Stuart Chase: lolquote

[child of wonder]

Then what do we build the morays, folkways and laws of our society on?

If you'd like to argue that religion is the first and primary source of morality there's nothing I can say that would convince you otherwise.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

People can state their opinions on whatever they want. What I'm opposing is someone saying "my religion says eating fish on Mondays is a sin so we should outlaw eating fish on Mondays!"

What I'm trying to say is that if someone's beliefs say homosexuality is a sin or that a divine being created the universe I do not oppose their right to those beliefs. I only oppose them taking those beliefs and imposing them on other people.

I have little doubt my children pick up on my religious beliefs indirectly from me. That's human nature. When we talk about the subject directly, I tell them whatever they believe is something they should research and think about when they get to be closer to adulthood and to not worry about it right now.

We'll have to disagree that stating my beliefs on a public forum is a form of "force." I state my opinion and everyone is free to ignore them. Now, if I was petitioning the government to make changes per my personal beliefs, then I'm engaged in "force."

Aren't you against ID being taught in the classroom and would support legislation that would "force" others to conform to your opinion and beliefs?

Aren't you for gay rights and would support legislation that would "force" others that believe differently from you to conform to your opinion and beliefs?

You "force" your beliefs all the time...don't you see that? Yet you use the word "force" only when it applies to people advocating something different than what you believe.

"I have little doubt my children pick up on my religious beliefs indirectly from me. That's human nature." Yet you criticize others who do exactly the same thing here: "I am perfectly fine with people having faith. They should not force that faith on others such as kids who cannot know any better (young kids trust whatever their parents tell them)..."

It's 'funny' that you use the words "pick up on my religious beliefs" and that's OK...but then use the words "should not force that faith on others such as kids who cannot know any better" when describing the exact same action. OK for you...but NOT OK for those who have different religious beliefs than you. How can this NOT be viewed as hypocrisy?

All I'm saying is that it's OK for people to be different and have different beliefs than you. You don't have to agree with them of course...but at least afford them the same right to political expression that you enjoy.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Why? What does your quote really mean? Isn't it about faith, a belief without proof for which there can be no proof? What is arrogant about that. It's just what faith is, no?

To be arrogant, in my opinion, you would have to believe that those with faith should have some obligation to prove what they believe, and those who do not believe, some way to justify that.

But faith is grace, it is given and can't be taken. The proof is in the grace.

But we're not talking about faith alone, that quote precludes it: "for those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

It's saying that people tend to believe what they believe no matter what evidence exists. If no evidence exists, folks will still believe in it. If lots of evidence exists, folks won't still believe in it.

 

[child of wonder]

Aren't you against ID being taught in the classroom and would support legislation that would "force" others to conform to your opinion and beliefs?

Aren't you for gay rights and would support legislation that would "force" others that believe differently from you to conform to your opinion and beliefs?

You "force" your beliefs all the time...don't you see that? Yet you use the word "force" only when it applies to people advocating something different than what you believe.

"I have little doubt my children pick up on my religious beliefs indirectly from me. That's human nature." Yet you criticize others who do exactly the same thing here: "I am perfectly fine with people having faith. They should not force that faith on others such as kids who cannot know any better (young kids trust whatever their parents tell them)..."

It's 'funny' that you use the words "pick up on my religious beliefs" and that's OK...but then use the words "should not force that faith on others such as kids who cannot know any better" when describing the exact same action. OK for you...but NOT OK for those who have different religious beliefs than you. How can this NOT be viewed as hypocrisy?

All I'm saying is that it's OK for people to be different and have different beliefs than you. You don't have to agree with them of course...but at least afford them the same right to political expression that you enjoy.

Legislation already exists to prevent religions being pushed in schools. It's called the Constitution.

Gay marriage, again, falls within the realms of personal liberty and the pursuit of happiness mentioned in the Constitution. Individuals have pre-empted this through laws based on religious mores and, yes, existing laws against gay marriage should change. However, how am I forcing anyone to be gay or marry someone of the same gender? Changing the law would not force anyone to accept homosexuality, like it, or hate it. It would simply allow two consenting adults to do whatever they want that makes them happy which is exactly what our Constitution says they can do and would restore their freedom to do as they please; a freedom that is currently "forced" aside by religious ideology made rule of law.

As for my childen "picking up on" or "recognizing" my religious beliefs through pure empirical observation while I instruct them to believe whatever they want when they grow up and how that equates to another parent who takes their children to church and Sunday school, forces them to pray before eating, pushes them to be confirmed, informs them if they don't follow this religion they'll burn in hell forever, etc. must be a level of reasoning you possess that is far beyond me.

I know you're playing Devil's Advocate here but your logic comes across as a giant reach.

As for your final point, we're in complete agreement on this.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Legislation already exists to prevent religions being pushed in schools. It's called the Constitution.

Gay marriage, again, falls within the realms of personal liberty and the pursuit of happiness mentioned in the Constitution. Individuals have pre-empted this through laws based on religious mores and, yes, existing laws against gay marriage should change. However, how am I forcing anyone to be gay or marry someone of the same gender? Changing the law would not force anyone to accept homosexuality, like it, or hate it. It would simply allow two consenting adults to do whatever they want that makes them happy which is exactly what our Constitution says they can do and would restore their freedom to do as they please; a freedom that is currently "forced" aside by religious ideology made rule of law.

As for my childen "picking up on" or "recognizing" my religious beliefs through pure empirical observation while I instruct them to believe whatever they want when they grow up and how that equates to another parent who takes their children to church and Sunday school, forces them to pray before eating, pushes them to be confirmed, informs them if they don't follow this religion they'll burn in hell forever, etc. must be a level of reasoning you possess that is far beyond me.

I know you're playing Devil's Advocate here but your logic comes across as a giant reach.

As for your final point, we're in complete agreement on this.

I'm glad we can agree on something here.

Everyone lives their lives according to their own particular belief system. You obviously think that your way of living and teaching your children is appropriate and correct. But for some reason you criticize others with religious beliefs and cannot fathom how they can believe exactly the same thing as you do....which is to teach their children in a way that they believe is appropriate and correct. Are you more 'enlightened' or are they somehow inferior to you in some way? I'm sure this makes perfect sense to you....must be a level of reasoning you possess that is far beyond me.

You clearly have issues with religion...that's OK. But please do me a favor and don't put me in your little box of Christian stereotypes that you so love to demonize.

 

[child of wonder]

I'm glad we can agree on something here.

Everyone lives their lives according to their own particular belief system. You obviously think that your way of living and teaching your children is appropriate and correct. But for some reason you criticize others with religious beliefs and cannot fathom how they can believe exactly the same thing as you do....which is to teach their children in a way that they believe is appropriate and correct. Are you more 'enlightened' or are they somehow inferior to you in some way? I'm sure this makes perfect sense to you....must be a level of reasoning you possess that is far beyond me.

You clearly have issues with religion...that's OK. But please do me a favor and don't put me in your little box of Christian stereotypes that you so love to demonize.

Nowhere have I put you in any type of stereotype whatsoever. We've been having a pleasant debate and, while we don't agree, I hope we both take something away from the discussion.

The last thing I'll say with specific reference to your point on raising children is that I feel your point about how I raise my children vs. a religious person is far too broad and comes across as "you teach you children SOMETHING and they teach their children SOMETHING. See? You're just like them!" This neglects the specifics and isn't a valid comparison.

Do I teach my children what I feel is best? Yes. Does a religious parent do the same? Yes.

Do I force my children to follow any particular religious belief system? No. Does a religious parent force their children to follow any particular religious belief system? Yes.

That's why I dispute your reference of "force" on that specific point.

Anyway, we've taken this thread far off course. Let's start another if we want to dive deeper.

 

[Atreus21]

Diversity is a good thing. We need people to have different beliefs. What we don't need is people saying "I believe in religious ideology 'A' so I will attempt to get my ideology taught in high school science classes."

IMO (and everyone feels differently) one's personal faith should be just that: personal. Being personal, it can hold no merit or weight with anyone else and only its owner can derive any meaning or comfort from it. When someone takes their personal beliefs and attempts to force it upon others then I have a problem with it and is exactly what I iterated in my post. It made no mention of anyone else believing anything that I do, just that people keep their faith to themselves and not use it as something to rule, dictate, or cojule others.

Disclaimer: I respect your right as a father to raise your children according to your own convictions.

I disagree. Diversity is neither good nor bad. It simply means different. What reason is there to necessarily include in your childrens' upbringing bad ideas in the name of diversity? You don't mix good food with rotten food simply to be diverse.

Personally, my convictions are that if you have a good idea, it's wise to spread it. In your case, diversity is that good idea. Whether it's objectively good or not is irrelevant. Everything that occurs in this forum is an example of precisely this attitude: Everyone is arguing for what they believe in, because to them it is good.

 

[child of wonder]

Disclaimer: I respect your right as a father to raise your children according to your own convictions.

I disagree. Diversity is neither good nor bad. It simply means different. What reason is there to necessarily include in your childrens' upbringing bad ideas in the name of diversity? You don't mix good food with rotten food simply to be diverse.

Personally, my convictions are that if you have a good idea, it's wise to spread it. In your case, diversity is that good idea. Whether it's objectively good or not is irrelevant. Everything that occurs in this forum is an example of precisely this attitude: Everyone is arguing for what they believe in, because to them it is good.

I think we mean diversity of ideas in a broader scheme.

If we all thought or felt the same, we'd make no progress.

 

[Atreus21]

I think we mean diversity of ideas in a broader scheme.

If we all thought or felt the same, we'd make no progress.

True, but some different ideas are absolutely wrong. It seems to me that responsible people should treat new ideas with caution, for truly new ideas are rare, truly new ideas that work exceedingly so.

I'm not opposing progress, but rather opposing throwing out common sense and conventional wisdom for no other reason then that they're common and conventional.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

If you'd like to argue that religion is the first and primary source of morality there's nothing I can say that would convince you otherwise.

Just like the ignorance-supporting quote that started the thread, you assume that those who agree with you are the righteous few who can do nothing to convince us mindless masses of the your superior point of view.

Diversity is neither good nor bad.

The empirical evidence shows that you are wrong. Affective diversity is a bad thing while cognitive diversity is a good thing.

Do you argue from emotion, assuming the other side to be mindless sub-humans only worthy of discourse if they fundamentally agree with you?

or, do you argue based on logic, fact, reason and empirical evidence, assuming that those who disagree with these your knowledge may-well have their own information you are not aware of?

The former kind of diversity is bad diversity and useful only in stifling advancement; the latter kind is the basis of every important advancement in human history.

 

[child of wonder]

Just like the ignorance-supporting quote that started the thread, you assume that those who agree with you are the righteous few who can do nothing to convince us mindless masses of the your superior point of view.

I've done no such thing. I'm merely stating that if your position is one of faith, which I assume it is, then no matter what I say your viewpoint won't change.

I'm not being facetious, just stating a fact.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I've done no such thing. I'm merely stating that if your position is one of faith, which I assume it is, then no matter what I say your viewpoint won't change.

I'm not being facetious, just stating a fact.

It looks to me like you have just as much 'faith' that your world view is correct...unless of course you can offer proof that your seemingly myopic perspective is based on facts rather than personal beliefs. Just saying.

 

[child of wonder]

It looks to me like you have just as much 'faith' that your world view is correct...unless of course you can offer proof that your seemingly myopic perspective is based on facts rather than personal beliefs. Just saying.

I go where reasoning and logic takes me, even if I don't like the destination. My most important world view is that of ignorance and I freely acknowledge the things I don't know far outweigh those I do.

We can call that reliance on reasoning "faith" if we want, but it would be inaccurate. If my "faith" is challenged and evidence is presented to discredit it, I happily admit being wrong and embrace a new, correct conclusion over an old, incorrect one.

You seem to desperately want to label me as an arrogant "know it all" so you can burn me on a crucible, but my beliefs are subject to change as I learn more and more. They have been and will always remain fluid because I don't know everything and I never will.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I go where reasoning and logic takes me, even if I don't like the destination. My most important world view is that of ignorance and I freely acknowledge the things I don't know far outweigh those I do.

We can call that reliance on reasoning "faith" if we want, but it would be inaccurate. If my "faith" is challenged and evidence is presented to discredit it, I happily admit being wrong and embrace a new, correct conclusion over an old, incorrect one.

You seem to desperately want to label me as an arrogant "know it all" so you can burn me on a crucible, but my beliefs are subject to change as I learn more and more. They have been and will always remain fluid because I don't know everything and I never will.

Not sure why you think that I desperately want to label you as an arrogant "know it all"..I'm surprised that is what you perceive and apologize for whatever I said to give you this impression.

I (just like you) also go where reasoning and logic takes me, even if I don't like the destination. And my beliefs are subject to change as I learn more and more as well. Yet your statements imply that those of 'faith' somehow don't share these beliefs. It apprears that you are making a false dichotomy. All I'm trying to point out to you is that the validity of my faith is no different than the validity of yours. Your apparent attempt to distinguish between the two and validate one over the other falls short IMO.

 

[child of wonder]

Not sure why you think that I desperately want to label you as an arrogant "know it all"..I'm surprised that is what you perceive and apologize for whatever I said to give you this impression.

I (just like you) also go where reasoning and logic takes me, even if I don't like the destination. And my beliefs are subject to change as I learn more and more as well. Yet your statements imply that those of 'faith' somehow don't share these beliefs. It apprears that you are making a false dichotomy. All I'm trying to point out to you is that the validity of my faith is no different than the validity of yours. Your apparent attempt to distinguish between the two and validate one over the other falls short IMO.

Do I have beliefs? Yes, I do. And I see what you're driving at. I have beliefs just like others, neither of us have facts to concretely and completely prove those beliefs, so I should not assume that my views are any more elevated than anyone else's.

But I want to draw a distinction of a belief that is founded in reason and evidence vs. one born out of and supported by faith. I think those are two different things entirely.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

But I want to draw a distinction of a belief that is founded in reason and evidence vs. one born out of and supported by faith. I think those are two different things entirely.

My beliefs are, in fact, founded on reason and evidence. You have apparently concluded the opposite...without giving any reason nor any factual evidence to prove your erroneous assumption. Herein lies the rub.

 

[child of wonder]

My beliefs are, in fact, founded on reason and evidence. You have apparently concluded the opposite...without giving any reason nor any factual evidence to prove your erroneous assumption. Herein lies the rub.

But since when are we talking about your beliefs specifically? I have no idea what they are.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

But since when are we talking about your beliefs specifically? I have no idea what they are.

Let me rephrase then.

The beliefs of many religious people, in fact, are founded on reason and evidence. You have apparently concluded the opposite...without giving any reason nor any factual evidence to prove your erroneous assumption. Herein lies the rub.

 

[child of wonder]

Let me rephrase then.

The beliefs of many religious people, in fact, are founded on reason and evidence. You have apparently concluded the opposite...without giving any reason nor any factual evidence to prove your erroneous assumption. Herein lies the rub.

Since we're using the religious context, can you specify what religious beliefs some people may have that are founded in reason and evidence? Also, why do they found those beliefs on reason and evidence when faith is all that is required?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Since we're using the religious context, can you specify what religious beliefs some people may have that are founded in reason and evidence? Also, why do they found those beliefs on reason and evidence when faith is all that is required?

I've think 'faith' actually extends well beyond the religious context as I noted in some of my earlier posts attempting to show that you (and all people for that matter) are also a person(s) of 'faith'. Everyone has a set of principles/beliefs that are subjective and are not based solely on logical proof or material evidence.

You feel that your perspective is based on 'reason and evidence' and somehow can't fathom how 'reason and evidence' is used by those of a religious perspective with different life experiences than you. Do you have facts to prove you are right and they are wrong?

 

[child of wonder]

I've think 'faith' actually extends well beyond the religious context as I noted in some of my earlier posts attempting to show that you (and all people for that matter) are also a person(s) of 'faith'. Everyone has a set of principles/beliefs that are subjective and are not based solely on logical proof or material evidence.

You feel that your perspective is based on 'reason and evidence' and somehow can't fathom how 'reason and evidence' is used by those of a religious perspective with different life experiences than you. Do you have facts to prove you are right and they are wrong?

You specifically mentioned religion which is what put us on this course of discussion.

Back to my earlier question, can you provide specific examples of religious beliefs that are grounded in reason and evidence? Then I can answer whether they're right or wrong.

 

[soccerballtux]

lol. This is what makes P&N fun. Everyone knows this.

that's a good point.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You specifically mentioned religion which is what put us on this course of discussion.

Back to my earlier question, can you provide specific examples of religious beliefs that are grounded in reason and evidence? Then I can answer whether they're right or wrong.

A Creator exists. Right or wrong?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I go where reasoning and logic takes me, even if I don't like the destination.

Oh, well then, You'll be happy to offer some evidence and consider the question on its merits; instead of creating straw-man and dismissing it.

If my "faith" is challenged and evidence is presented to discredit it, I happily admit being wrong and embrace a new, correct conclusion over an old, incorrect one.

great! the empirical evidence shows that there is such a thing as bad diversity:

Amason, A.C. 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 123-148.

You haven't made any other points; though you pretend to in insulting anyone who may ask you for either evidence or even a face-valid argument to support your ideas.

You seem to desperately want to label me as an arrogant "know it all"

I want to liable you "reasonable person with reasonable arguments"

Unfortunately you seem to simply believe in particular social order without either reason OR argument. You say that it is, that it is, and if I disagree you simply can't explain it to me.

I expect that you are capable of better; But I also expect that you're world view is predicated on not wanting to go to hell whatever it is that makes you feel guilty. I have good news for you! no matter who you are, or what is making you feel guilty, God loves and accepts you just as you are; He just wants you to love and accept him in return and then whatever progress away from what you feel guilty-about is made, it will be will be Him doing it, not you.

No doubt that our warped perceptions of what Jesus taught (often warped by societal leaders) has led to much of our societal trouble: but the question posed to you wasn't "Is Jesus Lord" it was "on what ground do we base our folkways, morays, and laws"

an you specify what religious beliefs some people may have that are founded in reason and evidence?

at an abstract level:
The ones that change their lives, free them from things like cocaine or alcohol addiction, turn them into productive members of society.

on a concrete level:
religious experiences where one has visions of Jesus or angles*. The historical fact of Jesus. The inherently good teachings of Jesus. Those who witnessed his resurrection and were willing to be killed rather than say they didn't.

If you question the premise of any of these arguments you are welcome to check the answers on Wikipedia; good citations and lots of debate has gone into each of my examples and the facts support what I am saying.

Now if you are a 9-11 conspiracy nut (or nut of any kind) you are going to hate Wikipedia because facts conflict with your reality.


so, please, I want a reasoned discourse; you sound like you are capable of it but instead are relying on dismissing some who disagree with you.

*the physiological process behind such events in no way means that they aren't "real", to argue that simply because you know how something works means that God can't be there is an article of faith as much as saying that God is there is an article of faith.

 

[child of wonder]

A Creator exists. Right or wrong?

A corporeal being with personality, a non-corporeal being with personality, or a non-corporeal energy force with no personality?

The first two possibilities seem highly unlikely and there are many, many classic arguments why this is the case so I needn't bore you with long quotations or points I'm sure you've already heard before.

Now, I grant them as "unlikely" because neither I nor anyone else can say with certainty whether such a being exists or not. If one does, does it interfere in our day to day activities? What ramifications arise from that interference and how does it affect free will? If there is no involvement or guidance in earthly affairs, how can a being with personality create a universe, appear personally to many figures in the past which grants them an extraordinary advantage over us of having physical and personal encounters to affirm their faith, while we're left with nothing but 2,000+ year old texts written in the Iron Age long after the events have occurred that they testify to and mountains of empirical evidence that directly contradict many of those testimonies (age of the earth, great flood, etc.)?

In the case of the third example, I'd rate that as a solid "meh." If that case is true, then it doesn't affect us in the slightest. There could be an afterlife or there could not. Since the entity has no form or personality, it can't possibly care who we have sex with, what we eat, who or what we worship, or what words we say. It exists as a catalyst of the creation of the universe or a supernatural "glue" that allows this reality to maintain itself.

So if you'd like me to say "the belief in a creator is definitively, 100% incorrect" I can't provide that answer. What I can say is that when I apply reason and logic to the conundrum I can find no compelling evidence or justification for the belief in the first two creator scenarios I listed, however I'd be happy to hear where your reasoning differs from mine.