Meteorite falls in Russia's Chelyabinsk region

[Sava]

I think of you every time I drive by Sawa's Old Warsaw. Smorgasbord

Menu looks good

dammit i hate the suburbs

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

Not necessarily. The former top religious official in Saudi Arabia condemned the teaching that the earth rotates or that it revolves around the sun. Flat earthers derived their views starting in the 19th century from literal biblical interpretation. Should we give those views respect or deference because they're based on religious interpretation?

I think the distinction occurs when "faith" is used to deny provable events, repeatedly demonstrable phyical processes, etc. "God did it this way" is a lot different than "there's a God and he set these things in motion" - Biblical creationists have to deny, distort, reinterpret in provably incorrect ways, ignore those disproofs if anyone is inclined to bother, then insert their own explanations without any actual testing or validation. Whether that's intellectual dishonesty, or lack of intellect, should it get any deference if it's "religious?" What about L. Ron Hubbards "Thetans" and all that made up ****? What about conspiracy theories (truthers, moon landing hoaxers, etc.)? If I cloak it in a "religion" does it somehow become less ridiculous? I don't agree with labelling all religious people or beliefs as stupid, but I don't shy away from treating as stupid or dishonest beliefs which are completely contrary to mounds of repeatedly tested evidence.

[MichaeltheGreat]

At least they don't blame sh1t like that on gay people.

It's only been a day. Clearly it's a sign from God to quit slacking off and stone some sodomites for the Rodina.

[Sava]

mmmmm sodomy

[SlowwHand]

ANY thread is going to get jacked into religion, gayness or political.

[Elok]

If YEC proponents just had a little more imagination/education, there'd be no answer to them besides plain ol' Occam's razor. Speed of light? Radioactive decay? What, you don't think God kept all those numbers constant all this time, do you? No, not to fool us or anything, just for the hell of it...why not?

[PLATO]

Not necessarily. The former top religious official in Saudi Arabia condemned the teaching that the earth rotates or that it revolves around the sun. Flat earthers derived their views starting in the 19th century from literal biblical interpretation. Should we give those views respect or deference because they're based on religious interpretation?

I think the distinction occurs when "faith" is used to deny provable events, repeatedly demonstrable phyical processes, etc. "God did it this way" is a lot different than "there's a God and he set these things in motion" - Biblical creationists have to deny, distort, reinterpret in provably incorrect ways, ignore those disproofs if anyone is inclined to bother, then insert their own explanations without any actual testing or validation. Whether that's intellectual dishonesty, or lack of intellect, should it get any deference if it's "religious?" What about L. Ron Hubbards "Thetans" and all that made up ****? What about conspiracy theories (truthers, moon landing hoaxers, etc.)? If I cloak it in a "religion" does it somehow become less ridiculous? I don't agree with labelling all religious people or beliefs as stupid, but I don't shy away from treating as stupid or dishonest beliefs which are completely contrary to mounds of repeatedly tested evidence.

I guess I am just not making my point clear. I do not believe such views should be respected. I believe that people's right to believe such things should be respected and that they should not be disrespected simply for their religious beliefs. Nothing more...nothing less.

[N35t0r]

I guess I am just not making my point clear. I do not believe such views should be respected. I believe that people's right to believe such things should be respected and that they should not be disrespected simply for their religious beliefs. Nothing more...nothing less.

No, you aren't, because that's exactly the opposite what you posted up there.

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.

It is also, as mentioned, pretty funny that you chose to jump on Dannubis, when Sloww was not only also denigrating someone else's belief (or it doesn't count if it's not religion?), but also lumping an entire country's population into the bag.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Sloww's a Texan. That's what they do.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I guess I am just not making my point clear. I do not believe such views should be respected. I believe that people's right to believe such things should be respected and that they should not be disrespected simply for their religious beliefs. Nothing more...nothing less.

Fair enough. I think the difference is we generally don't know someone's religious views until they start articulating them. So if someone starts spouting creationist stuff, they make criticism of those statements fair game, especially if they do it in the form of a lot of voodoo pseudoscience, a la young earthers. I don't really care if someone wants to believe in the tooth fairy, but when it crosses into certain areas (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses' hangup on blood transfusions to the extent they'll let one of their kids die rather than permit whole blood transfusion, because a transfusion is obviously "eating" blood ) But even people with dumb opinions (usually ) deserve some basic courtesy and basic respect as a human being.

[Berzerker]

I'm inclined to believe in both UFOs and creationism, I just dont agree with the latter's interpretation of Genesis

but the science supports creation mythology - a dark water covered world preceded creation ~4 bya followed by life and plate tectonics.

[SlowwHand]

No, you aren't, because that's exactly the opposite what you posted up there.



It is also, as mentioned, pretty funny that you chose to jump on Dannubis, when Sloww was not only also denigrating someone else's belief (or it doesn't count if it's not religion?), but also lumping an entire country's population into the bag.

All I was doing was reporting a meteorite storm striking Russia and said it was stupid to think it was a UFO attack. If you want to dispute it, you're an idiot, too.
Christ, the one guy thinking it was USA attacking is even more plausible. Get a grip.

[Kidlicious]

Oh Noes, Plato, Ben AND Kid agree... I must have said something that made sense.

I was simply pointing out that you were lying. But, yes, I am in fact, not an athiest.

[Kidlicious]

Not necessarily. The former top religious official in Saudi Arabia condemned the teaching that the earth rotates or that it revolves around the sun. Flat earthers derived their views starting in the 19th century from literal biblical interpretation. Should we give those views respect or deference because they're based on religious interpretation?

I think the distinction occurs when "faith" is used to deny provable events, repeatedly demonstrable phyical processes, etc. "God did it this way" is a lot different than "there's a God and he set these things in motion" - Biblical creationists have to deny, distort, reinterpret in provably incorrect ways, ignore those disproofs if anyone is inclined to bother, then insert their own explanations without any actual testing or validation. Whether that's intellectual dishonesty, or lack of intellect, should it get any deference if it's "religious?" What about L. Ron Hubbards "Thetans" and all that made up ****? What about conspiracy theories (truthers, moon landing hoaxers, etc.)? If I cloak it in a "religion" does it somehow become less ridiculous? I don't agree with labelling all religious people or beliefs as stupid, but I don't shy away from treating as stupid or dishonest beliefs which are completely contrary to mounds of repeatedly tested evidence.

It doesn't have anything to do with how stupid you think the belief is. It's about respecting people. You don't just respect people who you think are smart, do you?

edit: Nvm, just read your post #70

[Kidlicious]

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.

All they really have is to repeatedly call you stupid. They think it has some effect.