Be Afraid

[Randall]

So what shouldn't we "be afraid" of then? We've seen enough here to conclude that religion has many problems, but the only alternative being offered is science, and I'm not convinced that a scientific technocracy would be the best way to run the world either. Secular Humanism is equally problematic because it amounts to the same thing as a scientific technocracy. All the various political systems also have their flaws. In the final analysis it seems to me that no matter what we propose, the world is actually working on a form of anarchy, and those who don't see it are simply in a state of denial. So where does this leave us? I prefer to think of myself as a sort of free agent rather than a proponent of any specific large scale system.

 

[exo_doc]

Except... In my own lifetime, I've seen our attitudes become decidedly more liberal regarding inter-racial relationships and the value of desegregation - and I was born and raised in Texas. I've even seen otherwise conservative adults admit that there is something positive about multiculturalism. Within the last 20 years, I've seen people who were horrified at the idea of "Don't ask, don't tell" decide they actually supported ending DADT and allowing gays to openly serve in the military. Just since Obama's 2008 election, I've seen both he and the majority of the U.S. population support gay marriage. I've seen an increasing number of religious organizations allow for gay marriage in their institutions, including, fairly recently, conservative synagogues. There's even a movement among Orthodox (yes, Orthodox) Jews in Israel to allow for the secular marriage of gays and lesbians. There's a movement among Muslims to reclaim the word "jihad" from their radicals. In the last month, I've seen a NRA member rip apart his NRA card and a majority of Americans say they want some form of sensible gun control. We've also seen Glenn Beck lose his FOX program, Rush Limbaugh lose countless sponsors, Karl Rove become a persona non grata on FOX, Keith Olbermann lose his "darling of the left" status and Al Gore sell his network to Al Jazeera English.

How many of these things would have seemed impossible weeks, months, years or decades ago?

While there are some people who will never let reality get in the way of their beliefs and are completely incapable of holding rational thoughts, there are also new people being born every day and new generations coming of age. There's also a steady number of people who one day will wake up and smell the coffee, mostly because they were never completely isolated from the world around them. Sometimes, logic can permeate a closed mind. Extreme events can certainly cause an extreme change - much as how Sandy Hook changed our dialog about gun control and scientific discoveries changed our religious culture. At some point, we did figure out that the world was round and this became the excepted notion. Many scientific principles we take for granted would have once seen us executed for accepting it. Now, those who don't accept scientific principles are the ones falling behind. We either evolve or deteriorate. We see this occurring right now.

I guess I have fought this same fight so many times in so many ways over the years I'm burned out on it. I have heard the exact same arguments from self-made imbeciles about evolution, about womens rights, about gay rights, about stem cell research, about religious pluralism, about freedom from religious zealots trying to run my life.....and on and on and on......ad nauseum, .....until my brain wants to jump out of my skull and run away.

R'Lady, I see what you are saying. This isn't some battle fought over night. It's the long term to fight for. And societies views are slowly but surely drifting away from the old prejudicies and archaic ways of thinking. This is going to take time. I do appreciate what you and Muadib and Stoney and Ufology are doing, don't get me wrong. I guess I just want to jump into the fray too, but I'm just tired of the same stuff over and over and over again.

 

[mike]

So what shouldn't we "be afraid" of then? We've seen enough here to conclude that religion has many problems, but the only alternative being offered is science, and I'm not convinced that a scientific technocracy would be the best way to run the world either. Secular Humanism is equally problematic because it amounts to the same thing as a scientific technocracy. All the various political systems also have their flaws. In the final analysis it seems to me that no matter what we propose, the world is actually working on a form of anarchy, and those who don't see it are simply in a state of denial. So where does this leave us? I prefer to think of myself as a sort of free agent rather than a proponent of any specific large scale system.

Then imo Scientific technocracy is by miles and miles the lessor of two evils.
The intrinsic difference being religion is a set of inerrant answers set in stone,

The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.
-- Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength

science is a process where the answers can and do change in response to better data and undertanding.
Religion is intellectual stagnation, science is intellectual growth.
Science is the evolution of knowledge, its no wonder some religious types want to put the kibosh on the very idea evolution exists.

Put religion aside and ask this question a variant of the OP.

What if you had a group of people wanting to teach in school the moon is made of cheese

Here are the facts

“Of course the moon's made of cheese - how else do you explain the holes and the yellow colour? The real question is, how can it not be cheese? It makes perfect sense.”​

~ Albert Einstein ate the moon for his lunch ​

Throughout the ages, many have wondered what the moon is made of - some say rock, others say space dust, some even say highly comminuted anorthositic regolith, but one theory stands out above the rest: The possibility that the moon is made of cheese.
Just what type of cheese the moon is made from remains a mystery. Many assume, due to the craters, the cheese is some form of swiss variety. However due to the dry nature, it is much more likely a british stilton or maybe a wensleydale with cranberries.

In fact the first man on the moon, Aneeda Smith famously shouted, after taking the first man made bite out of the moon, "Holy **** this **** is cheese!" Good job Aneeda. We wish we could credit Aneeda for being the first woman to eat out the moon, but that would be sexist, and unfair because women are not capable of accomplishing anything before men. Did we mention she was also African American? She claimed she first sampled the moon believing the moon was one big crack rock, to her dismay she was wrong.

All have wondered if the moon is made of cheese, if so, then where are the crackers, and does this make asteroids, jelly beans, because that would be awesome. Some say the moon's made out of dust, and rock, however, it has also been said that before human life came to earth, aliens landed, started a dairy farm, and attempted to break the universal, biggest cheese ball record. Unfortunately for them, Oprah Winfrey had already started a dairy farm of her own, and beat them to it. (Her moon, aka. "The Big O", is now located in the Sombrero Galaxy). Thanks to Oprah, now when someone asks you what the moon is made of, you can smile and say cheese.

Is the moon made of cheese? - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Would you want your nations children taught this ?

This isnt about religion as much as it is about not letting the ignorant impose their BS on schoolchildren.

I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!-- Rev Jerry Falwell, America Can Be Saved, 1979 pp. 52-53

Of course we have to fight this, not satisfied with infecting their own children with this gross ignorance, and fairy tale reality world view, some are trying to impose this on the general populace, a yoke we've only in recent times managed to throw from around our necks.

Only a scant few hundred years ago, many of us would have been branded as heretics and put to death for the comments made here.
They would reimpose such tyrany again if they could, If we dont fight for and exercise the right to see the universe as it is, rather than through the blurred goggles of religious retardation, then we may lose this most valuable advancment of the human condition.
There are still places in the world today where speaking in oposition to religious doctrine can get you into strife
Pianist’s ‘atheist’ Tweet could spell jail — RT

Starise has shown his true colours here, announcing

Ufos are a large part of the ruse IMO. In fact as much opposition as I am facing here I am fairly certain there are at least a few of you here who know about it and are in on it.

Ie your pov is clearly the work of satan, and we know how they used to deal with this in the past dont we. "thou shalt not suffer them to live" was the cure.

Can you beleive that in the 21st century we are still seeing this meme in play ?

If you dont agree with my BS, then you must be in league with the devil.......

And history shows us what happens next when these ignorant savages are in control.

Go back a few hundred years and our comments would spell death, the hosts would be dragged in front of the inqusition for allowing such blasphemy to be published and killed too, and anyone who made no comment would also be dealt with for not defending the faith.

We've had thousands of years of this BS, we owe it to the innocent people killed by this stupidity to fight it and retain our right to view the universe as it is, and not as the bible says it is

Science is about asking questions, religion is about inerrant answers

Good Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.-- Rev Jerry Falwell, quoted Freethought Today, December, 1999

The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.
-- Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength

So there you have their credo, ask no questions, the answers are all without error to be found in the bible.

Thats completely at odds with the human condition, "why" is the most common word a human child uses in its early years, its in our nature to want to know the whys/hows/whats.

They are happy to exploit this to brainwash their young into believing what as adults they should recognise as BS esp in these enlightened times.

Be Afraid, Be Afraid we all get dragged back into the dark ages as they want us to

 

[Randall]

... Then imo Scientific technocracy is by miles and miles the lessor of two evils ...

Allow me to play devil's advocacte here in defense of religion ( love the irony there ) . Perhaps a scientific technocracy might at first seem to be the lesser of two evils, but I'm not so sure that is true of all religions or variations. After all, some science and engineering still took place under religious systems in the past, and still does today. Religion also recognizes that there is a spiritual side ( for lack of a better term ) to our existence. We're not reduced to simple material biological organisms. We are sentient conscious living beings, but science has yet to understand sentience or consciousness and has not yet been able to create life. It's clinical and dispassionate and therefore finds no value in those things when it comes to decision making. There are science fiction horrors of such oppressive societies that could be equated to horrors of religious oppression. It's not all a Star Trek utopia. Imagine forced population control, the taking of children to be raised by the scientifically better guardians or some automated robotic system. Imagine arbitrary justice without consideration for empathy or passion. Imagine our value as human beings reduced down to what science can weigh and measure. At least religion recognizes the power and value of emotion and the folly of it as well. Set aside the issue of whether or not everything in the Bible represents a scientific truth and at least it understands that we're all human. There are lessons about joy, greed, anger, lust, hate, jealousy and love. Because some religions also value science, I think a pretty good case could be made that in certain instances we'd be better off with both than discarding one or the other completely.

 

[Muadib]

Allow me to play devil's advocacte here in defense of religion ( love the irony there ) . Perhaps a scientific technocracy might at first seem to be the lesser of two evils, but I'm not so sure that is true of all religions or variations. After all, some science and engineering still took place under religious systems in the past, and still does today. Religion also recognizes that there is a spiritual side ( for lack of a better term ) to our existence. We're not reduced to simple material biological organisms. We are sentient conscious living beings, but science has yet to understand sentience or consciousness and has not yet been able to create life. It's clinical and dispassionate and therefore finds no value in those things when it comes to decision making. There are science fiction horrors of such oppressive societies that could be equated to horrors of religious oppression. It's not all a Star Trek utopia. Imagine forced population control, the taking of children to be raised by the scientifically better guardians or some automated robotic system. Imagine arbitrary justice without consideration for empathy or passion. Imagine our value as human beings reduced down to what science can weigh and measure. At least religion recognizes the power and value of emotion and the folly of it as well. Set aside the issue of whether or not everything in the Bible represents a scientific truth and at least it understands that we're all human. There are lessons about joy, greed, anger, lust, hate, jealousy and love. Because some religions also value science, I think a pretty good case could be made that in certain instances we'd be better off with both than discarding one or the other completely.

I'd have to say that's completely untrue, the bible advocates the killing of humans that don't fall in line with biblical doctrine. Homosexuals must be killed, if you're a member of a town that doesn't believe in the god of the bible then the entire town must be killed and burned to the ground, if you're not a virgin on your wedding night you must be killed, if you curse your parents you must be killed, if you work on the sabbath you must be killed and so on and so forth. God kills children who mock his prophet, he kills a man who attempts to keep his ark from falling during transport, he advocates killing people who don't listen to priests, killing fortunetellers, killing adulterers, killing witches, killing people who don't believe, killing the followers of other religions, killing false prophets, and killing sons for the sins of their fathers. I'd say that religion, particularly the Christian bible, devalues human life in a way that actual science never could or would, setting aside those worst case scenarios of science fiction. A society based on biblical literalism, or even just the laws of the bible would be a nightmare. Only those who fall in line with gods expectations are considered human and worthy of life, the rest are just fodder for the swords of the supposedly righteous.

 

[mike]

, but science has yet to understand sentience or consciousness and has not yet been able to create life. .

Actually great progress is being made in regards to sentience and conciousness

Artificial Brain Mimics Human Abilities and Flaws - Yahoo! News

Rapid advances in neuroscience made over the last decade have many dual-use applications of both military and civilian interest.

EMBARGOED Military-Funded Brain Science Sparks Controversy | Brain-Machine Interfaces & Military Neuroscience | TechNewsDaily.com

as for life

Scientists create artificial life in the laboratory - from four bottles of chemicals
The scientists took the natural bacterium and painstakingly replaced its genetic structure, or genome, with DNA stitched together from chemicals. Eventually they had recreated all the genes that had been in the natural bacterium, effectively turning it into an identical but artificial organism.

The feat marks a historic, and controversial, milestone in the fledgling field known as synthetic biology. It uses chunks of synthetic DNA-like inter-locking bricks with the goal of creating life-forms that can be genetically programmed to perform useful tasks.

Scientists create artificial life in the laboratory - from four bottles of chemicals | Mail Online

Synthetic Life​

​

A common argument used by theists to support their belief in God, is that life is so complicated that it could have only been made by God. Often this is accompanied with the assertion that there is a "vital force" that separates inanimate objects from living things, and that God is the source of this "vital force". This philosophy, called "vitalism", has now been totally discredited. The following research report in the highly respected peer-reviewed journal Science details the de novo creation of a complete functional virus from synthetic chemicals.
Some people will probably say that a virus is not a living thing, but that all depends on how you define life. Clearly a simple virus is not as complex as a mammal, but it does have much more properties associated with living things than properties associated with inanimate objects. For example viruses reproduce, evolve, contain genetic information, and have a life cycle. These are characteristics in common with a pet dog, not a pet rock

Synthetic Life

Chemical Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template — Chemical Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template — Supporting Online Material

 

[mike]

I'd have to say that's completely untrue, the bible advocates the killing of humans that don't fall in line with biblical doctrine. Homosexuals must be killed, if you're a member of a town that doesn't believe in the god of the bible then the entire town must be killed and burned to the ground, if you're not a virgin on your wedding night you must be killed, if you curse your parents you must be killed, if you work on the sabbath you must be killed and so on and so forth. God kills children who mock his prophet, he kills a man who attempts to keep his ark from falling during transport, he advocates killing people who don't listen to priests, killing fortunetellers, killing adulterers, killing witches, killing people who don't believe, killing the followers of other religions, killing false prophets, and killing sons for the sins of their fathers. I'd say that religion, particularly the Christian bible, devalues human life in a way that actual science never could or would, setting aside those worst case scenarios of science fiction. A society based on biblical literalism, or even just the laws of the bible would be a nightmare.

More good examples here

The act of murder is rampant in the Bible. In much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, there are laws that command that people be killed for absurd reasons such as working on the Sabbath, being gay, cursing your parents, or not being a virgin on your wedding night. In addition to these crazy and immoral laws, there are plenty of examples of God's irrationality by his direct killing of many people for reasons that defy any rational explanation such as killing children who make fun of bald people, and the killing of a man who tried to keep the ark of God from falling during transport. There are also countless examples of mass murders commanded by God, including the murder of women, infants, and children.

The following passages are a very small percentage of the total passages approving of murder in the Bible

Murder in the Bible

 

[Randall]

I'd have to say that's completely untrue, the bible advocates the killing of humans that don't fall in line with biblical doctrine ...

It's not always a great idea to use absolutes, like "completely" for anything. You'll note that in my post I was careful to say that "cetain examples" of religion would be better than a scientific technocracy. So my counterpoint is as follows: Few religions consistently take their books and interpret them literally. Science however does. It's meant to be taken that way. Furthermore not all religions have the same rules. For example according to Wikipedia, the Unitarians ( a Christian offshoot ) have, "liberal views of God, Jesus, the world and purpose of life as revealed through reason, scholarship, science, philosophy, scripture and other prophets and religions. They believe that reason and belief are complementary and that religion and science can co-exist and guide them in their understanding of nature and God. They also do not enforce belief in creeds or dogmatic formulas." This particular example pretty much wipes out your major objections, and there are probably more examples as well.

 

[Muadib]

It's not always a great idea to use absolutes, like "completely" for anything. You'll note that in my post I was careful to say that "cetain examples" of religion would be better than a scientific technocracy. So my counterpoint is as follows: Few religions consistently take their books and interpret them literally. Science however does. It's meant to be taken that way. Furthermore not all religions have the same rules. For example according to Wikipedia, the Unitarians ( a Christian offshoot ) have, "liberal views of God, Jesus, the world and purpose of life as revealed through reason, scholarship, science, philosophy, scripture and other prophets and religions. They believe that reason and belief are complementary and that religion and science can co-exist and guide them in their understanding of nature and God. They also do not enforce belief in creeds or dogmatic formulas." This particular example pretty much wipes out your major objections, and there are probably more examples as well.

You have to look at the specific part of your argument that I was objecting to which was your assertion that the bible recognizes that we're all human and my examples clearly prove that the bible considers only those who follow the rules of god to be human and worthy of living, which makes what you were saying, in that specific case, completely untrue. So I'd say you should apply your own advice of not speaking in absolutes.

 

[mike]

Clearly science has come a lot further in reverse engineering and understanding the human brain than a 2000 year old fairy tale ever did

Controlling a robotic arm with its brain, a monkey has managed to feed itself with flowing, well-controlled movements, scientists announced today.

Monkeys in Schwartz's lab are able to move a robotic arm to feed themselves marshmallows and chunks of fruit while their own arms are restrained. Computer software interprets signals picked up by probes the width of a human hair. The probes are inserted into neuronal pathways in the monkey's motor cortex, a brain region where voluntary movement originates as electrical impulses.

The neurons' collective activity is then evaluated using software programmed with a mathematic algorithm and then sent to the arm, which carries out the actions the monkey intended to perform with its own limb.

Monkey's Robot Arm Feels Natural | LiveScience

Its science and its Quest(ions) for knowledge that has acheived this remarkable feat.

This attitude was never going to do it

Good Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.-- Rev Jerry Falwell, quoted Freethought Today, December, 1999

Their attitude is, the only thing you need to know about the brain.....is god invented it.

Imo there can be no middle ground, these are diametrically opposed philosophys.

One seeks answers via the scientific principle, the other when it seeks answers at all, does so via a fairy tale recorded thousands of years ago.


The wilful stupidity of this statement

The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.

-- Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength

Stands as testiment as to why it should be railed against in no uncertain terms whatsoever.

No rational person could agree with Falwell on this claim, though some clearly do

 

[mike]

So what shouldn't we "be afraid" of then? We've seen enough here to conclude that religion has many problems, but the only alternative being offered is science, and I'm not convinced that a scientific technocracy would be the best way to run the world either

To me the question isnt about running the world, rather about understanding the world.

And the winner is.........Science

 

[Randall]

You have to look at the specific part of your argument that I was objecting to which was your assertion that the bible recognizes that we're all human and my examples clearly prove that the bible considers only those who follow the rules of god to be human and worthy of living, which makes what you were saying, in that specific case, completely untrue. So I'd say you should apply your own advice of not speaking in absolutes.

That's a fair comment to the extent of your explanation, but I'm not so sure it justifies loading all the rest in there along with it. Nor does it address my counterpoint.

To me the question isnt about running the world, rather about understanding the world.

It seems that the parameters of the thread are very much linked to the idea of politics and control, but even if it weren't, there are some things that cannot be understood by science. This is not to say that science cannot have some clinical explanation for the physical processes that give rise to such things as emotions or imagination, but to truly understand them, they must be experienced firsthand. Perhaps the most obvious example is parenthood. I'm not sure whether or not you are a parent, but if you are, then you might remember back to the time before you had your first child, perhaps to a time when someone may have commented something along the lines, "Wait until you have kids of your own ... then you'll understand." Any normal parent who reads this understands exactly what I'm saying and understands that there is no science that can make a non-parent truly understand the profound love we have for our children. Explaining it may not be beyond science, but understanding it is.

 

[Muadib]

That's a fair comment to the extent of your explanation, but I'm not so sure it justifies loading all the rest in there along with it. Nor does it address my counterpoint.

You'll need to explain what you mean by loading all the rest in there along with it. As to your counterpoint, it dealt specifically with biblical interpretation and not what the bible actually says. There are many different interpretations of course and I have no objection to that point but what you said was "the bible recognizes that we're all human" and you weren't talking about the Unitarian bible in that specific instance. So your counterpoint does not, as you put it, wipe out my major objections. One need look no further than this thread to find someone who does interpret the bible literally.

 

[stonehart]

I guess I have fought this same fight so many times in so many ways over the years I'm burned out on it.

Oh I am so with you on that one brother I can tell you.

To me the question isnt about running the world, rather about understanding the world.

And the winner is.........Science

No doubt about it Mike that for me is the plain and honest truth.
I can understand faith for what it is, but I can not forgive willful ignorance.

 

[Randall]

You'll need to explain what you mean by loading all the rest in there along with it. As to your counterpoint, it dealt specifically with biblical interpretation and not what the bible actually says. There are many different interpretations of course and I have no objection to that point but what you said was "the bible recognizes that we're all human" and you weren't talking about the Unitarian bible in that specific instance. So your counterpoint does not, as you put it, wipe out my major objections. One need look no further than this thread to find someone who does interpret the bible literally.

The counterpoint I was referencing that wipes out your major objections was the example of the Unitarians. By loading all the other stuff in, the point was that the Bible ( as in Christianity in general ) recognizes our humanity ( in a spiritual sense ). That is the only point I was making there with that particular comment. I don't dispute that your negative examples exist, or that if adhered to literally by some radical group they would be bad, only that they don't apply to the point in the context I was making it. I will however concede that I could have been more precise there to begin with. So in the future, unless I'm giving a direct biblical quote, when I use "the Bible" in a non-specific sense, it is meant to be synonymous with Christianity in general and not as doctrine for which all content should be literally interpreted.

 

[Randall]

Oh I am so with you on that one brother I can tell you.
No doubt about it Mike that for me is the plain and honest truth.
I can understand faith for what it is, but I can not forgive willful ignorance.

The actual comparison was a scientific technocracy where realities that are not scientifically measurable or understood are not considered as relevant to decision making, thus doing away with some of the key elements that make us human ( not to mention our individual rights ), as compared to the most liberal of religions, where science is accepted and religious mythology and dogma are not required to be taken literally. In those cases a scientific technocracy could easily be a horrible nightmare by comparison.

 

[Muadib]

The counterpoint I was referencing that wipes out your major objections was the example of the Unitarians. By loading all the other stuff in, the point was that the Bible ( as in Christianity in general ) recognizes our humanity ( in a spiritual sense ). That is the only point I was making there with that particular comment. I don't dispute that your negative examples exist, or that if adhered to literally by some radical group they would be bad, only that they don't apply to the point in the context I was making it. I will however concede that I could have been more precise there to begin with. So in the future, unless I'm giving a direct biblical quote, when I use "the Bible" in a non-specific sense, it is meant to be synonymous with Christianity in general and not as doctrine for which all content should be literally interpreted.

Fair enough but I think that if you asked Christianity in general (which I realize is impossible) what they thought about Unitarianism, you wouldn't like the answer you would receive. Not to mention a society based strictly on general Christianity would still be homophobic, misogynistic, and hellbent on converting the non believer by any means necessary.

In the end I think this entire line of reasoning is completely pointless, we're never going to have a utopian society where everyone agrees on everything and we all hold hands and sing songs together, whether we base it on religion or science. I also don't agree that Christianity in general recognizes the humanity of everyone in a spiritual sense or otherwise, just look at the way it's been used historically to justify homophobia, racism, militant nationalism and a whole host of other despicable practices, not to mention how Christianity is being used in this day and age to deny equal rights to homosexuals. If I was forced to choose between the two I would choose science, but all of this is nothing more than pointless speculation, in my opinion.

Edited to add: I also think it's ridiculous to insist that science must be interpreted literally while saying that religion should not be, even though it is by many of its adherents as you can see in this very thread. While the scientific method is a literal path to be taken in order to test and verify knowledge, science is also conducted and carried out by human beings and therefore, I propose, that a true scientific society would take into consideration all of the concerns and aspects of human beings. Saying that we would have no equal rights or morality in a scientific society is the same thing as a fundamentalist saying that god and religion are the basis of all morality, and if they didn't exist we would have a completely anarchistic society, which is total and utter bullshit. I don't see anything wrong with a society that takes abstract supernatural concepts like heaven and hell, god and the devil, and other non existent crap and tosses them into the nearest garbage can where they belong. People who invoke the opinions of supernatural deities as their reason for discrimination and other atrocities wouldn't have a leg to stand on, isn't that a good thing? Give me science over religion, any day.

 

[Randall]

In the end I think this entire line of reasoning is completely pointless ...

You have a point within the context of the reasoning itself, but let's also remember that the purpose of playing Devil's advocate was not for me to prove the opposing point, but to evoke a greater understanding of the issue, and in that sense I think we're making progress. To be more specific, your comment that, "we're never going to have a utopian society where everyone agrees on everything and we all hold hands and sing songs together" elevates the discussion above the "us vs them" debate toward a more sophisticated and holistic perspective.

But can we maintain this higher ground? We could both jump back into the pit with our science guns blazing, lobbing fact grenades and hanging propaganda posters, but what would be the point when we've just determined that doing so would be pointless? On the other hand, perhaps if we were to try to study some of the underlying forces from a more objective point of view, we might find that there is more hope than we thought. In this spirit I'll propose that we might discuss the topic of indoctrination. Religious people often deny having been indoctrinated, even if they've been brought up in a religious household. So where is the line between parenting and indoctrination?

indoctrinate: to cause to believe something: to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically,​

especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions. ( Encarta ).​

Or alternatively, if you think we can make more progress along another line of inquiry that doesn't descend back into the debate ... I'm open to suggestions. You have the floor !

 

[mike]

 

[Muadib]

Holy sh*t, that picture is hilarious and so true in this case. I hereby dub that pigeon 'Starise' Good find, Mike.