Rant in F sharp minor.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

The title is irrelevant to the rant in every way except that it contains the word rant.
A lot of this has been going around. Mindlessly regurgitated sentiments such as, "that's your opinion", "respect other people's beliefs", "to each their own" and so on. While this is fine sentiment when concerning hair colors or which band you like more, certain beliefs are not equal. You can not, do not, and by all means should not respect anyone's beliefs simply out of the virtue of them being beliefs. If I believed the entire world was nothing more than a sesame seed on a hamburger bun about to be eaten by some unimaginably large creature, that belief deserves no respect. It's based on nothing but speculation and, more likely, hallucination. Not all beliefs have merit. People have the right to a belief, and their right to a belief should be respected, and by respected, note that I mean uninhibited. It does not mean that you need to respect the idiotic belief or the dimwit who believes it. Just acknowledge that he has the right to be an idiot. A belief should be logically and analytically examined for its merit, its principles, its basis, and its goals, then judged and respected accordingly.

The final item in the list of sentiments I made was the idiotic and empty retort, "that's your opinion". Three reasons this is mindless. Firstly, of course it is my fucking opinion, I'm the person talking. Secondly, that statement in no way proves me wrong or anything I've said wrong. Actually, it doesn't prove anything, it's an empty phrase. Thirdly, not everything you call an opinion is an opinion, just like not everything you say is ironic is actually ironic. If you claim something, whether it be that Metallica are a bunch of sell outs, or that there is actually a god, you are making a claim. You can easily argue against a claim. Claims require a basis. If you claim that band X are terrible, that's a claim. You have to justify it or your claim is rubbish. It's not untouchable because it's an opinion. If you said, " I dislike band x" that's a preference, which is untouchable, since taste can sometimes be subconscious and isn't claiming anything. So if you claim something, and then someone completely rips your claim to shreds, don't cry and say it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. If you make a bullshit claim, prepare to defend it, or shut up.

[Still Jack]

I think I love you.

I am the sexiest man ever.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Dude, we already knew all of this.

[Malice In Wonderland]

Yeah, I'd suck your dick for that.

[voodoowitchdr]

Sesame seed! I thought the world was giant blueberry!

[vindicatedxjin]

This post seriously made me smile...mostly just because I couldn't focus on anything except for the hamburger bun statement... and I kept imagining a giant turtle eating it.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

It does not mean that you need to respect the idiotic belief or the dimwit who believes it. Just acknowledge that he has the right to be an idiot. A belief should be logically and analytically examined for its merit, its principles, its basis, and its goals, then judged and respected accordingly.

I feel argumentative tonight so I will take up an opposing position.


What you are saying is why the early settlers believed the Indians were savages. The Navajos, Sioux, Cherokee etc. believed in a Wind Spirit, a Beaver Spirit, Bald Eagle etc. The white man decided there was no principle or basis for it and thus proselytized Christianity instead to the natives.

Don't tell me I am taking what you are saying out of context. It is the same thing.

Now a scientific theory on the other hand should be logically and analytically examined for its merit, its principles, its basis, and its goals, then judged and respected accordingly. But not faith or beliefs.

[voodoowitchdr]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

I feel argumentative tonight so I will take up an opposing position.


What you are saying is why the early settlers believed the Indians were savages. The Navajos, Sioux, Cherokee etc. believed in a Wind Spirit, a Tree Spirit etc. The white man decided there was no principle or basis for it and thus proselytized Christianity instead to the natives.

Don't tell me I am taking what you are saying out of context. It is the same thing.

Now a scientific theory on the other hand should be logically and analytically examined for its merit, its principles, its basis, and its goals, then judged and respected accordingly. But not faith or beliefs.

J got PWND!!!!!!!

[Saya]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

I feel argumentative tonight so I will take up an opposing position.


What you are saying is why the early settlers believed the Indians were savages. The Navajos, Sioux, Cherokee etc. believed in a Wind Spirit, a Beaver Spirit, Bald Eagle etc. The white man decided there was no principle or basis for it and thus proselytized Christianity instead to the natives.

Don't tell me I am taking what you are saying out of context. It is the same thing.

Now a scientific theory on the other hand should be logically and analytically examined for its merit, its principles, its basis, and its goals, then judged and respected accordingly. But not faith or beliefs.

Not at all, since there is no principle or basis that the Christian god exists or is real or that the Bible is true or logical, religious beliefs as they are tend to be completely equal as they both deal with things that cannot be discussed logically. An argument about which is real, unicorns or dragons have no basis in reality since neither has any evidence. And was it that the natives' beliefs were not logical to the Christians or did Christians already have a bit of a reputation of being totally closed minded and intolerant of other beliefs?

Besides, it was not a theological debate that lead to the oppression of natives, it had everything to do with racism, bigotry and imperialism that was not limited to religion, indeed not only were they forced to reject their beliefs but also their language and ways of life, at least when the white men weren't trying to kill the whole lot of them. Hell, here in Canada it wasn't until the late 1970s or so that residential schools stopped trying to assimilate native children.

What Joker is saying is that just because something is a personal belief doesn't mean it should be respected. If I said I believed in pretty pink unicorns it would be stupid for me expect respect for that if I can't back it up. And when someone rips your beliefs to shreds and pokes holes in it, why cling to it? It isn't logical to believe in something when you have evidence it doesn't exist.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

I feel argumentative tonight so I will take up an opposing position.


What you are saying is why the early settlers believed the Indians were savages. The Navajos, Sioux, Cherokee etc. believed in a Wind Spirit, a Beaver Spirit, Bald Eagle etc. The white man decided there was no principle or basis for it and thus proselytized Christianity instead to the natives.

Don't tell me I am taking what you are saying out of context. It is the same thing.
.

You're in context, you're just wrong.
They didn't logically go through and decide their beliefs were rubbish. They thought they were rubbish because it wasn't Christianity. They didn't give it a logical runthrough, because if they applied logic to it, they wouldn't be Christians. Besides, polytheism is more logical than monotheism. The belief that different spirits reside in different places is more logical than one being residing everywhere simultaneously.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

I feel argumentative tonight so I will take up an opposing position.



Don't tell me I am taking what you are saying out of context. It is the same thing.

Now a scientific theory on the other hand should be logically and analytically examined for its merit, its principles, its basis, and its goals, then judged and respected accordingly. But not faith or beliefs.

ALL beliefs should be held up to the light of logical skepticism. You shouldn't believe in something totally unfounded and illogical.
Faith and beliefs are not exempt from intelligent thought. Just because they're a thought does not mean they're untouchable.

If you really want to talk about your religion, since I know that's what struck a nerve, here you go.
You are a christian.
You believe that an invisible, omnipresent being created the universe in 6 days doing little more than folding his arms and nodding his head a la I dream of Jeanie.
You believe a jewish philosopher rose from the dead. You believe it takes only three days to die from a crucifixion.
To top it off, in spite all scientific evidence, you believe the earth to be made a few thousand years ago.

Given all current knowledge, we know the earth is somewhere around four and a half billion years old, resurrection is all but impossible, it takes about seven days to die on a crucifix, and that slow processes of evolution, selection, and adaptation to changing environments are a lot more likely than spontaneous creation.

Your beliefs are based on a book who's sources and credibility is sketchy at best, and those beliefs have no credible or solid evidence.

I like you, Humane, but if you want to make this about your beliefs versus my beliefs, fine.
Your religion is illogical.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Still Jack

I think I love you.

I love you too, call me if you're ever in Los Angeles.


... WOW that sounded sexual...



it can be if you want ;-)

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

You're in context, you're just wrong.
They didn't logically go through and decide their beliefs were rubbish. They thought they were rubbish because it wasn't Christianity. They didn't give it a logical runthrough, because if they applied logic to it, they wouldn't be Christians. Besides, polytheism is more logical than monotheism. The belief that different spirits reside in different places is more logical than one being residing everywhere simultaneously.

This makes sense, and rereading what I typed is a good response, but my point was not which belief was more logical (neither are) but that it was a lack of respect that almost extinguished another culture's beliefs. You advocate no respect for another belief unless it is logical.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

ALL beliefs should be held up to the light of logical skepticism. You shouldn't believe in something totally unfounded and illogical.

Skepticism, yes. Logical, no. Take the Ten Commandments for example:
"Thou shalt not kill". Now logically, if one wanted a shortcut to success, and to riches, one could kill their way to the top. Cashing in life insurance policies, knocking off the local drug lord and taking over his distribution territory, killing guards and robbing banks, logically, there is no reason why one could not kill others to make one rise to the top of the food chain.
But a belief that we should not kill is based on a spirit of tolerance, respect for fellow humans, not for any logical reason (animals kill each other to survive, this is natural logic) but we humans are trying to rise above animal brutality, for the benefit of all, not just our selves. Selfishness is logical, compassion is not.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Faith and beliefs are not exempt from intelligent thought. Just because they're a thought does not mean they're untouchable.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

If you really want to talk about your religion, since I know that's what struck a nerve, here you go.

I thought your debate on beliefs was incomplete, it didn't strike a nerve. I am quite jaded actually by the proliferation of criticism of Christianity.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

You are a christian.

This is true.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

You believe that an invisible, omnipresent being created the universe in 6 days doing little more than folding his arms and nodding his head a la I dream of Jeanie.
You believe a jewish philosopher rose from the dead. You believe it takes only three days to die from a crucifixion.
To top it off, in spite all scientific evidence, you believe the earth to be made a few thousand years ago.

This is not true. I am a follower of Jesus. But I am also an adherent to science and reason. The two are not incongruent. Jesus provided a guide to living, of salvation from ourselves when we become self destructive and short sighted, He did not provide a unified field theory for explaining planetary creation and tectonics, but a template personality that would help spread love and peace throughout society.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Given all current knowledge, we know the earth is somewhere around four and a half billion years old,

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

...resurrection is all but impossible,

The entire purpose of the resurrection is an example of dying to the old self, and being born again as a new, more powerful person. We shed the clothes of "the old man" and put on the new garments (the Jesus template) and can thus start over, get a new lease on life and make a life transformation.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

it takes about seven days to die on a crucifix,

This is interesting, I didn't know that, is there a link somewhere with historical data on this kind of thing?
But remember, they beat the crap out of Him before they nailed Him up there, then a soldier stabbed Him in the side. I wouldn't say 3 days is impossible.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

...and that slow processes of evolution, selection, and adaptation to changing environments are a lot more likely than spontaneous creation.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Your beliefs are based on a book who's sources and credibility is sketchy at best, and those beliefs have no credible or solid evidence.

The evidence of living a good life is actually well documented over hundreds if not thousands of generations.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

I like you, Humane, but if you want to make this about your beliefs versus my beliefs, fine.

I like you too dude! I's just debatin'!

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Your religion is illogical.

Agreed.
What is in the world and viewed by many can be subject to analysis and logic by many. What is in one's mind in terms of motivations, goals and security is beyond the scrutiny of anyone but that person and God.

[vindicatedxjin]

Hmm....i wonder what God tastes like???

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

Hmm....i wonder what God tastes like???

Now don't be all tastin' forbidden fruit now, ya hear?

[vindicatedxjin]

Don't worry I don't plan on fucking it up for women AGAIN...anytime soon.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

logically, there is no reason why one could not kill others to make one rise to the top of the food chain.


Of course there is! By murdering someone for success, you open yourself up to retribution and you set a precedent, meaning your life is now fair play.





This is not true. I am a follower of Jesus. But I am also an adherent to science and reason. The two are not incongruent. Jesus provided a guide to living, of salvation from ourselves when we become self destructive and short sighted, He did not provide a unified field theory for explaining planetary creation and tectonics, but a template personality that would help spread love and peace throughout society.

Then you have a higher understanding of it. I have no qualm with the bulk of his teachings. I don't think he's all more important than people like Ghandi, Sidaartha, and others, but still, he deserves respect.






This is interesting, I didn't know that, is there a link somewhere with historical data on this kind of thing?
But remember, they beat the crap out of Him before they nailed Him up there, then a soldier stabbed Him in the side. I wouldn't say 3 days is impossible.

They whipped and stabbed him. Unless they sliced his jugular vein, those wounds would have clotted. The average person died from starvation during a crucifixion. It wasn't about murder, it was about suffering. Though no, it's not impossible.




The evidence of living a good life is actually well documented over hundreds if not thousands of generations.

I meant the evidence of biblical events



And for the record, I don't respect anything that's illogical.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Of course there is! By murdering someone for success, you open yourself up to retribution and you set a precedent, meaning your life is now fair play.

But one's life is already in fair play, regardless if one murders or not.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Then you have a higher understanding of it. I have no qualm with the bulk of his teachings. I don't think he's all more important than people like Ghandi, Sidaartha, and others, but still, he deserves respect.

I really appreciate this comment.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

They whipped and stabbed him. Unless they sliced his jugular vein, those wounds would have clotted. The average person died from starvation during a crucifixion. It wasn't about murder, it was about suffering. Though no, it's not impossible.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

I meant the evidence of biblical events

Sorry I am a little dense, but I don't understand. I think your context is the bible as a historical document, whereas mine references the teachings of Christianity as a way of life, so I think we are each discussing a different subject matter. If that is the case then yes, I agree that the Old Testament events are sketchy, seemingly violate known biology (people living well over one hundred or being thrown in pits of fire and surviving). But in my context, the wages of living a life of "the flesh" as opposed to a life of "the spirit" have markedly different outcomes.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

And for the record, I don't respect anything that's illogical.

That's cool, but inhuman. Although it is noble to rise above faulty emotions, we should be careful not to throw away our humanity. Curiosity, love, ambition, these are not logical but have made us who we are today.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

But one's life is already in fair play, regardless if one murders or not.




I really appreciate this comment.



Agreed.




Sorry I am a little dense, but I don't understand. I think your context is the bible as a historical document, whereas mine references the teachings of Christianity as a way of life, so I think we are each discussing a different subject matter. If that is the case then yes, I agree that the Old Testament events are sketchy, seemingly violate known biology (people living well over one hundred or being thrown in pits of fire and surviving). But in my context, the wages of living a life of "the flesh" as opposed to a life of "the spirit" have markedly different outcomes.



That's cool, but inhuman. Although it is noble to rise above faulty emotions, we should be careful not to throw away our humanity. Curiosity, love, ambition, these are not logical but have made us who we are today.

You're talking about the view of religion that belongs to very few people. A life is not in fair play. There's no basis for it. Morals can be based on logic. It's logical for people to fear death. It's logical (and proven) for people (sane, well adjusted ones) to not want to cause other people suffering (it's a pack mentality, go observe chimpanzees). Together, that negates murder, logically.

I understand and appreciate the need for emotions, but I don't respect them, they're a necessary part of our nature, not a respectable one.

Do you know why we're having a different argument scenario? You're talking about Christian philosophy. I'm talking about the religion, world in seven days, parting the sea, walking on water, captain god with a big beard religion. Christian philosophy is (for the most part) fine.

Actually, there's a large bit of Christian beliefs that prevented them from being involved in capitalism (which is where the greedy jew stereotypes came from.)