Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 2,062 - 2,073 of 6,170
Posts 2,062 - 2,073 of 6,170
Everyone believes in something, whether they call it science, religion, spirituality, etc. And it's fairly natural for those with similar beliefs to form groups. I would argue that this is human nature. The problems come when one group decides it's superior to all of the others. *shrugs*
Examples? Here's one that most people don't think about: skepticism, or the religion of scientists who don't understand logic, and claim that lack of proof of A's existence implies that A does not exist, absolutely and conclusively. (i.e. no physical specimens of bigfoot, so bigfoot can't exist) If we applied this same "logic" to, say, a murder investigation, lack of evidence would indicate that the murderer did not exist.
The correct, logical conclusion for a lack of evidence is "it is unlikely that A exists." (or in the case of a murder scene, "it is unlikely that we will find the murderer.") Anything stronger is either based on assumptions or is an out and out opinion.
And science in itself constitutes an incomplete belief system, because it can only make statements based on testable hypotheses. If there is no way to test a hypothesis (God's favorite color is orange; the universe started on a Wednesday evening) then science has nothing to say about it. A religion may have a great deal to say about it, based on experience, dogma, tradition... When science goes beyond what is testable, it stops being science and becomes what I call the religion of skepticism.
Pretty as it may be to think that "no religion" would make the world a better place, science has been responsible for some nasty stuff as well. Example: Residents near atomic bomb tests were not informed of any possible danger and our military monitored them for years to see what effect the radiation would have.
Sorry if I sound like I'm ranting, but there's no such thing as an easy solution for worldwide conflict. And generally people whose goal is to make everyone happy wind up creating more misery than there was before.
Examples? Here's one that most people don't think about: skepticism, or the religion of scientists who don't understand logic, and claim that lack of proof of A's existence implies that A does not exist, absolutely and conclusively. (i.e. no physical specimens of bigfoot, so bigfoot can't exist) If we applied this same "logic" to, say, a murder investigation, lack of evidence would indicate that the murderer did not exist.
The correct, logical conclusion for a lack of evidence is "it is unlikely that A exists." (or in the case of a murder scene, "it is unlikely that we will find the murderer.") Anything stronger is either based on assumptions or is an out and out opinion.
And science in itself constitutes an incomplete belief system, because it can only make statements based on testable hypotheses. If there is no way to test a hypothesis (God's favorite color is orange; the universe started on a Wednesday evening) then science has nothing to say about it. A religion may have a great deal to say about it, based on experience, dogma, tradition... When science goes beyond what is testable, it stops being science and becomes what I call the religion of skepticism.
Pretty as it may be to think that "no religion" would make the world a better place, science has been responsible for some nasty stuff as well. Example: Residents near atomic bomb tests were not informed of any possible danger and our military monitored them for years to see what effect the radiation would have.
Sorry if I sound like I'm ranting, but there's no such thing as an easy solution for worldwide conflict. And generally people whose goal is to make everyone happy wind up creating more misery than there was before.
I like the way you put it, Ulrike. Some scientists can hold a sort of materialist dogma.
I consider myself spiritual, but I'm not the least bit religious. I study from any source available to find out about reincarnation, life after death, dreams, and the nature of reality. I dont care if it's the Bhagavad Gita or Kaku's Hyperspace- if it's got good information and clarifies a bit of the big picture, then I'm interested.
I consider myself spiritual, but I'm not the least bit religious. I study from any source available to find out about reincarnation, life after death, dreams, and the nature of reality. I dont care if it's the Bhagavad Gita or Kaku's Hyperspace- if it's got good information and clarifies a bit of the big picture, then I'm interested.
I'm in favor of gay marriage. I'm Pagan but not one of the more religious ones. Most branches of Paganism allow for a lot of variations, as long as you don't hurt anybody.
Whenever the subject of gay marriage comes up, I think of two gay guys who are friends of mine. They've been together about 15 years, I think. One is Pagan but occasionally goes to Catholic Mass and still says the Rosary with his grandmother.
They (the two guys) had some sort of ceremony years ago, don't know what they called it. They bicker sometimes like any couple, but they love each other. I don't think anybody should go around passing laws attempting to weaken their relationship or keep them from providing for each other's needs. (You don't even know them!)
As for children: for a while they took care of the one guy's nieces and nephews because the *straight* parents weren't in any shape to do so.
Whenever the subject of gay marriage comes up, I think of two gay guys who are friends of mine. They've been together about 15 years, I think. One is Pagan but occasionally goes to Catholic Mass and still says the Rosary with his grandmother.
They (the two guys) had some sort of ceremony years ago, don't know what they called it. They bicker sometimes like any couple, but they love each other. I don't think anybody should go around passing laws attempting to weaken their relationship or keep them from providing for each other's needs. (You don't even know them!)
As for children: for a while they took care of the one guy's nieces and nephews because the *straight* parents weren't in any shape to do so.
I am a Christian (Nondenom Protestant, for those who care) and I am in favor of legalizing gay marriage.
I can't speak for all religious people, but I reconcile it like this: Jesus said to love one another. He said "Judge not lest ye be judged." He said that those who have no sin should throw the first stone. I realize that these statements in themselves are not an endorsement of gay marriage, but I think that if two people truly love each other they should be allowed to marry and I should keep my nose out of it. If it's such a huge sin then God will sort it out later. It's not up to me.
This is not to say that I think churches should be forced to marry gay couples if they don't believe in it. Gay couples will be able to find gay-friendly churches to have their weddings in (check San Francisco). Churches are allowed to turn away het couples that they don't approve of, so they shouldn't be forced to marry gays. But gays should be able to get their marriages recognized by the state.
As far as gay couples making a mockery of marriage, I figure heterosexual couples have been making a mockery of marriage for years (look at FOX reality shows) and it's about time we gave gays a crack at it.
I can't speak for all religious people, but I reconcile it like this: Jesus said to love one another. He said "Judge not lest ye be judged." He said that those who have no sin should throw the first stone. I realize that these statements in themselves are not an endorsement of gay marriage, but I think that if two people truly love each other they should be allowed to marry and I should keep my nose out of it. If it's such a huge sin then God will sort it out later. It's not up to me.
This is not to say that I think churches should be forced to marry gay couples if they don't believe in it. Gay couples will be able to find gay-friendly churches to have their weddings in (check San Francisco). Churches are allowed to turn away het couples that they don't approve of, so they shouldn't be forced to marry gays. But gays should be able to get their marriages recognized by the state.
As far as gay couples making a mockery of marriage, I figure heterosexual couples have been making a mockery of marriage for years (look at FOX reality shows) and it's about time we gave gays a crack at it.
Annakie: Good point.
Anyways i'm going to bow out of this before it turns into a flame war
I look forward to more opinions.
Anyways i'm going to bow out of this before it turns into a flame war
I look forward to more opinions. 
It seems to me that it's a matter of semantics, really. As far as the government is concerned, all civil unions ought to be called "civil unions" and treated equally under the law (marriage being what you get in a church, which should have zilch to do with the workings of government). This part of the debate is not about whether God loves gay people, but about whether gay people are entitled to the same rights. I know a couple of gay women who have been living together in a solid, loving relationship for more than 20 years, and are raising three healthy, well-adjusted kids together. I think it's a pure horror that if one of them were to fall ill or die, the other would have *no rights* to make any decisions regarding medical treatment, funeral arrangements, or possibly the future of their children.
Also, I think nothing could be more wrong than to have the majority vote on whether to continue oppressing a minority. None of the progress made in civil rights, from abolition of slavery to votes for women, would have happened if it had been left to the oppressing majority to vote. That's where it's the government's responsibility, imo, to lead the people.
Also, I think nothing could be more wrong than to have the majority vote on whether to continue oppressing a minority. None of the progress made in civil rights, from abolition of slavery to votes for women, would have happened if it had been left to the oppressing majority to vote. That's where it's the government's responsibility, imo, to lead the people.
Good point, Yoiko. Very good point. Before this administration I had believed that although it had its problems, the government would consider the best interests of its people. Perhaps I was naive. But the corruption, divisiveness, and fascist policies of this administration are so blatant that I've completely lost that faith.
There has been a lot of talk about what the term 'marriage' actually means, with reference to the legal system, rights, procreation and the like. Perhaps it is a little naive of me in this day and age, with convenience weddings and so on, but I've always seen marriage as simply a vow of a couple's love for each other in public. It shouldn't be about who owns property and custody of children or anything like that, but about loving someone so much that you want to shout it from the rooftops so that everyone can hear. I realise that people need all the legal stuff too as a safety net, but in my eyes, that's not the point of marriage. And it's for that reason I am for gay marriages. Love is love and it is no less wonderful if it's between two men, two women or a man and a woman.
For the record, I'm agnostic but I do try to live my life according to Christian principles. I figure the rule of 'Treat others as you would like to be treated and love your neighbour' is a pretty good philosophy of life, and if I follow that, I can still be a good person even if I don't go to church or pray to God every night.
Ooh, and something you might be interested to hear: the term 'tying the knot' comes from part of the Viking ceremony of marriage, which involved tying the groom's cloak to the bride's skirt as a symbol of their union.
For the record, I'm agnostic but I do try to live my life according to Christian principles. I figure the rule of 'Treat others as you would like to be treated and love your neighbour' is a pretty good philosophy of life, and if I follow that, I can still be a good person even if I don't go to church or pray to God every night.
Ooh, and something you might be interested to hear: the term 'tying the knot' comes from part of the Viking ceremony of marriage, which involved tying the groom's cloak to the bride's skirt as a symbol of their union.
Other cultures sometimes literally tied the couple's hands together, giving us the term "handfasting" for a marriage ceremony. (I think this is Celtic, but I could be wrong)
And I agree with Laydee. A declaration of marriage should be about love, first and foremost. What difference if the couple happens to be same-sex?
And I agree with Laydee. A declaration of marriage should be about love, first and foremost. What difference if the couple happens to be same-sex?
Ulrike, yes, I'm pretty sure that's where handfasting comes from. It's common among Wiccans--I went to one a few weeks ago.
... In other news, there's a piece (not very informative) in today's New York Times about computers that write fiction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/22/books/22fict.html?oref=login&th
There's a link in the article to the Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, as well.
http://user.tninet.se/~ecf599g/aardasnails/java/Monkey/webpages/
(So far, my record is only 19 letters from the Comedy of Errors.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/22/books/22fict.html?oref=login&th
There's a link in the article to the Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, as well.
http://user.tninet.se/~ecf599g/aardasnails/java/Monkey/webpages/
(So far, my record is only 19 letters from the Comedy of Errors.)
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar