Watercooler

Maxwell was right to say Neil was right :0

Tags:
+
0 Votes
Locked

Maxwell was right to say Neil was right :0

AnsuGisalas
Seems there's a major disconnect between eastern and western thinking.
Apparently they're not angry that the west has killed them as collateral damage, because that was just "individuals"?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/world/middleeast/muslims-rage-over-film-fueled-by-culture-divide.html

Good article, but scary.
  • +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    The article seems to intentionally exclude all religions and belief systems different to the three named. Indeed it's written as though there are no belief systems outside of Judaism Christianity and Islam.

    I am all for respecting people, but I will not alter my behavior to suit others while their words directly attack my beliefs almost ever time they open their mouths.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    But the thing I thought was interesting about the article is how it lays bare the attitudes felt by some people there, and how fundamentally different it is.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    Try "All abrahamic religions are based on a very dodgy basis..."

    Oh, great. Now there's a mob at my door.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Religion? Fine, just keep it to yourself.
    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it."

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing, so it can't be insulted. Same with insulting an alleged deity. How can one insult something that doesn't exist? It's a literal nonsense.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    in order for me to feel insulted I have to value the opinion of the person speaking. If someone obviously doesn't know what he's talking about, I don't care what he says.

    The other thing I don't get is why people offended by an obscure item insist on publicizing it, drawing attention it would not have enjoyed without their screaming.

    But I'm not religious; maybe that would change my opinions. I agreed with the article; this is more of a culture clash than a religious one.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    I mean, to us it doesn't make any sense, we would basically have to fake outrage over stuff like that.
    But they're not faking it (except some movement leaders possibly), we can't begin to understand or predict them. That's what we have to learn. And that's why we have to stop meddling. We don't know what the effects will be, and they might be the opposite of what we want.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    We would? Who's 'we'? The western world?

    Are you old enough to remember the protests when 'Jesus Christ Superstar' first opened? Isn't it illegal in Germany to question the Holocaust? Some elected members of the US government have repeatedly tried (and failed) to pass a law making it illegal to burn our flag. Some 'fans' riot when their sports teams lose. Geez, some riot when they WIN.

    I don't think 'we' are as far removed from this as we think we are.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    And women were required to cover their hair until quite recently, too.

    Yeah, I get that.

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    If you agree with Dawkins that religion is actively harmful to society, then you're almost obliged to criticize religious beliefs. To do otherwise would be to support the destruction of society.

    Do I agree with him? I'm moving in that direction, but am not at the point where I feel obliged to attack these beliefs.

    Do you agree with him?

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Once its perceived importance reaches zero, who cares what anybody believes? That's the only way to have freedom of religion, and it nicely coincides with freedom from religion, except by choice.

    +
    0 Votes
    drowningnotwaving

    I get the brevity, Ansu!

    But on the flipside, here is an issue. To ignore as worthless or ignorant is one thing.

    To actively tell someone your belief, as opposed to theirs, is another. Fraught with danger, but perhaps able to be done with diplomacy and tact. I doubt it, but that's just me.

    To take someone else's Icon / Idol / Deity - no matter how forelorn or misguided you may think their views - and depict it in manners predetermined to purely insult the faithful, is a whole other level again.

    On the other hand, and in my opinion of course, to underestimate the power, vehemence and long term objective of the violent Muslim minority is going to get us all into a lot of trouble at some point. They hide behind the far-larger majority of 'moderate' folk who are happy to live their life and faith in peace. They happily take advantage of our own moderation, multiculturalism, etc to build a basis of strength. And the long term objective of Sharia law and oppression of fundamental rights (as we see them, of course) is in their target.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    I would agree that making any single obsession the core overriding principle guiding one's life is not good for an individual, and neither are organized groups forcefully propagating such beliefs good for society. I would say this not only of some religious believers (not religion itself), and also of some political adherents, sports fans, and other people unwilling to recognize other points of view regarding inherently unprovable issues of belief and opinion, not of fact.

    +
    0 Votes
    drowningnotwaving

    I've read two books by Dawkins but don't pretend to be an expert either in his views or in the religions that he effectively pulls apart. But here's the rub, IMHO of course:

    Religion in some format has been a phenomenon pretty much since we've been in tribes.

    To argue against it, to criticize religious beliefs 1) pretty much fundamentally opposes the right of someone to believe whatever they want; 2) requires a pseudo-religious fervour and zeal if you're going to do more than a cursory "personally I think you're loonies"; and 3) is destined to failure for any of 1,000s of reasons, complete lack of logical response not the least.

    I think this is a much simpler argument. Cause and effect. There is a subset of people, seemingly more prevalent amongst the Muslim population but existing in many religions (and other areas political / nationalist / jingoist), that will react strongly, disproportionately and misguided for a number of reasons including passion, self interest, greed and a youth-ish need to smash things up, if someone else deigns insult facets of their religion / patriotism / football team.

    Given the right environment, and the wrong comment in the wrong tone, I've seen similar (if not quite so international) reactions by Australian, British, American youths and one particular pub in the Greek isles a fairly emotional bunch of German kids.

    To comment negatively to a religion, given for many people their individual belief is often a heartfelt thing rather than intellectual, is to insult personally. Right or wrong, that is going to happen. Pick on a buddhist and they'll hit you up with more love. Pick on a Muslim on the basis of his religion and he'll invite his cousins, mates and a bunch of folk he's never met before to smash you up.

    Cause and effect. Given the repetitive and consistent nature of the Muslim-mob response over many years now, to think otherwise demonstrates willful ignorance. Personally, I'd say the people that made the video are revelling in the danger and hurt of others now facing the mob. But that's just me, of course.

    +
    1 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    one that's very prevalent in the USA. When you've got time, have a damn good look at how many people think, react, and behave about their favourite sports teams - in the USA dissing someone's favourite sports team can be much more dangerous than picking on Mohammed in front of a crowd of Muslims is.

    Now tell me just how being real radical about your sports team is to being radical about your religion is?

    As for Dawkins, his religion is Atheism - you can tell by how fervent and radical about he is.

    +
    0 Votes
    drowningnotwaving

    Went to see a EPL game - Nott Forest versus Liverpool (actually, it was a first division game pre EPL). Being tourists we didn't know what we didn't know ...
    Actually went to follow Liverpool but decided not to go in colours so not to offend the Forest home fans. Liverpool go 2-up, so with 5 mins to go we start walking to get to car. Had to walk past the Liverpool corner. Copped a beer can in the head for obviously being a Forest fan and leaving early!!!

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    Which says nothing about it's relationship to reality and everything about a "need" some people feel to have someone/something outside of themselves to tell them what's right and wrong, where they came from and what happens when the die.

    This idea that because somethings been around for a long time that it automatically should be supported or accepted is ridiculous. similarly for the number of believers. There is no correlation between the number of believers or the depth of their feelings and whether it's an acceptable way to act.

    I have no problem with the idea that the vast majority of us, including myself of course, are doing things damaging to ourselves, our societies and our world and need to change.

    +
    1 Votes
    drowningnotwaving

    I am saying that to not accept the existence of someone else's faith is as insulting and degrading as someone of faith trying to force it down my throat. I haven't said at all that this means accepting the faith, per se, but accepting the other person's right to experience it and believe it.

    Accepting someone's position is not necessarily the same as agreeing with that position.

    I am saying that using real or pseudo-intellectual argument against the basis of religion is fundamentally flawed in itself - logic versus faith???? Gunfight with a knife springs to mind. And I would personally suggest that using such argument as the basis for dealing / negotiating with people of faith probably won't go a long way to a productive discussion and outcome.

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    I still say that if you believe that the belief leads to actions that are detrimental to others, it is our business and it is appropriate to criticize those beliefs, and to attempt to change them.

    I don't for a second accept that people cannot change their beliefs and outlooks. It happens all the time. I just don't think religion/faith has some "get out of jail free card" and is not subject to the same standards as other beliefs.

    If it leads to harm, it should be opposed no matter how strong the belief, no matter how offensive it might be to the group concerned.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    no religious leader, no parent, no teacher, no boss, no government, no cop, no sheriff - all of those are out side of us and we don't need them to tell us how to behave at all, do we? Let's have total anarchy, cause that's what you promote when you take that line.

    You can say you disagree with a religion and not accept it without having to have any other religion to replace it, but when you start campaigning and shouting 'their is no God' then you are practising a religion because you're proselytising for your religion of no God.

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    It's all about not "blindly" accepting what we are told, but educating ourselves and looking at the likely consequence of our actions on order to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable.

    I'm sure you don't simply accept everything someone tells you, no matter who that person might be. There are people who you have more confidence and people you have less confidence in, but there's no one who you can guarantee is right every time.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    religion, law, physics, mathematics, or up coming football results. The fact some people blindly accept something does NOT make what they accept at fault, just their thought processes.

    For decades scientists have thought dinosaurs were ancestors of reptiles and had skins like snakes and alligators, etc. This belief was passed down from teacher to student because the one saying so had authority. They now know from archaeological finds that the descendants of dinosaurs are birds and most had feathered skins.

    For centuries the authorities, including scientists, insisted the world was flat and anyone who argued was in deep trouble, we now know better. For centuries it was known a heavier than air machine could not fly, until someone proved the authorities wrong.

    Many people choose to have a religious basis for their life because they see things in this world in a way different to some others. Not all accept blindly what they're told by the religious leaders, but some do; just as some blindly accept what they're told by their teachers, the scientific leaders, and the governmental leaders. Many religions teach that the followers MUST NOT accept everything in blind faith but they should test all that comes to them, despite that, many of the followers accept in blind faith what their religious leaders tell the; just as many accept in blind faith what their government leaders tell them.

    As to people educating themselves, educating themselves from where or what. In most cases people say this is a case of reading books and learning things - on short, read what another authority has said and accept that authority instead. That's just a case of changing the source you blindly follow and believe in. The only way to truly self educate to make these decisions is to study the world at large by yourself without reading or listening to what others say and to then make a decision on your own. However, that comes with the problem of where do you get the information and facts from; most of that comes via or from some authority or person or system that's pushing its own vested interests anyway.

    As to what is acceptable or not acceptable - acceptable to who, to what group, what society. In the past it was acceptable to eat your dead enemies, today we say not on. In the past it was acceptable to challenge and kill anyone who disagreed with you, today we say it's not allowed within in our society, but some societies still allow it. Whichever way you try to cut this pie, what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour within a society is decided upon by someone the society sees as an authority figure and you have the choice of accepting that or rejecting it; both have their own repercussions. Sure, you can totally reject the societal stance, and when all do that we have anarchy.

    Going back to a bit earlier in the thread - any belief structure is a faith or a religion. Thus, atheism is as much a religion as any other. This is especially so when someone pushes their views on this on others. The moment they start to push their view on another they are practising their religious belief, be it of a God or or there being no God.

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    I don't agree that the words/phrases religion and belief system mean exactly the same thing. For me a belief system is a generic term that covers all types of beliefs. A Religion is a particular kind of belief system. As are morality, ethics and science for that matter.

    The different systems of belief certainly share certain characteristics. From the point of view of the philosopher none has a claim on being any more "accurate" in describing reality for example. They do have different methods for determining what is true or false, which for me is what makes them distinct, and why people choose one or another.

    One can certainly educate oneself from books. It's a matter of reading a broad range of opinion and determining for yourself which is more likely true. True in the sense that it accurately reflects or explains ones own experience of the real world.

    Obviously, when looking at scientific knowledge it is contingent on new information, but everything is. No one has ever or will ever experience every possible example of anything. No one has ever or will ever see every single insect that exists and check the number of legs. So, you can never say with absolute certainty that they all have 6 legs.

    This is to me a strength of the system rather than a weakness.

    On acceptability. It was once common to smite ones foes. I disagree that it was ever "acceptable" in the way I mean. Goes back to not assuming what was done in the past was necessarily OK. Or assuming that the things your parents taught you are always things you should believe or pass on to your own children.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    has said or what is written in a book, when you accept as being true something that you can not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it is a belief and only a belief - it is NOT possible to either prove there is God or to prove there is NO God except to one who already has a belief on one side or the other.

    Some belief systems are very structured and some are not, some are organised and some are not. It matters not if the belief system is about God or anything else, as long as the basis is a matter of personal opinion or accepting the declaration of others as being an authority, it is a belief system. Now, some people make their belief system into a religion or a semi-religious thing. For some the object of their belief system is God, for some it's a political party, for some it's a sports team, for some its science, for some it's a state or country.

    People can argue over their perceived fine meanings of words, but it all comes down to the difference between a proven fact - such as a dropped stone on this planet falling, and an opinion or a theory - such as who's a better potential president of the USA or Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The first is proven and can be repeated by anyone, while the other two are personal opinion and ideas - even scientists say a theory is just a working idea that has not yet been fully proven.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You are typing bollocks, I'm afraid. From beginning to end...

    From your earlier post...

    To bring up the "Age of the Flat Earth" is ignorance on your part. No Western society has believed believed the Earth was flat since the days of the Greeks.

    Of course people believed that something heavier than air could fly. Birds do it. Why do you think that earlier human societies won't have picked up on that. The Chinese and Japanese had kites; check out Archytas, Leonardo.

    What religions teach that their adherents should question their faith? Certainly not mainstream Islam or Christianity!

    Atheism is not a religion. It CAN be likened to one for some. For most, it isn't.

    From your last post...

    Proving that God, Allah. Shiva - or anything! - doesn't exist isn't possible so why link it with an "or" to liken it to proving that God, Allah, Shiva - or anything! - does exist. Really stupid argument. God, Allah, shiva could prove he (all male, I notice...) existed in a millisecond but the religious have to jump through myriad hoops to prove why he doesn't do just that. The atheist doesn't lift a proverbial finger to assert his or her lack of belief because he or she simply can't prove the nonexistence of God or gods however much he or she wants to.

    Your idea of what makes a scientific theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, is so flawed that I don't really know where to start. So I won't bother.

    Your concept of the "belief system" is something that I don't quite understand so cannot prove conclusively but I believe is "total bollocks".

    Not what it was, TR. No good debate any more.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    different times because they were told the things were that way. To help show that I used some of most classical ones from history that people will know to show that what people believe is not always factual.

    As to heavier than air flight, many people in the scientific community as late as 1900 were emphatically saying a heavier than air machine can not fly.

    In the early 1900s some renowned scientists claimed that rockets could not possibly work in space.

    As to what a theory is, well his the definition from wikipedia:

    Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work.

    As to the exact nature of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, he postulated that the environment put pressures on the survival of a species and the variant that best suited that environment survived. This was based on empirical data of his many observation around the world. Most people today, and for most of the 20th century, use Darwin's theory of evolution to explain how all animals and plants are created and changed, yet it does nothing of the sort. What it does do is explain how natural selection can have an effect to weed out some variants in some environments, it does NOT explain how those variants came about in the first place. We do have some nice names for some of the variation - mutation and genetic drift, but these are mostly an explanation of empirical evidence as well that don't go far into explaining the earlier versions of what was changed.

    I'm not saying the creationists are right or wrong, and I'm not saying evolution doesn't play a part, what I am saying is what we have at the moment are some theories that explain only part of the story and not the whole story. Despite that, many claim it is the whole story.

    Now back to what started this slight digression.

    Anything that can NOT be proven as an absolute fact is a belief, be it for or against. Some people believe in a God, some people believe the is no God. In either case it is solely a belief by the individual as we can not prove a God exists or does not exist. Many people who believe in a God have a belief in a support structure about that God and preach about them to others, this is called a religion. When someone preaches that their is no God, then they are preaching their religious belief as well. Thus atheism is also a religion as it's based on a belief of there being no God, they have no evidence to prove God does not exist. Atheism, like Christianity, Buddhism, Moslem, etc is just an identifying name or word to classify a specific belief structure.

    BTW This discussion is a classic example of thread drift, and it always amazes me how easily that happens.

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    but I'd say Christianity does. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thess. 5:21)

    Oh, and while I really shouldn't go here, 'Science' is a belief system. Human perception is subjective, tools that man imagines and builds to enhance perception enhance subjective perception. 'Science' is involved in creating a belief system that makes sense of what man perceives. I see no reason to assume that any intelligent life that may exist 'out there' perceives things as do we.

    Dang, neilb, it's nice to see you. :)

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Ernest, you're using WIKIPEDIA in an argument aginst me. The untimate authority.

    As for arguing the Theory of Evolution against you (or even the Theory of Theory), I can't be bothered to even start. I rather mistakenly posted the other night after a few beers and vodkas - I was feeling a little mischevious - and, now, in the cold, sober light of Sunday, I really don't know why I bothered. I can see that your ignorance on the subject of evolution is pretty profound even with Wikihelp. Yet it does not stop you pontificating on the subject, though.

    Your arguments about belief and non-belief are of the same order when you are talking about atheism. "I don't believe in gods" is a single disbelief and, even when it is regarded by muppets like you as a denial, it would still be based on a single belief and not a belief system and therefore not a religion!

    I can, with just one act of neglect, disbelieve in the imaginary friend that is the basis of EVERY major religion, past, present and (probably) future. Good, eh? Except Buddhism, of course, as it doesn't have an imaginary friend.

    You indulge in semantics - "Anything that can NOT be proven as an absolute fact is a belief," - at a kindergarten level. So, your example proves...what? Any "proven fact" doesn't have to be that way next time we want it to be so. Nothing is certain. Existence is shades of grey and probability. Except, of course, for faith-based, fact-free belief sytems such as religions, homeopathy, astrology and alien abduction (with, or without **** probing). ALL of which I can disbelieve in with the same single act of neglect I used above.

    Boxy. Hi! I shouldn't be doing this, I took an unholy vow not to post again but, as I said above, drink got the better of me. I have to guess that you are quoting your Book of Words at me. Please excuse the small chuckle as I ponder on history's heretics and what happened to them despite the "permission" you referenced. Some formed their own churches and some formed a pile of ashes.

    The majority (all) of religions are based on faith and a core of dogma and, as far as I can see, if you question that, you step outside of the religion and someone steps on you. Even religions of peace...

    Christianity seems to suggest that you are free to question but reaches for the matches if you actually DO it.

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    since you don't like that, try this definition from one of the four printed dictionaries I have that all read similar - this one I can fit on my desk beside the keyboard and is a USA one, the big Webster's wants to tip the desk over:

    Theory - systematically applied knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyse, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behaviour of a given set of phenomena.

    As to belief - you say it all in your statement "I don't believe in gods." Well, I do say you have to, but the fact you use the word believe means you acknowledge it's a belief and not a proven fact - which is all I was saying. It matters not what side of the issue you stand on, the stance is a belief as neither side can prove as a fact that God does or does not exist. Thus any position is a belief structure.

    As to the theory of evolution - if it accounted for all aspects of evolution and all changes in every species the way most of its proponents claim, it would also explain and show how and where intelligence and self-awareness evolved to a good enough extent we could create it. Darwin's theory does explain part of the story, but not the whole story and there are a few rare cases where it doesn't fit exactly as he proposed it. Thus it's a theory and not a proven definitive fact. Which is all I said.

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Short of hammering it into your skull with a sledgehammer...

    I have NO BELIEF in gods (not God, just gods). It's a DISbelief, NOT a belief. I don't have to do ANYTHING to be an atheist. again - It's not a belief system. It's not even a belief. It's the OPPOSITE of a belief.

    It is a datum. Notthing more.

    Atheism is the opposite of Theism which IS a belief but is STILL not a belief system.

    There ARE belief systems that include atheism, atheistic belief systems and even atheistic religions but it takes a lot more than simple atheism to make either. A belief system has one key word that makes your ideas about atheism totally misguided and that is "SYSTEM" and it implies a set of consistent, self-supporting beliefs. Atheism is a single NON-belief.

    As for "theory", your own Wikipedia states "Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative". And you think quoting me multiple dictionary definitions for the wrong concept in some way advances your case?

    As for "explain and show how and where intelligence and self-awareness evolved to a good enough extent we could create it.", how does that follow? It's one of the most stupid comments you've made to date.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    1. Those that are rigorously proven through a number of means and hold true for all current known examples, but not proven as total fact due to the inability (at this time) to test all possible options. These are comprehensive in regards to what they relate to and are internally consistent and complete. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is one example.

    2. Those that match empirical data and hold true for most known examples but are not comprehensive and do not fully explain what they're about. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is an example of this because it is not comprehensive in explaining all it relates to. His theory is seen as one of a number of mechanisms used in evolution, but is not the whole story. Also, there are cases that go contrary to what Darwin stated, thus it also fails to hold true for all known current examples. It's a good start, but not a complete answer.

    ...........

    I gather from your statement's on belief you see shades of grey where I see black and white - to me something is or is not, it's proven fact or not proven fact, and a position taken on a basis without proven facts is a belief - regardless if it's for or against. Thus someone can believe something is so or they can believe it is not so, but it's still only what they believe.

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You reference together, to "prove" some sort of point, Einstein's Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution. Not really comparing like for like and I wonder, from that, if you understand either.

    Creationists hate both theories, by the way.

    Darwin's contribution to evolution theory has pretty much been modified since he wrote it but the Old Boy didn't do too bad considering the evidence he had and the gaps in the knowledge of the time. He started whole fields of science about which he knew little or nothing, evolutionary biology, palaeobiology, abiogenesis and more. As to Evolution, now, tell me in what way and where the current evolutionary theory falls down. As the whole thing is pretty much a couple of branches of science in its own right, you've plenty of leeway. A word of warning, keep away from Intelligent Design web sites. Been there, disproved that.

    Shades of grey? I'm not a solipsist but perhaps Perhaps "Cogito ergo sum" is the only known fact. I can't prove otherwise. All of the rest is filtered through our senses. Things fall down now, but will they do it tomorrow?

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    of them being labelled scientific theories. I'm also glad to see you acknowledge that the theory put forward by Darwin is was not complete, but a work in progress, and still is. The difference between the two theories shows there are shades of grade to the title 'theory.' Darwin did do a lot of good work, but it was a start based on a number of assumptions of which many have been proved to be valid to date. However, it's still not complete and comprehensive, despite many people claiming it so so, thus it's still a theory not yet fully confirmed as fact.

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    As I said, I don't believe that you understand the scope or significance of Relativity or Evolution so your pleasure at my seeming "acceptance" is moot.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    like abstinence is a *** position! :^0

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    I have to guess that you are quoting your Book of Words at me. Please excuse the small chuckle as I ponder on history's heretics and what happened to them despite the "permission" you referenced. Some formed their own churches and some formed a pile of ashes.

    Just because a bunch of idiots claim a bunch of bu//shite in the name of 'Scripture', doesn't negate the 'Scripture'.

    There's a mess of dimmies out there claiming a bunch of bu//shite in the name of 'Science'. You don't let them get away with that crap, do you?

    (OMG. The bassackwardness of trying to follow ones own replies to posts since the 'upgrade' is unreal. Gods. Drive me up a wall.)

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    How do I differentiate? What is b0ll0cks, and what is Truth?I see one Christian Book of Words and hear more interpretations that it's possible to imagine. And there are more Books of Words.

    I was brought up in a marginally-religious society. We went to Sunday School so we kids would be out of the way and the adults could have weekend *** without being interrupted. (According to Mum, anyway). And whatever I got taught, didn't "take". My views crystallised when we had a visitor who gave a talk to the sixth forms of a few schools (no idea what grad that is but I was fifteen) in which he attempted to link eveolution and the "six days" of creation. I got a little sarcastic (trying to impress the girls from Rugby High) and got into trouble for suggesting he might be a little ignorant of the subject of evolution.

    Much easier, my way. Father Odin, Jehova, Zeus, Allah. Lump 'em all together and forget them.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Blasphemy day is painfully relevant, some Islamic countries are pushing again for international blasphemy law, the plussy riot trial shows the Russian Church as a strong tool of the Kremlin, Evolution is still under attack by Hindus, Christians and Muslims alike.

    Blasphemy day was started up through the Center for Inquiry : http://www.centerforinquiry.net/

    It is a world wide protest against blasphemy laws. Even Finland has one, Denmark too. So, happy Blasphemas to all (in ten days)

    EDIT: Bowdlerized

    +
    0 Votes
    john.a.wills

    but I have the impression that the accused did something which would have been a criminal offense in most countries, including most of the U.S. That we may agree with the message does not mean we should condone the method of delivery. Suppose they had done something similar in St Patrick's in New York? And there has been at least one case (a quarter of a century ago) of people with a more-or-less Catholic message being successfully prosecuted for similar shenanigans in Blessed Sacrament Cathedral in Sacramento CA. The Russian Orthodox may be (although I doubt it) a tool of the Kremlin, but the ***** Riot business does not exemplify that.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    My understanding was the band had no permission to be there. This would be a legal offense in the lobby of Lloyd's of London or the center court of Mall of America.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    BAND is a very loose interpretation of what it is that ***** RIOT actually does. Though I suppose with all ACQUIRED TASTES beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    TR blocks the term cluster-****.

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    virtually any curse that's occasionally useful these days. Grrr....

    +
    0 Votes
    john.a.wills

    Everyone is invited to divine service in the Orthodox Church, even Charlie Spencer. There might be occasions when a vast crowd necessitates some ticketing, but generally speaking one can wander into a church without trespassing - a church is not private property in the same way that Lloyd's of London and the Mall of America are. But once there one has to respect some rules, and the group apparently entered the sanctuary and disturbed whatever was going on there. So we have to apply slightly different rules from those regarding properly private places, which is why my list was of houses of worship.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    to allow visitor in until they make themselves unwelcome.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    I've never attended an Orthodox service, but I don't burst into flames when I enter a house of worship. Well, other than that one time with those snake handlers in Alabama...

    +
    1 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Seriously? Can anyone be in doubt that this was a standard Kremlin trial?
    There is no need for a crime in those, nor for evidence. Only a dictate.

    +
    1 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    one can embrace any variant of capitalism without dumping totalitarianism.

    +
    1 Votes
    JamesRL

    What plussy riot did was disruptive. In most private but open access places(in most jurisdictions), if you are asked to leave and you don't comply, it is tresspass and a slap on the wrist, but no major incident. If I recall correctly, the punk rockers were facing 5 years jail time.

    I'm sure if you did the same thing in St Patricks, you would have gotten at worst 30 days suspended sentance, and a warning to never disturb the peace again.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    included more than just simple trespass. They made a lot of noise and caused a public disorder, filmed on private property without approval, and resisted arrest according what I read in the first days after the event. In most countries resisting arrest is a felony.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    What in there makes you think two years in a gulag?
    And remember, lots of prisoners don't even make it to the gulag.
    DOA.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    they got driven away in a police car?

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    I don't think the question of evidence is really relevant. The video is the one they shot themselves, find it on youtube. No charges of resisting arrest or any other activities beyond what the video shows has been cited.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    They did a silly song and dance.
    Their real crime was in asking God to exorcise Putin from the Russian Orthodox Church... which is the worst blasphemy imaginable, namely blasphemy against the half-pint comb-over Lord Putin.

  • +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    The article seems to intentionally exclude all religions and belief systems different to the three named. Indeed it's written as though there are no belief systems outside of Judaism Christianity and Islam.

    I am all for respecting people, but I will not alter my behavior to suit others while their words directly attack my beliefs almost ever time they open their mouths.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    But the thing I thought was interesting about the article is how it lays bare the attitudes felt by some people there, and how fundamentally different it is.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    Try "All abrahamic religions are based on a very dodgy basis..."

    Oh, great. Now there's a mob at my door.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Religion? Fine, just keep it to yourself.
    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it."

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing, so it can't be insulted. Same with insulting an alleged deity. How can one insult something that doesn't exist? It's a literal nonsense.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    in order for me to feel insulted I have to value the opinion of the person speaking. If someone obviously doesn't know what he's talking about, I don't care what he says.

    The other thing I don't get is why people offended by an obscure item insist on publicizing it, drawing attention it would not have enjoyed without their screaming.

    But I'm not religious; maybe that would change my opinions. I agreed with the article; this is more of a culture clash than a religious one.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    I mean, to us it doesn't make any sense, we would basically have to fake outrage over stuff like that.
    But they're not faking it (except some movement leaders possibly), we can't begin to understand or predict them. That's what we have to learn. And that's why we have to stop meddling. We don't know what the effects will be, and they might be the opposite of what we want.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    We would? Who's 'we'? The western world?

    Are you old enough to remember the protests when 'Jesus Christ Superstar' first opened? Isn't it illegal in Germany to question the Holocaust? Some elected members of the US government have repeatedly tried (and failed) to pass a law making it illegal to burn our flag. Some 'fans' riot when their sports teams lose. Geez, some riot when they WIN.

    I don't think 'we' are as far removed from this as we think we are.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    And women were required to cover their hair until quite recently, too.

    Yeah, I get that.

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    If you agree with Dawkins that religion is actively harmful to society, then you're almost obliged to criticize religious beliefs. To do otherwise would be to support the destruction of society.

    Do I agree with him? I'm moving in that direction, but am not at the point where I feel obliged to attack these beliefs.

    Do you agree with him?

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Once its perceived importance reaches zero, who cares what anybody believes? That's the only way to have freedom of religion, and it nicely coincides with freedom from religion, except by choice.

    +
    0 Votes
    drowningnotwaving

    I get the brevity, Ansu!

    But on the flipside, here is an issue. To ignore as worthless or ignorant is one thing.

    To actively tell someone your belief, as opposed to theirs, is another. Fraught with danger, but perhaps able to be done with diplomacy and tact. I doubt it, but that's just me.

    To take someone else's Icon / Idol / Deity - no matter how forelorn or misguided you may think their views - and depict it in manners predetermined to purely insult the faithful, is a whole other level again.

    On the other hand, and in my opinion of course, to underestimate the power, vehemence and long term objective of the violent Muslim minority is going to get us all into a lot of trouble at some point. They hide behind the far-larger majority of 'moderate' folk who are happy to live their life and faith in peace. They happily take advantage of our own moderation, multiculturalism, etc to build a basis of strength. And the long term objective of Sharia law and oppression of fundamental rights (as we see them, of course) is in their target.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    I would agree that making any single obsession the core overriding principle guiding one's life is not good for an individual, and neither are organized groups forcefully propagating such beliefs good for society. I would say this not only of some religious believers (not religion itself), and also of some political adherents, sports fans, and other people unwilling to recognize other points of view regarding inherently unprovable issues of belief and opinion, not of fact.

    +
    0 Votes
    drowningnotwaving

    I've read two books by Dawkins but don't pretend to be an expert either in his views or in the religions that he effectively pulls apart. But here's the rub, IMHO of course:

    Religion in some format has been a phenomenon pretty much since we've been in tribes.

    To argue against it, to criticize religious beliefs 1) pretty much fundamentally opposes the right of someone to believe whatever they want; 2) requires a pseudo-religious fervour and zeal if you're going to do more than a cursory "personally I think you're loonies"; and 3) is destined to failure for any of 1,000s of reasons, complete lack of logical response not the least.

    I think this is a much simpler argument. Cause and effect. There is a subset of people, seemingly more prevalent amongst the Muslim population but existing in many religions (and other areas political / nationalist / jingoist), that will react strongly, disproportionately and misguided for a number of reasons including passion, self interest, greed and a youth-ish need to smash things up, if someone else deigns insult facets of their religion / patriotism / football team.

    Given the right environment, and the wrong comment in the wrong tone, I've seen similar (if not quite so international) reactions by Australian, British, American youths and one particular pub in the Greek isles a fairly emotional bunch of German kids.

    To comment negatively to a religion, given for many people their individual belief is often a heartfelt thing rather than intellectual, is to insult personally. Right or wrong, that is going to happen. Pick on a buddhist and they'll hit you up with more love. Pick on a Muslim on the basis of his religion and he'll invite his cousins, mates and a bunch of folk he's never met before to smash you up.

    Cause and effect. Given the repetitive and consistent nature of the Muslim-mob response over many years now, to think otherwise demonstrates willful ignorance. Personally, I'd say the people that made the video are revelling in the danger and hurt of others now facing the mob. But that's just me, of course.

    +
    1 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    one that's very prevalent in the USA. When you've got time, have a damn good look at how many people think, react, and behave about their favourite sports teams - in the USA dissing someone's favourite sports team can be much more dangerous than picking on Mohammed in front of a crowd of Muslims is.

    Now tell me just how being real radical about your sports team is to being radical about your religion is?

    As for Dawkins, his religion is Atheism - you can tell by how fervent and radical about he is.

    +
    0 Votes
    drowningnotwaving

    Went to see a EPL game - Nott Forest versus Liverpool (actually, it was a first division game pre EPL). Being tourists we didn't know what we didn't know ...
    Actually went to follow Liverpool but decided not to go in colours so not to offend the Forest home fans. Liverpool go 2-up, so with 5 mins to go we start walking to get to car. Had to walk past the Liverpool corner. Copped a beer can in the head for obviously being a Forest fan and leaving early!!!

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    Which says nothing about it's relationship to reality and everything about a "need" some people feel to have someone/something outside of themselves to tell them what's right and wrong, where they came from and what happens when the die.

    This idea that because somethings been around for a long time that it automatically should be supported or accepted is ridiculous. similarly for the number of believers. There is no correlation between the number of believers or the depth of their feelings and whether it's an acceptable way to act.

    I have no problem with the idea that the vast majority of us, including myself of course, are doing things damaging to ourselves, our societies and our world and need to change.

    +
    1 Votes
    drowningnotwaving

    I am saying that to not accept the existence of someone else's faith is as insulting and degrading as someone of faith trying to force it down my throat. I haven't said at all that this means accepting the faith, per se, but accepting the other person's right to experience it and believe it.

    Accepting someone's position is not necessarily the same as agreeing with that position.

    I am saying that using real or pseudo-intellectual argument against the basis of religion is fundamentally flawed in itself - logic versus faith???? Gunfight with a knife springs to mind. And I would personally suggest that using such argument as the basis for dealing / negotiating with people of faith probably won't go a long way to a productive discussion and outcome.

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    I still say that if you believe that the belief leads to actions that are detrimental to others, it is our business and it is appropriate to criticize those beliefs, and to attempt to change them.

    I don't for a second accept that people cannot change their beliefs and outlooks. It happens all the time. I just don't think religion/faith has some "get out of jail free card" and is not subject to the same standards as other beliefs.

    If it leads to harm, it should be opposed no matter how strong the belief, no matter how offensive it might be to the group concerned.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    no religious leader, no parent, no teacher, no boss, no government, no cop, no sheriff - all of those are out side of us and we don't need them to tell us how to behave at all, do we? Let's have total anarchy, cause that's what you promote when you take that line.

    You can say you disagree with a religion and not accept it without having to have any other religion to replace it, but when you start campaigning and shouting 'their is no God' then you are practising a religion because you're proselytising for your religion of no God.

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    It's all about not "blindly" accepting what we are told, but educating ourselves and looking at the likely consequence of our actions on order to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable.

    I'm sure you don't simply accept everything someone tells you, no matter who that person might be. There are people who you have more confidence and people you have less confidence in, but there's no one who you can guarantee is right every time.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    religion, law, physics, mathematics, or up coming football results. The fact some people blindly accept something does NOT make what they accept at fault, just their thought processes.

    For decades scientists have thought dinosaurs were ancestors of reptiles and had skins like snakes and alligators, etc. This belief was passed down from teacher to student because the one saying so had authority. They now know from archaeological finds that the descendants of dinosaurs are birds and most had feathered skins.

    For centuries the authorities, including scientists, insisted the world was flat and anyone who argued was in deep trouble, we now know better. For centuries it was known a heavier than air machine could not fly, until someone proved the authorities wrong.

    Many people choose to have a religious basis for their life because they see things in this world in a way different to some others. Not all accept blindly what they're told by the religious leaders, but some do; just as some blindly accept what they're told by their teachers, the scientific leaders, and the governmental leaders. Many religions teach that the followers MUST NOT accept everything in blind faith but they should test all that comes to them, despite that, many of the followers accept in blind faith what their religious leaders tell the; just as many accept in blind faith what their government leaders tell them.

    As to people educating themselves, educating themselves from where or what. In most cases people say this is a case of reading books and learning things - on short, read what another authority has said and accept that authority instead. That's just a case of changing the source you blindly follow and believe in. The only way to truly self educate to make these decisions is to study the world at large by yourself without reading or listening to what others say and to then make a decision on your own. However, that comes with the problem of where do you get the information and facts from; most of that comes via or from some authority or person or system that's pushing its own vested interests anyway.

    As to what is acceptable or not acceptable - acceptable to who, to what group, what society. In the past it was acceptable to eat your dead enemies, today we say not on. In the past it was acceptable to challenge and kill anyone who disagreed with you, today we say it's not allowed within in our society, but some societies still allow it. Whichever way you try to cut this pie, what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour within a society is decided upon by someone the society sees as an authority figure and you have the choice of accepting that or rejecting it; both have their own repercussions. Sure, you can totally reject the societal stance, and when all do that we have anarchy.

    Going back to a bit earlier in the thread - any belief structure is a faith or a religion. Thus, atheism is as much a religion as any other. This is especially so when someone pushes their views on this on others. The moment they start to push their view on another they are practising their religious belief, be it of a God or or there being no God.

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    I don't agree that the words/phrases religion and belief system mean exactly the same thing. For me a belief system is a generic term that covers all types of beliefs. A Religion is a particular kind of belief system. As are morality, ethics and science for that matter.

    The different systems of belief certainly share certain characteristics. From the point of view of the philosopher none has a claim on being any more "accurate" in describing reality for example. They do have different methods for determining what is true or false, which for me is what makes them distinct, and why people choose one or another.

    One can certainly educate oneself from books. It's a matter of reading a broad range of opinion and determining for yourself which is more likely true. True in the sense that it accurately reflects or explains ones own experience of the real world.

    Obviously, when looking at scientific knowledge it is contingent on new information, but everything is. No one has ever or will ever experience every possible example of anything. No one has ever or will ever see every single insect that exists and check the number of legs. So, you can never say with absolute certainty that they all have 6 legs.

    This is to me a strength of the system rather than a weakness.

    On acceptability. It was once common to smite ones foes. I disagree that it was ever "acceptable" in the way I mean. Goes back to not assuming what was done in the past was necessarily OK. Or assuming that the things your parents taught you are always things you should believe or pass on to your own children.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    has said or what is written in a book, when you accept as being true something that you can not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it is a belief and only a belief - it is NOT possible to either prove there is God or to prove there is NO God except to one who already has a belief on one side or the other.

    Some belief systems are very structured and some are not, some are organised and some are not. It matters not if the belief system is about God or anything else, as long as the basis is a matter of personal opinion or accepting the declaration of others as being an authority, it is a belief system. Now, some people make their belief system into a religion or a semi-religious thing. For some the object of their belief system is God, for some it's a political party, for some it's a sports team, for some its science, for some it's a state or country.

    People can argue over their perceived fine meanings of words, but it all comes down to the difference between a proven fact - such as a dropped stone on this planet falling, and an opinion or a theory - such as who's a better potential president of the USA or Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The first is proven and can be repeated by anyone, while the other two are personal opinion and ideas - even scientists say a theory is just a working idea that has not yet been fully proven.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You are typing bollocks, I'm afraid. From beginning to end...

    From your earlier post...

    To bring up the "Age of the Flat Earth" is ignorance on your part. No Western society has believed believed the Earth was flat since the days of the Greeks.

    Of course people believed that something heavier than air could fly. Birds do it. Why do you think that earlier human societies won't have picked up on that. The Chinese and Japanese had kites; check out Archytas, Leonardo.

    What religions teach that their adherents should question their faith? Certainly not mainstream Islam or Christianity!

    Atheism is not a religion. It CAN be likened to one for some. For most, it isn't.

    From your last post...

    Proving that God, Allah. Shiva - or anything! - doesn't exist isn't possible so why link it with an "or" to liken it to proving that God, Allah, Shiva - or anything! - does exist. Really stupid argument. God, Allah, shiva could prove he (all male, I notice...) existed in a millisecond but the religious have to jump through myriad hoops to prove why he doesn't do just that. The atheist doesn't lift a proverbial finger to assert his or her lack of belief because he or she simply can't prove the nonexistence of God or gods however much he or she wants to.

    Your idea of what makes a scientific theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, is so flawed that I don't really know where to start. So I won't bother.

    Your concept of the "belief system" is something that I don't quite understand so cannot prove conclusively but I believe is "total bollocks".

    Not what it was, TR. No good debate any more.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    different times because they were told the things were that way. To help show that I used some of most classical ones from history that people will know to show that what people believe is not always factual.

    As to heavier than air flight, many people in the scientific community as late as 1900 were emphatically saying a heavier than air machine can not fly.

    In the early 1900s some renowned scientists claimed that rockets could not possibly work in space.

    As to what a theory is, well his the definition from wikipedia:

    Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work.

    As to the exact nature of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, he postulated that the environment put pressures on the survival of a species and the variant that best suited that environment survived. This was based on empirical data of his many observation around the world. Most people today, and for most of the 20th century, use Darwin's theory of evolution to explain how all animals and plants are created and changed, yet it does nothing of the sort. What it does do is explain how natural selection can have an effect to weed out some variants in some environments, it does NOT explain how those variants came about in the first place. We do have some nice names for some of the variation - mutation and genetic drift, but these are mostly an explanation of empirical evidence as well that don't go far into explaining the earlier versions of what was changed.

    I'm not saying the creationists are right or wrong, and I'm not saying evolution doesn't play a part, what I am saying is what we have at the moment are some theories that explain only part of the story and not the whole story. Despite that, many claim it is the whole story.

    Now back to what started this slight digression.

    Anything that can NOT be proven as an absolute fact is a belief, be it for or against. Some people believe in a God, some people believe the is no God. In either case it is solely a belief by the individual as we can not prove a God exists or does not exist. Many people who believe in a God have a belief in a support structure about that God and preach about them to others, this is called a religion. When someone preaches that their is no God, then they are preaching their religious belief as well. Thus atheism is also a religion as it's based on a belief of there being no God, they have no evidence to prove God does not exist. Atheism, like Christianity, Buddhism, Moslem, etc is just an identifying name or word to classify a specific belief structure.

    BTW This discussion is a classic example of thread drift, and it always amazes me how easily that happens.

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    but I'd say Christianity does. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thess. 5:21)

    Oh, and while I really shouldn't go here, 'Science' is a belief system. Human perception is subjective, tools that man imagines and builds to enhance perception enhance subjective perception. 'Science' is involved in creating a belief system that makes sense of what man perceives. I see no reason to assume that any intelligent life that may exist 'out there' perceives things as do we.

    Dang, neilb, it's nice to see you. :)

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Ernest, you're using WIKIPEDIA in an argument aginst me. The untimate authority.

    As for arguing the Theory of Evolution against you (or even the Theory of Theory), I can't be bothered to even start. I rather mistakenly posted the other night after a few beers and vodkas - I was feeling a little mischevious - and, now, in the cold, sober light of Sunday, I really don't know why I bothered. I can see that your ignorance on the subject of evolution is pretty profound even with Wikihelp. Yet it does not stop you pontificating on the subject, though.

    Your arguments about belief and non-belief are of the same order when you are talking about atheism. "I don't believe in gods" is a single disbelief and, even when it is regarded by muppets like you as a denial, it would still be based on a single belief and not a belief system and therefore not a religion!

    I can, with just one act of neglect, disbelieve in the imaginary friend that is the basis of EVERY major religion, past, present and (probably) future. Good, eh? Except Buddhism, of course, as it doesn't have an imaginary friend.

    You indulge in semantics - "Anything that can NOT be proven as an absolute fact is a belief," - at a kindergarten level. So, your example proves...what? Any "proven fact" doesn't have to be that way next time we want it to be so. Nothing is certain. Existence is shades of grey and probability. Except, of course, for faith-based, fact-free belief sytems such as religions, homeopathy, astrology and alien abduction (with, or without **** probing). ALL of which I can disbelieve in with the same single act of neglect I used above.

    Boxy. Hi! I shouldn't be doing this, I took an unholy vow not to post again but, as I said above, drink got the better of me. I have to guess that you are quoting your Book of Words at me. Please excuse the small chuckle as I ponder on history's heretics and what happened to them despite the "permission" you referenced. Some formed their own churches and some formed a pile of ashes.

    The majority (all) of religions are based on faith and a core of dogma and, as far as I can see, if you question that, you step outside of the religion and someone steps on you. Even religions of peace...

    Christianity seems to suggest that you are free to question but reaches for the matches if you actually DO it.

    Neil

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    since you don't like that, try this definition from one of the four printed dictionaries I have that all read similar - this one I can fit on my desk beside the keyboard and is a USA one, the big Webster's wants to tip the desk over:

    Theory - systematically applied knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyse, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behaviour of a given set of phenomena.

    As to belief - you say it all in your statement "I don't believe in gods." Well, I do say you have to, but the fact you use the word believe means you acknowledge it's a belief and not a proven fact - which is all I was saying. It matters not what side of the issue you stand on, the stance is a belief as neither side can prove as a fact that God does or does not exist. Thus any position is a belief structure.

    As to the theory of evolution - if it accounted for all aspects of evolution and all changes in every species the way most of its proponents claim, it would also explain and show how and where intelligence and self-awareness evolved to a good enough extent we could create it. Darwin's theory does explain part of the story, but not the whole story and there are a few rare cases where it doesn't fit exactly as he proposed it. Thus it's a theory and not a proven definitive fact. Which is all I said.

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Short of hammering it into your skull with a sledgehammer...

    I have NO BELIEF in gods (not God, just gods). It's a DISbelief, NOT a belief. I don't have to do ANYTHING to be an atheist. again - It's not a belief system. It's not even a belief. It's the OPPOSITE of a belief.

    It is a datum. Notthing more.

    Atheism is the opposite of Theism which IS a belief but is STILL not a belief system.

    There ARE belief systems that include atheism, atheistic belief systems and even atheistic religions but it takes a lot more than simple atheism to make either. A belief system has one key word that makes your ideas about atheism totally misguided and that is "SYSTEM" and it implies a set of consistent, self-supporting beliefs. Atheism is a single NON-belief.

    As for "theory", your own Wikipedia states "Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative". And you think quoting me multiple dictionary definitions for the wrong concept in some way advances your case?

    As for "explain and show how and where intelligence and self-awareness evolved to a good enough extent we could create it.", how does that follow? It's one of the most stupid comments you've made to date.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    1. Those that are rigorously proven through a number of means and hold true for all current known examples, but not proven as total fact due to the inability (at this time) to test all possible options. These are comprehensive in regards to what they relate to and are internally consistent and complete. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is one example.

    2. Those that match empirical data and hold true for most known examples but are not comprehensive and do not fully explain what they're about. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is an example of this because it is not comprehensive in explaining all it relates to. His theory is seen as one of a number of mechanisms used in evolution, but is not the whole story. Also, there are cases that go contrary to what Darwin stated, thus it also fails to hold true for all known current examples. It's a good start, but not a complete answer.

    ...........

    I gather from your statement's on belief you see shades of grey where I see black and white - to me something is or is not, it's proven fact or not proven fact, and a position taken on a basis without proven facts is a belief - regardless if it's for or against. Thus someone can believe something is so or they can believe it is not so, but it's still only what they believe.

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You reference together, to "prove" some sort of point, Einstein's Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution. Not really comparing like for like and I wonder, from that, if you understand either.

    Creationists hate both theories, by the way.

    Darwin's contribution to evolution theory has pretty much been modified since he wrote it but the Old Boy didn't do too bad considering the evidence he had and the gaps in the knowledge of the time. He started whole fields of science about which he knew little or nothing, evolutionary biology, palaeobiology, abiogenesis and more. As to Evolution, now, tell me in what way and where the current evolutionary theory falls down. As the whole thing is pretty much a couple of branches of science in its own right, you've plenty of leeway. A word of warning, keep away from Intelligent Design web sites. Been there, disproved that.

    Shades of grey? I'm not a solipsist but perhaps Perhaps "Cogito ergo sum" is the only known fact. I can't prove otherwise. All of the rest is filtered through our senses. Things fall down now, but will they do it tomorrow?

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    of them being labelled scientific theories. I'm also glad to see you acknowledge that the theory put forward by Darwin is was not complete, but a work in progress, and still is. The difference between the two theories shows there are shades of grade to the title 'theory.' Darwin did do a lot of good work, but it was a start based on a number of assumptions of which many have been proved to be valid to date. However, it's still not complete and comprehensive, despite many people claiming it so so, thus it's still a theory not yet fully confirmed as fact.

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    As I said, I don't believe that you understand the scope or significance of Relativity or Evolution so your pleasure at my seeming "acceptance" is moot.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    like abstinence is a *** position! :^0

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    I have to guess that you are quoting your Book of Words at me. Please excuse the small chuckle as I ponder on history's heretics and what happened to them despite the "permission" you referenced. Some formed their own churches and some formed a pile of ashes.

    Just because a bunch of idiots claim a bunch of bu//shite in the name of 'Scripture', doesn't negate the 'Scripture'.

    There's a mess of dimmies out there claiming a bunch of bu//shite in the name of 'Science'. You don't let them get away with that crap, do you?

    (OMG. The bassackwardness of trying to follow ones own replies to posts since the 'upgrade' is unreal. Gods. Drive me up a wall.)

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    How do I differentiate? What is b0ll0cks, and what is Truth?I see one Christian Book of Words and hear more interpretations that it's possible to imagine. And there are more Books of Words.

    I was brought up in a marginally-religious society. We went to Sunday School so we kids would be out of the way and the adults could have weekend *** without being interrupted. (According to Mum, anyway). And whatever I got taught, didn't "take". My views crystallised when we had a visitor who gave a talk to the sixth forms of a few schools (no idea what grad that is but I was fifteen) in which he attempted to link eveolution and the "six days" of creation. I got a little sarcastic (trying to impress the girls from Rugby High) and got into trouble for suggesting he might be a little ignorant of the subject of evolution.

    Much easier, my way. Father Odin, Jehova, Zeus, Allah. Lump 'em all together and forget them.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Blasphemy day is painfully relevant, some Islamic countries are pushing again for international blasphemy law, the plussy riot trial shows the Russian Church as a strong tool of the Kremlin, Evolution is still under attack by Hindus, Christians and Muslims alike.

    Blasphemy day was started up through the Center for Inquiry : http://www.centerforinquiry.net/

    It is a world wide protest against blasphemy laws. Even Finland has one, Denmark too. So, happy Blasphemas to all (in ten days)

    EDIT: Bowdlerized

    +
    0 Votes
    john.a.wills

    but I have the impression that the accused did something which would have been a criminal offense in most countries, including most of the U.S. That we may agree with the message does not mean we should condone the method of delivery. Suppose they had done something similar in St Patrick's in New York? And there has been at least one case (a quarter of a century ago) of people with a more-or-less Catholic message being successfully prosecuted for similar shenanigans in Blessed Sacrament Cathedral in Sacramento CA. The Russian Orthodox may be (although I doubt it) a tool of the Kremlin, but the ***** Riot business does not exemplify that.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    My understanding was the band had no permission to be there. This would be a legal offense in the lobby of Lloyd's of London or the center court of Mall of America.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    BAND is a very loose interpretation of what it is that ***** RIOT actually does. Though I suppose with all ACQUIRED TASTES beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    TR blocks the term cluster-****.

    +
    0 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    virtually any curse that's occasionally useful these days. Grrr....

    +
    0 Votes
    john.a.wills

    Everyone is invited to divine service in the Orthodox Church, even Charlie Spencer. There might be occasions when a vast crowd necessitates some ticketing, but generally speaking one can wander into a church without trespassing - a church is not private property in the same way that Lloyd's of London and the Mall of America are. But once there one has to respect some rules, and the group apparently entered the sanctuary and disturbed whatever was going on there. So we have to apply slightly different rules from those regarding properly private places, which is why my list was of houses of worship.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    to allow visitor in until they make themselves unwelcome.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    I've never attended an Orthodox service, but I don't burst into flames when I enter a house of worship. Well, other than that one time with those snake handlers in Alabama...

    +
    1 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Seriously? Can anyone be in doubt that this was a standard Kremlin trial?
    There is no need for a crime in those, nor for evidence. Only a dictate.

    +
    1 Votes
    boxfiddler Moderator

    one can embrace any variant of capitalism without dumping totalitarianism.

    +
    1 Votes
    JamesRL

    What plussy riot did was disruptive. In most private but open access places(in most jurisdictions), if you are asked to leave and you don't comply, it is tresspass and a slap on the wrist, but no major incident. If I recall correctly, the punk rockers were facing 5 years jail time.

    I'm sure if you did the same thing in St Patricks, you would have gotten at worst 30 days suspended sentance, and a warning to never disturb the peace again.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    included more than just simple trespass. They made a lot of noise and caused a public disorder, filmed on private property without approval, and resisted arrest according what I read in the first days after the event. In most countries resisting arrest is a felony.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    What in there makes you think two years in a gulag?
    And remember, lots of prisoners don't even make it to the gulag.
    DOA.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    they got driven away in a police car?

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    I don't think the question of evidence is really relevant. The video is the one they shot themselves, find it on youtube. No charges of resisting arrest or any other activities beyond what the video shows has been cited.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    They did a silly song and dance.
    Their real crime was in asking God to exorcise Putin from the Russian Orthodox Church... which is the worst blasphemy imaginable, namely blasphemy against the half-pint comb-over Lord Putin.