Meteorite falls in Russia's Chelyabinsk region

[kentonio]

I never have understood why some people insist on denigrating someone else's beliefs. This thread had nothing to do with religion and yet you feel the need to do this. To me this is more revealing of your own religious intolerance than it is of anything else.

An American was describing the Russians as backwards because lots of them are afraid of UFOs. It hardly seems unreasonable to point out that a lot of Americans believe something far stupider. Given the near certainty that extraterrestrial life exists somewhere, at least the UFO nuts have a vague possibility of being right (not that I think they are). YE Creationism is demonstrable wrong and idiotic.

[PLATO]

An American was describing the Russians as backwards because lots of them are afraid of UFOs. It hardly seems unreasonable to point out that a lot of Americans believe something far stupider. Given the near certainty that extraterrestrial life exists somewhere, at least the UFO nuts have a vague possibility of being right (not that I think they are). YE Creationism is demonstrable wrong and idiotic.

Congratulations. You join the list of the intolerant as well. When speaking to matters of someone's faith and their belief in a divine that can cause any series of events, it is intolerant to say things like "demonstrable and wrong". From a purely scientific view, you may be correct. However, what does science have to do with faith? They are nearly opposite ideas. Certainly you are free to think and feel as you wish. Equally certain, in my mind, is the obligation for you to respect that feeling for others when it comes to matters of faith.

Now, in matters that deal with non-faith issues, I believe that good debate is stimulating (in most cases). In matters of insulting someone elses religious beliefs, I think you lessen yourself by doing so. Simply disagreeing is fine, but calling someone's religious beliefs stupid is quite another thing.

[Asher]

?? Believing is not an issue here, is being afraid that is frowned upon.

The US isn't known as a God-fearing country, right?

[PLATO]

The US isn't known as a God-fearing country, right?

Interesting question. In general, I would say "Not in practice" Here are some statistics though that would seem to imply differently:

[dannubis]

I never have understood why some people insist on denigrating someone else's beliefs. This thread had nothing to do with religion and yet you feel the need to do this. To me this is more revealing of your own religious intolerance than it is of anything else.

OK, it seems you need a bit more explanation than others. That is fine. I will spell it out for you.... ONCE.

I never intended to harm your precious little feelings with my comment on creationism. It should be interpreted as follows: Slowwy here made a comment about Russians being backwards for thinking ET was raining hellfire on them. I replied that USians in general shouldn't look down on other people anywhere in the world since stupidity/ignorance seems to run very deep in certain segments your society (e.g. creationism).

Now, let's look at your reaction: you read into my comment that I was intolerant of your religion. I find this somewhat strange since I didn't even mention your religion. The fact that you link your belief system to things like creationism says more about your gullibility than my intolerance. Building further upon this, the fact that you felt the need to use your religious feelings to try and shut me up says more of your own intolerance for freedom of ideas than anything else.

[kentonio]

Congratulations. You join the list of the intolerant as well. When speaking to matters of someone's faith and their belief in a divine that can cause any series of events, it is intolerant to say things like "demonstrable and wrong". From a purely scientific view, you may be correct. However, what does science have to do with faith? They are nearly opposite ideas.

If someone wishes to believe in something on faith alone, and its something that cannot be scientifically verified, then they can believe whatever they want. When it comes to having blind faith in something that we can conclusively prove is wrong however, then its not faith it's stupidity.

Equally certain, in my mind, is the obligation for you to respect that feeling for others when it comes to matters of faith.

Sorry but I absolutely 100% disagree with that. I have absolutely no obligation to respect someones opinions, especially when they are based on literally nothing more than convincing themselves that something they cannot know is true must be true. In real life I won't usually insult someones beliefs in front of them because I'm a big believer in civilized conduct to others (outside the internet), but I don't have any obligation to respect someone who believes something utterly idiotic.

Now, in matters that deal with non-faith issues, I believe that good debate is stimulating (in most cases). In matters of insulting someone elses religious beliefs, I think you lessen yourself by doing so. Simply disagreeing is fine, but calling someone's religious beliefs stupid is quite another thing.

Please explain to me why a religious belief should magically gain some kind of special status as being above reproach or question? This whole conversation started because Sloww decided to describe an entire country as 'backwards' because some of them believe something wildly implausible, yet you didn't feel any need to pick him up on that. Being extremely rude was apparently fine when its alien objects in the sky, yet when it's invisible creator figures in the sky that somehow has to be protected and respected?

[PLATO]

OK, it seems you need a bit more explanation than others. That is fine. I will spell it out for you.... ONCE.

I never intended to harm your precious little feelings with my comment on creationism. It should be interpreted as follows: Slowwy here made a comment about Russians being backwards for thinking ET was raining hellfire on them. I replied that USians in general shouldn't look down on other people anywhere in the world since stupidity/ignorance seems to run very deep in certain segments your society (e.g. creationism).

Now, let's look at your reaction: you read into my comment that I was intolerant of your religion. I find this somewhat strange since I didn't even mention your religion. The fact that you link your belief system to things like creationism says more about your gullibility than my intolerance. Building further upon this, the fact that you felt the need to use your religious feelings to try and shut me up says more of your own intolerance for freedom of ideas than anything else.

I don't think I said anywhere that it was my religion. You are so blinded by intolerence that you do not even see that you did it again in this post. In addition, your assumed moral superiority made you think that being condesending was an acceptable approach to take.

I certainly respect your right to feel however you want on your beliefs and will defend that right wherever I feel it necessary. I do not accept that you have a right to call anyones beliefs "stupid". Hopefully your limited mind can grasp the ideal that I would be posting exactly the same thing if you had called Hinduism, Islam, Judiasm, Satanism, or any other religion "stupid".

[PLATO]

If someone wishes to believe in something on faith alone, and its something that cannot be scientifically verified, then they can believe whatever they want. When it comes to having blind faith in something that we can conclusively prove is wrong however, then its not faith it's stupidity.

I think you are overlooking the fundamental nature of faith. I would imagine that one could define faith as the belief in something that cannot be proved scientifically. In essence, that may actually be the fundamental nature of faith now that I think about it.

Sorry but I absolutely 100% disagree with that. I have absolutely no obligation to respect someones opinions, especially when they are based on literally nothing more than convincing themselves that something they cannot know is true must be true. In real life I won't usually insult someones beliefs in front of them because I'm a big believer in civilized conduct to others (outside the internet), but I don't have any obligation to respect someone who believes something utterly idiotic.

Perhaps I am being unclear. I would never ask that you respect someone's opinion. I do ask that you respect their right to have one. While you feel that their beliefs are "utterly idiotic", it is equally likely that others feel the same way about your views. Matters of faith are impossible to debate by their vary nature.

Please explain to me why a religious belief should magically gain some kind of special status as being above reproach or question? This whole conversation started because Sloww decided to describe an entire country as 'backwards' because some of them believe something wildly implausible, yet you didn't feel any need to pick him up on that. Being extremely rude was apparently fine when its alien objects in the sky, yet when it's invisible creator figures in the sky that somehow has to be protected and respected?

It does seem that there is a double standard. However, it once again comes down to the unprovability of faith. It is quite likely that science will exist one day (at least hopefully it will) that could answer the UFO question. It is highly unlikely that it will exist to answer faith questions. Adding to the fact that religion is a much more personal subject to most people and deals with so many more fundamental issues to the affected individuals, then yes...it magically gets special consideration.

[kentonio]

I think you are overlooking the fundamental nature of faith. I would imagine that one could define faith as the belief in something that cannot be proved scientifically. In essence, that may actually be the fundamental nature of faith now that I think about it.

Well like I was saying, if it's over something that cannot be scientifically proven that I have no issue with it, and can actually understand it. When you start getting into thinking about the creation of the universe and so on, it's hard not to rely on faith for most of it (at least currently). For all we know our entire universe could be an atom in another giant universe, so the idea of a greater intelligence creating everything doesn't seem that wild. I only really get pissy about religion when it a) says things which are blatantly untrue like this and b) is used to control people by claiming god spoke to us through prophets etc. I actually think being a deist would be fairly easy.

Perhaps I am being unclear. I would never ask that you respect someone's opinion. I do ask that you respect their right to have one. While you feel that their beliefs are "utterly idiotic", it is equally likely that others feel the same way about your views. Matters of faith are impossible to debate by their vary nature.

The problem I have with this however is that by showing respect to an opinion you give it legitimacy. A gallup poll in 2012 showed "Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years". For a major first world nation who's future safety and prosperity will be hugely dependant on its scientific progress, that kind of figure is utterly terrifying. It means that 46% of Americans refuse to believe something that has been conclusively proven, because it disagrees with what they are taught in church. That isn't something that should be respected, that is something that should be attacked repeatedly in the classroom, the internet and everywhere else it appears. There has to be a line between the real world and the faith based world or else the future is going to be dark indeed.

It does seem that there is a double standard. However, it once again comes down to the unprovability of faith. It is quite likely that science will exist one day (at least hopefully it will) that could answer the UFO question. It is highly unlikely that it will exist to answer faith questions. Adding to the fact that religion is a much more personal subject to most people and deals with so many more fundamental issues to the affected individuals, then yes...it magically gets special consideration.

It gained that protection initially because the churches themselves imposed sentences of torture and death on heretical thought. Gladly we've moved on since, but it's noticable that these protections only seem to be granted for certain religions, and usually the same ones that used to kill heretics. How much respect do Catholics show to pagans or druids? How much respect do the muslims or protestants show towards scientologists or mormons? If I come back tomorrow and declare that I'm utterly convinced that a cat called RAGEPIG is the creator of the universe, does that gain special protection? I know I'm being a bit OTT here, but how can freedom of speech exist if you're going to grant people special protections for specific beliefs?

[Donegeal]

Back On-Topic...

Injuries pushing 1,000, mostly from broken glass caused by the shockwave.

[The Mad Monk]

Meanwhile, The Real Threat lurks undetected in the shadow of Asteroid 2012 DA14...

[PLATO]

Well like I was saying, if it's over something that cannot be scientifically proven that I have no issue with it, and can actually understand it. When you start getting into thinking about the creation of the universe and so on, it's hard not to rely on faith for most of it (at least currently). For all we know our entire universe could be an atom in another giant universe, so the idea of a greater intelligence creating everything doesn't seem that wild. I only really get pissy about religion when it a) says things which are blatantly untrue like this and b) is used to control people by claiming god spoke to us through prophets etc. I actually think being a deist would be fairly easy.

I think "a.)" speaks to the fundamental nature of faith. While you or I may not be able to reconcile a religious belief with accepted science, it does not grant us the right to call someone who can "stupid". Certainly we have the right to disagree and to debate the point, but not to disrespect someones right to believe as they will.

"b.)" I totally agree with. This speaks to the intolerence that many religious people have to allow anyone to believe as they will.

The problem I have with this however is that by showing respect to an opinion you give it legitimacy. A gallup poll in 2012 showed "Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years". For a major first world nation who's future safety and prosperity will be hugely dependant on its scientific progress, that kind of figure is utterly terrifying. It means that 46% of Americans refuse to believe something that has been conclusively proven, because it disagrees with what they are taught in church. That isn't something that should be respected, that is something that should be attacked repeatedly in the classroom, the internet and everywhere else it appears. There has to be a line between the real world and the faith based world or else the future is going to be dark indeed.

I totally disgree with the fact that you respect someone's right to believe something you disagree with gives the opinion legitamacy. Ibelieve you can respect someone's opinion and totally disagree with it...and in fact debate it. I do not believe that anyone should call someone's faith stupid.

It gained that protection initially because the churches themselves imposed sentences of torture and death on heretical thought. Gladly we've moved on since, but it's noticable that these protections only seem to be granted for certain religions, and usually the same ones that used to kill heretics. How much respect do Catholics show to pagans or druids? How much respect do the muslims or protestants show towards scientologists or mormons? If I come back tomorrow and declare that I'm utterly convinced that a cat called RAGEPIG is the creator of the universe, does that gain special protection? I know I'm being a bit OTT here, but how can freedom of speech exist if you're going to grant people special protections for specific beliefs?

Again I believe you misunderstand me. I am not at all supportive of any religious institution or any individual being able to force their views on another. I am also not supportive of any institutions or individuals insulting any one's faith...or lack thereof.

I can certainly see an argument where "God created the Earth in 7 days" and "2+2=5" may be equally inaccurate statements to some. However, I also believe that there is a fundamental difference in calling the speaker of one stupid and calling the speaker of the other stupid. One is based in faith and the other isn't. Now, if you tell me that someone's religion tells them that "2+2=5", then I will respect their right to have that belief, but I will vehemently disagree with and debate it. I will not insult them, if it is a genuine belief, by calling their belief system stupid (although I may certainly feel that it is!)

[kentonio]

I think "a.)" speaks to the fundamental nature of faith. While you or I may not be able to reconcile a religious belief with accepted science, it does not grant us the right to call someone who can "stupid".

I don't consider things like YE creationism to be faith, they are not just believing something that science cannot verify, they are knowingly saying that something science has already proven is in fact not true. IMHO that isn't faith, thats stupidity. Many religious people have argued (and I think fairly reasonably) that science and religion exist in completely seperate spheres which can therefore co-exist. I'd agree with this chiefly because for me religion is basically philosophy. When religion starts trying to sneak into the science sphere though, then all truces are off.

I can certainly see an argument where "God created the Earth in 7 days" and "2+2=5" may be equally inaccurate statements to some. However, I also believe that there is a fundamental difference in calling the speaker of one stupid and calling the speaker of the other stupid. One is based in faith and the other isn't.

I just can't see any difference between those two things. Maybe its just part of being atheist, but i just can't see why one argument should be treated as any less foolish than the other.

[PLATO]

I don't consider things like YE creationism to be faith, they are not just believing something that science cannot verify, they are knowingly saying that something science has already proven is in fact not true. IMHO that isn't faith, thats stupidity. Many religious people have argued (and I think fairly reasonably) that science and religion exist in completely seperate spheres which can therefore co-exist. I'd agree with this chiefly because for me religion is basically philosophy. When religion starts trying to sneak into the science sphere though, then all truces are off.

You hit the nail on the head. In your opinion. I certainly support your right to feel as you do. I do disagree that because your belief system tells you one thing that it gives you the right to insult someone whose belief system tells them something different. Certainly you have the right to disagree and debate.

As a side note...living in the South I guess I have a rather unique opportunity to observe how many very bright scientist at places like ORNL can reconcile their beliefs every Sunday Morning. I am not sure quite how they do it, but the empiracal evidence is clear that they do.

I just can't see any difference between those two things. Maybe its just part of being atheist, but i just can't see why one argument should be treated as any less foolish than the other.

I believe that you do not understand the difference because of your belief system. If this is the case, then clearly that must be respected. Ultimately, I ask no less of you for others.

[kentonio]

But you're asking me to respect something based on a premise that I don't actually believe in but which strangely does seem to all create a giant paradoxical circle. To avoid any further headaches I'll concede your point and stop calling Sloww an idiot (for this thread at least). I do expect him to deliver an apology to all people of Russian extraction however.