PDA

View Full Version : American Politics, Atheist Rhetoric, etc.



PlasmaSnake101
14th Aug 2010, 00:45
Posting this because a derailed thread requires a new track to be laid. Also, it is my hope that the previous thread will be put back on track.


This is posted because an atheist said misunderstands the meaning of separation from church and state. His notions also disrespect the ideas of billions of people and he believes voicing ones concerns and beliefs is a negative part of a free society.


Hahaha :poke:


So anyway, at the risk of sounding condescending I want to point out that my last sentence was totally not adressing you. But as it happens you are totally right with your prejudice about us liberal wuss foreigners:

That was towards mad_red. Also, I don't think foreigners are "wusses," I just find it funny you side with a foreign political party, claim they are better, and don't even realize they are practically the same. The Obama Administration is almost a Carbon Copy of the Bush Administration. Sure, Healthcare, market regulation, and green enthusiasm have changed, but as far as the foreign policy is concerned, it's exactly the same. Obama takes credit for planning to withdraw from Iraq when in reality that decision was made by George Bush, and you haven't even seen how indifferent the Dems are towards civil liberties.


Third parties in the States? Give me a break the third US candidate in 2008 had like half a percent of the votes.
Hardly a candidate worth voting for when you are given a choice between Democrats and biblepounding nutjobs along with a 1/3 chance that McCain drops dead and Sarah becomes the next Covergirl of the "Free World". The last US election felt more like you were asked to save the world with your vote, or else you end up in a ludicrous parallel universe where everything is made out of bibles, guns and the body of Christ.

I knew Obama would win, and I thought a vote for McCain was a terrible idea. I'm disgusted with the two party system, where you are essentially choosing between Coca Cola or Pepsi Cola. No Orange, no Sprite, no Root Beer, just two almost identical parties that you choose from depending on what steam you're on. For the record I'm a libertarian, the equivalent of a Liberal in Europe if I understand correctly.


Its not that we Europeans really love the US Democrats all that much, it's just that the alternative is completely unbearable. Almost every European I ever met loathes the Republicans. It's not even their economic ideas but their crazyness about abortion, stem cells, immigration, evolution, gays, guns, god, sex and especially the annoying thing all of it is connected to: religion. And boy do we hate fox news.

I like Fox Business, and too many people let the bias commentary get to them. MSNBC is worse in my opinion, Kieth Olbermann is a shill of the Democratic party. Also stop acting like all of Europe is full of pseudo-intellectual atheists. Also, you are only introduced to the more radical republicans, a lot are simply moderate. My family is full of republicans and believe in evolution. Also, the part about being against sex is due to smart portions in the Bible that instruct people to avoid unhealthy behavior. This includes no shaving with a razor, no eating pork and shrip, avoiding potentially rabid animals, avoiding excessive amounts of recreational sex, all of these instructions are for health reasons. Most people think they are arbitrary but there is a good reason for them being there. Guns are a big deal because some think it's a good idea to adhere to the document that limits government power, myself included. I support stem cell research along with my Catholic family, so they are occasionally at odds with the church. I think it's offensive that so much judgment is aimed at the devoted religious population, my uncle goes to church at least once every day, he's the nicest man you'll meet. Pisses me off when people cast people like him aside and call them all idiots.



At the off chance that this might sound anti-American, I want to point out that I am actually a huge fan of American Ideals and the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson in particularly. Poor guy would be spinning in his grave if he found out how the separation of church and state worked out. The US seems to be a failed state with respect to secularism and I am sure he would agree.

Thomas Jefferson was a fairly religious guy. Most of that separation of church and state was to ensure religious prosecution did not take place, it had little to do with nativity scenes in front of public buildings.


But I digress! We were talking economy, not "politics" so let me steer back on course and walk all over this remark:

I agree, selfish behavior is what makes the market efficient and keeps it running. But that two "greedy" individuals always walk away satisfied... you serious?
I doubt you would see it that way if you were some Asian kid making my shoes. There is a difference between "getting" money and "earning" money.
Capitalism isn't about earning money in the sense of providing a fair ammount of goods or services in exchange - its all about getting money and making money.

I think you're forgetting that the only way to acquire money is by providing goods or services. Of course the Chinese boy would like higher wages, wouldn't we all, however he benefits from his employment, otherwise he wouldn't even bother. Even if it's the basics of work or starve, the opportunity of employment, no matter how harsh the conditions, are preferable to the conditions he would have to live with before.

And those two individual walk away satisfied, they wouldn't of made the exchange if they both wouldn't profit. Maybe the are later disappointed in the exchange but the exchange only occurs with the result of individual profit. For more on this, check this out. http://mises.org/daily/4427.
____________________________________________________________________________________________


Posted from another forum I frequent.


Obama is hosting a dinner at the White House celebrating Ramadan this week . For those unfamiliar with Ramadan it is a Muslim holy period of fasting during the day and eating lavish meals at night .

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

Ahlul Bayt News Agency (ABNA.ir), United States President Barack Obama has extended his best wishes to Muslims in America and around the world and announced that he will host a fast-breaking dinner at the White House this week.

“I want to extend my best wishes to the 1.5 billion Muslims around the world – and your families and friends – as you welcome the beginning of Ramadan,” Obama said in an official statement issued by the US State Department.

“Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality. And here in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America.”

The White House, he said, would host fast breaking dinner.

“I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.”

Separation from Church and State, indeed. So much for those radical republicans being the only religious party. What do you have to say of this, or will you just admit that you're entire bit about the republicans being the only ones to support God has been thoroughly destroyed. Hail to the king, baby!

To Be fair:


Bush was the first president to host a Ramadan dinner at the White House.

In fact, he hosted 8 ramadan dinners. One every year he was in office. No republicans were crying then.
________________________________EDITED FROM PREVIOUS POST_______________________________

I post this since a handful of atheists are ******* retarded and think having the phrase "under God" violates the Constitution. First in foremost, it doesn't respect a particular religious establishment and certainly doesn't grant additional rights. But dumb individuals are going to be dumb individuals. Seriously, all these angsty pseudo-intellectual atheist have a superiority complex, the leftist claim to be accepting of differences in culture and then just rail on the religious population. As an atheist, I find it disgusting and believe you should reconsider your view of religious individuals. Hating on someone just because of a belief, intolerant prick.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

To my knowledge, no laws have been made that respect or prohibit any religion.

The gay marriage debate doesn't require religion. I could argue that gays possess the same rights as heterosexual couples. But we are getting off topic.

Delever
14th Aug 2010, 02:31
Hahahaha :D

pringlepower
14th Aug 2010, 03:08
Buddhism!

PlasmaSnake101
14th Aug 2010, 04:25
Hahahaha :D

Something funny?

Balance
14th Aug 2010, 16:09
Sure, Healthcare, market regulation, and green enthusiasm have changed, but as far as the foreign policy is concerned, it's exactly the same.

Agreed.
Still calling the Dems a carbon copy of the Reps while pointing out their "minor" differences in the "neglectable" areas of healthcare and regulation is kind of like... you arguing against yourself. So I won't dwell on this point.

With regards to American foreign policy I have to say that I don't really have an opinion about it. I don't nearly know enough about the war to make a judgement about if in the end it will turn out to be a positive or negative change for world history and the people living there. But what I can be pretty sure about is that leaving Iraq and Afghanistan right now is pretty surely a recepe for chaos and anarchy.
It seems the problem is the American delusion that if you just kill the monarch or the dictator, suddenly democracy and rainbows will sprout automatically. Well apparently this doesn't happen in a culture where Democracy is essentially a new concept. This ain't Germany or Japan.

I never expected Obama to rush the troops out asap, that expectation would have been pretty foolish.
What is ridiculous though was Sweden awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize, what's up with that? ;)



I'm disgusted with the two party system, where you are essentially choosing between Coca Cola or Pepsi Cola.
Yeah I can imagine that this must be pretty frustrating. Yet the way American politics are structured I can't really see how the situation could ever change. A two-party-system-only indeed reflects a real weakness of Democracy.



Also, the part about being against sex is due to smart portions in the Bible that instruct people to avoid unhealthy behavior. This includes no shaving with a razor, no eating pork and shrip, avoiding potentially rabid animals, avoiding excessive amounts of recreational sex, all of these instructions are for health reasons. Most people think they are arbitrary but there is a good reason for them being there.

Does the phrase "due to smart portions in the Bible" imply that there are less-than-smart portions as well? ;)
The morals, traditions and prohibitions you talk about stem from desert-dwelling tribes living during the the Bronze Age. Taking them seriously nowadays, let alone adapting them to our 21st century doesn't seem to be a good idea if you ask me. Personally I never heard that someone I know died as a result of shaving or eating pork, you?

I get what you are saying, the rules aren't arbitrary - of cause there is bound to be some reason or agenda behind them. But nowadays upholding those rules becomes silly because the reasons for having those rules have disappeared. Sadly there are obviously quite some people nowadays who still take them very seriously.



I think it's offensive that so much judgment is aimed at the devoted religious population, my uncle goes to church at least once every day, he's the nicest man you'll meet. Pisses me off when people cast people like him aside and call them all idiots.

Yeah I do think pretty poorly about religion, it's true. But of cause I realize that religious people more often than not are really good people and genuinely concerned about doing the right thing. I don't doubt that.
It just happens that they are gravely mistaken about reality and as a result of this they often don't do the right thing, while believing that they actually do. I don't know your uncle and I'm not talking about individuals here.

I'm talking statistics.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qv_rz5sxjeigp092dmwufa.gif
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html

All of this is directly related to religion and it certainly doesn't improve mankinds condition.
Religion at whole is clearly the antagonist of progress - and again I'm not talking individual cases or your family but religious people at large as indicated by statistics.



Thomas Jefferson was a fairly religious guy.

If he was I wouldn't like him so much.
He heavily criticized Christianity and rejected the idea of Jesus being of divine origin, he wasn't actually a Christian but a deist. In the sense of being a deist he was religious indeed, since he believed that a conscious being must have created the universe.

He was perfectly aware of the delusion, hypocricy and ignorance of the major world religions. His reason for believing in a divine creator was simply the seemingly aparrent design in nature. If Jefferson had lived to see the publication of "On The Origin Of Species" in 1859 he would most probably have started identifying as an atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion




I post this since a handful of atheists are *** retarded and think having the phrase "under God" violates the Constitution.

Yeah that atheist retard would be me.
Of cause I think the phrase violates the Constitution, somewhere between 10-20% of Americans don't believe in a god. The government has no business in promoting religion, but the US government relentlessly does it left and right because pounding the bible obviously appeals to the majority.

How is defining America as "one nation under God" not violating the separation of church and state?
Sure, the majority is Christian, but obviously there are a lot of people who think there is no God and there are also a lot of people who definitely mean something else than Christians when they say "God".

The whole idea of America is allowing you freedom, the freedom to say and believe what you want.
But if the government defines the nation as Christian nation, instead of taking a neutral aka secular tance, this fundamentally undermines the core principles of what America stands for. If the Christian majority starts forcing its bat***** beliefs onto the minority then this is not freedom and not in line with American ideals.


One example would be gay marriage. It shouldn't matter one damn thing what the majority thinks about this, being with whoever you want is as close to a basic human right as it gets and its astonishing how lousy America, -supposedly the land of the free- handles this topic. All due to religious influence.



PS: The God bit was added in 1954 (allegedly to unite and strengthen the country under God to face the godless hordes of the Soviet Union during the Cold War).
I think it can't claim historical or cultural relevance, it has to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

Delever
14th Aug 2010, 18:23
Something funny?

I adore religious debates ;)

PlasmaSnake101
14th Aug 2010, 20:39
Agreed.
Still calling the Dems a carbon copy of the Reps while pointing out their "minor" differences in the "neglectable" areas of healthcare and regulation is kind of like... you arguing against yourself. So I won't dwell on this point.

The Bush Administration was not as anti-green as you seem to believe. Also, the Bush Administration set the bailout minded mentality the Obama Administration is so devoted to. Obama's Healthcare Bill was a big failure and liberals and conservatives are both pissed off. Of course, it all stems from the backwards idea that healthcare is a "right." It always surprises me to see people say others have a "right" to the labor and goods of individuals. Charitable activity is not to be shunned, and a safety net would be nice, but a law that requires people to have health insurance? Unconstitutional, conflicting with the rights of individual free will, and impractical.


With regards to American foreign policy I have to say that I don't really have an opinion about it. I don't nearly know enough about the war to make a judgement about if in the end it will turn out to be a positive or negative change for world history and the people living there. But what I can be pretty sure about is that leaving Iraq and Afghanistan right now is pretty surely a recepe for chaos and anarchy.
It seems the problem is the American delusion that if you just kill the monarch or the dictator, suddenly democracy and rainbows will sprout automatically. Well apparently this doesn't happen in a culture where Democracy is essentially a new concept. This ain't Germany or Japan.

I never expected Obama to rush the troops out asap, that expectation would have been pretty foolish.
What is ridiculous though was Sweden awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize, what's up with that? ;)

That is why the Bush Administration made a massive mistake, and Obama's carrying on with the policy. I just find it funny people are saying he will get us out when the decision was made before he was even elected. Way to take credit for the work of George W. Bush. Makes you feel bad, the media paints him as the devil and people don't give a damn, they won't even look to see who did what and praise the dems for the works the republicans did before them. Kind of like how they say Clinton got us a surplus when it was really pressure from the Republican Congress that was pushing for a balanced budget bill.


Yeah I can imagine that this must be pretty frustrating. Yet the way American politics are structured I can't really see how the situation could ever change. A two-party-system-only indeed reflects a real weakness of Democracy.

In the end, no one truly gets what they wanted.



Does the phrase "due to smart portions in the Bible" imply that there are less-than-smart portions as well? ;)
The morals, traditions and prohibitions you talk about stem from desert-dwelling tribes living during the the Bronze Age. Taking them seriously nowadays, let alone adapting them to our 21st century doesn't seem to be a good idea if you ask me. Personally I never heard that someone I know died as a result of shaving or eating pork, you?

I heard Henry David Thoreau died after he got an infection from shaving. Shaving can be risky business, can get an infection incredibly easy. Undercooked pork could have easily been fatal. However, these concerns are not much nowadays.


I get what you are saying, the rules aren't arbitrary - of cause there is bound to be some reason or agenda behind them. But nowadays upholding those rules becomes silly because the reasons for having those rules have disappeared. Sadly there are obviously quite some people nowadays who still take them very seriously.

Considering the spread of AIDS and HIV over the years since the 80's, a society that values sexual restraint couldn't hurt. Considering heterosexual sex results in a child and homosexual sex has not productive yield, the church obviously recognized that it was all risk and no reward to engage in that behavior specifically.



Yeah I do think pretty poorly about religion, it's true. But of cause I realize that religious people more often than not are really good people and genuinely concerned about doing the right thing. I don't doubt that.
It just happens that they are gravely mistaken about reality and as a result of this they often don't do the right thing, while believing that they actually do. I don't know your uncle and I'm not talking about individuals here.

I'm talking statistics.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qv_rz5sxjeigp092dmwufa.gif
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html

All of this is directly related to religion and it certainly doesn't improve mankinds condition.
Religion at whole is clearly the antagonist of progress - and again I'm not talking individual cases or your family but religious people at large as indicated by statistics.

I'm telling you, the vast majority of Christians I've met believe in evolution. Even Darwin was contemplating joining the clergy, and about your bit about they oppose progress, I think you should study history. The Church is responsible for many advancements in scientific thought, the field of medicine, and rational thinking. I know you'll
say "the Church? Rational?" But the members of the Church provided valuable progress to logical observation.




If he was I wouldn't like him so much.
He heavily criticized Christianity and rejected the idea of Jesus being of divine origin, he wasn't actually a Christian but a deist. In the sense of being a deist he was religious indeed, since he believed that a conscious being must have created the universe.

He was perfectly aware of the delusion, hypocricy and ignorance of the major world religions. His reason for believing in a divine creator was simply the seemingly aparrent design in nature. If Jefferson had lived to see the publication of "On The Origin Of Species" in 1859 he would most probably have started identifying as an atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion

I haven't looked much into it, but I'm aware he attended church regularly. Perhaps he opposed religious opposition to some fields of Science? Even though the church made progress in science, I'll have to admit they've opposed some as well. The structure of the universe for example in terms of astrology.


Yeah that atheist retard would be me.
Of cause I think the phrase violates the Constitution, somewhere between 10-20% of Americans don't believe in a god. The government has no business in promoting religion, but the US government relentlessly does it left and right because pounding the bible obviously appeals to the majority.

How is defining America as "one nation under God" not violating the separation of church and state?
Sure, the majority is Christian, but obviously there are a lot of people who think there is no God and there are also a lot of people who definitely mean something else than Christians when they say "God".

Four words in a pledge of allegiance hardly respects a religious institution, granting it more rights or anything like that. It's not unconstitutional and violates no rights, more so considering that it is purely optional to even recite it. It's a non-issue that people bring up to get attention or sound edgy.


The whole idea of America is allowing you freedom, the freedom to say and believe what you want.
But if the government defines the nation as Christian nation, instead of taking a neutral aka secular tance, this fundamentally undermines the core principles of what America stands for. If the Christian majority starts forcing its bat***** beliefs onto the minority then this is not freedom and not in line with American ideals.


One example would be gay marriage. It shouldn't matter one damn thing what the majority thinks about this, being with whoever you want is as close to a basic human right as it gets and its astonishing how lousy America, -supposedly the land of the free- handles this topic. All due to religious influence.

On gay marriage, there is no law on the book that forbids homosexuals from being "close." The right to interact with anyone else is not being infringed upon. Secondly, homosexuals possess the same rights as heterosexual couples.

I'll say this again, homosexuals possess the same rights as heterosexual couples in the united states. It is a matter of engaging in a contractual unions. A heterosexual can engage in a union, one man, one woman. A homosexual can engage in the same union, one man, one woman. To make a law that only grants homosexuals the right to marry one man and one man, or own woman and one woman, would be discriminatory. They can engage in the same contract, no one is receiving different treatment under the law. This is one way it can be argued, free of religion.

However, I feel the State shouldn't even recognize marriage. My father for example, a devoted Catholic, has no problem with recognized unions, just doesn't like it being termed marriage. This is the idea I generally see when talking to Christians. Seriously, just as most moderate Americans, your view of the right is so damn exaggerated it's not even funny.

Delever
14th Aug 2010, 22:46
I'm telling you, the vast majority of Christians I've met believe in evolution. Even Darwin was contemplating joining the clergy, and about your bit about they oppose progress, I think you should study history. The Church is responsible for many advancements in scientific thought, the field of medicine, and rational thinking. I know you'll
say "the Church? Rational?" But the members of the Church provided valuable progress to logical observation.

Yes, they are completely rational when it comes to running their business. After all, their company was the most successful in the world. However, rationality of religious ideas is... um... weak. Individuals long ago, however, had all the reason to believe in God, because there was very little evidence for another explanation. However, we value the fact they they had courage to take few steps away from established beliefs and think for themselves. It is really incorrect to give credit to Church for work of Newton or Copernicus.


I haven't looked much into it, but I'm aware he attended church regularly.

Well, his wife was Christian...

Romeo
14th Aug 2010, 22:58
I am on edge about letting this thread continue, but will do so for now. Just so that we are all perfectly clear with one another though, any insults, racism, insults to creed, sexism or anything else I just damn well don't like will result in closure of the thread, and harsh punishment for the offending party.

You have been warned.

FrankCSIS
15th Aug 2010, 04:22
A two-party-system-only indeed reflects a real weakness of Democracy

I'd tend to say it shows its strenght, but then again I'm known to question the true merits of democracy as a system. When you look into it, truthfully, the logical evolution of democracy, its finality, would be one party forming a gigantic consensus representing the totality of the population. The more parties you have, the less consensual you are.

Multi-party systems require a coallition, which is almost always formed by the same politically alligned parties on both sides. The only difference is that in America, party line doesn't have to be respected. You have all sorts of Republicans, which could easily form two or three parties if they were to split, and ditto for the Dems. Multiple parties sounds interesting on paper, but we know in the end, once the coallition is formed, they end up merging in a one-party government; consensus demands it.

Not that I believe the two-party system to be any better, but I consider it to be more evolved, or alligned with the very logic of democracy as an institution. I just find it foolish to believe that a body of government, be it formed by two or multiple parties, will ever represent the sum of all electors. The output of a government always has an existence of its own, that does not in any way reflect the sum of its inputs. Somehow, somewhere along the way however, we were served the illusion that it does. And so I maintain that we are witnessing the emergence of something yet undiscussed in the field of political studies, what I like to call Institutional Dictatorship. Democracy as a living organism, with an existence of its own.

PlasmaSnake101
15th Aug 2010, 05:06
It is really incorrect to give credit to Church for work of Newton or Copernicus.

Ever look into St. Aquinas? Contributed to massive strides in philosophy and logic.

Hear of Mendel and his work with studying genetics?

To say the Church has not contributed to Science and rational thought is incredibly foolish. I think most people here would agree.


I am on edge about letting this thread continue, but will do so for now. Just so that we are all perfectly clear with one another though, any insults, racism, insults to creed, sexism or anything else I just damn well don't like will result in closure of the thread, and harsh punishment for the offending party.

Be cool baby! I'm not nearly as emotionally on edge as I was when I insulted MyImmortal that one time. You've my word that no insults will be slung by me.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
15th Aug 2010, 11:11
^
I have no recollection of any insult, so no worries there. Besides, we're good friends now... ;)

Balance
15th Aug 2010, 12:24
The Church is responsible for many advancements in scientific thought, the field of medicine, and rational thinking.
I know you'll say "the Church? Rational?" But the members of the Church provided valuable progress to logical observation.

The Church is responsible for advancements in scientific thought? Like what, the LHC and the Blue Brain project? Or perhaps their fine science of how to stop the spread of STDs and AIDS by not using condoms?

The Church never did any such thing and frequently punished human curiosity, especially whenever a new discovery seemed to undermine their flawless book or the placement of humans within some divine hierarchy. The instutution of the Church was never on the forefront of welcoming progress and non-theology-based understanding. And from the looks of it, it never will.

Remember that one time when whatshisname discovered that the earth rotated around the sun and not the other way around? The Church wasn't pleased to say the least.

Of cause you are right when you say that "members" of the Church contributed to some scientific breakthroughs in the past, but that seems rather inevitable seeing how not professing to be a member of some church usually got you killed a few hundred years ago.




Considering the spread of AIDS and HIV over the years since the 80's, a society that values sexual restraint couldn't hurt. Considering heterosexual sex results in a child and homosexual sex has not productive yield, the church obviously recognized that it was all risk and no reward to engage in that behavior specifically.

"Considering heterosexual sex results in a child" ...well mine doesn't as far as I'm concerned.
"No productive yield" - that truly sounds exactly like the virginity-adoring, sexually repressed core of the pathetic, patriarchic Catholic Church. An assembly of old men in the Vatican of whom one half never had sex and the other only occasionally with children. Funny how they obsess over everyone's sexual lives, they really must know something about STDs and sex that we don't. We should definitely listen what they have to say and take them very serious.

Delever
15th Aug 2010, 13:41
Ever look into St. Aquinas? Contributed to massive strides in philosophy and logic.

Hear of Mendel and his work with studying genetics?

Well, try to look at it in simple terms:
- Newton's belief in alchemy is not validated by his theory of gravity.
- Copernicus laws of planetary motion say nothing about higher power.
- Mendel's study of inheritance does not confirm creation story.
- ... and so on.
People have all kinds of ideas and thoughts, and rarely all of them are great. For example, Einstein's theory of everything missed the mark big time back then. The key is idea that is testable by someone else. The reason why science dismiss God outright is because no test case for him was ever presented. What test should we perform to check if he is real? Even if he is outside physical realm bus influences reality in slightest bit, there has to be a test.


To say the Church has not contributed to Science and rational thought is incredibly foolish. I think most people here would agree.
Yeah, I was wrong, I should not have said that. But there was an obvious reasons why medieval church-sponsored universities transformed into modern research based universities. It looks more like Church has made a mistake: they thought that reason and research would give more evidence for the God.

Pretentious Old Man.
15th Aug 2010, 15:25
The Church is responsible for advancements in scientific thought? Like what, the LHC and the Blue Brain project? Or perhaps their fine science of how to stop the spread of STDs and AIDS by not using condoms?

The Church never did any such thing and frequently punished human curiosity, especially whenever a new discovery seemed to undermine their flawless book or the placement of humans within some divine hierarchy. The instutution of the Church was never on the forefront of welcoming progress and non-theology-based understanding. And from the looks of it, it never will.

Remember that one time when whatshisname discovered that the earth rotated around the sun and not the other way around? The Church wasn't pleased to say the least.

Of cause you are right when you say that "members" of the Church contributed to some scientific breakthroughs in the past, but that seems rather inevitable seeing how not professing to be a member of some church usually got you killed a few hundred years ago.





"Considering heterosexual sex results in a child" ...well mine doesn't as far as I'm concerned.
"No productive yield" - that truly sounds exactly like the virginity-adoring, sexually repressed core of the pathetic, patriarchic Catholic Church. An assembly of old men in the Vatican of whom one half never had sex and the other only occasionally with children. Funny how they obsess over everyone's sexual lives, they really must know something about STDs and sex that we don't. We should definitely listen what they have to say and take them very serious.

Be fair, the collegiate system which resulted in today's universities was pioneered and then subsequently financed by the medieval church.

PlasmaSnake101
15th Aug 2010, 22:24
The Church is responsible for advancements in scientific thought? Like what, the LHC and the Blue Brain project? Or perhaps their fine science of how to stop the spread of STDs and AIDS by not using condoms?

Completely ignoring the contributions in the long run. And I'll have you know there are many extremely well educated members of the clergy.They've presented a different method of not spreading AIDS, that being sexual restraint. Since many cultures in Africa are patriarchal, the woman really doesn't have the ability to force the man to use a condom. And considering the use of condoms has been advised my many institutions engaging in charity work in Africa and the spread of AIDS is still high, maybe cultural change regarding to the practice of sexual intercourse would be better.


The Church never did any such thing and frequently punished human curiosity, especially whenever a new discovery seemed to undermine their flawless book or the placement of humans within some divine hierarchy. The instutution of the Church was never on the forefront of welcoming progress and non-theology-based understanding. And from the looks of it, it never will.

Oh? The church and it's members never advanced human knowledge? You're only demonstrating a level of ignorance concerning the history of scientific advancement. Not to mention the other contributions inspired by and embodied by the church. I myself am a huge fan of Gothic Architecture, so the style of architecture the church took up for a while is really impressive to me. The pieces of art featuring religious themes, many considered masterpieces. Don't forget the art work commissioned by the church as well. Logical advancements as I said before. Advancements in medical treatment, along with the charitable nature to of trying to aid the less fortunate. You're really missing a huge part of history and social advancement.

Yes, it is true the church opposed quite a bit of scientific discovery, they were not as opposed to scientific research as you seem to believe.


Remember that one time when whatshisname discovered that the earth rotated around the sun and not the other way around? The Church wasn't pleased to say the least.

I don't remember, I wasn't there :lol:. All joking aside, it's not unusual for differing ideas and theories to be met with criticism. I don't know if you remember, but even a good portion of the 20th century was characterized by conflicting ideologies between two massive nations. Do I wish the church was more open to scientific advancement, of course. Does this mean I hate the church, pass judgment on all its members, and see them as an enemy of progress, of course not. What you're doing is extremely rude, treating a prestigious institution with billions of members with disrespect.


Of cause you are right when you say that "members" of the Church contributed to some scientific breakthroughs in the past, but that seems rather inevitable seeing how not professing to be a member of some church usually got you killed a few hundred years ago.

Those people had a firm belief in God, were educated by the church, and devoted their lives to God. It's incredibly foolish to assume the smartest members of the church were lying about their beliefs. All cultures usually treat dissent the same way, are you familiar with the treatment of Christians in Tokugawa Japan?


"Considering heterosexual sex results in a child" ...well mine doesn't as far as I'm concerned.
"No productive yield" - that truly sounds exactly like the virginity-adoring, sexually repressed core of the pathetic, patriarchic Catholic Church.

Is there something wrong with valuing a sense of purity in culture? Especially considering excessive sex can result in social tension and health problems. Remember, for a long time high levels of sexual activity resulted in disease and death. Safe practices should be welcome, but the church recognizes that a social aspect is also a factor in these kinds of situations. It can cause a lot of problems, for an example, being unfaithful can drive some jilted partner to commit murder.


An assembly of old men in the Vatican of whom one half never had sex and the other only occasionally with children.

I'd like to remind you that statistically the clergy engages in less pedophilia than non-clergy.


Funny how they obsess over everyone's sexual lives, they really must know something about STDs and sex that we don't. We should definitely listen what they have to say and take them very serious.

Disapproval of excessive sexual relations in not a characteristic of the Catholic Church alone, many cultures find it repulsive for a variety of reasons. Most of which I've repeatedly made clear in this post so I won't repeat myself. It's incredible arrogant to show such resentment to the ideas of an institution when it's clear you've little knowledge of the organization itself.

Also, as a reminder, I'm an atheist, my family is Catholic. However, I still recognize the Church does a lot of good and teaches valuable lessons to its members.


The key is idea that is testable by someone else. The reason why science dismiss God outright is because no test case for him was ever presented. What test should we perform to check if he is real? Even if he is outside physical realm bus influences reality in slightest bit, there has to be a test.

His presence cannot be tested, it's the very definition of an why it is referred to as Faith. You have to believe, despite the lack of evidence presented. Since I have a doubt that God exists, I think it is wrong to claim I believe and declare myself a member of a church. I believe a person must be absolute in their devotion and understanding, and most importantly, their belief in God. If a flicker of doubt is held, then an individual can not truly claim to believe.


Believe in the creator of our world! Is it wrong to love a being one cannot see? Such belief is the highest faculty a human being can develop.

mad_red
16th Aug 2010, 23:42
What is ridiculous though was Sweden awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize, what's up with that? ;) these guys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jHe5OjAm_E) have a hilarious take on the matter. They also have some brilliant and hugely funny vids on Climate change and more recently on wikileaks. Check it out.


I'm siding with Plasma on the religious debate. Like most people I'm pretty disgusted by what religious institutions have done in the name of their beliefs throughout history, but on the other hand those same institutions have also been enormous loci of power and wealth that well-meaning individuals have put to good use. Not only are religions powerful tools, but their intrinsic tendency to lead men to righteous oppression or intolerance is matched by the tendency to inspire God-fearing humility in the face of great unknowns, one that scientists would do well to remember when overstepping the limits scientific deduction, such as when the logical principle like occam's razor is invoked to 'prove' a 'scientific truth', rather than a heuristical guide to efficiently formulate hypotheses and working theories.

Coincidentally, here's an article I read today that offers a relatively balanced (or perhaps merely a balancing) take on secularisation:
http://www.carolin-emcke.de/en/article/105.essay-muslims-in-europe-or-whose-enlightenment-is-it.html

Delever
17th Aug 2010, 17:49
Sounds like: if not the Holy Church, we would be in Dark Ages. Oh the irony.

Pretentious Old Man.
17th Aug 2010, 20:01
Well, we wouldn't have university education, usually considered conducive to not being in the dark ages.

Delever
17th Aug 2010, 20:53
We were talking how much credit can we give to Church for contributing to science or rational thought. Of course they started it. All credit for that. Then tried to suppress it in numerous ways. All credit for that too. The point is, rational thought was not primary focus in their business model ;)

PlasmaSnake101
17th Aug 2010, 22:51
Sounds like: if not the Holy Church, we would be in Dark Ages. Oh the irony.

I think you're wrong when looking at the dark ages, social progress is expected to come to a halt with a mini-ice age, the spread of plague and waring states. However, war generally increases the rate of technological advancement, so don't say, the Crusades made the dark ages dark, because history has proven war accelerates discovery. Check out medicinal treatment during the American Civil War. These occur out of necessity.

Dead-Eye
18th Aug 2010, 02:07
To say the Church has not contributed to Science and rational thought is incredibly foolish. I think most people here would agree.


I do not agree. Like the Bush Administration, anything they did to help science along is overshadowed by their blatantly obvious attempts to manipulate the truth for their own ends.

Here's something I thought about a long time ago that might express just how much I detest the Catholic Church. What if there is no god. OK, simple but my conclusion was that if there is no god then the Catholic Church was the largest and most successful scam artist the world has ever know. Like a scam artiest everything that they said is a lie and everything they will ever say is a lie used to manipulate and betray. Because they have perpetuated a lie, I.E. the existence of god, they have successfully used people's fears to scare them into believing the scam. So much so that these frightened individuals scare their children into the same scam for the Catholic Church without even realizing it's a scam. One poor soul might think "There is no way to disprove the existence of god and they say that if I don't do A,B,C then god will send me to hell. Well I better be safe then sorry." Thus the church used said individuals own fears to accomplish the indoctrination of their mind. No where is this more apparent then when preachers start talking about hell. Any time a preacher talks about hell they will also talk about what you need to do in order to avoid hell. I decided that it was safer to listen to myself then to listen to the church.

PlasmaSnake101
18th Aug 2010, 02:16
I do not agree. Like the Bush Administration, anything they did to help science along is overshadowed by their blatantly obvious attempts to manipulate the truth for their own ends.

Here's something I thought about a long time ago that might express just how much I detest the Catholic Church. What if there is no god. OK, simple but my conclusion was that if there is no god then the Catholic Church was the largest and most successful scam artist the world has ever know. Like a scam artiest everything that they said is a lie and everything they will ever say is a lie used to manipulate and betray. Because they have perpetuated a lie, I.E. the existence of god, they have successfully used people's fears to scare them into believing the scam. So much so that these frightened individuals scare their children into the same scam for the Catholic Church without even realizing it's a scam. One poor soul might think "There is no way to disprove the existence of god and they say that if I don't do A,B,C then god will send me to hell. Well I better be safe then sorry." Thus the church used said individuals own fears to accomplish the indoctrination of their mind. No where is this more apparent then when preachers start talking about hell. Any time a preacher talks about hell they will also talk about what you need to do in order to avoid hell. I decided that it was safer to listen to myself then to listen to the church.

I'll have you know most people aren't religious out of fear. In fact, most of the extremely religious people I know, the ultimately devoted, claim the church has improved their lives. My old roommate, an extremely unhappy man when I knew him, recently started going to church again, he is incredibly happy due to the sense of community he has. I've seen the church improve the lives of people through charity and the like. Most people don't worship out of fear.

On your bit about the church lying, maybe God's existence is spiritual. He exists in a way, but as a concept not as a being. The concept of God has never been fully understood, not even by the Church itself. Regardless, I wouldn't consider it a scam if the institution believes in what they are preaching.

Balance
18th Aug 2010, 09:03
Actually PlasmaSnake101 is right about the claim that going to church statistically improves your chances of being happy.

Churchgoers get a happiness boost out of a whole bunch of things:
- a sense of belonging to a community
- a sense of being part of something bigger
- a sense of purpose
- more social interactions with believers
- a feeling of satisfaction for being charitable and kind due to dropping money in the basket
- the delusion that a cosmic overlord cares about you and might step in when you need it
- etc.

Note though, that none of those feelings (apart from the last point) actually is limited to religion. It's simply very easy to attain those feelings prepackaged when you are a churchgoer, because in part churches are specifically set up in a way that "gets you hooked" by attending to your human desires and needs.

But obviously all those things say absolutely nothing about the possibility of the existance of god. And those positive feelings don't take into account the direct and indirect long-term costs of living a gargantuan delusion, both privately and as a whole society.

There's a million tiny ways in which religion subtly undermines the happiness and intellectual development of people. Both of the churchgoers themselves and also those who don't belong to the church. I'm obviously not saying religion should be banned, that would be just monstrous in a free society - yet I insist that arguing your case if you are an atheist is of importance, to genuinely win people over for the right reasons.

PlasmaSnake101
19th Aug 2010, 00:13
But obviously all those things say absolutely nothing about the possibility of the existance of god. And those positive feelings don't take into account the direct and indirect long-term costs of living a gargantuan delusion, both privately and as a whole society.

There's a million tiny ways in which religion subtly undermines the happiness and intellectual development of people.

We've already established that religious scholars contribute to society in many fields.

This isn't about the existence of God, it's about the church being a good institution. I've met some religious people who are beacons of light, friendly to everyone due to the euphoria experience by religious participation, I would prefer these people be respected and valued. Certainly not looked down upon in intellectual terms.

PlasmaSnake101
28th Aug 2010, 21:41
How is defining America as "one nation under God" not violating the separation of church and state?
Sure, the majority is Christian, but obviously there are a lot of people who think there is no God and there are also a lot of people who definitely mean something else than Christians when they say "God".

Balance thinks Christianity is the only monotheist religion in existence. It doesn't recognize any specific religion. It doesn't say "One nation, under the Christian God..." Get mad because you're a chump and can't comprehend the Pledge of Allegiance.



PS: The God bit was added in 1954 (allegedly to unite and strengthen the country under God to face the godless hordes of the Soviet Union during the Cold War).
I think it can't claim historical or cultural relevance, it has to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

Also, Balance thinks all action taken during the Cold War doesn't claim "historic" relevance. He also thinks it doesn't maintain cultural relevance in a nation full of monotheists, get mad you intolerant prick.

P.S.
Don't taking my trolling insults seriously, I just like to add humor to my posts.