abandon your planQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
/thread
Printable View
abandon your planQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
/thread
Ah.
You might be on to something. Maybe you should write a letter to the Pope suggesting that he let Richard Dawkins give the Easter sermon in vatican square this year.
On a more serious note, I would suggest that you abandon the cliche belief that 'you can't pick your family'
You absolutely, totally can.
My parents have their act together, my brother and sister have their shit together. Nuclear families, jobs, own their own home, etc.
My extended family....scum.
Drugs, crime, drama. Who needs that shit in their life? A cousin called me up one day in tears asking to borrow money. He gave me some bullshit story about his ATV being repossessed, but I knew enough about his life to know that was bullshit. My cousin was a dealer, and he had to pay a drug supplier or he was going to face the consequences of not paying a drug supplier. He wouldn't be crying over an ATV.
I declined. And after that, i just decided that none of these people do anything good for my life. We used to have christmas eve all together, and every year there were more and more people that I didn't recognize. Certain family members were putting up real money for shrimp and lobsters, and other ass hole family members would invite their girlfriend, and her two kids, and her sister who lives with her, etc etc etc.
So one day I just said, FUCK this. Fuck these people. Fuck their bullshit. I'm gonna buy shrimp and lobsters and bring them to MY HOUSE. I'm going to invite my immediate family only, and we're going to enjoy the holidays ONLY with people we like.
Epilogue to that story, karma caught up with my drug dealing cousin and he got cancer at age 30. Actually, I'm not sure if that was karma, it might have been mercy. If I was facing 15 years in federal prison for interstate trafficking, I might wish for cancer to take me.
Anyway, as he neared death he began to reach out more to family and tried to strengthen the relationships. I spent a night with him near the end and I'm not sure what compelled it, but he pretty much made confession. He told me so much about his life, how he made a living, the criminal acts he committed, the actions he took against his rivals, etc etc etc. Let me just say....the world is better without him.
the point of this, is that my conscience didn't bother me at all. I pretty much disowned my family, which is something alot of people regret and reverse when something catastrophic happens. I didn't feel that way. I thought he was an ass hole before he got cancer, and he died an ass hole.
So if you're reluctant to put distance between yourself and blood relatives, don't be. Ass holes are ass holes, and you don't need them in your life. Let them go be ass holes far far away from you, and hope that nature sorts them out.
There's some truth in that.
There's more than some truth to it. Surround yourself with good people, fuck those that aren't. It doesn't matter if you share dna with them or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The funny thing is because people have these weird thoughts about family being the most important thing you don't need to have them in your life yet at the same time members of your family will probably go out of their way for you in bad times/if required.
If your family sucks, sure, you're probably better off discarding them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I'm thinking in terms of family that doesn't suck, and how to keep it from developing the suck.
If I understand you correctly, yeah. I used to think family didn't mean anything. I have since come to know better.Quote:
The funny thing is because people have these weird thoughts about family being the most important thing you don't need to have them in your life yet at the same time members of your family will probably go out of their way for you in bad times/if required.
Maybe this is one good way of looking at it:
How many people understand why the separation of church and state is a good idea? Is that number less than the number of people who believe the separation of church and state is a good idea because it's the ethos they know? Is the difference perhaps significant? I think it is. Maybe only a small number of people can give a sufficient logical explanation regarding the reason the separation of church and state results in good in society, yet a vast number of people merely believing it because it's what they believe is what makes it a reality. This suggests that if the idea wasn't the adopted framework, the concept would not be an ideal and wouldn't be actualized in society.
Wasn't the hare and the tortoise one of his? Load of bollocks. What's the moral of that story? Don't go to sleep a few meters from the end of the race just because you're miles ahead? I tell you what, anyone who needs to learn that lesson should learn the fucking hard way instead of being taught about a race between two poorly matched animals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'd prefer a boxing match between a midget and a giant, where the giant turns his back and starts playing to the crowd, so the midget stabs him in the back of the neck. THAT'S a fucking story.
The great thing about these stories is you can flesh out the basic plot line any way you like and people will go 'aaah, what a story'. Religion and Hollywood have known this for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I thought the moral of that story was "slow and steady wins the race". In other words, don't be discouraged at a lack of immediate success. Keep grinding, stick to the plan, one step at a time, don't worry about what other people are doing, etc etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's about the tortoise, not the hare. In your interpretation, the lesson is "If you have superior ability, crush your opponent in embarrassing fashion". You might be confusing Aesop with Sun Tzu
Ha. Good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
(No sarcasm. That made me laugh)
The hare counts his chickens before they hatch. That's sleeping near the finish line.
The hare's hubris made him a loser. The tortoise's perseverance made him a winner.
That is the most logically sound thing I have ever read. I don't think anyone could ever possibly find a flaw in this line of thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Ya it's about both of them imo. Two morals in one story that takes about 30 sec to read. Suck it, Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
This appeal to logic and reason, are we sure it's not an overestimation of innate morality, also an overestimation of peoples' ability to logic?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Anyway, this could be an interesting topic if you could at least give a proper hypothetical, Wuf. If you can't give a real life example for what you talked about in OP, there's no reason to talk about it.
Could you be more specific? I don't know what you're asking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
wtf...
I asked you at least three times to give me an example where scripture is a better tool than logic, and the best you could give me was something about communal prayer.
Anything. Let's say your cousin is a drug addict and we want to get her cleaned up. Route A: appeal to scripture. Route B: intervention and rehab.
idk what you were talking about, because I personally can't think of anything where scripture would be helpful in any way. That's why I asked you for examples... over and over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I did provide this. I approached the idea from a couple different ways, and the way I most specifically provided what you asked for is explaining that when my family uses logic to try to solve a specific problem, they fail, yet when they use the Bible, they succeed.
Nobody is saying that the Bible provides more logic than one can logic by himself. It doesn't. This thread is about the observation that people are people, that even if logic and reason are great in theory, in practice, people have deep flaws when trying to use it.
I sure as hell overestimated your 'ability to logic' if you can't find a flaw in spoons statement there.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What problem?Quote:
I did provide this. I approached the idea from a couple different ways, and the way I most specifically provided what you asked for is explaining that when my family uses logic to try to solve a specific problem, they fail, yet when they use the Bible, they succeed.
give me an example.
I don't mean to ask you about your private life, so just give me a hypothetical.
If I don't know what you're talking about I can't say if there's no way to convey the solution to the problem through logic.
I didn't express an opinion on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
So can you give me a real world example or not?
I think it's pretty safe to assume that you won't give me an example because you can't think of one that you can't demolish yourself. At this point you can just concede the point. This is the option Jordan Peterson doesn't tell you about.
You CAN convey the solution to the problem through logic, but that's different than if the person conveyed to would be persuaded by it.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
As I discussed about my family. I have put a good deal of effort into doing exactly that, and the results are of no change in perspective by them. YET when I started doing the same thing through the lens of the Bible, perspectives began changing.
I already did, and I can do more.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I typed one up for my family specifically, but not sure if I'm going to post it.
My attempts to be thorough are a strength. I don't just pump things out swiftly without consideration.
Have you considered that the reason they are not persuaded by it is because you could have done a better job explaining it?
Just by you not being able to even describe the issue you are talking about, after I ask you about it a dozen times makes me think that this is a very likely scenario.
I'll give you another specific example: Johnny keeps spitting on his sister. How do we make him stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
A: tell him about jesus
B: spank his ass
C: ...
Why is this so difficult?
The only thing you gave was extremely broad and came down to circular reasoning as I have already pointed out.
Wife asks do I look fat in these jeans
Husband says yes
Wife gets angry
Husband says you asked you want the truth
Wife gets angrier
Wife says you always do this you're always a jerk
Husband says you always do this you're a bitch
It escalates and escalates.
Then a friend shows up and sees the escalated conflict
The friend gets irritated that the husband and wife would do this in front of people and eventually attempts to bring in logic to bed the situation down.
The husband and wife want nothing of it. The wife points the finger at the husband for being wrong and the husband points the finger at the wife for being wrong.
Now, imagine they are both devoted Christians who view the Bible as greater than their own egos, and instead the same situation happens yet the friend brings out the Bible and explains the same logic through the lens of Jesus or Moses or a parable. Then the husband and wife filter that logic through the authority that is God (in their minds) instead of through the lens that is the natural homo sapien that naturally protects the ego.
Or, he could just hit the husband with the Bible for being such a fucking idiot that he doesn't understand women at a grade 1 level.
Srsly, Oskar you are asking him a different question than the one he's talking about. You're right because you're talking about how you don't need religion to have a moral code, and he's right because he's saying a lot of people respect a moral code that's based on Jebus but not one that is based on logic and reason alone.
I would explain to the husband that he should not take questions like that literally and to take a moment to think about what his wife was actually asking. Obviously jeans don't make your ass fat. Donuts made her ass fat and the jeans are a distraction from what she's really asking which is: Do you think I'm attractive? To which you should always answer yes, if you like having her as your wife. If you truly no longer find your wife attractive, this is something you need to bring up more tactfully in a different setting.
If this is a recurring problem in their relationship they should seek out a professional mediator who can help them interpret what each other is saying. If after that they still can't communicate with each other, they can always quit the relationship. Most relationships don't last indefinitely and if both are unhappy with each other, there's nothing wrong with going separate ways.
I tend to think that maybe some people can successfully navigate the world through their own logic. I don't see much evidence that this is the average, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That "friend" has less social skill than I do.
Even I know that whatever a relationship looks like on the outside is no reflection of what it is on the inside.
That bickering couple is playing out a conversation so cliche' that even our grandparents' grandparents could relate to it.
They're bickering over some perverse satisfaction they get from arguing with each-other, and for many couples, that's the backbone of their relationship. Frankly, the woman asking the question in the first place was basically, "You wanna bicker for a bit or no?" and when the husband answers yes, he's basically saying, "Yeah, I fancy a bit of an argument. The make-up is my favorite thing in the world."
If neither of them is awake enough to understand that, then you're right, there is no amount of logic that will ever compel them to understand that they are choosing this argument and it's something they're causing, not something that keeps randomly happening.
Most of the moral code that's in the bible is being dismissed by most christians. The criteria by which they select what they choose to apply and what they choose to dismiss is based on logic, their own sense of morality and the zeitgeist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That's totally true, especially the last paragraph. That last paragraph is a part of why I have recently had the idea that maybe Christianity has been a tool over the centuries that has made people who are terrible at life be less terrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Even if the ONLY benefit of religion is that some Christians are less likely to be ass holes for a few hours on a Sunday, that's fine with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Yes, a lot of ignorant shit is perpetuated in the name of religions, but not disproportionately so. Humans do ignorant shit all the damn time, often not in the name of religion.
If some people lack the ability to logic (which is widely evident to even the most Pollyanna-ish among us), then I'm in favor of literally anything which helps them find compassion and tolerance, even if that's only a fleeting moment.
There are some really good examples where religion can be a great stepping stone. Ayan Hirsi Ali said in her biography that converting to christianity did help her on her way from being a devout muslim to becoming an atheist. General Butt Naked - notorious for killing children and drinking their blood before going into battle has converted to christianity and is now a preacher converting other people from tribal religions... how much of this is to escape getting brutally murdered is up for debate, but afaik he's no longer murdering children.
A bit of a common thread here: religion was a core component of their problems, and now less so.
But I didn't mean to trash religion there... there are other examples like missionaries in Paqua where up until 50 years ago they still had cannibals and some particularly brutal tribal religions and they are gradually moved to being more civilized. So it can be a useful tool in particularly extreme cases. I don't think you'll find any such case in western civilizations that would convince me that the faith based approach is better than a secular alternative.
If you could actually find a parable from the bible that works here I'd be genuinely impressed. If you can, maybe that's something to tag on as something they can relate to. It's always good to have an analogy the person can relate to, but it's immaterial if that example comes from scripture or the carphone warehouse.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I called out spoon on it so I have to call you out too. You could plug in any two things in this statement to condone anything. The only way this could be valid is if you can show that the shitty things that happen because of religion would happen without religion as well, which is a hard stance to take if you think about circumcision, fgm and all the shit that went down in the middle ages.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Cain and Abel works.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
That's not the reason I condone religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
That's a statement that points out people who cite the negative consequences of religion often ignore the negative consequences which are not of religion.
If you're going to say religion is bad because it has negative consequences, then I ask, "compared to what?"
Naziism was anti-religious, as was Stalinism. Neither exactly great examples of positive consequences.
The reason I condone religion is the other post on the subject, that even if it only helps some people be better people for a few hours a week, then it's fine.
The only counter is to show that there is a net increase in negative effects which counters this positive. I'm not seeing it.
WHAAAAAAATT?????Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I thought you were a physicist??
What if the church wasn't such a dick to Galileo? You don't think that set science, and mankind, back some?
Religion attempts to provide answers where there are none. It's effectively shutting down the search for answers. As a scientist, you must have surely have a gigantic problem with this.
Because they're not relevant. It's like talking about axe murder and my position is that the axe was the murder weapon, and you say: other people have been murdered by things other than an axe! Yeah, I never questioned that. That doesn't make this axe not the murder weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Nazis had very close ties to the catholic church so I don't understand why people keep bringing this up. But let's say they were ultra-atheists... I'd say the same as above. It's not relevant. This is a different topic.Quote:
If you're going to say religion is bad because it has negative consequences, then I ask, "compared to what?"
Naziism was anti-religious, as was Stalinism. Neither exactly great examples of positive consequences.
The reason I condone religion is the other post on the subject, that even if it only helps some people be better people for a few hours a week, then it's fine.
For modern day christianity the main negative is that it promotes mystical thinking. If you can accept something on pure faith, there is nothing you can't accept on pure faith. I think that's potentially very dangerous. I don't know what the current situation is on schools removing evolution from the curriculum or teaching creationism on the side, but that's an obvious negative if that's still a thing.Quote:
The only counter is to show that there is a net increase in negative effects which counters this positive. I'm not seeing it.
I'll give them that historically it's difficult to argue, because you could say: if there was no religion to keep everyone from murdering each other, EVERYONE WOULD BE DEAD. And while I disagree, it's kinda pointless to argue. I think there's plenty that's wrong about it in present day that you don't have to go back to that... tho I've been guilty of that myself in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
That would be incorporated into a net effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Also, I know the narrative that the secular, atheist education system provides is that Christianity was an obstruction to science, but the actual documents regarding those times don't so clearly say that. Indeed there is very good reason to believe that Christianity was a driver of the growth of science, even as popular negative instances exist.
The documentation is a bit better than that. Many people in those times pursuing science were doing so in a big way for their pursuit of the discovery and glory of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Wuf and Oskar are missing my point a little bit. The main point I'm trying to make isn't to call out the church for one instance of censorship.
The larger problem is that it stifles inquisitive thinking. What if someone thought of heliocentricism 500 years before Galileo and Copernicus? What if they had it all figured out but kept their mouth shut because they didn't want to be set on fire in a public square? How much further would science be advanced today if that discovery happened 500 years sooner?
Most religions that I know of purport to have all the answers. This stifles, discourages, and demonizes learning.
And that's like.....really really really bad.
So I'm just not getting MMM's comment that the net effect of religion is positive. It's not.
I agree that is a pretty significant drawback.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm completely on your side, Banana, but it takes a lot of effort to dispute and I just think it's going to side-track the discussion too much. I mentioned the crusades, and then wuf sais they were done in retaliation... well now I can assume he talks about the first one in what... 1090? Where they took back Jerusalem from the islamic invasion. Now first of all I'm not even sure if that's the one he's refering to, and if he is, at that point Jerusalem was under Islamic rule for over 400 years. That would be the equivalent in saying native americans would be right in taking back american main land... 200 years from now. But I don't know nearly enough about that to talk about it in any meaningful way.
Also saying scientific discovery was done in the name of god, and lots of good stuff has been funded by the church... that's also correct, but it's not like there was an alternative, and to speculate what could have been if there would have been is not very useful imo.
A simpler example...
500 years ago, a person walking down the street suddenly collapses, starts convulsing, talking gibberish, and foaming at the mouth.
We know now that's a seizure and it's relatively easy to treat. But back then, the church would wield its indisputable authority to diagnose that person with 'devil possession' and subject the person to all kinds of ineffective treatments.
Whatever it took for someone to challenge and eventually debunk the church's diagnosis was surely a longer and more difficult process than it would have been if the church hadn't been so adamant about it's own diagnosis, and rather was open to asking someone besides God for help.
Unless your name was John van Leiden, in which case you'd claim mystical visions, start a cult, take over Münster, claim you're in direct communication with god and that he wants you to sex all the ladies, declare yourself the King, and then when the actual king has had enough of all that - get disemboweled and hung from the city walls for about fiddy years.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Those were crazy times.
I think I've heard this story before.........Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
Crazy times still
It's quite the meme.
Then Galileo would have had a happier end of life, I imagine. I dunno.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Yes, I think that set back scientific knowledge somewhat, but IDK. Galilean Relativity is still taught in introductory physics courses around the world.
What about all non-church people was are dicks to other physicists who were not Galileo? Bullying nerds is a historically verified good time for most non-nerds.
My point isn't that religion does no harm. My point is that harm is kinda a ubiquitous part of humanity, and I don't see secular people as devoid of causing harm.
It's a common misunderstanding that science and religion are at odds with each other.
These fields of study address different categories of questions.
Science is concerned with questions which have measurable answers.
Religion is concerned with questions like, "What is good?" "How shall we spend our time?" "Why do bad things happen to good people?"
Science can't answer these questions, and any scientist who makes claims about unmeasurable assertions is speaking beyond their depths as a scientist.
Likewise, any religious person who makes claims at odds with anything that is directly measurable is speaking beyond their depths as a religious authority.
The Big Bang Theory is the work of a Vatican Astronomer, so any assertion that the Big Bang is at odds with Catholicism or Christianity is misinformed.
Religion doesn't shut down the search for answers. Religion is focused on answering questions of ethics and morality.
Idiots who try to use religion as a tool to fight science, and vice versa, are sorely misguided about what they think they're doing.
Except that describes almost all devoutly religious people. Do you see the problem now?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Yes it does.Quote:
Religion doesn't shut down the search for answers.
...in America, yes. American religiosity is a blight.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Americans don't know what religion is and does, they simply use it as a platform to buoy the beliefs they already hold.
Like the whole anti-gay rhetoric that people CLAIM they get from the bible. Right.
There are like 5 passages in the bible which speak to being gay in any capacity and 2 of them are in Leviticus, so... let's all read some Leviticus and see how much we want to apply that to our modern lives. I'm pretty sure there are Christians reading this post wearing cloth of mixed fibers, you evil bastards. Your cotton-polyester blend is your ticket to hell.
Meanwhile, there are dozens and dozens of passages in the Bible which clearly and unambiguously say that divorce is a sin.
So if you're going to say the Bible is the reason you're against homosexuality, then I expect you to be 10x as passionately against state-sanctioned divorce, and if not, you're a liar and/or a hypocrite.
American religion vs. international religion is a totally weird thing.
A lot of learning in ye olde times was limited to the clergy because they were the only ones who knew how to read and had access to books. Mind you, most of them spent time reading biblical texts and not trying to do science (with some notable exceptions).Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The religious dogma that resisted attempts at true understanding (and still does, e.g., the fact that teaching evolution is not allowed in certain places) is hard to reconcile with the idea that religion was a net neutral force for science. The Bible contains all kinds of scientific 'facts' that would surely have been overturned sooner had they not enjoyed the vigorous support of the Church.
That's news to me. Do you have a source to prove that scientists were historically persecuted by anyone other than religious people for any reason other than religion?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
And yet there are many Christians who still believe that God created the universe, so yes it is at odds with a significant minority of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
That might be your view, but through most of history it's hard to argue the separation of these questions was something acknowledged by the Church. Historically, they only seem to cave on things when the evidence is overwhelming and generally can't be argued against any more. And even then some of them refuse to cave.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
MMM, you're projecting modern day apologetics to all of history.
There are some problems with American religion. There are also some unique pluses. The first of which might be that it is American religion that created the first widespread adoption of the idea of inalienable rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The inquisition thought differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm not apologizing for history. I'm not even talking about history aside from the mention of the origin of the Big Bang Theory.
Funny how everyone trying to poke holes in my assertions are digging back hundreds of years for the counter-examples.
My answer to all those assertions is that if it were truly what the religion says, and not merely a bad interpretation of what the religion says, then it would still be going on. It's not, and the religion is still around. So those practices are not a part of the religion, they were appropriated by bad actors to use the power structure of religion to accomplish their own ends.
Humans are prone to all kinds of savagery with and without religion.
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
George Lemaitre believed that God created the universe, too. It didn't phase him that God used a Big Bang as part of the creating process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/op...ion-again.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/op...ion-again.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
So because this was a few years ago now, it counts as 'no longer going on'?
Who is arguing with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
This describes science, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No, that's not why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The why it doesn't count is because that's not the widespread message of the religion. It's a bad interpretation of the religion by a relatively small group who do not represent the entire religion.
The assertion that religion causes people to act like savages is not compelling to me. People act like savages with and without religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That's nice for George, but there are still people arguing that the fossil record can't possibly show the dinosaurs were around 250m years ago because the Earth is only ~5000 years old. This isn't arguing that religion addresses different questions than science, it's arguing that science is wrong because it disagrees with scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Again, there are idiots who appropriate religion to affirm their opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
George (deceased) and his Vatican buddies do not hold this opinion, so at least the Catholic religion doesn't hold this as a core principle.
I can't speak to other religious sects, even just the Christian sects, as I was raised Catholic, and studied other world religions, but not other sects of Christianity.
This is one thing where the evidence is overwhelming and still there are people willing to dispute it (and argue it shouldn't be taught) because it contradicts their religious beliefs. If that isn't religion fucking up progress made by science I don't know what is.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Nobody is asserting that; that was the point of my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
First, the argument was made that religion is a source or moral guidance for people who would otherwise be dicks.
The rebuttal to this was offered that religion is also a source of immorality for people who would otherwise not be dicks.
Your statement is fine, it's just that no-one is arguing with you and you keep repeating it as if they were.
But with science, the beliefs being replaced are also based on evidence. It's not like Newton pulled the theory of gravity out of his ass, the way the Bible's theories of many things are.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Edit: Further, with science, they don't keep telling people to go learn about the theory that's been discredited, unless it has some sort of practical application like Newton's theories have to engineering for example.
The religious equivalent to what science does would be to go back and re-edit the Bible every few years to toss out whatever's been proven to be complete bullshit.
Again, idiots and bad actors claiming religion is the reason they're acting a certain way isn't indicative that they are acting that way because of religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If it were truly the religion that was causing them to act that way, then the entire religion would be acting that way. They're not, which demonstrates that the people claiming the religion is their motivation are wrong. Those people's motivation is not the religion, they are merely appropriating the religion to give a false weight to their paper thin arguments.
My bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Was that me? I certainly didn't intend on saying that. It's even in the OP title. It's the idea that a moral framework that is adhered to for emotional reasons can be good (can also be bad). Given the natural state of savagery of humankind, it might be on net better to construct those good moral frameworks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You think the people in Kansas are not really believers but are just pushing the Bible for some other reason? Come on.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
No, being part of a religion does not make one a carbon copy of every other member of that religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Some of them aren't motivated by the religion but are appropriating it. Others are fanatics, plain and simple, and truly believe their paper thin arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I just gave an example of a theory based on evidence (Newton), being replaced by a theory that better explained anomalies in that evidence (Einstein). What do you object to about that argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If you can show there was a scientific theory that was based on just whatever storybook the scientist read the previous night, and everyone blindly accepted that theory until it was overwhelmingly proven false, then please do.