Talk about what really matters. Why waste time?

[struggle4progress]

Who cares whether the world was created in six days or whether G-d "exists" or any other such thing? It's all empty noise. Some things matter. Some things don't. Why bother with the stuff that doesn't matter? Let me tell you a story.

During the German occupation of the Ukraine, there was a Jewish gynecologist named Lyubev Langman. When the Nazis began rounding up Jews for extermination, Dr. Langman and her family went into hiding. And then, someone came to her hiding place and said a neighbor was having a very difficult delivery. So Dr. Langman, after being warned very clearly that it was dangerous to help, went to help: after all, she was a gynecologist. And she was a good gynecologist: she delivered the baby successfully and saved two lives that day. At this point, the new father denounced the doctor to the German authorities, who immediately shot her and her whole family.

Now this story is about something that actually matters. It is not abstract nonsense, and it is not some easy hypothetical fable: it really happened.

Why would I care about the religions of the man who turned her in or the Germans who shot her? They themselves were walking dead.

But Lyubev is a REAL person. I have never seen her face or portrait, but when I search for her, I can see her absolutely calm eyes, (slightly misted by tears? smouldering?), and those eyes sing forth the name Moses brought down from the mountain, I AM WHO I AM. Lyubev really loves, defiantly; though in her love for neighbors, she and her family were shot, Lyubev still loves. Believe what you want; say what you will; but at times I can feel her looking at me, eyes fiercely lucid and alive, not as if remembered from some distant past, but present here and now.

[greyl]

1. Your example is from the past and your imagination.

Why should it matter more to us than a discussion about whether or not god exists? ;)

[struggle4progress]

3. Neither the past nor imagination matters to you?

[greyl]

7. Why do you ask? nt

[struggle4progress]

14. Because you next say, "Why should it matter .. to us?"

[greyl]

I asked why should it matter MORE to us.

You're being dishonest.
edit: to make it clear to you, my first reply was a joke that makes you go hmmmm.

[salvorhardin]

17. Because we're obviously in the presence of a superior intelligence

And too stupid to know it.

[greyl]

19. Holy crap, where? ;) nt

[struggle4progress]

35. That would be my reaction also.

[greyl]

53. I've heartily enjoyed my time spent on this thread. nt

[Random_Australian]

54. That settles it! Only a true intellectual could make such an astounding

leap! You are the intellectual! So you know stuff! So when you implied you weren't the intellectual, you were right! So you are not the intellectual! So you are! So you're not!

Suitably useless for you? I thought I'd throw in something actually useless.

[struggle4progress]

58. ooh. zen.

[Random_Australian]

60. "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" so it DOES have real-world

effects! :silly:

[charlie]

Epimenides and the maintenance of motorcycle art

It's having an effect on me, I don't know what's who or where's why.

[greyl]

108. What does that mean? nt

[Random_Australian]

109. It is a book, a famous famous book.

[greyl]

112. I've read "...Motorcycle Maintenance" a few times,

the sequel "Lila", as well as much of Pirsig's non-published stuff and I still don't know what your post means.

[beam me up scottie]

2. Do you have a list?

Of things that matter, that is.

And does it just include topics in here, or in the rest of the forums as well?

I really must start writing these things down...

[struggle4progress]

4. I would not presume to tell you what mattered to you.

[beam me up scottie]

5. But your subject line reads "Talk about what really matters."

How am I supposed to know what really matters?

[struggle4progress]

16. You can't decide what really matters without a list from me?

[Random_Australian]

18. You tell us that what we are discussing is unimportant, thus saying that

our interpretation of importance is wrong, thus Bmus implied that you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of deciding what is important.

[struggle4progress]

38. No. When I tell you that what you are discussing is unimportant ..

.. it means that I think that what you are discussing is unimportant. That doesn't make me arbiter of anything. It means I expressed an opinion.

[Random_Australian]

47. Ok then, the difference between a useful and a useless opinion is

how well it is backed up; let's start with why "abstract" is coupled with "nonsense".

This forum entails a lot of learning about others, thus we discuss abstract concepts as a path to know both others and ourselves, a most useful thing to do.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

114. Face it dude...

you stepped in a big pile of you know what.

[struggle4progress]

116. Neither the first time nor the last: worth doing now and then just ..

.. to stay in practice.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

121. Life is filled with it

and if you go out and experience life, you WILL step in some.

[beam me up scottie]

23. You told me to talk about what really matters. You mean you don't know?

How can you tell me to talk about it, then?

[salvorhardin]

26. No, you've got it wrong

Just eat the magic mushroom and you'll understand

[beam me up scottie]

43. Well, why didn't you say so?

I lurve shrooms...

[varkam]

45. What's with the lurve business?

Seriously, I want to know.

[Random_Australian]

48. It is an exaggerated 'love'

[varkam]

68. How did it come about?

I do hate being out of the loop

[Random_Australian]

72. Remember that in this type of communication, we are basically

reproducing speech, rather than a series of emails, so some spellings are phonetic (that is also why we use smilies, to carry tone when words can't), and in this case, say 'love' and 'lurve' out loud and you will see what I mean. (pronounced 'luv' and 'Lourve' or 'Lowve' respectively)

[beam me up scottie]

59. Eat a shroom,

then you'll know.

you'l l k n ow ev e r yt h i ngt he n . . .

[Random_Australian]

62. Like how rings, hih, they're like there on the outside, but not on the

inside, that way they can be really really hard on the outside, and really really soft on the inside... man, why didn't I think of that before?

[struggle4progress]

44. Yes, there is a story like this about Chuang-Tzu, looking at the ..

.. fish in a pond and sighing how happy they felt, whereupon his companion said "You, not being a fish, cannot know how they feel," whereupon Chuang replied, "You, not being I, cannot know whether I know how they feel."

The rhetoric is entertaining, the endless regress obvious, and the exercise unilluminating.

[Random_Australian]

50. We don't talk like that; we attempt to allow others to see what we see,

we do not discuss things that are not useful to this purpose.

[beam me up scottie]

55. Was that blather in your "What Sort of Atheist Are You?" thread?

I must have missed it.

Exactly what was important about that thread?

[varkam]

6. Huh?

Geee, I guess you're right. Philosophy and thinking about abstract concepts doesn't really matter at all. Personal belief systems? Truth? All hogwash. We should really be trading stories about personal courage in the face of danger.

Give me a fucking break.

[struggle4progress]

12. Abstractions are useless, if they do not illuminate concrete situations.

Actions are reveal rather more of personal beliefs than long verbal productions. And, as far as I can discern, philosophy tends to shed more light on the limitations of philosophy, than on anything else.

I do not think that the story of Dr. Langman is essentially a story "about personal courage in the face of danger" but rather a story about a certain sort of religious conviction, which has nothing whatsoever to do with abstract concepts, although it does have to do with truth and perhaps personal belief systems.

[salvorhardin]

15. And truth and belief systems aren't abstractions

Woohoo! I'll have whatever you're drinking/smoking tonight.

[varkam]

So far as I can tell...

all the abstractions that are discussed within the confines of the R/T forum inform on personal belief which, consequently, illuminate concrete situations (as belief is the basis for action). For instance, the question "Is God real?" is a difficult one to answer. It may never be able to be answered. But if it is, I think it would have a profound impact on humanity - one way or the other. Are we still allowed to discuss that in the Religion/Theology forum?

What about scripture of the bible, not to mention the tenets of other faiths and their interpretations as applied to modern times? How about their contradictions with secular world knowledge? Are we allowed to discuss those in the Religion/Theology forum?

Even better one: the afterlife! It's not a concrete situation at all - in fact, it's metaphysical! No one has been there, yet most people seem to believe that one exists. Can we still talk about that in the Religion/Theology forum?

I mean, I certainly don't want to waste time talking about something if it's not important. I'm just trying to understand what we can still talk about here in the Religion/Theology forum.

[struggle4progress]

49. But what does it matter whether the afterlife exists?

It is unclear what the question "Does the afterlife exist" even means.

How could answering a meaningless question possibly affect anyone's behavior?

[Random_Australian]

51. A persons actions are changed by their beliefs, so answering the

question is a mechanism to understand those around us.

[struggle4progress]

61. But in fact exactly the opposite is true: people decide how to act,

then adopt belief systems to justify their actions. Nobody's actions have ever been changed by purely philosophical arguments, but people's choices of how to act have resulted in them changing their belief systems.

[Random_Australian]

67. "Nobodys actions have ever been changed by purely philosophical arguments"

Since WHEN? Mine have!

Consider the example of a preacher - the arguments he makes will change people's behaviour.

In fact, it does not matter about which came first - even if it was a derivative of action it would still elucidate the thinking processes of another.

[varkam]

71. Do you know what words mean?

If an afterlife does exist, particularly the J/C version, then unwashed heathen like myself better find a church - and FAST! If an afterlife doesn't exist, then it kind of makes the whole religion thing pointless and a waste of time - you could better spend your Sunday mornings watching cartoons.

[struggle4progress]

78. I am afraid your logic eludes me completely here.

[varkam]

94. I'll try to make it clear

BIG MAN IN SKY PUNISH ME FOREVER IF I NO BELIEVE - BAD!

NO BIG MAN IN SKY - NO REASON TO WORSHIP!

[Random_Australian]

96. And those beliefs affect peoples actions.

[struggle4progress]

97. Um ... OK ... if you say so ... don't know where you got that idea ...

... don't even know what it means ... but ... uh ...

[Random_Australian]

103. BIGGEE! BIGGEE MAN IN SKY! Comprehend? Sheesh.

MAN IN SKY! MAN IN SKY! = Mod
No Biggee man in sky = woman in sky!
NO UnBigEE Moonlicker in Oppossum den = fetch the shrooms!

[varkam]

106. I know you're not stupid.

You seem fairly articulate, so I know you don't have an incredibly low IQ. Therefore, I'm forced to conclude you are being intentionally dense.

[struggle4progress]

117. This "is skyking => me go church & no is skyking => no me go church" line

of reasoning is just completely incoherent to me.

Standard transformations permit some parsing

is skyking => me go church & no is skyking => no me go church
is skyking => me go church & me go church => is skyking
is skyking <=> me go church

but if "is skyking" is materially equivalent to "me go church" then every discussion of whether or not "is skyking" could be resolved by replacing all instances of "is skyking" by "me go church" -- in which case, discussion of "is skyking?" as a separate topic is just pointless.

But the logic doesn't reflect the sociology: in practice people often say "is skyking & no me go church." So by "is skyking" people don't mean "me go church."

Frankly, I don't know what most people mean when they talk about "is skyking" since there seems to be no concrete referent for the abstraction, and the philosophical situation is even worse if one takes the position "no is skyking": in the one case, it seems nobody knows what they're talking about, while in the second case, in addition to not knowing what one is talking about, one is is taking the position that the subject under discussion cannot have any concrete referent, since what is being discussed is void: as a logical structure, "no is skyking => no me go church" involves a hypothesis "no is skyking" which appears to involve syntax without semantics. The material semantics, at least, are wrong, for there is no way to distinguish between a skyking that isn't here and an elephant that isn't here, but surely you did not mean to say "is elephant here <=> me go church."

If discussion about "skyking" is dicey to begin with, discussion about modifying behavior, according to whether or not "skyking" exists is even stranger.

So, no, I'm not being dense: I simnply can't make heads or tails of the sort of reasoning you propose as justifying discussion of "is skyking?"

[varkam]

119. Okay, I'll try to lay it out again.

This is about God - hence the Religion/Theology forum. More specifically, this is a conversation about whether or not God exists. If God does exist (especially the Old Testament one), then that's pretty important information for people (like myself, who have been to church in a reallll long time) to know. That's because if such a God exists, then it's likely that all the other theological edicts and scriptures are true as well (e.g. Don't eat shellfish - thanks Leviticus!).

If God doesn't exist, then that is again, pretty important information for people to know. Not only does that expose all the gay-bashing and whatnot for what it is, but it also lets people get a few hours extra sleep on Sundays (something us Americans desperately need).

In the end though, this is mainly a discussion regarding behavior because belief is the foundation of behavior.

[struggle4progress]

123. Again, your logic is completely unclear. Why, for example,

would the truth of "G-d exists" (whatever it means) increase the likelihood "that all the other theological edicts and scriptures are true"? Plenty of people apparently believe "G-d exists" while rejecting all manner of "edicts and scriptures." Some eat shellfish and some sleep late on Sunday.

And how would "G-d doesn't exist" expose gaybashing and allow one to sleep later on Sunday? It's likely that plenty of atheists get up at 5AM. And if denied one rationalization for a violent behavior (such as attacking those who are different), people typically find another rationalization: although the rationalization may call itself as a "core belief," it is not the rationalization but the behavior that is "core," the rationalization merely serving to mystify the actual reasons for the behavior.

I do not think the doctor in the OP was concerned about some abstract question at the moment she risked her life but rather reasoned simply "I am a doctor, saving lives is what I do." Whoever actually shot her, on the other hand, probably reasoned "If I disobey this order, I will die; better her than me" and then perhaps rationalized "After all, she is a Jew." If such scape-goating rationalizations masquerade as "core belief," the psychological origins for the violent behavior are distinct from the rationalization.

[varkam]

127. I'm not sure how I'm being unclear....

I'm not speaking of a plurality of Gods here, only the J-C one. If it's true that that God, in particular exists, then it would make sense for people to believe in him - much more so if it could be logically proven (though I have my doubts it can be). But let's just say for example that this God comes down, does an interview on Larry King Live, tells us all that he exists, and that we should worship him - or else. Well, in that case, that would affect my behavior - as I would start going to church, praying, etc. As, I don't know about you, but the certainty in a prospect of eternal suffering is a pretty good motivator. Further, you are correct in asserting that there are many Christians who pick and choose what edicts to follow, and there are atheist who awaken early on Sunday morning (I used that example in jest). But putting that forth is completely missing the point - whether or not people believe certain claims has nothing to do with the verity of those claims. For example, suppose I claim that the sky is green - does that mean that it is true that the sky is green? Absolutely not. Suppose I claim that God doesn't mind if you eat shellfish. Does that make it true that God doesn't mind? Unless I am God, absolutely not.

And it is true that religion isn't the only rationalization for violent behavior - but it is one of the few rationalizations that swathes violent behavior in a veil of moral superiority and righteousness. Ex. God hates fags. God is good. Ergo hating fags is good. Of course, that rationalization isn't limited to homosexuality or even to Christianity - plenty of religions derive reasons from their scriptures to hate all sorts of people. Protestants and Catholics. Muslims and Jews (ah heck, who am I kidding - Muslims and most everyone else who isn't). And so on, and so forth. Most people would condemn the beating to death of a gay man. Fundamentalist sects of Christianity praise it and do so in virtue of the Bible.

And yes, the doctor in the OP probably did think that - but I fail to see how that has anything at all to do with religion or theology in the remotest sense. Even the rationalization of the guard - "she is a Jew" - has about as much to do with religion as it does with race relations. But, as I said, there are many justifications that people provide for their own violent behavior but religion is one of the few that provides a sense of legitimacy and moral superiority to some of the most brutal acts that humanity as been witness to. That's why it matters if religion is a fairy tale and is exposed as such as that rationalization will not longer hold water. To go further, other rationalizations of violent behavior are easily challenged on scientific and observational grounds - theological justifications are not. It's not easy to criticize someone's belief, lest you find yourself a member of the "evil atheist posse".

[salvorhardin]

8. I hear tell

Some people can entertain two, sometimes three thoughts in their head at one time. And nuclear science is pretty much abstract nonsense to many people, yet properly used it can still make a pretty big bang.

[Random_Australian]

11. But we wouldn't have anyone interested in abstract things like religion

and theology in HERE, surely! That is what the, uh, Theology/Religion forum is for!

I don't get this person.

[salvorhardin]

13. Shh! You can't fight in here!

This is the war room.

[struggle4progress]

20. In the case of the science, the facts precede the abstractions ..

.. rather than the abstractions existing for their own sake. And that is the proper attitude towards all abstractions: if there is no concrete referent, the abstraction is useless.

[salvorhardin]

22. Which statement just rendered all of mathematics useless

Nice job! I'll call up the head of our school board on Monday and get all the math teachers fired. We'll use the money to hire more phys ed teachers. No nasty abstractions to muck about with in dodgeball!

[struggle4progress]

34. Nonsense. Most mathematics originated in physical ideas:

geometry, number theory, calculus, ... all sprang from concrete experiences. And the one significant application of philosophical ideas to mathematics (namely, Godel's incompleteness proof) essentially casts light on the limitations of mathematics.

I have no objection to abstraction: what I object to is abstraction for its own sake, abstraction lacking concrete referent ...

[varkam]

39. All of philosophy sprang from concrete experiences as well...

The first thing philosophers were interested in was the world around them. Can't get much more concrete than that, can it?

[struggle4progress]

69. Yes, and when as "natural philosophy" it retained its interest in

concrete and specific cases, it began "science" and produced useful results. Otherwise, philosophy has been pretty much an exercise in replacing the errors of older philosophers with the errors of newer ones

[salvorhardin]

46. Abstraction in math

Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying essence of a mathematical concept, removing any dependence on real world objects with which it might originally have been connected, and generalising it so that it has wider applications.

Many areas of mathematics began with the study of real world problems, before the underlying rules and concepts were identified and defined as abstract structures. For example, geometry has its origins in the calculation of distances and areas in the real world; statistics has its origins in the calculation of probabilities in gambling; and algebra started with methods of solving problems in arithmetic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_(mathematics)

Sorry, abstraction is at the heart of modern mathematics and Gödel helped define that. You can't have modern math without it, and much math is without real world applicability so I assume you'd object to that too.

[struggle4progress]

66. I did not object to abstract: I objected to abstraction without concrete

referent.

[salvorhardin]

75. self-delete

dupe

[salvorhardin]

77. Yes you did

And much of math has no concrete referent therefore you must object to it.

Example: Like logic, of which you seem totally unacquainted.

[struggle4progress]

85. Reread the last line of #34

[salvorhardin]

92. You said...

Last line of #34...

I have no objection to abstraction: what I object to is abstraction for its own sake, abstraction lacking concrete referent ...

Much of mathematics has no concrete referent, indeed no real world analogue, therefore you must object to much of mathematics.

[struggle4progress]

95. It depends on what you take as referent. Much of modern ..

axiomatic mathematics can be understood as referring simply to formal linguistic rules, in which case, one is theorizing about language; if instead, one wants the referent to be psychological constructions, as in Brouwer's system, a different mathematics ("intuitionism") results; again, if one wants only to consider what is reducible to computations with machines, one has recursion theory or constructive mathematics or numerical mathematics (depending on your aims and tastes) -- but it is true that I do not believe in "Mathematics" as an abstract entity and source of truth, although many parts of it are interesting or useful or both interesting and useful ...

[salvorhardin]

100. Oh, OK. I see. I failed to consider...

You're a sophist. Your argument falls into place now. It's no more real or logical than Humpty Dumpty. Thus I can safely conclude that your posts don't really matter and are simply a waste of time. Thanks for the clarification. Good night.

[Random_Australian]

111. A sophist? Is this true s4p?

[struggle4progress]

118. Well, it is not my intent to be sophistical. There, I thought I was ..

defending myself against the immediately prior claim that I rejected mathematics, by slicing the topic a bit thinner. I could have continued, and sliced it very, very thinly -- but, of course, in the spirit of the OP, whether or not I reject mathematics is yet another issue that doesn't really matter very much ...

[Random_Australian]

24. What? Since when? What the hell would be the point of any experiment

ever if there was no abstraction behind it?

No concrete referent? What about the way in which people behave? What the hell do you think we discuss? Do you think that thoughts and feelings are outside the realm of scientific enquiry?

One last thing to say to you:

Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Facts come last!

[struggle4progress]

98. Facts come last? Perhaps that's a stereotypical religious/theological

view. But the facts are the really important things, aren't they really? No point to the ideas if they don't square with the facts ...

[Random_Australian]

99. Sure, they have to square with facts, I never said they didn't. And no-one

has produced contradictory evidence for most of the things here, however yet again that is not the point. We learn about others here, through discussion of belief.

[niyad]

9. a link would be nice, since a google of that name produced nothing.

[struggle4progress]

21. No, you'll have to go to a dusty old library. The web has its limits.

You're looking for one of several volumes of Nazi atrocities called "The Black Book"

[Random_Australian]

10. Gee, 'abstract nonsense' like discussing our beliefs. Look, I'll put it

like this:
- This is a Religion and Theology forum; in other words, we are here by choice to discuss things of mutual interest. Like Religion and Theology.

That is our case for existence summed up, now we move on to 'what matters'

1) How does that story matter? It affects our emotions, it is a good story, but those are things that we use all the time here, what sets it apart? Especially as we use such things to elucidate points!

2) Why do you get to choose what is not important?

3) Do you frequent here? I get the distinct impression that you have odd notions about what is really discussed.

4) You chose to come here; if you wish us to desist you are to make a very good case for it, I suggest beginning now - to me, that story sounded itself too abstract to be of any real value.

[struggle4progress]

32. Yah, my post is on a religious/theological topic

It first of all concerns the question, what can be meaningful religious/theological question be? An argument on whether or not G-d exists is logically incoherent: if G-d does not exist, then the discussion is about the whatness of nothing, a perhaps amusing set of verbal productions, but without any content, hence pointless. Similarly, whether the world be created in six days or not, is a matter of no consequence whatsoever, so far as I can tell.

You interpret my assertion that certain discussions are meaningless as an effort on my part to impose my will. But of course, I have taken no steps to impose my will: I have simply expressed an opinion that the topics under discussion here are often silly and pointless.

My "odd notions about what is really discussed" here seem to reflect the culture of the forum rather accurately: there's usually a thread running about whether G-d exists and threads on any number of issues concerning some idiotic literalism from the Old or New Testament.

Whether you desist, or not, from whatever it is that you do, is, of course, entirely up to yourselves. I simply remark that what is usually in discussion in this forum, under the rubric of religion/theology, is rather limited stuff, that avoids interesting and important religious/theological matters ...

[Random_Australian]

40. Feel free to post any of these 'interesting and important matters'

don't let us stop you. However, I will have to take exception to "without any content" -not so; merely your interpretation of them is without content many people learn a great deal here, I also suggest that there is a wide range of interest here, while I have no active interest in many a topic, I simply don't read them.

Finally, the equating of 'abstract' and 'useless' seems not the wisest idea to me - much of science now is abstract, math always has been, but they are the two most useful things of all time. (IMO)

[struggle4progress]

52. I do not equate "abstract" with "useless": I equate "abstract without

concrete referent" with "useless" and "content-free"

[Random_Australian]

57. But concrete referant is an abstract concept without conrete referant;

and you seem to miss a lot of the point; let us continue here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=74211&mesg_id=74271

[struggle4progress]

That is a nice illustration of the difficulties that ensure when there is

no concrete referent to terminate the infinite dictionary game

[Random_Australian]

82. There are other ways around the infinite games. Like with the

fish, all one has to say is "I believe without certainty that you do not know what the fish is thinking" and voilá, OVER.

[salvorhardin]

89. Or like Newton and Leibniz

You can just define the infinitesimal and get on with calculating things that have concrete referents. But wait... An asbtract concept without a real world referent (infinitesimal) can have effects on things with concrete referents (like balistics of artillery shells). But all abstractions without concrete referents are a waste of time. Therefore Calculus is a waste of time. Good one that! We can fire the math profs at university too! Woohoo! Even more dodgeball!

[Random_Australian]

90. I like dodgeball.

[struggle4progress]

93. Well, infinitesimals were fraught with peril until Weierstrauss banished

them, and although Robinson rehabilitated them and showed how to avoid the dangers, the safe way through the maze is nontrivial. Still, to make some sense of the infinitesimal arguments, one need only say "approximately" at the right places and the arguments all make intuitive sense without any appeal to "infinitesimals" at all.

[beam me up scottie]

25. You mean like your poll: "What sort of atheist are you?"

Yeah, that precious bit of "When did you stop beating your wife" flame bait really mattered. :eyes:

[struggle4progress]

56. Well, I'm sorry you did not like that poll. If I myself could have voted

multiple times in it, I would have voted several different ways, all honestly reflecting aspects of my own beliefs

[beam me up scottie]

65. So in your esteemed opinion, that poll mattered.

I see.

The "aspects" of YOUR beliefs matter, while those of others don't.

[struggle4progress]

125. In my opinion, I did not ask if you had stopped beating your wife.

[NMMNG]

27. ......

Trashing what people who frequent this forum consider important enough to start threads on isn't the best way to win friends and influence people. :shrug:

[Random_Australian]

28. influence is an abstract concept. So is frequent. So

is important. So is trashing. So is consider. So is win. So is people. So is well you get the idea.... this poster seems to have not considered their point very well.

:pals: Think this one will get locked?

[NMMNG]

29. Abstract is an abstract concept. So is concept.

:P


It will probably get locked--it's rather antagonistic IMO. :silly:

[Random_Australian]

31. You know, I answered at the start and did a serious one, I think I might

go silly now!

[struggle4progress]

76. History suggests to me that religion/theology is often about something

rather different than winning friends and influencing people.

Typically, it seems to be about power struggles, about silly non-issues, always couched in inflexible "I'm right and you're not" terms.

The silly non-issues, whatever they are (and there have been plenty of them historically, such as the Catholic/Protestant dispute over trans-substantion versus consubstantiation), are always a distraction from more important matters.

[NMMNG]

84. Religion/theology

Often is about power struggles and "I'm right/your not" situations. Then again, so are many other areas of inquiry. However who are you to decide which issues (and whose) are "silly non-issues"? What you consider a silly non-issue might be of great importance to somebody else here.

Would you like it if somebody called your posts "silly non-issues"?

[struggle4progress]

91. People have frequently regarded my views as silly

Still, if I think someone is wasting time on a inquiry unlikely to shed any meaningful light on anything, why wouldn't I tell them? I've wasted all sorts of time in my life doing unproductive things: when I see someone else apparently making the same mistake, I consider it decent to remark of it to them. Should they choose not to listen, that is their choice. Should they be offended, I can only say, well, I am sorry to see you repeat a mistake that once cost me so much time and energy for so little return ...

[varkam]

104. I already have.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=74211&mesg_id=74302

[robinlynne]

30. I hate to say this, but I don't believe there were any female doctors pre

1940. Not until around 15 or 20 years later. nurses yes. but no women in medical school till the fifties, I think. It was actually a big big deal still in the early 60's for a woman to have a profession.

[NMMNG]

36. Women were actually going to med school in the 1800s

At least in the US. I have no idea what it was like in other countries.

http://mednews.stanford.edu/stanmed/2000fall/woman.html

[parasim]

41. I think these gals would beg to differ...

1849
Elizabeth Blackwell receives her M.D. degree from the Medical Institution of Geneva, N.Y., becoming the first woman in the U.S. with a medical degree.

1864
Rebecca Lee Crumpler becomes the first black woman to receive an M.D. degree. She graduated from the New England Female Medical College.

1866
Lucy Hobbs becomes the first woman to graduate from dental school, the Ohio College of Dental Surgery.


http://www.factmonster.com/spot/womensfirsts1.html

just sayin'...

[robinlynne]

64. Wow. I stand corrected. And then some.

[struggle4progress]

81. History contains more surprises than you may think

[Random_Australian]

33. Oh MY GOD! He makes sense! All those hours I wasted here!

Thinking I wanted to discuss religion and theology when I really wanted to discuss the occopation of Ukraine!

*smacks forehead*

So, what makes you think you can tell us what we should discuss? Whether it has real ramifications?
You'd better have some good reasons! Go on, try it!

[varkam]

37. Let's just talk about me, okay?

I mean, I certainly matter to me - so let's just make this forum the "varkam" forum. Is that cool?

[Random_Australian]

42. About as cool as the surface of the sun. Let's do it!

[bluesbassman]

63. IBTL!

I always wanted to say that, just never in the right place at the right time until now.:applause:

Seriously though, struggle4progress did you think through the framing of your intro before you posted it? Obviously you see God reflected in the eyes of Lyubev, but you don't find that in the least bit abstract?

May I suggest that in your future posts you might want to try and NOT alienate the people you wish to have a discussion with. Just saying.

[Random_Australian]

70. Wow! Your first IBTL was it? congrats!

[varkam]

73. RA...can you 'splain something to me?

I know you just 'splained lurve to me...now what is IBTL?

[Random_Australian]

74. "In Before The Lock"

As in, you managed to post in a thread before it was locked.

Anytime mate! :toast:

[bluesbassman]

87. Thanks Mate! n/t

[beam me up scottie]

80. An ITBL virgin!

:woohoo:

I thought they were a myth...

[bluesbassman]

86. Not all myths are myths...

It's true, I was a IBTL virgin! Hmmm, sounds like a great book title.:think:

[Random_Australian]

88. ...

:rofl::rofl::thumbsup:

[varkam]

102. I'm still and IBTL virgin!

Although..

IBTL!

not anymore.

[Random_Australian]

105. varkam crosses over!

[beam me up scottie]

107. Shameful!

Right in front of Gawd and everybody!

[bluesbassman]

110. Welcome to the fold. n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

122. I am saving myself

I am an IBTL virgin, too. I'll wait until I know it is right.

[varkam]

128. I love you Grannie

I really do

:pals:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

130. Thanks, Varkam

You're pretty cool yourself.

[varkam]

79. Come on people! Can't you see that s4p is right?!

I mean just look at some of the topics s4p started:

Poll question: What do ya say when somebody tells ya "I'm a Christian"?

Jesus Christ was a man that traveled through this land

Poll question: What sort of atheist are you?

Protesters Lock Themselves in Rectory

Can't you see we are just blathering on about trivial and irrelevant topics?!?!?!?!!!!111

[struggle4progress]

83. Feh! Ya caught me.

Of course, I do like Woody Guthrie, and I'd rather have people explaining their religious views by confronting the authorities, than by blather, but ...

Mea culpa!

[varkam]

101. Yes, Woody Guthrie songs and what you say to Christians...

are truly important matters for which we must strive for the most sober of discourses.

[struggle4progress]

124. Feh! Ya caught me!

Of course, I do like Woody Guthrie, and I'd rather have people explaining their religious views by confronting the authorities, than by blather, but ...

Mea culpa!

[varkam]

129. Right...you uh...just said that n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

113. A moving story

but...everything matters. Everything is important to someone at some time. Even our debates about the unknowable are valuable because it forces us to think through our own core beliefs, and it also helps us process things as a community.

[Proud_Democratt]

115. What really matters is.......

This kind of statement is similar to "that's what's wrong with the world today". Quotes like these come from the mouths of ones with that certain burning desire and the subject matter is their top priority at that moment.
Passion for certain matters/issues, IMO, is very commendable, however being a diverse society that we are, many share a myriad of priorities, and our "cries for help", get lost in the mish-mash. "The Melting Pot" is great for an education and exchange of ideas, but not many issues are thoroughly addressed and fixed.
The Jews of Europe, during the Nazi-era, were the most persecuted and tried religion in the 20th century, yet they re-emerged with zeal and dignity. They have always overcome the evils bestowed upon them because of their less vengeful ways than other major religions. I admire Judaism and Anabaptists(Amish) for their more passive stance.

So, what really matters?
What really matters is the issue that brings out the passion in you, at that particular moment.

What do I know, though? I'm just a blue collar man and high school grad.

[struggle4progress]

120. Having put my foot in it, as you say elsewhere, I may as well step down

a bit, because your view "our debates about the unknowable are valuable because it forces us to think through our own core beliefs" is one of the ideas I am trying to question.

The "core beliefs" of the doctor in the OP are not expressed in irrelevant "debates about the unknowable," but in the material choices made by the doctor in actual circumstances. We do not know what the father who betrayed the doctor, or the soldiers who shot her, would have said about their "core beliefs," but in fact what they would have said probably would have shed no light whatsoever on who they really were; there is a great deal of recorded history about similar incidents, and the following sort of sequel is at least consistent with many other stories: at Christmas, the father who betrayed the doctor, and the soldier who shot her, all decorated trees and made noises professing belief in some ancient miracle at Bethlehem.

I wonder if, perhaps, there is actually only one way to develop and explain "core beliefs," namely, in action, debates being merely a minor side-effect of whatever is really going on. A similar question arises in the context of community; for most of history, "community" involved knowing who did what: this neighbor grew this, that neighbor did that, and when you needed a clay pot or the horse shoed, you went down the road to whoever did it and gave them some vegetables or helped fix their roof, and "core beliefs" in that context is not a matter of debate so much as of concrete action.

[bloom]

126. Well I think it's an interesting topic of discussion

I think it's good to think about how people (or ourselves) can become myopic and only be concerned about those in our own group - those we agree with, etc.

There are philosophical questions that people should be able to discuss without people viewing it through the lens of their group - like just what their group thinks. I think it's an individual question. How one would react in such a situation.

Some people might think that one group or another might address it differently. Or that their group is better - or people in their group would always behave more nobly. I think it's an individual thing. The scenario you posed. And if you thought that you would be saving someone who would then torture others, you may not save them. If you thought that your saving someone might cause a ripple effect where more people started seeing each other as human - you might risk it.

The scenario as you posed it may have an element of propaganda to it - if one assumed that one group - that tended to be an oppressed group anyway - necessarily behaved more nobly than people in another group. And if the story was essentially told to bolster the spirits of that group. At the same time - if people in oppressed groups have everything to gain and little to lose by acting more nobly then it might make sense. And the oppressing group may have effectively been propagandized into thinking the others as less than human - so they might be more likely to kill people in the other group. Something to think about if that is what your group is pushing.

You could wonder if being a part of a particular group - like Republicans who thought that torture was OK - because that is what the leaders of their group thinks - a group member would necessarily go along with it. Whereas if you knew that the leaders of your group thought that torture was abhorrent - then you might very well be more likely to think that way about it. And some people with strong opinions would change groups (or at least abandon a group) if they knew that the leaders and/or members of a group thought a certain immoral thing that the person opposed.

Of course - that is the nice thing about not belonging to a group and not being defined by a group - if people in a group go off and do some horrible thing - and esp. if the leaders do - there is nothing to reflect on the non-group member. Of course - the reverse is also true - if you don't identify with a group you don't share in whatever glory group members might have reflected on themselves for whatever reason.

The military reminds me of that. People in the Marines - or in any branch of the military (or their relatives) can be very concerned about managing perceptions that what the military does is good even when a lot of what they do involves killing people. Some Americans may think that our military reflects positively on themselves - others who do not see the mission and/or the actions involved as positively - do not. Basically the same actions can be a negative - depending on how you see it (mostly it seems to depend on whether you have the idea "my country - right or wrong" and/or if you think that we should only be involved in defensive actions). Which for some seems to be however they were taught - for others - it's whatever values they have arrived at.