Notices
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Reversion

  1. #1 Reversion 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Do you think it is very likely that moderate religious people or their children will revert to more traditional or radical (depending on circumstances) views? It seems in the past this isn't likely, religion has become more moderate over time. However circumstances might be different now.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Reversion 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    Do you think it is very likely that moderate religious people or their children will revert to more traditional or radical (depending on circumstances) views? It seems in the past this isn't likely, religion has become more moderate over time. However circumstances might be different now.
    If you buy into the nonsensical dogma of the new fundamentalist atheists, religion should have ceased to exist long ago. The flaw in your reasoning is this dogmatic belief of theirs that the only religious people are those indoctrinated into religion as children. This is complete and utter nonsense. Real religious belief and commitment is found by people for themselves regardless of upbringing.

    So what we actually observe in history in a periodic resurgence in religious enthusiasm most often involving a reaction to trends of thought and practice that drain Christianity of meaning and value. Now in the case of the Protestant reformation and its aftermath this included a reaction against the repressive elements of Christianity deriving from insufficient separation between religion and government. Thus there were some strongly libertarian strains to the religious groups that arose at that time, like the Quakers.

    Now unfortunately the fundamentalist movement of this last century includes a reaction against science and the Social Darwinism that it saw arising from the scientific world view. But I think you will also find that more recently there are also reactions against the excesses (including extreme literalism, dogmatism and legalism) of that kind of fundamentalism.

    So I am afraid you are barking up the wrong tree. There really is no evidence that relgion becomes more moderate over time. Not at all. The second generation of a religious group is sure to be more moderate and realistic that the first generation composed of converts. But all that really means is that a given organization will tend to become more moderate over time, but that only inspires people to create new organizations for new and more enthusiastic expressions of religion.


    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Reversion 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    Do you think it is very likely that moderate religious people or their children will revert to more traditional or radical (depending on circumstances) views? It seems in the past this isn't likely, religion has become more moderate over time.
    What does that mean? "...religion has become more moderate over time."

    When did the gods of those religions make the religion more moderate? Or, was it the followers that changed the religion to suit their agendas?

    If theists don't follow their religions as they've been presented to them from the get go, they are hypocrites for any changes they themselves decided to make.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    (Q), a science free poster and an archetypal hypocrite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    (Q), a science free poster and an archetypal hypocrite.
    Posts with little more than personal insults? Stoop lower, John. Down, down, down...
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    Q, you yourself do insult others, frequently. Frequently enough so that you have to be warned by the moderators.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by KomradRed
    Q, you yourself do insult others, frequently. Frequently enough so that you have to be warned by the moderators.
    I have only insulted someone personally after they insulted me first. The fact that those who insulted me didn't get warnings is the bias of those who moderate the forum. So what? Who said forums were supposed to be fair and unbiased by those who operate them?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by KomradRed
    Q, you yourself do insult others, frequently. Frequently enough so that you have to be warned by the moderators.
    Further, John Galt has stooped lower than most. He started a thread with the only purpose of baiting and insulting me. He now follows me around trying to bait me. Probably setting me up for a ban, most likely.

    Will his thread get closed, will he get warned? Not likely.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    He started a thread with the only purpose of baiting and insulting me..
    That was not the function of the thread. The function of the thread was to establish whether or not you have any meaningful knowledge of science. You appear to claim you do. Fine. Demonstrate it in that thread. (You seem to have failed to do it in any other.) You can go there at any time and by quoting from earlier threads prove that I am mistaken. Your continued refusal to do so is an implicit acknowledgement that I am correct.

    Why is this important? You attack and berate religious people from an allegedly scientific stance. If you have little or no scientific knowledge then such actions are at best dumb, at least hypocritical and at worst dishonest.

    Posts with little more than personal insults? Stoop lower, John. Down, down, down...
    I'm trying, but I can't quite reach you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Your continued refusal to do so is an implicit acknowledgement that I am correct.
    If you say so. I'm not one to argue with someone of your vastly superior intellect.

    That said, you've managed to derail this thread with insults. Nice work, John. Your vastly superior intellect is "implicitly acknowledged."
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    If you say so. I'm not one to argue with someone of your vastly superior intellect.
    Good. Put up, or shut up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    moderator:
    This battle (between Galt and Q) has become so personal between you two that I don't know what you guys are talking about any more. What thread was started by John where? But the more important question is, why should anyone be interested in such things anyway.

    This is the scientific study of religion section so what is the relevance your respective flaws? Or are we talking about two religions where you two guys are each a god or the god of the respective religion?

    I mean to the degree that I do understand what you guys are talking about I find myself in agreement with the points you are both making. I am just saying that the material is getting a little thin on the topic area at this point, so can we move on?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    religion has been changed by it's adherents, yes, Q. Please, though, show me where I'm wrong. The word of God is certainly up for interpretation, so you thinking that its all explicit and definitive is a misconception of religion on your part.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    moderator:
    This battle (between Galt and Q) has become so personal between you two that I don't know what you guys are talking about any more. What thread was started by John where? But the more important question is, why should anyone be interested in such things anyway.

    This is the scientific study of religion section so what is the relevance your respective flaws? Or are we talking about two religions where you two guys are each a god or the god of the respective religion?

    I mean to the degree that I do understand what you guys are talking about I find myself in agreement with the points you are both making. I am just saying that the material is getting a little thin on the topic area at this point, so can we move on?
    My case is simple.
    1. (Q) is as guilty as archie of willfull ignorance, application of logical fallacies, disregard for posted explanations, and excessive and unjustified arrogance.
    2. I find his avatar to be grossly offensive, but the moderation team do not agree.
    3. It is a requirement for everyone else, in every other situation on the forum, to provide evidence to support their contentions. (Q) is not being required to do so.
    4. There does indeed appear to be one set of rules for theists and one for knee jerk atheists.

    Since you represent the administration and since you do not recognise or agree with any of these points and since the administration seems quite happy to allow (Q) to behave in this ascientific manner, while claiming the cloak of respectability afforded by science, for these reasons I am quite happy to leave the issue in your hands and those of the other members and move on. It has been a great pleasure knowing most of you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    John, it's not that bad. There's no need to leave just like that. I'm sure things will get better, and the posters like Q (a prowler of Religion and little else, I hope) shouldn't be allowed to win in this fashion. I personally agree with you, on most points, and I hope you won't let the trolls win. please reconsider your leave and remain, just hit the handy ignore button, and don't let the pompous and arrogant bother you, for allowing that to happen is admitting defeat.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    moderator:
    This battle (between Galt and Q) has become so personal between you two that I don't know what you guys are talking about any more. What thread was started by John where? But the more important question is, why should anyone be interested in such things anyway.

    This is the scientific study of religion section so what is the relevance your respective flaws? Or are we talking about two religions where you two guys are each a god or the god of the respective religion?

    I mean to the degree that I do understand what you guys are talking about I find myself in agreement with the points you are both making. I am just saying that the material is getting a little thin on the topic area at this point, so can we move on?
    John always does get personal when losing an argument MM

    Take a look at the majority of his posts

    Which is one of the reasons I steer away from him and one of the reasons I avoid threads, and currently especially the religious forum, where he participates, because it gets too tedious, sad and confusing.

    He has a tendency to leap into other peoples discussions with spite and arrogance and it appears to me he is on this forum simply to spread vitriol and argue for the sake of it and NOT to further knowledge or understanding of any sort!
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (..❀.`.☼....-♥゜・*.:。✿*゚゚・✿.。.:* *.:。.❀.`.☼....-♥゜・*.:。✿*゚゚・✿.。.:* *.:。.❀.`.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    religion has been changed by it's adherents, yes, Q. Please, though, show me where I'm wrong. The word of God is certainly up for interpretation, so you thinking that its all explicit and definitive is a misconception of religion on your part.
    So, it's a misconception on my part that the adherents of a religion can and will change their religions doctrines, beliefs, etc.? In other words, what you're stating is that the word of their god can be ignored by them based on what they want to believe? Please explain.


    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    John, it's not that bad. There's no need to leave just like that. I'm sure things will get better, and the posters like Q (a prowler of Religion and little else, I hope) shouldn't be allowed to win in this fashion. I personally agree with you, on most points, and I hope you won't let the trolls win. please reconsider your leave and remain, just hit the handy ignore button, and don't let the pompous and arrogant bother you, for allowing that to happen is admitting defeat.
    "A prowler of religion"

    What am I supposed to be winning here, Arcane?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    moderator:

    What thread was started by John where?
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/(Q)%27s-Knowledge-of-Science-18946t.php
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    2. I find his avatar to be grossly offensive, but the moderation team do not agree.

    I am quite happy to leave the issue in your hands and those of the other members and move on. It has been a great pleasure knowing most of you.
    Leaving because of an avatar? Really, John. How childish.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    religion has been changed by it's adherents, yes, Q. Please, though, show me where I'm wrong. The word of God is certainly up for interpretation, so you thinking that its all explicit and definitive is a misconception of religion on your part.
    So, it's a misconception on my part that the adherents of a religion can and will change their religions doctrines, beliefs, etc.? In other words, what you're stating is that the word of their god can be ignored by them based on what they want to believe? Please explain.
    so you aren't familiar with any monotheistic religion? Every one leaves their "word of God" to up for interpretation, except for the most fundamentalist sects. And, they aren't changing the word of god, they are just accepting a different meaning to the words, because it is hard to know exactly what was meant, how it was meant, what was going through God's mind at the time, etc. Only the strictest of religions bars the ideal of interpretation, you should know this.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    so you aren't familiar with any monotheistic religion?
    Uh, quite familiar.

    Every one leaves their "word of God" to up for interpretation, except for the most fundamentalist sects. And, they aren't changing the word of god, they are just accepting a different meaning to the words, because it is hard to know exactly what was meant, how it was meant, what was going through God's mind at the time, etc.

    Only the strictest of religions bars the ideal of interpretation, you should know this.
    You are contradicting yourself and you're making claims about scriptures that are not in scriptures, that being the interpretation of gods word. Where does it state in scriptures that gods word is up for interpretation?

    And, how can you claim, "because it is hard to know exactly what was meant, how it was meant, what was going through God's mind at the time, etc." when scriptures is quite adamant in that regard?

    What has occurred is that theists have taken it upon themselves to decide what and what not to believe in scriptures, which has nothing to do with what was going through gods mind.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    John always does get personal when losing an argument MM

    Take a look at the majority of his posts

    Which is one of the reasons I steer away from him and one of the reasons I avoid threads, and currently especially the religious forum, where he participates, because it gets too tedious, sad and confusing.

    He has a tendency to leap into other peoples discussions with spite and arrogance and it appears to me he is on this forum simply to spread vitriol and argue for the sake of it and NOT to further knowledge or understanding of any sort!
    This forum tries to be tolerant. Yes John has challenged that tolerance but then so have you, myself and Q. And yet I think the point here is that we have also seen value in the posts made by every one of these four people that makes that tolerance worth excercising in those cases.

    But yes there are times when it can be hard to see that value when we are acting particularly sarcastic, spiteful, contemptuous, arrogant and focusing more on our opinions of each other than on the topics we are discussing. I am sorry that there is not enough moderation here that moderators come rushing to your defence when you are faced with this unpleasantness on the part of someone else, but it is unreasonable to expect this in such a tolerant forum. There just isn't enough manpower to do that sort of thing and so most of the time people just have to stand up for themselves. We moderators can only do the best that we can to encourage discussion to move in a more fruitful direction.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Re: Reversion 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    Do you think it is very likely that moderate religious people or their children will revert to more traditional or radical (depending on circumstances) views? It seems in the past this isn't likely, religion has become more moderate over time.
    What does that mean? "...religion has become more moderate over time."

    When did the gods of those religions make the religion more moderate? Or, was it the followers that changed the religion to suit their agendas?

    If theists don't follow their religions as they've been presented to them from the get go, they are hypocrites for any changes they themselves decided to make.
    I meant religion to mean the group of people who adhere to some set of beliefs. Admittedly one could wonder if after a while people have simply changed religions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: Reversion 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian

    I meant religion to mean the group of people who adhere to some set of beliefs. Admittedly one could wonder if after a while people have simply changed religions.
    Agreed. That is one of my main questions that no theists have been able to answer. Their religions have changed so much since their inception, one has to wonder what could possibly be of any relevance in their new "modern" religion.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    people just have to stand up for themselves.
    Yes well when we do we get a spanking from the moderators.

    My ass is still smarting from the caning you gave me when I last tried to stand up to you!!! lol
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (..❀.`.☼....-♥゜・*.:。✿*゚゚・✿.。.:* *.:。.❀.`.☼....-♥゜・*.:。✿*゚゚・✿.。.:* *.:。.❀.`.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    people just have to stand up for themselves.
    Yes well when we do we get a spanking from the moderators.

    My ass is still smarting from the caning you gave me when I last tried to stand up to you!!! lol
    Well..... standing up to policemen can be an injudicious thing to do - especially if you are angry - better to cool off first.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    people just have to stand up for themselves.
    Yes well when we do we get a spanking from the moderators.

    My ass is still smarting from the caning you gave me when I last tried to stand up to you!!! lol
    Well..... standing up to policemen can be an injudicious thing to do - especially if you are angry - better to cool off first.
    LoL

    I'm never angry MM, just playful, and policemen should surely retain a soh in such a stressful job!
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (..❀.`.☼....-♥゜・*.:。✿*゚゚・✿.。.:* *.:。.❀.`.☼....-♥゜・*.:。✿*゚゚・✿.。.:* *.:。.❀.`.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    John, it's not that bad. There's no need to leave just like that. I'm sure things will get better, and the posters like Q (a prowler of Religion and little else, I hope) shouldn't be allowed to win in this fashion. I personally agree with you, on most points, and I hope you won't let the trolls win. please reconsider your leave and remain, just hit the handy ignore button, and don't let the pompous and arrogant bother you, for allowing that to happen is admitting defeat.
    I agree John. You are an asset to the forum. Don't leave.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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