Post Election "high"

[Timebuilder]

I, too, thought that this horse would have already been buried by the backhoe. I've had another flight and a training day in the interim, and in this time this is starting to look like a post about ALPA and RJDC.

Truthfully, I have little to add that would really "advance" this discussion. After all, additional insights from my perspective would most likely draw more unfounded criticism. Atheism, Dawinism, even Totalitarianism are belief systems, and all require acceptance of some basic ideas. Unfortunately, not all of these basic ideas are supportable by empirical evidence. Even more maddening, is discussion of a beilief which specifically excludes any form of human-based "proof". Having established that principle, and seen that we could no longer remain civil and mature, it seemed time to give this aspect at least, a rest. Even in this rather hostile environment, airbrush has made some good observations. Someone asked why we would allow creationism to be taught in a science class beside evolution. The simple answer is this: both of those teachings are 100% theoretical. That is to say, there is no more "proof" available to us regarding evolution than there is for creationism. Does our DNA we hold in common with primates dictate that we evolved from monkeys? Many prominent scientists and theorists say that this commonality does not prove the evolutionary connection. So, since both evolution and creationism require "faith", both can coexist in the intelectually stimulating environment of a classroom. This classroom discussion could easily ask about how much human time would elapse during the six days of creation. That's one of the many questions for which we have no answer. So, while it may make someone laugh at the thought of a believer flying an aircraft, the story of creation is, by the Bible account, precisely how the God of the Bible wanted to explain our existance to us. The portion of humankind who accepts this story seems uninjured by this belief, so it can safely said that this story could be less harmful to children than the story "Heather has Two Mommies".

I'd like to thank those who kept a mature attitude throughout this thread, and chasten those who did not. I think of this environment as a place of respectful discourse, and not a schoolyard. I hope that readers who did not participate have gained some insight into the lead topic and its derivatives, and have a good basis for navigating these murky waters on their own.

Good day.

 

[cjh]

The portion of hamankind who accepts this story seems uninjured by this belief .

Yeah, if you don't count deaths over religious wars. Then, of course there's also mental scarring that's a little harder to measure.

it can safely said that this story could be less harmful to children than the story "Heather has Two Mommies".[/B]

More of the judgemental intollerance towards differing views and life styles that seems to be a hallmark the christian religion.

As for the rest of your comments, I think they've been addressed and debated ad nauseam so I'm not going down that road yet again.

 

[Timebuilder]

More of the judgemental intollerance towards differing views and life styles that seems to be a hallmark the christian religion.

Almost on the mark there. Christians don't "make up" this disagreement with particular behaviors. Since the Bible spells out a number of activities which are seen as being against God's directives, believers are to assist others in resisting the activities. This includes resisting their legal sanctioning, public approval, and encouragement, by use of our free speech and good example. The Bible accounts of Sodom and Gomorrah illustrate just how strongly God feels about this type of unencumbered activity.

So while you may say it is a halmark of the religion, you need to realize that believers accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God, and not a supposition of various writers who brought their own beliefs and predjudices to the work. This should not be confused with "hating" anyone. The believer wishes to assist others in resisting temptations, and accepting God's guidance. The accusation that many in the alternative lifestyles camp make about "hating" and "hate speech" are spurious and incorrect. While humans may say that they hate an activity, it does not logically follow that they hate the person. Some folks, I'm certain, step over that line and hate all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons. That attitude is not Biblical.

You raised a good point. I'm happy to have addressed it.

 

[cjh]

You have addressed it and made my point.

Christians justify and condone their behavior as acceptable because they believe the words of the bible give them the right to accost others with their beliefs. They don't see such behavior as offensive, or rather they don't care if it is. As a non-believer I have problems with that type of thinking. While I don't have a problem with anyone voicing an opinion, I do have a problem when that opinion crosses the line by displaying a total lack of respect for the other guy's viewpoint.

Christains consider it a duty to inflict their views on others. I often think if they really had faith in their beliefs they would be able to lead by example rather than decree. They wouldn't need to yell quite so loudly about the righteousness of their position. I'm always amused when the subject of religion comes up and someone is "surprised" by the fact that I'm an atheist. I'm never surprised by a member of the religious right. They'll be the first to interject their religious views into any aspect of any conversation. See my point?

I thought this thread was finished. I know I'm tired of it. In fact, this is my last post. If someone else feels the need to have the last word, go ahead. I promise not to fuel the fire by posting a response. The subject has become boring. Suffice it to say you're comfortable in your beliefs, and I'm comfortable in mine.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Unfortunately this horse will never die....

No Horse Too Dead To Beat

What cjh just said was right, a lot of believers feel justified in wearing their beliefs on their sleeves in the open - and they have every right to do so. But really, if they have the right to do that then so do non-believers. No one should be surprised that some of us (non-believeing types) will respond in disagreement when someone makes a religious statement on a thread. Why should the non-believers be the ones who should leave something unchalleneged?

None of the non-believers who has posted here has the equivalent to a bible verse in their auto signature... Its not like we go looking for this debate.

 

[Timebuilder]

I can't speak for how every Christian feels as they share their belief, which is in deference to the Great Commission.

I can say that I never intend to inflict a view on anyone. As I said previously, that, along with being "open minded" is a matter of perspective. This is one of those situations where a philsophical position may not echo a definition one finds in a dictionary.

Consider the Big Media in the United States. Who are they beholden to? Are they steered in their decisions by believers, or by atheists, agnostics, and Scientologists? I don't know who the movers and shakers are nowadays, or their personal views. I can, however, deduce their leanings from the actions I see in their product.


Consider the group Concerned Women for America, a Christian political group of American women. They have many more female members than NOW, but when CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, the New York times, et al, want to get an interview from a "leading women's group" who do they have give them the interview? Patricia Ireland, head of NOW. You see, it doesn't matter to the media who the leading organization representing women actually is, as long as it isn't a Christian organization.

So, when you say that a believer "inflicts" a view on others, you have to look at the big picture, and you'll see who really is doing the 'inflicting". While I am 100% behind you in your right to be heard, I don't think the view of many non-beleivers is as magnanimous, especially when they are a leading media outlet. In that case, Christians are the last at the table.

I thank you all for a stimulating discussion, particularly the more inquisitive parts. Pilots are a curious bunch, and many are biding time until they are called back to work. Hopefully, this was more enjoyable for them than watching Court TV all day.

 

[Jeff G]

Hopefully, this was more enjoyable for them than watching Court TV all day.

You're right. Have to turn off the TV and fire up the AM radio for some Boortz, Rush, Hannity, and Dr. Laura. None of which are controversial, I'm sure.

 

[Timebuilder]

What I find interesting about those folks is that there was such a large untapped market for their programs.

Apparently, there was a huge number of Americans who longed for programming that wasn't a reflection of the DNC party line.

In broadcasting, that WAS a controversial notion, trust me.

 

[enigma]

Re: Rush, etc.

Having been a talk radio fan since the Carter Administration, I can say that the audience has always been there, but the Democratic controlled congress kept the free flow of information stiffled for 40 years with the FCC's "fairness doctorine". After Reagan changed the rules to allow the market to choose its' favorite form of talk, the conservative hosts quickly became dominate. The liberals scream about the Limbaughs and Hamblins, but no liberal has been able to attract enough audience to stay on the air. Ya just have to love the free market. (and Fox News)

Regards
8N

 

[TXCAP4228]

Re: Re: Rush, etc.

The liberals scream about the Limbaughs and Hamblins, but no liberal has been able to attract enough audience to stay on the air.

Great point. The only liberals I can think of are Colmes and the guy who was opposite Buchanan - what was that guys name?? - (before Buchanan left his radio show to run for President) - and of course the liberals of the week for Crossfire.

Different direction now...

I'm surprised none of you has talked about Pelosi yet. You think we're safe calling the 2004 election for Bush already? Pelosi replacing Gephardt is great news!

I don't think the dem's got the message.