--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > I had a good run with this topic so I really can't complain. > > > Too bad I can't prove that Barry wrote the Bible! > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > If you could do that I'm pretty sure everyone > > here knows that not only would she join you in > > ragging on its ideas and their stupidity, she'd > > say it was bad writing. :-) > > Yes mocking certain individuals is a moral duty but mocking ideas is a moral > failing. I got the formula. > > But it did demonstrate one of my main points (thanks Sam Harris) which is > that religious ideas are held in a protected class. They are shielded by > people who don't believe in them as if the people who believe them are > delicate children whose feelings must not be hurt by someone challenging the > idea as unsupported by reasonable evidence. > > In this one area of human "knowledge" alone are the standards of debating an > idea suspended, we must treat this class of ideas as beyond refutation or > criticism.
I wish. That is, I wish this was limited to one area. But our "conventional thinking" "common view" of many things are near sacred cows. If criticized, a number of sectors reel back in horror -- that anyone could possibly think something so outlandish. Quite a conversation stopper -- and certainly miles away from rational debate. So many such areas: socialism, capitalism, illegal immigrants, climate change, organic foods (thought this one is changing), race (much more so a generation back), the Greatest Generation, class, corporations, Wal-Mart, Republicans, Liberals, meat eating, vegan, Lincoln or Washington, etc. Even on this list, where participants are presumably (and I know there is a lot of data counter to this) less attached to, less identity dependent on views, positions, etc., readily abandon rational debate to make emotional, knee-jerk, canned, pre-programmed, not-well considered reactions to any number of topics. Rationality, high standards of inquiry and debate, mutual seeking of truth not ego security, clinging to sacred ideals that are beyond criticism and debate are flourishing in so many areas. > We must give the appearance of going alone with whatever cockamamie concept > is presented as the will of God even though we have a history of every other > claim about the natural world in scripture that can be refuted by science > having been proved false. > > And most of all we must never challenge the virtue of people believing things > through faith alone, without evidence of any sort, by merely asserting that > it is so. Even though this standard for knowledge is exactly the opposite > one from every other human intellectual discipline that we value in modern > society. > > Just tell the emperor his new clothes are magnificent like everybody else. > > > > > ><curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <geezerfreak@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Judy get off her high horse??? Never going to happen > > > > Curtis my man. But I admire your continued effort to > > > > have discourse with her being WAAY up there and you > > > > being a lowly blues singer and all... > > > > > > I had a good run with this topic so I really can't complain. > > > Too bad I can't prove that Barry wrote the Bible! > > > > If you could do that I'm pretty sure everyone > > here knows that not only would she join you in > > ragging on its ideas and their stupidity, she'd > > say it was bad writing. :-) > > >
