catholiboy Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 I give up. You and I live on different planets and either have different genomes or totally different genomes expressions. You are so tragically blind and deaf...I hope that most members of this forum are not so detached/remote from real life as you are. I suggest you look at and listen to the citizens of Euroslam... (and reyr wondering about what I "believe" and/or "familiar with", I'm a '56 Un of Pgh Biochem Ph.D. still learning and active scientifically...) Dov You are also somewhat histrionic, and can only seem to make your own views look good by being derogatory towards those of others.Nice try, but you've kinda failed miserably. What do you think people detached to real life should do? Give way to the Darwinian evolution, or use their brains to actually make life better for themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 Buffy, Reyr # 252: Setting aside (being cute?...) 'boring' and 'apparently idiot' I think the right course of practical action is a "stress concentration" scheme. A "wide front" approach aimed at several targets via several routes has a way of subliming quickly. Concentrating on the epitome, on the essentiality of the atrociousness, draws more active participants and raises clearer standard. Therefore I suggest tackling genocides, ongoing and potential. Of all gross human phenotypic atrocities genocides, mostly on religious-cultural basis, are samples of the worst human to human cruelty and indifference crying out for concerted world active forceful interference. Mode of action: Snowballing. Use a catchy phrase-mantra that expresses the reason and goal and the required action, and snowball it towards the representative governments. I think, Dov PS: During one of it's many troubled periods Israel's Golda Meir remarked: "Pessimism is a luxury that a Jew can never allow himself". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyothelite Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 First a little technical point, even though Islam is not seen as part of the "Western World" it is still classified as a Western Religion academically because it is Abrahamic. Second, Dov, you seem to be implying more government action will help to ease the struggle between religions. I would argue that it is the lack of separation of church and state that causes religious violence in the first place. I am not saying government should back down but it definitely should not develop doctrines based on solving religious debates unless they are to suggest that religion doesn't mix with violence and politics. And Dov, you said you have a Ph.D? As a scholar don't you know that ad hominem (personal attacks) arguements destroy your credibility in debate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyothelite Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 I'd like to add this: It is my personal opinion that the essence of the "American Religious Experience" is the freedom to go to a free library and learn and study all threads of philosophers and religions and scientific discoveries in order to gain a comprehensive view of the world and universe. That's what makes us America the freedom to be able to learn and decide for ourselves what is truth. Southtown 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted December 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 During one of it's many troubled periods Israel's Golda Meir remarked: "Pessimism is a luxury that a Jew can never allow himself".Golda was an incredibly wise woman. Thank you for contributing your thoughts on a solution! I appreciate it! I must govern the clock, not be governed by it, :)Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted December 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 "How can I spread the word of Jesus without telling dirty stories about other religions?' That is the challenge for theologians in the 21st century."-- Dr. Krister Stendahl, Harvard Divinity SchoolFrom the show "Three Faiths, One God" on PBS this week.... Wise words,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyothelite Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 "How can I spread the word of Jesus without telling dirty stories about other religions?' That is the challenge for theologians in the 21st century."-- Dr. Krister Stendahl, Harvard Divinity SchoolFrom the show "Three Faiths, One God" on PBS this week.... Wise words,Buffy I'd only argue that if you can't back up your beliefs without resorting to discrediting another then your beliefs are not that strong. Just because I dig dirt on another doesn't mean I'm inherently clean. OOOOh I should copyright that one.... i like it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted December 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 I'd only argue that if you can't back up your beliefs without resorting to discrediting another then your beliefs are not that strong.Earlier in this thread it was posited that the only way to resolve Religious conflict was to determine which Religion was Right, thus showing conclusively that all other Religions were Wrong. I like your position better.... Righteous without Wrongteous,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyothelite Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Earlier in this thread it was posited that the only way to resolve Religious conflict was to determine which Religion was Right, thus showing conclusively that all other Religions were Wrong. I like your position better.... Righteous without Wrongteous,Buffy Well think about it..... If you and others propose a certain scientific theory and I propose an alternative, I can disprrove your theory all day, but if I can't prove my own, I'm not inherently correct just because I disproved other theories. I have to prove mine too. That's why atheists have no case either unless they can prove there is no God, just because they can discredit a certain theology based on flaws, doesn't mean their particular theory is inherently correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Atheists dont have a theory, atheism is what's left by the failure to establish the hypothetical entity "god". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyothelite Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Atheists dont have a theory, atheism is what's left by the failure to establish the hypothetical entity "god". No, Atheists are driven by skepticism and rely on discrediting relgious ideas as the basis for their arguements..... Name one Atheist that can disprove the existence of God without trying to undermine existing religious doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted December 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 If you and others propose a certain scientific theory and I propose an alternative, I can disprrove your theory all day, but if I can't prove my own, I'm not inherently correct just because I disproved other theories. I have to prove mine too.Actually, no you need do no such thing to participate in the scientific method! You need to show support for your theory, but science does not actually deal in "truth," only in accepting--for now--the theory best supported by the data at hand. You're completely "inherently correct" in your evidence disproving the theory. You have not simulateously proved your separate, alternate conjecture though. The point here being that affirmative proof of specific religious doctrine is in most cases non-existent beyond the divine nature of holy writings, which do indeed conflict in clear and absolute ways (the very topic of the show I pulled the quote above from, which I recommend). Thus many are led to believe that the only way to support their own beliefs is to denigrate the divinity of others books. I do not believe this is necessary, and it seems that expressions like this quote point the way to religions that disagree may find ways to find accomodation between their differing beliefs, which in fact have more commonality than differences if one chooses to look. Politics is where science meets faith,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Dyothelite: Your final sentence doesn't make sense. For an atheist there is no god, so an atheist has no reason to talk or think about god except in the contexts proposed by theists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted December 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 No, Atheists are driven by skepticism and rely on discrediting relgious ideas as the basis for their arguements..... Name one Atheist that can disprove the existence of God without trying to undermine existing religious doctrine.Please stop: This is off-topic and it is covered elsewhere. You should note what you are doing by saying this though! :) Follow one's own advice,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 - Islam.... is Abrahamic.- ... government action...ease ...struggle between religions.- ... Ph.D. ... ad hominem (personal attacks)... credibility in debate.../QUOTE] (1) I regret having yielded, in a moment of mental/emotional weakness, first to peep into "theology" and then to also take part in a discussion. I sincerely apologize to ALL "theology" members for now departing from "theology"...yet with a clarifying note re the term "Abrahamic religion", in the link: Yahoo! 360° - Dov's Blog - Humanism can accommodate a variety of phenotypes (2) I advocate definite actual governments interventions in cases of ongoing and/or clearly potential genocides. (3) I was prompted to "pull rank" by Buffy's ( standard, normal ) innocently implied reference to my information/educational background. And I confess that I don't give a damn about my "credibility in debate". And I do not recall having engaged in any "personal attacks". Dov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LayDominican Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Dov How does a government interfer with a religious practice that may have the protential to erupt into violence. In a Free Society it almost next to impossible. I may be soft in heart, but I cannot understand punishing without actually engaging who did what and when. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 How does a government intervene.... In the genocide in Sudan ?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.