Topic awaiting preservation: I don't understand

I just have a question (that, perhaps will never be completely answered).

Why does it seem that people cannot except other's point of view but must continously ridicule, badger, berate and force others to conform to their own belief? Why does it seem that religious people feel the need to force others into religion at all cost. Why does it seem that scientific people feel the need to force others into believing certain scientific theories? Why does it seem that some 'anti-religious' people must rip faith from religious people when, mayhaps, faith is all they have left?

Why is it that some of the most 'christ like' peopl I meet are athiest and some of the 'christian' people i find not christ like at all?

Why can't we just accept that somebody happens to be pagan or athiest or 'unscientific' if their belief does not harm us in anyway shape or form? Why must (excuse the poor grammar) we arrogant, idiotic, fool-hardy americans patrol the world forcing others to use our governemtn.?

"God may have mad the world, but it's held together by duct tape"-quote found on internet

Guess that was more like twenty versions of the same question. Oh well.

"God may have mad the world, but it's held together by duct tape"-quote found on internet

quote:

---

Why does it seem that scientific people feel the need to force others into believing certain scientific theories?

---

Because those are the facts. If you are going to be building a rocket, that goes to the moon, you had damned well not have built it according to "It will get us to the moon, God willing" principle!

In school, one is taught the basic skills one needs (well, at least that's the principle, the main idea) to become a functioning member of society - learning to read, write, and do math. Chemistry, Physics, Geography, Geology, etc are all a part of learning about the forces that we know about and have investigated. Some jobs require more (or less, depending) scientifc knowledge than others.

Other than that...

I don't see "scientific" people forcing others into "believing" certain scientific facts - they certainly are not forcing anyone to believe in theories.

I do see "scientific" people (whatever that means) presenting scientific facts, and discussing and debating theories.

I don't believe there has ever been a law saying "Thou will believe in Gravity, or be put to the Question!".

quote:

---

Why can't we just accept that somebody happens to be pagan or athiest or 'unscientific' if their belief does not harm us in anyway shape or form?

---

The key phrase here is "if their belief does not harm us in anyway shape or form".
One of the biggest problems that I've seen, and that has sparked a lot of debate here, is that in some areas of the US, there are "Christian" groups who are trying to replace the teaching of evolution with creationism. Not just teaching both side by side, which is being proposed in some places and I would still be against, but actually dropping the teaching of evolution and replacing it with theories from the Bible.

Excellent WS.

I think Sang, some of the reason people challenge other's beliefs, is because they are insecure in their own.

This applies almost exclusively to the religious because scientific knowledge does not require faith.

So, those who comes on fora like these and spout nonsense about bibles and mythological beings are, IMHO, in fact issuing a call for help.

It is incumbent upon we realists to help them find the true way to reality.

So, we are not forcing anything upon them nor ripping anything from them. We are helping.

All levity aside, one has learned that those who are secure in their faith, whether it be religion, cars or political parties, feel no need to proselytize.

As for you americans, well if there were a god, she would doubtless be as perplexed as is the rest of the world.


Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I have to argue that much of science does take a whole lot of faith.

For every scientific "fact" (and I use this term loosely), you will have a thousand theories. And in those theories you will have groups of people who feverantly believe them, and try and attract more into their fold.

This is very similar to religion. In religion you have a group of people with a feverant belief, and they try and attract more to it.

Having numbers bolsters you position, you do not feel like an outcast, you are a part of a group. This is a psycologically comfortable position to be in. Being the outcast is not fun.

---
:side rant on:
---

There is a difference with the theorys in science and the faith of religion. With science the theory is setup so that it can be proved wrong. That is the tenant, you have to design it to be proved wrong. When "proved" incorrect those believers either have to pickup their ball and go home or adjust their theory to fit with the new evidence.

With religion you do not have the option to prove it wrong. That is why it tends to last a bit longer than a good scientific theory.

You don't hear much debate on micro-evolution or on gravity (unless in Onion style jest), because these things are easily observable. Could they be wrong? Of course they could. They could be wrong in the same way that all of the air molecules on earth could up and jump to the moon.

What we can say is gravity happens, and that micro-evolution happens. We could be wrong about the specific mechanics, but this is observable, if you observe it, it is most likely real.

Science is basically math and history, I am sure I could make a pretty good arguement that it is completely math and history. Religion is only history. It doesn't have the math behind it to make its proofs.

---
:side rant off:
---

This all boils down to people needing faith and wanting to be around like-minded individuals. It is a validation of themselves. We as a group are weak scared fleshbags, and we need to feel safe and strong. Numbers allow this and it is a tenant to our survival.

Dan @ Code Town

Sang:

quote:

---

Why must (excuse the poor grammar) we arrogant, idiotic, fool-hardy americans patrol the world forcing others to use our governemtn.?

---

To 'use our government.'
I shouldn't *assume* but will, that you mean your form of democracy. Well, you don't. While a 'form' and *some* ideals may be imposed the last thing american power-brokers want is another USA anywhere in the world.

In the matter of Iraq for example they were given one year or so to write a constitution. It took *10* years to write the US constitution. Had the objective been to 'use our government' as you put it, ... it would have been a simple matter of changing but a few minor housekeeping elements in your constitution and telling the Iraqi's... ok... here's your constitution... get at it.

That scenario would however result in a 'country' that the US would not only be *unable* to control, under the 'constitution' it would be *obliged not* to control... 'of, for and by the people' and all that.

No... as the history of man tells us, the bottom line remains, 'the strong right arm rules.'

Sangreal: your quote is missing an e after mad
- or maybe a freudian slip

~
Lovely Rita

as the world turns and many eyes watch
the blind prophets will falsely see what is not
and though the wind and waves should stay
they would not cease to say
it is the vision of God

but i would not

for in passion did mother and father embrace
with eyes amist
and kissed such a lovely kiss
that all the children sang with joy
~

*
i live in south-east texas and i know at least a few others of you do also and are feeling the effects of Rita directly and maybe even profoundly. my thoughts and prayers are with you.

now, to the point -- lately i've been hearing a lot of God 'this', and the bible says 'that' concerning Rita, Katrina (such lovely names btw) and other events of late, that it is God's wrath; then the same more or less about Iraq and others.

then in the next breath, from the same mouths how ungodly and ungrateful the victims of such calamities are and how they should be thankful "such and such" or "so and so" or -- in so many words (imho what they are really saying is) I HATE THEM.

granted there are a few deserving of such judgement, it breaks my heart that these mouths profess to speak for God as "christians". it ought not to be so. but Jesus said it would be so, and so it is. the same goes for the USA as a whole. we should not be imposing our WAY as a supposedly christian nation upon others in the "holier than thou"-"get thee behind me" way that we are. what we really want is to despitefully use you for our gain - glory to God - AMEN.

for the record, i believe in Jesus THE Christ and the truth he presented to us, as he presented it (here it is - take it if you will - or not), but (even as he said ) the majority of "christians" don't really even have a clue. and so the good is evil spoken of.

maybe i'm not making too much sense but i hope you get the gist. all these religious threads of late i've been following but refraining from getting into are roiling around in my brain and i just had to vent a little.
and while i'm about it i'd like to thank you atheist asylumites for prompting me to deeper studies of your way of thinking and other various things even if indirectly . . . angels unaware?

One cannot help but muse about a right-wing xian president who speaks with god on a daily basis.

Surely he must be wondering if these floods and storms are not a judgement upon his presidency?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

~in the appropriate , not too slow, but low.... resisant drawllll ...~

Everybody say Amen!

Amen!!




=

Are you certain?

quote:

---

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Amen&searchmode=none

---

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Surely he must be wondering if these floods and storms are not a judgement upon his presidency?

---

Amen. Everybody say.....

The main problem with the xian belief, is that it allows one (re: can be used to) to justify any action, as long as it is "saving the soul" of the victim.

And WM, that was maybe an interesting rant, and sure, at the basis of everything, if we choose to "wax philosophic", do we even truly exist?

But that has nothing to do, with getting that rocket to its destination, does it?

Whether or not 1+1=2 is true, in a philosophical sense, it is true for getting that rocket where we want it.

This is a fact. It can be reliably repeated, and relied on.

It may come, that Physics, the Laws of Physics, changes - who knows? But until then, the Laws that we have discovered, documented, and proven, remain. That we are still exploring and discovering new Laws, rules, facts, evidence, etc does not mean that 1+1=2 is not true, it does not mean that our rocket will not now get from point a to point b with the same, old, reliable methods that we have developed. It just means that we can increase the accuracy and efficiency of doing so with new methods (or even that we don't need to use the old methods anymore, or even the rocket itself).

That is Science.

It is not remotely related to Religion.

Seems like we got of topic....
I gues what I was saying earlier was that I don't really understand why people have to be so petty and close minded about everything. It goes for both sides.

'Bible-thumpers' like Gideon and Jade (no offense meant, and not really meaning to point you out specifically) keep going on and on against differant things because 'it's not in the Bible' and other things like that and start looking for every possible way some scientific fact or theory prosecutes God or god's existence.

'Science Buffs' like WS and others (no offense meant, and not really meaning to point you out specifically either, merely use as an example) Haven't even been able to set forth their 'facts' and 'theories' without resorting to calling a names (not that the other side doesn't) and cant seem to understand that the word science does not mean absolute truth.

I guess my real question boils down to, people aruge and can argue, I understand that, but why can't people listen to the other side of the arguement AND be civil?

"God may have mad the world, but it's held together by duct tape"-quote found on internet

quote:

---

'Science Buffs' like WS and others (no offense meant, and not really meaning to point you out specifically either, merely use as an example) Haven't even been able to set forth their 'facts' and 'theories' without resorting to calling a names (not that the other side doesn't) and cant seem to understand that the word science does not mean absolute truth.

---

Resorting to calling names?

No.

Not when dealing with the actual facts at hand. And Facts are facts, you can attempt to portray them in another light, but that doesn't change them. Now, a theory needs to be further defined, as to what is meant. If it is a Scientific Theory, then it is more than just a flimsy shell of suppostion.

I have, of course, admonished a few posters, for posting complete gibberish - mostly in a nice manner, and then in a more sterner approach, as the situation dictated.

quote:

---

cant seem to understand that the word science does not mean absolute truth.

---

This is a highly subjective opinion and one I disagree with strongely. And although you have refrained from resorting to actual name calling, you have engaged in labeling and strong opinionation. I have stated on many occasions that I believe in a "Super-Nature" - and that is not exactly "absolute truth", nor is it completely scientific in nature. I am hoping that one day it will be proved by Science - but we are not far enough along to be able to prove or disprove it (though it is certainly within the realm of possibility).

Things don't always "fit" into a box that you have prepared for them to fit into.

quote:

---

Why does it seem that people cannot except other's point of view but must continously ridicule, badger, berate and force others to conform to their own belief?

---

Because people are a**holes!

1) People are not content with letting ohers believe what they want, without trying to get them to second-guess their beliefs.

2) Science = facts required, Beliefs = facts not required. This is a debate that has been around for a millenia.

3) Let alone there is a millenia of taking one set of beliefs, and "pit" them against an opposite set of beliefs!

4) Like Ozone, U will always find certain people who are more adamant to argue, rather than debate an issue.

Just my $ 0.02 cents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

No.

People are a**holes, sure. But that is not a "tell all" solution as to why some cannot except other's point of view.

Let us take Project : Let us go to the Moon! shall we?

On this project, there are two people who are in charge - one is in charge of administration and the other is in charge of the actual construction, mission, etc. One believes and relies on its faith in "the big cheese", and the other is soundly grounded in mathmatics, physics, chemistry, and astronomics (among others).

For the crew who will be manning the vehicle, let us hope that the one responsible for the actual construction, mission, etc is able to force his beliefs in science through over the one who believes in "the big cheese". Because lives are riding on the line here, and just having "Faith that the Big Cheese will guide us to It" is not going to get them there and back alive by itself.

There are times, when certain beliefs have to be sidelined, to make place for those that are better able to deal with a situation at hand. The process of debate and intellectual discussion that often takes place during such a crisis, is necessary - otherwise, one is left with the Rule of the Strongest - which has been proven to not always be the best way to deal with a situation.

quote:

---

Sangreal said:

I guess my real question boils down to, people aruge and can argue, I understand
that, but why can't people listen to the other side of the arguement AND be
civil?

---

Sang, people can listen to the other side of the argument and be civil.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Yah Bug, but where's the fun?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

As long a nobody gets hurt, then I have no problem with having some fun

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Well, then they shouldn't allow themselves to be hurt, should they?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Well, then they shouldn't allow themselves to be hurt, should they?

---

I have heard the saying, "He who makes you mad wins", but I have a hard time with that perception.

Were human. It eventually happens to all of us. Show me someone who never gets mad/hurt, and I'll show you a dead person.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "