Mark touched earlier on the support for the Arts and for scientific discovery that the Church provided in the Middle Ages, but he failed to mention that some of the brightest scientific minds of the modern era were devout in their chosen Faith. Indeed, some have stated that their Faith was strengthened by the work that they were doing. Is it mere coincidence that the greatest scientific effort of recent years is referred to as the "God Particle". Perhaps, but I submit that an Atheist would have found another descriptor.
Actually, and this is fair to say, the ability to publically state that you're not religious / don't believe in god? It's only been what, 50 years since saying that wouldn't result in public scorn and condemnation. Further, and I haven't read it, but I hope to, is "The God Delusion", which the author essentially argues that some of those great scientists were actually athiests.
Finally, with regard to the World's need (or lack thereof) for Religion, I find it ironic that you (Mark) would be so vehemently anti-religious, given your chosen profession. You are a long way from anyone's vision of the Messiah (and indeed can be a very naughty boy), but what more "Christian" career could you choose than to be someone who works with those who need help to find their way, and assist them to improve their station in life. Even you cannot ignore the irony . . .
So, the fact that I don't want to see youth who are most often disadvantaged through nature, nurture, or just dumb luck ruin their lives has to have a root in religion? People, in general, are good people. People feel bad for other people when they hear of terrible things happening to them. You don't need religion to be a morally responsible or "good" person, you need empathy.
Further still one could argue that I direct my efforts in such an occupation because it has been shown to be more cost effective than imprisonment, and therefore I'm just saving my own tax dollars
As a side note, I would like to say that over the last few years these various digressions into religious debate have helped me try to discover why I failed in my Faith. not necessarily because they convinced me of anything in particular, more because they made me ask questions of myself and about my beliefs. With that in mind I would to offer a sincere "thank you" to all of you for that.
I'm glad, legit, that these little arguments have helped you find whatever you feel it is you need.
A while back I saw a newstory that had a man on trial for murder after he filmed the act shouting nonsense like "Self defense" and "You are threatening my life"
Eventually he opened fire and killed one person of a group.
Actually, and this is fair to say, the ability to publically state that you're not religious / don't believe in god? It's only been what, 50 years since saying that wouldn't result in public scorn and condemnation. Further, and I haven't read it, but I hope to, is "The God Delusion", which the author essentially argues that some of those great scientists were actually athiests.
Dawkins? Really? Please find a better representative than that if you wish to refute my earlier statement. The man is a hack, and there are far better people to bolster your argument than him.
So, the fact that I don't want to see youth who are most often disadvantaged through nature, nurture, or just dumb luck ruin their lives has to have a root in religion? People, in general, are good people. People feel bad for other people when they hear of terrible things happening to them. You don't need religion to be a morally responsible or "good" person, you need empathy.
I never said that it had to have a "root" in religion. What I said is that the desire to help people avoid ruining their lives, that empathy for them you spoke of, is a very Christian ethic. That is not disputable . . .
Further still one could argue that I direct my efforts in such an occupation because it has been shown to be more cost effective than imprisonment, and therefore I'm just saving my own tax dollars :smilie:
Well, the Lord helps those who help themselves, no? Seriously, though, it does not change the fact that your line of work is a very "Christian" one, regardless of your motivation.
I'm glad, legit, that these little arguments have helped you find whatever you feel it is you need.
Actually, the point I was trying to make was that these discussions have helped to coalesce some thoughts I did not expect, and was not looking to find. As I said, I have failed in my Faith. I came to wonder why and, in trying to figure out what it was about the Faith of my childhood that I lost/disputed/whatever, I came to the realization that what was missing was the strength to live it. I do not feel that I "need" my Faith, as I think that is an immature way to approach it. Rather, I am at the point now of debating whether I have the strength to return to my Faith. It is a question of being proactive rather than passive.
I haven't dabbled in this thread yet, and don't intend to at any length.
I did the same type of work Mark does for 10 years, albeit with Federal inmates getting out of prison. At no point in time did I feel that my work was Christian in any way, nor did I feel more or less Christian for doing it. The fact that this type of work has parallels to Christian themes in terms of motivation, does not make it Christian work in any way. Painting 'social work' as Christian is wrong in my opinion, and I know many social workers who would find it insulting.
Bill . . . I am by no means trying to insult anyone. Perhaps your comment about the "parallels" is a better way of making my point. Nor was I trying to imply that doing that type of work imbues a level of "Christianity" on the employee.
With that in mind, allow me to restate the earlier point in this way . . .
Social work, of the type that Mark currently engages in, parallels the Christian ethos very closely. I find that ironic, given his vehemently anti-religious outlook.
I haven't dabbled in this thread yet, and don't intend to at any length.
I did the same type of work Mark does for 10 years, albeit with Federal inmates getting out of prison. At no point in time did I feel that my work was Christian in any way, nor did I feel more or less Christian for doing it. The fact that this type of work has parallels to Christian themes in terms of motivation, does not make it Christian work in any way. Painting 'social work' as Christian is wrong in my opinion, and I know many social workers who would find it insulting.
I wish I could like this 1000x... maybe fedh8r can lend me some of his accounts.
Bill . . . I am by no means trying to insult anyone. Perhaps your comment about the "parallels" is a better way of making my point. Nor was I trying to imply that doing that type of work imbues a level of "Christianity" on the employee.
With that in mind, allow me to restate the earlier point in this way . . .
Social work, of the type that Mark currently engages in, parallels the Christian ethos very closely. I find that ironic, given his vehemently anti-religious outlook.
Fair enough?
Most religions have "the golden rule" of 'don't be a dick, just like you don't like being treated like a dick' is pretty universal
This is a poster I used to have,
Religion needs to remember that the idea of "love thy neighbour" is a basic human trait that they brought into their rules, not their teachings that got us to be good to one another. Not that stealing credit / authority for ideas is anything new for religion anyways.
Religion needs to remember that the idea of "love thy neighbour" is a basic human trait that they brought into their rules, not their teachings that got us to be good to one another. Not that stealing credit / authority for ideas is anything new for religion anyways.
Mark
Yes, the Golden Rule is fairly universal, but no one has claimed otherwise.
And it may be a basic human trait, as you say, but so is the idea of conquest, of taking from another tribe/country/whatever in order to improve the lot of "your" tribe/country/whatever.
Perhaps Religion deserves the credit for codifying it in a way that states outright that such empathy is more important than the desire for "more" for oneself and one's kin.
Yes, the Golden Rule is fairly universal, but no one has claimed otherwise.
And it may be a basic human trait, as you say, but so is the idea of conquest, of taking from another tribe/country/whatever in order to improve the lot of "your" tribe/country/whatever.
Perhaps Religion deserves the credit for codifying it in a way that states outright that such empathy is more important than the desire for "more" for oneself and one's kin.
I was just providing an argument about your earlier statement that my job is religious based.. parallel as the other guy said sure, but that's not because religion taught me anything, it's because my basic nature and moral compass did.
Conquest is also a natural thing, sure. Wonder if religion ever stole that too.....
are you really so naive to state this is the same response where you claim that "love thy neighbour" is a christian trait and you don't see the irony?
welcome to religion, pick up your blinders at pew #4 and then have a lovely body of christ vanilla oreo
Mark seemed to be implying that empathy (love thy neighbour0 is an instinctual human characteristic. I was pointing out another, less savoury one, while commenting that Religion tends to focus on the more empathic traits than the avaricious ones. It is not naivete at all . . .
As for your jibe about the transubstantiation of the water and wine during the Sacrament of the Eucharist, someone like myself can see the humour, but a more devout Catholic would take offence. I have tried to be respectful during this conversation and I would appreciate the same in return. Criticism and debate are one thing, but some would take that as an insult to their Faith. Not me, but some might . . .
I was just providing an argument about your earlier statement that my job is religious based.. parallel as the other guy said sure, but that's not because religion taught me anything, it's because my basic nature and moral compass did.
This does not change my basic premise re: irony in the parallel.
Conquest is also a natural thing, sure. Wonder if religion ever stole that too.....
Just as intelligent people may take offence to individuals claiming the world is 9,000 years of age and basing scientific policies on those idiotic claims...
...which is the greater injustice to the people of the world?
Intelligent people SHOULD take offence to those folks . . . but who was basing scientific policy on that concept? Unless you are referring to Bush and Stem Cell research? That had nothing to do with what is commonly referred to as "Young Earth Creationism".
And no . . . not Oreos. Maybe in Sunday school . . . out.
Intelligent people SHOULD take offence to those folks . . . but who was basing scientific policy on that concept? Unless you are referring to Bush and Stem Cell research? That had nothing to do with what is commonly referred to as "Young Earth Creationism".
And no . . . not Oreos. Maybe in Sunday school . . . out.
You keep using that word (irony) but I do not thing you know what it means.
Either the classical (i.e. using a word in the opposite of its meaning) or the usual (i.e. Rain on your wedding day), the fact that I am - and I hate to admit this - a guy that likes to help people matches my job pretty succinctly.
Am I an ass? Sure. But I rarely try and attack people or make their situation worse. Even when I'm mean, there's usually a base of trying to help someone.
You do know that Committee Members for the House are not determined through knowledge of the subject, right?
I think this speaks to Mark's point about the whole math thing. Stupid folks elect stupid representatives for Government. And stupid folks misinterpret the Bible (or Torah, or Koran, etc.) all the time.
As for making actual policy, I am not 100% certain of the process, but it would not surprise me to discover that the actual legislation that these morons vote upon is formulated by bureaucrats (much like it is in Ottawa) who in turn base those pieces of legislation on what is requested or recommended by those in the field (the ACTUAL scientific types). I stand willing to be corrected about that though . . .
You keep using that word (irony) but I do not thing you know what it means.
Hi Inigo . . . where did you leave the horses?
Am I an ass? Sure. But I rarely try and attack people or make their situation worse. Even when I'm mean, there's usually a base of trying to help someone.
And that is, coincidentally I am sure, a very Christian attitude to have
Mark
And you are an ass . . . but you're our kind of ass, so it's cool.
I find it interesting that the parallel between your attitude (as stated and restated), and the Christian concept of treating others as you would have them treat you (the Golden Rule), does not seem ironic to you given your apparent disdain for Religion. I also do not recall stating that your attitude had it's basis in Faith, merely that the parallel existed.
I guess it's just me . . . anyway, Pulled Pork is almost ready. Check back after supper.
the actual legislation that these morons vote upon is formulated by bureaucrats (much like it is in Ottawa) who in turn base those pieces of legislation on what is requested or recommended by those in the field (the ACTUAL scientific types)..
Policy in the US driven by science? Policy in Canada driven by science?
You have zero idea of what goes on in the US and only slightly more of what goes on in Ottawa.
Policy is driven by what is expedient. You think the current government takes its queues from Science?
Ever heard of Monsanto? $ rules the house in the US.
There are states where the legislator voted to make it legal to present creationism in SCIENCE class. And that is something that happened recently!!!
The current Canadian government has made it against the rules for government employees to speak to the media for ANY reason. Lest they step out of line.
800 . . . what I said was that the person voting on the legislation is probably not the person who wrote it, and I think I am pretty solid on that. Feel free to correct me.
Wow, this thread took quite a turn since last I looked. At least now I know a book that Mark would eventually like to read.
Someday I would like to read Human Action by Mises. Anyone else have a book they've just been putting off?
Most religions have "the golden rule" of 'don't be a dick, just like you don't like being treated like a dick' is pretty universal
This is a poster I used to have,
Religion needs to remember that the idea of "love thy neighbour" is a basic human trait that they brought into their rules, not their teachings that got us to be good to one another. Not that stealing credit / authority for ideas is anything new for religion anyways.
Mark
This poster hangs in my workplace and I see it regularly. Note that they are NOT all the same. Christianity (and Jainism to an extent) go a bit further than the rest by expressing a positive command.
you asked for a source, I supplied one. I never said it was the only one. As for separation working both ways, doesn't that end up establishing atheism as the de facto State "belief" system? and would that not, therefore, defeat the purpose of separation in the first place?
Okay, you are entitled to that opinion, but allow me to rebut . . .
"This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. God, in the sense defined, is a delusion;"
Nowhere in his book does he address this point in relation to the God of Judaism or Christianity which both hold that God created the Universe itself. Seems to be a bit of a gap.
Much of Dawkins writings about religion rail against the "bullying, genocidal, egomaniacal" God of the Old Testament, whereas "Christianity" is primarily focused on the New Testament. You know, the one that is primarily focused on the life of Jesus Christ.
Finally, weren't you predisposed to "liking" it's premise from the outset? I was not, but found myself thinking in several spots that he was misrepresenting Christianity in order to bolster his argument, which is a poor tactic. It has been a while since I have read it, but that was the salient memory (FTR, I cribbed the first quote above).
no. the opposite of having religion in the government is not having atheism in government. it's just having no religion.
Nowhere in his book does he address this point in relation to the God of Judaism or Christianity which both hold that God created the Universe itself. Seems to be a bit of a gap.
yeah, i agree that that's not a good argument.
Much of Dawkins writings about religion rail against the "bullying, genocidal, egomaniacal" God of the Old Testament, whereas "Christianity" is primarily focused on the New Testament. You know, the one that is primarily focused on the life of Jesus Christ.
so he starts his argument by attacking the beginning. are you suggesting that jesus and your beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with that old testament god? i know you can't say that the old testament is pointless or wrong, so not quite sure what you're getting at here.
Finally, weren't you predisposed to "liking" it's premise from the outset?
yes. however, i am still very interested in hearing the counter arguments as well (hence why i'm enjoying the discussion here with you), and it's not like i just completely ignore them and dismiss them.
I was not, but found myself thinking in several spots that he was misrepresenting Christianity in order to bolster his argument, which is a poor tactic. It has been a while since I have read it, but that was the salient memory (FTR, I cribbed the first quote above).
.
so he starts his argument by attacking the beginning. are you suggesting that jesus and your beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with that old testament god? i know you can't say that the old testament is pointless or wrong, so not quite sure what you're getting at here.
What he fails to do in relation to the Old Testament is to treat it in the way that Catholics do. Many anti religious people rail about the less palatable practices in the Old Testament (slavery, wife and children as property). Catholics however, view the Old Testament through the prism of the New. For me, I would liken the OT as historical text. Genesis for example is a metaphorical description of the Creation of the Universe. The New Testament is the actual word of God, as related by those who were the disciples of Jesus Christ, who was the Son of God. Which would you deem to be more relevant to a discussion of Christianity?
yes. however, i am still very interested in hearing the counter arguments as well (hence why i'm enjoying the discussion here with you), and it's not like i just completely ignore them and dismiss them.
Try reading "God is no Delusion", or "The Smart Shepherd" If you want a really quick read, you could try "Why Catholics are Right" by Michael Coren
Apologies for misinterpreting where you were heading on the atheism/theism portion. One could argue that the Establishment Clause "should" prevent Religions from inserting themselves into the public discourse though, as we have seen, that is not the case.
Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that all too many people think that Religion is anti-science, when the two are not incompatible at all. In order for one to believe that they are, one needs to be fairly selective in which denominations/sects they pick and choose in their examples. the Catholic church has long history of supporting and promoting scientific research and discovery (waiting patiently for someone to bring up Gallileo . . .).
800 . . . what I said was that the person voting on the legislation is probably not the person who wrote it, and I think I am pretty solid on that. Feel free to correct me.
Does this translate to roughly: "I have absolutely nothing to back that up but air?"
The man who put the monsanto provision into the budget bill in the US is a US senator. THey write the bills as well. AND that's not what you "said" you said that the people who write the legislation follow science. It's not the case. The people who create and vote on legislation do not follow science. THey follow ideologies.
Comments
See bolded.
Mark
Eventually he opened fire and killed one person of a group.
Does anyone remember this and the outcome?
Edit.. here is the story http://abcnews.go.com/US/widow-texas-man-shot-neighbor-heart-breaks-trayvon/story?id=19642899
Dawkins? Really? Please find a better representative than that if you wish to refute my earlier statement. The man is a hack, and there are far better people to bolster your argument than him.
So, the fact that I don't want to see youth who are most often disadvantaged through nature, nurture, or just dumb luck ruin their lives has to have a root in religion? People, in general, are good people. People feel bad for other people when they hear of terrible things happening to them. You don't need religion to be a morally responsible or "good" person, you need empathy.
I never said that it had to have a "root" in religion. What I said is that the desire to help people avoid ruining their lives, that empathy for them you spoke of, is a very Christian ethic. That is not disputable . . .
Further still one could argue that I direct my efforts in such an occupation because it has been shown to be more cost effective than imprisonment, and therefore I'm just saving my own tax dollars :smilie:
Well, the Lord helps those who help themselves, no?
Seriously, though, it does not change the fact that your line of work is a very "Christian" one, regardless of your motivation.
I'm glad, legit, that these little arguments have helped you find whatever you feel it is you need.
Actually, the point I was trying to make was that these discussions have helped to coalesce some thoughts I did not expect, and was not looking to find. As I said, I have failed in my Faith. I came to wonder why and, in trying to figure out what it was about the Faith of my childhood that I lost/disputed/whatever, I came to the realization that what was missing was the strength to live it. I do not feel that I "need" my Faith, as I think that is an immature way to approach it. Rather, I am at the point now of debating whether I have the strength to return to my Faith. It is a question of being proactive rather than passive.
I did the same type of work Mark does for 10 years, albeit with Federal inmates getting out of prison. At no point in time did I feel that my work was Christian in any way, nor did I feel more or less Christian for doing it. The fact that this type of work has parallels to Christian themes in terms of motivation, does not make it Christian work in any way. Painting 'social work' as Christian is wrong in my opinion, and I know many social workers who would find it insulting.
With that in mind, allow me to restate the earlier point in this way . . .
Social work, of the type that Mark currently engages in, parallels the Christian ethos very closely. I find that ironic, given his vehemently anti-religious outlook.
Fair enough?
I wish I could like this 1000x... maybe fedh8r can lend me some of his accounts.
Mark
Most religions have "the golden rule" of 'don't be a dick, just like you don't like being treated like a dick' is pretty universal
This is a poster I used to have,
Religion needs to remember that the idea of "love thy neighbour" is a basic human trait that they brought into their rules, not their teachings that got us to be good to one another. Not that stealing credit / authority for ideas is anything new for religion anyways.
Mark
Yes, the Golden Rule is fairly universal, but no one has claimed otherwise.
And it may be a basic human trait, as you say, but so is the idea of conquest, of taking from another tribe/country/whatever in order to improve the lot of "your" tribe/country/whatever.
Perhaps Religion deserves the credit for codifying it in a way that states outright that such empathy is more important than the desire for "more" for oneself and one's kin.
I was just providing an argument about your earlier statement that my job is religious based.. parallel as the other guy said sure, but that's not because religion taught me anything, it's because my basic nature and moral compass did.
Conquest is also a natural thing, sure. Wonder if religion ever stole that too.....
Mark
are you really so naive to state this is the same response where you claim that "love thy neighbour" is a christian trait and you don't see the irony?
welcome to religion, pick up your blinders at pew #4 and then have a lovely body of christ vanilla oreo
Mark seemed to be implying that empathy (love thy neighbour0 is an instinctual human characteristic. I was pointing out another, less savoury one, while commenting that Religion tends to focus on the more empathic traits than the avaricious ones. It is not naivete at all . . .
As for your jibe about the transubstantiation of the water and wine during the Sacrament of the Eucharist, someone like myself can see the humour, but a more devout Catholic would take offence. I have tried to be respectful during this conversation and I would appreciate the same in return. Criticism and debate are one thing, but some would take that as an insult to their Faith. Not me, but some might . . .
See bolded.
...which is the greater injustice to the people of the world?
Are they not Oreos?
And no . . . not Oreos. Maybe in Sunday school . . . out.
Least scientific members of the House Science Committee - Salon.com
Aren't people on the white house science committee the ones making scientific policy?
You keep using that word (irony) but I do not thing you know what it means.
Either the classical (i.e. using a word in the opposite of its meaning) or the usual (i.e. Rain on your wedding day), the fact that I am - and I hate to admit this - a guy that likes to help people matches my job pretty succinctly.
Am I an ass? Sure. But I rarely try and attack people or make their situation worse. Even when I'm mean, there's usually a base of trying to help someone.
Mark
I think this speaks to Mark's point about the whole math thing. Stupid folks elect stupid representatives for Government. And stupid folks misinterpret the Bible (or Torah, or Koran, etc.) all the time.
As for making actual policy, I am not 100% certain of the process, but it would not surprise me to discover that the actual legislation that these morons vote upon is formulated by bureaucrats (much like it is in Ottawa) who in turn base those pieces of legislation on what is requested or recommended by those in the field (the ACTUAL scientific types). I stand willing to be corrected about that though . . .
And you are an ass . . . but you're our kind of ass, so it's cool.
I find it interesting that the parallel between your attitude (as stated and restated), and the Christian concept of treating others as you would have them treat you (the Golden Rule), does not seem ironic to you given your apparent disdain for Religion. I also do not recall stating that your attitude had it's basis in Faith, merely that the parallel existed.
I guess it's just me . . . anyway, Pulled Pork is almost ready. Check back after supper.
Policy in the US driven by science? Policy in Canada driven by science?
You have zero idea of what goes on in the US and only slightly more of what goes on in Ottawa.
Policy is driven by what is expedient. You think the current government takes its queues from Science?
Ever heard of Monsanto? $ rules the house in the US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K4pfiYK2IQ
There are states where the legislator voted to make it legal to present creationism in SCIENCE class. And that is something that happened recently!!!
The current Canadian government has made it against the rules for government employees to speak to the media for ANY reason. Lest they step out of line.
Someday I would like to read Human Action by Mises. Anyone else have a book they've just been putting off?
This poster hangs in my workplace and I see it regularly. Note that they are NOT all the same. Christianity (and Jainism to an extent) go a bit further than the rest by expressing a positive command.
no, the opposite is not atheism.
god delusion = good read.
The opposite of theism is atheism, no?
Okay, you are entitled to that opinion, but allow me to rebut . . .
"This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. God, in the sense defined, is a delusion;"
Nowhere in his book does he address this point in relation to the God of Judaism or Christianity which both hold that God created the Universe itself. Seems to be a bit of a gap.
Much of Dawkins writings about religion rail against the "bullying, genocidal, egomaniacal" God of the Old Testament, whereas "Christianity" is primarily focused on the New Testament. You know, the one that is primarily focused on the life of Jesus Christ.
Finally, weren't you predisposed to "liking" it's premise from the outset? I was not, but found myself thinking in several spots that he was misrepresenting Christianity in order to bolster his argument, which is a poor tactic. It has been a while since I have read it, but that was the salient memory (FTR, I cribbed the first quote above).
no. the opposite of having religion in the government is not having atheism in government. it's just having no religion.
yeah, i agree that that's not a good argument.
so he starts his argument by attacking the beginning. are you suggesting that jesus and your beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with that old testament god? i know you can't say that the old testament is pointless or wrong, so not quite sure what you're getting at here.
yes. however, i am still very interested in hearing the counter arguments as well (hence why i'm enjoying the discussion here with you), and it's not like i just completely ignore them and dismiss them.
you are entitled to your opinion as well.
Apologies for misinterpreting where you were heading on the atheism/theism portion. One could argue that the Establishment Clause "should" prevent Religions from inserting themselves into the public discourse though, as we have seen, that is not the case.
Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that all too many people think that Religion is anti-science, when the two are not incompatible at all. In order for one to believe that they are, one needs to be fairly selective in which denominations/sects they pick and choose in their examples. the Catholic church has long history of supporting and promoting scientific research and discovery (waiting patiently for someone to bring up Gallileo . . .).
Does this translate to roughly: "I have absolutely nothing to back that up but air?"
The man who put the monsanto provision into the budget bill in the US is a US senator. THey write the bills as well. AND that's not what you "said" you said that the people who write the legislation follow science. It's not the case. The people who create and vote on legislation do not follow science. THey follow ideologies.