Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 10281 - 10300 of total 23145 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Nov 4, 2012 - 07:00pm PT
Largo
That is a terrific link!!!
Even my stupid common sense brain could see through Einstein's relativity theory.
I've only been looking at it for two months. In my drawings of Einstein's gravitational waves. I too questioned what laid beyond the bends of space.

And if the Earths gravitational pull toward the Sun fluctuated enough we should go slamming
into the Sun. There has to be the exact opposite push to hold us in the exact distance? Kinda like a tether ball... maybe motion or maybe light is the explanation?

Why doesn't the moon have gravity? And why doesn't it get pulled into the suns gravitational pull? And why is it when it's in the West, Full, it lights up during the day? It's clearly between us and the sun yet our side of it is still lit up?

Jus Wonder'in
BB
jstan

climber
Nov 4, 2012 - 07:22pm PT
Another piece by the author of Largo's link"
Resolving Social Conflict
America the Divided
By Bryan Belrad
There are multitudes of social conflicts in America today. In fact, the list would be shorter if we were to enumerate the potential conflicts that aren't presently active. The more well-known ones include Rich vs. Poor, Black vs. White, and Unrestricted Freedom vs. Regulation.

Looking at that list, it is easy to see the parallels between the social conflicts that are the root cause of much of the nation's unrest, including driving crime, and the hottest political conflicts in our nation today. That is not a coincidence.

Arguably, every substantiative distinction between the political parties in the modern era stems from these very notions of social conflict. The people who seek to lead our nation need to prove to the voters that they have a plan to 'fix' what's wrong with America; to do that, they first have to identify the problems. And, in doing so, they inevitably encounter social conflict. Bearing that in mind, all that remains for a would-be politician to do is to pick a side.

Few of these conflicts are productive. Partly because of politics, but moreso because of the tendency of people to believe that their own views are correct, regardless of the available information, little is accomplished amidst all the bickering about political philosophy and attempts to secure some form of moral high ground. In the heat of the quarreling, little of substance is actually accomplished to resolve any of the issues.

Even when a conflict does begin to turn productive, opponents of the particular philosophy in ascendance will attempt to undermine it. Take Affirmative Action, for example. Here is a program designed to defuse some the conflict caused by racial imbalance and inequity. It is an attempt to turn the continued argument over race into a productive conflict. However, leaders who hold a differing viewpoint contend that Affirmative Action only serves to widen the racial divide by breeding bitterness and resentment on both sides.

While arguments can be made for either side concerning this particular program, the bottom line is that our leaders have taken what could have been an ideal starting point for resolving this conflict, and turned it into yet another point of contention. Instead of working together to improve upon this program, or develop new, better programs (which would be productive, and actually help people), they've collectively chosen to argue about the nature of the program in its current state.

A wise man once said that the only way to solve a problem is to look for solutions. By focusing only on the fact that there is a problem, we achieve nothing. So it is with the majority of social conflicts in America today: our leaders are more concerned with the problems themselves than with finding solutions. They are more interested in assigning blame (to the other guy) than making things better.

And that itself leads us into the most prominent social conflict in America today: Red vs. Blue. The rhetoric from both sides has polarized the nation to the degree that we are essentially paralyzed. As Orson Scott Card puts it in his novel "Empire", we have become a nation of extremists. Anyone who does not agree with our preferred view on a given subject is either an idiot or a traitor. Terry Goodkind once observed of human nature that "passion rules reason", and that seems to be reflected in supposedly "enlightened" circles today. We seem to believe that if a person is not passionate (read: 'irrational') about a given topic, then he or she has nothing of value to say on the matter.

All of which tie in together to bind us, preventing us from doing any good for anyone (but does a wonderful job of maintaining the status quo). Our political system, in what began as an effort to resolve our social conflicts, has itself become a Gordian knot of social conflict.

But instead of adding to the problem by simply assigning blame, each of us has the potential to start to cut away at that knot. We can start looking for solutions. For starters, we can elect leaders who offer solutions of their own, not just more of the same garbage. We can seek out candidates who have proven their willingness to take action. We have come to a stage in American history where we can no longer afford to simply vote in a person whose thoughts are color-coded in the same way as our own - we need real leadership.

But, better yet, we can stop relying on others to do our thinking for us. We can look for solutions to our social problems on our own, without waiting for our so-called leaders to decide that people suffering needlessly is a bad thing. We don't need "leaders" to lead us; the potential to make our own way, to show others how to get things done, lies within every one of us.
Look at organizations like the Salvation Army, which recently celebrated its 125th anniversary. Here is a group of people who, while they are unable to eliminate society's problems, they have done more to mitigate the underlying issues than nearly any politician has in those 125 years. We may not agree with all their ideas, or their personal philosophies, but that doesn't matter: they are productive, they are getting things done.

That same potential to take action resides within every one of us, within every American. That is, after all, the ideal of America, is it not? That any person can do as he or she sees fit towards the goal of bettering our society? That any person, no matter his or her station in life, possesses the capacity to make this world a better place?

We recognize that while society must act collectively to accomplish tasks that affect all of society, ideas stem from individuals. In that regard, every single person, from the tip of Maine to the shores of Guam, has the ability - nay, the authority - to step up to our challenges and become a real leader.

Ultimately, are not our present predicaments a result of our failure to utilize that basic principle? We concede our own authority to others, preferring to sit in comfort while the world crumbles around us. 'Let someone else make the decisions,' we say. 'Let someone else bear the burden.' But, if those of us who are truly capable of making a real difference do not rise to meet this duty, who will?

If those of us most worthy shun the mantle of leadership, who will be left to take it up but those who covet it?


Mike asks some questions that are frequently posed. I can't resist.

1.
I too questioned what laid beyond the bends of space.

Einstein's General Theory challenges much of what we learn in our daily life. Even those who work through the tensor analysis have the same nagging feelings you have, Suffice it to say the perihelion of Mercury, and now the fact we can have something like a GPS system says you need to give way. In the Big Bang space was not created inside of another space. It was created where there had been no space at all. It is hard for earthlings to visualize this. But the data is clear. You have to do it.

2.
And if the Earths gravitational pull toward the Sun fluctuated enough we should go slamming
into the Sun. There has to be the exact opposite push to hold us in the exact distance? Kinda like a tether ball... maybe motion or maybe light is the explanation?

If it weren't near the sun the earth would travel in a straight line. Compared to a straight line the earth's orbit is exactly as you expect. The earth is in fact falling toward the sun! But because of the momentum it has - it keeps missing the sun! In the old days we used to calculate the force you ask for. It was called centrifugal force, or centripetal force depending on your attitude at the moment. That force equals the gravitational force Newton calculated hundreds of years ago. Thanks to Galileo and Kepler's works we have figured it all out - pretty good. I don't also credit Tycho Brahe. How can someone be considered to be a great scientist if they allow themselves to get into a duel and have their nose shot off? I mean, that is so plebeian.

3.
Why doesn't the moon have gravity? And why doesn't it get pulled into the suns gravitational pull? And why is it when it's in the West, Full, it lights up during the day? It's clearly between us and the sun yet our side of it is still lit up?

Gravity exists between all three bodies, simultaneously. There is a nasty secret here, now keep this a secret. It is what is called a many body problem. You have to calculate everything all at the same time. In some cases like the planets someone has figured out how to do it. So that is no longer " a problem."

As to the moon being lit up, you have some home work to do. Get a piece or paper and draw the orbits. Be sure to get the earth's rotation indicated correctly so the sun rises in the east. as long as the earth does not precisely eclipse the moon - it will be lit up!

This stuff is so much fun!

Edit. Thanks to my friend cintune for the correction. Guns were pretty hard to find when Tycho Brahe lost the tip of his nose.

I too suffer from the NRA syndrome. Thanks to the efforts of Charlton Heston.
cintune

climber
Midvale School for the Gifted
Nov 4, 2012 - 08:02pm PT
Minor correction, Tycho lost his nose in a duel with swords, not guns. That is all.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Nov 4, 2012 - 08:25pm PT
I wonder what would be worse? gun or sword?
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Nov 4, 2012 - 08:53pm PT
The whole problem with religion and politics is when religion begins to legislate morality.

Morality is not in any way the sole property of religion. The weaknesses of people are not the sole property of different faiths, either. There are numerous religious leaders who have fallen due to homosexual revelations, fraud regarding stealing from the flock, and basic LEGAL laws regarding fraud and pilfering the offering plate. Money will make you do things that are legal but immoral, as well as things that are just plain wrong.

One reason that the New Christians want to control politics is to institue Christian Law. It isn't the first time, either. I mentioned Blue Sky laws previously, and there are numerous old laws on the books that were passed due to religion.

I am dead serious about religion always trying to sneak its way into law. That has been going on for over 200 years. This is a terrible idea, because the church already has its own particular laws that believers are bound to. If I want those particular rules, I'll go to church or just practice them myself. It isn't right to force these laws on those who think that they are wrong. This is a democratic Republic, not a theocratic Republic.

I can go to the Christian Law Association, which is a non-secular and deeply one sided look at America. They believe that the United States was created by God. This belief was not held by many founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and even Ben Franklin all had problems with the influence of religion. The conflict with England that led to the Revolutionary War was not to create a Christian Nation at all, and I feel comfortable arguing THAT point with BB or whomever until the cows come home. The Revolutionary war began like most wars: economics. The British were taxing the colonies without representation. They were wringing America out of every dime they could. Such is the nature of empires.

Long before the Revolutionary War, many Chritians of odd faiths that were nigh illegal in Engand did find refuge to practice their faith in America, and that continues to this day. That does not mean that the Revolutionary War had anything to do with freedom of religion. Freedom of religion WAS included into the constitution, but the founders were careful to seperate religion from politics. It has worked pretty well on a Federal Level, but has a long history of failure in local laws, many of which still exist. Of course they are unconstitutional, but nobody bothers taking a silly law over blow jobs to the Supreme Court to knock them down. Possibly because they like them as much as I do.

This country was not formed as a Chritian nation. During the constitutional congress, this is very clear. All faiths are protected, but no faith can create laws, even if the last person in America was a Christian of some sort or other.

The countries where religious laws are applied become very draconian with low tolerance for anyone who disregards them. Look at devout Zionist Jews. Do you want them to apply their laws to everyone? Do you want to go to war with Iran just to protect Israel, even though Israel has had nukes for 40 or 50 years?

Most people don't even know the 20th century history of Iran, where along with the Brits we staged a coup which removed their democratically elected president Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was deeply under the skin of the British for his attempt to nationalize Iranian oil production, which has already happened throught the middle east by now. We staged a coup along with the Brits, installed the Shah, who was a brutal Monarch, until Iranians got so sick of the Shah that they revolted and we now have a theocratic and psychotic religious government. Yep, we created Iran as we know it. The history is well known and is just...history.

Iran now has a super strict Islamic law, but it is still far behind the prizewinners for least tolerance in the world: the Taliban. The Iranians are Persians instead of Arabs.

Christianity had its shot at rule for over a thousand years in one form or another throughout Europe and the Roman empire. All were bad ideas. We can see super nuts Zionist Jews, the Taliban, and the Inquisition as examples. The Witch Trials were held by Christians. If you were thought to be posessed by demons you were burned alive. Yep. Burned alive without due process.

Just consider killing. It says flat out that Thou Shall Not Kill in the Bible and probably the Koran, but killing is so mundane that we don't think twice about it in our continuous modern wars. Abortion is terrible, but unjust wars and capitol punishment are fine. I see a real conflict of logic in that. We kill far more muslims that they kill Christians. Obama is almost certainly he first Nobel Peace Prize winner with a kill list. Each one of those strikes can kill innocent women and childred, so there is an acceptible amount of collateral damage. Damnit, Obama is the one who far surpassed his predecessor over that. Who would have though? He whacks guys with drone strikes on a near daily basis now.

The entire thing becomes a huge mess. There are many Christian sects with distinctly differing rules. To this day the Amish drive buggies and shun overt displays of wealth. I don't see them getting that involved in politics, because they are quite free to practice their faith.

The New Christianity believes that the country has become Soddom and Gomorrah, so they rabidly seek influence in politics to institue their morality. This is to impose a system of Christian Laws. It is very important to them, and they are quite upset that the IRS will tax a church that goes very far twoards overtly political dirct action. This problem is nothing new, but lately it has become perceived as a direct threat to Christianity. Christians are not famous for their tolerance of either differing faiths or differing culture. Hasn't anyone taken an hour to watch Pat Robertson, perhaps catching the episode where he prayed for the death of Hugo Chavez. Really now. Praying for the death of a person, albeit a total nutjob, is something I never did as a young methodist.

David Koresh thought that he was a prophet, and who knows? Maybe he was. I have been warned about false prophets in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The Mormons? The rest of Christianity thinks Joseph Smith WAS a false prophet. How am I supposed to know a false prophet when I see one.

While Mormons do make great neighbors, they have some pretty odd beliefs if you compare it to an established Christian Faith. I find it odd that the Christian Right is voting in droves for Romney because of that. It may be because as a person, Romney has historically been a real man of character. I have seen some biographies of him, and he seems like a good guy. I just don't like seeing him convert from a liberal conservative to a conservative who says all of the right things...all to get elected.

His problem is that he has changed his message so many times that he obviously tailors his message to assuage the fears of those who previously shot him down in the 2008 election.

It is hard to say if Tim McVeigh was a Christian, but he cared a lot about guns, which were a big part of the original raid on the Branch Davidians. They were often heard shooting fully automatic weapons, which aren't legal without a serious set of regulation. I have a friend with a Federal Firearms License, and it is pretty fun to take an UZI full auto and send lead flying across the valley at 2000 fps or so. I own guns and feel no danger that they will be rounded up. Maybe the AK-47, but the AR platform is wildly popular as a hunting weapon these days. There are zillions of them out there, and they are expensive. No politician in their right mind is going to bother the NRA, no matter how whacko they have become. Anyway, McVeigh killed 160-odd men, women, and children over a book that was overtly racist..."The Turner Diaries." He made one known attempt to contact a Christian Identity group with a closed compound in eastern Oklahoma called Elohim City. They are quite the bunch of gun toting race haters, I tell ya.

And then the democrats. They have the Foo Fighters, James Taylor, and Bruce Sprinsteen. The right wing has Ted Nugent, who if you followed his early days would screw anything that walked. Like others, he is under the false belief that the U.S. was created by God to be a Christian nation, like the Taliban in Afghanistan but without the sticks to beat women.

When I was a kid and we went to school dances, the baptist kids couldn't dance. They still got laid, but at least they didn't have to deal with white kids with no rhythm like the rest of us.

Christian laws justified slavery in this country. They can justify nigh anything, because there is an obscure bible verse for everyone. Jesus didn't speak fondly of the wealthy a number of times in the Bible, yet now religion has embraced the "Prosperity Religion" of Joel Osteen and his crowd.

Jesus did not like the rich unless they gave their wealth to the poor. Now the right calls this "class warfare." Hey, the disparity between rich and poor is dangerously close to a plutocracy in this country. Romney is extremely wealthy, and Obama is probably more wealthy than anyone posting here. They are both wealthy, and Romney's greater wealth is merely a matter of degree.

Then you have a war between Religion and Science. The anwer: home school your kids so that you can give them your own version of Biology. You can't take Science dead on, because everyone uses it every day. Religion weeds through science tossing out things that they conflict with and keeping that which doesn't. Sorry. Truth doesn't work like that. Some natural truth is just truth with debate long settled. So the answer is simply to not teach it. If science has created something REALLY useful, like the atomic bomb, it gets correlated into Bible prophecy in no time, and it is.

This is a tough topic to stay coherent on, so I apologize in advance for crappy spelling and disjointed language. It is endless.

I am a great speller until I get behind a keyboard.

edit: Please check out this statement from the Christian Law Organization. It is VERY enlightening:

http://www.christianlaw.org/cla/index.php/articles/comments/what_america_was_created_to_be/
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Nov 4, 2012 - 09:00pm PT
The whole problem with religion and politics is when religion begins to legislate morality

What is even worse is when science states it can prove itself as having all the answers and then demands it can then dictate morality.

All based on it's own premise and laws.

I wonder what would be worse? gun or sword?


Neither. In the hands of a competent warrior, the results will be the same.

Instant termination of another human being.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Nov 4, 2012 - 09:07pm PT
Oh God. Say a prayer, BB.
Donald Thompson

Trad climber
Los Angeles,CA
Nov 4, 2012 - 09:09pm PT
The whole problem with religion and politics is when religion begins to legislate morality

Another problem is when atheism is declared the official credo in a totalitarian state, religion is outlawed, and the result is a subjection of all people to the power of the state ( the new religion) with murder and imprisonment on a giant scale- as occurred in the USSR and China.

By the way, both Stalin and Mao were anti-religionists.
-
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Nov 4, 2012 - 09:11pm PT
I was talking about the nose you fatuous turd.

you know - nose chopped off or shot off? You seem to be some sort of expert - whats the answer?
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Nov 4, 2012 - 09:13pm PT
Both Stalin and Mao had two legs, hence you are a Marxist.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Nov 4, 2012 - 09:16pm PT
The idea that science can dictate morality is pretty weird. Give us an idea outside of Global Warming.

Hey. Plate tectonics is now the law. Repeal geosynclinal theory.

I don't see how it could work. How many real scientists even run for office?
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Nov 4, 2012 - 09:20pm PT
you know - nose chopped off or shot off? You seem to be some sort of expert - whats the answer?

Neither gun nor sword were ever designed nor meant for games such as chopping off ones nose.

That is the point.

The idea that science can dictate morality is pretty weird. Give us an idea outside of Global Warming.


Birth Control/The Morning Pill, Genetic Human Tissue Manufacturing, Stem Cell implementation from terminated/aborted human fetus's ...come to mind.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
Nov 4, 2012 - 09:21pm PT
I see that the theistomachy... the fighting between theists and the fighting between theists and atheists... is running full throttle per usual.
Donald Thompson

Trad climber
Los Angeles,CA
Nov 4, 2012 - 09:28pm PT
Both Stalin and Mao had two legs, hence you are a Marxist

Two legs are irrelevant in this connection, whoever has them.
The fact that Stalin and Mao shared the same well- developed philosophical and politically grounded antipathy towards religion ,as do many contemporary 'progressives' ,is very relevant.

The one shot that anti-religionists have had at producing a utopian existence for their fellow humans ended in murder and imprisonment of millions.
Btw , Alexander Solzhenitsyn had 2 legs too.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Nov 4, 2012 - 09:33pm PT
“Interviewer: 'So Frank, you have long hair. Does that make you a woman?'

Frank Zappa: 'You have a wooden leg. Does that make you a table?”
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Nov 4, 2012 - 10:16pm PT
When I was a kid and we went to school dances, the baptist kids couldn't dance. They still got laid, but at least they didn't have to deal with white kids with no rhythm like the rest of us.

Well that was my laugh for the day!

You can't live in the Bible Belt without a sense of humor.

Thanks base!
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 4, 2012 - 10:22pm PT
Another problem is when atheism is declared the official credo in a totalitarian state, religion is outlawed, and the result is a subjection of all people to the power of the state ( the new religion) with murder and imprisonment on a giant scale- as occurred in the USSR and China.

By the way, both Stalin and Mao were anti-religionists.

This too stupid to comment on

But I will
DT, They were both Hard Core Authoritarian Right Wingers
Communism is a Totalitarian Right Wing form of Socialism

China is not a liberal progressive Country by any stretch of the Imagination
It is the exact Opposite

Can you understand that you are 100% wrong, and every time you bring this subject you look like a fool?

And right wingers can be Catholics like Hitler, or atheists like Mao and Stalin
But similarly, they use their ideology as a form of Religion to control their population

Liberals try not to impose their beliefs on others
Donald Thompson

Trad climber
Los Angeles,CA
Nov 4, 2012 - 10:32pm PT
Credit: Donald Thompson


Excerpts:


Stalin and Mao
DT, They were both Hard Core Authoritarian Right Wingers
Communism is a Totalitarian Right Wing form of Socialism

China is not a liberal progressive Country by any stretch of the Imagination
It is the exact Opposite

Can you understand that you are 100% wrong, and every time you bring this subject you look like a fool?

And right wingers can be Catholics like Hitler, or atheists like Mao and Stalin
But similarly, they use their ideology as a form of Religion to control their population

Liberals try not to impose their beliefs on others


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


My favorite: "Communism is a totalitarian right wing form of socialism"

Brilliant.



Hitler's socialism wasn't the same as what we call socialism
look it up, it's from a different language you moron

Hitler was a Fascist, not a socialist

You historians out there, take heed. Hitler biographers ,you are being schooled.
WBraun

climber
Nov 4, 2012 - 10:33pm PT
Liberals try not to impose their beliefs on others


That's because the liberals have no solid ground nor solid foundation to stand on to begin with.

They're floaters .......
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 4, 2012 - 10:36pm PT
Hitler's socialism wasn't the same as what we call socialism
look it up, it's from a different language you moron

Hitler was a Fascist, not a socialist
Messages 10281 - 10300 of total 23145 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews