Obligatory Hitchhiker’s quote:
Stranger
By “people like Bush,” I meant religious conservatives who don’t talk down to the people they claim to represent. (e.g. Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, Orrin Hatch) By “the majority,” I meant that a majority of the voters in the various constituencies voted for these individuals, since they were elected.
What’s wrong with being in the minority once in a while? Is it that you are scared of leaving the intellectual cocoon of your “highly educated” friends and acquaintances?
Huh?
I am sure that one of the closed-minded and backward people would call you a baby-killing Communist, or perhaps one of them Northern Liberals, which is exactly what you just did when you called them “anachronistic hicks.” Why not take the high ground and accept them and their beliefs?
This, I probably agree with, since your view of the Bible belt isn’t rooted in faith.
I should say, I’m on your side. I just thought you were being an idiot.
A friend, “K,” was helping me set up for a sale of some merchandise I’d brought back from India. Among the items are some beautiful hand painted papier mache ducks and eggs from Kashmir.
K picks up an egg and says “Look! I can put an egg next to a duck and it will look as if the duck laid an egg!”
I said something to the effect that since ducks lay eggs, I’d taken a photo of a duck and egg together for my website.
Eyeing me dubiously, she said “Ducks – lay eggs?”
K is 40 years old and has a Masters degree (in International Relations – but still)! I wonder where she thinks the eggs at the grocery come from?
Don’t they come from the same place the plastic- and styrofoam-wrapped cuts of meat come from?
The Soylent Food Processing Plant, of course?
Soylent Green Lite–It’s Made Of Athletic People! 20% Less Fat Than The Leading Potted Human Meat Product.
Stranger
I’m sorry, I happen to be religious. It’s not a mainstream religion, but never in my questing life, have I ever believed that there is nothing but the physical world. However, when describing the physical world, which is what science is, then I go with the scientific explanation. And so far, science’s best explanation for the variety of life on this planet, the one with lots of evidence to back it up, is evolution. Now, I suppose some sort of incredible find could be made, and change all that, and then I’d have to change my thinking to go with the evidence too. But how on earth does being religious = not able to accept prevailing evidence? I find that concept incredibly insulting.
Well, at some point faith takes up for observational evidence; you “believe” in something, because the evidence to the contrary (or lack thereof) is not compelling. There’s a certain inherent contradiction coming from both directions (religious and athiest), in assuming the truth or falsity of a non-falsifiable proposition, humorously illustrated in Adams’ disccusion of the Babel fish:
I like to acknowledge that, while I don’t see any reason or evidence of a higher intellegence or creative force (and don’t “feel” it either), there’s no disproof of a God. You want to pray? Be my guest. Just don’t cajole me to, or use it as an excuse to fight a war or persecute a people. Most moderate religious people respect that and vice versa. The evangelists (in both camps) just make life uncomfortable for everyone.
Stranger
Phenomenon - % of Americans that believe it is real
ESP - 48
Telepathy - 35
the Devil - 56
Possession by Devil - 42
Angels - 72
Astrology - 25
UFO’s have visited Earth - 45
Source: Gallup poll survey, 1996
I find that kinda scary.
As a college mate of mine used to observer, “Those are the people who are going to make me rich!”
If you could bottle liquid ignorance in a volatile form our gasoline crisis would be a thing of the past.
Stranger
Did I say I was telling anybody else what to believe? No, I did not. I never have. Short of basic well accepted social rules, (Do not kill or maim your playmates, or even the people you don’t like!), I haven’t even told my three children what to believe. Even in that case, I wasn’t instructing them how to believe, but how to behave. I like to hope they believe that these rules are good things. Admittedly when my oldest (adult) daughter spouts off some some incredibly biggoted bilge I cringe and wonder why I was stupid enough to marry her father, but I don’t presume to be authorized to meddle with her beliefs. I modeled my beliefs with my actions, and hoped they’d find them good but, with this one, no such luck. Most (not all) accept that part of parenting is handing down your own core beliefs. Obviously, I didn’t feel this way, but most people would not have argued my “right” or even, to fundamentalists, my “duty” to do so.
Again, I’m being insulted. I know that because at some point I allow what I feel to influence what I believe, you believe me to be more gullible, less logical (well, I probably can’t argue that one!), and more rigid and controlling than you are. I guess one out of four isn’t too bad. I do work more on the intuitive than the logical. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize logic, or that I deny proof of the physical world because it doesn’t fit in with some pre-digested faith! Is it absolutely necessary for atheists to take on all the worst aspects of the “fundamentalist” religious? I realize this is a place for fighting ignorance but assuming you know all about me, because you know one little fact about me is ignorant in the extreme!
Indian giver, nigger rig, jew down the price, and welsh on a bet are all on equally un-pc footing. They are also all likely to be found in the dictionary, alongside collateral losses to the pc movement like niggardly. Just FYI.
My “we’re not in Kansas anymore” moment came during a conversation with a longtime close friend. It was when Dolly the sheep first hit the news, and we were talking about cloning. At one point, in reference to human cloning, she commented that she was against it because “how does it get a soul?” I always knew she was raised catholic, but I didn’t realize until that moment that she was catholic. (Just the idea that science could possibly interfere with an all-powerful god seems so…ignorant.)
I just thought of one more. After the last election, I was out getting food with my buddies during one of our Madden nights. Waiting at the drive thru, one of them asked me “So, what did you think of the election?” I groaned and said that I was shocked and stunned. He paused, then said “Should we not discuss it?” I then realized that both of my buddies had voted for Bush. I was in a Bushie car! AAAAARARRRGGGGGHHHH!!!
I don’t think you’re being insulted, but I do think you are oversensitive. If you read back though my post, you’ll find that the gist of my statement is that at some point (that is, the point at which the debate becomes a discussion of things beyond perception and measurement) the idea of proof/disproof is meaningless. God, Yawaeh, Allah, and whathaveyou, are non-falsifiable propositions; there is no way to absolutely disprove the existance of it (even though I’ll argue that there is no necessity for such) and thus, one camp is no more “right” than the other. No system of logic can be any more complete than the axioms/assumptions on which it is founded. Axioms are by definition beyond proof; they are “self-evident” truths that are either accepted…or not.
As long as you don’t proselytize to me I won’t criticize you (and I’m using “me” and “you” in the general sense, not specifically the two of us.)
Peace onto you.
Stranger
While I won’t say that I believe they are real, until there is evidence to prove or disprove the above, I am open to the possibilities.
Very Shocked.
I once had a discussion with a friend of mine about the AIDS virus, and how it’s not just a “homosexual disease”. I mentioned that it had already infected a signifigant portion of women, so even straight guys like us had to be wary of it. He disagreed and said you couldn’t get it if you weren’t gay. I asked him how he thought heterosexual women get it. He said, “because they have sex with men; only men can transmit AIDS”.
And this was in 1999.
So, in general questions, open a thread where you answer this question. Try to give us a conceptual understanding. I would like to understand. I’ll be a good challenge because I haven’t got much physics behind my belt, just 2 years in secondary school, but I’ve allways been interested and read a lot of small articles on physics. If you can explain it to me, then the psycho-linguist in me might be able to come up with a way of making them understand.
Then again, you might just end up getting a blank stare. 
I’m well aware of that, thanks. It’s not a term I normally throw around, but the board on which I posted was Television Without Pity. I was discussing a specific instance on a reality show where a person on the show used the word. In my post I used the terminology that he used, with quotes around it and everything. Sorry I didn’t go into more detail, but my point had nothing to do with the pc-ness of the word.
And that came out sounding snippier than I meant it to, sorry. Just don’t want to give off the impression that I’m bigoted against the Welsh, or anything. 
Not my intent.
No worries. The clarification was unnecessary, but appreciated.
Many people don’t think like I do. I’m 42 years old, was raised Catholic, quit college to get married and raise kids. I was a soccer mom and PTA president. I was an abused woman. I was a divorcee and single mom. I had therapy. I was a returning student and then a RN.
I have had many beliefs shattered, I have had many opinions reversed and I have met many people who are the reverse of a stereotype. Even if I don’t choose what others choose or can’t appreciate what others appreciate, I know that others have needs that I don’t. And that’s okay.
But many people don’t think like I do.
What Cyn said.
As a teen, I had the same mental capacities I have now, but I was, in very many ways, very ignorant. Some thinking errors just come so natural, or are so convenient to have, that they don’t correct themselves.
An example: "Honesty is good, therefore, I should be honest always, even when I hurt people with my honesty. In fact, I have to be honest
especially when it hurts other people, otherwise I’m a coward". :rolleyes:
Being intelligent doesn’t automatically mean having all the neccesary information. It also doesn’t mean not making intellectual mistakes -one mistake is admitted to each of us. 
You wouldn’t expect a somebody, no matter how musical they are, to play every new tune faultless, upon first performing it; why would we expect any different when somebody has to grasp a new or difficult intellectual concept?