NationStates Jolt Archive

It's tucked into a story about organized religious groups (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/08religious.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin) of all faiths are given regulatory exemptions over secular groups doing the same functions--day care centers, bookstores, etc. But about halfway down we get this gem of a quote from none other than Tom DeLay (R-Asshole):
Society “treats Christianity like a second-class superstition,” Tom DeLay, then a Republican representative from Texas, told the crowd. “Seen from that perspective, of course there is a war on religion.”
This has been your eyerolling quote of the day.

Calling christianity a second class superstition is a vast overstatement. Like all religions, it is a waste of human potential.

It's tucked into a story about organized religious groups (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/08religious.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin) of all faiths are given regulatory exemptions over secular groups doing the same functions--day care centers, bookstores, etc. But about halfway down we get this gem of a quote from none other than Tom DeLay (R-Asshole):

This has been your eyerolling quote of the day.

"Organized religion" is an oxymoron. ;)

"Organized religion" is an oxymoron. ;)
Religion, especially the major christian sects, is one of the most organized areas out there--on the business end. On the doctrinal end you may have a point, but when it comes to taking in the cash and keeping it, they're on a level of their own.

Nah, that's not as good as this:

“We have talked about getting licensed before in the past, but it would cost us quite a bit of money,” Pastor Fuson said.
Why bother being a fair establishment when you can be an unfair one for freeee?

Calling christianity a second class superstition is a vast overstatement. Like all religions, it is a waste of human potential.
The Rev Dr. Martian Luther King Jr.
Florence Nightingale
Mother Terresa
Thomas Moore
Pope John Paul II
Charles Darwin
And so on and so forth... so... what potential was waisted?

Religion, especially the major christian sects, is one of the most organized areas out there--on the business end. On the doctrinal end you may have a point, but when it comes to taking in the cash and keeping it, they're on a level of their own.

They have to pay for thier temples of mindlessness somehow. Milking the flock is the easiest way.

Sadly, it's true. Society (not conservatives that much, though) is engaged in a war against religion, and it is trying to squish it out of everyday life. Their ire is particularly directed against Christianity.

Religion, especially the major christian sects, is one of the most organized areas out there--on the business end. On the doctrinal end you may have a point, but when it comes to taking in the cash and keeping it, they're on a level of their own.

True, but what I was referring to is that religion, particularly the truly spiritual sort, is a highly personal thing. "Organizing" it only serves to supress it. :)

The Rev Dr. Martian Luther King Jr.
Florence Nightingale
Mother Terresa
Thomas Moore
Pope John Paul II
Charles Darwin
And so on and so forth... so... what potential was waisted?
How about I post a list of brilliant famous people who were on drugs? Would that list be proof that drug addiction fosters human genius?

Here's a starter list:

Aurelius, Marcus (Opium)
Baudelaire, Charles (Absinthe)
The Beatles (cannabis, LSD, etc)
Browning, Elizabeth Barrett (Opium)
Burroughs, William (Cocaine, Heroin, Mescaline, Opium, Psilocybin, LSD, Cannabis, Ayahuasca...)
Charles, Ray (Heroin)
Dickens, Charles (Opium)
Doyle, Arthur Conan (Opium, Cocaine)
Dumas, Alexander (Hashish)
Franklin, Ben (Opium, Cannabis)
Freud, Sigmund (Cocaine)
Gates, Bill (LSD)
Ginsberg, Allen (Nitrous)
Grant, Ulysses S. (Cocaine, Alcohol)

And that's just up through the G's.

The Rev Dr. Martian Luther King Jr.
Florence Nightingale
Mother Terresa
Thomas Moore
Pope John Paul II
Charles Darwin
And so on and so forth... so... what potential was waisted?

The Good will do good, and the Evil shall do evil no matter what. It takes religion to make a Good Man do evil.

It's tucked into a story about organized religious groups (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/08religious.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin) of all faiths are given regulatory exemptions over secular groups doing the same functions--day care centers, bookstores, etc. But about halfway down we get this gem of a quote from none other than Tom DeLay (R-Asshole):

This has been your eyerolling quote of the day.

Trying to paint the rest of society with the broad brush of out-group homogeneity is a great way to get freeeeeeee money!

How about I post a list of brilliant famous people who were on drugs? Would that list be proof that drug addiction fosters human genius?
So you feel then, that Dr King, whose message of equality had a very string religious component in it was waisting his potential?

Sadly, it's true. Society (not conservatives that much, though) is engaged in a war against religion, and it is trying to squish it out of everyday life. Their ire is particularly directed against Christianity.

I don't think that is quite true, although that Dawkins fella is havein a bash at it. Subjectivity huh! Wot can ya do!

The Rev Dr. Martian Luther King Jr.
Florence Nightingale
Mother Terresa
Thomas Moore
Pope John Paul II
Charles Darwin
And so on and so forth... so... what potential was waisted?

In your examples, perhaps none. What of those who might have acheived greatness, were it not for religion stifling their creativity, their potetial genius?

The Good will do good, and the Evil shall do evil no matter what. It takes religion to make a Good Man do evil.
And sometimes religions inspire greatness. Try not to paint ALL those who follow a religion with so broad a brush, hmm?

So you feel then, that Dr King, whose message of equality had a very string religious component in it was waisting his potential?

The only people qualified to comment on the unrealized potential of an individual is the individual themselves. :p

The Good will do good, and the Evil shall do evil no matter what. It takes religion to make a Good Man do evil.

Nah, most any ideology is general is what you really need to get good-hearted people to do evil, be it religious or political or something else.

Fear will also work in a pinch.

In your examples, perhaps none. What of those who might have acheived greatness, were it not for religion stifling their creativity, their potetial genius?
Oh good, and we can say the same of the pure atheist countries of the (former) USSR and China.

Religion can be both good and evil, just like every other human agency on this planet, it has been used to cause a LOT of pain and suffering, but it has also been used for a lot of good.

Nah, most any ideology is general is what you really need to get good-hearted people to do evil, be it religious or political or something else.

Fear will also work in a pinch.

Kinda like it's "ok to slaughter the heathen?" That sort of evil?

The only people qualified to comment on the unrealized potential of an individual is the individual themselves. :p
Very true, which is why I was confused as to the orginal point that somehow they were stiffled by their religious convictions.

Oh good, and we can say the same of the pure atheist countries of the (former) USSR and China.

Religion can be both good and evil, just like every other human agency on this planet, it has been used to cause a LOT of pain and suffering, but it has also been used for a lot of good.

Most of the "good" that comes out of belief comes from dedicated individuals, not organizations.

How about I post a list of brilliant famous people who were on drugs? Would that list be proof that drug addiction fosters human genius?

*looks up from lines on mirror*

Works for me!

*snort*

Very true, which is why I was confused as to the orginal point that somehow they were stiffled by their religious convictions.

Not at a personal level, at least not usually. It takes control of religious belief to do that.

Kinda like it's "ok to slaughter the heathen?" That sort of evil?
Actually there was a very (in)famous study about that. It led to protections in research subjects, but the study had people come in and give actors electric shocks because they were told to by people in white coats. Most people actually gave the shocks, even when the actors were screaming in (mock) pain and the voltage, if it had been real, would have killed them.

Sometimes all it takes is perseved athority.

Kinda like it's "ok to slaughter the heathen?" That sort of evil?

Pretty much, of course in the place of heathen, various historical groups have inserted plenty of different words there.

Seeing as the vast majority of USAmerican society IS Christian (I seem to remember something of 75% or 80%, but I'm not sure on those numbers), maybe - just maybe - they just begin to figure it out themselves that most of it is superstition?
Maybe they need this constant feeling of being prosecuted so they won't have time to seriously have a critical look at their religion, out of fear that it might turn out to be bogus?

So you feel then, that Dr King, whose message of equality had a very string religious component in it was waisting his potential?
I believe that Dr. King's potential was not created by his religiosity. Religion didn't make him an amazing person, he was an amazing person who happened to be religious and to use religion as a way to move through his life.

Similarly, the amazing people who happened to be drug addicts were not made amazing by the drugs. Opium didn't make Ben Franklin a brilliant man, he was a brilliant man who happened to use opium. Maybe he wouldn't have been able to be as brilliant without opium to take the edge off the day for him, but maybe he would have been even more brilliant if he hadn't been drug-addled as often as he was. We'll never know.

One thing we do know, though, is that taking opium isn't going to make you a better or more brilliant person than you already are...just like religion isn't going to make you any better than you are to begin with. Christianity didn't give any of those famous people their potential. There are many brilliant people who manage to be brilliant despite being superstitious, just like there are many brilliant people who have managed to be brilliant despite wrestling with depression or drug addiction, but it is bonkers to attribute their brilliance to the very things which most likely hamper their genius.

Actually there was a very (in)famous study about that. It led to protections in research subjects, but the study had people come in and give actors electric shocks because they were told to by people in white coats. Most people actually gave the shocks, even when the actors were screaming in (mock) pain and the voltage, if it had been real, would have killed them.

Sometimes all it takes is perseved athority.

The Milgram study...

...boy that one's scary.

Most of the "good" that comes out of belief comes from dedicated individuals, not organizations.
The Salvation Army and St Jude's Children's Hospital spring instantly to mind, along with various churches running local soup kitchens, donations, clothing drives, and so on and so forth.

It CAN do a lot of good. I would submit that it HAS done a lot of good for all the bad that has come up.

The problem being that good doesn't annoy people as much as bad and (excepting my grandfather) I have yet to meet people who complain about good things. ;)

The Good will do good, and the Evil shall do evil no matter what. It takes religion to make a Good Man do evil.

Naaa that again is just one of the(misqouted) bit's of rubbish that sounds good, but is in rality a load of tosh.

So money for instance wouldn't make a good man do bad things? Or love, or fear, or hatred, take ya pick, religion huh wot are you like!

Pretty much, of course in the place of heathen, various historical groups have inserted plenty of different words there.

One would hope that someday we will outgrow the need to apply our categrizing tendencies to groups of other humans, but I won't hold my breath. Sigh. :(

Very true, which is why I was confused as to the orginal point that somehow they were stiffled by their religious convictions.

I apologize for causing confusion. Any organization or dogma, (including atheism) that stifles the human ability to think for themselves, stifles their potential genius. I merely commented on the religious tendency to stifle free thought here, because that seemed to be the subject of this thread.

One would hope that someday we will outgrow the need to apply our categrizing tendencies to groups of other humans, but I won't hold my breath. Sigh. :(

Out group homogeneity...boo.

It's a tragic old survival instinct that since the dawn of the global system it's become totally redundant.

Out group homogeneity...boo.

It's a tragic old survival instinct that since the dawn of the global system it's become totally redundant.

Exactly! [ smiles at Andaluciae ] :)

I believe that Dr. King's potential was not created by his religiosity. Religion didn't make him an amazing person, he was an amazing person who happened to be religious and to use religion as a way to move through his life.

Similarly, the amazing people who happened to be drug addicts were not made amazing by the drugs. Opium didn't make Ben Franklin a brilliant man, he was a brilliant man who happened to use opium. Maybe he wouldn't have been able to be as brilliant without opium to take the edge off the day for him, but maybe he would have been even more brilliant if he hadn't been drug-addled as often as he was. We'll never know.

One thing we do know, though, is that taking opium isn't going to make you a better or more brilliant person than you already are...just like religion isn't going to make you any better than you are to begin with. Christianity didn't give any of those famous people their potential, and we know that Christianity has silenced the potential of literally millions of people throughout history. There are many brilliant people who manage to be brilliant despite being superstitious, just like there are many brilliant people who have managed to be brilliant despite wrestling with depression or drug addiction, but it is bonkers to attribute their brilliance to the very things which most likely hamper their genius.
Florence Nightingale said that her call to nursing was a direct call from God, so said Mother Terresa. Yes, it may be that these people would ahve been great otherwise, we will never know, but as history stands now, even with Dr. King, their faith provided that insperation, the same insperation that Newton received from that blasted apple. Trying to say that Christianity cannot inspire is a false assumtion, we live in a culture that it has inspired (For better or for ill).

If we go where you would lead, we can say that nothing is actually inspireing anyone so if they managed to become great, it doesn't matter if religion was in this world or not because their destiny would pull them through. I don't view the world in so simple a way.

Florence Nightingale said that her call to nursing was a direct call from God, so said Mother Terresa. Yes, it may be that these people would ahve been great otherwise, we will never know, but as history stands now, even with Dr. King, their faith provided that insperation, the same insperation that Newton received from that blasted apple. Trying to say that Christianity cannot inspire is a false assumtion, we live in a culture that it has inspired (For better or for ill).

If we go where you would lead, we can say that nothing is actually inspireing anyone so if they managed to become great, it doesn't matter if religion was in this world or not because their destiny would pull them through. I don't view the world in so simple a way.

Greatness does not spring from a new building fund.

Calling christianity a second class superstition is a vast overstatement. Like all religions, it is a waste of human potential.

Says who?

I apologize for causing confusion. Any organization or dogma, (including atheism) that stifles the human ability to think for themselves, stifles their potential genius. I merely commented on the religious tendency to stifle free thought here, because that seemed to be the subject of this thread.
I thought the point was that Tom DeLey and the fundies were having another persucution complex attack. :confused:

Greatness does not spring from a new building fund.
Uh... ok, I admit that one went wizzing past my ear. Translation please? :cool:

One would hope that someday we will outgrow the need to apply our categrizing tendencies to groups of other humans, but I won't hold my breath. Sigh. :(
Out of curiosity: do you think there are legitimate "categories" that humans can lump each other into, or are all of our "categories" bad?

For instance, I think you are saying that it's a bad idea for us to lump together all people who (for example) believe there is no God, and to view them as a homogenous group of Others. (I agree with this, for the record.)

What about lumping together people who believe, say, that it's okay to stone witches to death? Or people who believe in institutionalized slavery based on ethnicity? Would we be doing wrong to apply our categorizing tendencies to these other humans?

(I'm honestly curious about what you think on this, I'm not trying to be a jackass or anything. For once.)

I thought the point was that Tom DeLey and the fundies were having another persucution complex attack. :confused:

Nothing like a percieved threat from outsiders to galvanize the "true believer."

I thought the point was that Tom DeLey and the fundies were having another persucution complex attack. :confused:

I think DeLay doesn't have any delusions on this matter, I think he just says this shit while his brain goes "moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney moneymoney"

Says who?

I for one think that the human species is more likely to realize its highest potential, once it gives up its outdated superstitions (read: religions).

Nothing like a percieved threat from outsiders to galvanize the "true believer."
Sadly, yes.

Out of curiosity: do you think there are legitimate "categories" that humans can lump each other into, or are all of our "categories" bad?

For instance, I think you are saying that it's a bad idea for us to lump together all people who (for example) believe there is no God, and to view them as a homogenous group of Others. (I agree with this, for the record.)

What about lumping together people who believe, say, that it's okay to stone witches to death? Or people who believe in institutionalized slavery based on ethnicity? Would we be doing wrong to apply our categorizing tendencies to these other humans?

(I'm honestly curious about what you think on this, I'm not trying to be a jackass or anything. For once.)

I think it's a wish that human society in general would stop doing this stuff, and that if we did, then so many of those bum things would stop happening.

Out of curiosity: do you think there are legitimate "categories" that humans can lump each other into, or are all of our "categories" bad?

No. All responsibility is ultimately individual. It's not that all categories are either "bad" or "good," those are value judgments about something that simply "is." But trying to hold an organization responsible for behavior causes us to fall into the same trap as that which we bemoan in others: lumping all members of an organization into a fallacious "category," that of "member."

I for one think that the human species is more likely to realize its highest potential, once it gives up its outdated superstitions (read: religions).

You think? That is to say you belive it to be, or an other way you have put faith into this idea and think it correct?

Religion like it or loathe it does seem to be a part of the normal human pyske. If it is quite normal for some to belive in God and some not to then why not just live and let live? Both parties that is. Religin is not the cause of fuckupedness, people are.

Florence Nightingale said that her call to nursing was a direct call from God, so said Mother Terresa. Yes, it may be that these people would ahve been great otherwise, we will never know, but as history stands now, even with Dr. King, their faith provided that insperation, the same insperation that Newton received from that blasted apple. Trying to say that Christianity cannot inspire is a false assumtion, we live in a culture that it has inspired (For better or for ill).

Dude, cocaine can inspire. Genocide can inspire. Tragedy can inspire.

A fellow in my department recently received a major prize for outstanding work in genetics. His life-long work has been inspired by the starvation he witnessed in his home village growing up, and his desire to help his people through science. Starvation has been his inspiration and his motivation.

Does this mean we should honor and preserve starvation because it sometimes inspires great work? Or should we maybe consider that starvation can inspire some great work, while simultaneously killing off the potential of countless human beings? Should we view starvation as a "net gain" for humanity because it has been an inspiration for a great man?

I don't know what the "net gain" or "net loss" due to Christianity may be. I'm just saying that you can't list a few brilliant Christians as if it were some kind of proof that Christianity provides a net gain to potential or genius or brilliance.

If we go where you would lead, we can say that nothing is actually inspireing anyone so if they managed to become great, it doesn't matter if religion was in this world or not because their destiny would pull them through. I don't view the world in so simple a way.
"Where I would lead" is to the conclusion that we should give credit to the PEOPLE who do brilliant things, instead of creditting superstition or drugs or depression or starvation. Their genius should be respected. Their achievements should be celebrated.

Our inspirations are individual. What inspires me to do great things might never inspire another living human being in the world. Hell, what inspires me might very well drag down any other person on the planet. Don't worry too much about that stuff. Just recognize that genius tends to find inspirations when it needs to, and that the genius is what really matters.

No. All responsibility is ultimately individual. It's not that all categories are either "bad" or "good," those are value judgments about something that simply "is." But trying to hold an organization responsible for behavior causes us to fall into the same trap as that which we bemoan in others: lumping all members of an organization into a fallacious "category," that of "member."
Ahhhhh!

If somebody is a racist jackass, we shouldn't blame "racism," as a category, for them being a jackass...we should blame THEM for being a racist jackass. We shouldn't blame the KKK for having members, we should blame the members of the KKK, individually, for the fact that the KKK exists.

No argument here!

You think? That is to say you belive it to be, or an other way you have put faith into this idea and think it correct?

You are correct it is what I think or believe. I could be wrong. If I am, then time will tell, and if I am alive, then I will alter my opinion.


Religion like it or loathe it does seem to be a part of the normal human pyske. If it is quite normal for some to belive in God and some not to then why not just live and let live? Both parties that is. Religin is not the cause of fuckupedness, people are.

Humanity does seem to have a need to believe, and to organize in groups around those beleifs. However allowing another to think for you not only stifles your individuality, it opens up the potential for you to be manipulated into committing acts of "evil"

Ahhhhh!

If somebody is a racist jackass, we shouldn't blame "racism," as a category, for them being a jackass...we should blame THEM for being a racist jackass. We shouldn't blame the KKK for having members, we should blame the members of the KKK, individually, for the fact that the KKK exists.

No argument here!

:D

It's nice to find someone on here who at least agrees with something I write! :D

Dude, cocaine can inspire. Genocide can inspire. Tragedy can inspire.

A fellow in my department recently received a major prize for outstanding work in genetics. His life-long work has been inspired by the starvation he witnessed in his home village growing up, and his desire to help his people through science. Starvation has been his inspiration and his motivation.

Does this mean we should honor and preserve starvation because it sometimes inspires great work? Or should we maybe consider that starvation can inspire some great work, while simultaneously killing off the potential of countless human beings? Should we view starvation as a "net gain" for humanity because it has been an inspiration for a great man?

I don't know what the "net gain" or "net loss" due to Christianity may be. I'm just saying that you can't list a few brilliant Christians as if it were some kind of proof that Christianity provides a net gain to potential or genius or brilliance.
I didn't feel like doing a history report tonight. My point being though, religion is not an evil sickness that blackens all that it touches. You say that I cannot show a net gain, I say you cannot show a net loss. My orginal point it just that, religion can and does inspire people to greatness, it has and will keep doing that, even as it also does great evil because in the end, it is the humans who have faith that decide what to do with the damn thing.

As tired as I am about the hubris of folks like DeLey, I also grow tried of the calls that all people who have religious faith are somehow misguided at best. I also grow very weary of being painted with the same brush.

Sadly, it's true. Society (not conservatives that much, though) is engaged in a war against religion, and it is trying to squish it out of everyday life. Their ire is particularly directed against Christianity.

Perhaps this is because Christianity particularly seems to be at war with secularism, and seeks to impose its set of values on the rest of the nation.

Intelligent Design, forbidding abortion, and forbidding marriage between two consenting adults on the basis that "it's icky" being just three things I can think of off the bat -- and guess what -- I'm a Christian!

You are correct it is what I think or believe. I could be wrong. If I am, then time will tell, and if I am alive, then I will alter my opinion.



Humanity does seem to have a need to believe, and to organize in groups around those beleifs. However allowing another to think for you not only stifles your individuality, it opens up the potential for you to be manipulated into committing acts of "evil"


And thats how you equate the religious then is it? I don't understand that at all, where did you get that one from then?

I didn't feel like doing a history report tonight. My point being though, religion is not an evil sickness that blackens all that it touches.

You are the only one who has described religion as such in this thread. I certainly have not done so, I've simply pointed out that your choice of listing famous religious individuals doesn't establish that religion was the cause of their greatness, any more than cocaine use by famous people indicates that cocaine is the cause of greatness. It also doesn't prove that superstition/cocaine don't stifle genius, since it's completely possible that geniuses overcome the hampering effects of either of these factors. Maybe that's what makes them geniuses.


You say that I cannot show a net gain, I say you cannot show a net loss.

I've already stated as much. I happen to believe that superstition is a negative, but that's my subjective opinion. It's like how I happen to believe that racism is a negative, even though there have been many brilliant racists over the course of human history. It's my opinion, and I haven't even tried to prove it in this thread.


My orginal point it just that, religion can and does inspire people to greatness, it has and will keep doing that, even as it also does great evil because in the end, it is the humans who have faith that decide what to do with the damn thing.

Sure. But, if I'm not mistaken, the original issue that sparked this whole thing was the question of whether or not religion stifles potential, not whether it acts as inspiration for some people. A lot of great musicians have been inspired by drugs, but drugs also simultaneously stifled their gifts and limited their potential.


As tired as I am about the hubris of folks like DeLey, I also grow tried of the calls that all people who have religious faith are somehow misguided at best.

I believe that superstition is misguided, just as I believe that cocaine addiction is misguided. However, I believe that a lot of very smart, nice, cool people are superstitious, just as a lot of smart, nice, cool people become addicted to coke. I also believe a lot of people who are misguided are not superstitious or on coke. Superstition isn't the root cause of brilliance or of stupidity, it's just a manefestation of human psychological needs.

Naaa that again is just one of the(misqouted) bit's of rubbish that sounds good, but is in rality a load of tosh.

So money for instance wouldn't make a good man do bad things? Or love, or fear, or hatred, take ya pick, religion huh wot are you like!

No. It wouldn't. A Good person in this context is someone whose primary motivation is morality, he will not do evil for lust of material things because he believes in his morality. The only thing that can make him do evil is if you pervert his sense of morality. While I am not saying that all religion does that, I am saying that some does, and that is what allows the Good to do evil.

Florence Nightingale said that her call to nursing was a direct call from God, so said Mother Terresa. Yes, it may be that these people would ahve been great otherwise, we will never know, but as history stands now, even with Dr. King, their faith provided that insperation, the same insperation that Newton received from that blasted apple. Trying to say that Christianity cannot inspire is a false assumtion, we live in a culture that it has inspired (For better or for ill).

If we go where you would lead, we can say that nothing is actually inspireing anyone so if they managed to become great, it doesn't matter if religion was in this world or not because their destiny would pull them through. I don't view the world in so simple a way.

My argument is that Florence Nightingale and Mother Teresa could just have easily have been motivated by the secular, unselfish urge simply to help the last fortunate. Which to me sounds a lot more sincere than 'I did it because God told me', (bare in mind that I don't believe God is telling anybody to do anything).

There is a degree of selfishness in doing something for reward in the afterlife, and a sense of unavoidability if you beleive your actions are done as a duty to God. I find unselfish, charitable acts from those who do not believe they shall receive any spiritual reward to be much more impressive, and not a lot rarer.

No. It wouldn't. A Good person in this context is someone whose primary motivation is morality, he will not do evil for lust of material things because he believes in his morality. The only thing that can make him do evil is if you pervert his sense of morality. While I am not saying that all religion does that, I am saying that some does, and that is what allows the Good to do evil.

The problem with this outlook is that it assumes a Platonic ideal of morality, when morality is subjective and dependent on time, place and circumstance. What might seem morally perverse to me in this place and time might be perfectly moral to a society in completely different circumstances.

Calling christianity a second class superstition is a vast overstatement. Like all religions, it is a waste of human potential.

Yes, it sure is a waste of human potential.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003293170_amish07.html

GEORGETOWN, Pa. — A 13-year-old Amish girl killed by a schoolhouse gunman asked to be shot first in an attempt to buy time for the younger students, according to accounts that surfaced Friday.

The girl's 11-year-old sister then reportedly said, "Shoot me next."

Two survivors of the shooting told their parents that Marian Fisher asked to be shot first, apparently hoping the younger girls would be let go, according to Leroy Zook, an Amish dairy farmer.

"Shoot me and leave the other ones loose," Marian has been quoted as saying, Zook said. His daughter, Emma Mae Zook, was the teacher who ran from the schoolhouse to a farm to summon police.

Yeah, that Christian faith - what a worthless concept that is - and even more worthless to try to live up to. :rolleyes:

No. It wouldn't. A Good person in this context is someone whose primary motivation is morality, he will not do evil for lust of material things because he believes in his morality. The only thing that can make him do evil is if you pervert his sense of morality. While I am not saying that all religion does that, I am saying that some does, and that is what allows the Good to do evil.


Really? So you maintian that money has no power to change morality?, or power, or lust, or hatred, or closemindedness or lot's of other things barring religion that I can name. Not only was it a misquote, it just wasn't true either.

Yes, it sure is a waste of human potential.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003293170_amish07.html



Yeah, that Christian faith - what a worthless concept that is - and even more worthless to try to live up to. :rolleyes:
Frankly, I find it sickening that you would try to take the credit from that brave girl and stick it onto a superstition.

What she did was amazing. HER. She did it. "Christianity" didn't do shit. That individual girl did something great, and we have no way of knowing if she would have done it if she were reared Muslim or atheist or whatever.

Maybe she did it because she was born female and was taught to be selfless and nurturing of others! Maybe she did it because she grew up in a society that hates technology! Maybe she did it because of her belief in Jeebus! Maybe her sisters followed her lead because of their bond of sisterhood!

Instead of wasting time speculating about which of their many beliefs to credit for their actions, how's about we credit THEM for doing what they did?

Yes, it sure is a waste of human potential.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003293170_amish07.html



Yeah, that Christian faith - what a worthless concept that is - and even more worthless to try to live up to. :rolleyes:

How do you know it was their faith that caused those girls to make that decision, and not something else pushing their sense of self-sacrifice? I mean, it's possible that for those girls, it was faith that helped them make that decision, but that certainly 1) doesn't preclude non-believers from having the same selflessness and 2) doesn't mean that all people with faith would have made the same decision, even though they ostensibly have the same belief systems in place.

How do you know it was their faith that caused those girls to make that decision, and not something else pushing their sense of self-sacrifice? I mean, it's possible that for those girls, it was faith that helped them make that decision, but that certainly 1) doesn't preclude non-believers from having the same selflessness and 2) doesn't mean that all people with faith would have made the same decision, even though they ostensibly have the same belief systems in place.
Exactly. Plenty of people of faith have not behaved that way in similar circumstances, so it's clearly not the faith itself which created that behavior. There have also been plenty of cases where non-Christians have behaved in self-sacrificing ways, or have shown remarkable courage in the face of a horrible situation.

It's like I keep saying: there are amazing people who happen to be superstitious, and there are amazing people who aren't superstitious. Superstition doesn't magically make non-amazing people into amazing people, and it doesn't automatically make amazing people into non-amazing people. Superstition (or lack thereof) is just one part of a whole person, and is just one motivation among many. It's silly to try to put all the significance on one motivation, to the exclusion of all other factors.

Really? So you maintian that money has no power to change morality?, or power, or lust, or hatred, or closemindedness or lot's of other things barring religion that I can name. Not only was it a misquote, it just wasn't true either.

I'm talking about the most extreme cases of Goodness, the people listed in this thread who have made almost superhuman sacrifices. Most people, while perhaps being overwhelmingly Good, are corruptable, and that is where money, power, lust and all those other great things can make people do evil. But, as I state again, only religion can make the uncorruptable perform acts of what may subjectively be called 'evil'.

Exactly. Plenty of people of faith have not behaved that way in similar circumstances, so it's clearly not the faith itself which created that behavior. There have also been plenty of cases where non-Christians have behaved in self-sacrificing ways, or have shown remarkable courage in the face of a horrible situation.

It's like I keep saying: there are amazing people who happen to be superstitious, and there are amazing people who aren't superstitious. Superstition doesn't magically make non-amazing people into amazing people, and it doesn't automatically make amazing people into non-amazing people. Superstition (or lack thereof) is just one part of a whole person, and is just one motivation among many. It's silly to try to put all the significance on one motivation, to the exclusion of all other factors.

hear hear!

Exactly. Plenty of people of faith have not behaved that way in similar circumstances, so it's clearly not the faith itself which created that behavior. There have also been plenty of cases where non-Christians have behaved in self-sacrificing ways, or have shown remarkable courage in the face of a horrible situation.

It's like I keep saying: there are amazing people who happen to be superstitious, and there are amazing people who aren't superstitious. Superstition doesn't magically make non-amazing people into amazing people, and it doesn't automatically make amazing people into non-amazing people. Superstition (or lack thereof) is just one part of a whole person, and is just one motivation among many. It's silly to try to put all the significance on one motivation, to the exclusion of all other factors.
But it's examples like the one DK posited that allow members of the group to feel good about themselves by comparison. It's a vicarious sense of righteousness that they're after, the sens that because they belong to the same group as this person that did a good thing, that goodness then rubs off on them. It's not unlike being a fan of a sports team and identifying with their ups and downs on the field--when the team wins, the person feels victorious, and when the team loses, the person feels down (and don't even get into what happens when the team loses because of a controversy).

I'm talking about the most extreme cases of Goodness, the people listed in this thread who have made almost superhuman sacrifices. Most people, while perhaps being overwhelmingly Good, are corruptable, and that is where money, power, lust and all those other great things can make people do evil. But, as I state again, only religion can make the uncorruptable perform acts of what may subjectively be called 'evil'.

But you are clearly wrong, I have sugessted that money alone can do this? Do you really disagree, or shall we step out and find some examples?

It's tucked into a story about organized religious groups (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/08religious.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin) of all faiths are given regulatory exemptions over secular groups doing the same functions--day care centers, bookstores, etc. But about halfway down we get this gem of a quote from none other than Tom DeLay (R-Asshole):

Society “treats Christianity like a second-class superstition,” Tom DeLay, then a Republican representative from Texas, told the crowd. “Seen from that perspective, of course there is a war on religion.”
This has been your eyerolling quote of the day.

Well let’s see shall we?

Quotes in this thread that show opinions of the type what Tom Delay might have been referring to:

Calling christianity a second class superstition is a vast overstatement. Like all religions, it is a waste of human potential.

...
Maybe they need this constant feeling of being prosecuted so they won't have time to seriously have a critical look at their religion, out of fear that it might turn out to be bogus?


And if you take Bottle’s opinions, she all by herself represents the ‘Society’ Tom DeLay was talking about, exactly.

... Christianity didn't give any of those famous people their potential. There are many brilliant people who manage to be brilliant despite being superstitious, just like there are many brilliant people who have managed to be brilliant despite wrestling with depression or drug addiction, but it is bonkers to attribute their brilliance to the very things which most likely hamper their genius.

Equates Christianity with an addiction that needs to be overcome...

...
What she did was amazing. HER. She did it. "Christianity" didn't do shit. That individual girl did something great, and we have no way of knowing if she would have done it if she were reared Muslim or atheist or whatever.
...

Here she shows her true feelings, that Christianity is incapable of being credited for assisting.

If the opinions are true or not true is irrelevant to the point being made. Tom DeLay said there is a society that treats his religion like a second hand superstition, and the majority of the opinions expressed in this thread DO claim Christianity is a superstition, how then is the observation Tom DeLay made incorrect? In fact, this thread proves he was right if the people in this forum can be thought of as representing the ‘Society’ he speaking of…

I think you lost your point of mocking his claim.

In fact, this thread proves he was right if the people in this forum can be thought of as representing the ‘Society’ he speaking of…

I think you lost your point of mocking his claim.

Hahahahahahhahahah well done you!

Well let’s see shall we?

Quotes in this thread that show opinions of the type what Tom Delay might have been referring to:






And if you take Bottle’s opinions, she all by herself represents the ‘Society’ Tom DeLay was talking about, exactly.



Equates Christianity with an editction that needs to be overcome...



Here she shows her true feelings, that Christianity is incapable of being credited for assisting.

If the opinions are true or not true is irrelevant to the point being made. Tom DeLay said there is a society that treats his religion like a second hand superstition, and the majority of the opinions expressed in this thread DO claim Christianity is a superstition, how then is the observation Tom DeLay made incorrect? In fact, this thread proves he was right if the people in this forum can be thought of as representing the ‘Society’ he speaking of…

I think you lost your point of mocking his claim.

DeLay didn't say "a society." He said "society," the whole, big, overwhelming thing. Are you really arguing that a handful of people in a thread on an international forum are a stand in for "society?" Please, tell me that so I may mock you mercilessly for days on end.

DeLay didn't say "a society." He said "society," the whole, big, overwhelming thing. Are you really arguing that a handful of people in a thread on an international forum are a stand in for "society?" Please, tell me that so I may mock you mercilessly for days on end.

Heh pish and foddle, don't try to cloud things, a socity, socity whatever, you know what he means. Are we not though a cross section of society, I make he's examples perfectly valid, and so do you admit it! aadddmiiiit it!:gundge:

*snip for brevity* In fact, this thread proves he was right if the people in this forum can be thought of as representing the ‘Society’ he speaking of…

I think you lost your point of mocking his claim.

Hahahahahahhahahah well done you!

I thought Delay's point was not so much the "second-hand superstition" bit but the "war on religion" bit. There's no war on religion (or Christianity) going on in this country. For every suit brought against prayer in schools or manger scenes on the lawn of City Hall, there are dozens of instances of those that go unprotested and indeed, unremarked. The US is an overwhelmingly Christian - Protestant Christian - country, regardless of whether the Constitution or the laws of the land say anything about it. Christians have been led to believe that they are being persecuted, however, by self-serving politicians who make statements like Delay's to frighten people into voting for them.

I personally don't much care if a little of my tax money is spent decorating City Hall for the winter holidays, and if those decorations include a manger, a menorah, or whatever. I think that arguing about which religion is best is like arguing about who has the best imaginary friend.

Here's what puts me off Christianity. It teaches that humanity is basically shite, doomed from the beginning to sin, and people have very little intrinsic value except to praise our Imaginary Friend in the Sky and beg for His Forgiveness. Yes, Christianity did preserve a lot of ancient knowledge after the collapse the Western Roman Empire (I don't include the East because the Empire didn't collapse and Christianity in the East became a department of state under the Emperor). However, Christianity tells people that this world is not the world they should be concerned about, that if they praise God and believe, no matter how bad it is here, they will be rewarded in the Next World. How much progress have we not made because of this attitude?

I believe in the innate goodness of human beings and their ability to progress, evolve and make the world better. It ain't easy but I believe it can be done and that we don't need a Imaginary Friend in the Sky to do it.

Here endeth the rant.

"Organized religion" is an oxymoron. ;)

It's no more or less an oxymoron than 'Organized Crime'.

... I'm not sure what my point was. :p

Equates Christianity with an editction that needs to be overcome...

Yes, I happen to believe that superstition serves much the same function as drug addiction for a lot of people. It really doesn't bother me that a corrupt jerk like Tom Delay disagrees with me...rather, the fact that somebody like him disagrees is a great indication that I'm on the right track. :D


Here she shows her true feelings, that Christianity is incapable of being credited for assisting.

"Christianity" isn't "capable" of anything, any more than "left-handedness" is capable of something.

People who happen to be Christian do things. Some of these people do amazing and wonderful things, and some do horrid things. Most do things that are pretty neutral.

This is because people who are Christian are PEOPLE first, and Christian second. They're human beings. They have the same chance of being brilliant as the rest of us, and the same chance of being dull.

If an individual does something amazing, I think we should give them the credit for what they have done. We shouldn't take the credit away from them and stick it on to some abstract belief system. We shouldn't try to gain some kind of greatness-by-association by claiming that they were great because they shared our own beliefs, and those beliefs make people great.

Let me repeat it again, and slowly: Christianity isn't what made those girls amazing people, any more than Christianity made their murderer evil. Christianity, by itself, is a diffuse abstract system of superstitions and cultural beliefs, and it doesn't make or break evil.


If the opinions are true or not true is irrelevant to the point being made. Tom DeLay said there is a society that treats his religion like a second hand superstition, and the majority of the opinions expressed in this thread DO claim Christianity is a superstition, how then is the observation Tom DeLay made incorrect?

Tom Delay claimed that American society treats his religion like a second-rate superstition, despite the fact that said society is composed of about 70% Christians. If he's correct, then the majority of the blame rests with the Christians who hold virtually unchecked power over this very society.

Personally, I just think he's wrong. His religion is pampered and spoilt in every area of our culture. Christians enjoy special status unparalleled by any other religious or philosophical group, save perhaps the "group" of the very very rich. American Christians cannot even begin to comprehend what it means to be persecuted for one's faith, and their whining is an insult to all the people (Christian or otherwise) who have suffered real religious persecution throughout human history.


In fact, this thread proves he was right if the people in this forum can be thought of as representing the ‘Society’ he speaking of…

That's a fucking huge "If," my friend. This forum contains far more liberals than American society in general, and an amazingly disproportionate number of godless individuals compared to American society in general. And, let's not forget, some of the most vocal and frequent posters around here aren't even American! Plenty of them aren't even from The West!


I think you lost your point of mocking his claim.
His claim mocks itself. The martyr complex displayed by American Christians is an absurd parody of the sacrifice that they claim their Messiah made for them. While their myth tells of a man who sacrificed his body and life for the good of all, they scream bloody murder if asked to give up even the tiniest measure of the unearned privaledge that they enjoy. I am nowhere near creative enough to construct mockery as perfect as that.

But it's examples like the one DK posited that allow members of the group to feel good about themselves by comparison. It's a vicarious sense of righteousness that they're after, the sens that because they belong to the same group as this person that did a good thing, that goodness then rubs off on them. It's not unlike being a fan of a sports team and identifying with their ups and downs on the field--when the team wins, the person feels victorious, and when the team loses, the person feels down (and don't even get into what happens when the team loses because of a controversy).
I think you're right. I can understand why these sorts of "tribal" feelings are powerful, and I think that empathy can end up blending into this type of "shared victory" sensation.

However, I think it is selfish and petty and pathetic to consciously try to take credit away from somebody who has earned it. If a Christian girl does something amazing, praise HER as the individual she is for the individual brilliance she has shown. Don't take her credit away and give it to superstition. Don't take her credit away and give it to her gender. Don't take it away and give it to her race, or her place of birth, or any other single factor in her life. She is an individual who is the product of ALL these factors, and more, and SHE is the one who should be honored.

Personally, I just think he's wrong. His religion is pampered and spoilt in every area of our culture. Christians enjoy special status unparalleled by any other religious or philosophical group, save perhaps the "group" of the very very rich. American Christians cannot even begin to comprehend what it means to be persecuted for one's faith, and their whining is an insult to all the people (Christian or otherwise) who have suffered real religious persecution throughout human history.

Perhaps we should have a good old-fashioned Roman-style persecution in this country. Christians to the lions! A few martyrs and perhaps they'd regain that old humblness they had before Constantine got the bright idea of making them official. When you've been in charge the way they have for over 1,000 years you tend to forget your humble beginnings.

It's no more or less an oxymoron than 'Organized Crime'.

... I'm not sure what my point was. :p

Uh ... neither am I, but it's still kewl. :D

....

I didn't attack your opinions or positions (although I disagree with several of them). My point here still stands. Tom DeLay was talking about people who share your opinion. If you are the only one, then you are right and he was wrong. If you have others who agree with you and you are openly against him and his religion (which you seem to be) and you have others on your side (and there seems to be plenty of them here) then Tom Delay's warning about you and them were not incorrect. He seems to consider it self-defense to fight back.

Right or wrong about specific points and right or wrong about his religion was not my point.

Perhaps we should have a good old-fashioned Roman-style persecution in this country. Christians to the lions! A few martyrs and perhaps they'd regain that old humblness they had before Constantine got the bright idea of making them official. When you've been in charge the way they have for over 1,000 years you tend to forget your humble beginnings.
I've found that all it really takes is to show people what real suffering is, and they get some perspective pretty damn quick.

I had a buddy who was a hard-line objectivist-style capitalist, who believed that the poor deserved it for being stupid and the strong should win over the weak. I had him come to the free clinic I volunteered at, to get a good look at what poverty means. Now, it's not like he's become a socialist or anything, but he certainly readjusted some of his views as a result of the experience. And this was only the kind of poverty we have in the US; compared to other areas of the world, we're not even the worst off.

I think a lot of American Christians would do well to visit parts of the world where religious persecution actually occurs. It would do them a lot of good to see what it really means to be denied your freedoms based on your beliefs. I think they'd come home with a renewed appreciation for how good they've got it. I think they'd also start to recognize the many secular organizations in the US which work tirelessly to protect the rights of the very religious people who insult and demonize secularism and secular organizations.

Uh... ok, I admit that one went wizzing past my ear. Translation please? :cool:

Most churches are, in effect, businesses. They tend to give far more attention to things like fund-raising drives and building funds than to the basics of the Christian faith, like loving your neighbor as yourself, helping the widows and orphans in their distress, and letting your light so shine before men that they will see your good works and praise your heavenly Father.

I didn't attack your opinions or positions (although I disagree with several of them). My point here still stands. Tom DeLay was talking about people who share your opinion. If you are the only one, then you are right and he was wrong. If you have others who agree with you and you are openly against him and his religion (which you seem to be) and you have others on your side (and there seems to be plenty of them here) then Tom Delay's warning about you and them were not incorrect. He seems to consider it self-defense to fight back.

Right or wrong about specific points and right or wrong about his religion was not my point.
There is nothing in the context of that quote to suggest that Delay was talking about anything other than society at large, and the victim complex for Christianity is something Delay has never been shy about invoking. I don't know why you're insisting on reading something in that's not there, but I assure you, that's what you're doing.

...
I think a lot of American Christians would do well to visit parts of the world where religious persecution actually occurs. It would do them a lot of good to see what it really means to be denied your freedoms based on your beliefs. I think they'd come home with a renewed appreciation for how good they've got it. I think they'd also start to recognize the many secular organizations in the US which work tirelessly to protect the rights of the very religious people who insult and demonize secularism and secular organizations.

At the Church I attend, just this last summer we had teen missionary groups sent to China, Siberia, Israel and Australia. I’m not trying to pretend that all of these places do or do not persecute people for their religious beliefs, my point is that we send our teens and young adults all over the world annually, and they volunteer time working in these places, usually manual labor like repairing buidings, digging wells, reclaiming fields for farming etc.

Most churches are, in effect, businesses. They tend to give far more attention to things like fund-raising drives and building funds than to the basics of the Christian faith, like loving your neighbor as yourself, helping the widows and orphans in their distress, and letting your light so shine before men that they will see your good works and praise your heavenly Father.

And you have an inside understanding of ‘most’ churches how? What makes you think ‘most’ churches don’t give money to the poor, or don’t help the widows and orphans? And you forgot to mention the prisoners, Christians are directed to visit them too. I remember this because we also have a group of volunteers that train and are prepared because we do it weekly, outside of the other groups that do what we can about the problems you mentioned.

I didn't attack your opinions or positions (although I disagree with several of them). My point here still stands. Tom DeLay was talking about people who share your opinion.

You seem to not be reading what I post, but I'm going to try this one more time:

The complete Delay quote was, "We are after all a society that abides abortion on demand, that has killed millions of innocent children, that degrades the institution of marriage and often treats Christianity like some second-rate superstition. Seen from this perspective, of course there is a war on Christianity."

Tom Delay wasn't talking about people who share my beliefs about religion. He was talking about American society. That's the "we" up there.

It's not people like me who "abide abortion on demand" or "degrade the institution of marriage," since people like me don't actually hold any signficant political power in this country. Whether or not we agree with things like gay marriage or abortion rights, we simply CANNOT pass laws or enforce them, because we are such a minority. I wish we could!

The fact is, Delay was talking about American society AS A WHOLE, not about people who share my personal opinions on the subject of superstition. When he talks about laws that have been passed in this country, he is talking about laws that have been made, passed, and enforced by a CHRISTIAN MAJORITY. Not by atheists or agnostics, or even Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Wiccans. A Christian majority dominates our culture and our government. Tom Delay is full of crap.


If you are the only one, then you are right and he was wrong. If you have others who agree with you and you are openly against him and his religion (which you seem to be) and you have others on your side (and there seems to be plenty of them here) then Tom Delay's warning about you and them were not incorrect.

That doesn't follow at all. Yes, there are people who agree with me. No, that does not mean that Tom Delay's "warning" has any grounding in fact. Mainly because none of us are "against" Christianity in the way he describes. I'm not remotely interested in oppressing Christians or taking away their right to be Christian. I'm not interested in persecuting Christians. Pretty much nobody in the US is. There is no "war" against them. Period.

I am opposed to Christian theocracy, because I am an American and theocracy runs contrary to our most fundamental values. I am opposed to those who would impose religious intolerance upon others, the way Tom Delay advocates doing. I am opposed to passing laws which give special privaledges to certain faiths, while denying equal treatment to others, as Tom Delay advocates doing. None of this constitutes a "war" on Christians or Christianity. It simply means that I believe Christian citizens should have the same rights and freedoms as other citizens. That's called "equality," not "oppression."


He seems to consider it self-defense to fight back.

He also considers it appropriate that his party defended a sexual predator in order to protect their electoral chances. Crazy fucks tend to believe some crazy fucking things.


Right or wrong about specific points and right or wrong about his religion was not my point.
Well, I've addressed your point several times now. So your work here is done.

There is nothing in the context of that quote to suggest that Delay was talking about anything other than society at large, and the victim complex for Christianity is something Delay has never been shy about invoking. I don't know why you're insisting on reading something in that's not there, but I assure you, that's what you're doing.

Do the sizes of the sides determine the ability of two opposing fraction to be at 'war' with each other? I don't think so. Perhaps you simply think that his side out-numbers your side so your side isn't really a threat to his side?

However, perhaps he has simply remembered numerous instances of the 'small' side winning in the long run and thus doesn't want to fail do to underestimating your side.

Most churches are, in effect, businesses. They tend to give far more attention to things like fund-raising drives and building funds than to the basics of the Christian faith, like loving your neighbor as yourself, helping the widows and orphans in their distress, and letting your light so shine before men that they will see your good works and praise your heavenly Father.

And it's a very effective business. The Roman Ctholic church is the single richest non-governmental entity in the world. By a comfortable margin. In fact, as the total net worth of the Church is not known, some speculate that they may be the richest entity period.

The Republicans have been in control of the House of Representatives and the Senate since 1994, and they've held the White House since 2001. Why is abortion still legal in this country? Why has the Constitution not been amended to forbid gay marriage? Why is Affirmative Action still an issue? Why are liberal activist judges still serving?

If the Republicans actually acted on these issues and did what they constantly claim should be done, they'd have no issues with which to energize the base.

The Republicans have been in control of the House of Representatives and the Senate since 1994, and they've held the White House since 2001. Why is abortion still legal in this country? Why has the Constitution not been amended to forbid gay marriage? Why is Affirmative Action still an issue? Why are liberal activist judges still serving?

If the Republicans actually acted on these issues and did what they constantly claim should be done, they'd have no issues with which to energize the base.
In a nutshell.

If Tom Delay really wants to claim that his party and his ideological community are so incompetant that they've been unable to defend America despite their strong majority and their years in power, I won't argue with them on that subject. I don't think they're competant to lead, either, and I certainly don't think they're capable of protecting this country.

In a nutshell.

If Tom Delay really wants to claim that his party and his ideological community are so incompetant that they've been unable to defend America despite their strong majority and their years in power, I won't argue with them on that subject. I don't think they're competant to lead, either, and I certainly don't think they're capable of protecting this country.

They would claim that they've been stabbed in the back by judges and politicians and other, shadowy forces. It's very much a part and parcel of the culture of victimhood that pervades the US. Everyone's a victim. Christians are victimized by secular governments who tell them not to pray in schools, Muslims are victimized by the government that spies on them, Republicans are victimized by Democrats, Democrats by Republicans, blacks by whites, you can't throw a brick in America without victimizing someone. It makes my head hurt. Can I sue someone for that?

It's tucked into a story about organized religious groups (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/08religious.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin) of all faiths are given regulatory exemptions over secular groups doing the same functions--day care centers, bookstores, etc. But about halfway down we get this gem of a quote from none other than Tom DeLay (R-Asshole):

This has been your eyerolling quote of the day.

I would beleive you if i didn't hear shit like this every day, from half the people I knew and a lot of the time on tv:

Calling christianity a second class superstition is a vast overstatement. Like all religions, it is a waste of human potential.

(though I do live in the UK)

They would claim that they've been stabbed in the back by judges and politicians and other, shadowy forces. It's very much a part and parcel of the culture of victimhood that pervades the US. Everyone's a victim. Christians are victimized by secular governments who tell them not to pray in schools, Muslims are victimized by the government that spies on them, Republicans are victimized by Democrats, Democrats by Republicans, blacks by whites, you can't throw a brick in America without victimizing someone. It makes my head hurt. Can I sue someone for that?

Yes. :)

... you can't throw a brick in America without victimizing someone. It makes my head hurt. Can I sue someone for that?


I don't know, but I'm going to sue you for throwing bricks around us, you might've hurt someone! :p

Why are we still getting quotes and speeches from that loser Delay? He's a thief, a liar, a cheat, a hypocrite, and a corrupt politician. He is a disgrace to his party, his religion, American society, and himself. Why is he still talking instead of just wandering around a prison yard?

They would claim that they've been stabbed in the back by judges and politicians and other, shadowy forces. It's very much a part and parcel of the culture of victimhood that pervades the US. Everyone's a victim. Christians are victimized by secular governments who tell them not to pray in schools, Muslims are victimized by the government that spies on them, Republicans are victimized by Democrats, Democrats by Republicans, blacks by whites, you can't throw a brick in America without victimizing someone. It makes my head hurt. Can I sue someone for that?

Make sure you find the deep pockets group responsible. And if you make it a class-action, maybe I'll join.

He was right about one thing, it is a second-class superstition.

:D

It's nice to find someone on here who at least agrees with something I write! :D

I agree with what you've written here, too, Eut. I typically agree with about a third to half of everything you write in general. On the remainder of your posts, I couldn't disagree more. :)

Make sure you find the deep pockets group responsible. And if you make it a class-action, maybe I'll join.

Does anyone have Erin Brockovich's number?

He was right about one thing, it is a second-class superstition.


Ummm which begs the question, whats a first class one then?

Ummm which begs the question, whats a first class one then?

Really. I'd call Christianity a first-class one, given how wide-spread it is.

Ummm which begs the question, whats a first class one then?
I'll tell you, the Aztecs really knew how to build a god, and they didn't fuck around when it came to their faith. They created gods who demanded that the still-beating heart be ripped from a person's body right before you threw them off a pyramid...now there is a myth that really sinks its teeth into you!

Really. I'd call Christianity a first-class one, given how wide-spread it is.

It's not first class or second class, as it is not a supersticion. Unless you want to completely change the meaning of the word.

Ummm which begs the question, whats a first class one then?

the one about not walking under a ladder.

Well let’s see shall we?

Quotes in this thread that show opinions of the type what Tom Delay might have been referring to:






And if you take Bottle’s opinions, she all by herself represents the ‘Society’ Tom DeLay was talking about, exactly.



Equates Christianity with an addiction that needs to be overcome...



Here she shows her true feelings, that Christianity is incapable of being credited for assisting.

If the opinions are true or not true is irrelevant to the point being made. Tom DeLay said there is a society that treats his religion like a second hand superstition, and the majority of the opinions expressed in this thread DO claim Christianity is a superstition, how then is the observation Tom DeLay made incorrect? In fact, this thread proves he was right if the people in this forum can be thought of as representing the ‘Society’ he speaking of…

I think you lost your point of mocking his claim.

A small handful of people expressing a negative opinion does not equate to a societal "war" against religion.

Delay was clearly lying (we can tell he was lying because there were words coming out of his mouth) in order to drum up the base to go vote in November on a basis of paranoid hysteria rather than consideration of issues. Because, of course, if they considered the issues before the nation, they'd either vote Democrat or stay home in disgust.

It's not first class or second class, as it is not a supersticion. Unless you want to completely change the meaning of the word.

Can we do that? :eek:

Yeah, you're right, it isn't, but that's what Delay says American society holds it as, and who are we ... ? :)

It's not first class or second class, as it is not a supersticion. Unless you want to completely change the meaning of the word.From Merriam-Webster
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
Sounds like an accurate description of religion to me.

From Merriam-Webster

Sounds like an accurate description of religion to me.

Yeah if you are about 14 maybe.

It's not first class or second class, as it is not a supersticion. Unless you want to completely change the meaning of the word.
"Supersticion" (n):
A sticion capable of leaping tall buildings in a single bound, out-running speeding bullets, and protecting The City from the Forces of Evil.

Sorry, just couldn't resist. :D

Yeah if you are about 14 maybe.
Whereas a more mature person would obviously conclude that an English dictionary is not the place to look for definitions of English words...

Yeah if you are about 14 maybe.

I've got a kid older than that. Now, if you'd actually like to talk about this instead of resorting to lame attempts at insult...

Yeah if you are about 14 maybe.

Are you saying that one's gullibility increases when one enters post-adolescence?

I've got a kid older than that. Now, if you'd actually like to talk about this instead of resorting to lame attempts at insult...

Like the things you are saying about christianity were not insults?

Like the things you are saying about christianity were not insults?
There is a difference between personal insults and insults directed at a system of belief.

If I say, "racism is a bunch of stupid hoo-hah," that's different than if I say, "Mr. Racist Man, you are a twit." While both statements may be true, one is a personal insult while the other is not. Attacking an IDEA is different than attacking a PERSON.

Around here, we're allowed to insult ideas. We can say, "Communism is stupid." Or, "Democracy is for wimps." Or "pro-lifers fantasize about roasting sluts in pits of hellfire." But we aren't allowed to call each other nasty names, lest the mods send their wrath down upon us.

Like the things you are saying about christianity were not insults?

Are you saying that one's hypersensitivity increases upon entering post-adolescence?

Are you saying that one's hypersensitivity increases upon entering post-adolescence?
He was simply demonstrating the use of the "He Started It" defense, which was first upheld in the famous Rubber vs. Glue ruling of 1968.

From Merriam-Webster

a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation

Sounds like an accurate description of religion to me.

Umm thenlets see worthy of child like thought or not?

Religion, is it a belife or practice resulting from ignorance? Nope. Or fear of the unknown? Perhaps. Or trust in magic? What Christianity? Certainly not. Or or chance or a false conception of cuasastion? Well seing as we still don't know that one, I'm gonna have to go with Nope.

So dammint I find meself agreeing with Hydsland, and that perhaps supersticion as defined by Merriam Websters dictionary, cannot be used to define religoin, unless you are in fact 14 years old.

There is a difference between personal insults and insults directed at a system of belief.

If I say, "racism is a bunch of stupid hoo-hah," that's different than if I say, "Mr. Racist Man, you are a twit." While both statements may be true, one is a personal insult while the other is not. Attacking an IDEA is different than attacking a PERSON.

Around here, we're allowed to insult ideas. We can say, "Communism is stupid." Or, "Democracy is for wimps." Or "pro-lifers fantasize about roasting sluts in pits of hellfire." But we aren't allowed to call each other nasty names, lest the mods send their wrath down upon us.

I don't think we are alowed to say things like that actually. I have seen people banned for saying things like liberal assholes etc...

Like the things you are saying about christianity were not insults?

For starters, if you look at my post, I didn't single out Christianity--I said religion in general. Christianity, like any other religion, is based on superstition, which is again "a belief based on fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation." Every religion--including Christianity--is based on those things at the root. Religion is not based on science or empirical data. It is rooted in trust in magic or chance--faith if you prefer--and if you go back far enough and look at the symbolism of all ancient religions, you see the same images appearing again and again. Study a little comparative mythology, read some Joseph Campbell, and then get back to me on this.

I don't think we are alowed to say things like that actually. I have seen people banned for saying things like liberal assholes etc...
There are limits to the flaming that we can engage in, yes. But the fact remains:

I can say, "Christianity is stupid," and I'm not breaking a rule around here. However, if I go around calling individual posters "stupid," I'm going to get chastized.

Even if this weren't the law of the land in this forum, it's still a good concept for you to familiarize yourself with. People are going to disagree with you in life. People are going to dislike your beliefs or values. This doesn't mean that they are necessarily insulting YOU, or saying that YOU are a bad person. You need to be able to grasp the difference if you want to be able to successfully interact in human society.

For starters, if you look at my post, I didn't single out Christianity--I said religion in general. Christianity, like any other religion, is based on superstition, which is again "a belief based on fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation." Every religion--including Christianity--is based on those things at the root. Religion is not based on science or empirical data. It is rooted in trust in magic or chance--faith if you prefer--and if you go back far enough and look at the symbolism of all ancient religions, you see the same images appearing again and again. Study a little comparative mythology, read some Joseph Campbell, and then get back to me on this.


Are you saying that one's perspectives on the precepts of one's own cultural programming increase upon entering post-adolescence?

Umm thenlets see worthy of child like thought or not?

Religion, is it a belife or practice resulting from ignorance? Nope. Or fear of the unknown? Perhaps. Or trust in magic? What Christianity? Certainly not. Or or chance or a false conception of cuasastion? Well seing as we still don't know that one, I'm gonna have to go with Nope.

Christianity does indeed specifically instruct believers to put their faith in magic. They don't call it "magic," but the Wiccans don't call it "magic" either...they call it "magick." This is what is known as "nit-picking."

Christianity includes belief in magical forces and supernatural powers. One of the core beliefs of Christianity is the belief that there is a magical being who created a human incarnation of himself, who then went around performing magic tricks until he was killed and then magically game back to life. Having faith in these magical elements is central to Christian belief.

I don't see why you should be shying away from recognizing that Christianity is superstition. Christianity, like all the other major world religions right now, is strongly rooted in myth and supernatural beliefs. Why should you be afraid to acknowledge this? Superstitions aren't inherently bad or harmful. Superstitious people aren't inherently wicked or stupid or cruel. So what's the big problem? Christianity includes a lot of superstition. That's just what the word means.

For starters, if you look at my post, I didn't single out Christianity--I said religion in general. Christianity, like any other religion, is based on superstition, which is again "a belief based on fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation." Every religion--including Christianity--is based on those things at the root. Religion is not based on science or empirical data. It is rooted in trust in magic or chance--faith if you prefer--and if you go back far enough and look at the symbolism of all ancient religions, you see the same images appearing again and again. Study a little comparative mythology, read some Joseph Campbell, and then get back to me on this.

It is no way as black and white as that. Religion is based on a mixture of hundreds of teachings fromious prophets (usually) and has evolved into a massive database (if you will) of various philisophical ideas information. It is possible to argue a case that some of the very early teachings from the prophets themselves are based on superstition though there are too many other factors that can come into that which i really don't want to go into today.

the one about not walking under a ladder.
Hey, that's a good one that is!
Once I was walking by a building site. They had big ladders on the sidewalks. I had two choices: walk around them onto the busy road or walk under them. As I paused to weigh up the two options, a workman dropped his hammer. It fell straight down between the rungs, landing only a couple of feet away from me.
Had I not hesitated...
I decided to risk the road after seeing that.

Don't walk under ladders: First class superstition definitely.

Christianity does indeed specifically instruct believers to put their faith in magic. They don't call it "magic," but the Wiccans don't call it "magic" either...they call it "magick." This is what is known as "nit-picking."

Christianity includes belief in magical forces and supernatural powers. One of the core beliefs of Christianity is the belief that there is a magical being who created a human incarnation of himself, who then went around performing magic tricks until he was killed and then magically game back to life. Having faith in these magical elements is central to Christian belief.

Well we'll have to clear up what constitutes magik (heh sorry old habits and all that) and what does not, because I'm sure that the Christian bible come down pretty hard on it.

Anyhoo supersticion (at least the definition that was given) cannot be used to describe what religion is.

Christianity does indeed specifically instruct believers to put their faith in magic. They don't call it "magic," but the Wiccans don't call it "magic" either...they call it "magick." This is what is known as "nit-picking."

Christianity includes belief in magical forces and supernatural powers. One of the core beliefs of Christianity is the belief that there is a magical being who created a human incarnation of himself, who then went around performing magic tricks until he was killed and then magically game back to life. Having faith in these magical elements is central to Christian belief.

Even though I was one of them for 2/3 of my life, I still find it boggling today that religious people will read the story of, oh, Muhammad on the mountain or Odin in Valhalla and act as though it's ridiculous, but see absolutely nothing equally ludicrous about the parting of the Red Sea, or Jesus and Satan talking on the mountaintop, or the walls of Jericho tumbling down.

Christianity does indeed specifically instruct believers to put their faith in magic. They don't call it "magic," but the Wiccans don't call it "magic" either...they call it "magick." This is what is known as "nit-picking."

Christianity includes belief in magical forces and supernatural powers. One of the core beliefs of Christianity is the belief that there is a magical being who created a human incarnation of himself, who then went around performing magic tricks until he was killed and then magically game back to life. Having faith in these magical elements is central to Christian belief.

I hate the word magic, it is a deliberate word to discredit and patronise religious teachings.

I hate the word magic, it is a deliberate word to discredit and patronise religious teachings.

Your dislike does nothing to change its accurate usage in this discussion, however.

I hate the word magic, it is a deliberate word to discredit and patronise religious teachings.

Have Mr. Bush declare a War on it, then. He's usually up for that sort of thing, as I'm given to understand.

Your dislike does nothing to change its accurate usage in this discussion, however.

I could easily call electricity magic. "Oh yeah like theres this magic substance that floats around metal and water and gives "power" to objects."

Get the idea?

I hate the word magic, it is a deliberate word to discredit and patronise religious teachings.

And yet oh-so accurate. Magic or "miracle", it's the same thing.

I could easily call electricity magic. "Oh yeah like theres this magic substance that floats around metal and water and gives "power" to objects."

Get the idea?You could call it magic, but you'd be ignorant, as there's empirical data that explains what electricity is and how it acts and reacts with the world around it. It can be measured and controlled. It is not an unknown.

Faith, however, is an unknown, and any effects it has on the material world--assuming there are any at all--have never been measured. Your analogy doens't even rise to the level of poor.

I could easily call electricity magic. "Oh yeah like theres this magic substance that floats around metal and water and gives "power" to objects."

Get the idea?

Yeah, I got it. You fail, Hydesland.

You could call it magic, but you'd be ignorant, as there's empirical data that explains what electricity is and how it acts and reacts with the world around it. It can be measured and controlled. It is not an unknown.

Faith, however, is an unknown, and any effects it has on the material world--assuming there are any at all--have never been measured. Your analogy doens't even rise to the level of poor.

It is not an analogy, I am just saying you can make anything sound stupid by using the word magic. Since it was mainly used by fairy tales, using the word magic to describe anything that hasn't been verified by scientific data is comparing it to fairy tales. It is a clever tactic indeed yet immature and incredibly old now.

He was simply demonstrating the use of the "He Started It" defense, which was first upheld in the famous Rubber vs. Glue ruling of 1968.

:D

mag·ic (mjk) Pronunciation Key
n.
The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.

The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.
The charms, spells, and rituals so used.

*coughPrayercough*

adj.
Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural: “stubborn unlaid ghost/That breaks his magic chains at curfew time” (John Milton).
Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.
Sure sounds like miracles to me. Invoking the supernatural = invoking God.

It is a clever tactic indeed yet immature and incredibly old now.
I wish you'd make up your mind.

I wish you'd make up your mind.

Who says you can't be a smart (in a cocky way) and immature at the same time.

It is no way as black and white as that. Religion is based on a mixture of hundreds of teachings fromious prophets (usually) and has evolved into a massive database (if you will) of various philisophical ideas information. It is possible to argue a case that some of the very early teachings from the prophets themselves are based on superstition though there are too many other factors that can come into that which i really don't want to go into today.
Did you mean "frumious", as in "frumious Bandersnatch"?

Reference:
Beware the Jabberwock, my son,
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jub-Jub Bird
and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!
--Lewis Carroll

The more of the world I see, the more sense that poem makes.

It is not an analogy, I am just saying you can make anything sound stupid by using the word magic. Since it was mainly used by fairy tales, using the word magic to describe anything that hasn't been verified by scientific data is comparing it to fairy tales. It is a clever tactic indeed yet immature and incredibly old now.

Look--you may not like the fact that religious doctrine, no matter the source, has links to the same source material as fairy tale, but the fact remains that it does. It's been documented by mythologists time and again, and even a cursory study of the field reveals that. Sorry to burst your bubble like that, but magic and superstition are both accurate synonyms for religious belief.

I could easily call electricity magic. "Oh yeah like theres this magic substance that floats around metal and water and gives "power" to objects."

Get the idea?
Unfortunately, if you did that you would simply be incorrect. Electricity is a defined, natural force. It does not fit the requirements for "magic," since magic is that which is purported to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.

On the other hand, the miracles that are claimed to have been performed by Jesus were supernatural, according to Christian doctrine. The Christian God is said to control natural events and forces by supernatural means. The Christian God himself is a supernatural being. These are not issues of debate within Christian doctrine.

Look--you may not like the fact that religious doctrine, no matter the source, has links to the same source material as fairy tale, but the fact remains that it does. It's been documented by mythologists time and again, and even a cursory study of the field reveals that. Sorry to burst your bubble like that, but magic and superstition are both accurate synonyms for religious belief.

Source?

It is not an analogy, I am just saying you can make anything sound stupid by using the word magic.
Except magic, of course.

Since it was mainly used by fairy tales,
And magicians.

using the word magic to describe anything that hasn't been verified by scientific data is comparing it to fairy tales.
Or to magic.

It is a clever tactic indeed yet immature and incredibly old now.
As hackneyed as a card trick.

It is not an analogy, I am just saying you can make anything sound stupid by using the word magic. Since it was mainly used by fairy tales, using the word magic to describe anything that hasn't been verified by scientific data is comparing it to fairy tales. It is a clever tactic indeed yet immature and incredibly old now.
It is neither immature nor inappropriate to use the term "magic" for "that which is purported to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural." That is the correct use of the word. This word, "magic," can be appropriately applied to feats which are central to the myths of the Christian religion. Belief in these magics can correctly be termed "superstition."

These are the correct usages of these words. That you do not like the words, or that you feel they carry negative connotations, is beside the point.

Source?
For but one example, the Christ myth is largely lifted from the myth of the Egyptian god Horus, which predated Jesus by at least a couple thousand years.

Source?

He already gave you a source: Joseph Campbell.

http://www.jcf.org/index2.php

Source?

I mentioned him earlier--Joseph Campbell. The Power of Myth is as good a place to start as any.

It is neither immature nor inappropriate to use the term "magic" for "that which is purported to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural." That is the correct use of the word. This word, "magic," can be appropriately applied to feats which are central to the myths of the Christian religion. Belief in these magics can correctly be termed "superstition."

These are the correct usages of these words. That you do not like the words, or that you feel they carry negative connotations, is beside the point.

The point is is that they are only used for nagative connotations (i am not denying that the acts of God could be described as magic at all) and nothing else, where as if I were to use the word metaphysical or supernatural for example they wouldn't sound as negative.

For but one example, the Christ myth is largely lifted from the myth of the Egyptian god Horus, which predated Jesus by at least a couple thousand years.

Source?

Did you mean "frumious", as in "frumious Bandersnatch"?

Reference:
Beware the Jabberwock, my son,
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jub-Jub Bird
and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!
--Lewis Carroll

The more of the world I see, the more sense that poem makes.

I think that one's an honest typo.

Christianity takes the attitude towards "magic" that it's either frivolous (sleight of hand) or evil (raising of spirits and the casting of spells). A Christian (or a Jew or a Muslim, for that matter) would certainly take offense at having the acts of God which are basic to his or her religion described as "magic." I can quite understand that. I do think they do fit the definition of magic, however, but that's neither here nor there.

It's interesting, this whole issue of calling Christianity a superstition, because that's what the Romans called it. The Emperor Julian, who tried to do away with Christianity's "officialness" in the 4th century called it that, and tried to set up a competing pagan religion alongside it. By then it was too late, of course.

I mentioned him earlier--Joseph Campbell. The Power of Myth is as good a place to start as any.

I have heard a fair share of good and bad views of that book, quite often bad. Not much can be verified and it is very theoretical with weak links (so i have heard).

I have heard a fair share of good and bad views of that book, quite often bad. Not much can be verified and it is very theoretical with weak links (so i have heard).

So read it for yourself and see if you find it convincing. Try to poke holes in it if you can. But don't dismiss the ideas out of hand.

I have heard a fair share of good and bad views of that book, quite often bad. Not much can be verified and it is very theoretical with weak links (so i have heard).
I was about to provide you with a source for my claim, but now it's pretty clear that this would be a waste of time.

When presented with a source, you simply decide it's not a good one even though you haven't so much as read it. I'm guessing that the only "good sources" you would recognize would be the ones that tell you what you'd like to hear. Since you won't even recognize the authority of English dictionaries, I see little point in entertaining your demands for sources.

So read it for yourself and see if you find it convincing. Try to poke holes in it if you can. But don't dismiss the ideas out of hand.

Maybe I will... I'm not dismissing them, just hinting at you to provide a more specific source. Though you don't have to.

I think that one's an honest typo.
I think, rather, it was a fortuitous typo. ;) It created an apt association.

Christianity takes the attitude towards "magic" that it's either frivolous (sleight of hand) or evil (raising of spirits and the casting of spells). A Christian (or a Jew or a Muslim, for that matter) would certainly take offense at having the acts of God which are basic to his or her religion described as "magic." I can quite understand that. I do think they do fit the definition of magic, however, but that's neither here nor there.
True, which is why I haven't said anything on point about it. If I were to, then what I'd say would be along the lines of a person's dislike of a descriptive term that is otherwise neutral does not affect the appropriateness of that term in any given context, but Bottle has already said that.

It's interesting, this whole issue of calling Christianity a superstition, because that's what the Romans called it. The Emperor Julian, who tried to do away with Christianity's "officialness" in the 4th century called it that, and tried to set up a competing pagan religion alongside it. By then it was too late, of course.
He did? Fascinating! Which pagan religion was it?

The reason, though, that I quoted Jabberwocky is because I think there's another applicable context for concepts like "magic," "superstition," and other words that conote "fantasy" that is less literal and more satirical. There comes a point when all this public and political blather is nothing more than that -- the blathering of Jub-Jub Birds and Bandersnatches in the form of all these people who are going to characterize this belief as "religion" and that belief as "superstition" and proclaim wars that don't exist while ignoring ones that do, and through all their ruckus comes Tom Delay, dressed up like the Jabberwock itself, with eyes aflame, whiffling and burbling his way through Tulgey Wood.

So let's take our vorpel swords in hand and conclude that one man's religion is another's superstition, but that neither opinion has any real effect upon the other.

I was about to provide you with a source for my claim, but now it's pretty clear that this would be a waste of time.

When presented with a source, you simply decide it's not a good one even though you haven't so much as read it. I'm guessing that the only "good sources" you would recognize would be the ones that tell you what you'd like to hear. Since you won't even recognize the authority of English dictionaries, I see little point in entertaining your demands for sources.

Why would you make such an assumption, I never said that book was bad I just said i had heard some bad reviews of it (and some good).

For but one example, the Christ myth is largely lifted from the myth of the Egyptian god Horus, which predated Jesus by at least a couple thousand years.

There's also the theory that it was lifted from Mithraism (http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm).

The Rev Dr. Martian Luther King Jr.
Florence Nightingale
Mother Terresa
Thomas Moore
Pope John Paul II
Charles Darwin
And so on and so forth... so... what potential was waisted?

those are the people who did great things in spite of religion.

the famous names that aren't on that list are the people who spent their childhood in the confessional instead of the chem lab and went to parochial school instead of med school.

somewhere out there is the person with the potential to cure cancer.

too bad he's behind a pulpit instead of a lab table.


[edit] i just realized that this is 11 pages long.

if the topic has moved on from here, i'm sorry (the post i responded to is on the first page)

There's also the theory that it was lifted from Mithraism (http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm).

One of Campbell's points is that the idea of the reborn God appears in a number of myths and cultures, as is the idea of the Hero's quest and the mother goddess.

On a side note, I think I might have upset soem of my students last week when I linked the Virgin Mary to Gaia, Isis, Astarte and Ashtoreth.

*snip* He did? Fascinating! Which pagan religion was it?
*snip*
So let's take our vorpel swords in hand and conclude that one man's religion is another's superstition, but that neither opinion has any real effect upon the other.

Julian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_the_apostate) was a devotee of something called (in the Wiki link) theurgy, a kind of late form of Neo-Platonism. Best to read the article than to let me try to explain something I don't understand. Julian was very outspoken and was a trained philosopher, so he could make a case against Christianity quite eloquently. Perhaps if he'd reigned longer than two years he might have gotten somewhere in his efforts, but as he was killed on campaign against the Persians, we'll never know. Gore Vidal wrote a good book about him, an historical novel, called, of course, Julian.

Edit: And you can read about Julian from an eye-witness observer, the historian Ammianus Marcellinus. We have that part of his history that covers the 4th century, and especially the reigns of Constantius II and Julian. Ammianus was a pagan Greek from Antioch who wrote in Latin, and is considered the last of the really good historians of Antiquity.

One of Campbell's points is that the idea of the reborn God appears in a number of myths and cultures, as is the idea of the Hero's quest and the mother goddess.

On a side note, I think I might have upset soem of my students last week when I linked the Virgin Mary to Gaia, Isis, Astarte and Ashtoreth.

You're going straight to H-E-double hockey-sticks!

You're going straight to H-E-double hockey-sticks!

Yeah, but I knew that. ;)

Religion and fanatics of all flavors make my eyes bleed .

Dont preach to me and I wont fire my shotgun at you .:D


Thats more than fair .

Religion and fanatics of all flavors make my eyes bleed .

Dont preach to me and I wont fire my shotgun at you .:D


Thats more than fair .

And Tom Delay could get behind that. 2nd Amendment! Pry it out of my cold, dead fingers! Otherwise Osama wins!

And Tom Delay could get behind that. 2nd Amendment! Pry it out of my cold, dead fingers! Otherwise Osama wins!
Don't look now, but I think Osama already won--he got us to re-elect Bush and agree to the suspension of habeas corpus, right? (at least, the fallout from his attacks have done that)

Don't look now, but I think Osama already won--he got us to re-elect Bush and agree to the suspension of habeas corpus, right? (at least, the fallout from his attacks have done that)

*sigh* I know. :(

So, Nazz, are you named after Lord Buckley's Nazz (http://www.informer.org/nazz.html)?

So, Nazz, are you named after Lord Buckley's Nazz (http://www.informer.org/nazz.html)?

That is indeed the inspiration for my name choice, and you are only the second person to have gotten that. Cannot Think of a Name was the other. Well done. nods

And so on and so forth... so... what potential was waisted?

Yours for the English language it seems.

It's wasted. Unless I misunderstand and you ARE referring to the region between the chest and the hips.

That is indeed the inspiration for my name choice, and you are only the second person to have gotten that. Cannot Think of a Name was the other. Well done. nods

:D

I always liked "Jonah and the Whale." Once upon a time I could recite that one complete! I always loved the part where Jonah takes one of the cigarettes he got from the great tree and then ...

And finally the Whale say, "Uuuuhhhh, Jonah?"

And Jonah say, "Ppfffffffttt. What is it, Fish?"

:D

I always liked "Jonah and the Whale." Once upon a time I could recite that one complete! I always loved the part where Jonah takes one of the cigarettes he got from the great tree and then ...

I'm pleased that you got it, because it's a bit ironic considering my personal feelings about religion.

I'm pleased that you got it, because it's a bit ironic considering my personal feelings about religion.

... and the boat is goin' up and down
and these poor cats figured every minute gonna be their last
and one cat look up and.... here come The Nazz!

Cool as anyone you see.
Right across the water.

Stompin'
That did occur to me. ;)

That is indeed the inspiration for my name choice, and you are only the second person to have gotten that. Cannot Think of a Name was the other. Well done. nods

Well, paint me blue and call me Susan - I'd always assumed it had something to do with Ziggy Stardust.

Ziggy played guitar, jammin' good with Weird and Gilly,
The spiders from Mars - he played it left hand,
But made it too far -
Became the special man, then we were Ziggy's band

Ziggy really sang, screwed-up eyes and screwed-down hairdo,
Like some cat from Japan, he could lick 'em by smiling,
He could leave 'em to hang -
Came on so loaded man, well hung and snow white tan

So where were the spiders while the fly tried to break our balls?
Just a beer light to guide us
So we bitched about his fans and should we crush his sweet hands?

Ziggy played for time, jiving us that we was voodoo,
The kids was just crass. He was the nazz,
With God given ass -
He took it all too far, but boy could he play guitar

Making love with his ego, Ziggy sucked up into his mind,
Like a leper messiah -
When the kids had killed the man I had to break up the band

Ziggy Played Guitar

Well, paint me blue and call me Susan - I'd always assumed it had something to do with Ziggy Stardust.

I've always wanted to do that to you, Susan. ;)

Julian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_the_apostate) was a devotee of something called (in the Wiki link) theurgy, a kind of late form of Neo-Platonism. <etc>

Thank you. I'll read up on it. :)

Well, paint me blue and call me Susan - I'd always assumed it had something to do with Ziggy Stardust.

Ziggy played guitar, jammin' good with Weird and Gilly,
The spiders from Mars - he played it left hand,
But made it too far -
Became the special man, then we were Ziggy's band

Ziggy really sang, screwed-up eyes and screwed-down hairdo,
Like some cat from Japan, he could lick 'em by smiling,
He could leave 'em to hang -
Came on so loaded man, well hung and snow white tan

So where were the spiders while the fly tried to break our balls?
Just a beer light to guide us
So we bitched about his fans and should we crush his sweet hands?

Ziggy played for time, jiving us that we was voodoo,
The kids was just crass. He was the nazz,
With God given ass -
He took it all too far, but boy could he play guitar

Making love with his ego, Ziggy sucked up into his mind,
Like a leper messiah -
When the kids had killed the man I had to break up the band

Ziggy Played Guitar
I thought that, too, but maybe Bowie was referencing Buckley, or they both picked up the same nickname from the same old blues musician. Or something. Whatever, it's cool.

T
Mother Terresa

I wish people would stop listing Mother Teresa as a good person. She wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, if people would actually educate themselves.

Also: We already knew Tom Delay was a moron. This is just an attempt by him to garner more support from the Christian right.

I wish people would stop listing Mother Teresa as a good person. She wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, if people would actually educate themselves.You've got to admit--she had good press, and in a time where perception is more important than reality, that's what counts.

Also: We already knew Tom Delay was a moron. This is just an attempt by him to garner more support from the Christian right.
Yeah, we knew that also. I just like reminding everyone of that fact. And if he goes to jail, then you'll see a lot of celebration from me.

It's tucked into a story about organized religious groups (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/08religious.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin) of all faiths are given regulatory exemptions over secular groups doing the same functions--day care centers, bookstores, etc. But about halfway down we get this gem of a quote from none other than Tom DeLay (R-Asshole):

This has been your eyerolling quote of the day.

Christianity, like every other religion, is second-class superstition. Whatever benefits come from it, and there are some, are completely inadvertant. The sooner everyone realizes this, the better.

Christianity, like every other religion, is second-class superstition. Whatever benefits come from it, and there are some, are completely inadvertant. The sooner everyone realizes this, the better.

It's rare that we're on the same side of an argument, but I'm glad to see it happen.

The Rev Dr. Martian Luther King Jr.
Florence Nightingale
Mother Terresa
Thomas Moore
Pope John Paul II
Charles Darwin
And so on and so forth... so... what potential was waisted?

What the hell? Didn't he go against the Christian belief that god created man by creating the theory of evolution?

What the hell? Didn't he go against the Christian belief that god created man by creating the theory of evolution?
No. He was trained as a minister, and he never claimed that evolution denied the existence of God. There doesn't have to be a conflict between the two.

I wish people would stop listing Mother Teresa as a good person. She wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, if people would actually educate themselves.
Indeed! I guess a lot of people think that sweet little old ladies are beyond any criticism or something. Either that, or they just don't bother to do their homework. ;)

No. He was trained as a minister, and he never claimed that evolution denied the existence of God. There doesn't have to be a conflict between the two.
However, I do think it's funny to have him on a list that supposedly represents people whose potential was somehow enhanced by their Christianity, considering that Christianity was the single most hampering force working against him throughout his life. Serious discussion of his theories has been hampered for generations because we're all too busy debating bullshit like the "science" of Christian creation myths.

However, I do think it's funny to have him on a list that supposedly represents people whose potential was somehow enhanced by their Christianity, considering that Christianity was the single most hampering force working against him throughout his life. Serious discussion of his theories has been hampered for generations because we're all too busy debating bullshit like the "science" of Christian creation myths.

No kidding. He avoided publishing for decades because he was afraid of the fallout from what his theories suggested, and in the end only published because someone else had come to much the same conclusions he had independently. And yet the psycho wing of the christians consistently paint him as some God-hating fanatic out to destroy what they consider the underpinnings of the western (read: white) world.

No kidding. He avoided publishing for decades because he was afraid of the fallout from what his theories suggested, and in the end only published because someone else had come to much the same conclusions he had independently. And yet the psycho wing of the christians consistently paint him as some God-hating fanatic out to destroy what they consider the underpinnings of the western (read: white) world.
As a scientist, it really hurts me to think of all the lost years of research. It hurts me to watch our modern age shackled and chained by a bunch of superstitious creeps who can't stand the idea of actually cracking a book once in a while. It hurts to think of all the people whose lives we could improve, and all the lives that might be saved, and all the years of progress that we've lost fighting these senseless battles.

And it really goddamwell pisses me off when Christians try to appropriate the greatest scientific minds of history, as if CHRISTIANITY is what made them great. Newsflash: their achievements were because they were SCIENTISTS. The SCIENCE they did, not the praying, is what has made the world a better place. It wouldn't have mattered if they were praying to Allah or Zeus or Quetzelsacatenango, so long as their science was sound. Claiming that Christianity is responsible for Darwin's genius is as pathetic as claiming that his white skin or his use of the English language were responsible.

As a scientist, it really hurts me to think of all the lost years of research. It hurts me to watch our modern age shackled and chained by a bunch of superstitious creeps who can't stand the idea of actually cracking a book once in a while. It hurts to think of all the people whose lives we could improve, and all the lives that might be saved, and all the years of progress that we've lost fighting these senseless battles.

And it really goddamwell pisses me off when Christians try to appropriate the greatest scientific minds of history, as if CHRISTIANITY is what made them great. Newsflash: their achievements were because they were SCIENTISTS. The SCIENCE they did, not the praying, is what has made the world a better place. It wouldn't have mattered if they were praying to Allah or Zeus or Quetzelsacatenango, so long as their science was sound. Claiming that Christianity is responsible for Darwin's genius is as pathetic as claiming that his white skin or his use of the English language were responsible.Yep. I agree completely. And it really bothers me right now that these people are the ones who are generally standing in the way of more scientific discovery simply because of their beliefs based on, well, nothing more than codified superstition.

As a scientist, it really hurts me to think of all the lost years of research. It hurts me to watch our modern age shackled and chained by a bunch of superstitious creeps who can't stand the idea of actually cracking a book once in a while. It hurts to think of all the people whose lives we could improve, and all the lives that might be saved, and all the years of progress that we've lost fighting these senseless battles.

And it really goddamwell pisses me off when Christians try to appropriate the greatest scientific minds of history, as if CHRISTIANITY is what made them great. Newsflash: their achievements were because they were SCIENTISTS. The SCIENCE they did, not the praying, is what has made the world a better place. It wouldn't have mattered if they were praying to Allah or Zeus or Quetzelsacatenango, so long as their science was sound. Claiming that Christianity is responsible for Darwin's genius is as pathetic as claiming that his white skin or his use of the English language were responsible.

Why do you have to assume that Christianity was the reason why the governmnet and society were opressive. It has nothing to do with that, they were oppressive AND christian not oppressive because they were christian. Opression can come from anything, not just religion. Their interpretation of the bible was what they chose to force down peoples throats. Understand?

Why do you have to assume that Christianity was the reason why the governmnet and society were opressive.

Because I read history books.


It has nothing to do with that, they were oppressive AND christian not oppressive because they were christian.

Yeah, and why do people have to assume that slavery-era America was oppressive for blacks because of racism? It had nothing to do with that! It happened to be an oppressive society that just also happened to be racist!


Opression can come from anything, not just religion. Their interpretation of the bible was what they chose to force down peoples throats. Understand?
Yes, oppression can come from sources other than religion. For much of the history of the Western world, oppression happened to come from religion. Specifically, Christian religion. It has also come from racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, xenophobia, and plenty of other sources. But Christianity is a big one on the list. "But everybody's doing it!" is not a valid defense.

Yes, oppression can come from sources other than religion. For much of the history of the Western world, oppression happened to come from religion. Specifically, Christian religion.
Yes, because Western History has only existed for the past 1,500 or so years. :rolleyes:

But Christianity is a big one on the list. "But everybody's doing it!" is not a valid defense.
No? But you just made this large thread talking about how it doesn't matter of great men and women happened to be Christian because it didn't matter, they still would have been great, but, but BUT! It does matter when people do bad things?

Can you say double standard boys and girls?

Yes, because Western History has only existed for the past 1,500 or so years. :rolleyes:

I wrote "for much of the history of the Western world..."

I would say that a thousand years can be considered "much." I didn't say "all," or even "most." But I think it's reasonable to describe a millenia as "much" of our history.


No? But you just made this large thread talking about how it doesn't matter of great men and women happened to be Christian because it didn't matter, they still would have been great, but, but BUT! It does matter when people do bad things?

Can you say double standard boys and girls?
Huh?

Christianity, as an institution, is not identical to individual Christians or people who happen to live in Christian societies. Is this really a concept that needs explaining?

I wrote "for much of the history of the Western world..."

I would say that a thousand years can be considered "much." I didn't say "all," or even "most." But I think it's reasonable to describe a millenia as "much" of our history.
Considering this history of civilization goes back thousands of years... I'd say that's a very false assumption.

Christianity, as an institution, is not identical to individual Christians or people who happen to live in Christian societies. Is this really a concept that needs explaining?
Oh? And HOW did an institution do it then?

Last I checked institutions do nothing, they just sit there. PEOPLE do things.

I've yet to be molested by an institution, but perhaps you can give me an example.

Considering this history of civilization goes back thousands of years... I'd say that's a very false assumption.

Then that's your subjective opinion. Good for you. If you want to go around telling people that 1,000 years isn't much time, you have fun with that.


Oh? And HOW did an institution do it then?

Same way that feudalism, as an institution, shaped much of Western history. Same way that racism, or sexism, or other institutionalized belief systems have contributed to the course of history. Really, is this so hard to grasp?


Last I checked institutions do nothing, they just sit there. PEOPLE do things.

Yes, institutions are manefestations of human action. I've made it very clear, on this thread and elsewhere, that I grasp this concept. However, this does not mean that it is impossible to examine belief systems or value structures or governments or other institutions.

For instance, I can examine "racism" as an institution, while simultaneously acknowledging that individual racists may have individual factors at work in their lives which are not exclusively about racism. A racist may also be sexist, for instance. A racist may also be a baseball fan. A racist may be a scientist. A racist may be a Christian. If one is talking about racism as an institution, one focuses on racism as an institution. If one wants to talk about the actions of individual racists, one cannot simply reduce them to "RACISTS" and ignore all the other influences and motivations that are in play.

Then that's your subjective opinion. Good for you. If you want to go around telling people that 1,000 years isn't much time, you have fun with that.
I'd love to see you try to explain to a historian why you discount much of the Roman Republic/Empire and the Greek City States in your view of Western Civ, believeing that only the past 1,000 really matter.

For instance, I can examine "racism" as an institution, while simultaneously acknowledging that individual racists may have individual factors at work in their lives which are not exclusively about racism. A racist may also be sexist, for instance. A racist may also be a baseball fan. A racist may be a scientist. A racist may be a Christian. If one is talking about racism as an institution, one focuses on racism as an institution. If one wants to talk about the actions of individual racists, one cannot simply reduce them to "RACISTS" and ignore all the other influences and motivations that are in play.
But you are on record in saying that an individual's faith plays no part in their greatness. You can't have it both ways now or attempt to say, well, this is THIS person and because it's a person the instiution has no effect, but over here it does.

Why do you have to assume that Christianity was the reason why the governmnet and society were opressive. It has nothing to do with that, they were oppressive AND christian not oppressive because they were christian. Opression can come from anything, not just religion.
Well, sort of. They were able to use their Christianity - and their interpretation of the Bible - to justify their oppressiveness.
Take slavery for example. Some justified this on the basis that Noah's son who was cursed by God for seeing Noah's nakedness became the African race. Part of said curse was that he, and his descendants thereof, would be servants to his brother until the ## generation.
Thus, they had a 'Christian' reason for allowing and accepting slavery.

Of course, it can be argued what came first: the slavery or the justification. But the point still stands that they were using Christianity (or rather their interpretation) to be oppressive. Or at least alleviate their conscience.

I'd love to see you try to explain to a historian why you discount much of the Roman Republic/Empire and the Greek City States in your view of Western Civ, believeing that only the past 1,000 really matter.

I'd love to see the factory where you make such splendid straw men.


But you are on record in saying that an individual's faith plays no part in their greatness.

No, I'm not. Indeed, I have said quite the opposite. I have said that it's entirely possible for an individual's faith to have a large impact on their greatness.


You can't have it both ways now or attempt to say, well, this is THIS person and because it's a person the instiution has no effect, but over here it does.Don't blame me for your failure to read my posts thoroughly.