Runboard.com
Слава Україні!



Runboard.com       Registered Members Will See No Ads - CLICK TO REGISTER FOR FREE  LOGIN

Page  1  2  3  4  5 

 
Ahlyssah Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 07-2004
Location: Lost in a dream of mirrors
Posts: 830
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


I never said it was a racial issue, I was simply comparing the conflicts.

And what makes you think that they are confused? Can you look into their minds and see a torrent of doubts and desperation? Have your gay friends said to you, "I don't understand why I'm like this, please help me become normal!"? Or are you simply trying to put yourself in their shoes, attempt to see it through their eyes, and can't come up with a good reason for it?

My English teacher would hang you for making such a silly assumption about an entire ethnicity about whom you can know very little about.

---
There are things which Man can not understand. For everything else, there's a lie.

Let's see if we can't get to the truth of the matter, hmm?

'Lyssa was here . . . and she'll be back
10/Sep/05, 17:28 Link to this post Email   PM  AIM  Blog
 
Procrastinating Blastula Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 07-2005
Posts: 80
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


Actually they are quite depressed and do feel quite out of place. We do in fact talk about it.
Your english teacher would hang me for what? Likeing other diversities of women. Most American guys do. In other words we don't really care about their race, but we tend to like women that happen to be of another ethnicity. emoticon Is that politically correct enough for your english teacher? emoticon
     By the way you tried to compare homosexual marrage to interacial marrage. I just responded appropriately.
11/Sep/05, 2:07 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Addi Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
 

Runboard user emeritus

Registered: 11-2004
Location: US
Posts: 681
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


Really? None of my gay friends are depressed or feel out of place. Perhaps you need to start hanging out with a more well-adjusted crowd. Self-hatred is an ugly thing no matter what sexual preference, gender, race, religion, etc., someone happens to be.

Same sex marriage is no one's business outside of the couple involved, any more than traditional marriage. As long as no one in endangered (as in domestic abuse, etc.), it's not the government's concern. Unless, of course, you'd like me to start legislating your personal sex life and relationships as well. Which I can do, of course, as long as I get enough people on my "side." The easiest way to do that is to convince people that one group doesn't "count" as much as another when it comes to their right to choose their religion, and then convince the group in power that stomping on the rights of the minority group that imposing on others' rights makes them holy. That's part of how power games work, and they work well.
13/Sep/05, 15:22 Link to this post PM 
 
Procrastinating Blastula Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 07-2005
Posts: 80
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


 No one is stomping on anyones rights. By the way my friends aren't self-hating, they feel very confused and feel no one has the answers for them.
   I agree its definatly none of the government's business, but I don't think the straight couples should have to share their rights of marriage. Its not fair to them. Most American straight couples do not want their children influenced by homosexuality, and feel that that influence is harmful. They feel that the absence of equal marriage rights will discourage the homosexual life style, and promote the type of world they want their children to grow up in. I would have to agree for the most part.
     Of course there is going to be many homosexuals in the future. I don't care. They can do and say whatever they want, but most people such as myself do not feel its a natural life style to be promoted through the rights of marriage.
13/Sep/05, 23:27 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Ahlyssah Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 07-2004
Location: Lost in a dream of mirrors
Posts: 830
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban



Procrastinating Blastula wrote:

Your english teacher would hang me for what?



For the overgeneralization you made concerning the feelings of homosexuals (which is considered an ethnic group, in case that's where this is coming from), not your sex life. I never admonished you about your prefernece in women; my preference in women also extends past my particular ethnicity. If you don't understand what you're reading, then ask questions before you reply.

By the way, an overgeneralization is the worst thing a person can write; it makes you seem as if you don't know the scope of what you're talking about, and THAT is why my English teacher would hang you.

---
There are things which Man can not understand. For everything else, there's a lie.

Let's see if we can't get to the truth of the matter, hmm?

'Lyssa was here . . . and she'll be back
14/Sep/05, 1:52 Link to this post Email   PM  AIM  Blog
 
Loud G Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 01-2005
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 273
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


Not really on topic but you mentioned:

"ethnic group"

bah....if we could get away from those things called ethinic groups we'd all be better off. an "ethnic group" has never expressed the interest of the entire group, you just can't classify more than one person as a group and have it work.

For example, I am a white middle class (well before I got married) straight man. Yet if not for stupid society I would have never classified myself as such. I never once thought of myself as white or any other physical classification you can think of. I have more in common with my gay philippino best friend than I have with most of the "white middle class etc etc".

I'm sick of those generalizations. :P

The only thing I classify myself as is Mormon. That crosses race, nationality, class, etc. It is a construct based upon my value system and not what chance situation I was born into.

I think the silly ethnic divisions create more division among people themselves. Not all "blacks" are the same, nor do they think/believe/act the same. That goes for "whites" or (and I love this new term *sarcasm*) "asians" or even "gays" or "bis"

I don't know where I'm going with this, I just felt the urge to rant :D

/end off topic rant
 emoticon

---
Writing: Eriadhin

14/Sep/05, 19:02 Link to this post Email   PM  AIM  Blog
 
Ahlyssah Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 07-2004
Location: Lost in a dream of mirrors
Posts: 830
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


Heh, go for it. Ranting is a good way to expel inner tensions that will otherwise seek other outlets. It's better than pulling the wings off flies or driving like a madman.

Yeah, the term "ethnic group" does tend to lead to some negativity. Nevertheless, my conflict class demands that I know what it means and be able to apply it to everyday situations. Or whatever. But I must say I enjoy the class. emoticon

---
There are things which Man can not understand. For everything else, there's a lie.

Let's see if we can't get to the truth of the matter, hmm?

'Lyssa was here . . . and she'll be back
15/Sep/05, 0:14 Link to this post Email   PM  AIM  Blog
 
Addi Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
 

Runboard user emeritus

Registered: 11-2004
Location: US
Posts: 681
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban



Procrastinating Blastula wrote:

 No one is stomping on anyones rights. By the way my friends aren't self-hating, they feel very confused and feel no one has the answers for them.
   I agree its definatly none of the government's business, but I don't think the straight couples should have to share their rights of marriage. Its not fair to them. Most American straight couples do not want their children influenced by homosexuality, and feel that that influence is harmful. They feel that the absence of equal marriage rights will discourage the homosexual life style, and promote the type of world they want their children to grow up in. I would have to agree for the most part.
     Of course there is going to be many homosexuals in the future. I don't care. They can do and say whatever they want, but most people such as myself do not feel its a natural life style to be promoted through the rights of marriage.



In other words, you morally disagree with their homosexuality, so you don't feel your brand of heterosexuals should be "imposed upon" by having to be treated equally with someone they look down on. And it's an imposition on them for homosexuals to even exist because apparently their kids might catch it.

Did I read that right? Cause if so, that's not what equality is all about. You dont' get to disallow equal treatment for an entire group based on their not falling in line with your religious beliefs. Places that allow that type of thing are known as theocracies. And that's not what America is all about.

Now, perhaps you wish to change America and make it into a Judeo-Christian theocracy. That is certainly your right to have that desire, but people like me will fight you every step of the way. But call it what it is. Don't attempt to impose theocracy under the rather see-through cover of "it's inequality to make me live with someone totally unconnected to me getting the equal rights they're entitled to per the consitution."

Oh, and one more thing. It's not your business who other people sleep with, or who other people marry. Kindly tell your nosy friends that I don't want their extremely unethical busy-body ways influencing my children. Such judgemental behavior is anti-Christian. emoticon





Last edited by:
Addi, 15/Sep/05, 1:58
15/Sep/05, 1:56 Link to this post PM 
 
Ahlyssah Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 07-2004
Location: Lost in a dream of mirrors
Posts: 830
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban



Procrastinating Blastula wrote:

 No one is stomping on anyones rights. By the way my friends aren't self-hating, they feel very confused and feel no one has the answers for them.



Gee, didja ever think that maybe the reason they feel that nobody has any answers for them is because of over-opinionated persons such as yourself telling them everyday of their lives that what they've "chosen" is wrong and immoral? Do you think maybe their confused because they can't change how they feel, even though people keep telling them it's a "choice"? Because I'm sorry, but so far you haven't exactly proven yourself as the kind of person who would keep something like your personal feelings about their lifestyles a secret, especially if you're the kind of friend who talks dirty about those with whom you share a relationship. And yes, calling someone "confused" is talking dirty about them.

---
There are things which Man can not understand. For everything else, there's a lie.

Let's see if we can't get to the truth of the matter, hmm?

'Lyssa was here . . . and she'll be back
16/Sep/05, 3:48 Link to this post Email   PM  AIM  Blog
 
Procrastinating Blastula Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 07-2005
Posts: 80
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


"Confused" is not an insult. I have never told them their life style is wrong. I don't care if they are homosexual, I just don't believe they're entitled to the same marriage rights as a straight couple. By the way I do keep their "lifestyles" a secret. I never mention their names. They referre to me as a straight friend, but I don't get all huffy and puffy. emoticon
18/Sep/05, 22:32 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Alpha Centauri Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
 

Runboard user emeritus

Registered: 02-2004
Location: Athens, Hellas
Posts: 1988
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban



Procrastinating Blastula wrote:
... I don't think the straight couples should have to share their rights of marriage. Its not fair to them. Most American straight couples do not want their children influenced by homosexuality, and feel that that influence is harmful. They feel that the absence of equal marriage rights will discourage the homosexual life style, and promote the type of world they want their children to grow up in.

Why not have them all gays wear a pink triangle sign on their arms? That'd make a most effective discouragement as far as the homosexual life style is concerned...

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

Next station: The twilight zone...

emoticon

---



27/Sep/05, 23:32 Link to this post PM 
 
Ahlyssah Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 07-2004
Location: Lost in a dream of mirrors
Posts: 830
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


I still do not see what is so wrong with a homosexual life style. Why are people so afraid of others being attracted to the same gender? What's so wrong with it? Why do straights want to discourage this lifestyle? What harm does it cause to our children? And most importantly, why do people care? After all, your children model YOU first and foremost, so shouldn't they get an understanding of what is "normal" from you?

---
There are things which Man can not understand. For everything else, there's a lie.

Let's see if we can't get to the truth of the matter, hmm?

'Lyssa was here . . . and she'll be back
28/Sep/05, 2:49 Link to this post Email   PM  AIM  Blog
 
Addi Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
 

Runboard user emeritus

Registered: 11-2004
Location: US
Posts: 681
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban



Procrastinating Blastula wrote:

"Confused" is not an insult. I have never told them their life style is wrong. I don't care if they are homosexual, I just don't believe they're entitled to the same marriage rights as a straight couple. By the way I do keep their "lifestyles" a secret. I never mention their names. They referre to me as a straight friend, but I don't get all huffy and puffy. emoticon




If it's not an insult and you dont care if they're homosexual, then why do you not believe that they're entitled to equal rights? Please explain to me a valid reason for denying them the right to marry - and it can't involve religious beliefs because that's not supposed to be a factor in this country.
30/Sep/05, 1:36 Link to this post PM 
 
voltaire Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 06-2003
Posts: 197
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


And after all, if homosexuals don't have the right to "impose" their views on others, then what gives the Christian Right the moral authority to do the same thing? emoticon



V

---
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

-William Pitt
30/Sep/05, 15:38 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
TimMurphy Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 09-2005
Posts: 26
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


I view the gay marriage issue as simply thus:

If the US government is going to recognize a union between two people as a marriage, and offer tax benefits and other legal rights to those people because of their marriage, they CANNOT discriminate based on anything--sexual preference included. If a religious institution refuses to marry a homosexual couple, it is TOTALLY within their rights to do so, and they cannot be forced into it.

You don't have to like it. But the government gives you perks for being married (not for having kids, just for being married.) Those perks are completely unavailable to homosexuals, for no reason other than sexual preference. That is wrong.

I, for one, don't want the government involved in my everyday life. I don't want them telling me what I can or cannot do, say, or think (as long as I'm not violating anyone else's rights). The government is doing just that with homosexuals by refusing to allow them a legal marriage.

As far as trying to "impose" one's beliefs on someone else...an important tenet of the Christian faith is that one must spread that faith to others..it is perceived as doing God's work, and is good. When I am approached on the street by someone and handed a pamphlet and tried to be brought "into the light," I always respond very positively...I view it as a compliment, that that person took time out of their day to "save" me, even if I don't agree with what they believe. Spreading and preaching hatred is dispicable, but, freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and as long as they don't hurt anyone (or make specific threats), there's nothing anyone can or should do about it.
30/Sep/05, 19:55 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Ahlyssah Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 07-2004
Location: Lost in a dream of mirrors
Posts: 830
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


I like you, TimMurphy! Welcome to the board!

---
There are things which Man can not understand. For everything else, there's a lie.

Let's see if we can't get to the truth of the matter, hmm?

'Lyssa was here . . . and she'll be back
30/Sep/05, 21:38 Link to this post Email   PM  AIM  Blog
 
TimMurphy Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 09-2005
Posts: 26
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


Ahlyssah--thanks, glad to be here!

After going back and reading all the post in this thread (ok, I'll admit it...I read the first page, then skimmed to make sure the topic hadn't strayed too far.. emoticon ), I realized I kinda restated what Addi had already said, only she said it a bit more eloquently.

Bill of Rights, good. Using Religion to guide your life and make you a better person, also good.

Using religion to overwrite Bill of Rights....very, very bad.

I could go into my whole "Government isn't about morality" rant, but I'll save that for another thread, hehe.
30/Sep/05, 22:53 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Addi Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
 

Runboard user emeritus

Registered: 11-2004
Location: US
Posts: 681
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban



TimMurphy wrote:

I view the gay marriage issue as simply thus:

If the US government is going to recognize a union between two people as a marriage, and offer tax benefits and other legal rights to those people because of their marriage, they CANNOT discriminate based on anything--sexual preference included. If a religious institution refuses to marry a homosexual couple, it is TOTALLY within their rights to do so, and they cannot be forced into it.

You don't have to like it. But the government gives you perks for being married (not for having kids, just for being married.) Those perks are completely unavailable to homosexuals, for no reason other than sexual preference. That is wrong.

I, for one, don't want the government involved in my everyday life. I don't want them telling me what I can or cannot do, say, or think (as long as I'm not violating anyone else's rights). The government is doing just that with homosexuals by refusing to allow them a legal marriage.

As far as trying to "impose" one's beliefs on someone else...an important tenet of the Christian faith is that one must spread that faith to others..it is perceived as doing God's work, and is good. When I am approached on the street by someone and handed a pamphlet and tried to be brought "into the light," I always respond very positively...I view it as a compliment, that that person took time out of their day to "save" me, even if I don't agree with what they believe. Spreading and preaching hatred is dispicable, but, freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and as long as they don't hurt anyone (or make specific threats), there's nothing anyone can or should do about it.





*applauds* emoticon emoticon emoticon emoticon emoticon




Edit - you said it very eloquently.


Last edited by:
Addi, 1/Oct/05, 16:29
1/Oct/05, 16:28 Link to this post PM 
 
Riane Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 04-2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban



Addi wrote:
Please explain to me a valid reason for denying them the right to marry - and it can't involve religious beliefs because that's not supposed to be a factor in this country.


Without getting into the present discussion (if at all possible), I want to make an observation about this comment. Often in discussions that are related to ethics or morality, one is asked to state an opinion or reason without referring to religion or religious beliefs.

I personally find this highly frustrating for the following reason: someone who professes a religious worldview or set of beliefs bases their understanding of the world on those beliefs, and thus it is the foundation of their ethical and moral ideas. Asking someone to explain their views without allowing them to talk about the thing that is the foundation of those views is effectively stacking the cards against them - it invalidates any response they might make.

If I asked someone to express their ideas on the above topic without using views that were based on science and an evolutionary worldview, what would the response be? Because the scientific and evolutionary worldview are the most valid at this time, views expressed from that basis are the most accepted - and those from a religious worldview aren't.

For any truly effective discussion to be had, it seems most fair to allow someone to express their view no matter what the worldview they are coming from. If it's scientific, fine. Evolutionary, fine. Religious, fine. The discussion may come to the point where we must agree to disagree, but at least we would be allowing all voices to be heard, not matter where they arise from.

(Addi, this is not directed at you personally - I've just seen comments of this type a lot of late, and this was the easiest to respond to. :) )

---
Reading: Burn Bright by Marianne de Pierres
My writing blog
The Fantasy Writers' Library
8/Oct/05, 1:07 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
voltaire Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 06-2003
Posts: 197
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


Riane;

The flaw in your argument is that (if you'll forgive me) you're assuming that scientific and religious views are talking about the same thing, and that at the same time they're irreconcilable. Neither point is true. This is because one is a fact-led explanation of how the world began, and the other is a faith-led explanation as to why it did so. The problems come when people confuse the two.

For the purposes of this discussion I'm going to localise my comments to Christians in the West (just because it's simpler to narrow it down).

There is nothing at all wrong with faith and belief in religion, and there are a huge number of people even in secular Western nations (especially the USA) who have a religious faith. Equally, the main reason why we have had such huge advances in recent centuries in areas as staggeringly diverse as medical techniques, palaeo- and physical anthropology, astrophysics and biotechnology, is due to the factual validity of scientific endeavour.

The vast majority of religious people see no contradiction between science and their faith. Indeed, I'm hard-pressed to think of a single religious person I know, who thinks that evolution and Christian religion are mutually contradictory. Quite simply, the Bible is what fills their lives with meaning, and science explains how the world reached the state that it is in today.

Creationism in science isn't about a "different view" with equal validity to evolution within science. There are no peer-reviewed, credible scientific journals, anywhere in the world, which carry articles supporting creationism. If there was reason to think it credible, then the scientific community would jump on it.

So why don't they? Because creationism is not a scientific theory at all, and nor is it truly a religious one. It is really a political movement that has become a hobby-horse of the US religious right. It is designed to denigrate science, and it should be (and is by many) rightly lumped in with the sweaty preachers who "cure" people with cancer via "faith healing", then ask their viewers to contribute their savings to "God's cause". This ain't religion, it's politics and business at its most raw and manipulative.

It should be of note that creationism is widely derided in Western Europe, by religious and secular people alike. That is because for them the spiritual and the physical are governed by different laws; as are church and state. And it is the latter boundary, not the boundaries of science, that the creationist movement is trying to break down.



V


Last edited by:
voltaire, 8/Oct/05, 2:04


---
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

-William Pitt
8/Oct/05, 2:01 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
TimMurphy Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 09-2005
Posts: 26
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


Yeah.....what he said. emoticon

I understand completely your point about a person not truly being able to discuss something without their "worldview," as you called it, coming into play. The point we were discussing here, was people using a RELIGIOUS principle to guide a GOVERNMENT decision, namely gay marriage. That bird ain't gonna fly. So if you're going to make a good, solid case against gay marriage, from a legal standpoint, religion really has to be left out of the equation. It's the whole "support your answer using facts from the text" thing they used to throw at you in high school essays. In this case, the text is the constitution, not the bible.

8/Oct/05, 9:08 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
voltaire Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 06-2003
Posts: 197
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


Yeah - that's what I was driving at too emoticon



V

---
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

-William Pitt
8/Oct/05, 12:02 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Riane Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 04-2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban



voltaire wrote:
The flaw in your argument is that (if you'll forgive me) you're assuming that scientific and religious views are talking about the same thing, and that at the same time they're irreconcilable. Neither point is true.


I probably used the wrong word when talking about the scientific worldview - it would have been more accurate to talk of the naturalistic worldview, I think. I don't think that science and a religious worldview are irreconcilable. I do think that a naturalistic and a religious worldview are irreconcilable in certain situations, and I'll explain why in a moment.


This is because one is a fact-led explanation of how the world began, and the other is a faith-led explanation as to why it did so.


Here is where we run into problems. Firstly, I didn't actually talk about explanations of how the world began (although I agree that this is one area where there is significant disagreement). Science is about discovering facts, yes, but what I am concerned with here is that every single person comes to those facts with a set of presuppositions, or a priori assumptions. This a priori framework makes up a worldview, and for most individuals it is not something they are conscious of.

Take for example the naturalistic worldview. The most basic tenet of this view is thus: that the natural world as we know and experience it is all that exists. As Carl Sagan said, "The Universe is all that is or was or ever will be." This is a presupposition that is held before one comes to evaulate scientific evidence, as it cannot be 'proven' in any conclusive way - at least through scientific means. And that relates to another issue - science is a tool for investigating the natural world, and thus useless for investigation of things beyond the natural. Some use this as basis for believing that there is nothing beyond the natural.

You may hold to a naturalistic view of how the world came to be, and scientific means are a useful tool for doing so because it works within the natural realm. I, however, hold to a Christian view of how the world came to be, and thus while scientific means might be useful to a point, there are other methods of investigation and other kinds of knowledge that I use to form those beliefs. It is not simply a case of fact vs faith; we both have 'faith' or belief in a certain set of presuppositions, and we will view the facts according to those presuppositions.


The vast majority of religious people see no contradiction between science and their faith. Indeed, I'm hard-pressed to think of a single religious person I know, who thinks that evolution and Christian religion are mutually contradictory.


And I would class myself as one of those. What I do question, though, is exactly what I see here - the equating of science and evolution. Evolution is a theory based on a naturalistic worldview - and thus it has an in-built bias against considering non-natural explanations as valid. (Personally, I don't disagree with all of evolutionary theory - the parts I do disagree with are mostly concerned with origins, but that is enough for a whole different discussion.)


Creationism in science isn't about a "different view" with equal validity to evolution within science. There are no peer-reviewed, credible scientific journals, anywhere in the world, which carry articles supporting creationism. If there was reason to think it credible, then the scientific community would jump on it.


This is where I disagree. My initial question is: why are there no peer-reviewed articles in 'credible' scientific journals? One explanation is that the idea is not credible scientifically. However, if what I have been saying about the naturalistic worldview holds, my suggestion is that because the majority of scientists in the West hold the naturalistic worldview, it is no wonder that someone who holds a different worldview will not have their scientific work accepted.

If there was reason to think them credible, then that would mean re-assessment of the naturalistic worldview that the majority of scientists hold to, and I can't see that happening in a hurry.

I think part of the reason that discussions of origins become so heated at times is because the issues they raise are so close to what is foundational for a person's worldview. A person's beliefs about where they come from and why there are here on earth are some of the central parts of a worldview, and most of us are not in a hurry to give up those - myself included. Those on this forum who hold to the naturalistic worldview will, at a basic level, not consider explanations that are based on the extra-natural or supernatural. Nothing I could say would convince them otherwise. The same is true for myself in reverse - holding to a Christian worldview, nothing someone else could say would convince me otherwise. It is not a case of one being based in 'fact' and another in 'faith' alone. Both are, in a sense, faiths that find support and basis in the interpretation of fact.


Because creationism is not a scientific theory at all, and nor is it truly a religious one. It is really a political movement that has become a hobby-horse of the US religious right.


Not being American, or part of the religious right, I can't really comment on that. It's up to the Americans to do so.


It should be of note that creationism is widely derided in Western Europe, by religious and secular people alike.


Most likely because the majority of people in Western Europe hold to a naturalistic worldview.

Also, in relation to that thought: the amount of people who hold to a viewpoint doesn't make it true, any more than the amount of people who don't hold to a viewpoint makes it false.


The point we were discussing here, was people using a RELIGIOUS principle to guide a GOVERNMENT decision, namely gay marriage. That bird ain't gonna fly. So if you're going to make a good, solid case against gay marriage, from a legal standpoint, religion really has to be left out of the equation.


And my point is this: nobody comes to a decision of that nature without their presuppositions in play. From a naturalistic worldview, homosexuality is normal and natural. From a Christian worldview, it isn't. Naturalism sees humans as animals; Christianity sees a big distinction. Science is the language of naturalism, and it thus in the West it has much more validity than scripture, which is the language of Chirstianity. This was not always so in the past, although it is certainly the case now.

Perhaps this will explain what I'm getting at a little better:

Naturalism is taught as law in the school systems and is held as being objective truth. Religious beliefs, values and morals are thought to exist on a separate, subjective level that should not be held us universally true. Science is objective truth and exists in a public realm; values are subjective beliefs that exist in a private realm.


This is the prevailing view, the view of the hegemony of the West, and thus we have the case where views based on religious worldviews are categorically excluded or removed from debate. Thus Addi's original question, that the debater explain their view without reference to religion; and hence my objection. What is missing in such debates is recognition by all sides of their respective worldviews, and how they impact such debates and decisions. Naturalism informs a certain opinion, and because it is the opinion that is seen most 'objective' and valid in the public arena, anything else is regarded as subjective and less valid. I don't see that a Christian worldview is any less valid than a natrualistic one, hence my frustration that it is so conclusively dismissed as invalid.

To close: I imagine that this debate could go on for a long time, and possibly without agreement of any kind. Perhaps it would be worthwhile posting the discussion in another thread?


Last edited by:
Riane, 11/Oct/05, 10:58


---
Reading: Burn Bright by Marianne de Pierres
My writing blog
The Fantasy Writers' Library
11/Oct/05, 10:54 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
voltaire Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 06-2003
Posts: 197
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


Hiya Riane, and many thanks for what was a very thoughtful and interesting reply.


Riane wrote:

Take for example the naturalistic worldview. The most basic tenet of this view is thus: that the natural world as we know and experience it is all that exists. As Carl Sagan said, "The Universe is all that is or was or ever will be." This is a presupposition that is held before one comes to evaulate scientific evidence, as it cannot be 'proven' in any conclusive way - at least through scientific means. And that relates to another issue - science is a tool for investigating the natural world, and thus useless for investigation of things beyond the natural. Some use this as basis for believing that there is nothing beyond the natural.



I think you've misunderstood a little here. It's not a "particular worldview" or Eurocentric, nor certainly an "a priori assumption" to say that the world exists. Even very sophisticated and ancient worldviews such as Vedic philosophy, whilst many interpretations would see the existing world as a manifestation of Brahman, still nevertheless see the world as at the very least being an experiental fact. As to whether we exist, Descartes get some distance towards demonstrating that "I" exist, and Kant took us most of the rest of the way.

Certainly, such solipsism won't further the current discussion, since creationism is supported neither by a solipsistic philosophical stance nor a material one.




You may hold to a naturalistic view of how the world came to be, and scientific means are a useful tool for doing so because it works within the natural realm. I, however, hold to a Christian view of how the world came to be, and thus while scientific means might be useful to a point, there are other methods of investigation and other kinds of knowledge that I use to form those beliefs. It is not simply a case of fact vs faith; we both have 'faith' or belief in a certain set of presuppositions, and we will view the facts according to those presuppositions.



No, we don't. And creationism (remember I am not disputing the existence of God or the validity of Christian religion) is no more the definitive "Christian view" of how the world began, than evolution is "crude scientism" or "naturalism". Remember, evolution happened. All credible palaeontology says it happened. The enormous weight of empirical evidence supports it having happened. Large numbers of Christians accept that it happened. And the slow collapse of creationism through "Intelligent Design theory" shows that even those who follow the politicised forms of religion that support the undermining of science via the teaching of creationism, are unable to sustain Bishop Usher's contrary position.




And I would class myself as one of those. What I do question, though, is exactly what I see here - the equating of science and evolution. Evolution is a theory based on a naturalistic worldview - and thus it has an in-built bias against considering non-natural explanations as valid. (Personally, I don't disagree with all of evolutionary theory - the parts I do disagree with are mostly concerned with origins, but that is enough for a whole different discussion.)



No, it isn't, for the reasons discussed above. Like I say, even "Intelligent Design" theorists (for all that they bluster to the contrary) accept the vast majority of evolutionary theory, and merely tag on an intelligent creator to the beginning.

And full-on Christian creationism is simply absurd. I say this not because of "bias" but because I simply am incredulous that in the 21st century people can actually try to defend a theory that is based on a Bishop's adding-together of the ages of people in the Bible, two centuries ago. And this is before we go through the fact that there are fossil remains which can be C14 dated to tens of millions of years before Usher believed the world began.

Such gaps as there are in the fossil record to back evolution (and they are far from the gaping maws claimed by creationists), nevertheless present a far tighter case than the creationists do.

There is a huge industry which (and I know you don't count yourself as a part of this) led by the financial and political behemoth that is the US Christian Right, is systematically trying to undermine the teaching of science in the classroom. These are not people who share your intelligent queries or philosophical disputations about evolution. They are people who want to re-fight the Scopes Monkey Trial, and roll scientific learning about evolution back to the mid-19th Century.



This is where I disagree. My initial question is: why are there no peer-reviewed articles in 'credible' scientific journals? One explanation is that the idea is not credible scientifically. However, if what I have been saying about the naturalistic worldview holds, my suggestion is that because the majority of scientists in the West hold the naturalistic worldview, it is no wonder that someone who holds a different worldview will not have their scientific work accepted. If there was reason to think them credible, then that would mean re-assessment of the naturalistic worldview that the majority of scientists hold to, and I can't see that happening in a hurry.



This simply isn't true. Christian views are just as prevalent within the scientific community as they are within any other. The reason that there are no peer-reviewed scientific journals supporting creationism or intelligent design, is that there isn't a shred of evidence for either theory. One (creationism) is simply ridiculous, and the other (intelligent design) is based on a speculative "bolt-on" of design to evolution. Merely on the basis of science as rational enquiry into the universe, neither could stand up to peer review. Therefore, people who push creationism and intelligent design try to do it through forcing their views on schools via the courts and upon the populace via articles in the press, instead.



Those on this forum who hold to the naturalistic worldview will, at a basic level, not consider explanations that are based on the extra-natural or supernatural. Nothing I could say would convince them otherwise. The same is true for myself in reverse - holding to a Christian worldview, nothing someone else could say would convince me otherwise. It is not a case of one being based in 'fact' and another in 'faith' alone. Both are, in a sense, faiths that find support and basis in the interpretation of fact.



As I say, I don't think this is a valid dichotomy - Evolution is accepted by large numbers of Christians, not least because it is backed by the vast weight of evidence. There is no reason at all why it can't fit within a Christian worldview, and for many millions, it does. Secondly, creationism and intelligent design are not "the Christian worldview" so much as political battering rams being used to roll back a century of scientific investigation and (more broadly) to attack the boundaries between Church and state. As I said before, I know you're not on the religious right, but it's them who are doing it.



Most likely because the majority of people in Western Europe hold to a naturalistic worldview. Also, in relation to that thought: the amount of people who hold to a viewpoint doesn't make it true, any more than the amount of people who don't hold to a viewpoint makes it false.



There are countries in W Europe that are less religious, and others that are more religious. The UK is very un-religious, except for in some communities (the Irish communities in Ulster and the Muslim communities across the UK, for instance). By contrast, Spain and Italy and Ireland have much higher levels of religious practice. None of which affects the acceptance of good scienctific sense by the vast majority across Western Europe.



And my point is this: nobody comes to a decision of that nature without their presuppositions in play. From a naturalistic worldview, homosexuality is normal and natural. From a Christian worldview, it isn't. Naturalism sees humans as animals; Christianity sees a big distinction. Science is the language of naturalism, and it thus in the West it has much more validity than scripture, which is the language of Chirstianity. This was not always so in the past, although it is certainly the case now.



Again, there are actually Christians who do agree with gay marriage, and those who don't. I have no problem with either view. The problem I have is with those political organisations who try to codify the views of some Christians into law. Nobody is saying that gay marriage should be made compuslory, any more than Roe V Wade (US) or the 1967 Legalisation of Abortion Act (UK) makes abortion compulsory. In both of those nations, if you object to abortion you don't have to do it. Similarly, if you disagree with gay marriage, no-one is saying you should have to do it. Merely that political-religious groups should not use their power to try and force their morals upon others.

I guess we could spread this out into a separate debate about evolution/science - might be worth it emoticon



V

---
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

-William Pitt
11/Oct/05, 11:58 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
TimMurphy Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 09-2005
Posts: 26
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


Riane,

While again, I understand your point, and I fundamentally agree with you that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a person to just leave their values at the door when making a decision like this, you are still missing one very, very important point. The debate we were having here was in regards to specific issue hotly debated within the US today. The US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, guarantees freedom of religion, and a seperation of church and state. In other words, an individual in the US is free to practice any religion they like, and the government can make no ruling, and no law, which uses religion as its backing and justification. Therefore, passing something into law, saying it is morally wrong and a sin, is in direct violation of the US constitution. That's bad.

People always seem to be trying to pass laws to protect the moral fiber of the country. Government (and I'm speaking about the US government, based on my understanding of the constitution), is not about morality. Laws do not, and should not exist to uphold morality. Laws exist to preserve rights. We are all guaranteed certain rights, and laws exist to prohibit dangerous behavior that could (and likely will) infringe on someone's rights. So, unless someone presents a way in which a gay couple getting married violates one of my rights and freedoms, there's no legal justification for it to be outlawed. That is why Addi asked people to respond without relying on religion to back up their case....although it provides for more than adequate PERSONAL reasons to be against it (and is more than enough to justify a religious institutions right to refuse to perform gay marriages), it simply is not allowed to be a factor in lawmaking, so that everyone is still free to follow the religion they want to.
11/Oct/05, 18:13 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Alpha Centauri Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
 

Runboard user emeritus

Registered: 02-2004
Location: Athens, Hellas
Posts: 1988
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


Riane, I see where you come from, but I think you are trying to compare apples and oranges. I also think you are wrong in trying to bring scientific data down to a -so called- "naturalistic worldview" level, so as to compare it (as peer elements) to religious worldviews of any sort. Scientific data and facts that has been gathered and validated using observation and experiment (the only known scientific means) cannot (nor should they ever) be considered "peers" to any religious stuff, whereas various religious worldviews may be seen as peers to each other.

If I were a surgeon and had to perform a kidney transplant operation to three of my patients (one of them being Christian, the other Muslim and the third one Buddhist), I would perform the said operations to all three of them IN THE SAME SCIENTIFIC MANNER, based on the same scientific data, and I wouldn't even dare to think of asking each one of my patients about how this operation should be carried out, according to THEIR religious worldviews!...

Yes, I know it's pretty simplified an example, but I think you'll still get the picture.

In all, religion and science are NOT peers, therefore when science comes into play, religion MUST remain in the backstage... Otherwise multiple conflicts occur.

emoticon

---



11/Oct/05, 19:09 Link to this post PM 
 
Addi Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
 

Runboard user emeritus

Registered: 11-2004
Location: US
Posts: 681
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban



And my point is this: nobody comes to a decision of that nature without their presuppositions in play. From a naturalistic worldview, homosexuality is normal and natural. From a Christian worldview, it isn't. Naturalism sees humans as animals; Christianity sees a big distinction. Science is the language of naturalism, and it thus in the West it has much more validity than scripture, which is the language of Chirstianity. This was not always so in the past, although it is certainly the case now.



Actually, I approach from neither religion or a naturalistic view. I approach from the point of social contract allowing maximum freedom while still maintaining the ability to function as a society. I see no manner in which homosexual marriage is a threat to me personally, any more than Christianity is a threat to me personally. Therefore, I feel both should be legal. People are entitled to their own system of morality, so long as it doesn't directly victimize others.

And on an unrelated note - it's so lovely to see you here, Riane! Hope you've been well. emoticon
11/Oct/05, 20:05 Link to this post PM 
 
Loud G Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 01-2005
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 273
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


How absurd. Apples and Oranges. Arg.

sorry Alpha, this isn't aimed at you really, it just hit a nerve.

I'm sick of people saying that science and religion are different entities.

You can say that "at the moment we can't find proof of a connection" but to say outright that one trumps the other or vice versa is ridiculous. Who is to say that they are not connected? Do any of us actually KNOW that science precludes divinity/religion/etc??? No.

As far as I'm concerned Religion is about a search for truth.
So is science.

The only difference is that religion hasn't undergone as strict a cannonization as science. I'll admit that not everything that is taught in every church is true. But that is because people let their personal opinions get in the way of truth.

The same happens in the scientific community. Though it is harder to get it accepted.

Religion relies on truth. That there are things that man should not do to preserve society, family, self, etc.
Science does the same.

Most of the basic tenets of religion have been proven to be good for society as a whole. True there are heretics, strange cults etc, but on the whole religion has kept society together.

Do not kill.
Do not steal.
Do not commit adultery.
Love your neighbor. (ie everybody)
Love your enemy.
Don't worship the wrong God (not yet proven but potentially harmful) ;)

Nothing that harms society.

As for gay marriage and abortion. I can see obvious reasons not to let it happen, but the consequences that I know to be bad may not be bad to you.
Gay marriage, fornication, adultery, pornography, etc are all things that lead to societal degradation. It is a slippery slope, it really is. Many civilizations have fallen because of things like this (not necesarily all of these specific ones).
But the ones I have mentioned do promote general lack of morality. Which some people say "who cares? let people do as they like." but it invariably affects everything.

That is not to say that a gay couple getting together will directly cause me to keel over and die. All these things combined leach the life out of a society and a society that allows all these, or is callous to these things is going to fall. Morality and ethics are not unconnected. This all numbs the senses, ask any psychologist, and makes the person more suseptible to other things/activities.

It is not about tradition. It is not about religion. It is about society.

Religion is only the vehicle (or should be the vehicle) of societal improvement.

And don't mention any acts by the roman catholic church (as most invariably do), I have my own opinions on that subject.

Moral disintegration does affect everybody no matter what you say or believe to the contrary.

The effects are not easy to see because they are slow. They build up over time.

Now it may be unconstitutional to deny something on religious grounds. But I guarantee the things I mentioned will be clear within five years time of full acceptance of those mentioned actvities. :P and then maybe people will change their mind about it......

We have not sufficiently studied the effect that they have on society because we don't like people to tell us what to do. I'm sorry, but if nobody told us we couldn't do something, (ie. if there were no laws) life would not be fun.


ok, I think I lost my train of thought several times here. If this post is totally incoherent due to overly passionate writing, I apologize :)



PS.
God created the world. How he did it, scientists will find out eventually. God obeys all physical laws, he created them. HE is a Scientist in a way.

Science is a good thing. It should be studied. It should be taught.
Science does not, nor ever will negate the existence of God. Nor supernatural. Just because we don't yet understand the laws of the 'supernatural' doesn't mean they are not scientific in nature.

Lightning was a supernatural power for eons. Then we figured out how it works. So don't think that God is supernatural just because He is God. God follows laws too. Someday we will know how He works.


PPS.

I would just like to say, Riane, your post was awesome. I'm sorry if the rest you don't get it. But she was right.

---
Writing: Eriadhin

12/Oct/05, 18:49 Link to this post Email   PM  AIM  Blog
 
voltaire Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 06-2003
Posts: 197
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


LoudG;

Your post is great. Very passionate, very moral.

Not one word of it is a coherent argument as to why the law of the land should ban gay marriage.



V

---
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

-William Pitt
13/Oct/05, 2:09 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Ahlyssah Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 07-2004
Location: Lost in a dream of mirrors
Posts: 830
Reply Quote
Re: Quotes from the America Taliban


For a moment I'd like to slip back into that gothic teenage angsty mood that people like to write off as personal problems and not reminiscent to any actual stimuli, simply because I don't look like they did when they were growing up.


Loud G wrote:

Nothing that harms society.

As for gay marriage and abortion. I can see obvious reasons not to let it happen, but the consequences that I know to be bad may not be bad to you.
Gay marriage, fornication, adultery, pornography, etc are all things that lead to societal degradation. It is a slippery slope, it really is. Many civilizations have fallen because of things like this (not necesarily all of these specific ones).
But the ones I have mentioned do promote general lack of morality. Which some people say "who cares? let people do as they like." but it invariably affects everything.

That is not to say that a gay couple getting together will directly cause me to keel over and die. All these things combined leach the life out of a society and a society that allows all these, or is callous to these things is going to fall. Morality and ethics are not unconnected. This all numbs the senses, ask any psychologist, and makes the person more suseptible to other things/activities.

It is not about tradition. It is not about religion. It is about society.

Religion is only the vehicle (or should be the vehicle) of societal improvement.



I know that you're just going to ignore this next statement completely, being a man of faith and all, but I just have to say it.

Society is just plain fucked up. Period. It's not the fault of the "fags", it's not the fault of the "spades", and it's not the fault of the castrati formed for the pleasure of Adam and succeeding men. It's the fault of mankind, human beings, us. You can't just look for someone who is different than you and blame all of your and society's problems on them. And YES, that is exactly what many people are doing when they say that allowing homosexual marriage will result in the degradation of morals and society. Morals were being degraded from the first moment they were introduced; that's just our way. Why climb Everest? Because it is there. Why send men to the Moon? Because it can be done. Why break the rules? Because the rules are supposed to be obeyed by all, and therefore doing something that is not allowed makes one feel daring and special.

And don't start that hype about, "It's bad, YOU just can't tell." I for one feel insulted by that remark. That's akin to saying that anyone under the age of eightteen shouldn't be charged with murder because their mind is not fully developed. If something is bad, and I mean really, truly bad for people or society, we know it. We can see its effects. We know killing is bad because we realize that this person is, well, dead, and there are people mourning his or her demise and wondering what might have been. We know adultery is bad because it hurts the spouse emotionally, and also breaks the promise made to them when you exchanged vows. Arson is bad because it destroys personal property, and the owners often pay a hefty amount to have their possessions replaced or damage repaired. But where is the proof that homosexuality is bad? How can we misled, ingorant people see the danger of allowing two people of the same gender to exchange holy vows? I admit: I've kissed a number of girls in my time, but my grades didn't fall, nor did I witness any of the younger girls in my neighborhood engaging in such activity simply because they spent time around a bisexual.

I know I must sound like an opinionated b****, which would be an accurate assumption of my personality when it comes to morals and rights. Teenage passion isn't a pretty sight, even when in print, and I proudly admit that. I'm not trying to be mean, just trying to get my point across, as you have done. Perhaps I am being rather harsh; not everybody can see the world through the eyes of a naturalist (and not just because they don't want to). Things look different from over here, and I used to be religious as well, so I know the range of disparity. Maybe I'm just tired of the whole argument. I mean, come on. It's such a small thing, insiginificant little difference. Gay people pay their taxes, eat red meat or none at all, walk upright, hold down jobs, watch TV, drive cars, enjoy movies and video games . . . everything that any other person in this world does and/or is capable of doing. Yet, they happen to be attracted to people of the same gender. SO? Everything else seems to be working fine (metaphoriacally speaking, of course). It just seems so silly to me. This argument is such a needless waste of oxygen. In the words of Nicholson and King, "Can't we all just get along?"

---
There are things which Man can not understand. For everything else, there's a lie.

Let's see if we can't get to the truth of the matter, hmm?

'Lyssa was here . . . and she'll be back
13/Oct/05, 4:25 Link to this post Email   PM  AIM  Blog
 


Add Reply

Page  1  2  3  4  5 






You are not logged in (LOGIN)