1. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by rogue49, Aug 28, 2012.

Page 27 of 104
  1. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    It's like a ping-pong match.
     
    rogue49, Feb 6, 2013
    #521
  2. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    That, and I'm a glutton for punishment.

    I must say, though, I'm unaccustomed to being called an extremist for preferring facts over faith.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
    Baraka_Guru, Feb 6, 2013
    #522
  3. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Punishment is a requirement by law to read Atlas Shrugged

     
    redux, Feb 6, 2013
    #523
  4. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Punishment? This could very well save the republic. Ayn Rand was more of a visionary than George Orwell and Aldous Huxley combined.
     
    Baraka_Guru, Feb 6, 2013
    #524
  5. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    I came across this article this morning by chance. This pretty much say all that needs to be said about the topic. Though I do take exception with what he says about evolution. It's both a fact and a theory, though I think he was referring to the vernacular use of the word, which people seem take to mean unsubstantiated speculation (i.e., "It's just a theory, man").

    Sir David Attenborough: religious viewers send me hate mail for not crediting God - Telegraph
     
    Baraka_Guru, Feb 7, 2013
    #525
  6. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I am going to slow down and address one issue at a time. Your statement above is flawed.

    For example at one time in history as late as the early 1800's the prevailing scientific view was that bloodletting cured some diseases. There were scientific theories about the blood, the bloodletting process, where and how to do it that were later proven to be totally wrong. The scientific theories involving bloodletting in that period was no more effective than some tribal religious rituals using narcotic plants - in fact some of those processes may have been more effective.

    I can predict with certainty that what we know 200 years from now will make some current scientific theory appear as dumb as we view bloodletting today for many of the treatments it was intended for. In the mean time what we find is that many natural remedies involved in religious ritual from the past actually has beneficial medical uses.

    Your view point seem to lack historical perspective.
    --- merged: Feb 7, 2013 at 11:42 AM ---
    I do not support the promotion of any specific religion in public schools. I have no issue with the ruling you cite.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2013
    Aceventura, Feb 7, 2013
    #526
  7. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Ace, why do you think bloodletting is no longer practiced in established Western medicine? Why do you think medical practices will continue to change?

    Why do you think people still believe in miracles?

    You don't need to answer any of these questions. I know you lack a basic understanding of what a scientific theory is.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2013
    Baraka_Guru, Feb 7, 2013
    #527
  8. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I am obtuse? Think about what I am responding to. How would you teach the history of the Crusades without laying the religious foundation first? If public funds can not be used to teach religion, how do you do that among many other things?

    How do you discuss the life and times and theories of Galileo without setting the religious foundation and the prevailing religious theories at the time?

    We can not separate religion from education.

    It is you folks who are obtuse!
    --- merged: Feb 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM ---
    I stated why. Scientific theory is often not fact. When we gain more knowledge , some theories are proven wrong. In the context of religious rituals involving some natural treatments as we have gained knowledge some of those have been proven to have validity?

    Because there is a need to believe in a purpose greater than self. Again, the term "miracle" is used in different ways. You assign one meaning and most people assign a different meaning.

    Was technique of bloodletting to cure disease a scientific theory?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2013
    Aceventura, Feb 7, 2013
    #528
  9. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Proven wrong by the scientific method. Isn't it fascinating? Can we do that with the Bible?

    What are you talking about here? I know of ancient applications of herbs, etc., that have benefits, but it's not like the supernatural had anything to do with it. It has to do with physical properties that can be validated or refuted. You know, by scientific study. Lots of scientific research has been conducted on green tea, for example, though it has a long spiritual history. All of this is based on observations rather than supernatural properties. Or do you believe in magic?

    That question was mainly rhetorical. People still believe in miracles despite the extremely low likelihood in proving that they can actually happen. They are set apart from scientific matters such as learning that bloodletting doesn't do what people thought it did. Learning facts changed the scientific consensus on the practice. That's how science works. It's essentially the inverse of the belief in the supernatural. The concern is with cause and effect.

    I don't know much about the history of the practice. If we do assume it was a theory, I'm sure it was a theory based on more than one fact. However, once more facts unfolded (due mainly in the explosive growth in technology), they learned that it doesn't do what people think it does and that there are better methods to cure disease. It's all a part of the process. It's rooted in facts. It's rooted in reality. It's not difficult to grasp on a basic level. I'm not sure why you brought it up. It greatly reinforces the importance of the scientific method.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2013
    Baraka_Guru, Feb 7, 2013
    #529
  10. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Yes. You think the Bible is wrong. I don't interpret the Bible as literal. Many research and find reason to dispute biblical stories. There are even scientific theories for explaining the plagues brought on by Moses in the book of Exodus - the explanations are extremely compelling and actually lends some credibility to the tale in a scientific manner.

    There are religions other than those based on the Bible or Torah. For example Buddhism teaches about Karma - every cause has an effect. Sounds familiar to me from a scientific point of view. The study of Buddha's Nobal Truths is very, pardon the pun, enlightening - no matter who you are.

    If the limit of your understanding of religion is at the supernatural - we communicate on very different levels.

    You use the term "miracle" without giving context. When the US Olympic Hockey team beat Russia in the 1980 Olympics was that a "miracle"? Millions of people call it a "miracle" but there sure as, pardon the pun, hell no divine intervention in a GD hockey game. I remember a few times when my grand-mother would get money to pay a bill coming due, and thank God saying it was a "miracle" - nope grandma, you got the social security check in the mail it comes every month.

    Did Jesus walk on water - I doubt it - I think the story is a metaphor. So when you use the term "miracle" I have no idea what you mean. People want to believe in something greater than self. They want to believe their actions have impact, they understand outside forces having impact - but they want to believe their is a higher power that can on special occasion come in and let his/her/its presence be known. Not all religions have a basis in the belief in miracles in the tradition of some Judea-Christian faiths.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2013
    Aceventura, Feb 7, 2013
    #530
  11. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    There is a very big difference between teaching history and teaching religion. If you can't see the difference, I don't know how to help you.

    Besides, that is entirely not the point of this discussion. What is being discussed is evolution vs. creationism. Your red herring is just a diversion.

    I have no issue with religions being taught as part of humanities (note the pluralization of religion) but religions have no place in a science class. There is no equivalence between superstitious beliefs of creationism and evolution. I am fine with you believing in your superstitions but as soon as it hits the Public School system, we have a problem. Save it for Sunday school or send your kids to a private religious school.
     
    Charlatan, Feb 7, 2013
    #531
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    It's interesting you compare these to Buddhism, which is far less dogmatic (some would say anti-dogmatic) and essentially atheistic. (I've read a lot about it.)

    Oh, I know religion plays roles in the real world, but that's not really what we're talking about.

    I'm basically referring to phenomena attributed to the supernatural. The vernacular use of the word miracle is like the vernacular use of theory. The meaning shifts a lot. My point is that science works with the real and builds on knowledge, whereas creationists rely on faith and nothing changes.

    For example, what if the Bible is wrong? I guess it depends on the Christian. You point out that many don't believe in it literally, but how much should one believe in it? What if the more essential aspects are wrong? It's different for Christians who approach the Bible philosophically. I think for fundamentalist Christians, however, it's disturbing to even think of that. Science, on the other hand, can be wrong. It invites it, actually. Finding something is wrong helps speed things along rather than get stuck on it. Buddhism is the same way. Buddhism too is focused on reality.
     
    Baraka_Guru, Feb 7, 2013
    #532
  13. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    We can dispute the historical events in the Bible but the central tenant that there is a Supreme Being that created everything is, in my opinion, a fiction.
     
    Charlatan, Feb 7, 2013
    #533
  14. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    It's like disputing the history of Troy. We need not assume Apollo et al. actually visited.
     
    Baraka_Guru, Feb 7, 2013
    #534
    • Like Like x 1
  15. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Kooks??

    Well, claiming rape may be good is not a way to get you to look intelligent at least.

    And those in the Dems, who claim "Close Encounters" are at least keeping their mouths shut for now.
    (at least on the national level and certainly not before an election...you know who you are)

    I'm hoping that some sense of mind, or at least mouth comes to them. Don't hand your opponent a weapon.
    Same goes for those at ground level, you want to get people to listen, don't go for zany.

     
    rogue49, Feb 7, 2013
    #535
  16. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    I honestly look forward to a day when the GOP can shed all of this garbage and be a party that can be taken seriously. I may not agree with most conservatives but there are many that I can respect. Sadly, they do not have a voice in today's GOP.

    Fiscal conservatism as been infected with the Milton Friedman virus of neo-liberalism and social conservatism, the less said about that, the better.

    The Big Elephant in the room is a sick beast. Get well soon!
     
    Charlatan, Feb 7, 2013
    #536
  17. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    If you read my posts you know I know the difference. I do not support the promotion of religion or religious theory in public schools. I do not support teaching religion at the expense of science. I do not support teaching religious theory or any theory as fact. early on I stated that teaching religion in public schools serves some valid purposes. Is this what you dispute? Or are you simply being a troll. or obtuse?

    I believe evolution is valid and has been scientifically proven, and I believe in a God that created the universe. I simply do not believe humans are descendants from Apes - no science has proven that humans are direct descendents of apes.

    What about social science???? How can you study social science and not study religion. You and others keep making these broad general statements that are flawed, and you get pissed at me for your problems in communicating.
    --- merged: Feb 8, 2013 at 11:59 AM ---
    Are you implying that Buddhism is not a religion? I simply stated that there are many religions, some are more or less credible on certain issues than others - you seemed to be narrowly focused on Christianity.


    Now you are suggesting that "creationist" don't change their views? In some versions of the Bible the story of Adam and Eve has changed to accommodate feminism. Some women got a little bent out of shape given the implication that Eve was subordinate to Adam. Again, you view lacks historical perspective.

    That is a personal choice. That is why there are so many divisions in the Judea-Christian foundation. Even Islam has roots in this foundation. Various scriptures have writings that are in conflict. People try to resolve these in various manners. Totally new (relatively speaking) scriptures have been developed or branched off the old, i.e Mormonism.

    Perhaps it would be helpful if you took a class or two at a local public college, oops, sorry you could not support that.

    The tradition in Judaism is to constantly question. Talk to a Rabbi on this subject, you may be surprised.
    --- merged: Feb 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM ---
    If it came down to me being a lone person advocating what I believe to be true and correct I will do it - I don't care about the superficial opinions of others. If the Republican Party becomes what you want it to be, they will be Democrats. Fortunately there are still a few who will stand with me.
    --- merged: Feb 8, 2013 at 12:17 PM ---
    Here science traces the human race back to "Eve":

    'Mitochondrial Eve': Mother of all humans lived 200,000 years ago

    Is your issue with biblical stories or with biblical concepts? The concept of a first seems to be an interest of scientific pursuit. "Supreme Being" or an accident, your faith in a accident is no better or worse than another person's faith in a "Supreme Being" - or do you think you have the answer?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 15, 2013
    Aceventura, Feb 8, 2013
    #537
  18. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    I'm implying that Buddhism when viewed as a religion differs significantly from the other major religions, most notably its lack of a belief in a creator god and its lack of a single authoritative holy book. These two factors contribute to why it lacks the dogma of, say, Christianity. Buddhists are encouraged to respond to experience, observation, and awareness, not faith. To Buddhists, the proof is in the pudding.

    The reason why I focus on Christianity in these posts is because I don't know of any movements or legislation to interfere with science education on the part of other religious groups. We were speaking specifically of Christians in America.

    I'm speaking mainly of fundamental changes. Postmodern reinterpretations of Eve's role in her partnership with Adam is superficial compared to the suggestion that Genesis fails to take into account what we now know about the history of human development, let alone the planet. But if it's all metaphors, it's different. I get the feeling that creationists don't view the Bible metaphorically.

    This, to me, only seems to conflate the issue of Christianity and the convoluted nature of authoritative texts. Why this should be exposed to studies on evolution and other science is beyond me.

    Au contraire! I think it's a fantastic thing. I'd probably enjoy a good survey course on major world religions.

    I tend to take far less issue with Judaism than Christianity. It seems to make more sense to me. I particularly am intrigued by its view of heaven and the afterlife, and the rationale behind Jesus Christ's failure to fulfill the requirements of the messianic prophecy.

    In my conversations on spiritual matters with my friend who's a practicing Jew, I find that there are astoundingly many parallels between Judaism and Buddhism at their core regarding morality and principles of living.

    I would, for example, have a great time sitting down to lunch with someone like Levite to discuss matters of spirituality and morality. I would, on the other hand, be far less comfortable doing the same with his Christian counterparts.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
    Baraka_Guru, Feb 8, 2013
    #538
  19. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    This only refers to a female line of modern humans. She's the "maternal ancestor of all living humans." The article doesn't discuss mtEve's ancestors. It also discusses a single genetic marker; it's not a claim that this was the only woman living at this particular point in time, i.e., there were other women living at the time.

    This is science using a Bible concept to label a biological occurrence. It's not a confirmation of a Bible concept. I don't seem to recall Genesis mentioning the Biblical Eve having ancestors or peers, only Adam and their descendents.

    It would be wrong to compare mtEve to the Biblical Eve in a literal sense.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
    Baraka_Guru, Feb 8, 2013
    #539
  20. Levite

    Levite Levitical Yet Funky

    Location:
    The Windy City
    Any time, brah! Just let me know if you're passing through Chicago. My door is always open, and I am forbidden to actively proselytize (which I also think is crass).
     
    Levite, Feb 8, 2013
    #540
    • Like Like x 1
Page 27 of 104