Wow! This is great! Discussion about the point of the thread topic itself, at last. Thank you.
I love coffeecat’s non-xkcd link.
And I clearly hear the point, and the sarcasm, of the other comments. You guys are too much fun. (I’m still waiting for someone to advocate an example with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, though.)
But here’s what I really want to know, and why I started this thread:
As huck said,
How do all of you feel about that? Do you all really feel there can be no alternative way, or that the only alternative ways end up like coffeecat’s link? It is clear that you don’t think much of my given examples, but are there times (and other examples) when it might benefit people to seek an alternative way rather than accepting society’s us vs. them attitude, or aren’t there?
In America it is us and them. You are either a right wing lunatic, or you are not. Any third or fourth or fifth way is simply lumped together as part of the “not”.
The trouble is that without any evidence to separate the wheat from the chaff there are too damn many alternate solutions. In the case of evolution vs. creationism, can you tell us why your alternate solution should be considered above any of the thousands of others for which there are also no evidence?
You still want to wage that argument, I see. Good for you! Have fun.
This thread is about doing things in a different way. I have now given an article that shows plenty of examples. You will no doubt latch onto the fact that God (gasp!) and Jesus (the gall!) are mentioned herein. (Czarcasm: “Hooray! More fuel for my argument!”)
Whether or not God exists (any god), whether or not Jesus exists (and if so, who he really is/was), does not exclude the fact that **some people, including the people in the link above, believe. **
Given that this is the way things are, you can still try to drag someone into the unsettled argument, but you will also still be missing the point of the thread.
And that is all I have to say about the ever-fascinating (to some) argument for or against the existence of any god.
The point of the thread is this question: What do you think about alternative ways of doing things, such as these?
Once you bring religion into it, then you aren’t talking about a “different way of doing things”; you are talking about being wrong. Being factually or morally wrong is one of the defining qualities of religion; after all, if a belief is right then you don’t need to slap the religious label on it and demand that people have faith in it.
The condescension is getting tiresome. I have directly responded to your query by stating that the problem isn’t accepting an alternate-the problem is that there are too many equally valid alternatives, which brings forth a need for a filter. For me, that filter is evidence. What is your filter…or do you even have one?
I disagree that you have responded to what I’m trying to get at. I have posted a link to an article that gives various alternatives to the normal way of doing things, which you ignored, because you don’t wish to discuss that.
You wish me to discuss this thread according to your rules. I wish you to discuss the thread according to mine. Neither of us is willing to jump into the other’s set of rules.
We sound like a bunch of kids whining that the other isn’t fair. The smart thing to do would be to call it off, and try another time.
Thank you for thoughts. They have been stimulating and challenging.
No-the only problem here is that you will only accept answers you already agree with. I have told you a very good reason why some alternatives aren’t on the table, and you refuse to say(in the case of one example) why the one alternative you put forth should be the only alternative when there are so many equally valid alternatives out there. I have shown that I am open mined enough to accept any alternatives that pass a minimum standards test. You have shown that you are close minded enough to shut out all equally valid alternatives just so you can push the one you accept.
“When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong.”
– Richard Dawkins
The reason American society looks so polarized right now is that about 20% of the country is locked into an ideologically-rigid religious/conservative worldview that is impervious to evidence and rational argument. Within the remaining 80% there’s actually a wide range of different opinions and attitudes, but these get all mushed together. So the wonderful “third way” that you’re looking for already exists. We have “third ways” and “fourth ways” and “fifth ways”. It’s just hard to see them because the crazy 20% are so vocal that anything that doesn’t exactly match what they believe becomes a part of the opposition.
So, your quest is futile. Whatever new “third way” you come up with will just become another flavor of “not wingnut”.
I like your post but the quest is not futile. It is true there are many ways in most questions. Some think we were created by aliens and brought to this planet, others believe we created underground and came from there. The list is extensive. The same with civilizations. Some believe there were advanced civilizations here before us – Mu, Eden. Atlanta and others. I think what you are looking for is different than dualism. If you are looking for solidarity or Oneness where people can be different yet respect those differences. Where people can hold all kinds of beliefs yet live peacefully together. A Oneness of feeling you are a part of everything yet still unique you may be talking about Heaven.
That’s only half of it. The other half is that the ideologically-rigid religious/conservative worldview has been harnessed as a political force by the GOP.
That worldview has *always *been with us – it’s what Menken reported on during Scopes in 1925. We used to be able to function because it was primarily a matter of personal conscience. Although sometimes it attempted to force the political system to its will, typically it only flexed its autocratic muscle within the family or, at worst, the church.
My workplace is heavily Fundy Christian – not quite snakebiter but pretty close – but by and large my coworkers understand the division of public and private space, and leave their Bibles at home.
The thing that changed in the 80’s was the GOP intelligentsia (this was not an oxymoron at that time) figured out that while their economic policies were (unsurprisingly) electorally toxic, they could graft on a religious aspect to swing enough votes to get the policies they really cared about enacted. They picked at the Christianist scab hard enough to get a reaction in the political environment. It is instructive that none of the GOP vanguard was fundamentalist, in fact the wing that took it to the largest extreme, the Neocons, are basically Trotskyite atheists. They just needed a ride to power, and when the Dems kicked them to the curb in the 70’s they found a new host to leech off on the right.
Demographics is destiny, so as the crazies die off the political advantage in enraging them on a day to day basis will diminish. (It has already; the GOP just doesn’t know how to extricate itself from its own trap yet.) But it will happen, and then the Fundy worldview will return to where any extremist religious worldview needs to in a pluralistic society – in the home.
I think you understand that belief systems will never agree on anything. It will take wise determined people, caring people to bring about the alternative way. If you look in history many of these people tried to do just that and were killed for their efforts. The only solution is love, unconditional love that overrides the fanatics of all sides. This does exist in the spirit world right now as we speak. It is called the Oneness as opposed to the Duality. Socrates said “Wisdom is knowing that you know nothing.”
Wisdom has nothing in particular to do with being kind, except when being kind happens to be the right decision. Being ruthless can be wise too; it all depends of the circumstances. A sniper shooting a hostage taker to save the hostage isn’t kind, but it’s effective.
