I know I'm bumping a rather old thread for this, but I want to remove some of my responses and I've been told there's no way to edit posts without bumping the thread they're in. If otherwise, I'd use whatever method could do that if only to avoid getting in trouble... but while I'm here bumping it I figured I'd look at my starting post for this thread, and now I realize that back when I said that perhaps typing my posts doesn't show me what it's like to read them, I now see that the extent of that is way further than I initially thought. There's things in it that for more than a year I thought I removed from the post before adding it, things that I forgot to mention, and things that it didn't occur to me were really pointless to add... but I'm going to redo this... ok, so here's what I meant to say...
For the sake of irony I figured I'd make my 666th post about religion, Christianity in particular, and what I have against it. I don't go to church much, and didn't when I was younger (except for "confirmation classes" on Sundays for a few weeks one time when I was a little kid) but to be honest I think it was more to do with laziness further back into childhood and more to do with me actually not believing in god as I grew older. At this point in time, I think I'm better off for not having gone to church. Some say that if I went to church more that I'd probably like the church more, but that's what I'm afraid of. They say my view of the church is misled by me not being involved in it but I think theirs is more misled by being involved in it.
After all, in those confirmation classes, what was their approach? In the little books they gave out, such doubts as "What about other religions? Couldn't they be right as well?" were adressed (SP?) with "THESE are only doubts that the DEVIL fills your mind with" which to me looks like a scare tactic used to try to stop people from questioning them. When they associate doubts that are based on the same ideas behind cultural tolerance with the devil, that makes it look like a paradox to associate churches with tolerance but that's not the worst of it. Using such scare tactics to discourage questioning is part of why I think the view of those who are involved is more misled than that of those who aren't; to some extent perhaps those who would be given such propaganda would be brainwashed...
One defense of the whole idea of religion is to ask where else the universe came from if not from god. Not that I think uncertainty proves a particular position to begin with, but even within this reasoning, where would this "god" have come from? I remember from confirmation classes "always was and always will be" but that kind of philosophy doesn't make much sense; if that would be applied to a "god" then why couldn't that be applied to the universe itself?
Not that I'm saying that god necessarily "doesn't" exist either, but even then, even at "god may or may not exist" how can we be so sure what exactly someone who may or may not exist would want? Just what is the basis for assuming the bible is the "word of god" anyway? I doubt it's a good enough basis to conform to something that associates way too many separate things with each other to make sense...
Rather than going by some "god" who may or may not exist for whether something is ethical or unethical, shouldn't we actually look at what is being considered such and ask WHY it would be such? I've seen cases of things being argued as being immoral based on nothing more than "the bible says so" (or in the specific case I'm surest I remember, "the qur'an says so" but close enough) but I think it would make more sense for us to think for ourselves in terms of what we consider immoral... and if you think that'd supposedly be less moral because they would only be going by what they think, ask yourself this; is a moral code based on keeping within certain rules without being sure why in the hopes of being rewarded REALLY more ethical than thinking for yourself and following your own morality primarily for the sake of being moral in and of itself?
*casually hands Matt a flame retardant blanket*
Here, you'll need this.
~Rico
*casually hands Matt a flame retardant blanket*
Here, you'll need this.
I though most of the Mobius Forum hated Jesus. o.o
I think its a 50/50 split as far as the loudest ones are concerned. 
~Rico
Actually Matt, in his usual meandering way, has shown why so many people have trouble with faith and religion. Us believers are not perfect, but there are a lot of us, and our affect on society and social values seems oppressive to others at times.
Anyways, I'm glad that we live in a society that allows for true discourse on the place of religion in society.
Jimro
Well, I put my two pence in before the shouting begins... maybe.
If believing in God is what makes people happy, content with their lives then let them do it. We don't know what is at the other end of the tunnel and we must all get there eventually.
Of course you can replace "If believing in God" with anything.
I think people only really question Religon is when it is forced into every day living (Creationism in Science lessons etc.). Or when a religon is used as an excuse in terrorist attacks. Most of the time I think people are quite happy live and let live.
As for me and my beliefs. I haven't joined a religon yet I believe in Heaven and Hell and maybe there is a Big Guy or Girl up there playing Big Brother with all of us. I know its completly contradictory but hey...
I have probably missed the whole point of this post but meh...
"RELIGION IS THE OPIATE OF THE MASSES!"
A)Translation: I JUST WIKIPEDIA'D NIETSCHE!
"For my 666th post, (I know the number's connection to a particular religion and wanted to post this then just for the sake of odd timing...) I decided to make a topic about religion."
B)I could only dream of being half as clever.
"I'm not really a religious person. I rarely pray unless you could count the really short prayer going to bed that I say partly just in case there is a god, but mostly out of habit and of me having been doing so for so long. Other than that, I avoid religion."
C)Good for you.
"[T]hey say my perception of the Church is misled by me not being involved in it, but I think theirs is more misled by being involved in it. I myself don't trust religion, at least considering the people who are following it."
D)You're both wrong. Their interpretation of Christ's teachings is flawed and you just don't know anything about his message. And way to generalize Christian groups as a mindless hive entity. Some of the greatest philosophers and men of science were Christian.
"After all, in those confirmation classes, what was I told? Well in their books any mention of arguments like "What about other religions? Couldn't they be right as well?" was countered with "THESE are only doubts that the DEVIL fills your mind with"
So when questioning them they label these doubts as coming from hell. And no, it's not JUST coming from confirmation classes..."
E)Legitimate Christian groups are not about exclusion or "who's right" as far as rituals and the identity of the real savior of mankind. If you try to emulate the guidelines of people like Ghandi or the Buddha or Mohammed or, I dunno, CHRIST, then you're set. I'm sorry if you're surrounded by delusional close-minded religious superpatriots, but you insist on lumping them in with the rest of Christianity and that's just hurting what little of an argument you have.
"Think about it, Christians use "where else would the universe have came from if not from god?" as a defense of the whole idea of religion.
Well first of all, the question is "where would the universe have come from" seeing as how just wondering where it came from doesn't defend the idea of god existing. Second of all, if Christians are so bent on saying that god always was and always will be why couldn't they say that about the universe itself?"
F)Science leans away from the view that the universe was always just there. Some force caused EVERYTHING to condense to a pinpoint and then explode outward, causing a chain of events leading to everything you see here today. Some believe that force was a creative act by a higher power. Please tell me how this is hurting you considering you don't have to believe that if you don't want to.
"Let me guess... do they want to get certain people in a position to be excluded?"
G) See segment E)
"Really, let's look at Christmas as an example. Despite that Christmas is about several things in one holiday, they say "Atheists shouldn't be celebrating Christmas in the first place, Christmas is about Christ's birth and it's been redefined enough now already." Well just to counter that with an analogy pertaining to Canada but still relevant to some extent, sorry but Canada day is supposed to be about Canada, and yet Canada day, at least here in Gander, went from what it was a few years ago (waving the Canadian flag while signing and/or listening to the Canadian anthem while some people were even getting Canadian flags painted on their faces) to what it was last year (practically all the activities had nothing to do with Canada itself, simply involving barbeque parties for adults and sport events for children) and how much are people saying about that, or what do you see being done about it)"
H) Are you serious? That's a terrible analogy. Corporate America bastardized Christmas virtually beyond recognition. They took the celebration of the birth of someone who preached a message of peace and helping your fellow man, and they turned it into a free-for-all at the Mall for *ing Tickle Me Elmo. You're damned right some Christians are going to be bewildered or pissed off about this. And regarding your country's national holiday, please find me a website or book detailing the official agenda of a typical Canada Day. Oh wait, it probably doesn't exist. Over here the Fourth of July is pretty constant year to year. I don't know why your Canadian brethren can't get their * together. Maybe they have memory problems. Maybe they don't like routines. Whatever. I'm pretty sure you are apathetic to the whole thing so the point is moot.
"Actually, considering the kinds of people who believe in god, I really strongly doubt god exists. Judging by the kinds of comments I'm refering to, they want Atheists to be left out of things that the majority of people (since the majority of people are Christian) are in..."
I) Way to let a bunch of ignorant zealots shape your view on ALL OF CHRISTIANITY, you tool. I'll bet you also think all Muslims are terrorists.
"I'm tempted to go on, but I'm sure that's longwinded enough already."
J) Ah, yeah.
"EDIT: Now I remember... also, what's with associating Atheism with Communism? Though I am Atheistic, I dislike Communism for many reasons, including how strongly it discourages individualism in particular, and in general just how impractical it is as a system..."
K) That was, what, 40-50 years ago during the Red Scare? You weren't even born so quit *****ing. And if you knew anything about Christ's teachings, you'd know he'd be a communist before a capitalist.
ggkkthnxbye.
what are either of you trying to get at?
I agree with everythign Cap over tharr says.
Oh, and
Oh please. I watched American media (something I rarely do) sometime around Independence Day and they associated Independence Day not with the U.S itself or with capitalism and democracy, but with beer and fireworks
People drink and light off fireworks to celebrate their freedom. The fireworks symbolzie the cannons and the spirit and s**t we used to fight the war of independance, and beer is beer. no holiday is beer-less.
I think arguing over religion is pretty pointless. You can't prove it, and you can't fully disprove it to a certain extent. I'll leave with a few thoughts though.
Me? It took me a couple of years to figure out what I believed in. The whole time I believed in God during my life it was out of fear. You'll go to hell if you do this or that...and then one day it struck me why I wouldn't be happy being a Christian. Only these certain number of people go to heaven. Most of my friends wouldn't be there to join me. And that would have left me an emotional WRECK being "up there" all alone! I think it's kinda selfish in a way. You do something bad, Jesus forgives you. Will you do it again, because you know that you'll be guilt free? This idea seriously scares me. That's when I converted into a non-Christian, but I still believed in God. Then eventually I left that to believe in a world without a god. I'm probably the most confident and happy person you'll ever meet. I am in full control over my own life. If I screw it up it usually works out to where I can fix it if things go wrong!
Just a couple of weeks ago I got back from college to find out that some of my friends were totally pissed at each other. I got really confused as to why when I asked them both what happened, but I still ended up making them say sorry and get back together again. I didn't pray for it to happen. If you want something done you gotta do it yourself! I didn't take out a scratch card and mark it off like "there's another good deed until I can get into the pearly gates!" No! I did it because it felt great knowing that I helped make a difference in someone's life. It'd also really tick me off knowing that there are people in the world that do great things, but they WON'T go to a Christian heaven because they don't believe in Jesus. Totally not cool.
I pretty sure that everyone hear at the Mofo has heard something about the end of the world lately. All of the bad weather going on and all sorts of these species dying. Well, I can tell you that you can't blame God on that one. It's all our own damn fault! Human kind has never been at this population before. 6.5 billion! There was less than a billion people before the industrial revolution in the world, and then in the last 300 years there was an explosion of people being born and less people dying. The only way to stop it from growing is to limit the number of births OR we'll simply run out of resources. This will result in a lot of people dying because we can't support them. If you limit the number of births you'll also have a problem because in most societies everyone would want a BOY. That's a big problem in China and India I hear. You can't always be garanteed a 50/50 gender ratio. Earth has gone under many mass extinctions in it's past before. It's simply because of evolution. You'll have one species get seperated from one another and then eventually the others who were left behind will adapt to their new environment. After a couple thousand years this will cause them to become a totally different species! Some of them thrive, and some of them die out. Right now we have a plethera of these isolated species, and pretty much most of them are dying out to balance the equation again. Most of it is caused by global warming, which gradually built up over the industrial revolution because of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. So, yeah, humans have been kind of indirectly killing off all of planet earths various species. Horray for environmental science class! Hard to pinpoint where God is in that theory...
Where am I now? I'm pretty much into the science theory stuff, but I DO believe in spirits, ghosts, and aliens. The whole alien theory also kinda controdicts the Chistian God belief, too. I don't think the aliens would be too happy to be told that God made man out of his own image...So I definately belief in the spirit world, but to me there isn't a god. It's all about matter. It never disappears, but is always reused. Why not spirits, too? That's why I'm aiming more toward a Buddhist belief system nowadays. And Buddha isn't a god by the way...he was just a man trying to find himself. ^__~
Quote:
"EDIT: Now I remember... also, what's with associating Atheism with Communism? Though I am Atheistic, I dislike Communism for many reasons, including how strongly it discourages individualism in particular, and in general just how impractical it is as a system..."
K) That was, what, 40-50 years ago during the Red Scare? You weren't even born so quit *****ing. And if you knew anything about Christ's teachings, you'd know he'd be a communist before a capitalist.
I agree completely. Christ treated people equally. If you, Matt, ever get to read the Bible, turn to the book 1st Timothy, 6:10.
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." - New International Version
There you have it. Anti-capitalism. Note: The LOVE of money is a roof of all kinds of evil. Not money itself.
Quote:
K. Excuse me? Even if Jesus WOULD have advocated Communism (would Jesus really have advocated a dictatorship-based society where the government owns everything and decides who gets what and who does what?) wouldn't that only make it even more hypocritical of them to associate Atheism with Communists?
Jesus would have advocated communism. TRUE communism, where EVERYONE is treated equally. Not the total rubbish you get from Stalinist countries such as North Korea. Communist states are not totalitarian dictatorships. Stalinist states are. These countries hide behind the mask of socialism to gain total authority over the people; to have them listen to every single thing you say.
Why am I defending communism?
I am a Christian communist. Or a communist Christian. (I use a small C because I am an advocate of commuinism, and not a member of the Communist Party.)
And Tigs. I won't try to convert you back into a Christian. The only one who can answer anything for sure would be God. The final answer, you'll get when you die.
Ask and you will be given. Seek, and you will find.
tigergirl soldier, that was an awesome post, and i agree with everything you said. keep it up!
I really shouldn't bother, but just to comment on some points here and there...
Quote:
What I'd prefer is encouraging women to get tubes cut/tied at a young age and if they want children later, could they adopt them from third world countries I wonder?
Sure, you'd prefer that. So tell me, how many women would like being told that they shouldn't bear their own genetic offspring?
Quote:
Oh please. I watched American media (something I rarely do) sometime around Independence Day and they associated Independence Day not with the U.S itself or with capitalism and democracy, but with beer and fireworks
Oh please. Hey Matt? It's the "May Two-Four" weekend in Canada. Guess what most Canadians associate it with? Beer, fireworks and cottage parties. It's called celebration. These holidays are an excuse to celebrate something appreciated.
Quote:
According to what I watched on Canada Day at least there was more focus on Canada in the Canada Day celebrations (Eg. Saying things like "staying out to celebrate even during a thunderstorm, showing just how proud we are, etc...") so if anything you yanks are WORSE when it comes to that, rather than US being the ONLY example of it... but I would've figured an American would jump at the chance to imply that Canada is a mentally hilarious cousin to the north...
Plenty of Americans celebrate Independance Day out of pride, genius. Ever noticed all those flags people display on their properties? Of course not, because you have very little world experience. A couple out of context quotes don't account for the general opinion of all the people in two huge countries. Since you said "according to what [you] watched" I'm gonna assume you meant TV (because if you meant just locally in the neighbourhood, your scope is pretty much insufficient for national scales)... so you're telling me you never noticed the increased amount of beer commercials or the fireworks displays?
Quote:
Right now how it's being done is that you can have a second child so long as it's a boy but if it's a girl you have to put it up for adoption. That's because one male and several females can produce more babies in less time than one female and several males. So they prefer to create a population imbalance with males as a majority to make it harder to have more kids.
Actually, in China male children are considered more important and desired because males are the ones to carry on the family line, especially firstborns. If you knew half of what you pretend to, you'd know the cultural significance of that. Familes want male children - if they're limited, they'd prefer a male to a female because having a single child who's female would essentially stop their family line. So no, it's not a matter of creating an imbalance to make it harder for people to have children... wanna explain to me how a baby girl being put up for adoption stops her from having kids in the future?
Quote:
I'm surprised how similarly we think despite you being an animal lover and myself not, and despite you being an American and myself being Canadian.
It's disturbing that you think one's opinions could revolve solely around their nationality, or something as trivial as whether or not they like animals.
Seriously, Matt. Stop basing everything you know on textbooks, and stop seeing things in black and white. Get your head out of the sand. Go travel; meet people and learn from them. Too often you generalize. You say you're going by what you observe, but obviously you observe through a very limited scope.
I say do your best not to imply anything or associate one thing with the other: they are methods for people to make you believe their system of beliefs....
** drowned **
I'm surprised you would have even clicked on it that fast let alone read it let alone had time to respond... though I'm assuming you only read the last few paragraphs.
Quote:
I say do your best not to imply anything or associate one thing with the other: they are methods for people to make you believe their system of beliefs....
A good example of that is partisan politics. While so far the NDP is my preferred political party there are some things I disagree with the NDP on (I don't think it's as dangerous to allow SOME privately owned for-profit clinics as they say it would be) and some things I tend to prefer the Conservative approach on. (loosening immigration laws)
If we applied, as Duceppe calls it, "that blind stupid partisan attitude", to everyday thought, I don't think people would be thinking for themselves for very long...
[Fixed typo a couple minutes after posting]
Quote:
So what really makes you think Im not worth bothering with anyway?
I'd love to say "the entirety of your reply" but that might be mean. That, and you wouldn't get it. I'd just be setting myself up for a nice dose of "what do you mean by this?"
Wait. Oops. XD
Quote:
Well, you'd THINK they'd prefer that to being told to go through 9 months of childbearing. I dont understand why someone would want to go through all that.
Well, the obvious reply would be that a) you aren't female and b) you aren't a parent. Despite this limitation of understanding, you are being painfully ignorant. Matt, as I'm sure you've noticed, people have been having children for thousands of years. They don't do it just because the sex is good, as obvious by the fact that many people choose to not use birth control. They do it because they find something special about having children, in creating a human being from their own bodies. There are women who enjoy being pregant; there are men who enjoy being part of it. If you can't even attempt to understand that and continue to be so callous about the matter, well, frankly, I'm disgusted by you. =)
Quote:
Now granted, forcing them to have it is going a bit far, but something needs to be done, whether they like it or not, to conrol population; The fewer humans on Earth, the better it is for humans.
Again, you are apparently unable to understand the implications of what you're saying. How about you go ask your mother how she would have felt if, shortly before having you, she was told she wasn't allowed to bear children?
Well, that might be a bad example.
Quote:
In case you havent noticed, my original point was ABOUT many holidays becoming associated with things other than their original meaning.
Celebration is an extension of the original meaning.
Quote:
Plenty of Canadians celebrate Canada Day out of pride as well.
Yeah, you said that, and anyone with decent reading comprehension skills would see that I never countered that point. Read your own post again; you were implying that Canadians show pride whereas Americans just light off fireworks and drink.
Quote:
What? You think Id have to have world experience to have heard of that? Of course I know that, I dont need to have seen it in person to know about it.
And yet, again, you were implying that Canadians show pride whereas Americans just light off fireworks and drink.
Quote:
I dont watch much TV outside of news, but I havent really noticed much if anything to do with beer commercials, and as I said I haven't watched the news in the past couple days so I wouldn't know about the fireworks displays.
I say your scope is limited, you go on about how you watch national news... and then go on to say you miss stuff as blatant as this because you don't really watch anything that's not news. You don't think that's narrowing your viewpoint?
Quote:
If youre talking about taking the last name of the male, why couldnt they just keep the last name and add on the husbands last name after that like many people where I live do?
Because it's not necessarily the name, it's also the bloodline itself. It's a cultural thing you obviously have no concept of.
Quote:
Why do you associate basing things on textbooks with the black-and-white mindset? If anything wouldn't textbooks consider the black-and-white mindset a fallacy?
Quote:
What the hell? So Im pretending to know something that I was taught in school? What I was told about it in Economics class was that the reason for that was biological, not cultural, that the Chinese government wanted to create a gender imbalance for the sake of a decreased population.
What you're taught in school is nothing but a single point of view. The number of times you cite "this is what I was told in class/from my textbook" shows that you take this single point of view as absolute truth. I've got some shocking news for you; teachers aren't always right. Neither are textbooks. Did your economics teacher ever factor in the cultural importance of ancestor worship when explaining this to you?
Quote:
Not her in particular, but how girls being sent to other countries would create a population imbalance within China that would make males a majority making it harder to have more children at a fast rate.
Again, that doesn't stop the girl from having babies in other countries. I thought you were concerned about global population, not just that of China?
Quote:
I already said my comments were referring to what I personally experience of Christians. You're now saying for me to base it MORE on personal experience and LESS on textbooks. Well, I think textbooks would probably give a more accurate representation than personal experience. Well at least I think that way now.
And herein lies your downfall. Matt, textbooks are written by people. Educated people (at least, hopefully - this is NOT always the case though) but people nonetheless. They are subject to bias and mistakes. Experience with local Christians doesn't give you the knowledge of other Christian sects.
Say you never talked (or read/watched interviews) with Jews, Germans, American and Canadian soldiers, etc. who went through WWII. Instead, you picked up a book by a best-selling author and historian named David Irving. Sure, this is a bit of an extreme example, but go apply your logic (that textbooks give a more accurate viewpoint than personal experience) to it and see what would happen. Seriously, tell me what someone in that situation would learn.
(and for crying out loud, don't pull a "I don't know who that is" - this is the internet. The info is available to you.)
Quote:
Fair enough. EDIT: I just realized when I clicked "add post" that I didn't stress this point enough: I don't think it's really reasonable to avoid stereotyping all the same.
It is when it results in ignorance.
Quote:
Well, to respond within that same analogy, if I broaden my view too much, I might end up seeing something that may blind me. 😛 It's sort of like religion, I would be blinded to "see" questioning of it get associated with the devil.
And ignorance is bliss, huh?
BTW, Matt - people complain about your posts being longwinded because you feel the need to clarify every tiny little thing instead of just being concise. The fact that you had to "explain" why your post was off-topic (despite that it should have been obvious to anyone reading the thing that you were replying to previously-made comments) or explain why you edited a post shows this. It's not needed.
Quote:
Socialism means collectivist DEMOCRACY, Communism means collectivist DICTATORSHIP.
Incorrect. If that is what your textbook tells you, then it's wrong. It has it backwards at best. Those who know about communism (mainly by reading the stuff from the people that are most responsible for the ideas of it) know that socialism is the bridge between capitalism and communism. Communism has NEVER been in practice and communism is based on collective democracy. Socialism, on the other hand, can be based on many things as it is not full communism nor full capitalism. As a result, socialism can have a dictatorship or a democracy or anything in between depending on the type used. However, the closer socialism is toward a collective democracy, the closer the socialism toward communism as it is intended to be.
Oh, as for textbooks being better sources than personal experience, it depends on the textbook. Textbooks can contain errors (or be misleading in some situations). The source is always something that is to be considered. Also, you missed the point that you can't base your ideas on such a small range of things.
Quote:
Well, you'd THINK they'd prefer that to being told to go through 9 months of childbearing. I dont understand why someone would want to go through all that. Now granted, forcing them to have it is going a bit far, but something needs to be done, whether they like it or not, to conrol population; The fewer humans on Earth, the better it is for humans.
and
Quote:
As for the comment about nationality, I often associate certain opinions with certain nationalities.
Comments like this are why people don't bother with you. You think you know what's best for everyone even though you don't understand anything besides your own point of view. There's no point in dissecting your comment because it speaks for itself in terms of your ignorance--and very few people want to spend the time it would take to educate you due to having better things to do.
But two comments are semi-worth making a point on.
Quote:
My comment was that Atheists shouldnt be excluded from Christmas for only the reason that its supposed to be about Jesus birth, especially when many holidays where we KNOW the significance of what is being celebrated is real are associated with things other than what is being celebrated. The comment was replied to with an implication that Canadas the only example of that, (Eg. Canadian brethren can't get their **** together. Maybe they have memory problems. Maybe they don't like routines. Whatever. I'm pretty sure you are apathetic to the whole thing) and while I don't know what brethen means, I replied with an example of that within the United States. So Im not really the hypocrite here, if anyone its CapcomAddict.
I'm sure if I found an example of a Canadian murdering people that I should use that to say "Canadians are murderers that have no respect for human life." One example is all that's necessary to speak for everyone else right? Oh, and if you don't know what a word means, look it up. Dictionary.com isn't difficult to type in.
Quote:
Why do you associate basing things on textbooks with the black-and-white mindset? If anything wouldn't textbooks consider the black-and-white mindset a fallacy?
No, textbooks are often the reason people have a black-and-white mindset. Not only due to reading textbooks for years as a student but also "learning" more about textbooks as a teacher, textbooks are not necessarily the best source for information on ANY topic. You can read three different textbooks and get three different stories on the same subject depending on the topic. You want to learn, that means you read more than the textbook and you pay attention to more than what you seem to do--and no you can't always trust the news either. With experience, some start to develop the ability to recognize good/bad information (though anyone is susceptible to being tricked some of the time; it's when you can be tricked most of the time that you haven't learned) no matter the source.
You can rattle on about Communism vs. Capitalism all you want, Matt. Communism does NOT necessarily equal dictatorship. I am an advocate of TRUE communism. NOT the dictatorship BS you get from Stalinism. You missed my whole point.
I agree completely with Rad Blue that communism has never been in practice. No country on Earth has managed to achieve such a Utopian proletarian society.
Matt, don't trust your textbooks too much. They were written by humans. Humans make mistakes. Humans are biased.
And to answer your comments about communism, YES, I WOULD be here if I were living in a TRULY communist state. One that is perfect. Obviously, such a state will never exist.
Christ WOULD have advocated TRUE communism (can I stress TRUE enough??). You mean to say that He would want everyone to hanker after wealth and be materialistic, and not to pursue a better spiritual life? Would He want people to keep FIGHTING over money sources like oil and other natural resources? I'm sure He wouldn't.
TRUE COMMUNISM - Everyone is treated equally. There is no bias, and no unreasonable treatment. UTOPIA.
'Communism', AKA Stalinism - A dictatorship where everyone and everything is controlled by the government; where everyone suffers the same rubbish (which is the only communistic thing in these countries)
And the only reason that Communism is associated with Atheism is because of Karl Marx. Marx (who was a Jew) said in the Communist Manifesto that there was no God, and that was why people had to share. That is why Atheism is associated with Communism. (That is not to say that there were no communist Jews, just like there are Christian communists like myself.)
/salute Kat and Vic
You two have more patience than I.
~Rico
*Agrees with Kat and Vic*
*Waves frantically*
Well, there's atheists and agnostics, so shouldn't there be a special name for the 'just in case' people?
I dunno... Christianity sucks as a religion, but something still tells me that going into the street and stabbing someone to death is wrong.
God's a funny thing, you know? In the first Testament he's raining down fire and locusts on the general population, along with the occasional plague of boils, and in the Second one he's all for forgiveness, sending down his son to die for us all.
Bit of a mood swing, huh?
The Bible's not a very good source and I really doubt that it's meant to be interpreted literally.
Actually what you called "True Communism" would be Socialism. What you called "Communism/Stalinism" is a misleading definition because Communism would be closer associated with Leninism. Stalinism is typically place in it's own catagory, like Maoism.
It's a nitpick, but if you're going to be specific anyways...
edit: Also, Communism is associated with Atheism largely because the governmental state of the USSR felt that it should have no association with the religious state. Also when they invaded other countries (think Afghanistan or the Eastern block) they typically overthrew the religious establishment and replaced its traditional authority with the authority of the Communist state. Marx came from a Christian background and I believe he was Christian himself.
Oh please. I watched American media (something I rarely do) sometime around Independence Day and they associated Independence Day not with the U.S itself or with capitalism and democracy, but with beer and fireworks
To be quite frank, if you're not celebrating Canada day with booze, marijuana and dangerous explosives, then you're deviating considerably from the norm and there's something seriously wrong with you. Just because the CBC oozes with schmaltzy, obnoxious nationalism fit to rival a Tim Horton's commercial doesn't mean we're any more graceful about our Day than the Americans are about theirs.
Well, there's atheists and agnostics, so shouldn't there be a special name for the 'just in case' people?
I believe the term is "retarded".
I dunno... Christianity sucks as a religion, but something still tells me that going into the street and stabbing someone to death is wrong.
Just because you have a conscience doesn't mean that you're religious. Nor does it justify, prove or legitimize religion. It just means you're a human being with a functional brain.
Quote:
Actually what you called "True Communism" would be Socialism.
Only if you base it on what some people have called "communism." Communism as defined by Karl Marx and others is what Vic is calling "true communism." What most people consider to be communism is actually socialism. Most things have it backwards.
Can we call it Marxism then? I'm referring to Marx's ultimate view of society as a communal, property free state brought about by proletariat revolution. I'm referring to Communism as a communal, property free state brought about about governmental planning.
Quote:
Well, there's atheists and agnostics, so shouldn't there be a special name for the 'just in case' people?
um...an Agnostic person believes that the existance of God can't be proven or disproven... Therefore, they are 'just in case' people... Which is really lame. Either you do believe or you don't. Don't go all wishy-washy.
Do you want to know why I believe? There are several theories that I use to back myself up.
First there is the essence of Happiness. Just give me a minute to explain this. There is a famous saying that 'time flies when you're having fun'. Fun (happiness) causes one to lose a perception of time. This points to the idea that maybe something consisting of pure 'fun'/happiness exists outside of 'time'. God fits that definition. Call it lame or whatever you want.
The other theory is a little more scientific. Look at the universe. Look at our solar system. Look at all the variables that were/are needed for our planet to support life. Now change those variables a slight bit. Boom, no life. Everything seems to be just right. Had the Earth been a little closer or a little further away from the sun, life would not have evolved. Had the force of gravity or the forces between atoms been a little stronger or a little weaker, life would not have evolved. The likelihood of all of these variables coming together are like 1: a google... It would make more sense if there was something out there guiding everything...
Quote:
The Bible's not a very good source and I really doubt that it's meant to be interpreted literally.
Exactly! If you believe the Bible word for word, you should be shot. Multiple times. With a paintgun.
If you want to believe the creation of the world took only 7 days, be my guest and forgive me for laughing at you. Maybe 7 'days' but not literally 168 hours.
True, there are some parts of the Bible (mainly the Passion and the Resurrection) that have to be taken literally, else you have big problems with most/all Christian faiths. (Yeah, Jesus didn't really die, per say... He just went into hidding...)
You have to admit that the 7 days thing, while stupid, is not that bad an order for evolution for something written about 1000 years ago.
They made a pretty good guess at the order the theory of evolution runs in.
um...an Agnostic person believes that the existance of God can't be proven or disproven... Therefore, they are 'just in case' people...
"Just in case" people are the ones who don't take Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, but go to church anyways just in case Heaven really does exist because they're self-serving idiots who don't understand Christianity.
Quote:
"Just in case" people are the ones who don't take Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, but go to church anyways just in case Heaven really does exist because they're self-serving idiots who don't understand Christianity.
Okay...I get it. "Sunday Christians" is the term I've heard used...Basically they go to church, but don't do anything else.
And Harley, I never thought of it that way... You're right.
Quote:
First there is the essence of Happiness. Just give me a minute to explain this. There is a famous saying that 'time flies when you're having fun'. Fun (happiness) causes one to lose a perception of time. This points to the idea that maybe something consisting of pure 'fun'/happiness exists outside of 'time'. God fits that definition. Call it lame or whatever you want.
Happiness is just a state of mind brought on by chemicals released from your brain. You "lose time" not because actual time is lost, but because you're focused on what you're doing. It's the same reason why you can be studying for six hours and not even notice the time go by.
Also, time going by doesn't point to the idea of squat. You're drastically overexplaining things for your own justifications.
Quote:
The other theory is a little more scientific. Look at the universe. Look at our solar system. Look at all the variables that were/are needed for our planet to support life. Now change those variables a slight bit. Boom, no life. Everything seems to be just right. Had the Earth been a little closer or a little further away from the sun, life would not have evolved. Had the force of gravity or the forces between atoms been a little stronger or a little weaker, life would not have evolved. The likelihood of all of these variables coming together are like 1: a google... It would make more sense if there was something out there guiding everything...
And how many other billions of places are there in the universe that we don't know about that could have been perfect places for life except for "that one factor"? Mars is a fine example, it could have - and to an extent, did - fostered life, except the conditions just weren't right. Order doesn't imply conscious design. Our planet being able to support life doesn't mean that it was made that way by something, it just means that the universe is so diverse that we *are* that 1:google. Throw enough flies at a puppy, and you'll eventually get one that hits it. It's the same deal as evolution, it pisses me off when people say "evolution isn't real, you're telling me we just HAPPENED to evolve to match our environment perfectly?" The whole point is not that we just happened to become something, it's that there was so much hit-and-miss, and we're the ones that happened to be a hit.
The likelihood of all of these variables coming together are like 1: a google...
Considering the universe is (for all intents and purposes) infinite in mass, that's not exactly impressive.
Besides, "Google" is nothing more than Google. You meant a "googol", which is 10100.
And googolplexes are bigger. 1010100. Impossible for the entire planet to write out - literally.
Quote:
It's the same deal as evolution, it pisses me off when people say "evolution isn't real, you're telling me we just HAPPENED to evolve to match our environment perfectly?"
I never denied Evolution. Even as a hardcore believer in God, I still believe in evolution.
And Shadow Hog is right, I meant googol...
as a hardcore believer in God
As opposed to some other kind of believer in God?
Quote:
Quote:
um...an Agnostic person believes that the existance of God can't be proven or disproven... Therefore, they are 'just in case' p
"Just in case" people are the ones who don't take Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, but go to church anyways just in case Heaven really does exist because they're self-serving idiots who don't understand Christianity.
I would say I'm someone who is fairly knowledgible in my faith. I'm a Roman Catholic and have been at a Catholic school all my life. I believe that my faith is the direct succession from Peter. Although that said, I DO NOT believe that everyone else is going to Hell because they aren't Catholic... That would be a common misconception that some Catholics believe...
Bleep I'm not reading all that Mattspeak.
Quote:
um...an Agnostic person believes that the existance of God can't be proven or disproven... Therefore, they are 'just in case' people... Which is really lame. Either you do believe or you don't. Don't go all wishy-washy.
Is your neighbor's dog north of you or south? You don't know? How lame.
Criticizing people for not randomly picking an unproven position and following it as true is ridiculous.
People too commonly act as if lack of evidence is morally superior to evidence, or hold religious (or anti-religious) statements to some lower standard than any other statements.
Quote:
Criticizing people for not randomly picking an unproven position and following it as true is ridiculous.
Exactly the point I made above.
By the way what do you mean by Bleep? Do you mean swear word you filtered out for yourself?
Always wanted to say that.
Noticed you said "always wanted to say that" and I didn't know what... I then noticed the post's subjectline and was almost wondering if you could have been referring to that.
Were you referring to that or to your earlier comment about the difference between a googol and Google?
If the first, what's "tl;dr" supposed to mean?
If the first, what's "tl;dr" supposed to mean?
Go ask google. It's not hard.
I didn't realize it was that commonly used that I'd have found it on Google that quickly. "Too long, didn't read" yeah I understand... since I went back to my old quote-and-response style for many of my responses here, my posts have become about as long as they "used to" be.
I noticed how you never responded to my earlier comments in response to one of your posts. Have nothing to say, Cycle?
Are you associating deviating from the norm with there being something wrong with me?
I was only half-serious. Get over it.
Seriously just because everyone else is either destroying their liver with alcohol or ruining their life doing drugs that addict them, doesnt mean I should.
Regular consumption of alcohol, especially wine, can in fact be good for you. Even getting totally smashed on certain holidays is unlikely to cause any lasting damage. Marijuana is not addictive and there is no conclusive evidence that moderate usage causes permanent damage.
Also, using either substance in the company of friends makes thise holidays several orders of magnitude more enjoyable than watching the CBC.
Quote:
So youre saying that my textbook has necessarily the wrong definition because the original definition was different?
Yes.
Quote:
That's like saying that the Political Compass site I linked to earlier was "wrong" in saying that right-wing meant economically libertarian when it originally meant socially authoritarian according to where it originally got the term from, the French National Assembly
It probably is wrong. Most things don't follow the correct definitions of terms.
Quote:
Meanings can evolve over time.
In the minds of those who don't learn their history--which is most people. Taking things that people create and changing them is silly.
Quote:
By the way, didnt Karl Marx call Communism the dictatorship of the proletariat or something? Seriously, I remember that being part of my notes from my first or second week of this school year.
No. You're confusing the transition period (called socialism) with commuism. ;p You're also missing the point of what Marx meant. Marx basically meant that the poor would be in control of the government instead of the rich/powerful, not that only one person (or a few) would rule the government.
Quote:
I thought the reason Socialism was considered to be between Communism and Capitalism was that in democracy people can change their government and have a more Capitalistic government, whereas in Communism they cant change their government so they have to keep Communism?
No, socialism is only between communism and capitalism because you can't go from an economic system where it's "everyone for themselves" (capitalism) to "everyone for each other" (communism) right away. There has to be some sort of transition. Marx, in particular, didn't explain the transition much and that's why there are many different types of socialism/communism around as people took their own spin on it.
Quote:
See my response to Crazy for my answer to that.
And I repeat: You think you know what's best for everyone even though you don't understand anything besides your own point of view. That's the only impression that can be made by your responses.
Quote:
His/her judging of Canadians was based solely on one example. Thus, I used one example IN RESPONSE.
The fact that you can't see how you caused it all makes me laugh. Re-read your entire first post including your blanket generalizations and if you still can't see why you got that Canadian example "IN RESPONSE" then you're a lost cause.
Quote:
Its not so difficult to type in as to believe sometimes according to dictionary.com, geography counts as race.
**goes to dictionary.com**
**types in geography**
Quote:
geography Audio pronunciation of "geography" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (j-gr-f)
n. pl. geographies1. The study of the earth and its features and of the distribution of life on the earth, including human life and the effects of human activity.
2. The physical characteristics, especially the surface features, of an area.
3. A book on geography.
4. An ordered arrangement of constituent elements: charting a geography of the mind.[Latin gegraphia, from Greek gegraphi : ge-, geo- + -graphi, -graphy.]
geographer n.
geography
n : study of the earth's surface; includes people's responses to topography and climate and soil and vegetation [syn: geographics]
**types in race**
Quote:
race1 Audio pronunciation of "race" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rs)
n.1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology.
1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.[French, from Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.]
Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populationsCaucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoidare now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean white or European rather than belonging to the Caucasian race, a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.
**notes that there is more stuff present but won't copy it all**
Unless you have a very limited understanding, there's nothing unclear about what geography has to do with race (when it has plenty to do with it). Dictionary.com works just fine. ;p
I forgot to answer this earlier. I don't mind referring to things as Marx' Communism vs. Lenin's Communism vs. Stalin's Communism (etc.). But I don't think it's right to completely re-name someone's idea just because others used it in their own way.
I'm not looking to get involved in a debate or anything here, and I haven't read the whole topic up to this point, just a lot of it. I probably won't even reply to it again after this, but I just had to say something about one point that struck me:
Quote:
Order doesn't imply conscious design. Our planet being able to support life doesn't mean that it was made that way by something, it just means that the universe is so diverse that we *are* that 1:google.
Okay, point accepted...Order doesn't imply conscious design.
The house that you live in right now. Tell me, was that made by anybody? Did anyone build it? Who, or what, put the briks on top of each other and cermented them together? Who or what dug the foundations?
Running purely by this logic, what is being said is that if you got all the bricks, materials, etc for a house all together and threw them up in the air a number of times, one time they would all land precisely and exactly tight, mixing together to just the right setup and digging out their own foundations etc, to make a house! Granted, you'd have to do it many many millions of times, but eventually it is inevitable!
Being completely serious here...I'm sure all would agree that that is simply a complete and utter physical impossibillity.
Now consider the universe. It is far more complex than a house. Our Earth, for example, relies on quite litterally trillions of factors all coming together in perfect harmony for life, including things like the water cycle (and all the many details contained within like evaporation of water, desalinasation from seawater, etc), to Earth's distance from the sun, to speed and angle of rotation, to content of the atmosphere, to the ozone layer, to complex balances of thousands of different chemicals and elements making countless different compunds that all have to react together in such a way as to...
Need I go on?
Now I am an open minded person...I am willing to hear other arguments, but I must confess that it is my personal opinion that there is no scientific theory in the universe that is quite as absurd and rediculous as unguided evolution. I do not know what methods god used to create the universe, and everything in it, but to claim all of this happened purely by chance...I'm sorry, but that is just laughable!
When I see a bunch of building materials thrown up into the air and they fall down to make a perfect, livable house, then I will believe it.
Thankyou for your time.
Wraith
There are two fundamental flaws in your reasoning.
First, you argue that life is able to exist because the universe is able to support life. This is a tautology; the claim of the improbability of a life-supporting universe lacks imagination by assuming no other forms of life are possible. Life as we know it might not exist if things were different, but a different sort of life might exist in its place.
Secondly, you argue that the current configuration of the universe is so improbable that it must have been created by some intelligent force. In "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences", John Allen Paulos states that the apparent improbability of a given scenario cannot necessarily be taken as an indication that this scenario is therefore more unlikely than any other potential one: "Rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been [randomly] dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable."
