Religious fanatic murders child and gets a slap on the hand

[CiaranAnnrach]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1744040' date='Apr 3 2009, 16.04']Whatever. Fine. I'm a bigot towards bigots. Intolerant of intolerance. I hate all racists. Tell me again what the problem with that is? Or why on earth I should stop being so?[/quote]

Oh, no problem at all, and don't stop if you don't want to. I just wanted you to own up to it. Though, you do have to admit, it is [i]slightly[/i] ironic.

[the silent speaker]

[quote]Except for the fact that each of those examples are actual crimes that directly violate the rights of others, beyond that, analogize away.[/quote]
So you are actually [i]more[/i] tolerant of murderers and rapists than the religious, because people who commit "actual crimes that directly violate the rights of others" are entitled not to be repaid in kind, but the merely intolerant, who committed no such crimes, are entitled to no such thing. (This even assuming arguendo that all religious people are per se intolerant.)

TerraPrime, it's a good question, but is there an answer (in either direction) that doesn't ultimately boil down to Things I Don't Like? I can't think of any sensible underpinning for a coherent policy and so I think I have no choice but to suffer an incoherent one while I wrestle with the question.

[CiaranAnnrach]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1744066' date='Apr 3 2009, 16.24']I'm using 'wanton stupidity' because we've already had 12 pages of context developing what I mean by that. Its shorthand for my earlier arguments because I really don't want to explain them in detail every damned post. In case it was unclear, my 'wanton stupidity' remark applies to creationism. The belief in which is about as clear cut an example of wanton stupidity as you can get. Believing something that not only has no actual evidence to support it, but that is thoroughly contradicted by all existing evidence, when said evidence is damned extensive and almost (because nothing is total in science) completely persuasive and irrefutable, is pretty much the definition of stupid. If you believe in creationism, you're an idiot. There's no way around that.[/quote]

Most people are, in fact, idiots. At least, that's my take on the world.

I don't think that someone will magically become smarter if they choose to be atheistic, or stupider if they choose to become religious, and vice versa. The stupid atheists will pick evolution because it's the opposite of religious doctrine, just to spite religion, while the intelligent atheists will pick it based on the evidence and research. Stupid Christians will chose creationism because it's what they are told to believe, and to spite atheists, the intelligent Christians will think for themselves, examine the evidence, and more than likely either subscribe to the "guided evolution" camp or admit they don't know. Either way, the problem you have here has far more to do with intelligence than religion, the way I see it.

And I've seen studies relate that the amount of education you've had does also affect your stance on evolution vs creationism. In general, those who didn't complete High School or college are most likely to fall into creationism, those who graduated college are least likely. (Something like 30% and 20% of those who failed high school and college respectively, vs the 11% of those who graduated college.) So, education levels I'd argue play just as big a role in your stance as any other, especially since - at least where I grew up, evolution was touched upon briefly and then not very well discussed in High School.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='the silent speaker' post='1744096' date='Apr 3 2009, 16.51']So you are actually [i]more[/i] tolerant of murderers and rapists than the religious, because people who commit "actual crimes that directly violate the rights of others" are entitled not to be repaid in kind, but the merely intolerant, who committed no such crimes, are entitled to no such thing. (This even assuming arguendo that all religious people are per se intolerant.)[/quote]

Ummm....I really have no idea how you got that from what I wrote. I was simply pointing out that those analogies weren't terribly analogous or applicable. Like most of the sane world, I support throwing murderers and rapists in prison. I have not yet advocated that for the religious, nor any other active, repressive or physical action against them. So I don't really see how you can conclude that I'm more tolerant of murderers than Christians, or rapists than bigots. Again, this is really WAY out of left field. No idea where you got all that.

As for the general concept of 'repaying in kind', yeah I have no problem with that repayment where its legally, morally, and ethically acceptable. Like much of the rest of the world, I draw a clear distinction between saying/believing mean things and actually doing mean things. That's why we have an enshrined right (with a few practical limitations) of free speech and expression, but not free battery, free murder, or free imprisonment. Everyone has the right express vehement disagreement and loud, harsh, obnoxious criticism, but that right of 'free expression' stops at the moment of physical assault. One is a legitimate expression of rights, the other is an unacceptable infringement on the rights of others. That's why I draw a clear distinction between meeting bigots with hatred and say...raping rapists. One is clearly within everyone's lawful rights, the other steps far beyond them. But saying one is ok, but the other isn't hardly means I'm more tolerant of violent criminals than bigots.

[The_BlauerDragon]

I admit. More than once I have fired off without thinking about it, or thinking about my choice of words. I've even said some things that I went back and looked at and said, "Wow, that sounds nutty." Guilty as charged. I don't want to drag out the arguments, I probably got a little too heated in my response and said some things I shouldn't have anyway. Instead, let me try to explain to you why I was getting so upset to begin with. I'll state my position, and hope that you can see where I am coming from.

First, let's establish the Demographic I'm coming from: I'm a Christian. I'm a "conservative" (in most regards). I'm a gun owner, a hunter, and an animal loving artist. I'm also a heterosexual, mostly white, male. As you know; I'm 32, single, and below middle class.
A little background on my faith:
My parents were Hippies, and were decidedly "anti-religion". The first time I went into a church for a purpose other than a wedding or a funeral was when I was 17. I thank my parents for that. I do not go to church now. I feel it interferes with my relationship with God. I was raised mostly in small, backwoods, primarily hillbilly towns, but did spend several formative years in a school system with an elite cast of teachers recruited from across the nation. I was also encouraged to read a lot, believe very little, trust even less, and imagine as much as possible when I was a child.
Now:
By your definition, I am both an idiot and not an idiot. I believe in the story of Creation. I do not believe that it is a literal "word for word" exact detail though. Rather, I look at it as a story to explain the origins of our universe, our world, and our evolution. I think the wording was meant to convey the concepts to a people that would not have had the knowledge base with which to grasp it otherwise. Think of it like explaining the internal combustion engine and the nuances of the French Revolution to a 3 or 4 year old. It's a story that gets the point across and it's one that can be still relevant as our scientific knowledge expands. That's my belief, that the two theories (Creation and Evolution) do not conflict with each other. I don't think that Darwin was "all that" either. He got the ball rolling in the right direction, I'll give him that. His theories still need some work though. Sometimes it is not exactly the [i]fittest[/i] that survive. If all of that makes me an idiot, then I'm an idiot.
I don't particularly like homosexuality (the thought of it kind of grosses me out), and I think abortion is wrong. I have homosexual friends, and I support their right to be free and equal. I also believe that abortion should be legal. I think it's a matter that is between the woman in question and her own conscience (and/or her God). I see no problem with teaching strong morals to kids. I see no problem with the general good values that religion tends to offer. I will agree with you that having one's faith preached at them from behind a pulpit is not only irresponsible, but dangerous. I still maintain that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and there is no power that a man can obtain which is more absolute than to have a group of people (be it 10 or 10 million) believing that you have the authority to speak for their God. I will absolutely affirm that religion should be a personal and private thing. I don't see why public display of faith (if done peacefully and without preaching or reproaching) should be a problem to anyone. I would not ever want to see a world where all faith had been abolished. That, to me, would be the point at which there would be no reason for the human race to go on. Maybe it wouldn't be the end, but it would be the end of purpose. I guess that I need to start spotlighting the atheists and laughing at the absurdity of their beliefs (even though I'd rather just let them do their thing). I think that the U.S. society is far too repressed. I think that a lot of our problems stem from repression (I'll agree religion is usually used as the excuse or justification for that repression). I agree that a lot of the religions out there have some off the wall and/or contradicting things going on. I can see where you might enjoy laughing at that. I will repeat though, that I do not think that there is anything good about a world without faith and I cannot see anything inherently bad about a world with faith.

If you're still reading this... Thank you.

[CiaranAnnrach]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1743980' date='Apr 3 2009, 15.21']Not quite.

It's fair to say that EHK's evaluation of what religions do for human society and progression is biased and lopsided. It's also fair to say that his opinion on the matter is extreme. But tell me, do you also chastise people for criticizing racism? Do you also tell them that they are intolerant? Suppose you agree with EHK's premise that religion really is a significant detrimental force to human society. Then his intolerance of religion is not so crazy now is it? So, imo, argue with him about his pig-headed opinion on religion, but accusing him of being intolerant of religion doesn't carry as much weight as a moral indictment as you may like.[/quote]

That is a good question, TerraPrime.

If someone was on a soapbox criticizing racism for being intolerant of others, I'd be very tempted to point out the irony just to be a jackass. But that's who I am.

It really depends upon the how, though. If someone were to be criticizing anyone and everyone who was even the slightest bit racist, calling them stupid and idiots, laying at their feet all the world's problems, then I'd also speak up. I'm from the South, so I know plenty of people who are racist to one degree or another, but they are still good people. Many of them even have black friends, and don't necessarily just stop at the skin color, so I would take offense to having those people, who've done nothing wrong nor acted on their racism outside of making a few off-color jokes, being lumped in with those depraved, or greedy, or violent people who committed atrocities in the name of racism.

But if someone just wanted to make up a a post, or write a section in the paper, about the dangers of racism and the bad that it causes, without any broad, general attacks on people who've done nothing wrong, then no. I wouldn't say anything. They are expressing their beliefs in a way such that they are not forced upon others.

I do believe everyone is entitled to their beliefs, even wrong beliefs. What I don't believe is everyone is entitled to their soapbox to attempt to force their beliefs onto others or directly attack people who've done nothing wrong but believe something different.

If it was Scientology, though? I dunno. That shit scares me.

[CiaranAnnrach]

The original analogy had more to do with the "turnabout's fair play, except I get to come out of it clean" than anything else. While, yes, the acts are vastly different in scope, those justifications have all been used by people at some point, and the irony of it remains. Either way it's a moot point as he's owned up to it.

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1744144' date='Apr 3 2009, 17.19']Everyone has the right express vehement disagreement and loud, harsh, obnoxious criticism, but that right of 'free expression' stops at the moment of physical assault.[/quote]

As a side note, I don't think that's quite true. At least, not outside of your own home. Depending on the situation, I think you can get in trouble for either disorderly conduct or verbal assault. Perhaps even sexual assault, depending upon the topic and the recipient. Or on most forums, a moderator could take action to protect the other forum members from one person's ravings.

I am, of course, using the royal "you," and not talking about anyone specifically here. No insults intended to anyone.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='CiaranAnnrach' post='1744138' date='Apr 3 2009, 17.14']Most people are, in fact, idiots. At least, that's my take on the world.

I don't think that someone will magically become smarter if they choose to be atheistic, or stupider if they choose to become religious, and vice versa.[/quote]

Atheism doesn't teach or require the belief in anything that is demonstrably stupid. Religion sometimes does. If the people are prone to stupidity already, wouldn't it be in everyone's interests not to encourage such tendencies?

[quote]The stupid atheists will pick evolution because it's the opposite of religious doctrine, just to spite religion, while the intelligent atheists will pick it based on the evidence and research.[/quote]

Believing in evolution just to spite religion? Are you kidding me? I would be utterly astounded if you could find me even one individual that this applies to.

[quote]the intelligent Christians will think for themselves, examine the evidence, and more than likely either subscribe to the "guided evolution" camp or admit they don't know.[/quote]

Intelligent Christians who think for themselves will conclude evolution. If they don't, they still might be intelligent, but they're not thinking for themselves. The evidence is enormous and all points pretty much the same way. Guided evolution is a lame copout rationalization that some Christians apply in order to reconcile their faith with reality. A placebo disclaimer that lets them sleep better at night. I guess its a step in the right direction, but it still represents of a fundamental misunderstanding of basic evolutionary theory. That evolution is somehow a ladder climbing towards a predetermined goal, and that each step along the way represents further advancement and a higher state of being. This is a fallacy. Evolution is about adapting to ones environment. The changes that persist in a species are generally the ones that provide advantage in a certain kind of environment. A change in environment may render that previous advantageous change into a liability. We are not climbing towards some ideal state of evolutionary being, we are simply changing like everything else as environment dictates. (or not changing much anymore, as some theorists suggest, since our ability to think and reason has allowed us to overcome nature, allowing the passing of all traits, beneficial and detrimental)

[quote]And I've seen studies relate that the amount of education you've had does also affect your stance on evolution vs creationism.[/quote]

Education from grade school through to PhD's would have a MUCH easier time if it didn't have to compete with religiously invented stupidity.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='CiaranAnnrach' post='1744168' date='Apr 3 2009, 17.53']As a side note, I don't think that's quite true. At least, not outside of your own home. Depending on the situation, I think you can get in trouble for either disorderly conduct or verbal assault. Perhaps even sexual assault, depending upon the topic and the recipient. Or on most forums, a moderator could take action to protect the other forum members from one person's ravings.[/quote]

Of course, but I think that falls under my 'With a few practical limitations' line. Naturally free speech doesn't cover direct harrassment nor should it. There are some other limitations on it, some debatable some much less so. But the basic principle remains intact: Voicing ones disagreement or condemnation is acceptable and protected but physically/violently expressing ones disagreement or disapproval generally isn't.

I'll get to the rest after dinner. Fish fry night. (Yes my old catholic church is still good for something)

[Lord Mord]

EHK,

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1744035' date='Apr 3 2009, 14.00']For the most part, that's what I have done.[/quote]

No, that's not true. It would be only if you first accept the premise that "if you believe in God, then you necessarily have a lot of other beliefs that make you toxic." Because it is false, I don't.


[quote]I would love in my life time to see the almost TOTAL irrelevance of religion in politics and public life ... And I'd challenge anyone to tell me why its wrong to want that or why its an undesirable outcome.[/quote]

Depending on what you mean by "relevance," and by "public life," I think we may be on the same page.


[quote]Well, its still kind of stupid. And I'm concerned about people who believe something that is so demonstrably wrong, because I wonder what else they might buy into even though its contradicted by all available evidence.[/quote]

I don't think God's existence or the divinity of a man long since dead, or the condition of reincarnation can be contradicted by the evidence. In fact, I had thought that was atheists' main bugaboo about the credibility of religion.

As such, your qualifier of "stupid" is unsubstantiated.


[quote]The bookbag color might be innocuous, but the next 'out of their ass', 'god says' dictated belief might not be.[/quote]

Then we'll knock it down together. We're getting really good at it ... if not as obviously effective as we might like. But I don't think people are going to be *more* receptive or positively affected if we attack innocuous, unprovable ideas, just because we're tired and can't be bothered to make a distinction.

[Annelise]

The Human Rights Council is trying to make it harder on you, EHK.

[quote]The Associated Press -

The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism.

The proposal put forward by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic countries — with the backing of Belarus and Venezuela — had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.

A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven nations, mostly Western, opposed the resolution, and 13 countries abstained.

The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

"Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers," Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said.

"It is important to deal with the cause, rather than with the effects alone," he said.[/quote]

Or as others (including me) look at it:

[quote]"Ultimately, it is the very notion of individual human rights at stake, because the sponsors of this resolution seek not to protect individuals from harm, but rather to shield a specific set of beliefs from any question, debate, or critical inquiry."[/quote] [url="http://thearmoury.blogspot.com/2009/03/un-resolution-passes-denouncing-all-of.html"]http://thearmoury.blogspot.com/2009/03/un-...ing-all-of.html[/url]

[The_BlauerDragon]

You're talking about the U.N.

Has anyone with any level of actual power, authority, or respectibility done anything recently?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1744149' date='Apr 3 2009, 17.29']Now:
By your definition, I am both an idiot and not an idiot. I believe in the story of Creation. I do not believe that it is a literal "word for word" exact detail though. Rather, I look at it as a story to explain the origins of our universe, our world, and our evolution. I think the wording was meant to convey the concepts to a people that would not have had the knowledge base with which to grasp it otherwise. Think of it like explaining the internal combustion engine and the nuances of the French Revolution to a 3 or 4 year old. It's a story that gets the point across and it's one that can be still relevant as our scientific knowledge expands. That's my belief, that the two theories (Creation and Evolution) do not conflict with each other. I don't think that Darwin was "all that" either. He got the ball rolling in the right direction, I'll give him that. His theories still need some work though. Sometimes it is not exactly the [i]fittest[/i] that survive. If all of that makes me an idiot, then I'm an idiot.[/quote]

I don't really see what concepts the Creation story is conveying or why its relevant in the modern world. Its a creation myth. Just about every culture and every religion on earth developed one at one time or another in order to explain the unexplainable. But now modern science has delivered an explanation that has rendered each of those myths wrong in their specific statements of fact. They might still be useful for some moral conveyed and certainly interesting as to what it might tell us about the culture that developed it, but beyond that it has no more scientific merit than the Simarillion. Might be a good read, might even gather some personal benefit from the story, but its not how things happened. Its not reality. And any suggestion to the contrary is just silly. And teaching it to children as fact is just downright irresponsible and only hurts them in the long run. (not to mention the country)

[quote]I don't see why public display of faith (if done peacefully and without preaching or reproaching) should be a problem to anyone.[/quote]

I find it annoying because most PDF's do take the form of proselytization in my experience, which is beyond irritating. Many politicians also make it a point to publicly affirm their faith at every opportunity, which just strikes me as pandering, and is also annoying in most forms. But I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed.

[quote]I would not ever want to see a world where all faith had been abolished. That, to me, would be the point at which there would be no reason for the human race to go on. Maybe it wouldn't be the end, but it would be the end of purpose.[/quote]

Genuinely curious why you think this. Personally I find the notion of an all knowing, perfect creator being guiding our destiny to be a great deterrent to 'going on'. Because it challenges the notion that our choices are really our own. If he has a predetermined set path for us, what does it matter what we do? What is the point of life without free will? Further, what is the point of a life largely dedicated to getting a first class upgrade in the next one? Miss a hell of alot of opportunities for fulfillment and enjoyment in this life if you're constantly worrying about the next.

[quote]I guess that I need to start spotlighting the atheists and laughing at the absurdity of their beliefs (even though I'd rather just let them do their thing).[/quote]

Well, feel free, but the only actual atheistic belief is the disbelief in god (or accepting the infinitesimally small possibility that there is one, but the lack of evidence rendering it not a serious consideration). Which I guess you can laugh at, but there's nothing inherently silly or demonstrably wrong about it, so your efforts are likely to backfire.

[quote]that I do not think that there is anything good about a world without faith and I cannot see anything inherently bad about a world with faith.[/quote]

I would clearly disagree. But since we've had 20 pages of explanations of my disagreements, I'll leave it at that. Appreciate the post though.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Bill Starbuck' post='1744194' date='Apr 3 2009, 18.20']EHK,

I don't think God's existence or the divinity of a man long since dead, or the condition of reincarnation can be contradicted by the evidence. In fact, I had thought that was atheists' main bugaboo about the credibility of religion.

As such, your qualifier of "stupid" is unsubstantiated.[/quote]

Well the example you used was calling a brown (or whatever color) backpack blue. That is something that can be contradicted by evidence and very clearly is. I thought that was analogous to flat earth theory, earth as the center of the universe, and creationism...all of which are contradicted by everything, supported by nothing, and are fundamentally stupid beliefs. I would not include belief in god, reincarnation, or a divine Jesus in the same category for while they have no real evidence to support them, there is also no substantial evidence to disprove them. That does not make them equally likely propositions as their opposites though.

In the simplest possible terms, stupid is believing something that has been proven (apply appropriate qualifiers) wrong. God does not yet qualify, a 6,000 year old earth and the absence of evolution does. AKA, calling the brown backpack blue. Stupidity substantiated.


[quote]Then we'll knock it down together. We're getting really good at it ... if not as obviously effective as we might like. But I don't think people are going to be *more* receptive or positively affected if we attack innocuous, unprovable ideas, just because we're tired and can't be bothered to make a distinction.[/quote]

Well the bookbag belief is innocuous, the belief that its an analogy for (creationism, or so I thought) very clearly isn't. And the proclivity for believing things that are so clearly contradicted by reality makes me damned weary of them. I mean if they fuck things up that badly there, what do you think are the chances that they're gonna have an intelligent and informed understanding of the political situation come election time? (to be fair though, I'd say 90% of the country across every demographic would be sketchy in that respect) Again, not applying this to a general belief in god, just the beliefs that are both entirely baseless and contradicted by all available evidence. (with said evidence being very substantial)

[quote]The Human Rights Council is trying to make it harder on you, EHK.[/quote]

Fucking nutjobs. Completely defeated the original purpose of the council and turned into an 'I hate Israel' (and sometimes the West) expo dedicated to the suppression of all criticism of Islam. Fortunately only 3rd rate thug countries take it seriously anymore. Fuck em. They can pass whatever they like. It ain't law and never will be.

[Ser King]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1744279' date='Apr 3 2009, 20.55']In the simplest possible terms, stupid is believing something that has been proven (apply appropriate qualifiers) wrong. God does not yet qualify, a 6,000 year old earth [b]and the absence of evolution[/b] does. AKA, calling the brown backpack blue. Stupidity substantiated.[/quote]

Regarding evolution, I would like to point inconstancy I find disturbing. First of all there is no system in evolution to add new information to a species at the macro level by a meaningful set of changes to the DNA letters, because "forward information" as to what the changes are aimed at is needed. Otherwise the intervening mutations have no advantage. In order to form the code to begin with, it's important that the sender and the receiver part of the cell both have prior agreement as to the meaning of the code, or there would no form of exchange. But Darwinian evolution only has chance mutations at its disposal. Because no "advance thinking" can possibly be allowed, there is no way that the nucleotides can arrange themselves in a "pre-defined code," since this assumes prior knowledge, and because of that the very existence of the DNA-coded language stalls evolution at the first hurdle. Now don't get me wrong, I still believe in evolution (mainly because its the only scientific theory attempting anything).

[The_BlauerDragon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1744253' date='Apr 3 2009, 17.27']Genuinely curious why you think this. Personally I find the notion of an all knowing, perfect creator being guiding our destiny to be a great deterrent to 'going on'. Because it challenges the notion that our choices are really our own. If he has a predetermined set path for us, what does it matter what we do? What is the point of life without free will? Further, what is the point of a life largely dedicated to getting a first class upgrade in the next one? Miss a hell of alot of opportunities for fulfillment and enjoyment in this life if you're constantly worrying about the next.[/quote]
I'm not going to try and beat the story of genesis into you. I find it relevant from an anthropological standpoint, and I marvel at just how close to accurate it is. From the position of everything coming to be suddenly with a "word from God" (I imagine that even in the absolute vacuum of space the "big bang" had a sound)
and a sudden light. I also find the analogy of man being sculpted from clay intriguing. Specifically because clay (or mud) is where some of the simplest and earliest life forms are thought to have existed, and because when something is sculpted it does not go straight from the raw form to the finished product (it evolves through a series of increasingly more refined forms along the way). But I digress. You clearly think that I'm an idiot for seeing validity in the story, so I'll move on and address the question above.
The God that I know, does not have a specific set path for us, and does not force us along any particular course of action. The way that I see God's relationship with man, there is a desire for us to do good. There is a hope that we will evolve to the height of our potential. There is free will for us to do as we wish to do. There is temptation, (though I'm not big on the concept of a devil actively trying to sway us), and there is every possible excuse for us to not believe. There is room for error. There is room for learning. We are not robots. I don't see faith (or any particular ceremony) as being an absolute pre-requisite to heaven. The way that I see it, heaven is a higher state of enlightenment and the path to heaven leads inward.
I find some of the basis for this in the story of Adam and Eve. If you look at it from a social perspective, it makes more sense than it does from a literal standpoint. Ignorance is bliss. When man was in his infancy, and was barely more than an animal, the concept of good and evil really did not exist. With the discovery of that duality, the knowledge of good and evil, everything changed. Once you step out of your blissful ignorance, you can't go back.
Some of my belief comes from the various parables and other stories offered in the Bible (though I do try to study other religions also). Take for instance the story of Cain and Able... I think it is actually meant to explain the extinction of Neanderthal. A man who was like man, but not man, and who was killed off by man.
Now, all of that is just my way of looking at it. Your mileage may very well vary, and your road may go a different direction entirely. That's the beautiful thing about free will and free societies. :cheers:

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1744314' date='Apr 3 2009, 19.18']I find it relevant from an anthropological standpoint, and I marvel at just how close to accurate it is. From the position of everything coming to be suddenly with a "word from God" (I imagine that even in the absolute vacuum of space the "big bang" had a sound)
and a sudden light. I also find the analogy of man being sculpted from clay intriguing. Specifically because clay (or mud) is where some of the simplest and earliest life forms are thought to have existed, and because when something is sculpted it does not go straight from the raw form to the finished product (it evolves through a series of increasingly more refined forms along the way). But I digress.[/quote]
This is a form of creationism with which I can happily co-exist, even if I don't necessarily believe it.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1744314' date='Apr 3 2009, 21.18']I'm not going to try and beat the story of genesis into you. I find it relevant from an anthropological standpoint, and I marvel at just how close to accurate it is. From the position of everything coming to be suddenly with a "word from God" (I imagine that even in the absolute vacuum of space the "big bang" had a sound) and a sudden light. I also find the analogy of man being sculpted from clay intriguing. Specifically because clay (or mud) is where some of the simplest and earliest life forms are thought to have existed, and because when something is sculpted it does not go straight from the raw form to the finished product (it evolves through a series of increasingly more refined forms along the way). But I digress.[/quote]

Sounds more like wish fulfillment to me. You want it to be relevant, so you find a way to rationalize it as such. Much like people strain to apply Nostradamus's Quatrains to every major historical event, when in reality they're vague enough that with a bit effort and imagination, you could claim they've already predicted just about anything. If an individual really wants to find a connection to something, they will. Its cloud patterns or constellations in text, nothing more really. Hell, Hindu creation myths talk of an infinite number of deaths and rebirths of the world. Well shit, right there you have the expanding, than contracting universe until you have yet another Big Bang and the whole process starts anew. I'm sure you can find a way to manipulate every creation myth out there to fit around what we know of physical reality, doesn't mean there's anything to it.

[quote]You clearly think that I'm an idiot for seeing validity in the story, so I'll move on and address the question above.[/quote]

As long as you're not actually discounting (unless you have significant evidence with which to discount) the substantially proven scientific realities we've established, I don't much care. It sounds like you're doing what those 'Guided evolution' Christians are, trying to find a way to reconcile biblical text with known science in a manner that doesn't contradict reality. If it helps you get through the day, fair enough. Just seems like a whole hell of alot of effort expended on something completely unnecessary.

[quote]The God that I know, does not have a specific set path for us, and does not force us along any particular course of action. The way that I see God's relationship with man, there is a desire for us to do good. There is a hope that we will evolve to the height of our potential. There is free will for us to do as we wish to do. There is temptation, (though I'm not big on the concept of a devil actively trying to sway us), and there is every possible excuse for us to not believe. There is room for error. There is room for learning. We are not robots. I don't see faith (or any particular ceremony) as being an absolute pre-requisite to heaven. The way that I see it, heaven is a higher state of enlightenment and the path to heaven leads inward.

I find some of the basis for this in the story of Adam and Eve. If you look at it from a social perspective, it makes more sense than it does from a literal standpoint. Ignorance is bliss. When man was in his infancy, and was barely more than an animal, the concept of good and evil really did not exist. With the discovery of that duality, the knowledge of good and evil, everything changed. Once you step out of your blissful ignorance, you can't go back.[/quote]

Adam and Eve strikes me as a pretty sinister story. I'd say that increasing human knowledge is noble, virtuous, and desirable unto itself. Essential for us to realize the 'height of our potential.' Yet God places a tree of forbidden knowledge in front of man and tells him not to touch it. Than casts them out of paradise for the crime of trying to attain knowledge. God comes off as quite the prick, not least because this story helped reinforce centuries of sexism and the supposed weak, deceitful nature of women. (though to be fair, its not like the bible was necessary to enshrine sexism in just about every culture throughout all of human history. But still, this and a few other biblical stories sure as hell added to the mess)

Another major problem I've got is this notion that belief without evidence is some sort of virtue. That people should be applauded for not thinking critically. It strikes me as the exact opposite of what we should promote and reward.

[Lord Mord]

EHK,

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1744279' date='Apr 3 2009, 17.55']Well the example you used was calling a brown (or whatever color) backpack blue. That is something that can be contradicted by evidence and very clearly is.[/quote]

I believe that color theory is not as clear on this as you might suppose.


[quote]I thought that was analogous to flat earth theory, earth as the center of the universe, and creationism...all of which are contradicted by everything, supported by nothing, and are fundamentally stupid beliefs. I would not include belief in god, reincarnation, or a divine Jesus in the same category for while they have no real evidence to support them, there is also no substantial evidence to disprove them. That does not make them equally likely propositions as their opposites though.[/quote]

I am a little concerned about the sweeping quality of your remarks, but the overall effect of the statement I find quite correct.


[quote]Well the bookbag belief is innocuous, the belief that its an analogy for (creationism, or so I thought) very clearly isn't. And the proclivity for believing things that are so clearly contradicted by reality makes me damned weary of them. I mean if they fuck things up that badly there, what do you think are the chances that they're gonna have an intelligent and informed understanding of the political situation come election time? (to be fair though, I'd say 90% of the country across every demographic would be sketchy in that respect) Again, not applying this to a general belief in god, just the beliefs that are both entirely baseless and contradicted by all available evidence. (with said evidence being very substantial)[/quote]


Okay. As long as it's understood there [i]are[/i] some religious ideas that don't do anyone any significant harm, then I think I'll go back to my original statement. As time marches on, if in future a particular religious idea should emerge which is clearly reprehensible in itself, I will argue against it as loudly as anyone. Everything else religious gets a pass from me.

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1744174' date='Apr 3 2009, 17.57']Believing in evolution just to spite religion? Are you kidding me? I would be utterly astounded if you could find me even one individual that this applies to.[/quote]
Look to the backsliders. Kirk Cameron claims he [i]used to be[/i] an atheist before he reconverted. If someone goes from believing in evolution to believing in creationism, then they obviously never had a very clear understanding of evolution in the first place.