Politics & Religion - offtopic posts from a news thread

[QUOTE=marmotton;1348341]It's because America has a substandard education system compared to the rest of the developed world. This is the country where the lowest denominator (i.e., stupidest aka religious fanatic) can impose its will on the others: it's freedom of expression pushed to the extreme: because you can say anyting you want, you will always find someone who can shut you down....

I find it interesting that it seems so many blame "religious" people, and if a person is a Christian they are a fanatic. I agree that our education system is in need of help, it spends lots of time teaching kids how to love themselves. Im sure you would find that Private schools, which tend to have a Religious root have higher education standards than any government ran school.

Below is a story about how kids have been learned so well to love themselves, they don't know or care about anything else.

By DR. KEITH ABLOW

Last updated: 1:11 am
November 25, 2008
Posted: 12:57 am
November 25, 2008

IS there such a thing as having too much self-esteem? A new analysis of data collected over the past three dec ades shows that today's high school seniors are more likely than ever to think that they'll be terrific mates, parents and employees. Their self-esteem is skyrocketing.

OK, so what's the problem? Like the Internet bubble and the housing bubble, we're on the verge of a self-esteem bubble that could burst, causing a surge in depression and anxiety when Gen Y-ers confront the reality that self-confidence alone won't allow them to build genuine relationships, strong families or successful careers.

Researchers from San Diego State University and the University of Georgia examined three decades of surveys given to 12th-graders. Half to two-thirds of teenagers in 2006 gave themselves the highest ratings in self-satisfaction and likely success in life, up dramatically from 1975.

I've seen these teenagers in my psychiatry practice. Some shrug off poor academic performance or conflict with peers or trouble with parents. They say none of that matters because they're "OK with themselves." Some slip free of their real circumstances by comparing themselves to characters on TV dramas or reality shows. "I'm kinda like that guy working in the restaurant on that show," one young man told me. "He's cool with himself, even though no one else is."

"You're not on TV," I reminded him. "Someone created that character and scripted everything he says and does. He doesn't really have to suffer when things go wrong."

"Neither do I," my patient said.

There are millions of Jay Gatsbys being created in America, all springing from their synthetic conceptions of themselves.

A powerful combination of fictions has coaxed young people to expect no pain and to embellish their own circumstances and possibilities. The Internet allows them to "connect" with people all over the country, without really knowing anything about them. Social networks provide them with platforms to create "profiles" that can be contrived or real, as they wish. We, as parents, give every child involved in community sports a trophy, as though every one is a champion.

Some mental health professionals think the surge in Gen Y self-esteem will allow them to boldly create a more perfect future; I disagree.

I believe the surge will propel them into painful soul-searching when they realize they aren't getting everything they think they deserve. And when that prompts a surge in cases of major depression, panic disorder, alcoholism and illicit drug use, I fear that new medications (which are tremendously powerful when coupled with psychotherapy) will be used as a "cure-all" to help them temporarily keep their truths buried - until their symptoms get even worse.




Is it wrong to have standards and morals?

Long story aside (that I didn't read), this is a heavily ironic comment don'tcha think?

I mean in this particular case it *is* the "religious" people that are censoring all the nudity and swearing on US television yet not caring about the violence.

Also, Christians are not all bad of course, but they are definitely "fanatics" by definition as are all religious people. They are folks who are dedicated to the belief in a group fantasy, who are organised, and who are willing to impose that fantasy on the rest of the world. All religious people are fanatical in that way.

If it was anything other than religion, this would be the very definition of a fanatical group of weirdos. The only reason people mostly don't see it that way is because they have been trained not to by hundreds of years of history.

Edit: Also, I must say as an atheist, I am quite offended by your last line "Is it wrong to have standards and morals." The idea that only Christians or religious types have standards and morals has been disproven over and over again. I am the most moral person I know and I am an Atheist.

+1. Ditto. With that being said, lets get this topic back on track.

As an Atheist what are your morals based on? If you have no standard by which to compare yourself to, then you would be the most moral person you know because everything you do is moraly right in your eyes. (not saying your a bad person, just a honest question)

And why do you think all religious people are fanatics?
That would mean anyone with an opinion from what computer they like (apple, pc) to what political party they belong to, to what sport team they like?
So that would mean almost everyone of everything has or is a fanatic (and unfortunately there are the ones who do want to rub it in everyone's face)
And im sure we are both irritated equally on that.

Here you are making the same mistake again. You are assuming that because I am an atheist that I am a hedonist. You should really look up the definitions or get to know some atheists and some hedonists and compare the two. I didn't argue for solipsism or moral irrelevance, or that I just "do what I want." My morals are analytically arrived at is all, not dictated by scripture.


I perhaps overstated that due to being short with my explanation.

Basically if you believe in some fantasy, against all common sense and logic, and evidence to the contrary, then that makes you by definition *kind of* fanatical. If you keep it to yourself like most people do however, then perhaps not. At least you are not often seen that way.

However, the second the religious person tries to impose their beliefs on the rest of society, they are most definitely being "fanatical." Prosletising religions are fanatical by definition. Religions that believe their followers are the "chosen" in any way shape or form (and that includes most religions) are fanatical by definition also. All evangelical religions are "fanatical" by definition. The only major religion I can think of of the top of my head that isn't this way would be Buddhism.

A fanatic is just an ardent believer in a cause or someone who focusses on that cause unduly. Given the ridiculous claims religion makes and the (self-stated) firm belief of the adherents in said claims, how could it be seen as anything else? Often when we say someone is a Mac fanatic or a Windows fanatic for instance, we compare them to a religious person in order to indicate how fanatical they are. I'm sure you've heard of the "Cult of the Mac."

The easiest way to understand this is to simply substitute some other wacky thing for the religious belief and see how it looks then. Taken objectively at face value, even the tamest religion is a nonsensical fantasy that makes the average schizophrenic look healthy in comparison. To believe in such fantasies is arguably insane, to force that insanity on others is fanatical (and "un-Christian" ironically).

Oh how I love me a lunch-hour AI rant!


Yep. If they offered me a convenient way to purchase/rent high-quality, full-featured movie downloads at a decent price that I can watch on my HDTV and have all the same benefits as a physical copy (being able to re-sell the media, being able to play said media on any compatible player, being able to backup the media in case of device failure, etc) then I would have no problem forking over hundreds of dollars each year. Instead of letting Apple literally create this market for them, making them billions of dollars in the process, they put these asinine restrictions on the deal, and completely screw it up!

Why would I pay a PREMIUM over blockbuster just to have the "convenience" of downloading a rental movie using MY broadband connection that has highly-compressed video and uses last decades's surround sound format? Why would I pay the same price as a DVD to own an inferior quality digital download that has none of the benefits of a DVD, such as being able to sell it on the used market, being able to play it at a friends house, not losing your purchase when a harddrive crashes, etc? Obviously, Hollywood sees these services not as their sole future, but as if they are doing some sort of service of convenience to the customer who deserves to be be squeezed for as much money as possible.


well said.


The good thing is that those attitudes are part of the dying generation, and young people are much more reasoned and sensical about depictions of sex and violence. Even within the current ruling "baby boomer" generation, I'd imagine this seemingly distorted worldview is not as widespread as it appears, it is just that there is a loud, self-righteous religious conservative minority that love to spend their time hassling the FCC every time they see a butt-cheek on television (and denouncing the horrors of letting two committed individuals who happen to be of the same gender enter into a legal partnership) while the deviant secular sinners like myself do the devils work of volunteering at homeless shelters, raising money for the sick and starving, etc.
.


There are many excellent public schools, not to mention secular private schools. also, I have to take exception to your ridiculous suggestion that only Christians could possibly have "standards and morals". Morality and ethical behavior is crtainly not derived from religion, and least of all Christianity. In fact, spreading, defending, or otherwise advocating Christianity, like many (Abrahamic) religions, has been the basis for some of the most atrocious, immoral acts in human history. I certainly respect the lessons of Jesus, if he actually lived, he was an inspiring figure of compassion, generosity, and selflessness. But have you read the old testament? The whole bible is full of evil acts of jealousy, revenge, vindictiveness, carnage, murder, etc committed by both man and God himself! Is it any wonder that the most peaceful and compassionate nations and societies are those without a strong, fundamentalist presence of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc? The foundation of moral behavior and the presence of an intrinsic human behavioral code is perpetually debated by philosophers and scholars, but they can all agree that Christianity (or Islam or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism or Scientology) is not it. There are many societies throughout the world, past and present, that had a system of ethics or moral code of behavior without the presence or influence of Christianty.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating the abolition of religion, Christianity or otherwise. I am not an atheist, I actually am a spiritual person who is very interested in spirituality, psychology, mystical experiences, etc --- I draw inspiration and understanding from all corners, including the story of Jesus, the Vedas, Buddhism, Taoism, Bahá'Ã*, Theosophy, New Age/Gnosticism, near-death/OOBE experiences, cosmology, quantum mechanics, hallucinogens/psychedelics, etc in addition to a firm respect for the power and knowledge of science. Basically, I do not draw artificial lines in the sand of human experience.



While I agree that the Christian right holds undue influence in the United States, I certainly wouldn't characterize all religious people as "fanatics". In fact, I'm sure at least a large percentage (yes even in the United States) of Christians, Jews, Muslims, are not ignorant, self-righteous, intolerant, and who understand the limits of religion and scripture. At least I hope this is the case..

And yet, reading your post and his, it's you who comes off as the worse bigot. By far. You know what a straw-man argument is? Christians don't care about violence? I'll be laughing about that all week. When I make a list in my mind of the people I know who are immoral and amoral, that list contains few Christians. When I make a list in my mind of people who are highly moral (as in they have a strong but appropriate sense of right and wrong) that list contains quite a few Christians. Far more Christians than atheists, in fact. And by the way, I'm also an atheist. I'm just not a tool about it like you are.

Really, do you believe in evolution? More specifically, macro evolution (the type where we all sprang from a pile of goop on a rock)? That to me is the greatest fanaticism in the world. There has never EVER EVER been a documented case of one species springing out from another, so isn't believing in that believing in a fantasy? Yet most scientist teach us that's the way things are all the time. It's also amazing to me that in the past 20 years, according to scientists the world has aged MILLIONS of years.

My assumption is that if you're atheist then your also most likely an evolutionist. If this is not the case I apologize. But to say someone is insane because they believe in what you don't, and don't what you do, is condescending and disrespectful. And how, in any way, does that make you better?

If any Christian has held a gun to your head and FORCED you to believe in it, let me assure you they were most certainly NOT Christian. Now, if they were sharing what their experience was and the Truth, there was no coercion there merely sharing. And if you disagree, you have that free will to do so. You just told me what you believe in atheism, so aren't you forcing your anti-religion on me? Of course not!

This argument and ironically, "holier-than-thou", attitude I've seen from atheist is much more extreme than I've seen from Christian's even when I was agnostic.

OMG SHUT UP.. all of you. Will a moderator please delete these POSTS? They have nothing to do with the conversation.

I do agree that they shouldn't be doing this. That said, these are long standing arrangements possibly involving contracts that predate the movie store.


I do think it's a good idea to give up this line of discussion. But I can't find anything in the posting guidelines about this kind of discussion, unless you find a personal attack. If you do find a personal attack, I suggest hitting the red ! below the person's name in a post and a mod will look at it. The posting guidelines don't even suggest that people stay on topic. It was a little easier at another forum that I'm at, people got out of hand enough that discussion about politics & religion are verboten.

I just did that. I explained torrents and how they work in great detail (he was using Limewire) and gave him sites and links for torrent sites as well as to the free software needed. I asked how it worked out and he says AWESOME!

F them backward thinking TV networks with their WAY over paid CEOs and the FCC. Both are a joke and just don't "get it" or are simply corrupt. Either way both are in bed with each other. . . until 1/20/09. Lets see what Obama will do. Especially with the head of the FCC now toast. Looks like there is a lot more problems to found over at that fraud of an agency (FCC).

Can't we all just look at each other with KIND EYES, and flash each other CONFIDENT SMILES?

My earlier comment drawing an analogy between the insecurity that movies are always going to be available at the iTunes Store and the artificial scarcity of the magnificent Barack Obama Commemorative Plates really just knocked it out of the park.

This discussion "jumped the shark" at that point.

After that, it has just been a bunch of blather.

So, let's talk about the plates or just end it!

I've got to find a way to get around that "strict limit" of two per household! Otherwise, I'll have to have meals with one other person at a time so that everyone at the table can use one of these inspirational masterpieces.

KIND EYES!!!!!

Oh dear.. I actually feel sorry for you. I know that the US public education system is atrocious and that many Americans have a pathetic lack of understanding of basic science, but for god sakes will you please educate yourself.

1) Evolutionary theory makes NO CLAIMS whatsoever on the genesis of life. Evolution regards everything AFTER the beginning of life, however that may have happened.
2) Speciation is a much more complex than "one species springing out of another", and of COURSE there is not a "documented" case, this process takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

If you don't want to sound like a complete moron, taking a introductory biology class would be a good start...

"It's also amazing to me that in the past 20 years, according to scientists the world has aged MILLIONS of years."

I have no idea what you are even talking about, so I'm not going to address this. I certainly hope you aren't one of the "young-earth" Christian Fundamentalists who thinks the universe is ~10,000 years old.

You just proved my point. What proof is there that speciation has taken place? Just because you say it takes hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years to take place, doesn't validate your argument. That's like saying this computer I'm typing on will one day become a flying buffalo. Believe me, it'll happen, you just have to wait millions of years before it happens. It's all speculation. So what's to make that view any more valid than any religious belief on how life was formed and how all these different kinds of animals came to be?

science
• noun 1 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. (Oxford English Dictionary, emphasis mine)

If it's neither been observed nor reproduced, it's not science.

As far as the 20 year/ millions of years comment, look at science textbooks published 20,30,60 years ago, and see the astounding difference in the age of the earth from then to what textbooks today said it was. To me, evolutionary scientists have an incapability to answer a question "I don't know", so put out their best guess as fact. Again from the Oxford dictionary:

fact
• noun 1 a thing that is indisputably the case.

If it's indisputable, why does it keep changing? Gravity is a fact. GUESSING the age of the earth, then changing your mind because you inputted different data into a computer and got a different result, is speculation. And, finally, for the last word of the day:

educate
/edyookayt/

• verb 1 give intellectual, moral, and social instruction

Just because I don't accept a social norm of evolution, do not refer to me as being moronic. If you're going to reduce your comment to personal attacks, your argument has become pointless.

Out of respect to the moderator wishes, and the fact that I can see this becoming a circular argument (which usually happens when people compare their religious beliefs), this will be my last comment on the subject.