence


Nothing is ever clear when you want to avoid an issue, tweak.

Yet, you have no proof it doesnt exist. Does that make yours a blind faith as well?

it = belief in religious context

yours = belief in a non religious context

If you have no idea what is being discussed, why did you stick your nose into the middle of the discussion?




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/3/2011 3:11:46 AM)

quote:

Gee! You guys have it tough over there! We don't experience this kind of intolerance and bigotry by the religious here on anything like this scale.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html


There is a reason why it says ... Opinion.. at the top. [;)]




NorthernGent -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/3/2011 3:17:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


Yet, you have no proof it doesnt exist. Does that make yours a blind faith as well?

it = belief in religious context

yours = belief in a non religious context



Not quite.

Evolution is probable based on what we know of the world.

God is improbable based on what we know of the world.

Doesn't mean evolution will not become yesterday's story; nor does it mean God cannot possibly turn up tomorrow.

There aren't any truths, and as such 'proof' is a red herring; the closest you will get is probable and improbable.

Having said this, I see no reason why faith and reason can't exist side by side. Furthermore, it would be foolhardy to attempt to understand the world on reason alone, or on faith alone. Quite clearly, they are both aspects of human behaviour.





tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/3/2011 3:33:07 AM)

quote:

Having said this, I see no reason why faith and reason can't exist side by side. Furthermore, it would be foolhardy to attempt to understand the world on reason alone, or on faith alone. Quite clearly, they are both aspects of human behaviour.


I completely agree. [:D]




tweakabelle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/3/2011 3:55:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If your questions are directed at me tazzy, it's not at all clear to me what they might be referring to. I have no idea what "it" in your first sentence refers to, not do I understand what "yours" in the question refers to either.

Edited to change 'question' to sentence




Yet, you have no proof it doesnt exist. Does that make yours a blind faith as well?

it = belief in religious context

yours = belief in a non religious context

If you have no idea what is being discussed, why did you stick your nose into the middle of the discussion?

I chose not speculate on your meaning and instead to invite you to clarify your words. It's called being fair.

Taking the definitions you supplied, I am being asked to make sense of this:

Yet, you have no proof it (belief in religious context) doesnt exist. Does that make yours(belief in a non religious context) a blind faith as well?

The first sentence appears to mean that religious belief cannot be disproved. That's true. Neither can a claim that the Universe is a sick joke dreamt up by a cosmic junkie be disproved. It's a tad difficult to disprove negatives.

So the underlying sense appears to be: Religious belief cannot be disproved. Therefore my beliefs are blind faith.

Far too idiotic to merit a response.

Hippiekinkster (post #337) was right. A conversation with unicorns would be more productive. Please find someone else's time to waste.






thishereboi -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/3/2011 5:20:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Gee! You guys have it tough over there! We don't experience this kind of intolerance and bigotry by the religious here on anything like this scale.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html


There is a reason why it says ... Opinion.. at the top. [;)]


Yes, but if you read the whole thing and see how the author goes on about how atheists are generally more intelligent than religious folks and how atheists are more ethical than religious folks, you might start to understand why people dislike atheists. At least the one's who tend to think they are superior over others because of their lack of belief. Like the author of the article. After reading his opinion, I am not only surprised that people don't like him, but my guess it has more to do with his holier than thou attitude than his disbelief in any deity.




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/3/2011 9:27:47 AM)

Yes, lets take a look at the opinion piece itself.

quote:

Those who don’t believe in God are widely considered to be immoral, wicked and angry


Yet no quotes, no studies... just opinion... its my opinion the above opinion is wrong.

quote:

They can’t join the Boy Scouts.


The Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts is a private organization and, as such, can make the rules as they desire. Or is it the belief among atheists that the state should tell private clubs what to do?

quote:

nonbelievers are one minority still commonly denied in practical terms the right to assume office despite the constitutional ban on religious tests.


Lori Lipman Brown (1958–): American politician, lobbyist, lawyer, educator, and social worker supporter, Nevada state senator
1992-1994.

Culbert Olson (1876–1962): American politician and Governor of California (1939–1943).

Pete Stark (1931–): U.S. Representative (D-CA), the first openly atheist member of Congress.

But, wait, the opinion piece didnt say there were none, only that they were in the minority.

So, what number would be fair? Do we make it a requirement that a certain percentage must be black, then another must be hispanic, and that only a certain number can be catholic? And what about crossover numbers, how do they fit in when one person can fit three categories, for example a hispanic female who is catholic?

quote:

A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.


I really like this part. Here, Zuckerman, one of the writers of the opinion piece, cites his own work.

quote:

Consider that at the societal level, murder rates are far lower in secularized nations such as Japan or Sweden than they are in the much more religious United States, which also has a much greater portion of its population in prison. Even within this country, those states with the highest levels of church attendance, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, have significantly higher murder rates than far less religious states such as Vermont and Oregon.


Yep, if you are religious, you will be a murderer. [8|] High murder rates are those based upon only the residents of that state. How could someone from another state commit a murder? I mean, honestly, I do see their point (on top of their heads). I wont even get into the differences between countries.

The rest is just as rediculous, in my opinion. Zuckerman repeatedly cites either his own research or that research that includes his research. It reads more of a whine than an opinion.





Edwynn -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/3/2011 3:16:06 PM)



quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Gee! You guys have it tough over there! We don't experience this kind of intolerance and bigotry by the religious here on anything like this scale.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html


There is a reason why it says ... Opinion.. at the top. [;)]


Yes, but if you read the whole thing and see how the author goes on about how atheists are generally more intelligent than religious folks and how atheists are more ethical than religious folks, you might start to understand why people dislike atheists. At least the one's who tend to think they are superior over others because of their lack of belief. Like the author of the article. After reading his opinion, I am not only surprised that people don't like him, but my guess it has more to do with his holier than thou attitude than his disbelief in any deity.




Boi, I cannot disagree with you to any significant degree on this one. Which in fact brings only more head scratching to the fore as to why ostentatious public display of one's own religion, which in every case displays a 'superiority' of some sort troubles you significantly less.








tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/3/2011 3:18:23 PM)

quote:

Boi, I cannot disagree with you to any significant degree on this one. Which in fact brings only more head scratching to the fore as to why ostentatious public display of one's own religion, which in every case displays a 'superiority' of some sort, troubles you somewhat less.


What do you mean by public display?




Edwynn -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/3/2011 3:25:09 PM)



Never seen a yarmulke? never seen a specific head scarf, even before we get to burqas? never seen a Preist collar or Nun's habit, etc, in public in your life?

I haven't seen the clerical collars or Habits for over 15 years, but seen all the others in increasing numbers.


Some of us live outside of caves. Another way of saying it: some of us live in diverse communities.
















tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/3/2011 3:28:29 PM)

Yes, I have seen all those things, including your sarcasm all over these boards. Now, tone it down a bit to realize that I was asking because I wanted your definition before responding. It IS sometimes useful to have an explanation of a term that could have fit a house decorated for christmas, the beauty of the Vatican, or the tiny, forgotten easter egg.

Chill dude, not all questions are an attack or a sign of stupidity.




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/3/2011 3:47:05 PM)

quote:

Boi, I cannot disagree with you to any significant degree on this one. Which in fact brings only more head scratching to the fore as to why ostentatious public display of one's own religion, which in every case displays a 'superiority' of some sort troubles you significantly less.


quote:

Never seen a yarmulke? never seen a specific head scarf, even before we get to burqas? never seen a Preist collar or Nun's habit, etc, in public in your life?

I haven't seen the clerical collars or Habits for over 15 years, but seen all the others in increasing numbers.


Some of us live outside of caves. Another way of saying it: some of us live in diverse communities.


The bolded part... nice try at covering.

Anyways, you dont question uniforms of others who live in communities. Police, medical, military.... only those of religion. Most organizations have a form of dress. Even the Girl Scouts.




tweakabelle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/3/2011 9:57:01 PM)

To everyone:

I've never seen a study that measures denial.

Any guesses as to who might top that chart? [:D]




Musicmystery -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/3/2011 10:00:30 PM)

~FR~

You know, Evolution isn't "vs." Religion.

It's some who position Religion as vs. Evolution. Mainly by spinning data conveniently.




lickenforyou -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/4/2011 12:09:41 AM)

In the United States, seven state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness.

Several polls have shown that about 50 percent of Americans would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president.[/link][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#cite_note-50] A 2006 study found that 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that did "not at all agree with my vision of American society", and that 48% would not want their child to marry an atheist. In both studies, percentages of disapproval of atheists were above those for Muslims, African Americans, and homosexuals.[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#cite_note-51][/link]




tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/4/2011 12:33:38 AM)

And I will ask again... what do you propose is the solution?

ETA

~FR

quote:

Several polls have shown that about 50 percent of Americans would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president


Would you support a group you do not identify with that was constantly in your face about how stupid you were, how less intelligent, how more likely to commit crimes... ect ect ect?




WyldHrt -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/4/2011 2:52:03 AM)

quote:

quote:

Several polls have shown that about 50 percent of Americans would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president


Would you support a group you do not identify with that was constantly in your face about how stupid you were, how less intelligent, how more likely to commit crimes... ect ect ect?
Voting for a well qualified candidate who happens to be an atheist is somehow supporting a 'group'? How does that work? Am I supporting the Catholic 'group' when I vote for a qualified candidate who happens to be Catholic? Should I check up on the religion or lack thereof of every candidate and cast my vote based on their religion, or lack thereof, instead of their record and position on key issues?

I think that you are still reacting to the article posted earlier, Tazzy. Either you were venting, or you really have no issue with painting everyone who identifies as an atheist with the same brush. If it is the latter, how is your position any different from that of atheists who treat all religious people like members of the WBC?




Edwynn -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/4/2011 3:12:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Boi, I cannot disagree with you to any significant degree on this one. Which in fact brings only more head scratching to the fore as to why ostentatious public display of one's own religion, which in every case displays a 'superiority' of some sort troubles you significantly less.


quote:

Never seen a yarmulke? never seen a specific head scarf, even before we get to burqas? never seen a Preist collar or Nun's habit, etc, in public in your life?

I haven't seen the clerical collars or Habits for over 15 years, but seen all the others in increasing numbers.


Some of us live outside of caves. Another way of saying it: some of us live in diverse communities.


The bolded part... nice try at covering.

Anyways, you dont question uniforms of others who live in communities. Police, medical, military.... only those of religion. Most organizations have a form of dress. Even the Girl Scouts.



"Nice try" at what? That I fail to notice the religion in the uniforms of the police or EM's or doctors or nurses or or the soldiers?

Or are you saying that the uniforms of professions based upon science and empirical evidence are to be thrown in to the same societal bin as theology? Yes, they all deserve 'equal air time.' Where has prayer in school gone, anyways? All 50 of them?

How blind I have been! And on top of that, I have on occasion bought cookies from those green/olive wearing little proselytizers too!

Please, a clue awaits you, just around the bend.


But you now wish to equate some particular and taken as 'law' some and various specific understandings of spirituality as to equate to paramedics or nurses or doctors?

Just who is 'covering' for what, here?

And that is only a rhetorical question. Please do not lower my estimation of where society is headed by answering that one. Enough damage has already been done.


Your incessant and pointless antagonizing is not well taken here, in case that might have escaped notice.










blnymph -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/4/2011 3:15:13 AM)

would anyone of you posters over the last few pages bother to read post number one, clearly stating what all this was meant to be about?




Edwynn -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/4/2011 3:45:49 AM)





Bless all of us with your own understanding of either, sweetheart. Show us the way here.

Do contribute.



PS

I've got my own ideas as to why alligators haven't changed much in 200 million years, but let's hear your thoughts on that one, sweetie.

Back to the topic now.

We're all ears.










Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.492188E-02