Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

Religious people are less intelligent than atheists (Page 5)
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
and "Creationism" is more complicated than simple "young Earth" vs "old Earth". Both sides like to cherry-pick the nutters without addressing similarities, which is great for starting arguments but shitty for actual communication.

But how many concessions should Creationists be able to make for their biblical viewpoints over time, as we learn new things, before we call into question their source?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Right. Sometimes creationism is about evolution and other times it's about the big bang.
Precisely, and even more complex than that a good deal of the time.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 05:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
But how many concessions should Creationists be able to make for their biblical viewpoints over time, as we learn new things, before we call into question their source?
Concessions? There wouldn't be many issues at all if Christians would leave interpretation of the Torah to the "professionals", re. rabbis. It is primarily their scriptures, after all.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Concessions? There wouldn't be many issues at all if Christians would leave interpretation of the Torah to the "professionals" re. rabbis. It is primarily their scriptures, after all.

So, your garden variety Christian should leave biblical interpretations to the experts? How should they approach coming across the parts of the bible that seem fishy to them? I can appreciate that many Christians can use the Bible as a tool to enhance their lives without fully reconciling some of these debates, and I actually wish I was like that myself, but what about for everybody else?

One thing I do like about Buddhism is that as a set of philosophies, you can bring that to whatever religion you want to embrace really, it doesn't setup that "gotta pick the right horse" sort of thing where coming across something like the young Earth thing might sort of make you question if you've picked the right horse.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So, your garden variety Christian should leave biblical interpretations to the experts? How should they approach coming across the parts of the bible that seem fishy to them? I can appreciate that many Christians can use the Bible as a tool to enhance their lives without fully reconciling some of these debates, and I actually wish I was like that myself, but what about for everybody else?

One thing I do like about Buddhism is that as a set of philosophies, you can bring that to whatever religion you want to embrace really, it doesn't setup that "gotta pick the right horse" sort of thing where coming across something like the young Earth thing might sort of make you question if you've picked the right horse.
When it comes to interpretation of the Torah, yes. The Jews have thousands of years of commentary, scholarship of amazing breadth and unimpeachable quality. It's incredible arrogance for Evangelicals to pick and choose, and even alter, those scriptures (and their meanings) to suit their agenda.

Which Buddhism? The Richard Gere "Hollywood type" is just as suspect as Madonna's views on the Kabbalah. Modern Westerners love to take the feel-good aspects of a philosophy or religion and simply wave off the bits that are physically and/or emotionally demanding, when the reality is that those are the most important and transformative parts.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 07:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
At what point does evidence, in general, become impossible to ignore where we can simply call something a fact without having to dance around this with "but you can interpret this differently and I'll respect that".
Evidence for what? For example, if you maintain that evidence must literally show "GOD DID IT!" to affirm the existence of a deity -- are you similarly waiting for evidence from Nature that says "GOD DIDN'T DO IT!"? You may come to find a large boulder that I pushed to the bottom of a steep hill and fashion all kinds of compelling, perfectly natural explanations for that phenomena, but that doesn't mean you're correct. The good news is, it probably doesn't matter and in the sciences, not a question that would likely plague anyone's mind.

I mean, no, I'm not going to respect people who believe that the Earth is flat. I'll try hard to not mock them or make this a personal thing, but by giving this opinion this sort of respect it puts it at the same level as the absolutely concrete evidence against this notion. If you believe the Earth is flat I'm not going to be particularly interested in debating this with you out of respect, would you feel differently?
I'm not aware of a religious movement that insists the earth is flat. Is this a respected view?

I think we are there with *some* aspects of what some creationists thing, including the age of the Earth. Is there anybody here that believes that it is 6000 years old and can make a case for why this viewpoint should be respected?
They could say the Bible says so and maybe convince 5% of Bible-believing Christians. Are you concerned that young-earth creationism is somehow at the precipice of achieving some appreciable level of respect?
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2013, 07:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm not aware of a religious movement that insists the earth is flat. Is this a respected view?
I was speaking in general terms (and I've noticed that you often seem to resist taking a step back like this), but...

They could say the Bible says so and maybe convince 5% of Bible-believing Christians. Are you concerned that young-earth creationism is somehow at the precipice of achieving some appreciable level of respect?
Do you really think it's that low? There is a whole museum that caters towards people that believe things of this nature:

Creation Museum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should people that believe things like Jesus riding on a dinosaur (in addition to the idea of the Earth being 6000 years) be entertained as having valid viewpoints?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2013, 01:48 AM
 
These are actually pretty funny being read with that English accent:

Richard Dawkins Reads His Hate Mail Compilation - YouTube
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2013, 01:53 AM
 
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2013, 07:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I was speaking in general terms (and I've noticed that you often seem to resist taking a step back like this), but...
People are going to believe what they're going to believe regardless of intellect. I generally resist dishonest queries, yes. I don't know why I'm being expected to answer for those generally deemed fringe such as those who support a young-earth creationist model with a museum of their wares or a flat earth view. If they're making gazillions of dollars on their exhibit while broke-assed Atheists are trying to muster an opposition campaign through a cardboard Unicorn Museum; who's less intelligent? Again, beliefs are beliefs. I don't know all the whacky sh!t Atheists believe in, but I'm not going to expect you to answer for them.

Do you really think it's that low? There is a whole museum that caters towards people that believe things of this nature:
Creation Museum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Should people that believe things like Jesus riding on a dinosaur (in addition to the idea of the Earth being 6000 years) be entertained as having valid viewpoints?
Again, what's the matter? I don't know, should the folks believing little green men descended on Roswell be entertained as having valid viewpoints? Should I be required to answer for them too?

International UFO Museum and Research Center
ebuddy
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2013, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
When it comes to interpretation of the Torah, yes. The Jews have thousands of years of commentary, scholarship of amazing breadth and unimpeachable quality. It's incredible arrogance for Evangelicals to pick and choose, and even alter, those scriptures (and their meanings) to suit their agenda.
All respect for 5000 years of scholarship, but some parts of the torah/bible need reinterpretation for modern times. I mean, come on people, BACON.


*Lots of different religions interpret the bible differently. Despite the crazies, I prefer this over having the one man whose word is as good as gods, that everyone has to follow.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2013, 10:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
All respect for 5000 years of scholarship, but some parts of the torah/bible need reinterpretation for modern times. I mean, come on people, BACON.
It's the shabbat work restrictions that blow my ****ing mind.
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The deep backwoods of the PNW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2013, 11:23 AM
 
Christianity is also a completely different religion. Just because it includes the Pentateuch in its Bible doesn't mean that they have to interpret it, letter-for-letter, the same way Jews do.
Sell or send me your vintage Mac things if you don't want them.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2013, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Christianity is also a completely different religion. Just because it includes the Pentateuch in its Bible doesn't mean that they have to interpret it, letter-for-letter, the same way Jews do.
I believe the issue here is the do interpret it letter for letter like the jews don't.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2013, 02:22 PM
 
"It's a metaphor."
"What's a meta for?"
"Oy vey..."
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2013, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
People are going to believe what they're going to believe regardless of intellect. I generally resist dishonest queries, yes. I don't know why I'm being expected to answer for those generally deemed fringe such as those who support a young-earth creationist model with a museum of their wares or a flat earth view. If they're making gazillions of dollars on their exhibit while broke-assed Atheists are trying to muster an opposition campaign through a cardboard Unicorn Museum; who's less intelligent? Again, beliefs are beliefs. I don't know all the whacky sh!t Atheists believe in, but I'm not going to expect you to answer for them.


Again, what's the matter? I don't know, should the folks believing little green men descended on Roswell be entertained as having valid viewpoints? Should I be required to answer for them too?

International UFO Museum and Research Center


The point in all of this is that maybe not all beliefs are "valid". If you would disagree, at what point do beliefs cross over from valid territory to the looney bin?
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2013, 06:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
When it comes to interpretation of the Torah, yes. The Jews have thousands of years of commentary, scholarship of amazing breadth and unimpeachable quality. It's incredible arrogance for Evangelicals to pick and choose, and even alter, those scriptures (and their meanings) to suit their agenda.
Not sure why you are singling out evangelicals here, since neither arrogance or picking and choosing are exclusive to them.

Regardless, I find your defence of the rabbis misplaced. Traditional Jewish interpretation of the Jewish Bible is usually no better than traditional Christian interpretation, but is it sometimes more hilarious. It's certainly not "unimpeachable quality."

The rabbis displayed an alarming tendency to distort the meaning of Torah beyond the intended meaning. "Do not take the Lord's name in vain" becomes "Don't speak the Lord's name ever." "Don't boil a kid in its mother's milk" becomes "don't mix meat and cheese." "Don't light a fire on the Sabbath" becomes "don't push elevator buttons or use light switches on the Sabbath." And of course, the infamous "eye for an eye" is completely nullified and inverted by rabbinic interpretation. And I love how eruv strings can nullify Sabbath prohibitions on carrying stuff.

It's hard not to see a lot of rabbinic legal interpretation as anything other than a method to weasel out of the harshest dictates of the Torah, while at the same time turning small restrictions into huge restrictions, hence requiring more weaselling to get out of it. Like hiring a non-Jew to come to your house on the Sabbath to turn your lights on.

And enough with the legal stuff, the traditional rabbinic history of the Jewish Bible has been completely undermined. For instance, the Torah itself never tells us Moses himself wrote it, but the rabbis' tradition insists it was. That has been cast aside by modern scholarship.

I don't bemoan anyone for their traditions. But I have no time for folksy old preconceptions being described as "unimpeachable quality."
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The deep backwoods of the PNW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2013, 08:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The point in all of this is that maybe not all beliefs are "valid". If you would disagree, at what point do beliefs cross over from valid territory to the looney bin?
That all depends.

What gives one person the right to determine that another person is "crazy" or "loony" for their beliefs?

Look at some of the more famous cults in modern history. The Jonestown massacre comes to mind. This one guy claimed to be the messiah and hold the keys to the truth. He convinced his followers to live with him in a commune in South America. He ultimately convinced his followers to die for him.

If you look critically at what Christianity teaches (I'm playing devil's advocate here; I'm not saying that Christians are "loony"), it's almost the same story.

This guy came a few thousand years ago to Earth and claimed to be the messiah and hold the keys to the truth. He convinced his followers to abandon their livelihoods and follow him throughout Mesopotamia. He also taught his followers that they should be willing to die for him.

What's the difference between Jesus and Jim Jones? The people who followed Jim to Guyana believed he was the new Christ. The twelve disciples of the Bible would have been seen, in their time, as loonies. Today millions of people choose to follow the path of those loony disciples, and most of them are perfectly mentally competent.

I'd say it's not your place to judge someone else's beliefs as loony. In the United States, we are constitutionally protected against religion becoming law. Obviously that doesn't always happen at the state level, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there in the Bill of Rights. With that in mind, as long as someone else's beliefs aren't forced down my throat, it's really not my place to judge their beliefs or judge them for those beliefs.
Sell or send me your vintage Mac things if you don't want them.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2013, 11:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
That all depends.

What gives one person the right to determine that another person is "crazy" or "loony" for their beliefs?

Look at some of the more famous cults in modern history. The Jonestown massacre comes to mind. This one guy claimed to be the messiah and hold the keys to the truth. He convinced his followers to live with him in a commune in South America. He ultimately convinced his followers to die for him.

If you look critically at what Christianity teaches (I'm playing devil's advocate here; I'm not saying that Christians are "loony"), it's almost the same story.

This guy came a few thousand years ago to Earth and claimed to be the messiah and hold the keys to the truth. He convinced his followers to abandon their livelihoods and follow him throughout Mesopotamia. He also taught his followers that they should be willing to die for him.

What's the difference between Jesus and Jim Jones? The people who followed Jim to Guyana believed he was the new Christ. The twelve disciples of the Bible would have been seen, in their time, as loonies. Today millions of people choose to follow the path of those loony disciples, and most of them are perfectly mentally competent.

I'd say it's not your place to judge someone else's beliefs as loony. In the United States, we are constitutionally protected against religion becoming law. Obviously that doesn't always happen at the state level, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there in the Bill of Rights. With that in mind, as long as someone else's beliefs aren't forced down my throat, it's really not my place to judge their beliefs or judge them for those beliefs.

I agree, but what I'm talking about is not so much having private beliefs, but it's when you make a power grab with your beliefs or somehow demand attention and acknowledgement while infringing upon sane discourse of some sort, trying to use your beliefs as a source of leverage in some way.

My question of "where do we draw the line" is probably not something that we can answer, it's sort of a "I'll know it when I see it" thing, but if somebody is trying to challenge what gravity is by explaining it as unicorn farts and wants his opinion to be considered valid and acknowledged somehow (for example, presented to students as a valid theory), we'll all think that that person crossed that line.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2013, 12:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
All respect for 5000 years of scholarship, but some parts of the torah/bible need reinterpretation for modern times. I mean, come on people, BACON.


*Lots of different religions interpret the bible differently. Despite the crazies, I prefer this over having the one man whose word is as good as gods, that everyone has to follow.
Fair enough, though the new Pope seems to be moving things in the right direction. I'm really growing fond of Francis, he's the best to come along in a very long time (I was a fan of JP2 as well).

Dietary restrictions, until the 20th century (and refrigerators) had a very real purpose, now it's about observance and reminding Jews where they are from. As Rabbi Kaplan, possibly the greatest theologian of the last century, said, "you can eat a pork sausage, even on Rosh Hashanah, and remain clean, if you fully understand the significance of why it was forbidden under the Law in the first place". In modern times, mindfulness and the cultural memory are what's most important. "If you abide those at all times, living within the will of G-d comes naturally."
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2013, 01:04 AM
 
I always assumed the real point behind dietary laws was segregation.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2013, 07:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The point in all of this is that maybe not all beliefs are "valid". If you would disagree, at what point do beliefs cross over from valid territory to the looney bin?
Good questions, besson. It's not important for me to differentiate "valid" from "invalid" as those notions generally deemed fringe are that for a reason and are almost invariably, entirely inconsequential in the scheme of things. It's actions that get my attention. In other words, you usually don't need to know the ins and outs of someone's philosophy to conclude they're looney-bins because their actions will usually tip you off well before you get to the ...

Wait! You say you've been anally probed by a grey? Figures.
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2013, 10:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The point in all of this is that maybe not all beliefs are "valid". If you would disagree, at what point do beliefs cross over from valid territory to the looney bin?
I might not get very many agreeing with me, but personally my boundary line for graduating from "invalid" to "valid" is if they've managed to stick around for more than 300 years or so. There's something to be said for standing the test of time. A belief system that's "valid" will have some sort of utilitarian merit, and it won't be purely based on a cult of personality. After 300 years, we can start to assume that (A) whatever seduction the founder may have wielded will have worn off by then, and (B) the tenets of the belief must be at least harmless and potentially beneficial, in order for the followers to not have all given up by then, or to have altered the belief system to account for its failings.

In short, it's a genetic algorithm for discovering "valid" beliefs among "invalid" ones. Only the strong survive
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2013, 10:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Fair enough, though the new Pope seems to be moving things in the right direction. I'm really growing fond of Francis, he's the best to come along in a very long time (I was a fan of JP2 as well).

Dietary restrictions, until the 20th century (and refrigerators) had a very real purpose, now it's about observance and reminding Jews where they are from. As Rabbi Kaplan, possibly the greatest theologian of the last century, said, "you can eat a pork sausage, even on Rosh Hashanah, and remain clean, if you fully understand the significance of why it was forbidden under the Law in the first place". In modern times, mindfulness and the cultural memory are what's most important. "If you abide those at all times, living within the will of G-d comes naturally."
I don't think my inlaws have heard of Rabbi Kaplan. Sounds like a reasonable fellow. I like to honor my heritage too by making pork/venison pie and putting cheese in everything. (I'm the shiksa who brought a dairy dish to a meat meal, oops!)

The new Pope does seem very openminded and with it.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I always assumed the real point behind dietary laws was segregation.
Perhaps the point is to sell twice as much dishes, silverware, and kitchen appliances. Sometimes it seems like ridiculous hoops to jump through, like hiring a non-Jew to turn on the lights, or circumventing the rules by eating pepperoni pizza off paper plates.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2013, 11:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
As Rabbi Kaplan, possibly the greatest theologian of the last century, said, "you can eat a pork sausage, even on Rosh Hashanah, and remain clean, if you fully understand the significance of why it was forbidden under the Law in the first place".
Except we don't actually know the reason.

There are lots of theories, like fear of trichinosis, or pigs being animals that required too much water for that region, or pig farmers were a threat to the established sheep herding Israelites, and so on.

Kaplan might be brilliant, but he's standing on a limb here that can't support him. (And the line of rabbis who would condemn him for this assertion is certainly really damn long.)

It's like any question about dietary habits. Why don't we eat dogs in the West? Why don't many of us eat horse or beaver? Why do Africans eat primates, but almost no one else does?

The fact is, dietary conventions are arbitrary. They exist only because some authority was able to enforce them on the rest the group, and it stuck.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi
Perhaps the point is to sell twice as much dishes, silverware, and kitchen appliances.
Heh heh heh!
( Last edited by lpkmckenna; Sep 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM. )
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The deep backwoods of the PNW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2013, 12:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I agree, but what I'm talking about is not so much having private beliefs, but it's when you make a power grab with your beliefs or somehow demand attention and acknowledgement while infringing upon sane discourse of some sort, trying to use your beliefs as a source of leverage in some way.
Well, like I said - there's a difference between just believing something and shoving it down someone else's throat.

Here's the thing - and yes, this is from an American perspective, because quite frankly I don't feel compelled to learn about the constitutional freedoms of every other country on the goddamn planet. Now that that's out of the way...

The first amendment of the Constitution guarantees free speech. This means, quite explicitly, that if a man wants to stand on a street corner with a portable PA system reading Bible verses and evangelizing his religious beliefs, the police can't show up and tell him to GTFO simply because his beliefs are "loony". If he's a threat to the safety of himself or others, the police have a right - and an obligation - to ensure that those safety threats are addressed and eliminated.

Now, in that example, you could argue that he's "infringing on sane discourse" because he's using a microphone and a loudspeaker to drown out dissenting opinion on the beliefs he's preaching. You may see it as unfortunate, but that's still a guaranteed right. There's nothing stopping you from getting your own PA system, standing on the opposite street corner, and reading passages from a Christopher Hitchens book.

The Westboro Baptist Church has a constitutional right to go to a fallen soldier's funeral and stand across the street from the funeral procession holding signs that the country's acceptance of gay people is why God killed that soldier. People who disagree with them also have a constitutional right to block them or drown them out - which happens pretty much every time that particular fringe group tries to do what I just described.

I think that overall, this is all kind of self-governing. People who appear to have gone off the deep end are generally drowned out by the rest of society.

You're still using phrases like "sane discourse" to try and put one side on a higher plane than others. I maintain that this tends toward unwarranted arrogance.

My question of "where do we draw the line" is probably not something that we can answer, it's sort of a "I'll know it when I see it" thing, but if somebody is trying to challenge what gravity is by explaining it as unicorn farts and wants his opinion to be considered valid and acknowledged somehow (for example, presented to students as a valid theory), we'll all think that that person crossed that line.
Again - self-governing. It's easy to see when something turns from religion into controlling, extremist fundamentalism.

A disproportionate number of Muslims, particularly in the Middle East, hold an extremist view of Islam. It's why a damn Muslim Brotherhood member was democratically elected President in Egypt, even though the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't at all hide their extremism with regards to Jihad and forcing the Western world to follow Allah.

Even with that being the case, I can't in good conscience brand all Muslims as extremists. There's a huge difference.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Except we don't actually know the reason.

There are lots of theories, like fear of trichinosis, or pigs being animals that required too much water for that region, or pig farmers were a threat to the established sheep herding Israelites, and so on.

Kaplan might be brilliant, but he's standing on a limb here that can't support him. (And the line of rabbis who would condemn him for this assertion is certainly really damn long.)

It's like any question about dietary habits. Why don't we eat dogs in the West? Why don't many of us eat horse or beaver? Why do Africans eat primates, but almost no one else does?

The fact is, dietary conventions are arbitrary. They exist only because some authority was able to enforce them on the rest the group, and it stuck.
Also, I like how the rabbi talked about "remaining clean". In order to accept his logic, you first have to accept the concept of Jewish uncleanliness in the first place.
Sell or send me your vintage Mac things if you don't want them.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2013, 01:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
The first amendment of the Constitution guarantees free speech. This means, quite explicitly, that if a man wants to stand on a street corner with a portable PA system reading Bible verses and evangelizing his religious beliefs, the police can't show up and tell him to GTFO simply because his beliefs are "loony". If he's a threat to the safety of himself or others, the police have a right - and an obligation - to ensure that those safety threats are addressed and eliminated.

Now, in that example, you could argue that he's "infringing on sane discourse" because he's using a microphone and a loudspeaker to drown out dissenting opinion on the beliefs he's preaching. You may see it as unfortunate, but that's still a guaranteed right. There's nothing stopping you from getting your own PA system, standing on the opposite street corner, and reading passages from a Christopher Hitchens book.
Noise pollution usually requires a permit. Not that you can't stand on a street corner and preach, but once you're using a PA system, the cops are gonna have a talk with you.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2013, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Good questions, besson. It's not important for me to differentiate "valid" from "invalid" as those notions generally deemed fringe are that for a reason and are almost invariably, entirely inconsequential in the scheme of things. It's actions that get my attention. In other words, you usually don't need to know the ins and outs of someone's philosophy to conclude they're looney-bins because their actions will usually tip you off well before you get to the ...

Wait! You say you've been anally probed by a grey? Figures.

The actions are important to me too.

This does matter to me though because our decisions on what ideas we accept into our discourse often translates into political leverage which in turn translates into actions. There are those that say that the jury is no longer out on the age-of-Earth thing, and there are those that say the same thing about global warming, which obviously has very actionable consequences.

Without getting back into our global warming beliefs yet again, let's keep this general and remain steps back away from the issue... how do we decide what is fact on any particular issue without:

a) stimulating a general distrust in science and a laziness in thought in making people think that whatever gut feeling they come up with based on their emotionally influenced personal experiences can rival science in general?

b) giving ideas that are less accepted equal footing (or can we/should we worry about this)?

c) stifling intellectually grounded skepticism

d) pushing aside scientists and other people that know stuff in favor of loud outspoken people
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The deep backwoods of the PNW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2013, 02:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Noise pollution usually requires a permit. Not that you can't stand on a street corner and preach, but once you're using a PA system, the cops are gonna have a talk with you.
Sometimes. There was a guy in downtown Indianapolis who did that exact thing every few Sundays. I never saw him get in trouble for it (he'd stand down the sidewalk from the Starbucks I worked at, so I saw him every time he was out there).

Also completely unrelated, but thinking about pork sausage is making me really hungry for sausage.
Sell or send me your vintage Mac things if you don't want them.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2013, 08:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Why don't many of us eat... beaver?
That's what she said.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2013, 10:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's what she said.
! If well-timed, works every time!
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2013, 10:11 AM
 
Interesting, anyone else getting the elusive "page 5" of this thread?
ebuddy
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2013, 11:20 AM
 
number 9, number 9...

ah, there it is.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2013, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Interesting, anyone else getting the elusive "page 5" of this thread?
That's the admins playing a little prank.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:59 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,