A Criticism of Modern Practices

[QuantumModulus]

WARNING: This is not meant to be offensive to anyone in particular, but it may offend some. If you don't like having your beliefs criticized, I urge you to leave the thread.

A few thoughts that have been piling up since I've opened my eyes to the blatant ignorance, and scientific illiteracy pervading society, at nearly every level (I'd be pleased to see this turn into a healthy debate, so, Nat, keep that in mind. )

We should stop reading manuals for how to read tarot cards, and start reading calculus, biology, chemistry, and physics books. We can't afford to let faith take the reigns and discourage the power of logical reasoning.

We should stop letting people encourage "homeopathic medicine", and we should continuously encourage real medicine that has actually been consistently proven to work.

We should stop funding the production of television shows that depict a few men with infrared cameras and Geiger counters trespassing (often illegally) onto historical landmarks in search of ghosts and spirits.

We must stop letting organizations get tax breaks and build up inconceivably large amounts of money simply because they have an irrational superstition supported by some congressmen, and start giving far more financial support to research institutions whose only goals are to encourage scientific inquiry and bring tangible, reliable resolutions to society's problems.

(in accordance with the previous) -- We need to stop entertaining the notion that this country was founded on Christian values, by Christian men, who wanted the Church to have special privilege. Read the goddamn Constitution.

Above all, we've got to take the wax out of our ears and listen to reason for a change. Having your own beliefs is fine, but not when it interferes with society on such pervasive levels.

[Snufkin]

What if science proved that ghosts could be discovered using Geiger counters?

[QuantumModulus]

Originally Posted by Snufkin

What if science proved that ghosts could be discovered using Geiger counters?

Is there a reason why you centered on that particular part of my post, and not the underlying concept?

I could have replaced "Geiger counter" with "dowsing rods", or "infrared motion detectors". If there was any indication that ghosts are actually beaming gamma rays and alpha particles in random directions wherever they go, we would have detected it by now...but if we are given conclusive evidence for the scenario you pose, I don't see the problem with testing and re-testing the resulting theories and drawing conclusions. That's the problem with hunting for the supernatural: there is no consistency. For all we can tell, the same claims are being made across the spectrum, but the devices used to measure the phenomena are only randomly picking up minor anomalies, and that makes not for good science.

[Snufkin]

I think ghosts and spirits or whatever the hell you want to call them belong to a very open minded part of research. It IS still research.

I think to stick to calculus, chemistry, biology and physics books is very conservative. There is a whole world of things out there waiting to be discovered and researched. Religion played a dominant force in many civilisations for centuries, so to simply ignore it now and move past it seems almost as ignorant as enslaving yourself to it for no reason.

What bothers me about the post is that it sounds like what the Conservative government in the UK said they hoped to achieve. That studying science and maths was more important than artistic courses, so they will cut art courses from universities. That, to me, is one of the most stupid and ignorant things I've ever heard.

It seems to encourage having a narrow way of thinking. The minute you remove these things from society, you would start to encourage a lot of societal problems.

But on a more personal level. Who are you to discourage someone from reading tarot cards if that's what they want to do? Who are you to tell anyone they can't go looking for ghosts with any method they see fit?

I choose to ignore science. Because I don't give a fuck about it. But I'm not gonna tell you to put down your copy of The God Delusion and go see a play. So, sure, it's a criticism of modern practices. But it's very narrow minded, in my opinion.

[QuantumModulus]

Originally Posted by Snufkin

But I'm not gonna tell you to put down your copy of The God Delusion and go see a play. So, sure, it's a criticism of modern practices. But it's very narrow minded, in my opinion.
...
That studying science and maths was more important than artistic courses, so they will cut art courses from universities. That, to me, is one of the most stupid and ignorant things I've ever heard.

I never said a word about the arts; I don't see to where this dialogue is relevant. Next.

Originally Posted by Snufkin

I think ghosts and spirits or whatever the hell you want to call them belong to a very open minded part of research. It IS still research.

It is part of "very open minded" research, this is true. However, it is based entirely on first-hand accounts, and there has never been consistent, testable data on which to support the notion that supernatural entities exist. It's fine to research them, but the reason that Geiger counters and other seemingly unrelated devices are used in these shows is simply to make it seem more scientific than it actually is. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that ghosts emit radioactive decay products. Using a Geiger counter to look for what people call "ghosts" is no more apt than using a barometer to measure the voltage on a battery. If someone finds a correlation, then kudos to him -- but I'm not convinced.

Also, you disregard something I mentioned in the original post -- many of these shows are filmed while the "ghost hunters" are illegally trespassing into old landmarks and historically rich sites. There is, in fact, a reason for the lookouts.

Originally Posted by Snufkin

I think to stick to calculus, chemistry, biology and physics books is very conservative. There is a whole world of things out there waiting to be discovered and researched. Religion played a dominant force in many civilizations for centuries, so to simply ignore it now and move past it seems almost as ignorant as enslaving yourself to it for no reason.

Once again, you've completely missed the point of the post. It isn't to only stick to calculus, biology, chemistry, and physics -- it is to become more scientifically literate and have a greater appreciation for the processes that govern our universe, on a level that transcends faith and mysticism. It is all one big allegory -- not to be taken at face value. My example, reading tarot cards, is used for a reason -- such a practice is believed by many superstitious people to give them an inkling into how the universe works -- in essence, to predict the future with a few obscure drawings on pieces of cardboard. If this seems to you like a more sound approach to understanding the universe than science is, then I'm not surprised when you say

Originally Posted by Snufkin

I choose to ignore science. Because I don't give a fuck about it.

If you ignore science, then why are you so ungraciously employing it in your daily activities -- including replying to me on your computer? I'm very intrigued.

[ReluctantPegasister]

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

We should stop reading manuals for how to read tarot cards, and start reading calculus, biology, chemistry, and physics books. We can't afford to let faith take the reigns and discourage the power of logical reasoning.

I don't mind if people read tarot "how to" books. None of my beeswax. But religion shouldn't discourage people from using logical reasoning, which would most likely lead to one discovering that tarot doesn't predict the future.

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

We should stop letting people encourage "homeopathic medicine", and we should continuously encourage real medicine that has actually been consistently proven to work.

Good point, but my homeopath, who admittedly was crazy as crap did catch something no other doctor apparently could- my 1st degree heart block. I've been in and out of hospitals my whole life and she was the only one who caught it (and sent me to an actual doctor to get it checked out). I'm not saying people should start using Head On or rub, I don't know, tiger fur in their skin to cure cancer but still...

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

We should stop funding the production of television shows that depict a few men with infrared cameras and Geiger counters trespassing (often illegally) onto historical landmarks in search of ghosts and spirits.

While I don't support their methods, if people are willing to pay these people and they don't break any laws, we can't stop them. That's called capitalism, they're providing a good/service people are willing to pay for.

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

We must stop letting organizations get tax breaks and build up inconceivably large amounts of money simply because they have an irrational superstition ...(etc,etc)

-- We need to stop entertaining the notion that this country was founded on Christian values, by Christian men, who wanted the Church to have special privilege. Read the goddamn Constitution.

I agree with you on the point of tax breaks, and of course on the Constitution.

While I'm no expert when it comes to these sort of things, I find your argument fairly convincing.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Overall, I agree with QuantumModulus except on one thing. Traditional medicine, such as Traditional Chinese Medicine, has been to an extent, scientifically validated. Perhaps not all of it, but at least some, such as the use of Ginkgo bilboa was used to improve circulation and memory. http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/g...oba-000247.htm

Later on, Stefan Wienmann et al (2010) conducted a review and meta-analysis of the effect of Ginkgo bilboa on Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia and mixed dementia. They found that especially for Alzheimer's disease and mild-moderate dementia, ginkgo was more effective than placebo. Other medications may be more effective than this, but it doesn't rule out some traditional medicine. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2318/10/14

Another herb that has been validated is ginseng: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10996277 (abstract only)

The actual practices for the herbs have scientific merit. For example, according to the Alternative Medicine Foundation, Chinese herbs have to have 4 basic qualities. One of them, affinity is the affinity the herb has for a particular organ. I can cite study after study all night long but to keep it short: http://pharmacologycorner.com/pharmacodynamics-topics/ and volume of distribution (Vd) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_o...tion_for_drugs

Originally Posted by Snufkin

What if science proved that ghosts could be discovered using Geiger counters?

In a later post, you make this question void by stating you ignore science since you don't give a fuck about it. So, let's assume that science revealed ghosts can be discovered using Geiger counters. Wonderful, we can learn more about our world... but as you said, you don't give a fuck about it, so it's completely self-defeating for you. This debate is centered on personal beliefs, so if the remaining population who value science and/or supernatural can be benefited, it doesn't have any bearing on you.

Originally Posted by Snufkin

I think ghosts and spirits or whatever the hell you want to call them belong to a very open minded part of research. It IS still research.

Fair enough, it's research. However, it's not scientific research as there's no scientific theories to support such research, no scientific analyses and no scientific conclusions. The problem for me though is, science is used by implementing scientific gadgets, so it becomes more of entertainment than actual useful research.

Originally Posted by Snufkin

I think to stick to calculus, chemistry, biology and physics books is very conservative. There is a whole world of things out there waiting to be discovered and researched. Religion played a dominant force in many civilisations for centuries, so to simply ignore it now and move past it seems almost as ignorant as enslaving yourself to it for no reason.

True, religion has played a dominant role but in modern Western societies, it's being driven out. Capitalism pushes away religion because it's full of uncertainties, nothing quantifiable and reliable or valid. This doesn't mean people have to stop being religious, they can continue all they want but it shouldn't take center stage anymore.

Originally Posted by Snufkin

It seems to encourage having a narrow way of thinking. The minute you remove these things from society, you would start to encourage a lot of societal problems.

Didn't you admit to doing the same by ignoring science, which has without a doubt revolutionized and shaped modern society? How is that different from ignoring religion?

Originally Posted by Snufkin

But on a more personal level. Who are you to discourage someone from reading tarot cards if that's what they want to do? Who are you to tell anyone they can't go looking for ghosts with any method they see fit?

I may have some disagreements with QuantumModulus here (although it may be different wordings, we'll see soon). If someone wants to read tarot cards, use crystal balls or play with tea leaves, that's fine by me. However, I only support that if it's a hobby or something done for the hell of it, not for full-time employment and income because I view it as a mindless contribution. I think they should be encouraged to get an actual job BUT not be discouraged from doing these things on the side for fun or even for a part-time side job. After all, their real full-time job allows them to be a productive member of society, so it's fine if they have their play time with tea leaves and tarot cards, or whatever else tickles their fancy.

The problem with Ghost Hunters as elaborated by QuantumModulus isn't so much as they may use Geiger counters for whatever reason, rather they conduct illegal activities used for profit. If you say that activity is fine, then you might as well support all thieves, burglars, and trespassers on private property.

[QuantumModulus]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Overall, I agree with QuantumModulus except on one thing. Traditional medicine, such as Traditional Chinese Medicine, has been to an extent, scientifically validated. Perhaps not all of it, but at least some, such as the use of Ginkgo bilboa was used to improve circulation and memory. http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/g...oba-000247.htm

Later on, Stefan Wienmann et al (2010) conducted a review and meta-analysis of the effect of Ginkgo bilboa on Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia and mixed dementia. They found that especially for Alzheimer's disease and mild-moderate dementia, ginkgo was more effective than placebo. Other medications may be more effective than this, but it doesn't rule out some traditional medicine. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2318/10/14

Another herb that has been validated is ginseng: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10996277 (abstract only)

The actual practices for the herbs have scientific merit. For example, according to the Alternative Medicine Foundation, Chinese herbs have to have 4 basic qualities. One of them, affinity is the affinity the herb has for a particular organ. I can cite study after study all night long but to keep it short: http://pharmacologycorner.com/pharmacodynamics-topics/ and volume of distribution (Vd) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_o...tion_for_drugs

This is very true; there are several herbs and tribal remedies that have been demonstrated to hold tangible health benefits. It is no surprise that tribal medicines have some effectiveness; they began in regions in which natural remedies were all that there was with which to work, and it is inevitable for there to have been some successes. It goes without saying that many modern medications are derived from "natural" chemicals -- aspirin, for example. I'd be willing to bet that buying it at the pharmacy would be more convenient, efficient, and effective than chewing on tree bark.

I think it was Tim Minchin who said, "Do you know what we call alternative medicine that has been proven to work? Medicine."

My post was more directed toward the modern-day homeopath: today, homeopathy coincides with people who usually have little to no credentials giving you a preparation of herbs and various spices/chemicals in extremely diluted solutions -- so much so that the preparation can be considered to have virtually none of whatever it is that is supposed to remedy you. Now, in countries where modern medicine is most common, most homeopaths sell preparations that are little different from dirty water. The herbs and plants you mention are beneficial, but as you mentioned, they are often not as effective as modern medications, and often only treat temporary symptoms.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

If someone wants to read tarot cards, use crystal balls or play with tea leaves, that's fine by me. However, I only support that if it's a hobby or something done for the hell of it, not for full-time employment and income because I view it as a mindless contribution. I think they should be encouraged to get an actual job BUT not be discouraged from doing these things on the side for fun or even for a part-time side job. After all, their real full-time job allows them to be a productive member of society, so it's fine if they have their play time with tea leaves and tarot cards, or whatever else tickles their fancy.

I should have been clearer in my original post: reading tarot cards, palms, and tea leaves should not be considered a substitute for mathematics, physical sciences, and biological sciences. I don't see anything wrong with doing things like that as a hobby or for fun, but it would be a travesty if things like those were to be taken more seriously than science and mathematics. Taking money from others to look at their hand or shuffle a deck of cards is deplorable, in my opinion.

[Snufkin]

I should've been clearer when I said I don't give a fuck about science. It's not that I don't believe in science (which makes it sound like a religion), because I do. I believe in evolution and all that. However, it doesn't interest me. If we were to encourage chemistry, biology, physics and calculus, I feel like I would end up being labelled as a tarot card reader for not being interested in those things. The way it was worded made me think it was either you're interested in science, or you're not contributing to society.

I agree religion shouldn't take centre stage. I'm glad most western countries seperate church from state.

[Pelios]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Overall, I agree with QuantumModulus except on one thing. Traditional medicine, such as Traditional Chinese Medicine, has been to an extent, scientifically validated. Perhaps not all of it, but at least some, such as the use of Ginkgo bilboa was used to improve circulation and memory. http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/g...oba-000247.htm

Later on, Stefan Wienmann et al (2010) conducted a review and meta-analysis of the effect of Ginkgo bilboa on Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia and mixed dementia. They found that especially for Alzheimer's disease and mild-moderate dementia, ginkgo was more effective than placebo. Other medications may be more effective than this, but it doesn't rule out some traditional medicine. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2318/10/14

Another herb that has been validated is ginseng: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10996277 (abstract only)

The actual practices for the herbs have scientific merit. For example, according to the Alternative Medicine Foundation, Chinese herbs have to have 4 basic qualities. One of them, affinity is the affinity the herb has for a particular organ. I can cite study after study all night long but to keep it short: http://pharmacologycorner.com/pharmacodynamics-topics/ and volume of distribution (Vd) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_o...tion_for_drugs

I agree with all your points (Jorge) except that one this guy pointed out. Herbs remedies natural alternatives to prescription drugs are a growing. Even though prescription drugs are a scientific endeavor and alternative medicine is not alternative medicine was being used in ancient times before conventional medicine came into the scene. I feel that more people prefer herbal therapies vs mainstream medicine. I for example relay on herbs remedies instead of prescription drugs most members of my family feel the same we never had any prescription drugs in my house my mom always relied on Herbs I’m one of those people who have never had an aspirin to cure a headache I’ve always had the idea that the best way to treat a headache is to let your body cure itself. But other than that point all your other points you make pretty much are logical and understandable. =)

[Lugez]

I agree with you mostly (I hesitate with Homeopathy though). My only concern is how would you put all this stuff into practice. Would you be willing to sacrifice certain freedoms?

People need to be willing to "be logical", you can't force people to do it. Not only does it generally not work, but I dont consider forcing my beliefs on people to be morally right no matter how correct I think I am. Is it really my place to tell people to lay off tarot things? Is it my place to tell people how they should spend their money (those TV shows you mentioned)?

[Anthropomorphic]

I have a limited agreement with you on most of these issues. I do have a question though....

What if someone's philosophies involve decisions and actions based on logic? Wouldn't that break the criteria simply by creating a philosophy of such absolutism? (Think about Vulcans in Star Trek, for example. Their logic is based in a philosophy and culture that dictate that they should always make the most logical decision, even if it seems inhumane or unfair).

[inFAMOUS]

I dont really care if someone follows a religion, but when they start getting tax breaks and such, we should draw the line. They should pay for it all on their own dime.

[-A-]

QuantumModulus - I'm sorry to tell you, but many of your statements are quite ignorant. Your looking at many things in a black and white point of view rather then seeing the picture as a whole. I'll post what I disagree with when i get home latter.

[QuantumModulus]

Originally Posted by Pelios

I agree with all your points (Jorge) except that one this guy pointed out. Herbs remedies natural alternatives to prescription drugs are a growing.

I replied to the bit about homeopathy earlier, in response to what The Man and XX Master said, so I'll refer you to that.

Originally Posted by Lugez

My only concern is how would you put all this stuff into practice. Would you be willing to sacrifice certain freedoms?

When I wrote the post, I wasn't really thinking about making any of these changes forced; such a thing would be almost tyrannical. I do think, however, that we need a major paradigm shift in this country (and elsewhere, but I focus on the US because I know far less about other places) that leaves us focusing more on progressive rational thinking, and giving less (or no) authoritarian power to static practices -- of religion, for example. Believing in religion is fine, but as we've mentioned, allowing it to interfere in government is unacceptable.

The only way that I can think of, at the moment, to create this paradigm shift is to modify the education system to give more weight to the sciences than is given now. In my school (a private high school renowned for its rigor), as well as every other high school I've attended, the focus is heavy on liberal arts and humanities. Even students who have the ability to do well in math and science are uninterested and discouraged because we've created a culture that pins the label "nerd" or "geek" on anyone who participates in and enjoys those things. Once we dissolve that label and bring science to the same tier as other subjects, I think we'll start seeing a more scientifically literate population (note that scientific literacy doesn't necessarily mean being interested in and studying science post H.S.). Heightened scientific literacy would, I hope, lead to a natural decline in the credence given to ghost hunting television shows, the business of reading tarot cards, the power of the church, bogus modern homeopathy, etc.

Originally Posted by Devil

What if someone's philosophies involve decisions and actions based on logic? Wouldn't that break the criteria simply by creating a philosophy of such absolutism?

I don't think I quite understand your question. Could you rephrase it please?

I'm far from suggesting a society devoid of emotion and completely dependent on the most logical course of action (it would be tragic to lose many of the things in society that have been born from creativity and emotion), but I do think that many of the problems I mentioned in the original post would be remedied with even an elementary application of logic.

Originally Posted by -A-

QuantumModulus - I'm sorry to tell you, but many of your statements are quite ignorant. You're looking at many things in a black and white point of view rather then seeing the picture as a whole. I'll post what I disagree with when i get home later.

I haven't seen your remarks yet (which leads me to wonder why you posted this now), but I should state outright: my post was not absolute, and not meant to be taken only at face value. Are you sure I'm the one who is seeing things in black and white?

[-A-]

I haven't seen your remarks yet (which leads me to wonder why you posted this now), but I should state outright: my post was not absolute, and not meant to be taken only at face value. Are you sure I'm the one who is seeing things in black and white?

Then what should I take them as? I'm taking what you said by the meaning of the words you used, that's all.

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

WARNING: This is not meant to be offensive to anyone in particular, but it may offend some. If you don't like having your beliefs criticized, I urge you to leave the thread.

A few thoughts that have been piling up since I've opened my eyes to the blatant ignorance, and scientific illiteracy pervading society, at nearly every level (I'd be pleased to see this turn into a healthy debate, so, Nat, keep that in mind. )

We should stop reading manuals for how to read tarot cards, and start reading calculus, biology, chemistry, and physics books. We can't afford to let faith take the reigns and discourage the power of logical reasoning.

You are now stating that faith, in it self, wants to incourage illiteracy. When such a broad statement is made, the context of what you say from that point on will be one of a negative manner even if that wasn't you intentions.

We should stop letting people encourage "homeopathic medicine", and we should continuously encourage real medicine that has actually been consistently proven to work.

We should stop funding the production of television shows that depict a few men with infrared cameras and Geiger counters trespassing (often illegally) onto historical landmarks in search of ghosts and spirits.

What a person chooses to donate money to is up to the indivual.

We must stop letting organizations get tax breaks and build up inconceivably large amounts of money simply because they have an irrational superstition supported by some congressmen, and start giving far more financial support to research institutions whose only goals are to encourage scientific inquiry and bring tangible, reliable resolutions to society's problems.

(in accordance with the previous) -- We need to stop entertaining the notion that this country was founded on Christian values, by Christian men, who wanted the Church to have special privilege. Read the goddamn Constitution.

OK, they're are a few things I have to say about this.
1. You state that "Organizations.. build up inconceivably large amounts of money". Ok, so where are my facts? Do you have the numbers? The net gain from each "organization"? The percentage used for chairity? Where the money is used for each "organization"? Whats wrong with an organization have extra money?

2. You just attacked someones belief for the 3rd time by stating its "irrational". Seriously dude? If you want to convince someone to believe or even entrain the tough of listening to you, the choice of words you use needs to be more "rational".

3. I'm sorry, but you seem to forget a large amount of American History. I'm not going to get into a 5 page debate on what exactly each founding fathers religious belief was but I will state this. The founding fathers knew that religion held a strong point for many of its citizens, based on previous and current events. They also knew that they could not impose a state church nor a specific religion onto its people, that they needed to create a neutral document. So in order to not repeat the mistakes of former governments, they did not. I've heard many say that because the founding fathers did not impose a certain religion onto its people, that they did not believe in religion, which to say the least is plain stupid.

4. Taxing and economics within the US. From what you've posted I have a feeling you know very little on this subject because of your blanket statements. The idea you can "fix" our debt by ignoring your peoples beliefs is stupid.


Above all, we've got to take the wax out of our ears and listen to reason for a change. Having your own beliefs is fine, but not when it interferes with society on such pervasive levels.

Our "beliefs" is what makes our country so great. We have the ability to believe what we want, to go out and have public discourse on the subject and at the end of the day, everyone is fine. Now, I'm not stating that within the political relm that our politicians shouldn't bend on certain subjects in order to better America but rather that the beliefs that each one of is holds, is what America so great.

[JKmadu619]

Very interesting. I agree somewhat though. You own beliefs are fine, but not when they are in the way or progress. However Holding science is a belief, so where do we draw the line? Only at relgion? Is that discrimination? How does the constitution feel about this? I mean it's a slippery slope to put your beliefs above others (Regardless of if they have

[dancinfool]

However Holding science is a belief, so where do we draw the line?

No, science and religion are entirely different. I believe in science because I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Of course there are people who believe they've seen God, or felt a 'presence' but this is a personal experience, and cannot tangibly be measured as real, whereas an experiment can be watched and repeated by millions of people with similar results. Maybe I haven't explained this in the best way, but what I'm saying is science is not based on beliefs at all.

To the OP: I agree with most of your points (although the post still managed to make me a bit angry, I must be mellowing in my old age :P). I think there are proportionally few people who rely on tarot cards to tell them how to live their life, but the idea of replacing them (or presumably other religious books) with scientific texts is idealistic. Some people prefer to have rules, and guidance, on how to go about their life. There are many places to go for this guidance, including friends or simply by reasoning it through, but you will not find answers in a textbook, however hard you look. I'm not saying science can't be powerful stuff, personally I love mathematics and physics, and find beauty in them. But they don't give me a moral code.

Homeopathy- with you there. Its different from herbal medicine because it is essentially water. If you haven't already read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre (which I would imagine you have) you may enjoy it.

I am not at all religious, I have been strongly atheist for as long as I can remember, but I find dismissing religion as 'irrational superstition' a little tasteless. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you can't respect those who do. I do agree that religious groups shouldn't be state funded to 'spread their message', however you cannot ignore the fact that many religious groups do a great deal of charity work and help a great many people. If I was starving on the streets, I wouldn't appreciate having to be preached at in order to get food, but its highly preferable to not getting food at all.

[QuantumModulus]

Originally Posted by -A-

You are now stating that faith, in it self, wants to incourage illiteracy. When such a broad statement is made, the context of what you say from that point on will be one of a negative manner even if that wasn't you intentions.

To what your particular comment was directed, yes -- I think that believing in a cardboard's ability to predict the future encourages scientific illiteracy. The same applies to how I feel about creationism and the belief in the divine, but this example is a bit more direct. It wasn't exactly supposed to be interpreted in a positive light.

Originally Posted by -A-

You just attacked someones belief for the 3rd time by stating its "irrational". Seriously dude?

Yes, seriously. By definition, faith is the belief of a claim without substantial evidence in its favor. A keystone of what most people consider basic "logic" is the acceptance of a claim once it meets the burden of proof. If you accept something without any indication that it may be true, or tangibly verified, it is irrational. This is not to say that there aren't other things that even atheists do or believe aren't irrational, but the premise of religious belief is, in a strict sense. Someone's holding of an irrational belief doesn't change the way I view or interact with them.

Originally Posted by -A-

I'm sorry, but you seem to forget a large amount of American History. I'm not going to get into a 5 page debate on what exactly each founding fathers religious belief was but I will state this.

There's no debate to be had about the religious beliefs of the founding fathers; several state loose belief in the Christian God, several others suggest only the loosest deistic interpretation of God and even go so far as to criticize Christianity. The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli is pretty clear about this: "As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."

"The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs." - Thomas Jefferson

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson

You can read more illuminating material on Jefferson here.

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin

"I looked around for God's judgments, but saw no signs of them."
- Benjamin Franklin

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - James Madison

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world." - John Adams

"What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith." - Thomas Paine

But I won't waste your time with more; I presume you know how to use Google.

The rest of your elaboration in that little bit is correct; they knew that they had to remain neutral -- but it has not carried through to modern society in the way that they had originally intended.

Originally Posted by -A-

Do you have the numbers? The net gain from each "organization"? The percentage used for chairity? Where the money is used for each "organization"? Whats wrong with an organization have extra money?

It would be a waste of time to dig through volumes of information for every religious organization given a tax exemption, and because they are usually considered non-profit it is extremely hard to find financial reports that are publicly available for many. However, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles -- only covering an area of roughly 3 counties -- had (in 2009) $784,702,762 in assets, $991,890,344 in liabilities, $147,664,560 in revenues, and $429,597,350 in expenses. They do provide money to charitable causes, but it does not excuse the tax exemption -- there are quite a few secular organizations that are highly charitable as well. Granted, the ALA is a relatively large church, but it is notably not the largest.The largest churches in the U.S., for the most part, have not made any financial data available except to the IRS.

Go look up some of the other larger churches and do some basic arithmetic; the numbers grow quickly.

Originally Posted by -A-

4. Taxing and economics within the US. From what you've posted I have a feeling you know very little on this subject because of your blanket statements. The idea you can "fix" our debt by ignoring your peoples beliefs is stupid.

I never said a word about "fixing our debt" -- in fact, I never mentioned the word "debt" at all. However, I'll entertain your little rant. You seem to think that you know far more about economics and tax than many others do, so you should already be more than familiar with these resources. The only blanket statements here are the ones you make about my lack of knowledge.

Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS.

Originally Posted by -A-

Our "beliefs" is what makes our country so great. We have the ability to believe what we want, to go out and have public discourse on the subject and at the end of the day, everyone is fine. Now, I'm not stating that within the political realm that our politicians shouldn't bend on certain subjects in order to better America but rather that the beliefs that each one of is holds, is what America so great.

To be honest, I don't really see how this is relevant at all to the discussion -- diversity is generally considered a good thing, and nobody here has disputed it, as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by dancinfool

Some people prefer to have rules, and guidance, on how to go about their life. There are many places to go for this guidance, including friends or simply by reasoning it through, but you will not find answers in a textbook, however hard you look. I'm not saying science can't be powerful stuff, personally I love mathematics and physics, and find beauty in them. But they don't give me a moral code.

There is a substantial amount of research being done concerning the connection between evolution and morality, as well as the notion that humans acquire morality simply through existing in a society, and absorbing the patterns and behaviors of others. You and I are free of religion, but are still just as capable of acting morally as any randomly selected bystander. I think that many people feel the need for reinforcement from religious texts because they have been raised to believe that it is the most absolute source of guidance, but I know countless people who lacked those types of upbringings and are no less ethically sound than any given religious believer.

Originally Posted by dancinfool

I am not at all religious, I have been strongly atheist for as long as I can remember, but I find dismissing religion as 'irrational superstition' a little tasteless. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you can't respect those who do.

It is a bit tasteless, I don't deny that -- but it is mentioned in passing (I give elaboration on this earlier on)...I also think that I might have been a bit irritated when I wrote the original post, but I do genuinely mean what I said about the irrational superstition bit. I interact and respect those with faith just as readily as I do those without; but I find the beliefs themselves to be irrational (this is expounded upon in earlier posts in the forum; I'd rather not re-hash everything I said earlier).

Originally Posted by dancinfool

I do agree that religious groups shouldn't be state funded to 'spread their message', however you cannot ignore the fact that many religious groups do a great deal of charity work and help a great many people.

I don't deny that religious groups do participate in charitable causes, but it goes without saying that there are also many, many secular charities.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Lugez

I agree with you mostly (I hesitate with Homeopathy though). My only concern is how would you put all this stuff into practice. Would you be willing to sacrifice certain freedoms?

People need to be willing to "be logical", you can't force people to do it. Not only does it generally not work, but I dont consider forcing my beliefs on people to be morally right no matter how correct I think I am. Is it really my place to tell people to lay off tarot things? Is it my place to tell people how they should spend their money (those TV shows you mentioned)?

Yes; we do it all the time. The justice system is essentially a long list of beliefs that we choose to force upon each other, for mutual benefit. Certainly there are times when it isn't appropriate to criticize another person's opinions, but there are also plenty of times when it is. People have the right to believe any silly thing they wish, but if their irrationality is harmful then they absolutely should be criticized for it. That's how social progress is made.

Originally Posted by dancinfool

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you can't respect those who do

Sure, but whether or not we can, many of us don't. I'll respect a person if they're worth respecting; if they're religious, then I may respect them in spite of that religion, but never because of it.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

We should stop reading manuals for how to read tarot cards, and start reading calculus, biology, chemistry, and physics books. We can't afford to let faith take the reigns and discourage the power of logical reasoning.

I've yet to see anyone seriously substituting tarot cards for any of the fields you mention, nor any evidence that belief in a deity or deities "discourage[s] the power of logical reasoning". I am a Catholic and excelled in my Law degree, a field where logical reasoning is paramount. I hesitate to use myself as an example but I feel it illustrates the point.

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

We should stop letting people encourage "homeopathic medicine", and we should continuously encourage real medicine that has actually been consistently proven to work.

I would suggest instead that such medicine be subjected to evaluation as to its merits - as The Man and XX Master pointed out, some of them have proven quite effective. On the whole, though, I agree this area warrants stricter regulation than at present.

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

We should stop funding the production of television shows that depict a few men with infrared cameras and Geiger counters trespassing (often illegally) onto historical landmarks in search of ghosts and spirits.

I would query the illegality claim, as the vast majority of such programmes in the UK have to have landowner consent as a pre-requisite. I know this because one of my colleagues was involved in such a programme (and found the whole experience hillarious, it should be noted). Otherwise, it's just entertainment and widely ridiculed anyway.

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

We must stop letting organizations get tax breaks and build up inconceivably large amounts of money simply because they have an irrational superstition supported by some congressmen, and start giving far more financial support to research institutions whose only goals are to encourage scientific inquiry and bring tangible, reliable resolutions to society's problems.

You err in suggesting that religious organisations are incapable of providing "tangible, reliable solutions to society's problems" - I would have thought AIDS clinics, homeless shelters, hospitals and schools all fit that criteria, as would charities such as Christian Aid and CAFOD to name but two. I understand your wider point, but your claim of implacable opposition between the two is, with respect, groundless and bordering on irrational itself.

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

(in accordance with the previous) -- We need to stop entertaining the notion that this country was founded on Christian values, by Christian men, who wanted the Church to have special privilege. Read the goddamn Constitution.

Oh dear - this old chesnut. I spotted your quotations further down so will address this comment and them at the same time:

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

"The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs." - Thomas Jefferson

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson

You can read more illuminating material on Jefferson here.

Jefferson objected to the mythology and symbolism of the Catholic Church specifically, not Christianity in general. Indeed, he identified himself as Christian and believed he did so in the purest possible form. His denouncing as an "atheist" in regard to Virginia stemmed from his trenchant belief that state and religion should be utterly separate so as to prevent the adoption and corruption of any particular religion by the state and its use as a tool to suppress those who did not share that belief. The article you cite, with respect, is utterly wide of the mark, as the briefest consulation of both this and this would make clear. I should stress that is more a criticism of the author of that article and not yourself.

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin

"I looked around for God's judgments, but saw no signs of them."
- Benjamin Franklin

Franklin identified himself as a deist, and still claimed Christianity in addition. Source. Quoting out of wider context is always a precarious enterprise.

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - James Madison

I could not find a source for this quote (admittedly it was a glancing search) so I would appreciate a reference. I hesitate to comment on it in the absence of knowing where it came from - context is king, after all.

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world." - John Adams

"What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith." - Thomas Paine

Leaving aside the irony of the fact that Adams himself criticised Paine's views on Christianity in 1796, Adams was himself a Christian Unitarian and Paine a deist. Again, neither espouse strictly anti-theist views.

By way of summary, the 55 Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Christian (source), yet at the same time held the view that separation of religion and state was paramount. Not a surprise considering those who were Christian all came from different sects of Christianity, but also not exactly proof of anti-Christian tendencies either or that Christian philosophy did not indirectly influence the foundation of the United States. The Declaration of Independence does make reference both to "their Creator" and "divine Providence", after all (as, of all media, Boston Legal highlighted in one episode...). I do agree that the United States should never be construed as being founded as a Christian nation to the exclusion of all others, because that is patently wrong, but at the same time redacting Christianity out of the picture altogether is likewise.

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

Above all, we've got to take the wax out of our ears and listen to reason for a change. Having your own beliefs is fine, but not when it interferes with society on such pervasive levels.

I too advocate the importance of reason; at the same time, I do not see that and holding religious beliefs as incompatible. I appreciate and on a broader level agree with what you are trying to say; it is the manner in which you do so and the implicit claims therein that I disagree with.

[Lugez]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Yes; we do it all the time. The justice system is essentially a long list of beliefs that we choose to force upon each other, for mutual benefit.

The justice system isn't really an appropriate analogy, but I do see the point you're making. Like you said, we have laws to we can live with each other for mutual benefit (ideally, anyway). But you need to draw the line somewhere. It's one thing to not allow murder, but then it's another to make it illegal to be a Republican or a Communist.

Certainly there are times when it isn't appropriate to criticize another person's opinions, but there are also plenty of times when it is. People have the right to believe any silly thing they wish, but if their irrationality is harmful then they absolutely should be criticized for it. That's how social progress is made.

Criticism is fine. I love criticism.

Call me paranoid, but I believe the "I'm right you're wrong" kind of thinking can easily lead to tyrannical power. I don't like the idea of being told what to believe because "it benefits everyone." Just leaves a sour taste in my mouth, is all.

[CanadaCraig]

Hi Jorge!

I hope you're having a dandy day.

One man's 'logic' is another man's folly.

I can basically sum up everything you're saying in one sentence.

"Everyone should think like ME!"

How is that any different than anyone else?

GREAT BIG HUG
Craig!!

[chickenonsteroids]

The problem with your thinking in my opinion us that you're basically saying, let us stick to laws that have already been proven and ignore theories.

You do realise that people in the past were thought to be crazy because they were researching something, but then they come out with stuff that changes our lives. The people you see as illogical are in the same boat as those who changed your life and mine. Every law, and logical movement starts with an illogical theory.

[Cosmo]

I think most of what I would say has been said by most people here, mainly -A- and dr2005, however I'd add one thing:

Science is not a 'belief'. Beliefs are not facts. Science is fact. If it is not fact then it is not Science. Whether you believe in it or not is irrelevant.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Lugez

The justice system isn't really an appropriate analogy, but I do see the point you're making. Like you said, we have laws to we can live with each other for mutual benefit (ideally, anyway). But you need to draw the line somewhere. It's one thing to not allow murder, but then it's another to make it illegal to be a Republican or a Communist.

I don't think anyone's suggesting it should be, but you've made the exact same point I was making: any time there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, that can only happen with open debate.

Originally Posted by Lugez

Criticism is fine. I love criticism.

Call me paranoid, but I believe the "I'm right you're wrong" kind of thinking can easily lead to tyrannical power. I don't like the idea of being told what to believe because "it benefits everyone." Just leaves a sour taste in my mouth, is all.

A very large number of people hide behind this defense, and it too leaves a sour taste in my mouth. For my part, and I believe this is true if Jorge as well, we don't want to force people to believe anything. I want to convince people to agree with me because I do think I'm right, but if people choose to not be convinced or want to convince me in turn then they're free to do so.

So yes, "I'm right, you're wrong," is a kind of playground tyranny, but "I'm right, you're wrong, here's why, please prove me wrong," is called progress. Please don't make the mistake of equating one with the other.

Originally Posted by CanadaCraig

I can basically sum up everything you're saying in one sentence.

"Everyone should think like ME!"

How is that any different than anyone else?

That kind of dismissal is beneath you Craig, you're better than that. Jorge is saying, in short, that we should spend less time fantasizing about what might be and more time improving what we have. There may be other worlds and other lives, but the only one we know we have for certain is this one, right here. Once we've properly taken care of it, then we can worry about others. I think that's a reasonable enough sentiment that it at least deserves a real answer.

[CanadaCraig]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

That kind of dismissal is beneath you Craig, you're better than that. Jorge is saying, in short, that we should spend less time fantasizing about what might be and more time improving what we have. There may be other worlds and other lives, but the only one we know we have for certain is this one, right here. Once we've properly taken care of it, then we can worry about others. I think that's a reasonable enough sentiment that it at least deserves a real answer.

He thinks like YOU - so he MUST be 'right'.

You're no different Fletcher. You think it's 'logical' and 'reasonable' to dismiss those things that YOU don't understand. But it's not. It's just pure and simple cowardice. You're afraid of what you [Or 'man'] can not 'explain'. Jorge made some good points. But the power of those points were greatly diminished because he presented them in the form of a 'mock'. It was disrespectful for the sake of being disrespectful. And that's how YOU often respond to such things. So it's no surprise that it sounded familiar to you. [And 'right']

GBH - C

[-A-]

[quote=QuantumModulus;712328]To what your particular comment was directed, yes -- I think that believing in a cardboard's ability to predict the future encourages scientific illiteracy. The same applies to how I feel about creationism and the belief in the divine, but this example is a bit more direct. It wasn't exactly supposed to be interpreted in a positive light.

So tell me, what are your feelings on evolution?

Yes, seriously. By definition, faith is the belief of a claim without substantial evidence in its favor. A keystone of what most people consider basic "logic" is the acceptance of a claim once it meets the burden of proof. If you accept something without any indication that it may be true, or tangibly verified, it is irrational. This is not to say that there aren't other things that even atheists do or believe aren't irrational, but the premise of religious belief is, in a strict sense. Someone's holding of an irrational belief doesn't change the way I view or interact with them.

That is correct, a subversion of "faith" means that. And I will agree with you on how you defined "logic" based on the perception from the general public. But now you've claimed that the religious (christian) community has not provided any or enough evidence to prove their claim, to match the same level of evolutions "bruden of proof".

The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli is pretty clear about this: "As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."

Really, this is your proof? A treaty used in an attempt to stop an already deeply wounded, newly created country from entering a religious war?

The rest of your elaboration in that little bit is correct; they knew that they had to remain neutral -- but it has not carried through to modern society in the way that they had originally intended.

How so?

It would be a waste of time to dig through volumes of information for every religious organization given a tax exemption, and because they are usually considered non-profit it is extremely hard to find financial reports that are publicly available for many. However, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles -- only covering an area of roughly 3 counties -- had (in 2009) $784,702,762 in assets, $991,890,344 in liabilities, $147,664,560 in revenues, and $429,597,350 in expenses.

Still, with little factual data to back up your previous claims, there's not much to stand on. As far as "Archdiocese of Los Angeles", I don't see your point. A sub-devison of one of the largest Christian churches in the world, in one of the most economically, religiously, ethnicity and politically powerful and diverse counties in CA and the US for that matter, dealing with a large sum of money is shocking to you?

They do provide money to charitable causes, but it does not excuse the tax exemption -- there are quite a few secular organizations that are highly charitable as well.

Here I'll name a few secular NON-profit organizations that are tax exempt from federal tax, that donate a large sum of money to better America and civilization as a whole :
American Red Cross
Boy Scouts of America
Girl Scouts of America
4-H
Boys and Girls Clubs of America

I never said a word about "fixing our debt" -- in fact, I never mentioned the word "debt" at all. However, I'll entertain your little rant. You seem to think that you know far more about economics and tax than many others do, so you should already be more than familiar with these resources.

Point?

The only blanket statements here are the ones you make about my lack of knowledge.

No, they are based on your lack of evidence and your clear bias perception on the world as whole and your wish you change the world (or just America); the very bias you seem to hate, you yourself, are encouraging and debating that it is just.

To be honest, I don't really see how this is relevant at all to the discussion -- diversity is generally considered a good thing, and nobody here has disputed it, as far as I can tell.

But your claiming those who believe in a subject that you object to as "irrational", "illogical" and "illiterate" and those who believe in the subject are encouraging; "... discourage the power of logical reasoning", "...scientific illiteracy pervading society" and "allowing it to interfere in government". You wish to the education community (Dept. of ED) to employ and encourage more use "science courses" in high schools in an attempt to shift it away from "liberal arts and humanities" in a hope it will "...lead to a natural decline..." to "...the power of the church...".

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by CanadaCraig

He thinks like YOU - so he MUST be 'right'.

You're no different Fletcher. You think it's 'logical' and 'reasonable' to dismiss those things that YOU don't understand. But it's not. It's just pure and simple cowardice. You're afraid of what you [Or 'man'] can not 'explain'. Jorge made some good points. But the power of those points were greatly diminished because he presented them in the form of a 'mock'. It was disrespectful for the sake of being disrespectful. And that's how YOU often respond to such things. So it's no surprise that it sounded familiar to you. [And 'right']

GBH - C

I left this thread for a bit so now I'm returning to it and have looked through some of the posts. It appears many people agree with what you're saying Craig, that Jorge is against diversity and broadening knowledge in areas we don't yet fully understand or know much of anything about. I find this very confusing because Jorge was advocating, in part, for better understanding of the world through means including science, which relies on exploring poorly known areas.

I fail to understand why the power of his points diminish since they were, according to you, presented as a mockery. Would it have made a difference if he posted a YouTube link where he rapped his post or played it to a blues melody? The problem is, if he said those same points in a non-mockery, you admit they would have more power. I don't understand that at all, so can you explain it please?

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by CanadaCraig

He thinks like YOU - so he MUST be 'right'.

You're no different Fletcher. You think it's 'logical' and 'reasonable' to dismiss those things that YOU don't understand. But it's not. It's just pure and simple cowardice. You're afraid of what you [Or 'man'] can not 'explain'. Jorge made some good points. But the power of those points were greatly diminished because he presented them in the form of a 'mock'. It was disrespectful for the sake of being disrespectful. And that's how YOU often respond to such things. So it's no surprise that it sounded familiar to you. [And 'right']

GBH - C

I'm sorry to hear you think so.

All the best.

[Lugez]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I don't think anyone's suggesting it should be, but you've made the exact same point I was making: any time there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, that can only happen with open debate.

A very large number of people hide behind this defense, and it too leaves a sour taste in my mouth. For my part, and I believe this is true if Jorge as well, we don't want to force people to believe anything. I want to convince people to agree with me because I do think I'm right, but if people choose to not be convinced or want to convince me in turn then they're free to do so.

So yes, "I'm right, you're wrong," is a kind of playground tyranny, but "I'm right, you're wrong, here's why, please prove me wrong," is called progress. Please don't make the mistake of equating one with the other.

Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps I took Jorge's post the wrong way. I'm just saying to be careful not to turn things into "playground tyranny", as you put it. It's very easy to fall into that trap, no matter what side you're on.

I think it should be more like "I'm right, here's why I'm right. Now explain why I'm wrong and/or why you are right as well. Then we work from here." But then again, I'm sure theres many other different forumlas people could take. And there's some things you literally can't prove (a good example is God) and only relies on the individual's consistency. But if there's one constant I want, it's that I want people to debate on equal levels and terms. Both sides need to be willing to understand the other point of view, no matter how absurd it may be. Too often, in real life and sometimes on these boards, respect for other views is extremely lacking. There's many different things to believe and many different ways to live life. People sometimes forget this and put one way above all.