US Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima.
It’s time for another rant that is completely unrelated to the theme of this blog because I just felt like it. Fourth of July just ended a few hours ago for the folks in the Land of the Free. While dropping in and out of consciousness during a particularly boring Maths lecture on integration and volume of a disk of revolution, my mind wandered and — by a random firing of neurons — I ended up thinking about the birthday of what is, or was, arguably the greatest nation in the world.
Warning: Long Rant Ahead.
Indeed, it wasn’t that long ago when the name America symbolized the triumph of human ideals and the collective might of free-will beings in the heart of a young and impressionable boy living on the other side of this spherical hunk of rock. You know, like in the movie Independence Day when President Whitmore said, “today, we (the people of the world) celebrate our Independence Day”?
That used to be America.
The inspiring speech made by Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest Republicans ever lived, at the Berlin Wall had its 20th anniversary marked just a month ago. As he spoke to the people of West Germany and the rest of Western Europe, he spoke to a generation of people who rose out of the postwar ruins and rebuilt their countries with the aid of the Marshall Plan, the greatest postwar rebuilding master plan ever formulated and a distant reminder of America’s diplomatic success. When Ronald Reagan, addressing the General Secretary of the Soviet Union, said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”, it resonated in the hearts of millions of Westerners living in freedom and millions more who longed for it.
Where did that America go? The more I hear of Mr. Bush Junior, the more firmly I believe that it must be somewhere really, really far away.
The fall of the Berlin Wall.
Perhaps America has always been the political shithole that it is today and perhaps I was misled into believing tales of the nation’s past greatness by Hollywood’s many WWII offerings. Perhaps it was due to the fact that at a young and naive age of ten, I was reading all the Tom Clancy novels I could get my hands on. But even if the truth does often turn out to be less inspiring than the sanitized accounts of history, I still believe that America was once closer to its founding ideals than it is today.
The United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights owes a lot of its birth to the American ideals of freedom and equality, ideals that are enshrined in the nation’s consitution. This constitution is the basis of the Union and represents the hopes and aspirations of a nation of people who had just tasted the sweet nectar of freedom. This is also the very same constitution that was dismissed by Mr. Bush as “just a piece of paper” not too long ago. How did it come this far?
A portion of the Bill of Rights.
The cynical side of us can argue that ultimately America’s past acts of benevolence were inspired by its own selfish interests. I believe that is not true. There are always people who lie with a straight face and who manipulate and deceive to further their own interests. But similarly, there too will always be people who truly believe in the greater goods of humanity. America’s decision to finally enter WWII was not one of pure altruistic intentions, but it is simply absurd to compare it to today’s Operation Iraqi Freedom. There might have been individual acts of selfishness, cruelty and moral ambiguity, just as there continues to be in today’s armed conflicts, but WWII, for the Americans, was undeniable a “good war”.
America was never flawless, but its people fought hard to stay true to the ideals of its founding fathers. The civil rights movements of the 20th century came to be only because America’s ideology environment enabled its birth. There continues to be racism and injustice even today, and indeed they may never disappear completely, but a huge part of the American way of life is the struggle itself. Today, in a nation described as secular by its constitution, the President publicly called the war on terrorism a “crusade” and his father, the ex-President, said that “atheists are not citizens or patriots“. To hell (literally?) with the founding fathers and their silly ideas about separation of church and state, eh?
Thomas Jefferson is spinning in his grave now.
But there’s a catch that Mr. Bush and religious fundamentalists should keep in mind: America’s greatness for the past fifty years was largely thanks to the huge advancements it spearheaded in the various fields of science and technology. And here’s some food for thought: according to a recent study in American Scientist, an overwhelming 80% of the leading scientists in American are strict atheist and only 5% holds a traditional view of God in the religious sense. In a nation that is overwhelmingly Christian, this is almost concrete proof that high level enlightenment in science is incompatible, or at least less achievable, with a religious world-view.
Now I profess to be an atheist but I do not take it upon myself to actively persuade people into “converting”. I think people, even Pastafarians and Scientologists, should have the right to believe in what they want to. But it is not unreasonable for me to demand that such beliefs remain personal to those who hold them and be kept out of my life. In today’s America, making such a demand in public is tantamount to career suicide.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Like the African Americans and the homosexuals of the 20th century, American atheists today are discriminated against on a scale unimaginable in most developed European nation. Hell, even the Church of FSM probably gets treated better because apparently in America, belief in any divine supreme being is better than believing in nothing. According to a recent poll, all other factors held equal, more Americans will rather vote for a homosexual or black candidate than an atheist one.
Keep in mind that 80% of American scientists, who are a good representation of the intelligentsia, are atheists and then compare that to the fact that not a single elected politician in America has publicly declared himself/herself to be atheist, we are left with a very unpleasant conclusion: successful American politicians are either liars or idiots. This is clearly not a healthy political environment for the world’s superpower to be in. When will the civil rights movement for the oppressed American atheists come? Will it ever? That is one of the most important questions upon which the future of America’s progress as a nation built on democracy will depend on.
In a recent issue, Captain America died. The superhero who best represented the American spirit is dead. Again the cynical side of us know that Marvel is just trying to make some quick bucks off a character death and he may not even stay dead for long. But still, I find it symbolic and at the very least it manages to stir up some emotions that have been within every one of us who once looked up to America and saw greatness.
Captain America.
But just like how dead superheroes never stay dead, America still has some life left in it. It is not hard to return America back to where it belongs. It took one President to destroy America’s legacy. It will just take another one to restore it. And there is only one candidate who is up for the job.
So if you are American…
PLEASE VOTE FOR
Thank you. You will be much appreciated by the rest of the world.
Disclaimer: I am just a Singaporean teenager. Ideologically speaking, I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I have nothing to gain (except possibly as a member of humankind) from Ron Paul becoming President.
I’m shocked. I thought all this time you were a devout Haruhiist. It is a sad day for Haruhiism when one of its purportedly greatest believers publicly denounces his faith.
Remember, polls show that anime fans are, all other factors equal, more likely to read the blog of a deranged GE player or an insane figure collector than an anti-haruhiist.
Time to kiss that Google cheque goodbye… :D
> according to a recent study in American Scientist,
> an overwhelming 80% of the leading scientists
> in American are strict atheist and only 5% holds
> a traditional view of God in the religious sense.
i checked the article you refer to, and it says:
“Graffin and Provine’s study, called the Cornell Evolution Project, evaluated the results of a questionnaire returned by 149 leading evolutionary scientists about their religious beliefs. Eighty percent of evolutionary scientists were strict atheists.”
so they are ‘leading evolutionary scientists’ not ‘leading scientists’. big difference.
i’m not saying that the most of the leading american scientists are not atheists, only that the article you refer to does not prove what you’re saying.
except this problem, i generally agree with what you’re saying btw.
p.s: would be great to add a preview-comment option to your blog.
I think I would never vote an atheist into office at this point, simply because God knows what an atheist politician would do. (/joke) Your everyday Judeo-Christian politicians have their track records, and it’s pretty obvious as to why a lot of them profess their faiths that way. While as politicians, some are more honest and sincere than others, but the tenants of atheism isn’t automatically humanist, where as such underpinning is a requirement of your traditional major religions (sans maybe Islam).
Perhaps a weak agnostic humanist candidate, I can support.
Lastly you are just outright wrong about persecution of homosexuals in the US. It’s still pretty bad. Atheists have it easy.
Ops I guess I screwed up there. Hmmm but I’m pretty sure Richard
Dawkins quoted similar statistics in a speech he gave at TED… just can’t find them now. Oh well.
Omo, it seems weird to me for someone to claim that atheists are not automatically humanist. I think that is obvious because the two has nothing to do with one another. Similarly, it’s just as weird to say that a person is humanist just because he/she claims to practise a religion.
I think the greatest fallacy committed by most Americans is that religions and morality are related.
Religions are responsible for some good things in the world. But please do not claim that those good things cannot exist without religion or that religions are responsible for only the good things.
Anyway, since there is a significant portion of atheists and agnostics in America, then it follows that there must be at least some representation in government for them. Yet no one in Congress admits to being one. Why? Because American voters think like you do and politicians are forced to lie about being Christian to get voted into office. But apparently that is good enough for you because anyone claiming to be religious is a humanist in your eyes.
Lastly, I didn’t say homosexuals are treated better than atheists. I said more people would rather have one for President.
“Paul advocates a strictly limited role for the federal government, low taxes, free markets, a non-interventionist foreign policy, the abolition of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service, a return to monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency, gun ownership, and an end to drug prohibition. He opposes abortion, capital punishment, gay marriage, and federal influence on education.” (from Wikipedia)
Abolition of the IRS and income tax? Return to hard money? Gun ownership(which you oppose, I think)?
Yikes.
I can’t vote for that man because we need to go as far away from the republican agenda as possible to counter the effects of bush and cheney’s prolonged assumption of power.
He wants to abolish the IRS and income tax on a federal level because he believes that a federal income tax is unconstitutional. Individual states are free to collect taxes. The constitution and libertarian ideologies are the basis for almost all of his opinions on various issues.
There are certain issues which I disagree with him on, but at least he is honest about his stands. He has a consistent voting record for his whole political career and he doesn’t change his fundamental beliefs just because of public opinions. He is the only Republican candidate who voted against the Iraq War when it was first proposed.
As for issues relevant to my interests… He supports Net Neutrality and is against Internet regulation. He is against military interventions. He wants to legalize drugs. He recognizes habeas corpus. He is personally religious, opposes gay marriages and opposes abortions BUT he believes that the federal government should make no laws to govern them and he is right. And, best of all, he said all this without looking at the public opinion poll every 5 seconds.
The entire idea of Separation of Church and State was to prevent another Church of England from springing up in the newly formed USA. It was not designed to be a clear, black and white division between religion and government. The majority of the Founding Fathers were devout Christians, and even those who were not religious, eg. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist – iirc the correct term but, anyways that train of thought believed in a superior being that set everything up much like pocket watch or clock, wound it up, set everything into motion, and watches what happens… in other words people have a certain degree of free will, recognized the importance up a government based on Christian values. Read the Constitution, if you haven’t already, and make sure to note in the early parts the religious references and language.
To say Atheists get little respect in the USA is ridiculous, you obviously haven’t kept up with what the ACLU has been doing. At one point an atheist pretty much got the Pledge of Allegiance declared unconstitutional for a while in Federal Circuit Court because it had the phrase “…one nation under God…”
Ironically how the UK, with the Church being an official state organ, ended up being a whole lot less obsessed with religion than the US.
Anyway, I am not saying atheists are being lynched or anything, but can you deny the fact that atheists are getting sidelined in America? Strict atheists and mild atheists (aka agnostics) are the second largest demographic in America, way bigger than Jews. But just take a look at the political representation and the relative lobbying powers…
It’s one thing for the court to decide that the African American students must be admitted into school. It’s an entirely different thing to say that African Americans receive “respect”.
On a side note, it’s quite a different thing when someone claimed to be religious over 200 years ago. Just a century earlier, Galileo was getting flamed for heliocentrism and science could only operate under religious consent. It was a religious world and even non-believers profess to be Christians. I believe that if those men were born today, they would be atheists.
It’s important to note that not everything in the US happens at the national level. Many US citizens almost completely ignore the workings of the federal government unless interaction is needed. It’s entirely possible to live in a bubble in a specific region of the US. This is largely the way many Americans choose to live. Yes, it is bad for this democracy, but I can’t force them to do anything.
There are places in the US where you can feel free no matter your beliefs. That was and is a goal. It’s the pursuit of happiness. It’s not given to us. Although, as with your argument, it’s a real problem when the path to happiness is blocked. Yet, my hopeful side knows that eventually those blocks will be torn down.
I do think that the US has problems. No, not nearly as bad as some would make it seem. I feel that the country could use a step down from the world stage and let others take over, though. How ’bout Russia or China?
While I was born in China and in fact recently got my Chinese IC after turning 18, I have to say that China is far from being ready to take on the role of being a world superpower. Just look at the way it handles Darfur and anything that is remotely related to its economic interests.
My opinions of Russia are mostly negative but admittedly I do not really know much about it compared to China and USA. For one thing, I do not think it deserves to be a world superpower considering its current political might seems to be derived purely from its nuclear arsenal and natural fuel reserve… I don’t think those are long term solutions to any problems at all.
4th of July, huh ?
Wouldnt it be really cool if some random humongous UFO swooped down from outer space and totally blasted away Washington D.C. ? I think it would be cool…oh well, there is always next year to look up for.
And btw, dont call them people Americans. America is the name for the whole two continents, of which USA is only a small part of.
“My opinions of Russia are mostly negative but admittedly I do not really know much about it compared to China and USA.”
It shows, seeing how you practically spit with US propaganda. They know their stuff in brainwashing.
Wow… where ever do u find the time to read up so much? Completely forgot the date too, until i saw this post.
Btw, it is Bush’s second term in office right? From what i understand, this is to be his last one, is that correct?
As for a world superpower, i’m of the opinion that China and India are probable candidates. This it might not happen any time soon as they both have issues that need to be seen to first. But they do have the advantage in terms of population and with time the knowledge and ability to do so.
On a different track, does anyone think that it is possible for there not to be a superpower to exist? Such that all nations will have equal power to voice their opinion on the world stage?
Oh and is China still a communist state (ie government wise) with revised policies on the distribution of wealth, or has it become completely capitalist?
That’s one point that I have never been able to understand clearly, all i know is that Russia has/is in the process of taking a couple of leaves out of the book used by China to run itself.
@j.valdez : actually i believe that people ignoring the workings of the government exists everywhere, as long as nothing significant happens to distrupt their daily lives. Believe this holds true even for Singapore. :)
I spent all my days on digg, that’s why. :(
Anyway it’s hard to describe what kind of government China has. It’s far from democratic, but it’s hardly what you see in 1984 either. As for economy, it’s pretty much capitalist in nature except that the government likes to play moderator. Well actually a lot of Western nations do that too.
USA used to possess a great amount of soft power in terms of cultural and economic influences. That has more or less been cancelled out by the war and all the screw ups. But just because USA is down doesn’t mean Russia or China will automatically be next in line. I think not having any single superpower at all is a much more plausible alternative. Then again, these are all just my opinions.
Earlier it was mentioned that atheists get politically sidetracked- this is obviously true, but it might be blamed on the nature of atheism or agnosticism. While organizations of religion have things like churches, atheists are spread out. While atheists often have similar viewpoints like members of a religion, they aren’t as cemented. Also atheists lack organizing bodies like churches around which lobbying groups can organize and scout members, not to mention a concrete goal that many lobbying groups are in search of. That said, lack of lobbying interests combined with a lack of politicians with the balls to openly run for government positions as an atheist are probably to blame.
Not to say a politician shouldn’t try, perhaps atheists hold a larger silent majority than we know of. They don’t need to win their running position, just put enough of a fight in to make the US recognize the potential voting pool.
Had fun reading Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” ey?
One thing to keep in mind is that the United States has always had it’s ups and downs. James Buchanan? The Gilded Age presidents? Warren G. Harding?!?! It’s a funny story how he got elected. A great political campaigner was getting his shoes shined when he looked across from him at a man and though “Man, does this guy look like a President.” So he campaigned for Harding and Harding won. Harding, if you didn’t know already, is most remembered for chatting up other people’s wives and playing poker with his friends. So in regards to the Bushes, being President does not mean you’re intelligent in any way shape or form.
As for our atheist quandary, I’d have to point to tradition. Every United States president thus far has been a white, male, Protestant (except for Kennedy and some other guy, they were Catholic). Why not even Catholics? The theory goes that the Pope would control the president. Anyways, America has always had a strong Christian heritage: having a strong (irrational) faith in God has always been in key point for anyone’s public image. Having that faith would also automatically mean the person is moral and good (and all other connotations of Jesus). Being an atheist, you don’t have any of those things.
Or, you can look at it another way. As per studies pointed out in The God Delusion, intelligence and religiosity have a negative correlation. In a country of strong a strong religious heritage, it automatically means that the majority of the people are going to be religious, and thus, a good chunk of that majority will also mean to think that non-religious people are bad.
WoW too much to read in the comments :)
gg for the post :) I really enjoy it
“US Propaganda” – Yikes… from a person in Russia no less. I think you need to worry about your own country’s media and how the government is trying to control it – there were some rather suspicious deaths of journalists within the past couple years – and how Putin is pretty much on the path to put Russia under another dictatorship.
“…having a strong (irrational) faith in God…” – Hate to break it to you but in order for a country to be strong it needs a strong set of shared values. In the USA it happens to be Christian values. Organized religion plays an important part creating a social order and community. Even if you look at the peak years of any Marxist or Communist regime you’ll see people working initially towards the common goal espoused by the regime. Of course once individualistic nature takes effect and those in power become corrupt, everything goes to hell.
Atheists – Do a bit more research… they really aren’t getting a raw deal.
As much as it is interesting to read foreigner opinions of my country, please be more concerned about the state of your own countries. Unless you have lived in the states for an extended amount of time, more than likely you really don’t what you are talking about until you’ve actually experienced life here.
Seriously…. I really, really hope that ending with Ron Paul is ironic… otherwise…. *shakes head*….
The way politics works in the US, appearances are much more important than actuality. I guarantee you that while the majority of politicians, especially at the higher levels, may be “practicing” members of one religion or another, very few actually are. The things that one has to do to become a successful politician go against the very fabric of Judeo-Christian theology, as well as what I understand of Islam and most other theistic religions. Stuff like personal responsibility and integrity aren’t that important when your primary job is to keep from pissing off enough people that you can’t get reelected.
And as for atheists, most of the US is atheist, when you get down to it, or more likely agnostic. I think it’s just that atheists are a little more vocal when they are discriminated against, since Christian history teaches its followers to expect discrimination, while most atheists read “separation of church and state” by its most inflexible meaning. You’ve also got to take into account that in a country so slaved to The Media, the most vocal are always going to be the most extreme. You’ve got the super fundamentalist Christians on the right, who frankly only support conservatism because it jibes slightly more with traditional Christian values, and you’ve got the inarguably more secular far leftists, who support the left mainly because the Christians support the right, but are afraid to fully embrace any kind of atheism or agnosticism because most of the country “claims” to be Christian. People preaching about the middle tend to be pretty boring, however correct they may be.
Kinda like how most blogs are, actually. Most. ^_^
Considering how most of the (english language) internet is filled with US-related stuff, its hard not to get involved in things you don’t understand. XD ie Other people’s countires.
A few of people I know are just too interested in other countries. A few are a WOW guys (American obsessions) and a few others are otakus (Japanese obsessions). Might be observer bias. I might go on and on about the old singaporean inferiority thing but I desist.
And…
Cthulhu for president!
Talking about Dawkins, he is one of the most insulting, snubbing, irritating, dismissive, hardened fart of a scientist, but you got to love his style.
You might know if you’ve watched gits innocence, Dawkins actually believes that life is an expression of self, and self is an expression of genes, and that the entirety of societies are mere “memory systems”.
The interesting thing about america is that even though the evolutionary theory explains perhaps 99%(some might say only) of biology as it is, intelligent design wins 100% of some people’s hearts.
Suddenly linking to haruhi, the anthropic principal that Koizumi Itsuki describes is actually far more useful, in terms of discourse generated, than the use of intelligent design in America.
The bottom line is: Jefferson was an atheist, half of the signers had black slaves when they talked about inalienable human rights, modern americans who think charismatic christian churches with rock concerts are cool and join them believing in intelligent design should watch haruhi, and darkmirage should better separate his arguments.
Happy belated independence day. woohoo. :D
I am an Atheist, and a vocal one at that.
DM, a study mentioned in TGD (The God Delusion; an awesome book) was from MENSA Magazine, and it mentioned that ‘all but 4 out of 27 studies found an inverse relationship between intelligence and religiosity’.
Also, the fact that there is no ‘bastion of atheism’ means that most Atheists are so because of their own thinking (which is opposed to religion, in which you are indoctrinated), and this means that we atheists do not really band together (or know each other, for that matter) due to our differences. On a sidenote, the irony of the recent Malaysian case in which the judge proclaimed ‘you cannot ENTER or leave a religion as you wish’ never fails to bring me laughs and sighs.
quigonkenny, i am afraid I have to disagree with you on most of your points. Even though I am not American, i do have friends in America, and I do watch documentaries and occasional news reports related to Atheism. (I know about the Blasphemy Challenge, Rational Response Squad etc) From what I know, it seems that most Americans believe in a God – and that is a crucial part that defines a religion. Also, you imply that the politicians are ‘religious in appearances only’. How about President Bush? Ted Haggard, the chairman of the National Association of Evangelicals, claims to have a weekly conference call with Bush. And Bush does indeed believe in Christianity, as noted from his speeches. (or maybe his scriptwriter)
Science is under attack in America. Only 28% of Americans believe in Evolution. I fear that the Kansas incident is but a harbinger of the greater war at hand – that between reason and superstition. A Creation museum has even been set up. (To quote a leading archaeologist on the matter: ‘All it needs is a Yabba-Dabba-Doo!’)
There is no Creation-Evolution controversy. There is NO evidence backing Creationism. It also shoots itself in the foot. ‘If a designer is responsible, who designed the designer?’
nooneofconsequence, your statements are of consequence, because they represent a huge problem with America’s ideals today. The Christian argument to Atheists is: ‘We get our morals from the Bible. Where do atheists get their morals from?’ A simple counterattack is this: Are you certain you get your morals from the Bible? Here are some nice morals from the Holy Book itself.
And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord GOD: every man’s sword shall be against his brother.–Ezekiel 38:21
Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
Exodus 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
1 Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Essentially, what most Christians are doing, is picking and choosing. Now, what is the criteria that you use to pick and choose? Obviously not the Bible. Wherever we get our morals from, it is not from the scribblings of men 2000 years ago.
More stuff you (probably) did not know. The End of Faith by Sam Harris writes that what you treasure like ‘Thou shalt not kill’, originally meant ‘Thou shalt not kill another Jew.’ If you threw a stone into a group of 10 infidels and 1 Jew and happened to kill the Jew, you should be forgiven, because you aimed to kill the Jews.
It’s the same story everywhere. All religions are great and nice to their believers, but necessarily cruel to outsiders.
To end this long post, I’ll put things this way. Faith is the anti-thesis of Science. It is a process of non-thinking, in which belief without evidence, or even in spite of evidence, is to be looked upon as virtuous. The battle lines are being drawn. If you are not on the side of reason, then you are on the side of superstition.
Recommended Reading:
The God Delusion – Richard Dawkins
The End of Faith – Sam Harris
god is not Great – Christopher Hitchens
Recommended Websites:
http://richarddawkins.net/ – Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ – Lots of juicy Bible phrases
http://www.atheistnation.net/ – Where you can watch many videos
Recommended Videos:
Root of All Evil?
Jesus Camp
@Thunderance:
I intend to criticise some of your ideas. Flame war!
You are evidently a hardcore atheist. Good for you, having such strong belief in your views. Bad for you, taking things out of context.
The quotes from the bible you take are from the old testament, and your argument that the bible promulgates such, from a modern POV, immoral/unfair acts, are out of context because they completely discount the new testament. To spell it out to you: “Jesus has come to save us.”, that is what the new testament has essentially said. It seems to me you nitpick on some various bad-sounding phrases in the bible. Please think of the bible as a single entity, and accept the discourse of the bible as a whole. Nitpicking doesn’t help anyone.
If you don’t get what I am saying, perhaps a not-so-religious example would suffice. Romeo and Juliet. Juliet was underage. Would you trash the shakespearean classic just because it seems like it promotes lolicon tendencies?
If you have ever studied philosophy or Knowledge and Inquiry, perhaps you may have developed better critical analysis skills and an understanding of the knowledge construction involved.
By the way, your knowledge is outdated. Ted Haggard bowed out a long time ago after the sex scandal involving a male escort. Better to be on the edge of news if you want to stay persuasive. Looks like your background knowledge isn’t too good >.>
You say none of our morals are from the bible. That’s obviously a very stupid claim. Just take a look around you and there are influences of the bible everywhere. While they may not have originated from the bible, the bible has been a propellant for many moral ideals. The institution of marriage, for example, is given much coverage in the bible.
You can say”All religions are great and nice to their believers, but necessarily cruel to outsiders.”…are you sure? If you can blatantly make such a sweeping statement, please name me every religion. If you can’t even name every religion, how can you say each and every one is “cruel” to outsiders?? How are Buddhists “cruel” to outsiders?
Your last paragraph highlighs your ignorance. If faith is the anti-thesis of science then what makes existentialism be? Faith is the belief in something with a lack of evidence. True. Faith itself, is required for science to exist. Kant would even argue that there is no truth in science, owing to the impassable gap between the phenomenological world and absolute reality, only truth in belief. If you do not even believe in the scientific hypothesis, then the falsification experiments which science repeatedly uses has no value.
you say that faith is a “process of non-thinking, in which belief without evidence, or even in spite of evidence, is to be looked upon as virtuous. ”
This is utter bullshit. You are deluded by the rhetorical persuasion of Dawkins to the extent that you are missing an obvious point. If faith is not thinking, then how can faith possibly give rise to a moral quandary? If faith ignores evidence, then what is the bible? The bible is a form of historical evidence, in that, it is already evidence!
Let me enlighten you on THE distinct issue. You are taking a scientific examination of something that is not scientific. You believe that only science can give rise to knowledge. That is not true. Science is but ONE way in which knowledge is constructed. The scientific approach of attempting falsification experiments does not work with all types of knowledge. Just because you can’t carry out a falsification experiment to tell whether or not religion is true doesn’t mean it’s irrational. Religious knowledge is knowledge derived from the sacred text. The sacred text that holds believes is taken as the premise for religious knowledge. Axioms are the requirement for all knowledge, whether scientific or religious.
“The battle lines are being drawn. If you are not on the side of reason, then you are on the side of superstition.”
More crap. First of all, this statement is a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is an unsound argument that uses two criteria in an attempt to vaguely swamp all particulars into either one, but not both, criteria. The obvious flaw is that you can be in both, or you can be in neither.
Secondly, you blatantly swap the word “religion” with “superstition” in an attempt to subvert readers’ thinking to that which is NOT about religion. I am disgusted but in admiration of your disregard for knowledge and it’s construction.
Thirdly, you magnificently claim science is absolutely “reason” and religion is not. If science is all reason, then please explain which part of a certain South Korean stem cell researcher’s fabricated claim to have created stem cells is “reason”. Scientists, all of them, are human. Science is a HUMAN construct. They all have to answer to society(pressure to produce results), to money(faking successful results), their own urge for success(cold fusion hoax), and ultimately their own flaws as humans.
Now that I have utterly smashed you rhetoric, I expect a fiery flaming response!
By the way, darkmirage, the photograph of the soldier troops raising the flag is believed by some to be a fake; or rather it is “posed”….although I could go on a rant about how it became a symbol of victory, courage, triumph against odds, etc etc, but my point being that even though it’s not hard to see why it could be fake, people still see it as a symbol of victory, and later on, of american culture as a whole.
exaltdragon, you misunderstand me, sadly.
First, I AM nitpicking. This is to substantiate my point that if we take our morals from the Bible and the Bible alone, then we would accept ALL that is said in the Bible. Since we do not, there must be an external factor with which we use to pick and choose.
Secondly, your point that it is ‘from a modern PoV, judging what is said in the Bible is out of context.’ But this is exactly the point. If you hold a musty 2000+ year old tome as the ‘holy’ truth, be prepared to be smited. The Bible doesn’t change. Science does. A 2000+ year old unchanging set of rules as the moral guidelines for society today? Good luck trying to sell that one.
Your point on Romeo and Juliet is a false analogy. I have not met anyone that runs around screaming and attempting to convert people and make them worship Shakespeare. Do we use Shakespeare as moral guidelines? I think not.
Your argument that it is unfair to pick on the Old Testament is only to be expected. Is the New Testament really that much better?
Matthew 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Job 1:18-19 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house: And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
Essentially, cruelty and violence still play a great part in the New Testament. Read the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible before attempting to debate this further, please.
Your ‘greatest’ point, I suspect, is about NOMA (Non-overlapping Magisteria Argument). TGD answers it brilliantly. If Science cannot answer any of the ‘big’ questions, what makes you think religion can? Also, saying that Science involves belief is like saying ‘we believe Australia is in the Southern Hemisphere.’ We have no choice but to believe in our senses as the truth. The lack of a direct observation does not make a scientist’s claim any weaker. Also, the thing is, religion makes claims about the world that are testable by the scientific method. ‘Is the world
Eh, the second part of my argument has been cut out >.> Rewriting it is getting really tiring. I’m gonna write the cut out part in point form, can’t be bothered to type it again.
‘Is the world
>>>Talking about Dawkins, he is one of the most insulting, snubbing, irritating, dismissive, hardened fart of a scientist
“You and you’all dang goodin science whizzies and your test tubes and ‘theories’ on this so called ‘evolution’. You thinkin you have your so called ‘logic’ and’all but we have FAITH; and you dang goodin know fo’ a fact that you’all gonna bun in hell!” (For those not familiar with American slang, imagine a sun burned hobo saying it)
>>>By the way, your knowledge is outdated. Ted Haggard bowed out a long time ago after the sex scandal involving a male escort.
Oh! The hypocrisy!
>>>Just take a look around you and there are influences of the bible everywhere. While they may not have originated from the bible, the bible has been a propellant for many moral ideals.
Ah! Like homosexuals burn in hell. And you should kill blasphemers. Why didn’t that one make it, if the Bible is so good at propelling morals? Oh! Because that’s the Old Testament. We kinda ignore that one now since it doesn’t seem to be very popular with the current moral zeitgeist.
>>>Faith itself, is required for science to exist.
True that we have “faith” in our collected facts. But we collected them. That in itself adds an extra “umph” in our certainty. You don’t collect anything. You just take it as is. There is no extra “umph” Thus, it’s fallacious to compare “faith” in science vs faith in God.
>>>If faith is not thinking, then how can faith possibly give rise to a moral quandary?
What quandary? There is no dilemma. Gays are going to hell and that’s final!
>>>The bible is a form of historical evidence, in that, it is already evidence!
Two questions: Was Eve hawt? How long was Adam’s penis?
>>>Religious knowledge is knowledge derived from the sacred text.
Now there’s your problem. Start by considering why it’s considered “sacred”. (The answer is because your Pastor says so and because it’s old.)
>>>Secondly, you blatantly swap the word “religion” with “superstition” in an attempt to subvert readers’ thinking to that which is NOT about religion.
I would say that it’s a reasonable substitution given that most religions constitute a superstitious belief in one deity or another and life after death.
>>>If science is all reason, then please explain which part of a certain South Korean stem cell researcher’s fabricated claim to have created stem cells is “reasonâ€.
The methods, equipment, and theories that he supposedly used were all brought about by “reason”. It’s also completely reasonable that such procedures are possible (from said theories derived from reason). But it’s just sad that he faked the final result. And if you didn’t know already, faking results is NOT scientific.
>>>Now that I have utterly smashed you rhetoric, I expect a fiery flaming response!
Where does this confidence come from? Give me some! Just 10 milligrams would do!
Save yourselves from religion. Stop devoting your precious time and resources on worship and what i might even say ‘preparation’ for what you believe as an ‘afterlife’. Live your life to the fullest right now, and quit religion, for it is harmful.
First people claim that the Bible is the source of their morals.
Then they claim that in the modern context, no one takes the Bible literally any more, particularly the entire book of Deuteronomy. In doing so, they pre-emptively deny others the right to criticize the book for its content by disowning all the inconvenient bits and claiming that they are figurative rather than literal descriptions.
So what changed? If the religion is humanity’s source of morality (and since the Bible hasn’t changed much in the past thousand years), then how is it that our morals changed so much that we now no longer condone stoning and other less pleasant practices described in the Bible and see them only as “figurative metaphors”?
Something changed within us. And whatever it is, it didn’t come from a static book.
The writers of the Bible clearly wanted to incorporate moral virtues into their writings. Although our modern idea of morality has moved on, there are still some fundamental truths that will always remain (no killing etc). It’s not surprising to find similarities between holy texts and reality, but correlation doesn’t equal to causation.
As for the Iwo Jima flag, it doesn’t matter if it’s faked or not. It’s not the first flag that was planted on the island and there were some confusions and mix-ups, but it doesn’t matter. If the same picture was taken today in Iraq, it would not carry the same weight and emotions as it does today. And THAT is the difference between the two wars.
@Beowulf Lee :
ã˜ï½žï½žï½žï½žï½žï½ž
(ji-=stare)
Ok you should feel something…hehe (forgot haruhi’s exact line XD)
@thunderance: haha It seems you are really a dumb arse. I said “Please think of the bible as a single entity, and accept the discourse of the bible as a whole. Nitpicking doesn’t help anyone.”
dumb ARSE!!! haha Take that!!!
@darkmirage: I know, I know. It’s just ironic, IF it were a fake, for it has such a significant cultural value now. If you think in today’s context, fakes/departures-from-ultimate-reality are often blamed for creating pseudo-culture. But instead of being an artefact of pseudo-culture, the picture became a conduit for the construction of an American identity.
I absolutely agree that the bible’s ethics and modern day ethics are not the same. I blame the rise of “economic”(I use this term very broadly) thinking and utilitarianism.
@beowolf: here it is(found it!):
ãã†ï¼Ÿwant me to inject a bit into you?
ji~~~~
ã©ã†ï¼Ÿthat helped, right?
@ thunderance:
Your response wasn’t even one tenth of what i expected. BLEAH~
“Eh, the second part of my argument has been cut out >.> Rewriting it is getting really tiring. I’m gonna write the cut out part in point form, can’t be bothered to type it again.
‘Is the world”
Shocking, pregnant pause……thunderance, I suggest you not put so much bullshit into your posts. I think the comment system was overwhelmed by the amount of bullshit and had to reject the comment. LOL. :D
Religion or America, one of them has to go!
exalt dragon July 7th, 2007 at 12:58 am:
>>>Now that I have utterly smashed you rhetoric, I expect a fiery flaming response!
exalt dragon July 8th, 2007 at 2:00 pm:
>>>Your response wasn’t even one tenth of what i expected. BLEAH~ … I think the comment system was overwhelmed by the amount of bullshit and had to reject the comment. LOL. :D
>.> I can’t be blamed for bulldozing him
Dude, where’s my Civil War? Just kidding.
If you want the rest, I have the rest at home.
Now let us resume this carnival of humanity’s righteousness
May Haruhi save you all
Time to stop regurgitating the digg articles and comments people.
Well, science IS a religion in itself. It’s just that the basis of faith has shifted, that’s all.
Take that you bastards! Heh.
@Darkmirage I dare not comment on Christianity as whole, on how literally they interpret the Bible; however, I’d just like to say that the Bible should be read like a history book written from the religious perspective (which of course would lead to some sort of bias somewhere), and many of the so-called incidences of hardcore stuff that has been quoted so many times were considered normal then (when it was being recorded).
Take for example the oft-used phrase in the New Testament “If a man shall strike your right cheek, offer him your left cheek” (or something to that effect). People love to interpret it as a sign of humility, of love and forgiveness. However, if anyone has bothered asking a priest (I heard this from a Catholic priest), there IS actually another meaning to it. Apparently during those times, it was very insulting and demeaning for one person to be slapped on the right cheek. Therefore, contrary to the tales of forgiveness and love, what the phrase was trying to put forward was that we (insert group who are oppressed/discriminated against) should stand up for ourselves when need be; i.e. when the person slaps your right cheek, you stand up, look him in the eye, and tell him “Hey you, not my right cheek, but my left.”
Therefore, while I agree (I think anyone rational would agree) that the quoted statements from the Bible are waaaay overboard, I would just like to remind everyone that when reading/quoting the Bible, one should really endeavour to find out the cultures/customs of the people/country at that point of time before making hoo-hoo-ga-ga sounds.
Oh, and this wasn’t copied/regurgitated from digg.
>>>Well, science IS a religion in itself. It’s just that the basis of faith has shifted, that’s all.
Religion is defined by its basis of faith. If the basis of faith is shifted, then it’s not religion. To argue the point less semantically, there are glaring differences between the basics science and the basics religion. To equate the two, one then does not understand what science is or does not understand what religion is (most probably science).
>>>I’d just like to say that the Bible should be read like a history book written from the religious perspective
You proved yourself wrong in your own comment. It should not be read like a history book at all. History books don’t provide stories with morals and all the information derived are from factual historical evidence. More likely, it should be read like all other mythological texts. With a little more seriousness perhaps since a lot of literature tend to allude to it.
I didn’t prove myself wrong, I just qualified my comment. Perhaps you might want to take a step back and really try to understand the statement before commenting.
And with regard to the science issue I raised, it’s a difference in opinion that will never be bridged, no matter how much you try to explain. As I grow older, I realise that nothing ever is definite. Who’s to say that your opinion is correct, or mine? I’d rather we just make our stands known, so that we can live alongside each other fine, rather than try to prove that each other’s viewpoints and opinions are flawed and wrong.
Uh. Some things will never be science because science must be falsifiable.
I can claim that there is an invisible person staying in room who is also able to pass through matter. You can never prove me wrong. That’s not science.
Science is faith only as far as we have not disproved it yet. Geocentricism used to be an accepted theory in science until it was disproved. After that it becomes just a belief (for those who still held on to it), not science.
When people try to make statements about science being a matter of faith just like religion (“It’s just a different kind of faith!”), they are plain wrong. Science is nothing like religion. You can disprove bad science but you can never disprove bad beliefs. When contradicting evidence arises, religion ignores those evidences and become more irrelevant while science adapts itself and becomes closer to reality. That is a heck lot bigger difference than what fence-sitter arguments imply.
“When contradicting evidence arises, religion ignores those evidences and become more irrelevant while science adapts itself and becomes closer to reality.”
zzz the comment got cut off. The statement I quoted smacks of bias, and really, I think you need to read up more about religion and the like before commenting like this.
Your so-called definition of bias just means that I have an opinion. Modern relativism is bullshit.
And your statement smacks of prejudice. You assume that everyone who read up more about religion will think like you. What if I already did and what I said was my conclusion? Instead, why don’t you point out exactly which part of religion contradicts my “bias” statement?
I am not saying anything about whether organized religion is good or bad. I am just saying that it most definitely is not science, nor is it anywhere close to being anything like science. And the so-called “neutral” viewpoints are just trying to screw up that clear and sacred divide.
Science is built on the foundation of theories and equations whereby you believe it works. It all works out one way another. Basically the clear and sacred divide is decided by mass conventional public beliefs.
When the theories and equations work out and are able to explain phenomenons, your faith in it increases. Isn’t this the case in ancient times when religion was the society’s science? Rather than say that “neutral” views are there to screw up the divide, why not just say that the public belief nowadays is engraved so deep in society that people are unwilling to shift their mindsets off what supposedly proven and moves their world? 5000 years ago, people didn’t dare to offend their gods as those were the “proven” entities that move their world. And it must have been somehow proven in some way or another, be it fake or coincidental or just possibly true, to cause society to be widely influenced by “spirits” and “gods”. How different is that from the situation you describe now?
Heck, we are still using conventional current equations even after it has been proven to be incorrect just because it’s convenient for us.
@Darkmirage:
RE:That is a heck lot bigger difference than what fence-sitter arguments imply.
2 words: Nonoverlapping Magisteria.
@Mitsuki:
“And with regard to the science issue I raised, it’s a difference in opinion that will never be bridged, no matter how much you try to explain. As I grow older, I realise that nothing ever is definite. Who’s to say that your opinion is correct, or mine? I’d rather we just make our stands known, so that we can live alongside each other fine, rather than try to prove that each other’s viewpoints and opinions are flawed and wrong.”
What about fundamental truths? I don’t know whether this which you pose is meant in it’s own strict context but are you going to tell me that the gravitational constant or particle-mass ratios are “opinions”?
@exaltdragon I’ll refer you to Lian’s comment.
Wow. I’m surprised to see a person living in Singapore to talk this much bout the crappy US of A.
Hi, my sites:cfc7a3d0e73b0309295264563c48988f