Perceptions based soley on religion

[_ID_]

What beliefs do we have that are a direct result of our particular choice of faith?

Do we make judgments about people based on our faith? I think everyone does. What I think is important is that we overcome those stumbling blocks. If you don't I think you are perpetuating an attitude that has for a long time caused hurt and sorrow for people.

What I am referring to is transsexuals, and gender identity. I am a straight male, no question I am a guy, and love to fuck women. But I find myself making judgments about those who do have gender identity and role identity issues outside of what we would call normal. When I catch myself doing this. I ask myself, why would I feel such a way about someone that was born this way. I think it is due to my religious background.

Below is a blog post I came across. I thought it was an interesting point of view.



Sunday, March 04, 2007
Religion and sex
Glendale Community College philosophy professor Victor Reppert posted at his blog, Dangerous Idea, about whether there is a secular argument against homosexuality. He concluded that there doesn't seem to be a plausible case (at least, not based merely on evolution), which prompted this comment from ex-Jehovah's Witness Derek Barefoot:


I agree with you partly. However, people who defend homosexuality from a naturalist perspective almost without exception also see nothing perverse about transsexulaity. That one is baffling. It is one thing to dislike some feature of one's body that falls short of a societal ideal. A person with an unusual nose may want a usual one. A shorter than average person may understandably wish they were taller. But for someone to feel that he or she has literally been "born into the wrong body," as transsexuals often put it, is naturalistically unfathomable. Perhaps a wasp has by mistake been born into the body of a mouse. Perhaps the tomato plant yearns in some inarticulate vegetative fashion to be an oak. Transexuality is literally a rebellion against nature, yet somehow it is included (commonly) with homosexuality. So perhaps the argument that homosexuality is just an expression of nature is called into question by the related phenomenon of transsexuality.
The problem with this response is that Barefoot is making erroneous assumptions about sex in nature. There are not always well-defined boundaries between male and female. I responded in the comments:

I think that Darek Barefoot's analogies of tomato/oak and wasp/mouse are inapt--sexual differences within a species are commonly smaller than genetic and morphological differences across species. There are human individuals whose genetic makeup puts them into categories which are outside of or span the normal male/female boundaries. For example, those with XXY chromosomes may visibly appear to be male or female, and there are those who have both male and female genitalia. Further, there is far more variety to the sexes than mere duality within the animal kingdom. I recommend Olivia Judson's book, Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation for an entertaining look at some of that variety.

Transsexuality, like homosexuality, is evidence against an oversimplified view of sex in nature, not against naturalism itself.
And I followed that up with another comment:

I was looking for but unable to find a set of online forum postings I came across a year or two ago from an intersexed individual who was a Christian, and honestly had no idea what was appropriate dating for her. I believe the church she was involved with took the position that she was not permitted to date or have sex with anyone. It seems to me that most Christians have a real problem with the existence of such individuals, and have a very poor record of inhumane response to them.

I did find this post from an individual raising the question of how religious views can make sense of such individuals. It's an excellent and interesting question. Here's a brief quote from that post (rest of this comment is quoted from it):


The english language has no gender terms we can use for intersex people, instead why try to force them into either female or male which may not be appropriate.

Here is a run down of only some intersex conditions:

Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH)
XX (female) fetus ovaries produce a masculising hormone that results in ambigious external genitals . normally the ovaries do not produce hormones as the female is the default sex, none are needed to create a female fetus. the addition of the masculising hormone therefor creates a female with some male charactistics

Testosterone Biosynthetic Defects
an XY(male) fetus does not produce testosterone, therefor,as female is the `default setting` it is born with full female parts, or parts rudimentary malformed female parts, despite being genetically male.

Androgen sensivity syndrome
Testes in the abdomen, external female parts.
they also grow brests but do not have cycles (note: im trying to avoid using catch words here, as im not sure what is allowed and what isnt!)
Klinefelter Syndrome
Genically 47 chromosomes XXY and classed as men. They are males with a female chromosome attatched, small male parts, my develop female characteristics in teenage years.

Turner Syndrome
45 chromosomes, XO. Turner women have female external parts but illformed ovaries and no estrogen.

"Hermaphroditism"
can be EXACTLY one ovary, one teste a small penis AND a female genitalia. Their genetic makeup can be a mosaic of XY and XX genes, they truly are not male or female, but both.

Roughly one in a thousand births is an intersex child. so it isnt that rare.

The issue this presents to religion is that here we have a group of people who are neither here nor there and will grow up with issues to do with their sexual aurientation. What is the view of religions on say an XXY male, who looks mostly male but wishes to date other men? What is the view on a XY female who feels she is a lesbian (after all she is genitcally male) These are issues many people with intersex come up agaisnt. often their parents assign them a gender at birth and corrective surgery is given to `make` them into a gender (usually female) This quite often results in the girl growing up feeling male and later on reqesting a sex change.

Its a tricky issue. Many Intersex people wish they had not been assigned a gender and feel their body is their right and they should have been left to choose a gender when they were older.

But anyway, To me,(I am theist, not religious and very firmly rooted in science) it shows how our gentically evolved bodies can and do go wrong, for a religious person I think it presents an issue worth thinking about. I dont know of any biblical reference to intersex, nor what the christian take is on people who are not male or female but are a bit of this a bit of that, netiehr here nor there or exactly half of each gender. What is their take on how these people should "morally" behave?
Heres what I think it boils down to.

1 God doesnt exist
2 God exists but is fallable and makes mistakes
3 god exists and does not make mistakes, therefor, he wishes intersex conditions to exist , but condemns them to hell if they choose the wrong aurientation later in life to what they look like externally
4. He wishes intersex to exist, either because he has no issues with gender and sexuality .

....feel free to add more...

[Guest 91108]

Interesting post .. shall consider it more indepth before I reply more indepth.

[tessa]

This is very much worth pondering. When I've had a bit more caffeine, I am going to do just that.

Thanks for putting this out here for us to mind-snack on. :)

[TomOfSweden]

I'm sure nobody would admit to it. I mean, if we admit that we would judge people differently based on our religion, that must mean that we have accepted a religion even though we don't share it's values. That would make us a hypocrite if true. I'm sure nobody sees themselves as being hypocrites.

[Guest 91108]

I think we don't judge people by religion. at least i don't...
and i don't think organised religions are very good at telling us how to judge others.
it's a double standard in the bible that tells us to not judge but what is right and wrong for us to do causes us to judge others by that right and wrong.
Is all part of the problem i have with the text to start with. it's filled with inconsistencies.

[_ID_]

I think we don't judge people by religion. at least i don't...
and i don't think organised religions are very good at telling us how to judge others.
it's a double standard in the bible that tells us to not judge but what is right and wrong for us to do causes us to judge others by that right and wrong.
Is all part of the problem i have with the text to start with. it's filled with inconsistencies.

Your post is where I was going with this. Thanks Wolf.

I came across another blog post. This one by a atheist. I thought the points the person made were quite interesting.

Personally I believe in a God like being that created what we see, what we are, and what we experience. The dynamics of that God mysterious, and unknown what details or history there are in relation to this God.

What follows is experts from the web page.

http:// thecreationfallacy.blogspot. com/


PREFACE:
God is nothing more then an unreasonable, unproven, idea. Manufactured by the mind, and now disassembled by the mind...


Design paradox:
Humans use intelligent design to create things, the universe does not. Natural selection is a vast program, running in the universe, with the laws of physics on a quantum level. It's an anti-chance process that can build incredibly complex things whose end product fit very well with the environment. Which to the outside observer can be utterly baffling, until you spot the gentle ramp that leads up to it. Advanced Intelligence comes late into the universe as the product of evolution, of gradual escalation from simple beginnings, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. Evolution disproves an intelligent designer.


Evidence paradox:
To believe in something with no evidence is to believe in anything. If there was a supernatural deity that created the entire universe there would be mountains of evidence and reason for it, but there is no less evidence to show that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists than there is to show that God exists. There is therefore no more reason to believe in God than there is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Lack of evidence disproves all supernatural deity's.


Evil paradox:
Creationists say god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and caring. But if so then why did 300 million people(many of them babies) die painfully last century from smallpox? Either...
1. He doesn't know when evil is going to happen: then he's not all-knowing.
2. He doesn't have the ability to stop evil: then he's not all-powerful.
3. He doesn't want to stop evil: then he's not caring.
There are no believers in foxholes. The existence of evil disproves an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god.


Bible paradox:
The bible is full of contradictions: Link
Not studying the evidence or evolution is mentally lazy. The bible says laziness is a sin. Jesus(god) let his own creation (which he knew would) kill him. That's assisted suicide, a sin. Thou shall not kill... unless it's in the name of religion. The endless contradictions within the bible disproves the holy spirit.

FAQ:
Q: Do atheists hate god, is that why their so arrogant?
A: No, the truth just happens to contradict god, your mistaking their intellectual honesty for arrogance.
Q: Aren't atheists actually agnostics since they cannot utterly prove god doesn't exist?
A: If so then we're all tooth fairy agnostics.
Q: If god isn't real why does everybody believe in it?
A: Everybody doesn't:
-There's just as many atheists in America as people in all of Canada.
-There's entire atheistic religions: Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism.
-There's entire atheistic countries: Japan, China, and the Scandinavian countries.
-Atheistic nations have the lowest crime rates.
-Many intelligent scientists are atheists.
-But many do believe in god, this is the same type that used to believe the earth was flat.
Q: Doesn't the bible prove that god exists?
A: NO, that's based on assuming something to be true(god exists), then using that assumption as fact to prove another assumption(bible is word of god) and using the "proved" assumption to prove your original assumption(god exists). This is circular reasoning, which is false.
Q: What if you're wrong and god does exist?
A: Even if it was true your god would be one of 5000, which only gives you a 0.0002% chance of being right. So I ask what if you're wrong? - Link
Q: Doesn't evil exists because god gave us the ability to choose, and we choose to sin?
A: It's ridiculous to say an all-knowing all-powerful god would create faulty humans, and then blame them for his mistakes!
Q: Don't people just believe in evolution so they can sin?
A: Millions of upstanding moral people understand evolution.
Q: Isn't evolution is just a theory?
A: No, it's an observable fact. There's plenty of evidence and reason that makes it true!
Q: If there's no god what reason is there to live?
A: There is all the more reason, this is your one chance, make every moment count!
Q: Isn't using science for morals a bad idea?
A: There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

[Rhabbi]

I'm sure nobody would admit to it. I mean, if we admit that we would judge people differently based on our religion, that must mean that we have accepted a religion even though we don't share it's values. That would make us a hypocrite if true. I'm sure nobody sees themselves as being hypocrites.

OK Tom, I admit it.

We all judge people based on our thoughts and upbringing, and my judgement is based on my religion. I am not a hypocrite though, because I do not say one thing and do something else.

My faith leads me to certain inexcapable judgements about people, but because I do not believe in hell I can believe that even those of us who are wrong will have a chance to get it right later.

You judge people based on your atheism, and even believe that we who have faith are, in some way, ignorant. I do not hold this against you because I know that you do truly understand the nature of the universe. I could actually quote you scripture that describes your attitude and outlook on life.

But regardless of this, I know that when I condemn someone I am overstepping my bounds. Even Jesus did not come to condemn people, but to deliver them. Those who refuse to accept this are not condemned by me, or by him, but by themselves.

[_ID_]

OK Tom, I admit it.

We all judge people based on our thoughts and upbringing, and my judgement is based on my religion. I am not a hypocrite though, because I do not say one thing and do something else.

My faith leads me to certain inexcapable judgements about people, but because I do not believe in hell I can believe that even those of us who are wrong will have a chance to get it right later.

You judge people based on your atheism, and even believe that we who have faith are, in some way, ignorant. I do not hold this against you because I know that you do truly understand the nature of the universe. I could actually quote you scripture that describes your attitude and outlook on life.

But regardless of this, I know that when I condemn someone I am overstepping my bounds. Even Jesus did not come to condemn people, but to deliver them. Those who refuse to accept this are not condemned by me, or by him, but by themselves.

I think that last line is hypocritical. You say you don't condemn people, yet in the same post, you say people are condemned if they do not believe in god, or Christ or whatever. I'm not trying to flame you, don't get me wrong. Just please see it from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe in the same scripture you do.

To me it sounds quite judgmental to say "If you don't take Christ as your savior you will be dammed Simply because that is what it says in the book I read". It's also quite judgmental to say "If a person believes in religion they are delusional".

The point I was trying to make when I started this post, is we have values, based on our beliefs. Well, what if those beliefs are wrong. Are able to be proven wrong with simple science. By refusing to accept what is provable in a scientific setting, you could be refusing to have faith in one of your Gods divine designs.

As in the case of the XXY chromosome. That is a scientificly provable item. They are neither male or female as genitics go. So what gives us the right to dam them for choosing science to help them into whatever gender they choose to have?

The proverb - Walk a thousand miles in my shoes before judging me. Rings quite true in that regard.

[~hellish one~]

i have to agree with ID here. i know this is a very touchy subject for everyone. anytime the topic of faith is brought up there are bound to be some heated debates. i just hope we can keep things friendly here. ~winks~

i believe that no matter how hard we try...we are bound to judge others. not necessarily due to our religious beliefs, but it sure can play a big role in that. generally speaking (and i'm not trying to single anyone out here) there are Christians that criticize and judge other Christians...Atheists that judge Christians...Pagans that judge Muslims. i could go on and on. the fact is...we are a people who like to believe that we live by high moral standards. and everyone's moral standards, religious or not, will always differ from someone else's.

all we can do is try to be open to other people's beliefs. just because you may be a Pagan doesn't mean you can't be accepting of your neighbor who happens to be a Methodist. ya know?

personally, i was raised Southern Baptist, but over time have explored several different faiths. i have a great appreciation for every religion out there. if you are a Christian and that makes you happy then i am happy for you. the same goes for Muslims, Pagans, Hindus..etc.

this is a tricky topic to get into because you are inevitably going to hurt someone's feelings or piss someone off. even if you don't mean to. i know if i were a Christian and someone was calling me judgemental because of my beliefs...then yeah...that would tick me off. but you know what? we are all judgemental. that's just the way it is.

[mkemse]

I have often wondered myself, why people can not just judge people based on WHO THEY ARE, rather then what they are, I oftne wonder if i see a TG, a CD ect i look at them, they at me, I often wondering if they asre pasing judgement on the fatc that I am looking at them and wondering, or if they are simply ooking at me because I am in the direction where they are looking, I am also a straight male, I have no issues with any genders, regardless of their orientation, I always try to judge peolpe based on who they are and not what they are, yes it is difficult at time but I always try none the less

[fantassy]

Those who refuse to accept this are not condemned by me, or by him, but by themselves.

If there is a God, I'd like to think He will examine my life and see I try to live a good life helping others simply because it is the right thing to do, and will welcome me into heaven as a result. If that's not enough, I don't think I would want to spend eternity with a God who is so vain one's belief (or lack thereof) in him outweighs the deeds done in life. At least that's the way I'm looking at it. It promotes a live and let live attitude which judges people on their treatment of others, not their sexuality. I don't think we can stop ourselves from judging other (at least I can't) but we can control the criteria on which we do the judging.

fantassy

[rce]

One of the wisest things I have heard on this subject matter is this:

"The worst prejudice of all is to think that you have no prejudices."

Everyone has prejudices, whether they come from their religious beliefs, upbringing, other experiences, or anything else. The human brain cannot contain so much information that we can put ourselves in the mindset of everybody else. Prejudices are a negative form of the simplifications of the world that we need to make in order to sort our thoughts and experiences.

I am a Christian and believe in an almighty God, but I believe one of the great good things He gave us was our free will. We can thus choose which paths to take in life. I also believe that God created the Universe in such a fashion that there are chances and probabilities, nothing can be foretold with certainty. (If God would create a universe that was completely foreseeable, how much fun would He have observing it?) Among the chances and probabilities are the mutations driving the evolution forward. The chances and probabilities are also the foundation for the free will, because we would not have a free will if everything was predetermined. The chances and probabilities are thus, in my mind, a blessing but often also a curse.

There are some people, mainly extreme feminists, who claim that the differences between the sexes is entirely based on society and the upbringing. I do not believe that. The fact that there are people who feel that they are born in a body of the wrong sex disproves this feminist theory.

[Rhabbi]

I think that last line is hypocritical. You say you don't condemn people, yet in the same post, you say people are condemned if they do not believe in god, or Christ or whatever. I'm not trying to flame you, don't get me wrong. Just please see it from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe in the same scripture you do.

Actually, that is the problem with trying to expalin religion to someone who does not live it.

I am not saying you are condemned because you do not believe. I am saying that the Scripture I follow says that. It may seem like a subtle difference, or even that I am splitting semantic hairs, but it is a very real one.

Try to understand this from your own perspective. You know that your cultural conditioning and religious background influence your reaction to those outside the norm, and want to reject that conditioning.

On the other hand, I can accept these people as who and what they are. I might urge them to accept that they were cheated by chance and genetics, but I would never feel uncomfortable around them. I know this because I have met them, spoke to them, and continue to do so.

If they subsequently choose to alter their condition through surgery, that is there choice, just as it is mine to believe they are wrong to do so.

Where is my hypocrisy? Is it because I tell them that there is hope for a better life? Or is it because I accept them as they are, before and after?

My faith gives me hope for the future of all of us, and an understanding that the only real answers lie with God, not man.

[_ID_]

Actually, that is the problem with trying to expalin religion to someone who does not live it.

I am not saying you are condemned because you do not believe. I am saying that the Scripture I follow says that. It may seem like a subtle difference, or even that I am splitting semantic hairs, but it is a very real one.

Try to understand this from your own perspective. You know that your cultural conditioning and religious background influence your reaction to those outside the norm, and want to reject that conditioning.

On the other hand, I can accept these people as who and what they are. I might urge them to accept that they were cheated by chance and genetics, but I would never feel uncomfortable around them. I know this because I have met them, spoke to them, and continue to do so.

If they subsequently choose to alter their condition through surgery, that is there choice, just as it is mine to believe they are wrong to do so.

Where is my hypocrisy? Is it because I tell them that there is hope for a better life? Or is it because I accept them as they are, before and after?

My faith gives me hope for the future of all of us, and an understanding that the only real answers lie with God, not man.

I understand your position quite well actually. I grew up very religious. It has been through study of both religion and science, and how those two relate to the other that I have come to the conclusion that in order for me to accept them for who they are, they must first accept themselves for who they are. If they need to make a change, then I support them.

I believe science to be a tool of God. Given to man to better our position in life, to advance our minds, to grow as a people. Living in strict adherence to antiquated scripture, I think leads to a person refusing to accept the advancements of mankind. Thus those persons would be refusing to accept that God could bless people with talents to create, to invent, to alter his existence for his own betterment.

I believe your hypocrisies comes in the areas I highlighted. If you could accept a person for who they were, then you wouldn't condemn them for making the choices they make. I also believe you have such faith in your beliefs that you will not be able to see why I see your views to be contradictory.

I would like to pose a question to you though. Do you believe in all areas of the Bible, and what version? Because if I recall correctly one of the ten commandments was to not lust after they neighbors wife. Which would translate into, don't lust after porn. I think there is also a part in there that says something about if you think a sin, it is the same as committing the sin, but I could be wrong about the second one... I did get taught by some fanatical leaders at one point..

[tessa]

Ok, here I go adding my less than a half-penny worth of thoughts to this.

ID's first question was, "Do we make judgments about people based on our faith?"

A person more wise than I helped me clarify this idea for myself. I think we all make judgements about others based on our beliefs, our personally perceived values, our likes and dislikes, the culture we are exposed to and sometimes just because it's a certain day of the week. These judgements can be positive or negative. And since these judgements can be as fallible as the humans making them, the real problem comes into play when we use those judgements to condemn or commend.

That brings me to the part of ID's post where he mentions intersex individuals and how there sexual orientation may be viewed by persons in the religious community. My first thought was, "why the crap does it make any difference to any others but the people involved??" But knowing the power a group of religious people can have on the life of others, the question on how they would view the sexual orientation of a person with gender issues, be it from genetic hiccups or personal preferences, is a valid one to ask.

Due to the sexual nature of the entire concept, I sadly think many faith-based organizations (not all, but many more than should) would be quick to condemn no matter what choice was made. A man who is genetically a male, but has female attributes, choosing a woman to partner up with would be questioned. The same man choosing a male partner would definitely be considered a no-no for many. Or that person born hermaphroditic...no real options that wouldn't be condemned on either side. As ID said, "neither here nor there" and damned either way.

But I hasten to add that we are speaking of the opinions and judgements of people, mere mortals who have decided that their interpretation of the Bible is the so right one. I can only pray that I will never be so foolish as to apply the tiny thoughts of man to the awesomeness of Almighty God.

Again, ID, thanks for posting this. A good think is always a pleasure. :)

[TomOfSweden]

You judge people based on your atheism, and even believe that we who have faith are, in some way, ignorant. I do not hold this against you because I know that you do truly understand the nature of the universe. I could actually quote you scripture that describes your attitude and outlook on life.

Atheism has no tenents so it's hard to use it as a basis to judge anybody or anything. I wouldn't call the religious ignorant since we all have access to the same information. We've all heard the arguments laid forward by all the major religions. All we know about the religious is that either, somewhere along the line logic failed or that the faith has been updated so much as to make it atheist, (Albert Einsteins religiousity being a prime example). I can imagine a variety of different reasons for this. But we've discussed this so much here that I won't dwell on it.

edit: here's (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=a43cfb7b24423cc6&ex=1330664400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) an article in the NY times about research in trying to understand why so many people are religious in spite of the evidence. His theory is that our brains have evolved to believe in the supernatural in spite of overwhelming evidence. It's like, we will be religious in some way no matter what. No matter what your stance is, it's an interesting read.

[Rhabbi]

here's (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=a43cfb7b24423cc6&ex=1330664400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) an article in the NY times about research in trying to understand why so many people are religious in spite of the evidence. His theory is that our brains have evolved to believe in the supernatural in spite of overwhelming evidence. It's like, we will be religious in some way no matter what. No matter what your stance is, it's an interesting read.


You are right, it is an interesting read. I find it interesting how few people have actually read Darwin and what he proposed in his works.

As for us evolving a need for religion, why?

Evolution supposedly selects for survival traits, what survival trait is there that supports a need to believe in religion? Perhaps it is the actual existance of God?

As for the evidence that proves there is no G/god, perhaps you ought to examine it, you might be surprised at the acarcity of it in light of current scientific knowledge.

[TomOfSweden]

You are right, it is an interesting read. I find it interesting how few people have actually read Darwin and what he proposed in his works.

As for us evolving a need for religion, why?

Evolution supposedly selects for survival traits, what survival trait is there that supports a need to believe in religion?


Veru fascinating.



Perhaps it is the actual existance of God?


But since this trait aparently doesn't defrinciate between religions, the important thing is not which religion, but a religion, any. Which means that if you believe this theory and still believe in christianity, you are wrong. Or at least extremly likely to be wrong, (1 chance in an infinate to be correct). I hope the logic wasn't hard to follow?



As for the evidence that proves there is no G/god, perhaps you ought to examine it, you might be surprised at the acarcity of it in light of current scientific knowledge.

We've got another thread for this where I clean the floor with the religious theories in so many ways, ("lest we forget") I'll just refer to that one. I don't want to become guilty of thread jacking.

[rce]

...
As for us evolving a need for religion, why?

Evolution supposedly selects for survival traits, what survival trait is there that supports a need to believe in religion? Perhaps it is the actual existance of God?

As for the evidence that proves there is no G/god, perhaps you ought to examine it, you might be surprised at the acarcity of it in light of current scientific knowledge.

Well, one interesting answer to the survival value of religion (except for the common moral values of religions which are good for a society with a common religion), is that one of the greatest advantages of the human brain is our quest for knowledge and answer to questions like, "what?", "where?", and above all "why?" This is the basis of science and thus civilisation, but it is also the basis of religious belief. If we cannot say why the world exist, we try to figure out answers anyway. Those answers become a religion.

[Rhabbi]

Actually I have read that thread, and thought cariad has been doing well at holding her own.

This article might be worth reading if evolution was anything more than a specious philosophical idea, and the author had actually read the work he was trying to use as an authority. Since neither of these is true I can simply file his theories with those of the Flat Earth Society.

[Guest 91108]

I read the thread as well ToS mentioned and have not thought he was winning the argument from his standpoint.
it makes sense to him. shrugs but so does worshipping a kumquat to others.

[_ID_]

Actually I have read that thread, and thought cariad has been doing well at holding her own.

This article might be worth reading if evolution was anything more than a specious philosophical idea, and the author had actually read the work he was trying to use as an authority. Since neither of these is true I can simply file his theories with those of the Flat Earth Society.

The sentence I highlighted in the quoted paragraph made me chuckle. I can't understand how someone could dismiss evolution in it's entirety. Yet there it is. If you say that there is no such thing as evolution, then you are saying that there is no such thing as survival of the fittest. There is no such thing as adaptation. Yet we as humans have adapted our lives to make our environment more comfortable for us. We created climate control systems to help us with heat, or cold. We created fabrics to keep us warm or cool.

If you deny evolution in it's entirety. You are also saying that there were between 5 and 8 million species of beetles on Noah's Ark. That would mean there could have been 16 million beetles on the Ark. The size of the Ark is a well documented item in the bible. If you work out how big the Ark was, it turns out to be roughly the size of 2 - 3 foot ball fields. 16 million beetles would take a pretty good percentage of that space I think. Would become very crowded very quickly, and holy crap don't squash one on accident, you would have just caused that species to become extinct, thus failing in the purpose of the Ark to start with.

Why would I use the beetle as an example... Because thats how many species of beetle there are on the planet right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetle


Forty percent of all described insect species are beetles (about 350,000 species), and new species are regularly discovered. Estimates put the total number of species, described and undescribed, at between 5 and 8 million.


I believe that there is a yen yang to it all. Such as there is to everything else in the universe. Evolution coupled with creationism. Not only one or the other, but both. If you were to say only one or the other, then you leave yourself with questions that will not pass logic tests on either side.

[TomOfSweden]

I read the thread as well ToS mentioned and have not thought he was winning the argument from his standpoint.
it makes sense to him. shrugs but so does worshipping a kumquat to others.

It's not a question of what makes most sense to me or somebody else. It's not about personal conviction and soul-searching. It's a question of understanding the facts we have, or not being able to grasp them.

So where did I go wrong? Religious logic fails on so many levels, I would have thought it was impossible to fail in debunking it? It's just a matter of trying and anybody will succeed?

[TomOfSweden]

I don't think Rhabbi was denying evolution, (I mean, who would except a couple of crazed loons in turbans in the desert biting the Koran). I think he was just trying to be clever. Kind of like, evolution is just a theory and so is the existance of the supernatural. But the annalogy is a bit skewed off-course becuase evolution is suported by millions and billions and billions of evidence, each indipendantly verifiable. So it's not a very good theory to make fun of. If he would have gone with "string-theory" or something else that is high level science and philosophy at the same time, it might have gotten interesting.

[Guest 91108]

It's not a question of what makes most sense to me or somebody else. It's not about personal conviction and soul-searching. It's a question of understanding the facts we have, or not being able to grasp them.

So where did I go wrong? Religious logic fails on so many levels, I would have thought it was impossible to fail in debunking it? It's just a matter of trying and anybody will succeed?

But is is largely about personal conviction and soul-searching. If you don't do or have either you are neither spiritual or religous in any form .. and without that level of searching , of a knowing intuitively, then you do have to go with things as you say . the problem is many do go into the searching and finding the answers through various forms.
I do have to say that christianity in my mind lacks some of that searching as you are told what to think but that is another for another thread.

Where did you go wrong? you havenot.. you just have not proven to me that what i know and beleive are untrue.
Each person has their own reality as they make them.
And no amount of discussion is going to change that.
Religious logic may fail in some instances. But you can't possibly say it all fails and others find you credible.
I would say to not look at organised religion and research and go into what it takes to be individually spiritual and one could find what they seek if they are open to it.
I think for you it would be a worthless pursuit as you have a firm thought of what you'd allow in your reality.
Metaphysical to you would be a pointless search.
Oh and it can be measured. For instance search university of California Study on Energy healings... Metaphysical energy from an individual sending from a protected area to a subject and the results. It's not hard to imagine the divine in much the same situation.

Conversations like this all over the net...

No One will ever credibly claim victory over another as long as one's personal faith and beliefs can be shown to found exhibited in daily life.

Just my thoughts on it from an eclectic pagan. smiles
Even I know of the univeral truths that form the basis of most religions. and do not push one over another.
( though personally i do have perferences )

And that is much further into this topic on this board than I ever expected to talk about it.
So pull what you can or not from it,
As I'm done here.

[TomOfSweden]

Where did you go wrong? you havenot.. you just have not proven to me that what i know and beleive are untrue.
Each person has their own reality as they make them.
And no amount of discussion is going to change that.
Religious logic may fail in some instances. But you can't possibly say it all fails and others find you credible.
I would say to not look at organised religion and research and go into what it takes to be individually spiritual and one could find what they seek if they are open to it.
I think for you it would be a worthless pursuit as you have a firm thought of what you'd allow in your reality.
Metaphysical to you would be a pointless search.


You're mixing up the spiritual side of religion with the supernatural claims. I'm talking about things like; the existance of heaven or making claims about the nature of god. That is not a metaphysical discussion. That is a scientiffic discussion. If we believe it we must have a reason to believe it, right? We must have arguments based on something. We can then weigh the weight of these arguments against each other and reach a truth. But if we have nothing but hearsay and vague feelings then we don't have much to weigh against anything, right? If every religion use the same arguments for their case then it's proof that they have equal or less validity, right? We extremly little of how the universe works, and making any steadfast claims, (like christianity is) is being very arrogant, (and lazy).

Off-course you could say that it's only about faith and that you don't want to test your religion. But that's just like the people who vote in an election when they know nothing or extremly little about any of the candidates, and just vote for who ever has the prettiest slogan. It damages the whole idea of democracy. In the same way, people who have faith without thinking pervert the common dialogue and fill the ether with unsubstantiated garbage, making it harder for serious ideas to come through. Ideas from people who have done their homework.

What you are talking about is the subject of morals, ethics and purpose of life. That's not what I've been talking about here at all. It's an interesting subject but our discussions here have been stuck on a hopelessly low level.

We don't have different realities. We have different interpretations of the same reality. It's a major difference.

edit: Metaphysics is the discussion about the discussion of how the universe works. ie, how can we work out it's inner workings. Saying that science can't give us all the answers is fair. So much is obvious. But from that conclude that there is another better way that involves praying and doing a lot of soul searching is just bollocks. Sure, praying might give us a deeper understanding of the world, but how do we know that? How do we bring it from the realm of plain fantasy and guesswork into a world where we can draw any conclusions about it what so ever? How do we know that a religious conviction is any different from convictions derived at from ordinary common sense, hunches or dreaming. We have no idea at all. Not much to base a faith on.


But you can't possibly say it all fails and others find you credible.


It's not a question of finding me credible. I'm not asking anybody to trust me. I'm just asking religious people to do the work. How much in religion can you work out? How much is blind faith? Which evidence is valid? How do you know that?

I'm pretty fucking far from a prophet.

[Guest 91108]

again i see that i can disagree with you whole post.

And i say that religion or better choise of phrase to be religious is for an individual so it is his spirituality.
Which means to me that organized religious forms are nothing but a fourth layer of government.

And i also say that God does exist in the metaphysical . The Divine energy is Metaphysical. It's why scientist have to say they have no proof for or against.

For example holistic health is based on a lot of metaphysical "theories and ideas". does that mean they don't work cause a scientist can't prove or disprove. no. it's a western concept that has a hard time with it.

for me .. you're not going to get any advancement in your discussion of your view of things.
so i bow out of it before someone reads and decides they don't like the thread.

[_ID_]

I very much appreciate where the thread has gone. But it did go askew of my original question.

Do we have prejudices based on our religious (or lack there of) beliefs? The validity or accuracy of those beliefs is not the intent of this thread.

[TomOfSweden]

again i see that i can disagree with you whole post.

And i say that religion or better choise of phrase to be religious is for an individual so it is his spirituality.
Which means to me that organized religious forms are nothing but a fourth layer of government.

And i also say that God does exist in the metaphysical . The Divine energy is Metaphysical. It's why scientist have to say they have no proof for or against.

For example holistic health is based on a lot of metaphysical "theories and ideas". does that mean they don't work cause a scientist can't prove or disprove. no. it's a western concept that has a hard time with it.

for me .. you're not going to get any advancement in your discussion of your view of things.
so i bow out of it before someone reads and decides they don't like the thread.

Our minds very easily get things confused. That's why we like using methods. Science is a method. Rejecting science is fine, but if you want to explain anything you have to replace it with another method, or all you get is a mess. Which is quite the contrary to any deeper understanding of anything.

I do agree that it is very important to look beyond science, because if we didn't science wouldn't evolve at all, which goes against the very nature of science.

How did you reach the conclusion god lives in the metaphysical? If not by using the scientific method then how? Deduction? What did you deduct from what?

Don't confuse the western medical scientific tradition with science in general. There's plenty of medicines that we know do the job without us knowing how they do it. I have plenty of respect for both holistic health and science. I see no conflict.

To expand my annalogy. If we chew on a twig and it cures my hang-over even though science says it shouldn't, that's no evidence at all that the Bible is correct. All it means is that science has more to figure out.

Arthur C Clarke said the profound words, "Science we don't understand is indistinguishable from magic". Just because we don't understand how something works doesn't imply magical and mystical intelligent beings in the woodwork, or any other diety.

But the people who belong to an organised religion aparently want this fourth layer of govornement. My slave is atheist and aparently wants another layer of govornement in her life. I have no problems with religions as such. Only when they make stupid interpretations of the world, they have no basis for making.

[TomOfSweden]

I very much appreciate where the thread has gone. But it did go askew of my original question.


Thanks. I was getting worried. But it wasn't me who started it :blurp_ani

[Rhabbi]

I don't think Rhabbi was denying evolution, (I mean, who would except a couple of crazed loons in turbans in the desert biting the Koran).


Tom

Hate to disagree with you, but evolution as proposed by Darwin is bunk. I will even say that if Darwin were alive today he would agree with me that his theories should be rejected. People cling to them, not because they are true, but because the alternative is less acceptable to them. If they have to admit the flaws in evolution they might have to admit that the theologians are right.

Darwin believed in a God that guided evolution, yey those who calaim to believe wht he wrote deny even this, ask yourself why.

Let me be clear about one thing, I totally support the concept of adaptation to environment, but I reject speciation in any form that does not involve a supernatural event. In spite of numerous scientific experiments to try to prove speciation involving fruit flies there is no evidence of a new species developing. There has been no scientific proof that has withstood the scrutiny of peer review that in any way supports speciation.


Yet, in spite of this total lack of evidence, people still prefer to accept evolution as scientific fact. If any other supposed theory had so little evidence supporting it, iot would be rejected out of hand. Evolution is not because the phiosophy behind it is preferrred to the phiosophy behind the belief in Intelligent Design.

Specious philosophical nonsense is an apt description of evolution.

[Rhabbi]

The size of the Ark is a well documented item in the bible. If you work out how big the Ark was, it turns out to be roughly the size of 2 - 3 foot ball fields. 16 million beetles would take a pretty good percentage of that space I think. Would become very crowded very quickly, and holy crap don't squash one on accident, you would have just caused that species to become extinct, thus failing in the purpose of the Ark to start with.

Why would I use the beetle as an example... Because thats how many species of beetle there are on the planet right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetle


I believe that there is a yen yang to it all. Such as there is to everything else in the universe. Evolution coupled with creationism. Not only one or the other, but both. If you were to say only one or the other, then you leave yourself with questions that will not pass logic tests on either side.

ID,

I personally do not claim to have all the answers. I will tell you that the Bible makes no mention of beetles on the Ark, but that does not mean that they were not there. Nor will I claim that everything that was not on the Ark died, after all, there were fish in the oceans and lakes. How great was the flood? I personally do not know, but if it was limited in scope, to say the Middle East, it might still have been extensive enough to wipe out all human life that was not on the Ark.

As for a combination of evolution guided by a creator, I have no problem with that. There is ample scientific evidence that the earth is older than the 6000 years that some fundamentalists claim. There is recorded history that goes back almost that far.

What I am saying is that I believe in the Bible, but it was written in a language that was intended for a different understanding of the world. Although I believe the Bible to be accurate, I do not believe that every word needs to be taken litterally. A day could be a period of time that covers thousands, or even millions of years.

So, I reject the theory of evolution as taught by most schools because it does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. I also reject so called creation science for the same reason.

[Mishka]

What beliefs do we have that are a direct result of our particular choice of faith?

Do we make judgments about people based on our faith? I think everyone does. What I think is important is that we overcome those stumbling blocks. If you don't I think you are perpetuating an attitude that has for a long time caused hurt and sorrow for people.


In a nutshell...yes.

It's like food. What you put into your mouth effects your whole body, your whole health, even years down the line, how you take care of yourself today will show signs of it when you're older.

So it is with religion and philosphy. If you feed yourself a steady diet of a certain teaching your whole world view will be what you see looking through those lenses. Your whole perspective on life.


Each person has their own reality as they make them.

I agree. We are making our own reality through the faiths we have chosen to follow. We are going to make judgements based on that. We all judge. We all make ethical decisions and we teach them to our children. Right or wrong, it's subjective and personal.

What you are hoping ID, is that people could set aside the antiquated predjudice of centuries old philosophies and look with a clear mind and eye and see things for as they are now, a fresh view. You would like all to be open-minded and reasonable. Such wishes as yours is why I left fundamentalism.

[TomOfSweden]

Tom

Hate to disagree with you, but evolution as proposed by Darwin is bunk. I will even say that if Darwin were alive today he would agree with me that his theories should be rejected. People cling to them, not because they are true, but because the alternative is less acceptable to them. If they have to admit the flaws in evolution they might have to admit that the theologians are right.

Darwin believed in a God that guided evolution, yey those who calaim to believe wht he wrote deny even this, ask yourself why.

Let me be clear about one thing, I totally support the concept of adaptation to environment, but I reject speciation in any form that does not involve a supernatural event. In spite of numerous scientific experiments to try to prove speciation involving fruit flies there is no evidence of a new species developing. There has been no scientific proof that has withstood the scrutiny of peer review that in any way supports speciation.


Yet, in spite of this total lack of evidence, people still prefer to accept evolution as scientific fact. If any other supposed theory had so little evidence supporting it, iot would be rejected out of hand. Evolution is not because the phiosophy behind it is preferrred to the phiosophy behind the belief in Intelligent Design.

Specious philosophical nonsense is an apt description of evolution.

This whole post misses the target by a mile.

Now you're comparing christianity to science as if they are two different faiths. The scientific method is just a method to find the truth. The method in itself doesn't have any answers. It's the the reports that get produced using it that may have. They are many and often conflicting. Chrstianity is only one of many possible scientific models to explain the world. One that desperatly needs evidence to back it up.

Darwin didn't have the complete picture and he wasn't the first person to come up with evolution. He took the untested theories proposed by his biology teacher and tested it scientifically and drew as good conclusions from it as he could. That was the reason why he's famous even though he's somewhere in the middle of the chain. Scientists after him corrected his misstakes. Darwin was not a prophet, only a scientist. His word is not law.

You're own little private theory fails in that god isn't needed for speciasation. The modern model of evolution gives room for it all on it's own. But I guess it would be refreshing if it was true. This idea that god is a being with a very cruel sense of humour is new to me.

At least it's nice to hear that you're not on the Intelligent design team. Those guys scare me.

edit: Regarding your theory about god guiding the creation of species. What's the point? Why would god do it? It makes no sense. If you believe in evolution, we'll get specisation with or without devine intervention. If you want to abondon the very logical theory of evolution and replace it with another one, it should at least hold together logically, right? Why force god into a theory that works fine without it?

The theory of evolution isn't waterproof. There's still plenty of holes in it, but we have lots of evidence and we've got a model and the evidence we do have fit into the model snuggly.

Your theory is as much unsubstantiated guesswork as a theory. The theory of evolution as we have today is pretty fucking far from pure speculation. What do you have to back your theory it up?

Even though we haven't been able to recreate specisation in a laboratory, (which I doubt is even true, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) we have as far as I know not been able to recreate devine intervention in a laboratory either so that's 0-0. Not much of an argument for your case is it?

[Rhabbi]

Tom,

If you want to have a debate about this, I will be glad to do so on another thread. the fact is though that you are blind and deaf to what I amn saying, evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a philosophy. Scientific theories are emperical, that is they can be tested. To simply chalk something up to random chance, and ignore the statistical odds against it does not constitute science, it constitutes philosophy.

Here is an article written by a scientist, a molecular biologist, that address some of the weaknesses of Darwin's theory. If you want to read something by someone who knows what he is talking about instead of reprters who do not even read the work they are trying to defend, that is.
http://arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm

[TomOfSweden]

Tom,

If you want to have a debate about this, I will be glad to do so on another thread. the fact is though that you are blind and deaf to what I amn saying, evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a philosophy. Scientific theories are emperical, that is they can be tested. To simply chalk something up to random chance, and ignore the statistical odds against it does not constitute science, it constitutes philosophy.

Here is an article written by a scientist, a molecular biologist, that address some of the weaknesses of Darwin's theory. If you want to read something by someone who knows what he is talking about instead of reprters who do not even read the work they are trying to defend, that is.
http://arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm

That whole article is based on accepting his examples, ie "An example of an irreducibly complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller, powered by a flow of acid, that bacteria use to swim. The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works -- a rotor, stator and motor. Furthermore, genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum."

Since Darwins theory takes account of this I don't really see how he manages to draw the conclusions he does. Here's a simple example. A -> B -> C. B dies out, and leaves no trace. We have now no way of knowing how C could evolve the way it did. See, no god needed.

The division of the RNA looks to me and all molecular biologists I've talked to like magic, (and that's been quite a few). It's staggeringly complex. But from there draw the conclusion that it cannot have evolved by itself is just dumb. All we can do is put it on the list of things we hope to figure out in the future. Us not understanding something cannot be used as evidence for anything.

And even if I and Darwin are wrong, that's still no case for christianity. All that would mean is that we still don't know. Intelligent design would still be in the pile of maybes.

I'm only atheist because I think the evidence we have seems to point to it. You are christian because you think most evidence point to it. That's great. I've got no quarel about that. Good luck to you. But having faith in that you are going to heaven is drawing a much too strong conclusion. You don't know. Nobody does. At best you can hope you are right. And if you are I hope god will be lenient with me or I'm fucked :)

There's much smarter "proof" than that for gods existance. Banach-Tarskis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach-Tarski_paradox) proposition has yet to be disproven. They proved that if the scientific models of the universe we have today would be correct it would by necesity mean that there is an external force.

From this we can draw two possible conclusions:
1) There is a god but we cannot say anything about it at all or it's power. It could have limited power, be omnipotent, be several gods in conflict, lying gods, gods who don't give a rats ass about us, gods that are dumb or no god at all, just a force we don't understand yet.
2) Our contemporary equations are wrong, which may very well be the case.

This is the strongest "proof" any religion has today. But it still doesn't suport any particular religion. It just says something external is needed for the universe to be stable and the laws not break down. That's as good as it gets.

If ICDawg wants me to stop, I'll shut up. This is his thread. I'll respect that.

[Guest 91108]

I suspect if you respected it you wouldn't have posted it .. ie. post #28

[TomOfSweden]

I very much appreciate where the thread has gone. But it did go askew of my original question.


So there :icon176:

edit: I think we interpret what IDC was saying differently.

[Rhabbi]

Nevertheless, I would be more comfortable if we took this somewhre else, like here:http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9141

[Shaded]

I must say.. that's probably the most flamed argument I've ever had the pleasure (Or displeasure) of reading about evolution. Which had wholly little enough to do with the beginning topic. That said, and my own views upon it muted for the sake of peace...

Yes, I do believe we make perceptions based entirely upon our chosen religion. However, I would ask what you would particularly define as a religion, because based upon my education via a higher faculty (i.e. Collegiate level) it has been described to me as your beliefs in general. That is, our beliefs define our moral code, which thereupon has a direct impact upon our perceptions.

That said, reality has no morals or ethics, with religion aside. Reality simply is as it is, to be interpretted differently by the different denizens of the world. Where respective religions come into play is by offering a prefabricated (for the most part) guideline from which our moral and ethical codes of conduct have been drawn. To say that our upbringing and inherent beliefs (Communal Knowledge if you believe Plato, Observant if you prefer Aristotle) don't influence our perceptions would be entirely dangerous. While I respect Rabbi's faith, I would be hard pressed to say that my upbringing held the same 'truths' that his did.

By saying truth, I'd like to denote that my perception upon reality, is that there are no absolutes. Truths among them, simply because everything is a matter of circumstance, to me. Such a perception, of course, is based upon my belief system that I have built over the course of a relatively short lifetime. So.

The short and the skinny. Do perceptions base themselves soley upon religion? Yes, but the definition of religion would be expanded to include the entire code of beliefs, morals, ethics and other codes of conduct that influence our behavior. Whereupon ultimately, our behavior denotes the perceptions we interpret.

[Rhabbi]

By saying truth, I'd like to denote that my perception upon reality, is that there are no absolutes. Truths among them, simply because everything is a matter of circumstance, to me. Such a perception, of course, is based upon my belief system that I have built over the course of a relatively short lifetime. So.

The short and the skinny. Do perceptions base themselves soley upon religion? Yes, but the definition of religion would be expanded to include the entire code of beliefs, morals, ethics and other codes of conduct that influence our behavior. Whereupon ultimately, our behavior denotes the perceptions we interpret.

Sorry, it is impossible for me to let a staement like that go by unchallenged. If there are no absolutes, then scientific laws, which are defined as absolutes, do not exist. If you truly believe there are no absolutes, then demonstrate that belief by walking of the roof of any mulitstory buiding and drefusing to fall.

(Yes, I know this a simplification of your philosophical position, but your position ignores reality.)

[nk_lion]

Wow, my computer is acting odd, good thing I just typed one line before the entire thing vanished.

Anyway, back to the original question about religion and philosophy or sexual orientation. I know for a fact that when it comes to homosexuals, I used to view them negatively (Attitude I'm ashamed to say I picked up from school). Now its a live and let live attitude, I have worked and studied with gays and all have them were like every other person I know. I don't have anything against gay marraiges, and if there was a referendum to abolish it (in Canada), I'd vote to keep it. I'm straight, therefore have no conflicting problems with my beliefs.
But years from now, if I have a son or daughter who is homosexual, I think maybe my religous side is going to kick in. So yes, in the end, personally religion does affect my perceptions on certain things such as sexual preference.

[Shaded]

First off Rhabbi, You're absolutely right. But I wasn't refering to scientific absolutes, which are still being challenged to this day. And also, the fact that if one were to absolutely be reversed to the gravitational pull of the earth, i.e. Magnetics or the like, the fall would not happen, perhaps a suspension at that, depending on the breed of physics to which you prefer to prescribe. HOWEVER!


While I'd love to debate scientific fact and absolutes, in the early twentieth century, they also had absolutes that couldn't be broken. Such as the sound barrier, laser technology, and a few others that have since been.. to put it into a pun, absolutely broken. However, while I'd love to quote Fredriech Nietzsche, who spoke of a lack of absolutes, I'd do the man poor justice, and I know it. Speaking of the lack of absolutes is a reference to the metaphysical, rather than the physical itself. Truths are not gravity, unfortunately.

[OttifantSir]

An incredibly interesting thread that, as many such discussions I have witnessed and participated in, started to concentrate solely on the difference between religion and science. I am a strong believer in my religion called Night Magick (There is a website about it too) and science. We need science to educate us about the physical world, or we would most likely never grow up. We would, quite possibly, be extinct by now. Science is to me the accumulated wisdom of the physical world. To use a really crude example: A caveman/neanderthal/early human had a bad experience going across a river. He tells this to his son and asks him to be careful. The son isn't very adventurous but remembers what his father told him. He tells his son that his father warned him about that river. That son isn't very adventurous either, but remembers what his father told him and tells his son. So on for a few generations and that cautionary tale of the river is a "truth" or an "absolute" in the mind of the descendants of that original man with the ill fortune. At one time this is both science and religion. Someone did once have a bad experience with it. Later generations may have embellished the original tale to include monsters/devils/angry gods to explain why they shall be cautious when crossing that river.

We have empirical proof that that river is hard to cross, and we have a "truth"/"absolute" of an evil deity.

We must be adventurous and challenge the "truths" and "absolutes" of the old to find the absolute truth behind it all. Whether it be religion or science we may at one point in time find "The Absolute Truth" but that will most likely only happen when Religion and Science joins hands and work together to achieve that goal.

That is my point of view, and this is my "Absolute Truth" of the world. On to the subject that originally started this thread: Do I base people solely on religious convictions?

I believe myself to have gained such self-insight to know what is religious judgement (upbringing/teaching) of a person and what is personal judgement (experience/observation) of a person.

My family it seems, are all die-hard racists one way or another. I dislike that strongly. Off course, even in their ill-mannered judgement of other people, I see proof of their stance in my own convictions too, but where I seem to differ from them, is that they don't see the persons. They see skin-colour, religion, etc. They judge based on a large (or small) group of individuals that get a lot of attention, and that attention is usually bad, because that's what ultimately makes the head-lines.

What I am saying is my point of view is better explained through an example: I see someone of clearly Arabic origin. My first thought is almost always that of the society-imposed image of this group of people. Then I recognise it in myself and give the person the benefit of the doubt. I ask myself why I thought that based on what others have told me. This person could possibly become my best friend in the whole world, so why should I let others decide what I shall think?

On to another subject lightly discussed here: Transsexuality/gender confusion or what you'd like to call it.
I don't think I would feel uncomfortable being friendly with someone displaying themself as male while having female sexual instruments, and vice versa. I have met a few (not many) such and I find I don't find it uncomfortable being with them. I find it uncomfortable to think about how to ask them about how it is to be like this. What they experience as a result of their fate/conviction/choice. I know they probably have gotten the question many times before so I keep wondering whether it's appropriate for me to ask them too, or if it's as boring to them to tell it to yet another person as it is for me to explain my epilepsy to yet another person. I would rather not talk about it, but since it might be life-threatening for myself not to warn my friends and acquaintances of my illness, I find I have to give them a short version no matter what if I meet them more than three times. So, for me, the world is a world full of possibilities and hurdles to overcome my ingrained beliefs.

I am judgemental, I don't believe any person on this planet can say they don't without lying, but I try not to be too judgemental, thereby limiting myself and my experience of the world.

I believe that once in the future I will have kids. I have my religion and off course I will educate my children about it, but I hope to be able to learn more about other religions as well, as I intend to educate my children about them. I will not willingly let my children be baptised or otherwise "bound" to a religion before they themselves are old enough to make the choice. I hope to give them a firm moral ground, free will and enough protection to make them secure and self-confident but not limited in any way.

This is probably the most complete insight into my mind anyone can get in one short post. To know me deeper than this, you will probably have to spend time with me.

[Rhabbi]

I am judgemental, I don't believe any person on this planet can say they don't without lying, but I try not to be too judgemental, thereby limiting myself and my experience of the world.

Excellent insight in this post, especially this sentence. We all judge people based on religious beliefs, scitfic beliefs, and cultural beliefs. We can even throw in personal experience to that. What a reasoning man does is learn to recognize these things in himself, and deal with them in a manner that takes him/her past that.

[Rhabbi]

First off Rhabbi, You're absolutely right. But I wasn't refering to scientific absolutes, which are still being challenged to this day. And also, the fact that if one were to absolutely be reversed to the gravitational pull of the earth, i.e. Magnetics or the like, the fall would not happen, perhaps a suspension at that, depending on the breed of physics to which you prefer to prescribe. HOWEVER!


While I'd love to debate scientific fact and absolutes, in the early twentieth century, they also had absolutes that couldn't be broken. Such as the sound barrier, laser technology, and a few others that have since been.. to put it into a pun, absolutely broken. However, while I'd love to quote Fredriech Nietzsche, who spoke of a lack of absolutes, I'd do the man poor justice, and I know it. Speaking of the lack of absolutes is a reference to the metaphysical, rather than the physical itself. Truths are not gravity, unfortunately.

there are scientific and enginnering absolutes that exist in our universe, the speed of light is one of these. Does this mean that we will never surpass the speed of light? Probaly not, unless we learn to access another universe. The simple counter intuitiveness of the light speed limit, and the fact that it has been repeatedly demonstrated and confirmed, leaves this conclusion all but inescapable.

That said, you must remeber that waht some peolpe percieve as scintific limits are not actually that, they are engineering limts. The biggest problem in crossing the sound barrier was in adapting the structure of the vehicle used to the stresses involved.

[Shaded]

That said, you must remeber that waht some peolpe percieve as scintific limits are not actually that, they are engineering limts. The biggest problem in crossing the sound barrier was in adapting the structure of the vehicle used to the stresses involved.


This.. as a former engineering student, I just can't let die. There were more than just engineering barriers to cross here. There were some theories, quite well spread and believed, that breaking the sound barrier held a lot of stigmas, and after that fashion, that's nothing more than a perception of a fear of the unknown. But I'd rather ask what you'd think of my last statement. "Truths are not Gravity" More out of morbid curiousity than anything else, Rhabbi.

Note, disclaimer. It has been my belief since I can recall that religion and science are seperate schools of thought. One can seperate and pursue one without pursuing the other.

[Rhabbi]

This.. as a former engineering student, I just can't let die. There were more than just engineering barriers to cross here. There were some theories, quite well spread and believed, that breaking the sound barrier held a lot of stigmas, and after that fashion, that's nothing more than a perception of a fear of the unknown. But I'd rather ask what you'd think of my last statement. "Truths are not Gravity" More out of morbid curiousity than anything else, Rhabbi.

Note, disclaimer. It has been my belief since I can recall that religion and science are seperate schools of thought. One can seperate and pursue one without pursuing the other.

First, to answer your question about your assertion that truths are not gravity, I would guess that would depend on how you define truth. Gravity is truth, as I am sure you will agree. We can use other truths to modify the results of gravity's effect on us, but it is still there, we can never escape it.

In the same way we can sometimes modify the effect that truth has on us by using other truths to compensate. Truth though, is universal despite what the relativist have been arguing for centuries. We have been listening to these arguments since our earliest history, yet the world still continues to operate on the principles that exist outside of their reality. Why is that? because Truth is Gravity," that is, it is universal. We can choose to ignore it but we still suffer the consequences of it.

Relativism will never be anything more than a school of though among ivory tower intellectuals because it does not work in the real world. As an engineering student you must realize this, unless you are rejecting the empirical evidence around you.

As for breaking the sound barrier being a scientific advance as much as an engineering one, this comes from a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. At the time of Galileo science had already demonstrated not only that the Earth was round, but had measured the diameter of it. This had been done centuries earlier by the Greeks. Yet scientific belief ran counter to this because of the teachings of the schools that taught that the theory that the Earth was flat.

Scientific beleif at the time said that we could not pass the sound barrier, yet engineers went ahead and did it because they were the true scientists and were willing to challenge unfounded guesses.

Aerodyanmics told us that the bumble bee could not fly because the weight to lift ratio of their wings was to small. Did this mean that the bee ignored truth? No, it meant that the theory was wrong, and we now understand that lift can be increased by changing the aspect of the wing and the speed at which it moves through air.

There are no contradictions. If you think you have a contradiction, check your premises, one of them is wrong.

As for your beleif that we can study science and religion seperately, I woulod agree. But does that mean we cannot study them together? That is the question that truly needs an answer.