6/26: Homeschooling and animal skinning (thanks Slithy_Tove) - Page 3

jaguar · 06-30-2001, 02:03 AM

You point out an interesting thing Tony, one of my best friends and one of the smartest guys I’ve been lucky enough to know once said to be he'd probably be religious later in life as a kind of anchor, exactly what you said. I think it’s the same with allot of kids my age who turn devout religious in there teens it’s because it’s something to cling to. Frankly i think people can believe anything they want, as long as they don't force it, or their rules on other people....that’s what *REALLY* shits me off, tings like gay kids at school getting bagged continually by hardcore Christians, and because i stand up for them I’m *obviously* gay coz no one but gays would support gays.....*sighs*, never mind my gf of 6 months....I had a good friend who was Christian until he joined in something like this, then preceded to abuse me coz i was not Christian, so i abused the shit out of him and his religion, and to be honest, that’s not hard, examples all though history and the bible make it far too easy (I advise you all read Mark Twain's Letters from earth, its incredibly good)....Another example is the catholic church throwing its weight around in France to stopping the distribution of the morning after pill in French high schools....that one really got me, particular since i have a 17y.o friend who is pregnant after being date-raped at a party and her parents refuse to let her have an abortion on religious grounds........

<rant>
HUMANITY BEFORE RELIGION PLEASE...
</rant>

Undertoad · 06-30-2001, 10:35 AM

To be even-handed here:

The other night I saw a play called "The Laramie Project". A bunch of thespians and writers traveled to Laramie, Wyoming, the site of one of the worst gay-bashing incidents ever. For USians who remember, it was Matthew Shepard. And they basically interviewed the town; conducted 200 interviews of people. And it turned out to be the Catholic priest who was the conscience of the town. He was a true leader and he decided on his own to hold candlelight vigils, to mourn what happened, to speak out against it so that it would never happen again.

Now, to his dismay, a lot of the other church leaders in town decided that because homosexuality was involved that they wouldn't take a stand or, in a few cases, promoted the notion that the victim "asked for it". But in general the town learned to mourn Matthew Shepard and found some good in a terrible event.

This priest was truly a focus for good and a moral leader. So there's the other side of the story.

jaguar · 06-30-2001, 05:20 PM

Interesting.....Religion, organised or not is not nescalary bad, and i'm sure it motivated alot of people to do good (charities for instance) but hey, i would have kind of lost my contention if i pointed tat out in the last post, damn englsih teacher has taught me too well....

BUt along the same line i think this quote is rather appropiate...

Quote:

By Albert Einstein
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward,
then we are a sorry lot indeed."

elSicomoro · 07-01-2001, 01:35 PM

I don't doubt that priests can be lightning rods of change...in some cases, they become martyrs fighting for the little people (like Oscar Romero in El Salvador).

Jesse Ventura called organized religion "a crutch for the weak-minded." But I don't think that's really fair. Most people in this world believe in some sort of deity, being God, Allah, the sky, the sun, etc. But it's SOMETHING. And if you break it down, people gather to worship because of a unified belief in some sort of higher power. That doesn't sound weak-minded to me...that sounds like a community.

There are certainly some members of the clergy out there that focus more on the people than the bottom line (i.e. $$$)...but those turn out to be the best servants of the Lord.

Griff · 07-04-2001, 08:08 PM

Interesting discussion.

Now its my turn to see from the other side. I just spent a couple days with an atheist friend who has in the past been pretty adamant about hating religion. His Dad went from being an over the top charasmatic Catholic to a way over the top some other sect that KNOWS all about the end of the world (sometime next week I believe and now the Catholics are gonna fry too). Anyway his old man disowns him every time he disagrees with his flavor of the month and managed for years to keep he and his brother (now a Catholic) on separate sides of the feud. You have no idea how relieved I was when he quit the Catholics so I didn't have to keep trying to explain the misuse of my faith as a weapon for continued family strife and abuse.

The odd thing for me about the homosexual issues and the church is that as an alter boy I became quite comfortable with priests many of whom were probably gay and as a result I never suffered from the homophobia that some folks try to preach. I always thought the church saw gays as a natural source of clergy so they created an emotional incentive to join the priesthood.

Sycamore- Could you explain a little bit more about being a non-Catholic in a parochial school? Seems like you should have an interesting take on the system. thanks G

elSicomoro · 07-04-2001, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Griff
Now its my turn to see from the other side. I just spent a couple days with an atheist friend who has in the past been pretty adamant about hating religion.

I'm curious Griff...does your friend not believe in GOD (as most of us would consider it) or A god?

The reason I ask is that I suspect that many people (and not referring to your friend here) who call themselves atheists are not truly atheists. I suspect that most people believe in some sort of higher power...being spirits, a pagan god, whatever.

Quote:

Sycamore- Could you explain a little bit more about being a non-Catholic in a parochial school? Seems like you should have an interesting take on the system.

Remember now...I was "raised" Catholic.

Most of the non-Catholic kids that went to my high school (a school of 1000 students) were Lutheran--I'd say there were 40-50 total in the school...most of them in my class (1994). Many of them went to the Lutheran grade school that was a mere 4 blocks away. Their parents were generally mellow on the religious tip and a) Didn't want the kids to have to go out to the suburbs to the closest Lutheran high school and b) Didn't want to shell out an extra $1000 a year to go there. If you were non-Catholic, you generally paid an extra $400 to go to my school. (My first year, tuition was about $1900. $2300 for non-Catholics.)

The only real difference that they had to put up with was the slight difference in religious ideals--and the fact that our Bible has 5 extra books. (Am I right on that Griff? The Catholic Bible has 5 extra books? Or is it the King James that has the extra books? Don't remember.) And by the time you start taking religion in high school, it's more about social justice, human sexuality, etc. Most of them took it in stride, and did rather well...it was also nice because you had different perspectives to reflect upon.

They took the whole experience well. There was good-natured ribbing between us and the non-Catholic, such as:

NC: "You put up with this shit for what? 9 years now?"

C: "Look, our parents don't have to shell out as much money as yours do."

The cool thing about going to Catholic high school is how you identify yourself. Rather than saying what neighborhood you were from, you identified yourself by parish. (Saying my own parish--Resurrection of Our Lord--was strange, because only a handful from my little school went to DuBourg.) But you generally knew where the schools were (mainly because you played against them in CYC or competed against them in speech meets).

Parallels: My neighborhood here in Philadelphia and my old neighborhood in St. Louis are frighteningly similar. Back home, I lived within short walking distances of 2 Catholic parishes...and could easily drive to 2 more. Here in Philadelphia, I live within walking distance of 3 parishes...and a short drive to a fourth.

jaguar · 07-05-2001, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore

The reason I ask is that I suspect that many people (and not referring to your friend here) who call themselves atheists are not truly atheists. I suspect that most people believe in some sort of higher power...being spirits, a pagan god, whatever.

Well you have to remember alot of people don't know the meaning of the word agnostic, which for the uninated means (from dictionary.com)

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

For the record i fall neither side of the line really, i follow alot of buddhist PHILOSOPHY but i don't consider that my religion. At the same time faith in science and rational tought is still in the end a faith....

elSicomoro · 07-05-2001, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
For the record i fall neither side of the line really, i follow alot of buddhist PHILOSOPHY but i don't consider that my religion. At the same time faith in science and rational tought is still in the end a faith....

Nice point.

That was the one interesting thing about taking biology classes in college...the professors I had were atheists...because their thought process was so narrowed down to the logical. That's all well and good for some, but I can't help but believe that there is a higher power out there.

Undertoad · 07-05-2001, 10:08 AM

Faith in science and logic? I don't know about that.

It is very difficult, these days, to sort through everything you read or see or learn and try to separate out what is fact and what is conjecture or bad reporting or guesses. But science is totally dependent on what is proven.

So, those people who pit science against religion are, IMO, missing the point. One can be scientific and logical and still be religious. Faith could "fill in the gaps" of what is not proven or evident or logical.

The debate about evolution versus creation is different. Science currently holds that evolution is the accepted theory because that is what we have proof of. But if there was evidence that evolution was wrong, scientists would abandon evolution as a theory. Because science does not have a "creed"; it only demands evidence and proof.

If there was evidence that a fossil record was 1000 years old instead of 100,000 years old, science would accept, record, and teach that evidence, theories would change, etc.

The question of faith in logic and what is provable and known is more of a question of philosophy than of science/religion. Some philosophers say that nothing can be known, that we might all be in a dream state and that we can't prove that we aren't. But before all this stuff gets too heavy (too late!) I'll just step off now...

ndetroit · 07-05-2001, 11:00 AM

Sycamore:

It's the catholic bible that has the 6 'bonus books'... (and you went to school for 9 years and don't remember that??? hehehe..)

elSicomoro · 07-05-2001, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ndetroit
Sycamore:

It's the catholic bible that has the 6 'bonus books'... (and you went to school for 9 years and don't remember that??? hehehe..)

Truth be told, we really didn't go over the actual books of the Bible until my freshman year of high school...and it was rather brief. That's been over a decade now, so I don't claim to remember a hell of a lot from then.

Undertoad · 07-05-2001, 12:57 PM

What are the bonus books?

elSicomoro · 07-05-2001, 01:36 PM

I know Tobit off the top of my head...

*looks at his Catholic Bible...compares it to the KJV at Bibles.net*

Judith
Maccabees 1 & 2
Wisdom
Sirach/Ecclesiasticus
Baruch

elSicomoro · 07-05-2001, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony Shepps
Faith in science and logic? I don't know about that.

It is very difficult, these days, to sort through everything you read or see or learn and try to separate out what is fact and what is conjecture or bad reporting or guesses. But science is totally dependent on what is proven.

I see what you mean Tony...

Granted, yes, science is an exact. But it does require lay people (i.e. non-scientists) to rely on scientists and their complex statistics. I would never expect John Q. Public to under an Analysis of Variance.

Quote:

So, those people who pit science against religion are, IMO, missing the point. One can be scientific and logical and still be religious. Faith could "fill in the gaps" of what is not proven or evident or logical.

Certainly. Big Bang and Oparin's Theory were standard teachings in Catholic school. On top of that, Catholics take a contextual interpretation of the Bible, not literal. I am a big fan of Oparin's "Organic Soup" theory. Now, how did that come together? *shrugs* God? A good possibility. Unfortunately, it would seem that it took some time for Catholicism to come to this...for example, their treatment of Galileo.

Before I go any further, I want to stress that if you believe that the world was truly created in 7 days, cool. I respect your opinion...I don't agree with it, but respect it.

I find it highly unlikely that Moses lived over 900 years. I find it highly unlikely that the Israelites wandered in a space for 40 years that you could generally walk across in 3-5 days tops. Not to mention, if Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, how was Cain able to take a wife? The Bible is a wonderful book...of faith, not history.

Since you mentioned philsophy Tony...

My physics teacher in high school had a friend while in college who had a philosophy class. The final for the class was only one question. The question was:

"Is?"

His friend's answer: "Ain't!"

The guy got a B on that final...

Undertoad · 07-05-2001, 03:59 PM

Well, I just figure that faith in the truth of others is different from faith in something you can't possibly prove.

A speaker I saw once pulled this on a crowd. "OK, stand up if you believe that E equals M C squared." Almost everyone stood up. "Now sit down if you can explain it." Most sat down. Moral: you believe things you don't understand all the time.

On the other hand, about 15 minutes of study should give us a pretty good understanding, at least a seat of the pants understanding of most theories and proofs in science that we take for granted.

As for the finals question, I would have assumed the question was just an abbreviation of "Can we prove that existence exists?" and would have taken an hour to rehash everything I knew about that. That probably would have gotten a B as well. The A answer might be "I think, therefore I am."

06-30-2001, 02:03 AM	#31
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	You point out an interesting thing Tony, one of my best friends and one of the smartest guys I’ve been lucky enough to know once said to be he'd probably be religious later in life as a kind of anchor, exactly what you said. I think it’s the same with allot of kids my age who turn devout religious in there teens it’s because it’s something to cling to. Frankly i think people can believe anything they want, as long as they don't force it, or their rules on other people....that’s what REALLY shits me off, tings like gay kids at school getting bagged continually by hardcore Christians, and because i stand up for them I’m obviously gay coz no one but gays would support gays.....sighs, never mind my gf of 6 months....I had a good friend who was Christian until he joined in something like this, then preceded to abuse me coz i was not Christian, so i abused the shit out of him and his religion, and to be honest, that’s not hard, examples all though history and the bible make it far too easy (I advise you all read Mark Twain's Letters from earth, its incredibly good)....Another example is the catholic church throwing its weight around in France to stopping the distribution of the morning after pill in French high schools....that one really got me, particular since i have a 17y.o friend who is pregnant after being date-raped at a party and her parents refuse to let her have an abortion on religious grounds........ <rant> HUMANITY BEFORE RELIGION PLEASE... </rant> __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

06-30-2001, 10:35 AM	#32
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	To be even-handed here: The other night I saw a play called "The Laramie Project". A bunch of thespians and writers traveled to Laramie, Wyoming, the site of one of the worst gay-bashing incidents ever. For USians who remember, it was Matthew Shepard. And they basically interviewed the town; conducted 200 interviews of people. And it turned out to be the Catholic priest who was the conscience of the town. He was a true leader and he decided on his own to hold candlelight vigils, to mourn what happened, to speak out against it so that it would never happen again. Now, to his dismay, a lot of the other church leaders in town decided that because homosexuality was involved that they wouldn't take a stand or, in a few cases, promoted the notion that the victim "asked for it". But in general the town learned to mourn Matthew Shepard and found some good in a terrible event. This priest was truly a focus for good and a moral leader. So there's the other side of the story.

07-01-2001, 01:35 PM	#34
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	I don't doubt that priests can be lightning rods of change...in some cases, they become martyrs fighting for the little people (like Oscar Romero in El Salvador). Jesse Ventura called organized religion "a crutch for the weak-minded." But I don't think that's really fair. Most people in this world believe in some sort of deity, being God, Allah, the sky, the sun, etc. But it's SOMETHING. And if you break it down, people gather to worship because of a unified belief in some sort of higher power. That doesn't sound weak-minded to me...that sounds like a community. There are certainly some members of the clergy out there that focus more on the people than the bottom line (i.e. $$$)...but those turn out to be the best servants of the Lord.

07-04-2001, 08:08 PM	#35
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	Interesting discussion. Now its my turn to see from the other side. I just spent a couple days with an atheist friend who has in the past been pretty adamant about hating religion. His Dad went from being an over the top charasmatic Catholic to a way over the top some other sect that KNOWS all about the end of the world (sometime next week I believe and now the Catholics are gonna fry too). Anyway his old man disowns him every time he disagrees with his flavor of the month and managed for years to keep he and his brother (now a Catholic) on separate sides of the feud. You have no idea how relieved I was when he quit the Catholics so I didn't have to keep trying to explain the misuse of my faith as a weapon for continued family strife and abuse. The odd thing for me about the homosexual issues and the church is that as an alter boy I became quite comfortable with priests many of whom were probably gay and as a result I never suffered from the homophobia that some folks try to preach. I always thought the church saw gays as a natural source of clergy so they created an emotional incentive to join the priesthood. Sycamore- Could you explain a little bit more about being a non-Catholic in a parochial school? Seems like you should have an interesting take on the system. thanks G

07-05-2001, 10:08 AM	#39
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Faith in science and logic? I don't know about that. It is very difficult, these days, to sort through everything you read or see or learn and try to separate out what is fact and what is conjecture or bad reporting or guesses. But science is totally dependent on what is proven. So, those people who pit science against religion are, IMO, missing the point. One can be scientific and logical and still be religious. Faith could "fill in the gaps" of what is not proven or evident or logical. The debate about evolution versus creation is different. Science currently holds that evolution is the accepted theory because that is what we have proof of. But if there was evidence that evolution was wrong, scientists would abandon evolution as a theory. Because science does not have a "creed"; it only demands evidence and proof. If there was evidence that a fossil record was 1000 years old instead of 100,000 years old, science would accept, record, and teach that evidence, theories would change, etc. The question of faith in logic and what is provable and known is more of a question of philosophy than of science/religion. Some philosophers say that nothing can be known, that we might all be in a dream state and that we can't prove that we aren't. But before all this stuff gets too heavy (too late!) I'll just step off now...

07-05-2001, 11:00 AM	#40
ndetroit Master Locutor Join Date: May 2001 Location: vancouver Posts: 158	Sycamore: It's the catholic bible that has the 6 'bonus books'... (and you went to school for 9 years and don't remember that??? hehehe..)

07-05-2001, 12:57 PM	#42
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	What are the bonus books?

07-05-2001, 01:36 PM	#43
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	I know Tobit off the top of my head... looks at his Catholic Bible...compares it to the KJV at Bibles.net Judith Maccabees 1 & 2 Wisdom Sirach/Ecclesiasticus Baruch

07-05-2001, 03:59 PM	#45
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Well, I just figure that faith in the truth of others is different from faith in something you can't possibly prove. A speaker I saw once pulled this on a crowd. "OK, stand up if you believe that E equals M C squared." Almost everyone stood up. "Now sit down if you can explain it." Most sat down. Moral: you believe things you don't understand all the time. On the other hand, about 15 minutes of study should give us a pretty good understanding, at least a seat of the pants understanding of most theories and proofs in science that we take for granted. As for the finals question, I would have assumed the question was just an abbreviation of "Can we prove that existence exists?" and would have taken an hour to rehash everything I knew about that. That probably would have gotten a B as well. The A answer might be "I think, therefore I am."

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)