QUOTE (The Humble Asskicker @ May 2 2009, 20.44)

Then you must forgive me for being unclear with what I was attempting to convey. I was in fact arguing the agnostic position. I perceived your attacks on religion as the atheistic position, that you were stating that religion was unknowable and so we should qualify the only relevant position as counting an atheistic point of view (throw out religions, which are practices that disagree with the atheistic persuasion) - which is equally unknowable. I was disputing this because there's no absolute evidence that some supernatural force doesn't exist, so it's equally impossible to advocate that for certain. I was of the view then, that to allow any belief to exist outside of social policy was the only fair (and just to mention it, agnostic) position. It's not naysaying or yeasaying either way.

I don't advocate anything for certain. I do treat completely unsupported, fantastical beliefs with as little consideration as possible, because quite frankly, they don't merit any. Sure there's the infinitesimal possibility that any of them, from god to leprechauns, may in fact be true. But we hardly spend much time mewling over the less culturally significant ones, and from an objective standpoint, each ones pretty much just as fringe as the other. I don't see the point in giving any of them much more than a moment's consideration absent serious evidence as none of them warrant it.

I characterize my view as atheism not because i dismiss that sliver of a possibility that some deity may exist, but because agnosticism strikes me half-hearted, weak-willed, indecisive hand-wringing. Nor does it have the appropriate shock value when talking with believers. Half of them probably think agnostic is a fancy term for non-denominational, I want to make sure NOONE is under any misunderstanding.

QUOTE (The Humble Asskicker @ May 2 2009, 20.44)

I think "common sense" could supplant "god says" quite easily.

Common sense is an infuriating term that I do try to avoid like the plague. (I think I've only used it once in the last year, and then half jokingly) But even common sense is MUCH easier to expose as bullshit than religion. Though it might take alot of work and patience, it can be disputed in rational, real world terms. God says still cannot be. Common sense is unlikely to get too fucked up in most cases, as its still subject to real-world rules, rationale, and experiences. AKA, common sense isn't gonna get people to spontaneously believe that the world is a dream and we're all stuck in the Matrix. Further, common sense isn't gonna spread any consistence message to all corners of the nation. Its a collection experiences, urban legend, my friends said, my parents said, education, upbringing, etc and thus everyones 'common ignorance' is gonna vary. A bit harder to stand on such 'common sense' when you're the only one spouting that particular variety. Much easier to hold tight when tens of millions of others congregate weekly to propagate the same thing. Also, your particular common sense is less likely to be advocated or legislated into law. So yes, common sense is an issue. But not the same sort of demon nor nearly as dangerous as 'god says'.

QUOTE (The Humble Asskicker @ May 2 2009, 20.44)

From what I gather from your statements (as always, please correct where I've gotten it wrong) that religion is the active force for modern ignorance. Wiping it out will be a panacea towards achieving said utopia.

Utopia might be overstating things, but this is pretty much correct. I accept that ignorance is inevitable, though its in our interests to limit it as much as possible. My problem with religion is that it actively advocates FOR ignorance. I cannot find another force as strong, influential, effective and widespread that pushes for it so hard. As such, I see it as 'the' (or one of the) key barriers to limiting ignorance. Take my earlier car accident analogy. (car accidents of course = ignorance and its effects) Car accidents will happen. An effective society limits them via safer cars and highways. But religion, since it actively seeks to spread ignorance, is a force of commission rather than mere negligence. They are the tens of millions of drivers that actively try to run other drivers off the road. That's what I find particularly obnoxious about religion.

QUOTE (The Humble Asskicker @ May 2 2009, 20.44)

Our contention lies in whether there is an intrinsic tendency towards an uniformed attitude (religion or no), which I believe, or whether religion is the major body of that attitude, as you say.

I don't believe that in this hypothetical situation of where religion is eliminated (not even questioning the feasibility of it, or why quelling the religions of today won't somehow sprout new religions, as I don't want to turn this into a sub debate on whether people have a natural desire to believe in the supernatural), that we'll suddenly make headway, because I think that religion is, deep down, simply a pretext for a deeper desire towards simple, ignorant perceptions. You seem to think otherwise.

Do you suppose I have the core of our difference down accurately?

The top parts were good. These last few sentences I don't believe I've touched on (could be wrong), but I will here. As I said above, ignorance is inevitable but uniform ignorance isn't. Ignorance needs to reach a critical mass of consistent voices before it can seriously influence society or become enshrined in law. Religion (IMO) is unlike any any other force out there in the depth of its effects, how widespread those effects are, and how unchallengeable they are by rational means. Other things (ideology, nationalism, etc) may do this, but not as effectively and always on a smaller scale. It is in those regards, quite unique. You speak of unified attitudes, well I see religion as the single greatest unifier of those. Both in its scope and depth of its effects. Might be useful if we could find one with almost entirely positive tenets and spread that to every individual in the world, but in the absence of that its a force for division (too many faiths and too many subdivisions) and all of them have far too many obnoxious tenets and/or common practices & preconceptions.

QUOTE (Brude @ May 3 2009, 02.47)

Not trying to ruin your day or anything, EHK, but... Youtube clip

Did you just force me to watch 3 minutes of the View? What an utter abomination no matter the subject. Notice that the nutjob fanatical blonde chick didn't even open her mouth and the entire cast (Barbara Walters excepted) still sounded stupid. In fact I don't think there's any way to make incoherent ramblings about 'god this' and 'god that' sound smart no matter the context or the speakers. Even the ones who 'I think' were agreeing with me sounded dumb. You owe me 3 minutes and a shitload of brain cells!!!!

QUOTE ( @ )

...and
www.alaska.net. (I noticed the URL is at alaska.net - maybe they want the world to be flat because it makes Alaska bigger on the maps? Just a thought.)

Also. Flat Earth Society

Flat earthers were always kinda cute. Like toothless retarded puppies.

QUOTE (turinturambar @ May 3 2009, 14.53)

Not all people have to be good critical thinkers in order to be intelligent and contribute to society.

There are many different types of thinkers in this world. Also to assume that home school kids who display superior spelling and math skills somehow lag in critical thinking or because of lower critical thinking skills....are somehow inferior. IMO this displays a lot of arrogance.

Woah...I think OiL is simply saying that high level rote memorization isn't a good indicator of education quality, and really it isn't. I highly doubt he was saying that the kids who excel in it don't contribute to society or lack critical thinking skills. Simply that spelling B's and such aren't adequate measures of those things. AKA, its not that this information tells us the kids are dumb or uneducated, but that this information really tells us nothing either way.