Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 23:37:32 GMT -5
Wow. More misquotes. He said, "only religion causes good people to do bad things." (my emphasis) You have dreamed up a lot of things about Steven Weinberg. I don't follow your reasoning. Good catch, matisse.
It is Quite difficult to follow CD's reasoning.
Especially when he starts misquoting you and then insists that YOU should be the one to make an apology for a statement that you never made to begin with!
So when are you going to apologize for falsely calling me a liar for using "Christian" as a synonym for "bible believers"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 23:41:47 GMT -5
Wow. More misquotes. He said, "only religion causes good people to do bad things." (my emphasis) I didn't do much better than you "quoting" off the top of my head....there are a couple of versions reported in the Wiki article about Weinberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg) In a speech in 1999: "'Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." He modified his comment in a later article derived from these talks: "Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion." I have seen at least 3 versions of that quote.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 29, 2014 19:51:45 GMT -5
I was interpreting him as meaning that religion labels some things "good" that are not so good and draws good people in. I say this because the original context of the quote was slavery in the U.S.. Lots of good people back then truly believed that the Bible endorsed it. It doesn't matter that a few Christians were part of the early movement to abolish slavery. It doesn't matter how today you spin the Bible verses that refer to slavery. The majority of good Christians back then thought a "thumbs up" for slavery was right there in black and white. Some good people I knew growing up, still believed this into the 1970's. Their reasoning was based on racist premises, but had the form of "Christian compassion." (taking care of people who "weren't capable of taking care of themselves," bringing "savages" to Christ, etc.) Of course, and that example has some small degree of merit, except that slavery was never a religious invention But religion and slavery have enjoyed long hand-in-glove arrangements. I don't know whether or not the earliest practice of slavery was linked to a religious belief system or not. I do not see how you could possibly know either. I do know that religious beliefs have served as a foundation for establishing the practice of enslaving human beings. To bad Paul didn't mention their work. There is no argument from me that a few religious people (AND non-religious people) worked tirelessly for the abolition of slavery.The examples he gave were relevant and pointed. Religion facilitated the institution of Slavery in the United States because people believed slavery was ok with God; generations of "good" white people, like Mark Twain's mother, didn't even think to question it because so many supporting elements were woven into their Christian belief system.You will find that the majority of enslaved Human Beings in the United States were owned by good Protestants. Religion has cast some terribly long shadows across the world through the ages. Did you recognize this at the beginning of the discussion?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2014 20:14:26 GMT -5
Of course, and that example has some small degree of merit, except that slavery was never a religious invention But religion and slavery have enjoyed long hand-in-glove arrangements. I don't know whether or not the earliest practice of slavery was linked to a religious belief system or not. I do not see how you could possibly know either. I do know that religious beliefs have served as a foundation for establishing the practice of enslaving human beings. To bad Paul didn't mention their work. There is no argument from me that a few religious people (AND non-religious people) worked tirelessly for the abolition of slavery.The examples he gave were relevant and pointed. Religion facilitated the institution of Slavery in the United States because people believed slavery was ok with God; generations of "good" white people, like Mark Twain's mother, didn't even think to question it because so many supporting elements were woven into their Christian belief system.You will find that the majority of enslaved Human Beings in the United States were owned by good Protestants. Religion has cast some terribly long shadows across the world through the ages. Did you recognize this at the beginning of the discussion? I don't understand your last question. Did I recognize what at the beginning of the discussion?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 29, 2014 20:28:53 GMT -5
Did you recognize this at the beginning of the discussion? I don't understand your last question. Did I recognize what at the beginning of the discussion? That if "he had used the phrase 'religious institutions' instead of 'religion'" you "would have plenty to agree with him."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2014 20:57:48 GMT -5
I don't understand your last question. Did I recognize what at the beginning of the discussion? That if "he had used the phrase 'religious institutions' instead of 'religion'" you "would have plenty to agree with him." I hope I am understanding your question correctly as I seem to be in regular deep doo-doo here for twisting and lying. So here goes: Of my 18,000+ posts, I would expect there are at least a couple hundred posts where I have been extremely critical of religious institutions on many levels. And I mean all of them, including the one I am involved with. So had Mr.Weinberg made it reasonably obvious that he was railing only, or at least primarily, against religious institutions, their politics, their efforts to perpetuate themselves, their tendency to put survival above sound principle, their need to control people.....and so on, then I would have read his comments in quite a different light and would have been quite amenable to his ideas. Yes, I knew that from the outset. The institutional aspect is something that I specifically looked for and didn't detect that focus whatsoever (even though he is no doubt including the institutions), but rather a broadbrush condemnation of all and anything associated with religion and the belief in God. That's where I parted sharply with Mr.Weinberg, as I see the basics of religious thoughts and ideas as being fundamentally good and absolutely crucial in the civilizing and progress of mankind, including Weinburg's idea of the effort to understand the universe to lift one's life above a farce(not quite a quote but close enough I hope). Religion always has been an effort to understand the universe, and beyond, and that's where a lot of people find meaning in life, not farce. It is when the the institutions develop and go amok, such as the ones who condoned slavery, is when they have impeded human progress based on self-serving interests.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 29, 2014 23:19:38 GMT -5
That if "he had used the phrase 'religious institutions' instead of 'religion'" you "would have plenty to agree with him." I hope I am understanding your question correctly as I seem to be in regular deep doo-doo here for twisting and lying. So here goes: Of my 18,000+ posts, I would expect there are at least a couple hundred posts where I have been extremely critical of religious institutions on many levels. And I mean all of them, including the one I am involved with. So had Mr.Weinberg made it reasonably obvious that he was railing only, or at least primarily, against religious institutions, their politics, their efforts to perpetuate themselves, their tendency to put survival above sound principle, their need to control people.....and so on, then I would have read his comments in quite a different light and would have been quite amenable to his ideas. Yes, I knew that from the outset. The institutional aspect is something that I specifically looked for and didn't detect that focus whatsoever (even though he is no doubt including the institutions), but rather a broadbrush condemnation of all and anything associated with religion and the belief in God. That's where I parted sharply with Mr.Weinberg, as I see the basics of religious thoughts and ideas as being fundamentally good and absolutely crucial in the civilizing and progress of mankind, including Weinburg's idea of the effort to understand the universe to lift one's life above a farce(not quite a quote but close enough I hope). Religion always has been an effort to understand the universe, and beyond, and that's where a lot of people find meaning in life, not farce. It is when the the institutions develop and go amok, such as the ones who condoned slavery, is when they have impeded human progress based on self-serving interests. Is religion a solitary endeavor or a social phenomenon? At what number does a religion become an institution? Perhaps one of the objections to religion is the paranormal side of the belief that can often be an impediment to moving forward. Why expend resources to study the big bang if "god did it" is a satisfactory answer?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2014 0:57:28 GMT -5
I hope I am understanding your question correctly as I seem to be in regular deep doo-doo here for twisting and lying. So here goes: Of my 18,000+ posts, I would expect there are at least a couple hundred posts where I have been extremely critical of religious institutions on many levels. And I mean all of them, including the one I am involved with. So had Mr.Weinberg made it reasonably obvious that he was railing only, or at least primarily, against religious institutions, their politics, their efforts to perpetuate themselves, their tendency to put survival above sound principle, their need to control people.....and so on, then I would have read his comments in quite a different light and would have been quite amenable to his ideas. Yes, I knew that from the outset. The institutional aspect is something that I specifically looked for and didn't detect that focus whatsoever (even though he is no doubt including the institutions), but rather a broadbrush condemnation of all and anything associated with religion and the belief in God. That's where I parted sharply with Mr.Weinberg, as I see the basics of religious thoughts and ideas as being fundamentally good and absolutely crucial in the civilizing and progress of mankind, including Weinburg's idea of the effort to understand the universe to lift one's life above a farce(not quite a quote but close enough I hope). Religion always has been an effort to understand the universe, and beyond, and that's where a lot of people find meaning in life, not farce. It is when the the institutions develop and go amok, such as the ones who condoned slavery, is when they have impeded human progress based on self-serving interests. Is religion a solitary endeavor or a social phenomenon? Both, definitely. In modern terminology, "spirituality" tends to indicate a personal, solitary activity. As little as 2. Perhaps indeed. An anthropomorphic god-being automatically becomes a limitation. Big Bang as an idea didn't always exist. Did the belief in God prevent that? Apparently not. In spite of the crumbling of institutional religion, belief in God and the broader acceptance of Big Bang seems to thrive and co-exist quite nicely.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 30, 2014 7:50:11 GMT -5
Big Bang as an idea didn't always exist. Did the belief in God prevent that? Apparently not. In spite of the crumbling of institutional religion, belief in God and the broader acceptance of Big Bang seems to thrive and co-exist quite nicely. But the damage can start far removed from the eventual outcome. There are groups that are pressing school systems to teach creationism as a science. The courts have had to order the removal of stickers with disclaimers regarding evolution from some text books. It goes beyond the big bang and esoteric theories of physics. Embryonic stem cell research has been severely hampered by religion potentially depriving many of treatments that are not currently even dreamed of. I think Gould's view of non-overlapping magisteria goes a long way to resolve conflict. it is not perfect but it at least sets out a starting point. Truth cannot contradict truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2014 8:17:32 GMT -5
Big Bang as an idea didn't always exist. Did the belief in God prevent that? Apparently not. In spite of the crumbling of institutional religion, belief in God and the broader acceptance of Big Bang seems to thrive and co-exist quite nicely. But the damage can start far removed from the eventual outcome. There are groups that are pressing school systems to teach creationism as a science. The courts have had to order the removal of stickers with disclaimers regarding evolution from some text books. It goes beyond the big bang and esoteric theories of physics. Embryonic stem cell research has been severely hampered by religion potentially depriving many of treatments that are not currently even dreamed of. I think Gould's view of non-overlapping magisteria goes a long way to resolve conflict. it is not perfect but it at least sets out a starting point. Truth cannot contradict truth. This statement from Wiki is what I mean by religion and Big Bang/evolution co-existing quite nicely: "Globally, evolution is taught in science courses with limited controversy, with the exception of a few areas of the United States and several Islamic fundamentalist countries." If anyone were to use militant Christian or Islamic fundamentalists as representative of "religion" blocking the teaching of evolution, it would not be an accurate depiction of the big picture. In my country, efforts to block science from being taught in public school is very limited and completely ineffective, and that would be similar for all developed countries except for a more vocal segment of the US society and some Islamic countries. For fundamentalists, what we do have is independent schools in most cities who run with their agendas. That is a reasonably good solution for a civil and free country and the Supreme Court doesn't get tied up on challenges to what public schools are teaching. Around 5% of kids in our country attend independent schools (majority religious) and another 2% homeschooled (some for religious reasons) and that seems to satisfy most of the demand for religious teaching. The other 93% in public schools don't focus much on complaints of teaching content of any kind, but more on the effectiveness of teaching, class sizes, quality facilities. Demand for religious teaching like Young Earth Creationism and anti-evolution teaching among the 93% (and some of the 7%) just doesn't register. So that's why I see religion and science co-existing quite well and those who push for anti-evolution teaching do not represent the whole, not even close.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 30, 2014 8:51:06 GMT -5
This statement from Wiki is what I mean by religion and Big Bang/evolution co-existing quite nicely: "Globally, evolution is taught in science courses with limited controversy, with the exception of a few areas of the United States and several Islamic fundamentalist countries." If anyone were to use militant Christian or Islamic fundamentalists as representative of "religion" blocking the teaching of evolution, it would not be an accurate depiction of the big picture. In my country, efforts to block science from being taught in public school is very limited and completely ineffective, and that would be similar for all developed countries except for a more vocal segment of the US society and some Islamic countries. For fundamentalists, what we do have is independent schools in most cities who run with their agendas. That is a reasonably good solution for a civil and free country and the Supreme Court doesn't get tied up on challenges to what public schools are teaching. Around 5% of kids in our country attend independent schools (majority religious) and another 2% homeschooled (some for religious reasons) and that seems to satisfy most of the demand for religious teaching. The other 93% in public schools don't focus much on complaints of teaching content of any kind, but more on the effectiveness of teaching, class sizes, quality facilities. Demand for religious teaching like Young Earth Creationism and anti-evolution teaching among the 93% (and some of the 7%) just doesn't register. So that's why I see religion and science co-existing quite well and those who push for anti-evolution teaching do not represent the whole, not even close. The following shows the results of polls taken in the US regarding evolution: Attachment DeletedsourcePerhaps people should start to focus on content.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2014 9:01:31 GMT -5
This statement from Wiki is what I mean by religion and Big Bang/evolution co-existing quite nicely: "Globally, evolution is taught in science courses with limited controversy, with the exception of a few areas of the United States and several Islamic fundamentalist countries." If anyone were to use militant Christian or Islamic fundamentalists as representative of "religion" blocking the teaching of evolution, it would not be an accurate depiction of the big picture. In my country, efforts to block science from being taught in public school is very limited and completely ineffective, and that would be similar for all developed countries except for a more vocal segment of the US society and some Islamic countries. For fundamentalists, what we do have is independent schools in most cities who run with their agendas. That is a reasonably good solution for a civil and free country and the Supreme Court doesn't get tied up on challenges to what public schools are teaching. Around 5% of kids in our country attend independent schools (majority religious) and another 2% homeschooled (some for religious reasons) and that seems to satisfy most of the demand for religious teaching. The other 93% in public schools don't focus much on complaints of teaching content of any kind, but more on the effectiveness of teaching, class sizes, quality facilities. Demand for religious teaching like Young Earth Creationism and anti-evolution teaching among the 93% (and some of the 7%) just doesn't register. So that's why I see religion and science co-existing quite well and those who push for anti-evolution teaching do not represent the whole, not even close. The following shows the results of polls taken in the US regarding evolution: View AttachmentsourcePerhaps people should start to focus on content. I think that chart proves that there is no evolution since the American people are definitely not evolving to a higher development! Too much Fox News I suspect.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 12, 2014 22:49:35 GMT -5
Some lie. I will get it exactly correct the next time instead of paraphrasing so I apologize profusely for not cutting and pasting what means the same thing. You actually said this: "Bible Believers are often the very ones that do the killing."It is a false and prejudicial statement. You and your mentor can't wiggle around this with more false claims of "lying". And then you have the unmitigated gall to accuse Wally of exactly what you are doing. It isn't paraphrasing when you use an entirely different word. It is known as lieing. You kept using "Christians" instead of what I actually said, "Bible Believers", in my quote.
That isn't paraphrasing, that is deceitful, that is dishonest,
I would have quit talkng to you long ago but my integrity means a lot to me & I didn't want people believing your lies about me. I have pulled up my original post where I made the statement.
I am re-post it. Then I will not answer you again.
22 Apr 2014 at 23:47 emy said:
"In fact, people who are honestly doing "God's work" would not murder." 23 Apr 2014 at 00:07 I said:
"Bible Believers are often the very ones that do the killing.
And it certainly doesn't help any when they keep repeating the the kind of hate that wally spouts."
I believe this is the post that Wally referred to on bottom of "Proof That Jesus Exists from Sacred Texts" ~ Page 10? I bumped the thread back for anybody who wants to preview what was said back in March/April 2014. I believe this April 23, 2014 date starts on Page 17 of this thread entitled, "Not About Herman," started by Scott Ross.
professing.proboards.com/thread/21027/proof-jesus-existence-sacred-texts?page=10
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 12, 2014 23:02:47 GMT -5
What makes you think anyone has contempt for religion? Is contempt ever justified. Once again, other than their lack of belief in a deity or deities, you cannot pack atheists into neat package of your own design and think it is accurate. Rational ~ Perhaps I should have said "contempt for Christians" instead of religion? However, I was referring to the exclusive nature of Christian religions, so perhaps it doesn't matter which word I use? Regarding contempt ~ no, I don't feel it's justified, but people seem to show it freely when it comes to religious matters.
Also, I have no interest in packing atheists into neat little boxes due to their lack of belief in God or deities. What they choose to believe makes no difference to me. Like you indicated earlier, "belief is based on faith ~ it doesn't have to be proven ~ only accepted." Therefore, I accept my faith in God and belief in an afterlife as part of my chosen identity in this world. You accept the opposite as your identity in this world and that's also O.K. with me.
Honestly, I believe this entire thread got really "off track" from the opening paragraph on Page1 and just continued to go downhill after that? I believe somebody named Herman had died recently and used to post on TMB in the past. There was a minor mention of this fact on another thread and then this thread initiated by Lee started the snowball rolling again in the accusatory fashion as before, only picking up more speed this time around?
|
|