Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 293
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?Page 7 of 26    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
Well scorpy, I see your "time away" has done little to curb your arrogance or mellow your bully-ish tendencies. So, here we go:


And what you fail to realize - consistently - is that "scientific investigation" is not the only arbiter of truth, particular when it comes to any matter of metaphysics, which science does not and cannot make any statements on.


Oh! Wait! Are you saying that science isn't philosophy and philosophy isn't science?! Well stop the presses! And do you think that you're the only one who's come up with the notion that scientific discovery can lead to serious moral implications? Really? Your ego must be truly astounding! Typical bully pathology.




Scientific principles are different in kind from metaphysical statements, including normative ones. To say that scientific knowlege is the only kind of knowledge is rather idiotic, which lets you prove the rest of your point by the level of your obnoxiousness and your rhetorical foot stomping.


And your bully-boy tactics continue unabated. But do please show where I stated that scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge. Wow, obnoxious? Pot, meet kettle. As for "foot stomping," that mark on the floor doesn't come from my shoe. Hey scorpio. Think maybe it's time to grow up and leave the public school mentality behind?


Science can tell us lots of things about cloning, for instance, and how to do it. But it can't give us any insight into whether we should do it.


Which is why we have ethicists. And some of the best are the ones who are actually directly involved in the science. Because history has shown us the consequences of scientific investigation without moral compass. You mean, you haven't been contacted by Cambridge or Harvard for your opinion?

Wow, that's surprising. Really. No one understands anything better than big ol' scorpio66 and by gawd, you'd better agree or he's going to throw you in the locker! *yawn*
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 294
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/7/2010 1:15:32 PM

And what you fail to realize - consistently - is that "scientific investigation" is not the only arbiter of truth

Please name one other objective arbiter of truth.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 295
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/8/2010 7:33:01 PM
I read this question a while back. I asked myself if it was true. I then thought about all the types of things that are in science: scientific theories, boiling points and melting points of different chemicals, and all sorts of things that we don't tend to think about. It occurred to me that if we were to make one book of all the things in science, that would be a massive book, where the vast majority of those things would be things that everyone agrees on, such as the boiling point of mercury, and the melting point of ascorbic acid, but that no-one really thinks about, and yet, those things in that vast majority that no-one thinks about, are things that no religion or ideology discusses or argues for or against. So I am of the opinion that the vast majority of things in science are not in conflict with any one religion, or even most religions, any more than they are in conflict with capitalism or communism.

Even if we consider groups like the Amish, or JWs, both would agree that electricity and blood transfusions work. They just don't agree that they should be used. But then, they don't disagree with the science, just the ethics of using that science, and ethics is a matter of philosophy, not science.

Some things are questioned and doubted by members of certain religions. However, those are likely to be the minority, as I stated above. However, then it occurred to me that many scientists have argued over certain theories over the years, and yet we never stopped thinking of them as scientists. Why not? Well, because they agree with the majroity of science, and only argue over a few things. Their acceptance of most things in science shows us that they agree with science in general, and just are arguing over a few points, if those should be part of science or not. So I asked myself, why should people of a certain religion, who clearly accept all the boring, accepted stuff in science, be any different?

Then I asked myself, why are we so apt to think of the things that people argue over, when discussing science? Well, because they are debated often. New things, or controversial things, are things that are likely to be discussed, precisely because not everyone yet accepts that they are true. But the things that everyone accepts as true, whether scientific or not, people tend to not discuss. So in reality, we only tend to focus on the things that are new or controversial, and those are the things being argued over. So it appears as if those people are against science. But in reality, those things are the minority of science, and that makes them no different than 2 scientists in Einstein's day, arguing over if the universe is absolute or relative

So really, it's all a matter of psychology. Our perception gives us the impression that certain people argue with all of science, when really they only argue over a tiny minority, just like scientists do. So, looking at things from a wider perspective, they seem to me to be in agreement with science in general, and are just arguing about a few theories.

Granted, that might be annoying to those people who like using those theories, and who take them for a given. But would they be any different than the people who got annoyed when you looked at a problem in a different way than they were taught? Would they be any different than all those scientists who were highly critical of Einstein, just because he chose to look at gravity in a different way than they were taught?

If we want people to hear fresh approaches to science, then we need to be open to all possibilities, however crazy it sounds, however ridiculous it sounds, and however much it seems to contradict everything we know, because there is very little which sounds more crazy or contradicts our reality than saying that the shortest distance between 2 points is NOT a straight line, and that is what Einstein said is true in our universe.
 forumrum
Joined: 5/25/2009
Msg: 296
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/12/2010 12:41:08 PM
A ridiculous question. The world will be a better place once mankind evolves and there is no longer any religion.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 297
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/12/2010 2:46:41 PM
RE Msg: 363 by forumrum:
A ridiculous question. The world will be a better place once mankind evolves and there is no longer any religion.
Ahhh, but evolution doesn't say what direction we will evolve in, only that we'll adapt according to what is most advantageous to the future environment, or go extinct. What if future environments favour religious fundamentalists more than anyone else? Then evolution tells us that religious fundamentalists will become the dominant form of humanity.

Welcome to the theory of evolution.
 forumrum
Joined: 5/25/2009
Msg: 298
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/12/2010 3:16:55 PM
You are quite right. Let us all hope that mankind sees the folly of religion or we will go extinct. There will never be peace in this world as long as any form of religion exists.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 299
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/12/2010 4:04:38 PM

Unlike you - apparently - I have a life, so I take time away. So here we go, indeed.


Go pound sand. You're a moron.


So, the pinhead finally agrees with me?


Eff you. You're still a moron.


Get an education you kindermensch


Hey, I've got a quarter. I'd be happy to lend it to you to buy a clue. Sadly, you'll still be a moron.


Of course I'm not the only one, you pinhead


And you're still a effing moron.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 300
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/12/2010 5:08:59 PM
RE Msg: 365 by forumrum:
You are quite right. Let us all hope that mankind sees the folly of religion or we will go extinct. There will never be peace in this world as long as any form of religion exists.
Evolution doesn't say that either. It says that there are plenty of futures in which humanity will thrive, just with religious fundies being the dominant form of humanity.

One thing also that I've noticed, is that most liberals I've come across, have few kids, often less than the minimum 2 required to replenish their stock. Conversely, religious fundies seem to have 10 kids each family. This is happening all over, including Western countries. So I expect that they'll quickly be the most populous of the people in the world. Pretty soon, they'll be the voting majority in most Western countries, as well as other countries.

But I doubt they'll go extinct. They seem to be able to survive almost every harsh environment imaginable. From what I've seen, the more difficult the environment, the more they thrive, and the more the liberals struggle. So it seems to me that if there is any climate change for the worse, the religious fundies will naturally survive, and the liberals will go extinct.

Liberals only chance is if the world gets really pleasant, really soon, and they all start breeding like rabbits.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 301
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/13/2010 3:58:31 AM
RE Msg: 368 by annasthasia:
He only has been in religious jewish schools... That is all he knows....
Well, you seem to be so sure of yourself, that I guess you must be right. However, I did attend one of the top universities in the UK. So I guess that according to you, universities are religious Jewish schools.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 302
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/13/2010 5:35:25 AM
Look, you ****, you are not qualified to eat my shit. I put up with you because there is a larger principle in play here.


Hey! You're the one who started this fight! I was more than content to join into a simple discussion about the relationship between science and philosophy. Your contributions has been to drag this discussion down. So congratulation, troll. Your job is done.


As a lawyer, I waxed your kind in court. As a soldier I was trained to put two in your chest if you ever tried to advance your nonsensical version of the world by violent means. That, of course, will not happen because you are a ****, intellectually empty and so morally absent that you could never follow up theory with action.


Well, you certainly love yourself, that's for sure. Of course, we've seen nothing but the product of your self love all over this forum. Messy, disgusting and producing nothing more than revulsion. And now I'm a terrorist? Please! Could you do us a favour and spare us your pretensions. They're getting tiresome, if not comical.


I have no problem in feeding trolls because I am not afraid of trolls.


Takes one to know one, I guess. But if you think I'm going to be bullied into submission by an arrogant, self-important, pseudointellectual a-hole like you, think again.


But I am constantly in conflict with the smug, pseudointellectuals who think they know better than the other 95% of humanity that have religion.


I suspect you're constantly in conflict because you are the one who feels the need to try and run roughshod over anyone who's opinion differs from you. And for the record, I've got no problem with anyone who has religion. My issue is with people like you who think that if they're smug, arrogant and aggressive enough, they can dominate over others.

So I've got a proposal for you scorp...I'll drop it if you will and we can get back to the actual TOPIC of the thread. Or we can both get our asses kicked off here. Up to you.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 304
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/14/2010 5:12:36 AM
Scorpio, it takes two to tango so if I have offended, then I apologize as well.

My apologies to the other participants of this thread if they have been offended.

Cheers
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 305
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/14/2010 7:38:09 AM
Now now, no one is to be offended or apologetic. This topic wouldn’t be 15 pages long if it wasn’t for those people who want to plunge themselves into an argument ha ha. Or maybe debate is a better word? No...I’ll stick with argument ha ha ha.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 308
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/15/2010 7:41:54 PM
RE Msg: 377 by Krebby2001:
I don't think that any minds will be changed, here or in any other thread, though much good information is exchanged. Those on either side will take whatever information they find useful.

Then we wonder why Congressional bodies move so slowly, if ever.
I think that itsallinthesoul has hit the nail on the head when she wrote:
Both science and religion seem to invoke emotional responses (so does politics). It is not easy to keep emotion out of it but maybe that is because we are first emotional beings and logical beings second.
Anything that we get emotionally attached to, has the same problems.

Just look at how long it took to get a public healthcare plan going in the USA. Apparently, Theodore Roosevelt tried to get it going in 1912.
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/03/23/presidential-influence-health-care-reform-throughout-20th-century/

It took 100 years just to get a basic level of universal public healthcare in the USA.

This problem affects religion, politics, the economy, social issues, pretty much anything people get emotional about, which is nearly everything that matters.

Of course, it doesn't have to.

We now know that we live in a relativistic universe, where there are multiple viewpoints that are all true from their relative positions. So we can consider in any argument or debate that all views are likely to be equally valid.

We now know that we live in a relativistic universe, where the shortest distance between 2 points is NOT a straight line. So we can consider that the most efficient method may be to NOT do what we see as a straight line to our aims.

We now know that we live in a quantum universe, where all possibilities co-exist at the same time, and it is only when we measure results, that one path is chosen. So we can consider that all options are possible, however, outlandish or ridiculous they seem, and we only need to pick the most possible, irrespective of our feelings on the matter.

Knowing all this, if we are willing to embrace the consequent philosophy that comes with living in a relativistic, quantum universe, I think we could have an attitude that would really keep conflicts to a minimum, and just pick the best options quite easily and with maximum consensus.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 310
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/16/2010 4:05:30 AM
RE Msg: 379 by Krebby2001:
What life has told me is that we live in a bigoted, homophobic universe. When we rise above that, maybe there might be some hope for letting science and religion coexist. But my fear is that, while science is neutral with regard to bigotry, and homophobia, religion is not. Maybe the problem is religion?
I live in a country that is unbelievably secular, so much so, that you would regard it as your ideal country. Yet 1 in 5 of the 3.6 million lesbian and gay people reported they were the subject of homophobic aggression in the last 3 years alone!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/26/equality.gayrights

That's 240,000 homophobic attacks every year, and yet, we can expect that only one out of many cases of homophobia is likely to lead to such aggression.

As Sir Francis Bacon pointed out with the Baconian Method:
The Baconian method consists of procedures for isolating the form nature, or cause, of a phenomenon, including the method of agreement, method of difference, and method of concomitant variation.

Bacon suggests that you draw up a list of all things in which the phenomenon you are trying to explain occurs, as well as a list of things in which it does not occur. Then you rank your lists according to the degree in which the phenomenon occurs in each one. Then you should be able to deduce what factors match the occurrence of the phenomenon in one list and don't occur in the other list, and also what factors change in accordance with the way the data had been ranked. From this Bacon concludes you should be able to deduce by elimination and inductive reasoning what is the cause underlying the phenomenon.

Thus, if an army is successful when commanded by Essex, and not successful when not commanded by Essex: and when it is more or less successful according to the degree of involvement of Essex as its commander, then it is scientifically reasonable to say that being commanded by Essex is causally related to the army's success.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method

Clearly, science tells us that if it were the result of religion, then the amount of homophobia would be almost non-existent, or at least many times less in the UK, than even the 1/5th that is likely to occur due to the UK having 1/5th of the population of the USA.

So it's not religion that is the problem.

If science has taught us anything, it is to never accept what we presume to be true, to be true, until we have examined the evidence, and the evidence clearly shows that homophobia is very common even when religion diminishes severely as a factor.

However, the existence of homophobia poses a clear problem. It means that that people have a moral obligation to remove homophobia as a form of prejudice, by making the effort to understand homohobic people, and to engage with them, to enlighten them, and thus, it makes a moral obligation on their efforts, their thinking, and their time. However, if they blame it on religion, then non-religious people can just say "It's THEIR fault. I shouldn't HAVE to do anything. It's the religious who should have to do the work."

Also, there is a clear possibility that the actions of people in general encourage homophobia, and are thus responsible in part for these attacks. If secular people blame it on religion, then they can feel that it is not due to their actions that homophobia exists, and can thus feel themselves as good people who have done nothing to exacerbate the problem.

The body has a survival instinct, and one of the ways it carries this out is to find as few ways of having to make effort as possible, and another is to boost one's confidence by making one feel like one is always acting in the right. In order to facilitate this, the brain often makes up rationalisations to support one's subconscious will. Nietzsche called this the Will to Truth. So we are biologically designed to act in this prejudiced and unfair way.

However, that does not excuse it. We are ALL equally responsible to eliminate homophobic attacks, secular and religious with equal levels of moral responsibility.

The same is true of most of the claims laid at religion's door. It's just a rationalisation of the subconscious of non-religious people, to blame others for the problems that exist in society, to boost one's self-esteem and to avoid making the effort required for real change, to serve the biologically-based survival instinct.

However, that does not excuse it. We are ALL equally responsible to solve the problems of the world, secular and religious with equal levels of moral responsibility.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 311
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/16/2010 6:17:15 AM
Speaking of GIGO, here we have a perfect example.

You have conflated "officially secular" (though I have my doubts about even that) with "a secular society." Then you've taken that as a given (or theorem) and run with it, applying the Baconian Method (which nobody uses anymore, because it's overly-simplistic and lends itself to abuses of logic JUST LIKE THIS ONE), and coming to the conclusion that some ill-defined "biologically-based survival instinct" is at fault.

Way to apply skeptical mathematical precision to a problem, scorp. Go, you!
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 312
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/16/2010 2:38:51 PM
RE Msg: 381 by desertrhino:
Speaking of GIGO, here we have a perfect example.
Yes, we do.

You have conflated "officially secular" (though I have my doubts about even that) with "a secular society."
Do you even realise that the UK is "officially" a Xian country, where in the last 10 years, about half of the cabinet were atheists, not to mention that the majority of people no longer even go to church for births, deaths and marriages, let alone that hardly anyone goes to church or synagogue or temple anymore.

If you are going to make a comment, at least make a somewhat accurate one, not complete garbage.

Then you've taken that as a given (or theorem) and run with it, applying the Baconian Method (which nobody uses anymore, because it's overly-simplistic and lends itself to abuses of logic JUST LIKE THIS ONE),
The Baconian Method is a very accurate form of measuring causation. We subconsciously use it all the time when we perform linear correlations in the results of experiments.

and coming to the conclusion that some ill-defined "biologically-based survival instinct" is at fault.
Read up on psychology, more specifically the self-image, self-invalidation, neurology, including the development of neural pathways and concept neurons, Nietzsche's Will to Truth, put it all together, and THEN come back to me.

Way to apply skeptical mathematical precision to a problem, scorp. Go, you!
Thank you for your comments.

But please, keep posting. Maybe if we battle long and hard enough, then you will begin to wonder why I am so obstinate, and yet seem to always refer to logic. It might get you thinking. It has others in my life. Of course, it took years. But Rome wasn't built in a day.

RE annasthasia by Msg: 382:
How many religious people have been killing non religious in the name of their god?

The Spanish invasion of South America comes to mind.
Ahhh, a student of history. Did the hundreds of tons of gold and silver that the Spanish plundered from South America have anything to do with it, I wonder?

The cruisades in the middle ages.
Let us consider history again. In 711-718, Muslims conquered the whole of Spain. They moved into France, and got all the way to Poitiers before being turned back by 732. So they were a serious invasion threat to Europe. Then, in 1074, the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire, Michael VII, appealed to Pope Gregory VII for help against invasion, and in 1095, Emperor Alexios I Komnenos appealed to Pope Urban II for help against invasion. As Europe had already been invaded from the South-West, and the Byzantine Empire was on its South-East, if it fell, then it would again be at threat of invasion. The Crusades were simply a failed attempt to support Western Europe's neighbours, to ensure that they did not fall, as that would expose Europe to attack from the South-East.

The attempt failed, and later on, Europe WAS threatened with invasion from the South-West, when the Ottoman Turks pentrated deeply into Europe in the 15th Century.

Religion did have something to do with it, as it was a unifying factor that allowed for alliances, and thus defined friend from foe, much as Americans define other Western countries as allies, and non-Western countries as enemies.

The Trail of Tears comes to mind... White people that immigrated to america that massacred the natives of the land from coast to coast... They were super religious too!
Really? They all refused to drink the demon beverages of beer and spirits? They all kept the admonition of the Bible that one must only execute people in a trial by judges, and had no lynch mobs? Hmmm...

Let's see: did the land that the Native Americans inhabit happen to be lands that the whites wanted for themselves, for farming, and for grazing, and for buffalo? I wonder if it wasn't just a basic case of land grabbing.

What about the Jews in Israel that actually attempt at rationalizing the constant harrassement of the Palestinians that have been living in refugee camps for like 50 years.... Is that in the name of the Jews's God?
If you KNEW anything about the situation, then you'd know that the main body of the ultra-religious have always felt very strongly that it was against G-d's instruction to drive out the Palestinians, or to mistreat them but leave them alive.

If you knew anything about the history, you'd know that the British promised everything from Yemen to Syria as ONE state to the Arabs in WWI, then completely ignored their promise, gave them one of the biggest insults you could give them, by Allenby saying the Allied conquest of Jerusalem, which was conquered with the support of the Arabs, was "the end of the crusades, and THEN putting anti-religious Jews in power, which totally alienated the Palestinians living there, who had previously been living in harmony with the RELIGIOUS Jews for many years.

The Palestinians don't have much of a problem with the traditional religious Jews. They only have a problem with the secular Jews, because it's been the secular Jews who have been spear-heading their mistreatment since 1948.

Or what about the Arabic people that have equatted blowing yourself up is a good thing to go to heaven... In the name of Allah?...
Let's be honest: The last time that Americans were attacked, they went to war with 2 countries, for over 5 years. If America invaded your country, blew up the buildings, made your people pay for the rebuilding, then lost billions of your people's money by accepting expenses of hundreds of thousands of dollars with no proof whatsoever, and some even siphoned off your country's oil directly, are you sure that your fellow countrymen wouldn't do everything they could to get rid of them?

Does that rationalization come from your rabbi again?
Nope. I can figure things out for myself. But you must have realised that already, because you're an observant, intelligent woman, and the vast majority of my quotes on the subject do not reference living Rabbis, but take from pre-established sources. So you would have observed this already, and realised that I wasn't just parrotting off what I was told in a lecture.

Please ... Religion has hurt, maimed, killed and massacred lives more than any athiest or agnostic I know.
Then you really don't know many atheists or agnostics. Stalin and his cronies had 20 million killed. That was just a few. That's not even considering the number of people who were tortured and persecuted by the atheist regime of the U.S.S.R. Not to mention the human rights abuses that have come from China, which is officially atheist.

Now, if you REALLY wanted to attack me, you could have simply pointed out that by saying most of the claims laid at religion's door are a rationalisation of the subconscious of non-religious people, to blame others for the problems that exist in society, to boost one's self-esteem and to avoid making the effort required for real change, to serve the biologically-based survival instinct", that I am making a huge generalisation, and that is therefore an extraordinary claim, and, as Carl Sagan is quoted to have said, to make an extraordinary claim, one needs extraordinary proof. You could have simply pointed out that unless I list the majority of claims put at religion's door, and explained all of them as examples of rationalisation, or I listed all of the claims put at religion's door, and explained the majority of them as rationalisations, then I would not be providing sufficient proof.

That would have been logical and sufficient.

Why do I have to fight your own battles for you, against myself, just to provide a half-way decent argument?

Do I really have to argue against myself?

Come on. You've written before that you're high up in the maths world. You can provide much more logically solid arguments than these.

Anyway, my comments were not a threat to atheists or agnostics. They gave logic that can and does apply just as much to theists and to religious people, just as much as atheists and agnostics. It is just that when we are critical of others, we tend to cast blame, because we are often trying to cast away any aspersions that we see against ourselves. From what I've observed, though, criticism just makes things worse, and, from what I've been told about psychology (not from a Rabbi), that when we criticise, we reinforce negative messages, and what we reinforce becomes more powerfully acted on, whether positive or negative.

However, when we are objective of others, we are unemotional about them. Therefore, our comments, however positive or negative they might be, are non-judgemental, and no such reinforcement happens, because we do not subject others to feel they are less than us just because they acted in ways that might be harmful. After all, none of us are perfect. So none of us really are in a position to cast the first stone.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 315
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/17/2010 6:19:34 AM

Do you even realise that the UK is "officially" a Xian country, where in the last 10 years, about half of the cabinet were atheists, not to mention that the majority of people no longer even go to church for births, deaths and marriages, let alone that hardly anyone goes to church or synagogue or temple anymore.

If you are going to make a comment, at least make a somewhat accurate one, not complete garbage.

I'll try, as long as you try to be something other than OCD and a sanctimonious prig. :)

Here's your first step: provide sources. References. Something that a normal person can use to look into your arguments and their origins. Here's mine for the above comments: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293

71.6% Christian.
76.8% "Religious"

Say what you will on their behalf, but 77% of your countrymen say you're a liar. Weird, that. Your argument that "nobody goes to church anymore" sounds a lot like the archetypal curmudgeon going on about how, "young people today don't respect their elders. Hey you damn kids, get off my lawn!"

(And actually, I don't give a damn whether the country is officially Christian. You're claiming it's de facto secular due to the presence of atheists on the Cabinet and I'm guessing also the recent applications of the Public Order Act regarding religious speech against gays. I disagree... anywhere you've still got the occasional BOMBING because of religious disputes between sects, you've still got a significantly religious society. Of course, the fact that there is significant religious "speaking out" against gays, and people being arrested for same under the POA, sort of gets us back to the original claim that much gay-bashing and anti-gay assault is religiously-based... hmmm... Did you put that bit in your calculations?)


The Baconian Method is a very accurate form of measuring causation. We subconsciously use it all the time when we perform linear correlations in the results of experiments.

No, it isn't. It's fairly arbitrary based on your PERCEPTION of causation, which is why it was supplanted by what we call today the Scientific Method. It was an important precursor to the Scientific Method, but it was expanded upon for a reason. It's inductive... and yeah, it's sort of still used as a first step to an actual scientific investigation, at the "forming a hypothesis" stage, but it's not really that useful as a be-all, end-all logical tool... Once you've got a hypothesis, you have to actually test it, experiment, make predictions and test them. Otherwise, you've just got a "it sounds plausible" piece of almost-useless garbage that is completely slaved to the personal experiences, knowledge, and biases of the person making the hypothesis. Which is why it's a strange argument for such a math zealot to use...


Read up on psychology, more specifically the self-image, self-invalidation, neurology, including the development of neural pathways and concept neurons, Nietzsche's Will to Truth, put it all together, and THEN come back to me.

You're the one making the argument, YOU do it. I have a better idea: provide sources and flesh out your argument a little, instead of making blanket pronouncements about the motivations of humans in homophobia. Seriously, you're starting to look a little like you're just EXTREMELY defensive about the slight you perceive as being leveled against "religion." But then again, you always are, aren't you?


Thank you for your comments.

But please, keep posting. Maybe if we battle long and hard enough, then you will begin to wonder why I am so obstinate, and yet seem to always refer to logic. It might get you thinking. It has others in my life. Of course, it took years. But Rome wasn't built in a day.

And again with the sanctimonious prig bit. Don't you get tired of being a one-trick pony? Go pound sand, ya yutz.


Why do I have to fight your own battles for you, against myself, just to provide a half-way decent argument?

Do I really have to argue against myself?

Come on. You've written before that you're high up in the maths world. You can provide much more logically solid arguments than these.

And again... can I just call you "one-trick?"


to make an extraordinary claim, one needs extraordinary proof. You could have simply pointed out that unless I list the majority of claims put at religion's door, and explained all of them as examples of rationalisation, or I listed all of the claims put at religion's door, and explained the majority of them as rationalisations, then I would not be providing sufficient proof.

Yep, as has been said to you and others dozens of times here, provide your sources/citations and flesh out your arguments.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 316
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/17/2010 7:05:22 PM
All fun and good to join in on a character assassination, but a few points:

Whether I agree or not with the gentleman being ...slagged, I do appreciate that he does put effort into his posts whether it's due to OCD (Likely) or just passion.

Some users of this site have the circumstance of viewing the dialog through the lens of things like OCD, Asperger's, other forms of Autism, and even something as cliche (but real, as many can attest) Adult ADHD. Using someone's affliction as a point of argument is, ...well, most of us know what that IS.

So, yeah, ...knock their argument if it deserves it, ...slice and dice their attempts at discourse, fine, but do try to consider the lens sometimes, and ....really, ...why attack the poster, ...if you can attack the post.

Hey, I have my run-ins with him too, but character assassination isn't a valid argument, .....ever.

Just sayin'
 whitegold765
Joined: 12/26/2007
Msg: 317
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/17/2010 11:59:01 PM
Can I just say for the record that I haven't always agreed with Scorpiomover, but that I've always found him to be an intelligent and well-reasoned moderate, and I have a great deal fo respect for him. I also wished to point out that Scorpio's comments have invariably been well intentioned and reasonable.


Go pound sand, ya yutz

I think the discussion ended here, with one person being objectionable and belittling, while the other attempts to hold a decent conversation.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 319
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 5/18/2010 6:10:10 AM

Go pound sand, ya yutz

I think the discussion ended here, with one person being objectionable and belittling, while the other attempts to hold a decent conversation.

Oh geez. At least if you're going to be playing the white knight/defender, you should be intellectually honest and quote it in context:



Thank you for your comments.

But please, keep posting. Maybe if we battle long and hard enough, then you will begin to wonder why I am so obstinate, and yet seem to always refer to logic. It might get you thinking. It has others in my life. Of course, it took years. But Rome wasn't built in a day.

And again with the sanctimonious prig bit. Don't you get tired of being a one-trick pony? Go pound sand, ya yutz.

In context, it's clear that response was to a nastily sarcastic dig, couched in typical priggish attitude. But hey, I guess it's just easier to take it out of context and attack five words than to explain away Scorp's sarcasm ("but please, keep posting" is just so calm, reasonable, and not at all a complete snide dismissal of anything said in the previous post), address my "prig" observations, and THEN attack the last five words of an exchange.

I just find it amusing as hell that you think the first half of the exchange above is, "attempt{ing} to hold a decent conversation" and "invariably ... well-intentioned and reasonable."

I have no intention of getting into a protracted pissing contest, especially with a third party. So, seriously, address the issues brought up in the first 80% of that post you cherry-picked 5 words out of, eh?
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 323
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/8/2010 1:35:11 AM

Name what it means to be "objective" and I will debate you into the ground.



# undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal";
# emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation
# belonging to immediate experience of actual things or events; "objective benefits"; "an objective example"; "there is no objective evidence of anything of the kind"

Dictionary woooo.

I really hope you're not going to try and put a subjective spin on the word objective, or claim that objectivity is subjective. Because there are absolute arbiters of truth. Up is up, down is down. You can call up down and down up, but you can't call both up and down the same thing.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 324
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/8/2010 6:49:27 PM
To Krebby2001, desertrhino and annasthasia:

I heartily apologise for my earlier statement.

I made an unqualified statement, without explaining my reasoning.

I have been friends with many atheists for over 30 years. During the 70s and 80s, I found that most atheists I had met made very rational and clear points. At the time, many religious people I knew, who argued about political issues, often used emotional arguments to sway their listeners over. So during that time, I generally found that atheists were more likely to give me much better reasoning than religious people, over political matters, such as why certain wars were going on.

In the last 15 years, I have still been friends with atheists and with religious people. But during this period, I have found that most atheists I have come across, have made blanket statements that were highly critical of religious people, that have been contradictory to numerous examples that I have observed using lateral thinking. At the same time, I have found that more and more religious people are no longer using emotional arguments, and are far more using rational observations that displayed clear and rational points. So during this time, although my natural tendency is still to listen to atheists more, as this is how I grew up, I am finding that I am more and more in agreement with the statements that many religious people are making, particularly when it comes to political issues, such as why certain wars are going on.

This might be because I was not as well-educated as a youth as I am now. But I am loathe to believe that all atheists have always been irrational. I also am amazed at the quality of observations of atheists and agnostics of those earlier times, such as Bertrand Russell.

This is my observation, based on my experiences of many atheists and many religious people, from many walks of life, from the very rich to the very poor, from Britain, America, Canada, France, Russia, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, India, and many other countries, of all sorts of interests and persuasions. It doesn't have to be taken as gospel truth, or a source of authority. It is simply my observation of quite a lot of personal experience, and my personal conclusions. And, it is of course subject to change, given more information, if that information would show a different trend. But that's what it's shown me so far.

However, that's not because those people are stupid because they are atheists. One's neural pathways don't miraculously re-write themselves, just because one professes to be an atheist, or because one converts to a religion. The brain's neural pathways take time and effort to develop, and time and effort to change. If one is irrational, one would remain irrational if one decided to become an atheist, or a Xian. If one is rational, one would remain rational if one decided to become an atheist, or a Xian. It is who those people are.

There is a common adage that might apply here, though. "Necessity is the mother of invention".

When the majority in the UK, and in many other circles, like online forums, was not opposed to religion, then speaking out against religion would have brought one into conflict with the majority. So one who did so, could expect attack from the majority, and thus there was a necessity to really develop a solid argument, to respond to so many critics. So there was a solid impetus to develop a solid argument.

But when that changed, and the majority in the UK, and in many other circles, like online forums, became opposed to religion, or at least felt that religion was harmful, then speaking out against religion would have brought one into resonance with the majority. So one who did so, could expect support from the majority, and thus there was no necessity to respond to many critics, as even if one was criticised for such a statement, many others would come to one's support. So there was no longer a solid impetus to develop a solid argument.

That in itself does not mean that such arguments are flawed. However, there is another common adage that can apply here. "The devil is in the details."

It is quite easy to develop an argument either for or against any issue, as anyone can observe in a debating society. But the details are what prove the argument right or wrong, what people often like to call the evidence. Any one of those details can show an entirely different view of things.

When there was an impetus to develop a solid argument, then atheists were more likely to examine all the details, to confirm that their arguments were water-tight, and so could not be dismissed or criticised by the many. But when the many who would make such criticisms became few, then there was no longer the impetus, and so it became much easier to not examine every detail. Thus it has become more easy to overlook very small-seeming details, that do not seem to be all that important or that relevant, but that, when taken into consideration, show an entirely different view of things.

It's always too easy to make a good-sounding argument when you are with the majority, and miss things, that one only finds out later on, that showed the situations were interpreted from an unfeasible angle. That is the danger of making any argument with the majority, and right now, there are many circles in which the majority are opposed to religion, in which anti-religious arguments are likely to be proposed and accepted, where small details that are vital to the understanding of the issues, are likely to be overlooked.

In particular, when those things involve emotional issues, that support one's current lifestyle, it is all too easy to produce arguments that support one's own views. Nietzsche described this phenomenon, which he called the Will to Truth.

However, I do not believe that it's because people are lazy, or that they are consciously biased. I believe that it is a function of the subconscious, to reaffirm our values, so that we will feel confident in our actions, so that we will act with more concious effort in our endeavours, and so be more successful. So it is my belief that the Will to Truth is a function of the Survival Instinct. It's a biological bias.

That bias happens, whether we are atheists, or religious, or anything else. It's simply a consequence of having a necessary biological drive to survive, and to be as successful as possible, in order to ensure our survival as much as possible.

It's a bias we all have to take into account, to keep ourselves as close as possible to the truth, to ensure that we are always acting in our own best interests, in the long-term as well as the short-term.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 325
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/8/2010 6:50:12 PM
RE Msg: 387 by desertrhino:
I'll try, as long as you try to be something other than OCD
I'd agree heartily that I display characteristics of OCD. When I am trying to make a post, it makes it very difficult for me, as I find it very difficult to think about something once or twice. I have the habit of thinking again and again about the subject, to see if I have misunderstood the issues. So it can take me a long time to develop a post, which makes posting a lot more strenuous than light fun.

However, that makes for me repeating my process of thinking about the subject many times. As you know, analysis in science is based on results being repeated many times. So, when I go over the same material again and again, and come out with the same results each time, that gives me the same type of reliability, as I can expect that the more times I go over something, that the more likely it is that if I have misunderstood something, that new observations will come to light.

Having OCD is very hard for many others to deal with, if they do not suffer with it. They often only go over something once, expecting that if there is a problem with what they are saying, that the problem will be mentioned, and then they can answer it, and that is how it goes with normal people, from what I have observed. But when they are dealing with me, because I have thought about the problems so many times, I have several problems, not just one, and I have already developed an alternative view, which I have subjected to scrutiny, not just once, but again many times. So it's very difficult for them to argue with me from an angle I have not considered, and is a valid objection to my POV. So all in all, it makes me come across like a know-it-all.

I still always think of my posts as a work in progress, though, as my OCD tendencies mean that I am never satisfied, and always feel that I could give those posts 20 or 30 more times. But after thinking about them at least 10 times each, and doing that again and again, which for some posts means 100 times, I have to reach a cut-off point, if only to let people have a chance to review my thoughts.

So by all means, call me OCD. It's a curse and a blessing. It's a curse, because it makes my life much harder. But it's also a blessing, because I mostly consider things so many times, that I see though much false arguments, and so am able to get closer to the truth.

Here's your first step: provide sources. References. Something that a normal person can use to look into your arguments and their origins. Here's mine for the above comments: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293

71.6% Christian.
76.8% "Religious"

Say what you will on their behalf, but 77% of your countrymen say you're a liar.
Then you might find this interesting, as it's from the British Humanist Association, a non-religious secular group, representing atheists and agnostics:
Religion and Belief: Some surveys and statistics

Numerous surveys indicate that the proportion of individuals who do not hold religious beliefs is steadily increasing.

Religions and beliefs are notoriously difficult to measure, as they are not fixed or innate, and therefore any poll should be primarily treated as an indication of beliefs rather than a concrete measure.

However, one of the most well-respected measures of religious attitudes is the annual British Social Attitudes Survey, further details of the latest report may be found here.
Religion and Belief in the United Kingdom:

In the UK, those who describe themselves as non-religious have risen from 31% to 43% between 1983 and 2008 according to the British Social Attitudes Survey’s 26th report issued in 2010.

An Ipsos MORI poll, published in January 2007 for the British Humanist Association indicated that 36% of people – equivalent to around 17 million adults – are in fact humanist in their basic outlook.

Another question found that 41% endorsed the strong statement: ‘This life is the only life we have and death is the end of our personal existence’. 62% chose ‘Human nature by itself gives us an understanding of what is right and wrong’, against 27% who said ‘People need religious teachings in order to understand what is right and wrong’.

In a 2006 Guardian/ICM poll:
63% of people say they are not religious (compared to 33% that do)
82% of those questioned see religion as a cause of division and tension between people
Only 17% of those polled believe the UK is best described as a Christian country


In a Mori poll for the Catholic weekly, The Tablet, published May 2005, the decline of religious belief is evident:
36% of people in the 18-34 age group in Britain define themselves as atheist or agnostic
In the population as a whole, 24% say they have no religion

In the 2007-08 Citizenship Survey, participants were requested to select factors that they regarded as important to their identity from thirteen options. Whilst family was top with 97%, followed by interests (87%), religion ranked bottom at 48%. Religion ranked bottom consistently with all age groups up to 65+, where it only moves up to eleventh. Christians ranked religion as thirteenth as a factor important to their identity.
The 2001 Census:

According to the 2001 UK Census, those of no religion are the second largest belief group, about 2 and a half times as many as all the other (non-Christian) religions altogether – at 15.5% of the population..7,274,290 people said they had “no religion” - though only 10,357 specified that they were atheists.

Jedi Knights had 390,127 followers, and formed a larger group than several of the “major religions”: Jews (259, 927); Sikhs (329, 358); Buddhists (144,453); or minor religions such as Jainism (15,132), Zoroastrianism (3,738) or the Baha’i faith (4,645).

However, the census does not measure religion or belief in any meaningful way. Rather, the Office for National Statistics understands the religion question to be a proxy question for ethnicity. This is in order to capture the Jewish and Sikh populations, both of which are captured under race legislation but are not included in the ethnicity category in the census, as they should be, rather than the religion category. The result is that a very loose, cultural affiliation is 'measured' by the census in terms of religion or belief, with particular over-inflation of the Christian figure, and an undercounting of the non-religious population. The census data on religion is most definitely not suitable for use by employers or service providers.

See our Census 2011 Campaign for a fairer, more accurate census on belief in Britain
Church Attendance in the UK:

According to the 26th report (2010) of the British Social Attitudes Survey, 23% of the population are affiliated with the Church of England (compared to 40% in 1983). 49% of this group never attend services; only 8% of people who identify with the Church of England attend church weekly.

Overall 62% of the population never attend any form of service.

According to ‘Religious Trends No 7 (2007-2008)’ published by Christian Research, overall church attendance in the United Kingdom has diminished rapidly in terms of percentages and in real terms.

In 1990 5,595,600 people, representing 10% of the UK population, regularly attended Church, by 2005 this number had reduced to 3,926,300, equating to 6.7% of the UK population

By 2015, the level of church attendance in the UK is predicted to fall to 3,081,500 people, or 5% of the population.

The Church of England’s own attendance figures, attest to the decline; between 2002 and 2008, average Sunday attendance figures have diminished from 1,005,000 to 960,000.
Religion and Belief internationally:

In 2007 Britain ranked 15th in the table that shows the top fifty countries with the largest percentage of people who identify themselves as either atheist, agnostic or a non-believer in God.

In 2004, the BBC commissioned an ICM poll in ten countries examining levels of belief, participants from the United Kingdom tended to display markedly less religious belief then many of their counterparts. In response to the question “A belief in God (higher power) makes for a better human being”, 43% participants from the UK disagreed with this statement, substantially more than any other nationality.

In the United States the picture of belief is quite different, in the USA only 3% of people questioned in the American Religious Identification Survey stated they did not have a belief in God, and only 8% were doubtful. However, it is important to note that in the USA, as with most of Europe, there is a marked decline in the level of belief; in 1991, 86% of Americans identified as Christian, by 2008, this number had reduced to 72%.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-belief-surveys-statistics

Please note that the bolding is mine. The above post, from the British Secular Association, clearly states that you cannot rely on a UK government census, because "the census does not measure religion or belief in any meaningful way. Rather, the Office for National Statistics understands the religion question to be a proxy question for ethnicity. This is in order to capture the Jewish and Sikh populations, both of which are captured under race legislation but are not included in the ethnicity category in the census, as they should be, rather than the religion category. The result is that a very loose, cultural affiliation is 'measured' by the census in terms of religion or belief, with particular over-inflation of the Christian figure, and an undercounting of the non-religious population." Thus, the figures given by the Office of National Statistics can only be taken to mean that 77% of people in the UK would identify themselves as ethnically Xian, being that their ancestors were Xians, and does not reflect their actual religious beliefs or affiliations.

The other bolding points out numerous times how secular Britain is, being 15th out of the top 50 countires with the largest percentage of non-theists, with only 6.7% attending church regularly, with figures for the non-religious ranging from 43% in the British Attitudes Social Survey, all the way to 63% in a Guardian poll back in 2006.

Also please note that more people claimed to be Jedis than several of the major religions, such as Jews, Sikhs, and Buddhists, even though it was remarked at the time that these results came out, that many people had stated that they put down Jedi, because they didn't have any religious affiliations, and just put it down as a joke. So even the jokers who just put down Jedi for fun, were bigger than many of the established religions.

However, if you read the end of the article, you'll see that American Religious Identification Survey found that in America, unlike the UK, only 3% of Americans claimed to not believe in G-d, and only 8% were doubtful, making 92% strong theists. That's a huge difference to the UK, where some surveys have indicated between 36%-70% believed in G-d, making it between 30% to 64% who non-theists.
http://www.eauk.org/resources/info/statistics/orthodox-and-unorthodox-belief.cfm

That means that there are between 3.75 times and 21.3 times as many non-theists in the UK as in the USA, depending on which sets of figures you choose to use.

So your country's beliefs are massively different to mine, and that might account for our entirely different views on the situation.

(And actually, I don't give a damn whether the country is officially Christian. You're claiming it's de facto secular due to the presence of atheists on the Cabinet
I was of that opinion, because that's the opinion of everyone I know, whether religious, non-religious theist, or agnostic, or agnostic, both in the way that most UK people seem to act, and in what seems to me to be UK people's opinons about UK society. That was what I had found, years before I found out that half the Cabinet were atheists, and years before the recent

and I'm guessing also the recent applications of the Public Order Act regarding religious speech against gays.
I didn't even know the Public Order Act. However, since you cited it, I'm guessing that you are referring to the following article published on 2nd May 2010:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

He was arrested on the Public Order Act of 1986, which you can find here:
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2236942

The article in the Telegraph points out that the act was introduced to stop football hooligans. I cannot find anything in the act that mentions either religion, or homosexuality. However, the Public Order Act does outlaw inciting racial hatred, and this was amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, to extend the definition of racial hatred, to include inciting hatred based on sexual orientation.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=3479635

So you see, the Public Order Act doesn't order any restriction of religious speech against gays at all. It restricts ALL speech against any incitement of hatred against any form of sexual orientation. An atheist has as much right in the UK to speak disparagingly about heterosexuals, by calling them "breeders", as a Church preacher or a secular person has a right to talk disparagingly about homosexuals.

Thank you for this useful titbit of information, as it has become common for people to talk disparagingly about people of more traditional sexual orientation in offensive ways, as "breeders", and generally in ways that imply they are less than others, and this has become common in the media. I now have sufficient legal cause to point this out to the media, and, where they continue to be in breach of UK law, to inform Ofcom, and have them appropriately disciplined.

I disagree... anywhere you've still got the occasional BOMBING because of religious disputes between sects, you've still got a significantly religious society.
Fair enough. But then, anywhere you've still got the occasional MASS-MURDERS because of secular reasons, such as the recent mass-murders by a taxi driver, because he had received a lot of violent abuse from customers, and a lot of ridicule from fellow taxi-drivers for not having a girlfriend, or the several killings of teenagers by other teenagers in the early part of the year, you've still got a significantly secular society. Considering that the vast majority of horrific deaths in the UK are happening due to secular reasons, that would suggest that the UK is far more significantly secular than it is significantly religious.

Of course, the fact that there is significant religious "speaking out" against gays, and people being arrested for same under the POA, sort of gets us back to the original claim that much gay-bashing and anti-gay assault is religiously-based... hmmm... Did you put that bit in your calculations?)
No. But then, the main form of religion in the UK, and the official religion of the UK, is the Church of England. Back in 1991, almost 20 years ago, the Church of England declared that same-sex relationships are acceptable for the laity. In 2003, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is generally considered to be the de facto head of the Church of England, supported the appointment of a gay bishop. In 2006, Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford, England, said in a press interview that "there has to be a conversion to a new way to see that gay partnerships are not contrary to biblical truth."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_coe.htm

The Church of England is not against homosexual partnerships and is fine with them, and would have gay priests, if the public were not so opposed to what their own priests say. So I cannot put homophobia down to religion, when the priests are with the gays.

IME, when the subject comes up in the UK, the most common complaint that I have seen is "It's not natural", which has featured in speech, and even in ridicule of homophobia in the UK media. In my experience, religion is not usually stated in the UK as a reason for homophobia anymore.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 326
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/8/2010 6:52:06 PM
RE Msg: 392 by annasthasia:
Anyway... for what it is worth... Bringing up the issue of Asperger in order to justify the kind of view about history is not appropriate.

For the record, the poster in question actually talked about that on an other thread and he basically self diagnosed himself. It is just to easy to use the excuse of mental disorders in order to excuse the type of posting that he does... One would think that after all this time reading in the forums, one would actually learn and understand from multiple if not exponential ways of reasoning rather that keep blinders on... Just sayin' too.
Please bear in mind that the New Scientist recently had an article on Aspergers, in the May 1st issue, called "The Autie Advantage", which pointed out that although people with Autistic disorders tend to have very poor social skills and especially verbal cues, and so have a tendency to put the type of thing that can easily upset others, they do have some advantages. On page 35, David Wolman writes that:
What other cognitive abilities make up the Autie Advantage? More rational decision-making seems to be one - people with autism are less susceptible to subjective or emotional factors such as how a question is worded (New Scientist, 18 October 2008, p.16).
As a result, it can be very hurtful when a person who has Autistic tendencies comments on an issue and someone who feels very emotional about the same issue, like you stated in msg 385, reads his comments, because the poster simply does not consider emotional factors into how he expresses himself all that often, and so the statement can be taken to have emotional implications, when none was implied.

It seems to me that you felt that I was making emotionally negative implications about your family history. However, that is not the case. I was trying to word things to express things without an emotional overtone. However, I didn't do that very well. So for that, I apologise heartily.

I do understand that many atrocities have happened to the Native Americans, and fully sympathise with them for what they have gone through.

However, it is my belief that if we do not accurately diagnose the problems that led to such mass persecution, then our treatments to resolve those problems cannot hope to work, and then, the problems still exist as latent potentials that can repeat themselves later on.

When it comes to the mass-genocide of the Native Americans, it is my personal belief that religion was used as a cover for simply moving them off their land, because it became valuable to the Caucasian settlers. It is thus my belief that the land that has been given over to Native American control, might become a reason for more persecution of Native Americans in the future, if that land became sufficiently valuable.

Right now, that's not the case, as they really seem to have been given land that is not suitable for farming, or for raising cattle, or for living. AFAIK, they have their own jurisdiction on that land, which allows them to run casinos on it. But since Las Vegas is the gambling capital of America, and quite possibly the world, that is not a threat to Caucasian interests either.

However, if the climate changes, and Native American real estate suddenly skyrockets in price, because it becomes a lush verdant land, and much around it becomes an unlivable dustbowl, then we might see unscrupulous people trying to intimidate Native Americans to give those people control of their land.

If a massive oil supply is discovered under one of those reservations, then a plague might break out amongst the Native Americans who live there, that wipes nearly all of them out, which has really been introduced very stealthily by oil consortiums, at great expense, in order to gain control of that land.

The same could happen if Las Vegas and Atlantic City both suffer economic collapse, or a change in American attitudes to gambling, and a consequent change to legislation, that makes gambling outlawed in the whole of the USA. If that happens, the only places where one could gamble is on the reservations, because they are not under US law, but under Native American law. So at that point, you could see the mafia doing everything they can to get in on control of the gambling casinos on those reservations. The mafia is not a group that one can afford to take lightly.

All these sorts of things can easily happen, given the right circumstances.

Native Americans need to realise this, and be on their guard, to make sure that they have full legal representation, that will act promptly, and with the full force of the law, to ensure that they have the law on their side, and to be vigilant to be in contact with all the members of their tribes, even the ones that are living in the cities, so long as those members have a legal claim to authorise Caucasians to use their land for their profit.

Otherwise, they're just relying on the fact that no-one cares about the reservations or what the Native Americans can do. However "Every dog has his day". It's only a matter of time until that land becomes valuable. Forewarned is forearmed. The best form of attack is defence, and the best form of defence is in being prepared.

Maybe I didn't lay that all out like that. But that's the danger that I can see.

I can see it, because it's happened to the Jews, time after time. First, they get persecuted, then they get left alone. Then they think everyone's leaving them alone, and slowly, they become successful in their own right. Then others want what they have, and persecute them to get it.

Not saying it's gonna happen to the Native Americans. But I'd rather they were prepared for the worst, and it didn't happen, than they weren't prepared, and it did.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 327
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/8/2010 10:16:27 PM
what's sounds stupider,

god did it, [which you might not be able to deduct because nature seems to run a lot smoother than most of, if not all of, human endeavors]
or,
it happened by itself. [which you might deduct because nature seems to run a lot smoother than most of , if not all of, human endeavors]

unless I miss it, scorpiomover, you don't get personal.
Oh, when you get dissed you might a bit.

the very first line of debating for many is to attack personally.
even just a bit
just a little dig, everytime.
if you don't tow the line..................
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >