Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2019 - 10:19am PT
|
You are full of blind faith yourself ....
And you, do you believe your assertion?
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2019 - 10:37am PT
|
Religion is responsible for both good and evil. Yes.
Science is responsible for both good and evil. Yes.
Other organizations, humans, doctrines are also responsible for good and evil.
Yes but to be specific it is individual people who are good or evil. Each time spreads his goodness or filth on others.
Branding a subject, group, study, etc as bad is lazy. Tracing down WHO screwed it up is the solution.
The Catholic Church has great potential for good. But they have long been corrupted to various degrees. If you read an honest history of the Popes there have been some wild times that make today's lot seem very tame.
They probably hold the key to their salvation locked in their vaults. Old manuscripts that provide valuable works from the original apostles that have been hidden for reasons of altered dogma that commands obedience to authority. If properly dug out, carefully translated and put in order, you would have a New Testament that would make sense and do people good in modern times. I believe that this could happen and that Christianity could make itself useful again.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2019 - 11:27am PT
|
Branding a subject, group, study, etc as bad is lazy. Tracing down WHO screwed it up is the solution.
I'm branding the blind faith upon which religion is based as bad. The individuals, be they popes or followers may still be good or bad. It's the brain washing that is inherently bad.
Religion is often a force for good as has been shown many times in this thread.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2019 - 07:44am PT
|
sempervirens: Religion is unique because of the blind faith.
I assume you're speaking from your own experience? What direct observations have you made? Tell us some personal stories where you've witnessed some of the things you claim happen or exist among those who would claim they are religious.
Without direct observations, one might argue that you have some strong beliefs as well.
So-called blind faith comes in many guises. Ask anyone who's been through a divorce, served their country, or became indoctrinated to a field of study or a practice. Love your parents, your country, your children? Why?
I suppose blind faith for you is equivalent or denotatively synomous with religion. Viz, "any religion requires blind faith." I think there might be some people here on this thread who could give you some bases that do not look like "blind faith." But then again, I suspect you simply hate religion. (That's your right, of course.)
Without direct observations of this or that, I'd say you are unlikely to know what you're talking about.
Provide a story that YOU'VE been an intimate participant in, and let's see how many here support your claim without other possible explanations being offered in response.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2019 - 07:51am PT
|
Provide a story that YOU'VE been an intimate participant in,
He was probably in a church and the head priest was winking at him when no one but him was looking .....
:-)
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2019 - 08:54pm PT
|
assume you're speaking from your own experience? What direct observations have you made? Tell us some personal stories where you've witnessed some of the things you claim happen or exist among those who would claim they are religious.
Without direct observations, one might argue that you have some strong beliefs as well.
So-called blind faith comes in many guises. Ask anyone who's been through a divorce, served their country, or became indoctrinated to a field of study or a practice. Love your parents, your country, your children? Why?
I suppose blind faith for you is equivalent or denotatively synomous with religion. Viz, "any religion requires blind faith." I think there might be some people here on this thread who could give you some bases that do not look like "blind faith." But then again, I suspect you simply hate religion. (That's your right, of course.)
Without direct observations of this or that, I'd say you are unlikely to know what you're talking about.
Provide a story that YOU'VE been an intimate participant in, and let's see how many here support your claim without other possible explanations being offered in response.
Your post is mostly ad hominems about me rather than what I've said. There are infinite examples of valid opinions that are not based on personal experience. Whether I have faith or blind faith doesn't refute or confirm anything I've said. If I don't know what I'm talking about why not tell us where I'm wrong instead of saying I'm wrong because I didn't offer personal experiences. What claims do you disagree with? That religion is responsible for atrocities? Are you denying that?
But you do say one thing of substance and that gets at defining religion. Religion is based on blind faith because it does not allow for that testing that I mentioned. Instead it demands faith. One can believe in love or love their parents or experience divorce but that is not the same. If love were a doctrine that demanded you believe in love then love would be like religion. You can, if you like define religion otherwise. Werner tried that earlier saying, "if it's blind faith it is not religion ever". Of course that would leave out major religions of the world and when that was pointed out Werner declined to defend his statement. So we can argue about the definition of the word religion. Maybe that is your point. But that is just playing word games. It's the blind faith in religion that I'm talking about. I clearly showed the problem with blind faith in many previous posts. Some you've replied to back then. Those replies were similar in that you disagreed with me based on your opinions about me rather than the substance of my posts.
No I don't hate religion, but that's about me and not about what I've said. I'm not offended by the personal remarks. It's just that they are off topic, it's not what I'm talking about.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2019 - 09:23pm PT
|
If it's not 100% scientifically testable than no one would ever have taken to it ever period.
The only one who has blind faith is none other than YOU.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 21, 2019 - 07:54am PT
|
If in these times for whatever reason you need some inspiration, I'd recommend Apollo 11 (2019). Such a terrific film! That, in large part, because it is based entirely or almost entirely on original video and audio of the whole shebang - project and achievement - start to finish.
I'm going to let the film play a couple more times on the big screen today, I think, in the background, just for the stoke, the high, and for the incredible, outstanding images and movements shown in this film.
Toward the end of the film...
"Even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us... but if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food, and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to Earth, reentering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun, almost as hot as it is here today, and do all this, and do all this and do it right, and do it first, before this decade is out, then we must be bold." -John F. Kennedy
Amazing words, eh? Reflecting, and now in retrospect, as we all know, also accurately forecasting, such an amazing, incredible achievement.
This upcoming 20 July, 2019 will be its 50th anniversary.
...
re: "scientific naturalism"
The resistance to "scientific naturalism" that is shown here and elsewhere is understandable.
After all, we living things were evolved, we were made, to live as animals... in an animal ecology or animal ecosystem... and we were not evolved, not made, to grok our own nature, our own makeup or construction, at its deepest levels "under the hood" in terms of cells, tissues, molecules, hormones, glycolysis, signal transduction, action potentials, etc etc etc.
How easily we disregard this. This, it seems, is in our nature, too.
The resistance to "scientific naturalism" that is shown here and elsewhere is understandable.
Especially, it seems, as we grow older, say, 40-plus and on. And on and on. As our experience (wisdom?) across a variety of subjects grows - revealing our world and fate from many and various perspectives - while at the same time our appetites (interests and desires) wane.
Today's kids are much more open to, and knowledgeable about, scientific naturalism and its possibilities as a basis of new ways and new thinking than past generations of them, imo.
For many, this "resistance" as time ensues will be less about the verity of scientific naturalism (hard to argue with the facts), imo, and more, way more, about the despiriting nature of it (the demotions it brings with it; the spiritual letdown, the perceived humiliation, etc) at least for a time. Hopefully though, in time, Sapiens will get around to adjusting to it, adapting to it. Maybe a new variety of Sapiens or Homo (just as Sagan referenced) will be needed. Maybe H. superbus in lieu of H. sapiens.
My prediction?
In twenty years, scientific podcasts will outnumber religious churches (Christian plus Muslim mosques, too) at least ten to one.
|
|
formerclimber
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
May 21, 2019 - 08:13am PT
|
Going to the Moon is an achievement?? Incredible.
Polluting the Earth (cosmodromes create toxic pollution), wasting money... space exploration'd now resulted in surveillance society (and removed mystery from traveling), plus bred massive idiocy - entire generations that can't find their way out of a paper bag without a gps; finally, it'll be the place from where all current species of life will get nuked from. The driving force behind space exploration is militaristic expansionism + greed. What a waste of effort and what a waste of life to work on any of this.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 21, 2019 - 10:37am PT
|
I watched the moon landing on a decrepit old junk tv with a jerry rigged antenna in camp 6 in The Valley, summer of 69. The whole experience seemed incongruous. All that technology and striving and accomplishment seemed marvelous and at the same time somewhat pointless. Just like climbing which was so important to me at that moment. It seems the adventure, like the journey, is ultimately, the end in itself. I'm really sorry to see this thread go, though in the end I suppose it doesn't mean much. Here's to reconciling religion to science and vice versa for the sake of a more meaningful journey.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 21, 2019 - 12:14pm PT
|
Here's to reconciling religion to science and vice versa for the sake of a more meaningful journey.
Hear, hear.
Paul, I'll be missing the back n forth with you, certainly. I always enjoyed the wrangle, lol. Part of the journey, too, I guess.
:)
|
|
ionlyski
Trad climber
Polebridge, Montana
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 21, 2019 - 12:49pm PT
|
I started this thread, not to participate of course but to create another room for the ongoing "discussion". The old R Vs S had devolved into an utter chaos of flinging sh#t across the space to the point it got deleted. The vile was so bad then and angry hornets buzzed around the other threads like fighter jets looking for any trouble they could find. So I pasted up the new one to send them to the other corner. My opening post reflected my continued thought there will always be discourse and nobody will "prove" anything, and so I like being at peace with that. I still think Iris Dement says it best, "Think I'll jest, let the mystery be".
I fully expected the ugly wrestling match to continue and meant to go back and delete it soon enough. But right off the bat I was impressed by the engaging discussion so I left it for awhile. When I came back to it again it was over 3000 posts and I don't think I could have deleted it if I wanted to.
One day I ran into Craig Fry who got in my face. Pissed me off. Apparently he thought I started it in order to hijack his thread I guess. I hope somebody gets a good PDF and thanks to all who added in a constructive manner.
Peace to you all.
Arne Boveng
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 21, 2019 - 12:52pm PT
|
and nobody will "prove" anything,
That's because it's already been proven since day ONE .....
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
May 21, 2019 - 01:05pm PT
|
Arne, Thanks for starting it. Definitely need to go skiing together in Montana sometime.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 21, 2019 - 03:00pm PT
|
The old R Vs S had devolved into an utter chaos of flinging sh#t across the space to the point it got deleted. The vile was so bad then and angry hornets buzzed around the other threads like fighter jets looking for any trouble they could find.
With all due respect, I remember it quite a bit differently. To be clear, I remember that thread as being hardly any different from this one. In fact, my own posts in that thread were more substantive, not less, and I felt not only surprise but loss when it was deleted. Why was it deleted? If memory serves, the rules of engagement at the time were nebulous, one or more members might have complained about the forum or forum threads around that time, and management just more or less willy nilly, more or less arbitrarily, deleted it along with others. Since then, the rules of engagement were made more clear. There would be no deleting threads over 300 posts, for example, instead they would be locked. That's my memory of it, fwiw.
|
|
ionlyski
Trad climber
Polebridge, Montana
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 21, 2019 - 04:43pm PT
|
I have no idea why it was deleted. But it was surely tit for tat towards the end and I thought it got nuked due to downright ugliness.
And you tell me why then if it was so cordial HFCS. Why was it deleted?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 26, 2019 - 07:57am PT
|
truth is often painful and disturbing. Hence if you stick to unalloyed reality, few people will follow you...
"An uncompromising adherence to the truth is an admirable spiritual practice, but it is not a winning political strategy."
Why Fiction Trumps Truth...
"Some might argue that the long-term costs of believing fictional stories outweigh any short-term advantages in social cohesion. Once people get in the habit of believing absurd fictions and convenient falsehoods, this habit would spill into more and more areas, and they would consequently make bad economic decisions, adopt counterproductive military strategies and fail to develop effective technologies."
"While this occasionally happens, it is far from being a universal rule."
"Even the most extreme zealots and fanatics can often compartmentalize their irrationality so that they believe nonsense in some fields, while being eminently rational in others." -Yuval Harari
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/opinion/why-fiction-trumps-truth.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 26, 2019 - 08:22am PT
|
Even the most extreme zealots (HFCS) and fanatics (HFCS) can often compartmentalize their irrationality so that they believe nonsense in some fields, while being eminently rational in others." -Smokin Duck edited
|
|
formerclimber
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2019 - 08:28am PT
|
Irrational fanaticism is exactly what space exploration is about
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!