Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Life, Rare and Fragile page 2

  1. #11
    RidgebackRunner's Avatar
    RidgebackRunner is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    7

    1

    Primal Fuel


    I am glad there is such a community of critical thinking people here... typically I am fighting a solo, uphill battle trying to reason against both CW and religious beliefs.


    Mark's post beautifully illustrated my view on life and why there is no need for a god (or gods) in my life to find enrichment, meaning, or happiness.


    I do believe we are naturally curious, and from that curiousness religion spawned to fill the unknowns. I also believe that at any given time there are things we will never fully understand and really have no need to understand (i.e. creation of the universe)


    I think people that hold the creationist belief feel life is degraded by not being the center of the universe, not being the children of god. If they could simply grasp what Mark said, I think they could go on living and appreciating/enjoying life without their bibles and baby jesus.


  2. #12
    lil_earthmomma's Avatar
    lil_earthmomma is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,466

    1



    Ridgeback, all religious/spiritual people are not un-scientific. There are some who can grasp science and still hold fast to faith in something bigger than themselves. Yes, it is annoying to have people bring "peusdoscience" into a debate and expect it to be swallowed, but that doesn't mean those who do understand science have the right to be judgemental and bigotted.


    I think mindless adherance to any group, whether it be religious, or otherwise is dangerous. Fundamentalism comes in many forms. I have encountered fundamentalist environmentalists, parenting fundamentalists, and even PRIMAL FUNDAMENTALISTS!


    I guess I just see a difference in people who follow organized religion without questioning or thinking for themselves, and those who have found a spiritual path that they feel gives them some peace, grace and a greater compassion for others.


    I think we should have respect for people's spirituality, and even atheism can be considered a type of spirituality. Tolerance and respect shouldn't be too much to ask on a board with so many enlightened educated thinkers.

    The more I see the less I know for sure.
    -John Lennon

  3. #13
    TaydaTot's Avatar
    TaydaTot is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    8

    1



    62shelby,


    Thanks for those links. I never heard of Francis Pottenger or his famous cat study before. It was interesting to learn he was a contemporary of Weston Price!


    To me, prima facie, the results demonstrate how potentially destructive an "unnatural" diet can be to an organisms health. One thing I wonder: could these (or have these) results be interpreted that raw meat is more beneficial for human health? Because one difference between cats and humans is that humans have been cooking food for a very long time (I think at least 100,000 years?) and cats never have...until humans started feeding it to them.


    lil_earthmom,


    I don't want to sully you post by attaching ancillary ideas to it but what you said reminded me of a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote, "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." I don't think any group of thought is immune to falling into 'foolish consistency'.


  4. #14
    fbw's Avatar
    fbw
    fbw is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3

    1



    considering that most of modern science has its origins in Christians seeking to logically and scientifically explain God's creation, i find the fundy-atheist thing just irritating.


    the whole 'omg there is DEFINIATELY NOT GAWD' is just ridic. the data doesn't dictate one way or the other whether the Christian God exists or not. a correct scientific response would be agnosticism, not rabid atheism and accusations that your brain musta fallen out if you're Christian and like math and science.


    issac newton was working within a Christian intellectual tradition when he formulated much of what we understand to be modern physics. people forget so much of what religious faith contributed to science before the last 2-3 generations. people have such tiny, short memories. it's fascinating how so many really do have faith that everyone before the 60s was Just Plumb Dumb, when the scientific evidence is actually that our brains are 20 percent smaller since the dawn of neolithic eating, half of that an artifact of modern agriculture (the last century or so).


    it is wonderfully strange how so many evolutionary rabid atheist primal/paleo types actually kinda believe those same paleo ancestors were just stupid but they are much smarter.


  5. #15
    Shine's Avatar
    Shine is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53

    1

    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification


    I am deeply shocked and saddened at the level of irrationality present in this post's comments. (I am referring to the comment board, not this forum thread.) I seriously just read a response to one of my comments using the "discovery" of dinosaur footprints found alongside human footprints to refute my defense of the scientific method. I was then told:
    [quote]

    Just look at how butthurt and hostile the people on your side of the argument have gotten just during the course of these comments.
    </blockquote>


    I really don&#39;t understand. Most of the name-calling that I have witnessed in the course of the post&#39;s comments has been directed towards the "self-righteous, ignorant, intolerant" non-believers rather than from.


    Religion was introduced into the conversation by the third post promoting young-Earth creationism. (Whether or not this was a Poe remains unknown as the poster has remained silent since.) Rightfully so, this comment was completely lambasted as indubitably false. However, because this represents a fundamental belief of many people, suddenly feelings were hurt and tempers were riled.


    This is the problem with belief: because it is not based upon any evidence, any criticism of a belief threatens to erode its unsubstantiated foundations. This is, understandably, very uncomfortable for the believer. Presentation of facts which contradict the faithful edicts cause emotional distress and are construed as personal attacks. The issue becomes an emotional maelstrom as believers and non-believers alike resort to ad hominem attacks and impassioned responses.


    Even though I have rambled on far beyond the realm of TL;DR I would like to make one more point. There seems to be a confusion between atheism and anti-theism. (I suppose the latter is sometimes called "militant atheism.") At its core, atheism represents a rejection of unsubstantiated belief systems, an insistence upon evidence, and a promotion of critical thinking and healthy skepticism. It does not claim that there is no god; rather, atheism simply does not accept the claim that there is a god based upon lack of evidence. Anti-theism, on the other hand, actively states that there is no god.


    This is the fundamental difference: inactivity and activity. Atheism is inactive; it is simply a rejection of a belief system and does not actively make any claims about the nature of the universe. Anti-theism is active; it not only rejects a belief system (theism), it actively promotes the belief that there is no god.


    Although it is an extremely well-worn analogy, consider the existence of fairies. Let&#39;s suppose that a belief in the existence of fairies is called "fairyism," and all believers in fairies are called "fairyists." However, because there is no evidence for fairies, you are hard-pressed to find anyone who actually believes in their existence. Therefore, the majority of people would reject fairyism and be labeled as afairyists.


    Even though most of us (hopefully) do not accept the belief in fairies, is the label of "afairyist" truly relevant? Does it really make sense to define ourselves by what we don&#39;t believe in?


    Although most people are afairyists, how many spend their time actively claiming that there are no fairies? Unless fairies are brought up in the course of conversation, how many people are likely to spout off an anti-fairy agenda? Probably not many. However, if the claim of fairies&#39; existence is mentioned, most people will be provoked to then refute this claim and possibly lapse into anti-fairyism.


    This is the mechanism by which atheists are construed as anti-theists. The constant interjection of theism into debate prompts the non-believer to assert their rejection of theism and, in the process, is often misunderstood as making an independent claim.


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •