Old Fashioned

[firegod]

This is an article/message I wrote over a year ago. I thought I would throw it at you MoFos just for the hell of it. Here it is.

Do I have a philosophy or belief system? Well, when it comes to humans and how
they should treat each other, yes I do. Basically, my belief system says
that "old fashioned" ideas are bad. What? How can that be bad??

Do me a favor: try to look at how racist, sexist, homophobic, religion
intolerant and otherwise bigoted the average person is. Now, compare that
average person to the average person 150 years ago. Big difference. The social
changes we have made in that time are absolutely staggering, and it amazes me
that many people can't understand that we are moving in the right direction.

These changes consist of one major principal: treat people like human beings
above all else. Were black slaves in America being treated like human beings?
Were wives being treated like humans when they were completely ruled by their
husbands and couldn't even vote in their own country? Were gays treated like
humans 150 years ago? The more advanced our society becomes, the more human we
will treat each other.

We are not natural creatures; we are sentient beings. When a bear protects her
territory by running after another bear, that is understandable, as we realize
that her instincts are telling her to do that, and we also realize that those
instincts serve a very good purpose for her. When a male lion kills the cubs in
the pride he just took over, we realize that he is being ruled by his instinct
to procreate. We have strong instincts, as we used to be natural creatures (as
prehumans), but we are sentient beings now, which means that our ability to
reason is the most dominant part of our lives. The more we realize that, the
more we will actually behave in sentient ways. We have come a very long way but
I believe we have much further to go.

Let's tackle the subject of gender for a moment. Nature makes men bigger and
stronger than women, as well as different emotionally and mentally. However, I
believe that most of the mental and emotional differences, and some of the
physical differences, are created by society rather than nature. The natural
differences caused prehumans and early humans to act in certain natural ways
and develope certain customs, beliefs and attitudes based on those natural
differences.

Considering the fact that there is very little muscular difference between boys
and girls under the age of 13, do you think that nature is the biggest reason
why boys are so much better than girls in sports, or is it because we raise
boys and girls to be completely different? We give girls baby dolls, Barbie
Dolls and cooking toys while we give boys bats, balls and G.I. Joe Dolls, and
you think that nature is the biggest factor? The dominance that boys have in
sports is drastically diminishing as we are giving girls more and more sports
opportunities.

Let's keep in mind that there are many natural differences based on race as
well; should we treat each other totally differently based on those
differences, or should we treat each person as an individual first? Our society
is becoming more and more equal because we are quickly realizing that the
latter answer is the better one. Again, it is very impressive, but we still
have a long way to go.

One thing that can keep you from understanding these simple concepts is if you
have a belief that humankind started with two sentient humans about 6,000 years
ago. If that story is true, then we were never ruled by nature to the extent
that I claim we were. I believe that religion is one of the major factors in
why it took so long for us to start to change our attitudes about how we should
treat human beings. I think you will find that the more religious one is, the
more old-fashioned that person is likely to be. If you can get past the stories
in genesis, I believe you can understand the natural and sentient facets of
humanity and understand why we are headed in the direction we are.

It is certainly possible for us to go backwards socially. If that ever happens,
then maybe "old-fashioned" will become an attitude that I can embrace; however,
for now, it is an attitude that I can only see as a negative one.

[Yoda]

He said he wrote it over a year ago...so no...he was dang near thirty at the time, I believe. :)

Do me a favor: try to look at how racist, sexist, homophobic, religion
intolerant and otherwise bigoted the average person is. Now, compare that
average person to the average person 150 years ago. Big difference. The social
changes we have made in that time are absolutely staggering, and it amazes me
that many people can't understand that we are moving in the right direction.
Makes no sense. Just because SOME old-fashioned ideas were bad, it doesn't justify the statement "Basically, my belief system says that "old fashioned" ideas are bad." That's a ridiculous generalization.

We are not natural creatures; we are sentient beings.
What's a "natural creature"? Seems like an odd name for something simply less evolved, according to you.

Considering the fact that there is very little muscular difference between boys
and girls under the age of 13, do you think that nature is the biggest reason
why boys are so much better than girls in sports, or is it because we raise
boys and girls to be completely different? We give girls baby dolls, Barbie
Dolls and cooking toys while we give boys bats, balls and G.I. Joe Dolls, and
you think that nature is the biggest factor? The dominance that boys have in
sports is drastically diminishing as we are giving girls more and more sports
opportunities.
Not true. For one, the physical makeup of a woman is fixed regardless of whether or not she's a tomboy playing baseball, or inside playing with dolls. Their bodies are clearly very different from our own. The earlier you go, the less difference you find between the sexes...but once the sex is determine, the gap is widened non-stop until complete maturity is reached.

As for sports: the dominance is only "diminishing" slightly. I wouldn't say someone who takes a glass of water and scoops out a bit of Lake Erie has really "diminished" its water supply by any reasonable measure.

One thing that can keep you from understanding these simple concepts is if you
have a belief that humankind started with two sentient humans about 6,000 years
ago. If that story is true, then we were never ruled by nature to the extent
that I claim we were. I believe that religion is one of the major factors in
why it took so long for us to start to change our attitudes about how we should
treat human beings. I think you will find that the more religious one is, the
more old-fashioned that person is likely to be. If you can get past the stories
in genesis, I believe you can understand the natural and sentient facets of
humanity and understand why we are headed in the direction we are.
Don't even get me started...the idea that religion has held back forward-thinking is nonsense. I'll give you a "grace period" here to retract that...otherwise, I'll have to start citing examples of major forward Christian thinking and ideals throughout history. :)

That said, the entire point of the essay is rather ruined by your generalization about old-fashioned ideals. Why you couldn't have limited your statement to SPECIFIC old-fashioned ideals is beyond me.

[Yoda]

By the way, the "treat people like human beings" line gets us nowhere. "People" is just another word for "human beings," really. If you'd gone back to the South before the Civil War, and had said that, they'd have told you blacks were not human beings, really.

So I don't agree with your assertion that it all boils down to that, either. :nope:

[firegod]

LS and Yoda,

I appreciate the honesty, but I think it is relevant to point out that this was a message for another message board that was merely in the form of an article, not my submission to the "greatest article of all time" contest. I wasn't claiming it to be a great article; I merely thought it was an interesting subject to bring up. Sorry for not being clear on that.

Originally posted by Yoda
Makes no sense. Just because SOME old-fashioned ideas were bad, it doesn't justify the statement "Basically, my belief system says that "old fashioned" ideas are bad." That's a ridiculous generalization.

Slavery or virtual slavery based on race, nationality, religion and gender; inquisitions; The Crusades; beheadings; human burnings; gladiators; rapes; hangings; democracy; critical thinking; voting rights, professional rights. These are all things (and there are probably many more I haven't thought of yet) that we have either eliminated, improved upon or introduced in our history, improving our society. Ridiculous generalization? No, I think we are seeing a legitimate social patern here.


What's a "natural creature"? Seems like an odd name for something simply less evolved, according to you.

A natural creature relies more on instincts than intelligence. We don't. Our instincts are strong, but not as strong as our ability to reason.

Not true. For one, the physical makeup of a woman is fixed regardless of whether or not she's a tomboy playing baseball, or inside playing with dolls.

Preposterous. No one's physical makeup is fixed. If a woman rarely uses her muscles they will be small, while if she uses them a lot they will be bigger; the same thing goes for men. Take a look at some female body builders and tell me that "the physical makeup of a woman is fixed" again. Perhaps you thought I was suggesting that the average woman can be as big as the average man or the the biggest woman could be as big as the biggest man? You don't think that lowly of me. I wasn't claiming that society is the biggest reason for MEN dominating over WOMEN in sports, but why boys 13 and under have been so much better than girls 13 and under. It's mostly society, and those differences are disappearing fast as girls get more involved in sports.

Toys play a HUGE part in how our kids develope. When I was a kid, I saw many girls (not most) playing almost exclusively with dolls and cooking toys. Hardly anything else. Boys got car driving toys, sports toys, blocks, etc, etc. That has been changing and nowadays both girls and boys are getting a wider range of toys; I see that as a good thing.

Their (women's) bodies are clearly very different from our own.

Of course they are, and mostly by nature. I never said they weren't. However, social differences have played a small part. It's not like I'm suggesting that given the same opportunities as a man, a woman could become the MVP in the NFL for crying out loud. But the big improvements we've seen to the performance of women and girls in sports due to the increase in sports availability to females is an example of how society can have some impact on physical prowess that may appear to some as 100% natural.

Society has a much bigger impact on other things, however. How many female doctors and lawyers were there 200 years ago? 100 years ago? How many now? Some would say we are going in the wrong direction, that we need to go back to the old ways of thinking: men are strong like iron, women are beautiful like flowers. Well, yeah, men are usually stronger by nature, and I personally wouldn't argue with someone saying women are more beautiful; but should we concentrate on those differences to the extent that we used to or even to the extenet that we still do? I say no. We should treat each person as an individual first, and worry about other stuff after.

The earlier you go, the less difference you find between the sexes...but once the sex is determine, the gap is widened non-stop until complete maturity is reached.

When it comes to muscles, there isn't a very big difference between girls and boys under the age of 13. There are exceptions, of course. For example, a pubescent 10 year old boy gaining tons of testosterone causing his muscles to grow faster than most boys and girls his age.

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to know this subject very well, Chris. You might want to study it a bit more before debating it. Just a thought.

As for sports: the dominance is only "diminishing" slightly. I wouldn't say someone who takes a glass of water and scoops out a bit of Lake Erie has really "diminished" its water supply by any reasonable measure.

It depends on how early a time you compare to this time, obviously. Five year ago, ok; but what about 15? 50? 150? 150 years ago, American women barely played any sports at all.

Don't even get me started...the idea that religion has held back forward-thinking is nonsense. I'll give you a "grace period" here to retract that...otherwise, I'll have to start citing examples of major forward Christian thinking and ideals throughout history.
If you believe that the Adam and Eve story is true (which I don't think you do) then you probably don't believe in prehumans, and probably don't believe that we were once more ruled by instincts than reason. That was what I was concentrating on much more than religion in general. But by all means, I'd like to see your examples if you feel like listing them.


That said, the entire point of the essay is rather ruined by your generalization about old-fashioned ideals. Why you couldn't have limited your statement to SPECIFIC old-fashioned ideals is beyond me.

Since the message was an attempt to explain my belief system on how humans should be treated, perhaps it should have been more general rather than more specific.


By the way, the "treat people like human beings" line gets us nowhere. "People" is just another word for "human beings," really. If you'd gone back to the South before the Civil War, and had said that, they'd have told you blacks were not human beings, really.

So I don't agree with your assertion that it all boils down to that, either.

Oh, I think it does get us somewhere. Whether you use the word people, human, individual or whatever, people giving other people more freedom and humane treatment has been a huge improvement in our history, especially in the last couple hundred years. One way to say it is: "People treating people more like PEOPLE." I don't get the disagreement with using the word human. I also don't get how your comment about Civil War southerners not considering blacks to be human supports your argument in the slightest. Not that it matters much, but I don't really agree with the statement anyways. I think many of them did, while many didn't.

[Yoda]

I appreciate the honesty, but I think it is relevant to point out that this was a message for another message board that was merely in the form of an article, not my submission to the "greatest article of all time" contest. I wasn't claiming it to be a great article; I merely thought it was an interesting subject to bring up. Sorry for not being clear on that.
No clarification needed. :) Makes no difference, as far as I can see.

Slavery or virtual slavery based on race, nationality, religion and gender; inquisitions; The Crusades; beheadings; human burnings; gladiators; rapes; hangings; democracy; critical thinking; voting rights, professional rights. These are all things (and there are probably many more I haven't thought of yet) that we have either eliminated, improved upon or introduced in our history, improving our society. Ridiculous generalization? No, I think we are seeing a legitimate social patern here.
A few things: An "inquisition" is just an investigation. Are you referring to SPECIFIC inquisitions?

The Crusades were a counter-attack to REPEATED provocations. That part's usually left out...as is the fact that Christians have been about as persecuted as any group of people in history.

Rapes? Is that a joke? Rape is not an old-fashioned idea...it's a timeless idea. An idea is not old-fashioned just because it once existed long ago. By that logic, TALKING is an old-fashioned idea. It exists now and probably will forever, unfortunately. The implication throughout your article is clearly that by "old fashioned ideas," you mean things accepted as good and moral in older times that are not actually good and moral.

Critical thinking? Are you trying to tell me that you believe critical thinking was born in modern times? And isn't critical thinking a GOOD thing, anyway?BTW: yes, there are MANY more you haven't thought of. But what does a list like this prove, anyway? There are millions of ideas and concepts that were born hundreds and even thousands of years ago...do you think that listing a dozen of them proves anything at all? I certainly hope not.

Or maybe you've forgotten that The Bible, around 2,000 years old, is the basis for almost all modern morality, most of which YOU personally subscribe to. :)

A natural creature relies more on instincts than intelligence. We don't. Our instincts are strong, but not as strong as our ability to reason.
This brings back memories of our old arguments about why you should or should not care about the well-being of your family after you die. The only reason you should, really, is because of your instinct to preserve your species in general. But if your reason is stronger, WHY would you concern yourself with that? Or is your position that you merely don't feel willing to fight your instincts on that one?

Preposterous. No one's physical makeup is fixed. If a woman rarely uses her muscles they will be small, while if she uses them a lot they will be bigger; the same thing goes for men. Take a look at some female body builders and tell me that "the physical makeup of a woman is fixed" again. Perhaps you thought I was suggesting that the average woman can be as big as the average man or the the biggest woman could be as big as the biggest man? You don't think that lowly of me. I wasn't claiming that society is the biggest reason for MEN dominating over WOMEN in sports, but why boys 13 and under have been so much better than girls 13 and under. It's mostly society, and those differences are disappearing fast as girls get more involved in sports.
I don't mean fixed in that sense. Your basic physical tendencies and leanings ARE fixed. You have to fight like mad to change them. In short: men being stronger than women in general has next to nothing to do with whether or not you buy them a G.I. Joe or an EZ-Bake oven.

Toys play a HUGE part in how our kids develope. When I was a kid, I saw many girls (not most) playing almost exclusively with dolls and cooking toys. Hardly anything else. Boys got car driving toys, sports toys, blocks, etc, etc. That has been changing and nowadays both girls and boys are getting a wider range of toys; I see that as a good thing.
Why?

We should treat each person as an individual first, and worry about other stuff after.
I propose something similar: we treat each IDEA as an individual IDEA first, and worry about whether or not it's "old fashioned" after.

Realize something: compared to our time, almost all ideas are old-fashioned ideas. The good and the bad. To disapprove of "old fashioned ideas" is ridiculous. How about we just disapprove of BAD ideas? I suppose you'll say that you think the majority of bad ideas are old-fashioned, yes? Well, so are the majority of good ideas...because the majority of ideas, period, originated in the past. Very few ideas today originated anywhere other than the past.

Your specific targetting of "old fashioned ideals" is clearly a way to tie your distaste for religion (which was more widespread in the past, even though it's very widespread today) into the issue.

When it comes to muscles, there isn't a very big difference between girls and boys under the age of 13. There are exceptions, of course. For example, a pubescent 10 year old boy gaining tons of testosterone causing his muscles to grow faster than most boys and girls his age.

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to know this subject very well, Chris. You might want to study it a bit more before debating it. Just a thought.
With all due respect, I don't think you have any idea of what I know on the subject. :) Anyway, that's funny coming from a guy who just, well, repeated himself, basically. I heard ya' the first time. :)

Like I said: the gap widens over time. This applies to physical appearance as well. It's why we dress baby girls up in pink and baby boys up in blue: you can't really determine their gender sans gential-inspection early on. Ever see a 13 year old boy with long hair? Looks a lot more feminine than a 30 year old man with long hair. As you get older, your gender obviously becomes more refined and settle.

Not that it matters at all to the issue at hand.

It depends on how early a time you compare to this time, obviously. Five year ago, ok; but what about 15? 50? 150? 150 years ago, American women barely played any sports at all.
We're not talking about merely playing sports...but rather, dominance. To say that women were, say, .001% capable of overthrowing that dominance, when they were formerly .00001% capable...well, the Lake Erie analogy says it best.

The only women who will REALLY break those walls will be, I hate to use the word, the freaks, most likely. The ones on ESPN2 looking hideous -- the ones you mentioned...professional bodybuilders (lest anyone thinks of me as sexist, most of the men look hideous these days, too. The whole sport is ugly).

If you believe that the Adam and Eve story is true (which I don't think you do) then you probably don't believe in prehumans, and probably don't believe that we were once more ruled by instincts than reason. That was what I was concentrating on much more than religion in general. But by all means, I'd like to see your examples if you feel like listing them.
I'm not sure if I believe in the story or not. But it's not really applicable.

Now, as I've stated before, compiling a list of this sort is not proof at all. But, since you seem to be fond of it, here goes:

Galileo's teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun was basically FUNDED by the Catholic Church. The Pope of the time did not persecute him for this...he wrote a poem celebrating his works! The persecution came later, and for a very different reason.

The FIRST person to publicly question the idea that the Sun revolved around the Earth was Nicholas Copernicus, a staunch Christian. Heliocentricity, no matter how you look at it, came about through Christians.

No one tells you THAT. Least of all those looking to make a case against religion. Those people just stop once they've found the "evidence" they're specifically looking for.


Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates all believed in some sort of God. Surely these men qualify as forward-thinkers? Most of their beliefs in morality and equality (heck, almost ALL of them) stemmed from their believe in a Divine Power.

How about Albert Einstein, who likely believed in God, but not religion?


An early supporter of evolution, in a way, Seneca claimed (he was born in 3 B.C.) that all of mankind would be overthrown "in an hour" and that a circle of life of sorts would start anew. Quite a ways ahead of Darwin...who got the idea from his grandfather, I might add.


Scientist/Historian Lynn White asserted that "The attitudes, motivations and most of the basic skills of modern technology before the electronics revolution originated not in Mediterranean antiquity but during the 'barbarian' Middle Ages." Early concepts of planes, cars, and submarines came from this time.

The concept of bookkeeping came from a Christian, last I checked. Saint Benedict is sometimes called the "godfather of libraries," and is largely responsible for the preservation of literature through the Middle Ages.

Most monks during this time were pioneers in waterpowered machines. Almost all the data we have about hammer forges before the year 1200 for example, we have because of things written by Cistercian monks! The clergy of that day acted as Priest, Scholar, AND Scientist. These days, skills are more specific and refined, so that a "jack of all trades" is harder to produce (Jim Thorpe wouldn't dominate several sports today...he'd have to pick one and focus on it), but back then, your Priest, or Monk, was a person you could turn to for all sorts of help and practical knowledge.

Oh, and did I mention that many of them studied medicine far in advance of many more popular fellows in the field?

Of course, no one tells you THAT side of things.


A monk at Malmesbury Abbey, roughly a THOUSAND years ago, tried to fly a primitive hang glider.


The Declaration of Independence and our country's foundation is rooted in religion, no matter how much you want to deny it. Early settlers came here to avoid persecution and find religious freedom...there was hardly an Atheist or Agnostic to be found among them. The greatest (and one of the freest) countries in the history of the world was founded on the idea that men were CREATED equal...that objectively, they had unalienable rights. And objectivity necessitates a God of some sort.

If you take almost nothing away from my little rant, take this:

There's no way around the fact that you live in a wonderful country populated largely by Christians, built largely by Christians, and founded largely by Christians on largely Christian principles.There are more...many more. LIBRARIES full of these things. Like I said: a little list like this proves nothing...but since you seem to be fond of one, there's one for you.

As you can see, religion is clearly not holding anyone or anything back. There is no conflict between a belief in God, and a desire to study the world around you. Racism and sexism are present regardless of religion. Religion was merely the excuse to inflict certain things...not the cause.

It's amazing how much of popular knowledge is missing a crucial piece of the puzzle. When you live in a world so vastly sure of the existence of God, I guess you have to latch onto anything, no matter how misleading or untrue, to try to hold up the ridiculous notion that no such thing exists.

Atheism would have you believe that it's logical and rational, but if you break it down, you'll find it relies on Faith and a lot of very uncompelling assumptions.

You know what I find amusing? The fact that you emphasize moving away from the animals and towards peace and wisdom and knowledge. Funny, sounds like something out of The Bible, doesn't it? The belief that we are above the animals and therefore should act as such (act our age, so to speak) is a Biblical one. It is Atheism that blurs the lines between us and animals, because, as far as its concerned, we're just a bit farther along then them...not inherently above.

Since the message was an attempt to explain my belief system on how humans should be treated, perhaps it should have been more general rather than more specific.
I'd say more than "perhaps," but hey, whatever.

Oh, I think it does get us somewhere. Whether you use the word people, human, individual or whatever, people giving other people more freedom and humane treatment has been a huge improvement in our history, especially in the last couple hundred years. One way to say it is: "People treating people more like PEOPLE." I don't get the disagreement with using the word human. I also don't get how your comment about Civil War southerners not considering blacks to be human supports your argument in the slightest. Not that it matters much, but I don't really agree with the statement anyways. I think many of them did, while many didn't.
It supports my argument because you sum up one of your stances as being, basically "treat people like human beings" -- the point about the South is that that principle would have done no good whatsoever. They didn't think blacks WERE human beings. THAT was the problem, basically.

The disagreement with the word human is that it's just a synonym for the word people. You're essentially saying "treat people like people."

[The Silver Bullet]

As opposed to like fish.

Sorry. Needed the comic relief.
By the way; Chris is on fire everyone. Read that post. It's the man at his best.

[Yoda]

Damn straight. Where are YOUR hang-gliding Monks, Fire? C'mon, you've gotta put something up against the hang-gliding Monks. I'll settle for an Agnostic in a Jetpack.

[firegod]

I see no reason to debate you right now, as you are on full irrational mode at the moment. I have corrected several misinterpretations you have made of my arguments, and you have continued on as if you don't understand or haven't even read most of my response. Read it again, and get back to me if you wish.

[The Silver Bullet]

You mean, I think, that you see no reason to debate with him right now.

Small point, but you know me.

[Yoda]

The only one I see is your assertion that some people in the South considered black people to be human...which is largely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

If you don't wish to continue, that's your decision...but don't try to pass it off as if it's merely because I am on "irrational mode." Please...this coming from the man who responded with "You're acting retarded" in another argument.

The fact of the matter is that your argument is far too loose with its assumptions and generalizations, and most of them do not hold water. If you still think I've misinterpreted your arguments, well, spell it out for me and we'll go from there.

FYI: the Agnostic in a Jetpack line was a joke. I wasn't actually berating you.

[firegod]

Yup. :)

[firegod]

Yoda,

When you have re-read my response and found the half dozen things you previously missed, let me know.

[Yoda]

Sounds like a cop-out of magnificent proportions, to be blunt. :) You said many things in your post that didn't make a whole lot of sense...so, I replied to them and told you why. Apparently you're not willing to do the same when you disagree or think someone has missed something.

If I've misinterpreted and messed up so much, you should have no trouble roasting me alive with your response. Methinks, given your response in the OTHER thread discussing religion, this has nothing to do with misinterpretation.

[Yoda]

By the way: I just re-read my post. Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but I don't see what you're referring to. Feel free to enlighten me at any time.

[firegod]

Originally posted by firegod
Slavery or virtual slavery based on race, nationality, religion and gender; inquisitions; The Crusades; beheadings; human burnings; gladiators; rapes; hangings; democracy; critical thinking; voting rights, professional rights. These are all things (and there are probably many more I haven't thought of yet) that we have either eliminated, improved upon or introduced in our history, improving our society.

Did you ignore the last part of that sentence? I was obviously listing negative things that have been eliminated or improved, AS WELL AS postive things that have been introduced. In your current state though ( a very irrational one, perhaps stemnig from anger at my so-called article?), that wasn't obvious to you.


Perhaps you thought I was suggesting that the average woman can be as big as the average man or the the biggest woman could be as big as the biggest man? You don't think that lowly of me. I wasn't claiming that society is the biggest reason for MEN dominating over WOMEN in sports, but why boys 13 and under have been so much better than girls 13 and under. It's mostly society, and those differences are disappearing fast as girls get more involved in sports.

You seemed to ignore all of that and are still acting like I was talking about women when I was talking about girls under the age of 13.

If you believe that the Adam and Eve story is true (which I don't think you do) then you probably don't believe in prehumans, and probably don't believe that we were once more ruled by instincts than reason. That was what I was concentrating on much more than religion in general. But by all means, I'd like to see your examples if you feel like listing them.


Since your reading comprehension appears to be completely shot right now, I'll say it again... That article had very little if anything to do with religion in general. The Adam and Eve story had to do with prehumans and instinct. If you believe the Adam and Eve story, you will have a hard time understanding how we used to be dominated more by nature than by reason. Pretty simple.

One way to say it is: "People treating people more like PEOPLE."

This is something else you seemed to skip over. Having a bad day, Chris? It certainly seems so.

[Yoda]

Did you ignore the last part of that sentence? I was obviously listing negative things that have been eliminated or improved, AS WELL AS postive things that have been introduced. In your current state though ( a very irrational one, perhaps stemnig from anger at my so-called article?), that wasn't obvious to you.
Your list makes no more sense in that context. Examples: My earlier comment about inquisitions still stands.

Critical thinking has been improved? Critical thinking is as it always was: some people use it, some people don't.

Religion and gender? I don't follow. Are you referring to religion's attitude towards gender? If so, what religion? Some haven't improved much at all.
You seemed to ignore all of that and are still acting like I was talking about women when I was talking about girls under the age of 13.
Not at all. Read my response again. The word "women" can and is sometimes used to encompass all females. Does your disagreement here stem only from the use of the word "women" instead of "girls"?

Since your reading comprehension appears to be completely shot right now, I'll say it again... That article had very little if anything to do with religion in general. The Adam and Eve story had to do with prehumans and instinct. If you believe the Adam and Eve story, you will have a hard time understanding how we used to be dominated more by nature than by reason. Pretty simple.
There are several things...

1 - I understand perfectly well that you claim that we used to be dominated more by instincts and less by reason.

2 - The article had a lot more to do with religion than you are acknowleding, though most of it was implied and not said outright. The ties you make between religion and faulty thinking are not as subtle as you seem to think.

3 - You said you'd like to see a list, so I wrote you up a little list. Ta-da.

This is something else you seemed to skip over. Having a bad day, Chris? It certainly seems so.
Actually, I'm having a great day. I'll have an even better day if you reply to the other argument in the other thread with something a bit more intellectually stimulating then "You're retarded," though. :)

As for skipping over: not at all. You're just repeating yourself with that for the most part. The minor change doesn't change the point: that as much as you'd like to think that that's the big solution in a nutshell, it isn't. It's vague and unhelpful.

Again: the implication is DISTURBINGLY clear...religion supports old-fashioned ideas...old-fashioned ideas are bad. That's your essay in a nutshell. You can twist it and skew it to try to make it look as if it has nothing to do with religion, but it does.

Even if it doesn't, I'd still have (and have had) major objections to your clarification of what consitutes an "old fashioned" idea. As I pointed out already, virtually all ideas are old fashioned in the sense that they originated a long time ago. So what's the deal, Fire?

[firegod]

I'm heading out, but I'll clarify something you misunderstood.


Slavery or virtual slavery based on race, nationality, religion and gender;

I'm referring to enslaving someone because they are black, Jewish, Christian, Irish, female, etc. It was a list within a list; I wasn't really saying anything about "religion and women". Hope you get it now. Chat at ya later.

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by firegod
This is an article/message I wrote over a year ago. I thought I would throw it at you MoFos just for the hell of it. Here it is.

Yay! Finally a peek into your head...



Do I have a philosophy or belief system? Well, when it comes to humans and how
they should treat each other, yes I do. Basically, my belief system says
that "old fashioned" ideas are bad. What? How can that be bad??
I see what you are getting at... I would maintain that some old fashioned ideals are worth saving, you know..the whole "do unto others" thing pretty much holds water today. It is amazing that in watching "Leave it to Beaver" episodes we are looking at people who thought blacks were not competent to vote etc. It's stunning how close that is to us on the timeline of humanity.

Do me a favor: try to look at how racist, sexist, homophobic, religion
intolerant and otherwise bigoted the average person is. Now, compare that
average person to the average person 150 years ago. Big difference. The social
changes we have made in that time are absolutely staggering, and it amazes me
that many people can't understand that we are moving in the right direction.
I agree with this. We always hear of "The good old days," but if we look back to even our grandfather's time, people were WAY less tolerant of differences. My grandfather referred to having a "nig*ermaid" as a child... it was not meant as derogatory language, only a description. Here in the south it still exists. My parents bought a house in a very small town close to me. I went with my dad to the courthouse/post office to register his address and they still had water fountains in the building that were labeled "Colored" and "White". I don't think anyone pays attention to them anymore but all this is RECENT.... like in my lifetime.

These changes consist of one major principal: treat people like human beings
above all else. Were black slaves in America being treated like human beings?
Were wives being treated like humans when they were completely ruled by their
husbands and couldn't even vote in their own country? Were gays treated like
humans 150 years ago? The more advanced our society becomes, the more human we
will treat each other.
Okay... the caveat I will take with this is the in making the slaves in America a focal point. It's cutting nuts, and your viewpoint is valid, I do have issues with slavery being the sole responsibility of America. I will tell you that having lived in New York state then moving to the south it is a completely different world of race relations. The hate shown towards white folks by black folks here is way on the rise. I'm seeing reverse discrimination on a daily basis and no one is squeaking about it. I don't see how it's any better or different than the reverse of it but there sure is more tolerance of it.

We are not natural creatures; we are sentient beings. When a bear protects her
territory by running after another bear, that is understandable, as we realize
that her instincts are telling her to do that, and we also realize that those
instincts serve a very good purpose for her. When a male lion kills the cubs in
the pride he just took over, we realize that he is being ruled by his instinct
to procreate. We have strong instincts, as we used to be natural creatures (as
prehumans), but we are sentient beings now, which means that our ability to
reason is the most dominant part of our lives. The more we realize that, the
more we will actually behave in sentient ways. We have come a very long way but
I believe we have much further to go.
Hmmm... I don't know about this. I hear what you're saying but I remain unconvinced that we are a product of evolution. I see the similarities but I don't buy them. We have instincts... we are capable of thought but I don't think one will ever be exclusive of the other, in fact I think they require the presence of each other to exist in a synergistic relationship. I DO think some people are more prone to thought and reason and some are more prone to instinct but drawing a line and saying that we are one or the other is maybe stepping too far out there for me.

Let's tackle the subject of gender for a moment. Nature makes men bigger and
stronger than women, as well as different emotionally and mentally. However, I
believe that most of the mental and emotional differences, and some of the
physical differences, are created by society rather than nature. The natural
differences caused prehumans and early humans to act in certain natural ways
and develope certain customs, beliefs and attitudes based on those natural
differences.

Considering the fact that there is very little muscular difference between boys
and girls under the age of 13, do you think that nature is the biggest reason
why boys are so much better than girls in sports, or is it because we raise
boys and girls to be completely different? We give girls baby dolls, Barbie
Dolls and cooking toys while we give boys bats, balls and G.I. Joe Dolls, and
you think that nature is the biggest factor? The dominance that boys have in
sports is drastically diminishing as we are giving girls more and more sports
opportunities.
You don't have children, do you? Well, firstly I think the similarities in boys and girls at a young age are due to the fact that the hormones are not in swing until puberty. As soon as that engine starts the diffeences become obvious. As for the toy statement, well, my son liked dolls when he was 2-3 years old. I didn't discourage him from playing with them. I bought him several when he asked for them. Now he's nine and into sports and boy stuff... playing with dolls didn't 'ruin' him at all. It comes out now that he just loves babies. He still does... he plays with them every chance he gets. My daughter like "boy" stuff (I think to emulate her brother) and I encourage her to play with whatever she wants to play with. She's grown into the girliest girl I've ever met. To me this underscores that the differences are inherent to gender...not to surroundings. ALL people are individual..some girls excel at sports, some boys do not... no biggie, that's what makes the world turn.

Let's keep in mind that there are many natural differences based on race as
well; should we treat each other totally differently based on those
differences, or should we treat each person as an individual first? Our society
is becoming more and more equal because we are quickly realizing that the
latter answer is the better one. Again, it is very impressive, but we still
have a long way to go.
Do you mean externally? Culturally? probably both. Many of those differences I think are due the adaptation of climate over centuries. I won't bore you with my perceptions on physical anthropologies because it's not the point of this discussion. I DO support treating everyone on an individual basis.

One thing that can keep you from understanding these simple concepts is if you
have a belief that humankind started with two sentient humans about 6,000 years
ago. If that story is true, then we were never ruled by nature to the extent
that I claim we were. I believe that religion is one of the major factors in
why it took so long for us to start to change our attitudes about how we should
treat human beings. I think you will find that the more religious one is, the
more old-fashioned that person is likely to be. If you can get past the stories
in genesis, I believe you can understand the natural and sentient facets of
humanity and understand why we are headed in the direction we are.

It is certainly possible for us to go backwards socially. If that ever happens,
then maybe "old-fashioned" will become an attitude that I can embrace; however,
for now, it is an attitude that I can only see as a negative one.
6000? Anyways... I do think religious differences play an important role in the separation of humanity. We only have to look one year in the past to be reminded of that.

I think you're on the right track overall. Acceptance of differences will be the paramount (tantamount(?) ) factor in healing wounds between human beings. Will it happen? Not without some huge event I'm afraid to open eyes to a much wider focus than they are accustomed to being opened.

[Yoda]

Thanks for clarifying that.

Anyway, the rest of what I said stands, same as ever. I think your statement that it has very little to do with religion in general holds no weight. Examples: "I believe that religion is one of the major factors in
why it took so long for us to start to change our attitudes about how we should treat human beings."

"I think you will find that the more religious one is, the
more old-fashioned that person is likely to be."Seems like you're blaming religion significantly for the old fashioned ideas which you call bad.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Toose
I see what you are getting at... I would maintain that some old fashioned ideals are worth saving, you know..the whole "do unto others" thing pretty much holds water today. It is amazing that in watching "Leave it to Beaver" episodes we are looking at people who thought blacks were not competent to vote etc. It's stunning how close that is to us on the timeline of humanity.

Seeing as how almost all of what is today considered moral stems from ideas that are old, I'd say the entire concept of old fashioned ideas being bad is at fault. The only possible explanation I can see is that Fire's using some odd definition of the phrase "old fashioned."


Originally posted by Toose
You don't have children, do you?
Good question. :)

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by Yoda

Seeing as how almost all of what is today considered moral stems from ideas that are old, I'd say the entire concept of old fashioned ideas being bad is at fault. The only possible explanation I can see is that Fire's using some odd definition of the phrase "old fashioned."



Good question. :)

I think what FG is getting at is that many of the ideals of the old days were actually pretty harsh and damaging and I have to agree with that to an extent. I'm sure society viewed slave ownership etc as being natural and just at some point in history. It was not viewed with the horror it would be viewed in today. Look at NYC in the early 1900's when it was immagration central to the Italians, the Irish, the English... it was segregated and violent due to class structures and belief in stereotypes etc. Of course living conditions had something to do with the overall sanity of people then but the point is still valid.

As a whole, humanity is further along than it was 20 or a hundred or a thousand years ago. In the current strife of the world many nations have come together in horror at an act propagated by people with largely "old fashioned" beliefs. A century ago the death of a few thousand people in an act of war would not have garnered the attention that it did in the now.

[Yoda]

As usual, Master Toose, your arguments are rational and thought out. :)

Originally posted by Toose
I think what FG is getting at is that many of the ideals of the old days were actually pretty harsh and damaging and I have to agree with that to an extent. I'm sure society viewed slave ownership etc as being natural and just at some point in history. It was not viewed with the horror it would be viewed in today. Look at NYC in the early 1900's when it was immagration central to the Italians, the Irish, the English... it was segregated and violent due to class structures and belief in stereotypes etc. Of course living conditions had something to do with the overall sanity of people then but the point is still valid.

As a whole, humanity is further along than it was 20 or a hundred or a thousand years ago. In the current strife of the world many nations have come together in horror at an act propagated by people with largely "old fashioned" beliefs. A century ago the death of a few thousand people in an act of war would not have garnered the attention that it did in the now.
That may very well be...but if that's true, then I think there's a difference between what he's getting at, and what he said. And that's one of the things I'm on about. :) The other being a clear implication that religion is to blame for a fair amount of this, of course...but that's another matter. :)

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by Yoda
As usual, Master Toose, your arguments are rational and thought out. :)

Why thank you good sir.. as are yours.


Originally posted by Yoda
That may very well be...but if that's true, then I think there's a difference between what he's getting at, and what he said. And that's one of the things I'm on about. :) The other being a clear implication that religion is to blame for a fair amount of this, of course...but that's another matter. :)

Defense of religion is one of your favorite causes. I respect that to a great degree, however, I think you let it cloud your perceptions of the overall point at times. The religious aspect was a small part of FG's argument. The part of his article I had a small problem with was that he treated evolution as fact... we shall have to reign him in on that...but that's another thread... ;D

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Toose
Why thank you good sir.. as are yours.
I respectfully disagree. :D

Originally posted by Toose
Defense of religion is one of your favorite causes. I respect that to a great degree, however, I think you let it cloud your perceptions of the overall point at times. The religious aspect was a small part of FG's argument. The part of his article I had a small problem with was that he treated evolution as fact... we shall have to reign him in on that...but that's another thread... ;D

I don't deny that defense of religion is one of my favorite topics. Debunking of Atheistic claims (there's a subtle difference between the two) is near behind, but I think we all know which will likely hold the top spot for the rest of m ydays. :D

I do know I have the tendency you speak of...no doubt. I read his article several times over, though, and I simply cannot deny that I see it to be about religion far more than he will admit to. I have no problem talking about the other aspects of it, but it's the implication that religion is a big part of this problem he speaks of that I have a beef with. Well, that and his apparently loose usage of "old fashioned." At your recommendation, however (you know I respect your opinion immensely), I'll try to see more clearly.

[Sir Toose]

Don't get me wrong...
I enjoy reading your views on religion. You are certainly more knowledgeable on the subject than anyone I have ever run across (your respect of opinion is most assuredly shared).

I guess the religious aspects of his arguments passed me by as they weren't something that jumped out at me (not being as knowledgeable on the subject). He did present a plethora of topics that I did feel more at home about answering.

I just ate Sonic for lunch and it's amazing how different their burgers taste than Wendy's etc. I wonder what bearing the region from which the cow is harvested has upon the taste of it's flesh... hmmm? :D

[Yoda]

I've never tried Sonic's. Do they stack up with the big boys?

FYI, for ya'll in this thread, in case ye haven't seen it:
http://www.movieforums.net/showthread.php?threadid=3008

[Sir Toose]

Sonic is almost exactly like Dairy Queen in burger taste. God I sound like the Galloping Gourmet of fast food.

[firegod]

First of all, I want to apologize to Yoda for being so insulting earlier. I have no excuse, but if I come up with a good one, I'll use it! :) I'm sorry, Chris.

Originally posted by Toose
Okay... the caveat I will take with this is the in making the slaves in America a focal point. It's cutting nuts, and your viewpoint is valid, I do have issues with slavery being the sole responsibility of America.
Well slavery was pretty common in Europe, and Europeans came over to this continent, eventually creating the United States (with the help of slaves, of course). I wouldn't say I put the sole responsibility of slaves in America on America. Blaming all slavery in the world on America would be extraordinarily ignorant, in my opinion.


I will tell you that having lived in New York state then moving to the south it is a completely different world of race relations. The hate shown towards white folks by black folks here is way on the rise. I'm seeing reverse discrimination on a daily basis and no one is squeaking about it. I don't see how it's any better or different than the reverse of it but there sure is more tolerance of it.
I used to live in NYC and noticed a little racism against whites, but noticed a higher amount of disgust for that racism amongst African Americans. I certainly hope that hasn't changed too much.

As far as how bad reverse racism is perceived, I mostly agree. We obviously need to work to irradicate all racism; however, I think you would admit that whites being much larger in number than blacks in this country, and having much more power, makes white on black racism more powerful than black on white racism. I think that is one legitimate reason for the different outlook on the two types of racism. Having said that, we should still try to treat all racism with the same amount of intolerance, in my opinion.

Hmmm... I don't know about this. I hear what you're saying but I remain unconvinced that we are a product of evolution. I see the similarities but I don't buy them. We have instincts... we are capable of thought but I don't think one will ever be exclusive of the other, in fact I think they require the presence of each other to exist in a synergistic relationship. I DO think some people are more prone to thought and reason and some are more prone to instinct but drawing a line and saying that we are one or the other is maybe stepping too far out there for me.

I don't say that, but every single instinct CAN be overcome by us. Are they usually? No. But if you choose to refrain from having any sex, you CAN do it. If you choose to refrain from eating, you CAN. No other animal on this planet can do that.


You don't have children, do you?
I'm helping to raise an 11 year-old girl. The most incredible thing I've ever played a part in.

Originally posted by Yoda
Good question. :)
I think it would be a good question directed at you as well, Chris. :)

Originally posted by Toose
Well, firstly I think the similarities in boys and girls at a young age are due to the fact that the hormones are not in swing until puberty. As soon as that engine starts the diffeences become obvious.
Absolutely. Once puberty starts, boys begin to produce more testosterone than girls, and girls begin to produce more estrogen than boys. The natural physical differnces start to get huge.

To me this underscores that the differences are inherent to gender...not to surroundings. ALL people are individual..some girls excel at sports, some boys do not... no biggie, that's what makes the world turn. You haven't noticed how much more into sports girls are now, or that they are competing with boys MUCH more than they did say 50 years ago? That is society at work, not nature. Toys are a big part, but a girl can play with the same kind of toys a boy plays with, and still get much less encouragement to play sports by people she meets, tv shows and movies she watches, etc. Nice anecdote, but the girl I am helping to raise is the best running back in her intergender football league. As she gets older, the natural differences will get bigger and she will not be able to dominate like that.


I think you're on the right track overall. Acceptance of differences will be the paramount (tantamount(?) ) factor in healing wounds between human beings. Will it happen? Not without some huge event I'm afraid to open eyes to a much wider focus than they are accustomed to being opened.
Well, as I indicated, I believe we have made huge strides already. I hope we keep it up. :)

[Yoda]

First of all, I want to apologize to Yoda for being so insulting earlier.
It's no sweat -- I could use a few lessons in charm school myself. :blush: No hard feelings? :)

As far as how bad reverse racism is perceived, I mostly agree. We obviously need to work to irradicate all racism; however, I think you would admit that whites being much larger in number than blacks in this country, and having much more power, makes white on black racism more powerful than black on white racism. I think that is one legitimate reason for the different outlook on the two types of racism. Having said that, we should still try to treat all racism with the same amount of intolerance, in my opinion.
Agreed...it has more potential oppression...however, I think we have enough people in power who are vehemently against that sort of thing to protect people from it for the time being. That said, I think we can all agree it's a matter of principle. I can definitely tell you that, in some of the neighborhoods I've grown up in, black-on-white racism is common and hardly looked down upon at all, unfortunately.

I think it would be a good question directed at you as well, Chris. :)
Absolutely. I'm in a (somewhat) similar situation. I'm helping to raise children that are not my own. Five of them, in fact. :eek: It's rather hectic. It's good, though, as I've got three girls, two boys, and pretty much every age group represented all at once (1 and a half, 4, 6, 9, 11).

That's not to say someone not raising children cannot speak about such things. I'm a firm believer in the concept that experience helps, but is not always required, as I refuse to believe that valid opinions cannot be potentially formed from simply sitting back and thinking. Not to say this applies to all situations, of course.

[firegod]

Originally posted by Yoda

It's no sweat -- I could use a few lessons in charm school myself. :blush: No hard feelings? :)

Not at all. :)

Absolutely. I'm in a (somewhat) similar situation. I'm helping to raise children that are not my own. Five of them, in fact. :eek: It's rather hectic. It's good, though, as I've got three girls, two boys, and pretty much every age group represented all at once (1 and a half, 4, 6, 9, 11).

That's not to say someone not raising children cannot speak about such things. I'm a firm believer in the concept that experience helps, but is not always required, as I refuse to believe that valid opinions cannot be potentially formed from simply sitting back and thinking. Not to say this applies to all situations, of course.

I think we are in complete agreement here. Sometimes you really can't understand certain things unti you experience them, but I would say that that is usually not the case, and that no one's opinion on a subject is completely invalid simply due to lack of experience.

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by firegod
I think we are in complete agreement here. Sometimes you really can't understand certain things unti you experience them, but I would say that that is usually not the case, and that no one's opinion on a subject is completely invalid simply due to lack of experience.

All right now...

I wasn't trying to devalue your opinion by asking that. I just wanted to get a handle on where you were coming from.


About the slavery thing.
Obviously it's atrocious and I wouldn't defend the parties that participated, however, I think blame lies on BOTH the buyer and the SELLER of the slaves. Slaveowners definitely are at fault, but so are the people (often their own blood and kin) who sold them into slavery. It was a supply and demand issue, traded in flesh, where both the supply side and the demand side should be held responsible.


As far as how bad reverse racism is perceived, I mostly agree. We obviously need to work to irradicate all racism; however, I think you would admit that whites being much larger in number than blacks in this country, and having much more power, makes white on black racism more powerful than black on white racism. I think that is one legitimate reason for the different outlook on the two types of racism. Having said that, we should still try to treat all racism with the same amount of intolerance, in my opinion.

I would admit that, you are right. I do see examples of racism all around me though. Take Black Entertainment Television (BET) as an example. For blacks being so sensitive to lines being drawn it amazes me that the lines are ok as long as they're drawn from the right side. I've heard black opinion on this channel, I've heard that many don't support it yadda, yadda, yadda. The fact remains that it is meant to be entertainment that is targeted toward black people to the exclusion of other races. If this is not an example of divisiveness I fail to see what is.

Hey, C... we could go to charm school together!

[firegod]

Originally posted by Toose
About the slavery thing.
Obviously it's atrocious and I wouldn't defend the parties that participated, however, I think blame lies on BOTH the buyer and the SELLER of the slaves. Slaveowners definitely are at fault, but so are the people (often their own blood and kin) who sold them into slavery. It was a supply and demand issue, traded in flesh, where both the supply side and the demand side should be held responsible.
Absolutely. You'll get no argument from me.

I would admit that, you are right. I do see examples of racism all around me though. Take Black Entertainment Television (BET) as an example. For blacks being so sensitive to lines being drawn it amazes me that the lines are ok as long as they're drawn from the right side. I've heard black opinion on this channel, I've heard that many don't support it yadda, yadda, yadda. The fact remains that it is meant to be entertainment that is targeted toward black people to the exclusion of other races. If this is not an example of divisiveness I fail to see what is.
I've never particularly cared for the existence of shows or channels that are purposefully all black, especially when blacks are very much represented on the issue. For example, I actually saw an African American sports award show on TV a few years ago. Huh? Blacks aren't given enough recognition in sports? Ok...

[Sir Toose]

Originally posted by firegod
I've never particularly cared for shows or channels that are purposefully all black, especially when blacks are very much represented on the issue. For example, I actually saw an African American sports award show on TV a few years ago. Huh? Blacks aren't given enough recognition in sports? Ok...


Right. Do you agree that this kind of thing is divisive? I truly think no one would say a word if "Japanese Entertainment Channel" popped up somewhere... or "Indian E.C" etc, etc... try "White Entertainment Channel" and there would be an absolute sh*tstorm of outcry. I'm not trying to be petty...it really doesn't bother me much and I even watch some of the comedy shows on that channel...it just seems hypocritical to cry racism while the BET is playing in the background.

[firegod]

Pretty divisive, yeah. I can certainly understand it when people think their race is completely unrepresented and do a show to try to even things out a bit, but some of this stuff seems ridiculous to me.

[Sir Toose]

All this aside...

Why did you say the human race is 6000 years old? Is this an arbitrary number or if not what do you base it on?

[firegod]

It's just what I hear from a lot of young world creationists.

[Sir Toose]

Where does that leave Cro-Magnon? Or neanderthal for that matter? Do they argue against the validity of carbon dating? Or that modern man is a descendent of either of them?

[firegod]

I don't know about all of them, but many of them do.

[Sir Toose]

Interesting...

Maybe they're saying that man in the image of god began at 'enlightenment' or something. I know we have artifacts from cultures prior to the Egyptians...about 4000bc. I guess that would put it at around 6000 years ago.

[Omega]

Firegod, I feel that some of what you are saying is correct. We should always look at the person not what color their skin is or by what creed they are from. As well as fell that everyone should be given the same oppurtunity to be as successful as they can be under the same covering. However your comment we have a long way to go, I think we have gone to far in many cases. It is my belief that God created man in his image, and out of man God created woman. I would agree God never intended on us treating one another so, but that is a whole other discussion. I feel first that if men were doing what they were suppose to, then women would not be forced to be in a position God never intended for them. Am I saying that women are weak, not in anyway, my mother was one of the strongest women I know, and she was forced into taking on many roles that frankly I feel should have been handled by the man in her life. To say religon has caused us to not advance as quickly as we could, remember the country your living in, look at the money you spend each day, "IN GOD WE TRUST", I say to take belief in God out of the picture is to allow chaos to rule, a nation that you say allows religon to inhibit our growth, I say remove God from our foundation, and you remove the very thing that moves us to be better people.

[firegod]

Oh, how lovely. I have a few questions for you. What color of skin did Adam and Eve have? Did Jonah live in a whale? Did Noah put 2 of every non-marine species of animal in a boat? Just curious.

[Omega]

Firegod, what relivance do these questions have to my comment?

[Yoda]

I say to take belief in God out of the picture is to allow chaos to rule
I agree; look at the nations that try to exclude religion, basing their system on what they believe to be reason and logic. Many Communist nations are like this. Societies that operate completely outside of God do not last. An individual may be able to live what would be considered by most to be a moral life outside of the belief of objective morality/God, but on the whole it simply doesn't work.

If you don't believe in God, you have no basis for unalienable rights...which is why states that ignore God tend to fall. Whether or not you believe in God, I think it's abundantly clear that the concept is crucial in some ways.

[firegod]

Originally posted by Omega
Firegod, what relivance do these questions have to my comment?

I was just interested in knowing a little something about how far you take what is in the holey bible... If you don't want to answer, don't.

Yoda,

Show me 3 cases where a lack of religion caused a country to fall and I'll show you about 100 examples of one falling because of their religion. But I don't think you can find 3.

[LordSlaytan]

I think that all you doG fearing people should go to Hell!!!

Oh wait, I don't believe in Hell....Does not compute, does not compute...


DOH!!! :D

[Yoda]

Originally posted by firegod
Show me 3 cases where a lack of religion caused a country to fall and I'll show you about 100 examples of one falling because of their religion. But I don't think you can find 3.
I think I could probably find three (Mao Zedong's Communist China is the first to come to mind), but really, the fact that there aren't many is beside the point. It's not even ATTEMPTED usually, but when it has been, it's failed. All the great empires in world history have had some kind of religion. The reason that you can find more failed countries based on religion than Atheism is simply because it's been attempted more often with religion. You can find more white criminals than black criminals in America; it's not because white people, on average, tend to engage in more criminal behavior...it's because there are more white people than black people in America.

You and I both know that America is what it is because of it's freedoms...and those freedoms are implanted in the belief that we are ENDOWED with unalienable rights. It's crucial that claims like that be rooted in something. Picture a constitution that granted alienable rights simply because they were judged most beneficial to people on the whole.

The concept of being endowed with unalienable rights is a very potent one...and one that necessitates a Creator. It's no coincidence that the US is where it is. Those words really mean something. Though I have no way of proving it to you, I don't doubt for a second that America wouldn't be the great country you and I know it to be if not for the concept of God in general. The American way of life is based on it.

[Omega]

Well Firegod, I think since you put it that way, its a fair question to ask. I believe that the "Holy Bible" is the word of God period. Your comment to Yoda, you do know I believe your right, you could show where many nation's have simply lead themselves to distruction due to the religon, and what it was based upon. While we are on that subject let's address that a little, if you do or don't agree religon is man made. We say it is a word that depicts a way or what we believe. I say I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, I believe that Jesus gave us an example with his teachings and life on how to live. Being a Christian doesnt mean, how many time's a week I go to church, or do I give to the poor. It simply means that we are attempting to be Christ like. We know that religon more or less becomes an anchor about someones neck, so they are compelled to do works to enter into heaven, I know this is not truth as I believe it. So I say Im not a religous person, but Iam a person who is attempting to be more like Christ each day, outside of the rules and regulations or what you call religon.

[LordSlaytan]

Omega, you ignorant slut! ;)

[Gracie]

Is it just me, or does whenever Firegod or Yoda, or Silver make a thread that has to do with opinion or religion, it always ends up being a "Yoda-Firegod-And-Silver-Aguing-Thread"? I mean, it's the exact same thing with Abortion, Faith, Aetheism, and Cloning, etc, etc. Anyone else notice this?

[Omega]

Gracie, I'm new so I'm sorry don't really have an opinion yet on your comment. However you must admit they dare to talk about things that other people don't like to discuss. The old saying two deadly things to not talk about at parties or on dates, politics and religon. As far as I'm concerned I like the fact that people have opinions, be they one's I agree with or not, as long as they are responsible with those opinions.

[Gracie]

I'm not that serious, and no matter how new you are, you can always have an opinion. Hey, Silver and I don't agree on some things, but I'm always complimenting him on how high-quality his funny is! You don't need to have the same opinion on things. I quote Deep Thoughts:

On a math test, instead of answers, why don't we call them opinions? That way, if we have a different opinion: So what? Can't we all be brothers?

I've always loved that quote. :laugh: I proboly didn't get it right on, but that's about it. :cool: ;) :) :D

[Omega]

That really was not my meaning wheather or not you are deep or have an opinion, I was simply commenting to what you said, and as far as being new and having an opinion, thats a given that new or not all of us have one.

[Gracie]

Ya' know, you sound kinda' fun. What's your real name? As I'm sure you already guessed, mine's Grace. Just so you know, I'm the sister of Yoda. And no, the pointy ears do not run in the family, thank God! :laugh:

[Omega]

Well Grace, thanks for the compliment, well lets say for now you can call me JP if you want. You sound fun as well.

[firegod]

Originally posted by Yoda
The concept of being endowed with unalienable rights is a very potent one...and one that necessitates a Creator

No it doesn't There's no good reason why that concept necessitates a creator. Us all having certain rights just makes sense whether there is a god or not.

In my opinion, an atheist country would do just fine. I'd say the main reason it couldn't happen in the past is that theistic countries simply wouldn't have put up with it. After all, in world history, being guilty of not having a belief in a god has often resulted in the dealth penalty.

I'm kind of surprised you didn't mention Hitler. Most people seem to think he was an atheist, but there is no evidence of that. He talked about and wrote about God all the time, and I've never seen one atheist quote from him at all.

Many countries are becoming more atheist all the time. I believe some of them will have an atheist majority eventually, and won't fall off the face of the earth as a result. Maybe not in my lifetime, though.

[Omega]

Well Firegod, it seems we do agree on one point, this world as much as we would like to think it is headed on a path of greatness, is not. I believe we will see more and more seperation between those who serve God, and those who don't. I'm also sure the god of the underworld or also known as Lucifer, would be more then happy to see nation's turn into godless one's, this of course would give him that warm fuzzy feeling that he has a toe hold on the very foundations of the Christian faith as we know it. However you must remember this, though we will continue to see the digress of man, and his godless nature will come out we will see more and more intolerance on this planet, and more and more seperation from our morals and man will do that which is right in his own eyes, in other words he will create his own morals and live by those, and we know the end is distruction.

[firegod]

Nah. Destruction is what we've been doing all this time, and something we've done less and less the more we've gotten away from religion.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by firegod
Destruction is what we've been doing all this time, and something we've done less and less the more we've gotten away from religion.
Eh? Care to elaborate?

[Omega]

Let me guess Firegod you have your head in the sand right. What do you call the Middle East, when Saddum started a war against Kuwait it was a blood war, or a religous war. Yes we understand some of the reason's why the war was started, but through the annuls of time every war in the Middle East has been based on religon. To say we have seen less and less is a sign of your age and the fact that you simply are spouting off at the mouth with nothing in which to base your opinion. Bin Laden himself said the attack against America was against the Christian belief which we say this nation was founded upon. Time to have an origianl thought, tell me what you think rather then what you have read. From the gut.

[LordSlaytan]

The argument of, "show me 3 cases..." is kind of humorous. Every single empire in history has already fallen, with the exception of the current empires, with or without religion. Entropy happens more because of political problems and attrition, than religious problems. Actually, I think the longest lived Empire may be the Roman Catholic Church. That argument has no merit as far as I'm concerned. I'm not a religious person, though I used to be, and I believe that there are benifits with having a culture that does have faith, but there are also some negative aspects to it as well. Why must every idea for freedom have it's double edged sword? I respect people who believe in doG, if it helps them. If they become better people because of it, then I have much respect. But I tire of the a-typical hypocrite that spends their energies trying to convert me, when all I feel is contempt for them as individuals. My step-mother is a christian, and I have never met anyone more judgemental in all my life. I don't think religion is dying, and I don't think it will. It is now an instict to have faith for most people. I see digression in attitudes in our young, that was not rampart in the 1950's. But in the 50s, kids did not have unalienable rights, now they do. No matter what choices we make, there will always be reprocussions. And Omega, most religions have been founded with the blood of the unbelievers. Catholics and Christians, and Moslems have all had their holy wars throughout history. I think that a lot of people have gained more rights because the hold that religion has had in the government has slowly eroded. It's far from gone, obviously, but it is less.

[firegod]

Originally posted by Omega
Let me guess Firegod you have your head in the sand right. What do you call the Middle East, when Saddum started a war against Kuwait it was a blood war, or a religous war. Yes we understand some of the reason's why the war was started, but through the annuls of time every war in the Middle East has been based on religon. To say we have seen less and less is a sign of your age and the fact that you simply are spouting off at the mouth with nothing in which to base your opinion. Bin Laden himself said the attack against America was against the Christian belief which we say this nation was founded upon. Time to have an origianl thought, tell me what you think rather then what you have read. From the gut.

Pointing out that those wars are based on religion only strengthens my argument. That would only be false if wars in the world were not decreasing in frequency. They are. More people are killed today because there are many more people in the world than there used to be, and because our weapons are more advanced. However, countries used to travel the world conquering others purely for religious reasons much more than countries do now. I think you need to study history a bit more.

One of the reasons it is happenening less and less is because the world is getting less and less religious. Another reason is because it is getting more and more tolerant of other people's religion or lack there of. I realize there are factors other than religion, but I definately see a correlation between religion and destruction.

By the way. If my youth is such an issue, why is Yoda so right on in your opinion? He is much younger than I am. If he is making so much sense and I am making so little sense, isn't that a score for the youngins? Or are you just spouting off with nothing ON which to base your opinion?

[Omega]

Well Firegod, using my quote now, you really need to get out more. I think your forgetting your comment, you stated that there is less and less killing because we are getting away from religon. Again do you read the paper or watch the news, and to say that there is less killing because there are more people in the world is hogwash. Your simply crunching numbers, when in reality there are more people dying today then ever before. War and non related war deaths. As far as history goes, I know plenty, and of course you may know a lot more in facts and dates, but what does that have to do with what were taking about. The reality is we know that as the world progress's forward the seperation between those who serve themselves and those who God will be destinct. As far a agreeing with Yoda, though he may be younger then you in body, it seems his mind and possibly his heart has surpassed yours, this of course only based on what I have read from his response's and your's.

[firegod]

Well this coming from someone who thinks that Jonah lived in a whale and that grass on Earth was created before the sun, moon and stars, I hope you don't mind if I don't take it too seriously. :)

[Omega]

Well let me see Firegod, so what your saying is that since I believe that all things are possible with God and you don't I should not be taken seriously. Well we know plainly that he who live's in the pit mocks God. So let me ask you Firegod because you don't believe these thing's does that mean they are not so? or is it that your mind and heart are not at this point capable of grasping the thought that the creator of the Universe could do such things as you say. Is it possible that you believe in anything, or is it that you don't have the faith to believe. "IN THE BEGINNING GOD" always has been, always will be the creator of all things.

[firegod]

Nah. I'm just having some fun with you. You seemed pretty willing to get heated right at the start, so I decided to go a few rounds. If I thought I was actually going to hurt you or something, I probably wouldn't have been so blunt. I'm mostly just messing around. :)

I can grasp the concepts of your god, but I have no faith whatsoever (when the definition of faith is believing in things without any evidence). I simply have seen no good reason to believe in your or any other god.

[Omega]

Well nothing like a good debate, why is that Firegod, why is it impossible for you to believe that God exsist's, is it for the fact of physical evidence only? Oh and really I wasn't heated, just getting warmed up.

[firegod]

Well, I don't think it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to believe, but so far I haven't seen anything convincing. I need evidence to believe in something, rather than evidence to not believe in something, the latter being what many people seem to think should be the case. It's not just physical evidence though. If I felt what I thought was the presence of a deity, I wouldn't need PHYSICAL evidence to believe in it.

EDIT: Omega, I just made a bunch of changes to this message, because it was all screwed up.

[Omega]

Well let me ask you a question, how do you know the Sun will come up, it all deal's with faith, I think it take's more heart to believe in something not seen with the physical eye or to be able to touch. I think every time I see something on this planet, tree's etc, people, it alone declair's God.

[firegod]

Well, that's fine for you; but for me, beauty isn't nearly enough for me to start believing in deities. I know the sun will PROBABLY come up, because I understand a little something about how the Earth works. It's not likely to stop spinning anytime soon.

May I ask you another question? Using the strictest definition of "all-powerful" meaning "can do ANYTHING" is your god all-powerful?

[Omega]

Is God, the creator of heaven and earth all powerful, "YES"

[Gracie]

This has officially become the "LordSlayton (:love: ), Firegod, Yoda, and Omega Thread"! :yup:

[firegod]

Ok. Can he make something that is both all black and all green? Can he create something that is so heavy he cannot lift it? In regards to the second question, if he can't then there is something he can't do, while if he can, then there is something he can't do (lift a certain object). Using the strictest definition of "all-powerful" it is simply something that is impossible to be.

[Omega]

Well Firegod, if I answer well yes God can create something to heavy he can not lift you will say then this God of mine is not all powerful. In answer to your question, again I state there is nothing impossible for God. I in turn will ask you a question, will God force you to love him or believe in him?

[firegod]

I don't know. It would be a difficult thing to do if he is a fictional character. It also depends on what religion you believe in.

[Yoda]

Picking on newbies, Fire? :D

I can grasp the concepts of your god, but I have no faith whatsoever (when the definition of faith is believing in things without any evidence).
There is evidence of God. You may not find it sufficient, but there is definitely evidence.


Ok. Can he make something that is both all black and all green?
Obviously you realize you're asking for a contradiction in logic. I like to say that God can do basically anything; but that inherent contradictions are not things at all.

[Omega]

You do realize of course you did not answer the question, Iam sure you are aware of the God in which I speak. Given the fact that he is not fictional, please answer the question.

[firegod]

Originally posted by Yoda
Picking on newbies, Fire? :D


There is evidence of God. You may not find it sufficient, but there is definitely evidence.



Obviously you realize you're asking for a contradiction in logic. I like to say that God can do basically anything; but that inherent contradictions are not things at all.

Makes sense, but I think I qualified my question pretty well with:

Using the strictest definition of "all-powerful" meaning "can do ANYTHING"

[firegod]

Originally posted by Omega
You do realize of course you did not answer the question, Iam sure you are aware of the God in which I speak. Given the fact that he is not fictional, please answer the question.

Um.. No. Your god not being fictional is definately not a FACT. I'll answer the question again. If he exists, then it would depend on what religion you're going to use. If he doesn't exist, then no, he can't force me to love him.

[Omega]

Ok then I will answer the question more clearly, I believe in Jesus Christ the Son of the living God. I believe in the trinity God, Son, Holy Spirit. I believe in the God of Abraham, of Isaac and Jacob. A bit over kill on the answer but there you go.

[firegod]

Nothing wrong with that. However, I do question whether or not it is appropriate to try to force those opinions on others.

[Omega]

Well Firegod, do you feel I'm forcing my opinion's on other's or simply sharing my belief. I guess the same could be said to anyone of us giving our view's and thought's in this place. Is it appropriate for those who don't believe in God to say so. You tell me, I know if I don't exknowledge him then I mock my faith, and as his word sez that if we hold our peace even the rocks and the tree's will cry out his praise.