School Shooting in Connecticut

[syd syside]

group hug everybody

 

will be responding to your epic rebuttal encey in a bit, need to take a break for now. cheers

[encey]

I think that's a fair point, in italics or not. But it's not a reason to abolish all religion.

 

You think it is, if you add your second claim, that religion brings lots of negative consequences with it.

 

But I am not convinced that secular reasons and motivations for achieving great, meaningful things do not come with their own similar risks of bad consequences (political ideologies and a shared love for one's country and cultural heritage are two powerful examples). So, if your principle is to abolish all bases for belief and action that have potentially bad consequences, then you are equally committed to abolishing patriotism, love of family, and the pursuit of technological progress. And I think at that point it's much more reasonable to say that your principle is wrong, than it is to say we should get rid of every potentially dangerous basis for belief and action.

 

 

Edit: @ quasimodo

[LimpyLoo]

"Thank you, Limpy."

 

 

sorry, sorry

 

I'm just throwing out my opinion.

 

I might be wrong, but I think the stakes are high enough to warrant inquiry.

[Guest]

need... stop....... read.....thread...

[YO303]

 

You can't make buildings out of sandwiches.

 

 

Just kidding, store tons of sperm, kill every men then only give birth to girls ( if you give birth to a baby boy sacrifice it to the goat godess).

 

Just kidding.

[LimpyLoo]

For the people complaining about this thread: why do you keep coming back?

 

 

Just walk away.

[eugene]

There is no evil.

 

+1

[lumpenprol]

Let's talk about Santa Claus for a moment. This chubby white guy with a beard and elves knows if you have been bad or good. If you are good you get presents (heaven), if you are bad you get coal (hell). Thought control/paranoia.

 

By surrendering to something as man-made as Religion for morality you are devaluing yourself as a human being by limiting your creative mind to wonder and doubt. It is the root of evil in that it is the root of ignorance. Which is all that evil is. It's aesthetic may present itself as something good, but wolf in sheep clothes. Don't deny it. Churches should be taxed and ignored. Humanity needs to wake from its slumber and turn to a wider range of spiritual perspectives. Look towards science and space/the cosmos. Real mysteries that are more profound and important than Santa.

The problem is, you are presenting an unfair caricature of religion and religious people -- based on the worst of real-life examples, no doubt, but uncharitable at best. That would be like saying we should abolish colleges on account of the behavior of drop-out, moronic jocks, while overlooking the Nobel laureates who have graduated from the same institution. The Christian description of the project of the civil rights movement by MLK is an easy example of the positive, reflective and socially conscious power of religious faith. So what makes your claims so objectionable is that they come off as totally ignoring or writing off examples like those.

 

Similarly, to say that the morality of being good before God's eyes is a form of thought control or paranoia is to focus on those who literalize the message in terms of its supernatural meaning, while ignoring those who can understand the power of a metaphor to give meaning and direction to our lives (just as we do secularly, when we think of our teammates as our family members or our spouses as our 'other halves' -- metaphor at work with profound practical consequences).

 

You make two other objections to adopting moral values for religious reasons: (1) religion is man-made (implying that nothing man-made could give us legitimate moral values or reasons to act in certain ways rather than others), and (2) religious belief limits our creativity, wonder and skeptical/critical thought.

 

But the principle behind (1) is false. The constitution and any state or local laws are man-made rules that give us legitimate moral values and reasons for action (e.g., agreeing with one another to respect our freedom and pursuit of happiness); the same goes for a marriage vow (a couple binding each other to value their relationship by acting faithfully in each other's best interest, or whatever). And if the idea is that only something non-man-made could give us a legitimate set of moral values, that is, on some construals, the very sort of religious superstition you would want to protest -- the thought that our real and true calling must be revealed to us from some source that is 'behind' or 'above' us, which we did not create but which dictates how we ought to live.

 

Objection (2) rests on another caricature of religious faith. A paragon of Christian faith like St. Augustine or Soren Kierkegaard is perhaps one of the most skeptical, reflective, creative and wonderous persons I can think of. In the name of what they took their faith to call upon them to do, they spent their whole lives questioning whether they truly understood what it meant to be a Christian, whether they were living up to the ideals of that identity, and whether the ideals themselves had been misunderstood by them and their contemporaries. I take that to be an exemplary moral attitude, no matter what particular moral value or point of view is in question.

 

Your final point suggests that religion is objectionable because any religion is one among many, so that devoting yourself to one limits your 'perspective' on ... something -- I'm not sure what, exactly. I used to be someone who thought it was a shame that people grew up with one religious belief and never explored other options, until a friend of mine brought home to me how only in that way was the real nature of her religious point of view a part of her character in the way it needs to be in order to count as truly believing in it. In other words, being a spiritual tourist is unlikely to bring you to understand just what the religion is all about, since religion (among many other things!) has ritual, daily practice and habituation at its core. Not to mention that the work of most religions takes place through a spiritual community, which only comes about through a group of people sharing a way of life that they have spent a considerable amount of time learning to live and to live well. If I want to learn about a religion, I'm not going to check it out for a week and then move on, nor am I going to try to learn from such a person; I would want to give it a real shot, for years, and to hear what people who've practiced it for a decade or more think it's all about.

 

 

So, those are the parts of your attitude toward religion that I don't think are fair, sympathetic or correct.

this is epic, lovely post

[LimpyLoo]

I think that's a fair point, in italics or not. But it's not a reason to abolish all religion.

 

You think it is, if you add your second claim, that religion brings lots of negative consequences with it.

 

But I am not convinced that secular reasons and motivations for achieving great, meaningful things do not come with their own similar risks of bad consequences (political ideologies and a shared love for one's country and cultural heritage are two powerful examples). So, if your principle is to abolish all bases for belief and action that have potentially bad consequences, then you are equally committed to abolishing patriotism, love of family, and the pursuit of technological progress. And I think at that point it's much more reasonable to say that your principle is wrong, than it is to say we should get rid of every potentially dangerous basis for belief and action.

 

 

Edit: @ quasimodo

 

My principle is not to abolish all bases for belief and action that have potentially bad consequence. Technology could potentially bring some solutions for mankind's problems, love of family is a lovely thing, and honestly I'm not sure how I feel about patriotism.

 

I think the question regarding religion is "Is there any actual basis for belief"? Most religious people simply inherit their parents' religion. There is rarely any critical inquiry about the veracity of the religion's beliefs. "Is the Bible historically accurate? Is it allegory? Is there any actual evidence that God exists? Do I believe simply because I was taught to believe? Is the God of the Bible (namely the Old Testament) actually a good model for morality? Do I really want to worship a God that would torment me eternally for disobeying Him? Can a rational personal actually call that a loving God?"

 

I think some of the communal aspects of religion can be nice, but once again, they can exist without religion.

 

 

[syd syside]

I think that's a fair point, in italics or not. But it's not a reason to abolish all religion.

 

You think it is, if you add your second claim, that religion brings lots of negative consequences with it.

 

But I am not convinced that secular reasons and motivations for achieving great, meaningful things do not come with their own similar risks of bad consequences (political ideologies and a shared love for one's country and cultural heritage are two powerful examples). So, if your principle is to abolish all bases for belief and action that have potentially bad consequences, then you are equally committed to abolishing patriotism, love of family, and the pursuit of technological progress. And I think at that point it's much more reasonable to say that your principle is wrong, than it is to say we should get rid of every potentially dangerous basis for belief and action.

 

 

Edit: @ quasimodo

 

My principle is not to abolish all bases for belief and action that have potentially bad consequence. Technology could potentially bring some solutions for mankind's problems, love of family is a lovely thing, and honestly I'm not sure how I feel about patriotism.

 

I think the question regarding religion is "Is there any actual basis for belief"? Most religious people simply inherit their parents' religion. There is rarely any critical inquiry about the veracity of the religion's beliefs. "Is the Bible historically accurate? Is it allegory? Is there any actual evidence that God exists? Do I believe simply because I was taught to believe? Is the God of the Bible (namely the Old Testament) actually a good model for morality? Do I really want to worship a God that would torment me eternally for disobeying Him? Can a rational personal actually call that a loving God?"

 

I think some of the communal aspects of religion can be nice, but once again, they can exist without religion.

 

 

 

Nice summation, and yeah with the internet there is little need for the communal aspects of religion.

[Zephyr_Nova]

For the people complaining about this thread: why do you keep coming back?

 

I'm kind of in this trap too. Part of it is knowing that at some point in the future I'll be tempted to check in again, and if I haven't kept up to date I'll have pages and pages of this to wade through all at once. That would be a far worse hell than just routinely checking in to see a few new posts at a time. Mostly I think I just come back out of some masochistic impulse I have. Some posts in this thread are pretty quality though.

[goDel]

 

[img=http://rlv.zcache.com/men_the_root_of_all_evil_t_shirt-p235603760524345443fu8cz_400.jpg]

You can't make buildings out of sandwiches.

 

 

Just kidding, store tons of sperm, kill every men then only give birth to girls ( if you give birth to a baby boy sacrifice it to the goat godess).

 

Just kidding.

All mendatory sacrifices aside, it does have an impact on the enjoyability of the menage a trois if you cut out the man-factor. I mean, I'm not a woman, but I can't believe women getting off on cold machines carrying a dildo for their entire lives.

 

Edit: i understand it's pretty tasteless to post something like this in a thread with the current topic, but seeing where this thread is now, it would be just silly to even consider taking this thread serious.

[keltoi]

Let's talk about Santa Claus for a moment. This chubby white guy with a beard and elves knows if you have been bad or good. If you are good you get presents (heaven), if you are bad you get coal (hell). Thought control/paranoia.

 

By surrendering to something as man-made as Religion for morality you are devaluing yourself as a human being by limiting your creative mind to wonder and doubt. It is the root of evil in that it is the root of ignorance. Which is all that evil is. It's aesthetic may present itself as something good, but wolf in sheep clothes. Don't deny it. Churches should be taxed and ignored. Humanity needs to wake from its slumber and turn to a wider range of spiritual perspectives. Look towards science and space/the cosmos. Real mysteries that are more profound and important than Santa.

The problem is, you are presenting an unfair caricature of religion and religious people -- based on the worst of real-life examples, no doubt, but uncharitable at best. That would be like saying we should abolish colleges on account of the behavior of drop-out, moronic jocks, while overlooking the Nobel laureates who have graduated from the same institution. The Christian description of the project of the civil rights movement by MLK is an easy example of the positive, reflective and socially conscious power of religious faith. So what makes your claims so objectionable is that they come off as totally ignoring or writing off examples like those.

 

Similarly, to say that the morality of being good before God's eyes is a form of thought control or paranoia is to focus on those who literalize the message in terms of its supernatural meaning, while ignoring those who can understand the power of a metaphor to give meaning and direction to our lives (just as we do secularly, when we think of our teammates as our family members or our spouses as our 'other halves' -- metaphor at work with profound practical consequences).

 

You make two other objections to adopting moral values for religious reasons: (1) religion is man-made (implying that nothing man-made could give us legitimate moral values or reasons to act in certain ways rather than others), and (2) religious belief limits our creativity, wonder and skeptical/critical thought.

 

But the principle behind (1) is false. The constitution and any state or local laws are man-made rules that give us legitimate moral values and reasons for action (e.g., agreeing with one another to respect our freedom and pursuit of happiness); the same goes for a marriage vow (a couple binding each other to value their relationship by acting faithfully in each other's best interest, or whatever). And if the idea is that only something non-man-made could give us a legitimate set of moral values, that is, on some construals, the very sort of religious superstition you would want to protest -- the thought that our real and true calling must be revealed to us from some source that is 'behind' or 'above' us, which we did not create but which dictates how we ought to live.

 

Objection (2) rests on another caricature of religious faith. A paragon of Christian faith like St. Augustine or Soren Kierkegaard is perhaps one of the most skeptical, reflective, creative and wonderous persons I can think of. In the name of what they took their faith to call upon them to do, they spent their whole lives questioning whether they truly understood what it meant to be a Christian, whether they were living up to the ideals of that identity, and whether the ideals themselves had been misunderstood by them and their contemporaries. I take that to be an exemplary moral attitude, no matter what particular moral value or point of view is in question.

 

Your final point suggests that religion is objectionable because any religion is one among many, so that devoting yourself to one limits your 'perspective' on ... something -- I'm not sure what, exactly. I used to be someone who thought it was a shame that people grew up with one religious belief and never explored other options, until a friend of mine brought home to me how only in that way was the real nature of her religious point of view a part of her character in the way it needs to be in order to count as truly believing in it. In other words, being a spiritual tourist is unlikely to bring you to understand just what the religion is all about, since religion (among many other things!) has ritual, daily practice and habituation at its core. Not to mention that the work of most religions takes place through a spiritual community, which only comes about through a group of people sharing a way of life that they have spent a considerable amount of time learning to live and to live well. If I want to learn about a religion, I'm not going to check it out for a week and then move on, nor am I going to try to learn from such a person; I would want to give it a real shot, for years, and to hear what people who've practiced it for a decade or more think it's all about.

 

 

So, those are the parts of your attitude toward religion that I don't think are fair, sympathetic or correct.

this is epic, lovely post

 

+1 agreed

[Guest Iain C]

Let's talk about Santa Claus for a moment. This chubby white guy with a beard and elves knows if you have been bad or good. If you are good you get presents (heaven), if you are bad you get coal (hell). Thought control/paranoia.

 

By surrendering to something as man-made as Religion for morality you are devaluing yourself as a human being by limiting your creative mind to wonder and doubt. It is the root of evil in that it is the root of ignorance. Which is all that evil is. It's aesthetic may present itself as something good, but wolf in sheep clothes. Don't deny it. Churches should be taxed and ignored. Humanity needs to wake from its slumber and turn to a wider range of spiritual perspectives. Look towards science and space/the cosmos. Real mysteries that are more profound and important than Santa.

The problem is, you are presenting an unfair caricature of religion and religious people -- based on the worst of real-life examples, no doubt, but uncharitable at best. That would be like saying we should abolish colleges on account of the behavior of drop-out, moronic jocks, while overlooking the Nobel laureates who have graduated from the same institution. The Christian description of the project of the civil rights movement by MLK is an easy example of the positive, reflective and socially conscious power of religious faith. So what makes your claims so objectionable is that they come off as totally ignoring or writing off examples like those.

 

Similarly, to say that the morality of being good before God's eyes is a form of thought control or paranoia is to focus on those who literalize the message in terms of its supernatural meaning, while ignoring those who can understand the power of a metaphor to give meaning and direction to our lives (just as we do secularly, when we think of our teammates as our family members or our spouses as our 'other halves' -- metaphor at work with profound practical consequences).

 

You make two other objections to adopting moral values for religious reasons: (1) religion is man-made (implying that nothing man-made could give us legitimate moral values or reasons to act in certain ways rather than others), and (2) religious belief limits our creativity, wonder and skeptical/critical thought.

 

But the principle behind (1) is false. The constitution and any state or local laws are man-made rules that give us legitimate moral values and reasons for action (e.g., agreeing with one another to respect our freedom and pursuit of happiness); the same goes for a marriage vow (a couple binding each other to value their relationship by acting faithfully in each other's best interest, or whatever). And if the idea is that only something non-man-made could give us a legitimate set of moral values, that is, on some construals, the very sort of religious superstition you would want to protest -- the thought that our real and true calling must be revealed to us from some source that is 'behind' or 'above' us, which we did not create but which dictates how we ought to live.

 

Objection (2) rests on another caricature of religious faith. A paragon of Christian faith like St. Augustine or Soren Kierkegaard is perhaps one of the most skeptical, reflective, creative and wonderous persons I can think of. In the name of what they took their faith to call upon them to do, they spent their whole lives questioning whether they truly understood what it meant to be a Christian, whether they were living up to the ideals of that identity, and whether the ideals themselves had been misunderstood by them and their contemporaries. I take that to be an exemplary moral attitude, no matter what particular moral value or point of view is in question.

 

Your final point suggests that religion is objectionable because any religion is one among many, so that devoting yourself to one limits your 'perspective' on ... something -- I'm not sure what, exactly. I used to be someone who thought it was a shame that people grew up with one religious belief and never explored other options, until a friend of mine brought home to me how only in that way was the real nature of her religious point of view a part of her character in the way it needs to be in order to count as truly believing in it. In other words, being a spiritual tourist is unlikely to bring you to understand just what the religion is all about, since religion (among many other things!) has ritual, daily practice and habituation at its core. Not to mention that the work of most religions takes place through a spiritual community, which only comes about through a group of people sharing a way of life that they have spent a considerable amount of time learning to live and to live well. If I want to learn about a religion, I'm not going to check it out for a week and then move on, nor am I going to try to learn from such a person; I would want to give it a real shot, for years, and to hear what people who've practiced it for a decade or more think it's all about.

 

 

So, those are the parts of your attitude toward religion that I don't think are fair, sympathetic or correct.

this is epic, lovely post

 

+1 agreed

 

Ditto. Encey knocks it out the park.

[keltoi]

Let's talk about Santa Claus for a moment. This chubby white guy with a beard and elves knows if you have been bad or good. If you are good you get presents (heaven), if you are bad you get coal (hell). Thought control/paranoia.

 

By surrendering to something as man-made as Religion for morality you are devaluing yourself as a human being by limiting your creative mind to wonder and doubt. It is the root of evil in that it is the root of ignorance. Which is all that evil is. It's aesthetic may present itself as something good, but wolf in sheep clothes. Don't deny it. Churches should be taxed and ignored. Humanity needs to wake from its slumber and turn to a wider range of spiritual perspectives. Look towards science and space/the cosmos. Real mysteries that are more profound and important than Santa.

The problem is, you are presenting an unfair caricature of religion and religious people -- based on the worst of real-life examples, no doubt, but uncharitable at best. That would be like saying we should abolish colleges on account of the behavior of drop-out, moronic jocks, while overlooking the Nobel laureates who have graduated from the same institution. The Christian description of the project of the civil rights movement by MLK is an easy example of the positive, reflective and socially conscious power of religious faith. So what makes your claims so objectionable is that they come off as totally ignoring or writing off examples like those.

 

Similarly, to say that the morality of being good before God's eyes is a form of thought control or paranoia is to focus on those who literalize the message in terms of its supernatural meaning, while ignoring those who can understand the power of a metaphor to give meaning and direction to our lives (just as we do secularly, when we think of our teammates as our family members or our spouses as our 'other halves' -- metaphor at work with profound practical consequences).

 

You make two other objections to adopting moral values for religious reasons: (1) religion is man-made (implying that nothing man-made could give us legitimate moral values or reasons to act in certain ways rather than others), and (2) religious belief limits our creativity, wonder and skeptical/critical thought.

 

But the principle behind (1) is false. The constitution and any state or local laws are man-made rules that give us legitimate moral values and reasons for action (e.g., agreeing with one another to respect our freedom and pursuit of happiness); the same goes for a marriage vow (a couple binding each other to value their relationship by acting faithfully in each other's best interest, or whatever). And if the idea is that only something non-man-made could give us a legitimate set of moral values, that is, on some construals, the very sort of religious superstition you would want to protest -- the thought that our real and true calling must be revealed to us from some source that is 'behind' or 'above' us, which we did not create but which dictates how we ought to live.

 

Objection (2) rests on another caricature of religious faith. A paragon of Christian faith like St. Augustine or Soren Kierkegaard is perhaps one of the most skeptical, reflective, creative and wonderous persons I can think of. In the name of what they took their faith to call upon them to do, they spent their whole lives questioning whether they truly understood what it meant to be a Christian, whether they were living up to the ideals of that identity, and whether the ideals themselves had been misunderstood by them and their contemporaries. I take that to be an exemplary moral attitude, no matter what particular moral value or point of view is in question.

 

Your final point suggests that religion is objectionable because any religion is one among many, so that devoting yourself to one limits your 'perspective' on ... something -- I'm not sure what, exactly. I used to be someone who thought it was a shame that people grew up with one religious belief and never explored other options, until a friend of mine brought home to me how only in that way was the real nature of her religious point of view a part of her character in the way it needs to be in order to count as truly believing in it. In other words, being a spiritual tourist is unlikely to bring you to understand just what the religion is all about, since religion (among many other things!) has ritual, daily practice and habituation at its core. Not to mention that the work of most religions takes place through a spiritual community, which only comes about through a group of people sharing a way of life that they have spent a considerable amount of time learning to live and to live well. If I want to learn about a religion, I'm not going to check it out for a week and then move on, nor am I going to try to learn from such a person; I would want to give it a real shot, for years, and to hear what people who've practiced it for a decade or more think it's all about.

 

 

So, those are the parts of your attitude toward religion that I don't think are fair, sympathetic or correct.

this is epic, lovely post

 

+1 agreed

 

Ditto. Encey knocks it out the park.

 

with dignity and aplomb

[RichieBees]

and yeah with the internet there is little need for the communal aspects of religion.

 

lol

[syd syside]

and yeah with the internet there is little need for the communal aspects of religion.

 

lol

 

 

 

 

Veer monitored social media sites like Twitter and Facebook after the region's major quakes and found people would use them to let others know they were safe and to receive messages of support from around the world.

 

Community halls and churches were the traditional spots for people to rally after a major crisis, but in Christchurch, many of those buildings were destroyed or deemed to be unsafe.

 

 

"Social media has a very functional purpose, but beyond that it's also become extremely valuable for keeping a community together and bringing people together.''

 

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/7517088/Social-media-excel-after-quakes

 

--

 

2. American church attendance is steadily declining.

 

In 1990, 20.4% of the population attended an Orthodox Christian church on any given weekend. In 2000, that percentage dropped to 18.7% and to 17.7% by 2004. Olson explains that while church attendance numbers have stayed about the same from 1990 to 2004, the U.S. population has grown by 18.1%—more than 48 million people. “So even though the number of attendees is the same, our churches are not keeping up with population growth,” he says.

 

Well-known church researcher and author Thom Rainer notes that the failure of churches to keep up with the population growth is one of the Church’s greatest issues heading into the future. In a 2002 survey of 1,159 U.S. churches, Rainer’s research team found that only 6% of the churches were growing—he defines growth as not only increasing in attendance, but also increasing at a pace faster than its community’s population growth rate. “Stated inversely, 94% of our churches are losing ground in the communities they serve,” he says.

 

http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/139575-7-startling-facts-an-up-close-look-at-church-attendance-in-america.html

 

--

 

 

[Guest Iain C]

and yeah with the internet there is little need for the communal aspects of religion.

 

lol

[brian trageskin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oMINqFGNr-w

[syd syside]

huh?

[lumpenprol]

fascinating. Not sure if he is some sort of actor, or if he's just having a very bizarre reaction to grief. Either way it's creepy.

oh also he strikes me as very gay

[brian trageskin]

can't wait for ~2 hour youtube videos with tens of thousands of likes explaining how this shooting is a gov. conspiracy against the 2nd amendment

 

bonjour

[syd syside]

[keltoi]

[sweepstakes]