Watch National Geographic

[clueless_in_usa 8]

We need a RUB sex thread.

Maybe if we talked about RUBbing sex more people would join.

Does anybody remember the slogan "make love not war?"

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It's gotten to the point where I won't even watch History Channel. It's become a parody of the word "history." It should just be called "Let's see what kind of ####### we can peddle as legitimate history" Channel.

when I movewd to Ukraine, I disconnected my cable TV. Never missed it. when I came back, I have since forgotten to have it re-connected. Haven't missed it. When I was in the hospital in December they had TV there and I watched it for a little while, which remineded me WHY I haven't reconnected it. And this is in a house with a wife and teenager. Simply don't need it. Don't need landline telephones either.

You can watch anything worthwhile on a DVD or the internet.

IMO the ONLY TV shows worth watching are "Mythbusters", "Dirty Jobs" and the osscasional episode of "Modern Marvels". You can buy the DVDs of multiple seasons for less than a couple months of Cable TV trash

I say "remodel the kitchen, go fishing, go shooting, go skiing, go boating, go to your sons lacross game or clean the garage...basically do ANYTHING but sit on your @ss and watch that BS on TV.

[visaveteran 1]

BTW I do want to thank you for maintaining a civil tone throughout this discussion.

You're welcome...and same back at you.

Edited April 13, 2010 by visaveteran

[LvivLovers 39]

The war stuff is fine, and in fact there really is some good stuff on HC. It's the ####### like "The Real Face of Jesus" (which is based on the Shroud of Turin, a known fake "artifact," not to mention that there's not even any evidence that Jesus actually existed) or Ancient Astronauts and ####### like that, that really puts me off. They try to pass stuff off like this as science, when in fact it's mostly just crazy people who can manage to sound scientific.

Just FYI, many these days who were sure that the shroud was a fake have been changing their mind...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html

I'm not saying I believe it is real or not...but there is enough evidence to cast serious doubt that the original samples that which carbon dated were actually a mix of old materials and new materials which would have produced an age somewhere in between when carbon dated.

I actually like some of these shows...religious history, ufos, 2012, etc. I guess one man's "junk" is another man's treasure. Maybe some belong on another channel, but I see nothing wrong with having religious history. It is a little unfortunate that just about every channel seems to start out on one ideal and then caves to whatever is cheap to produce and earns the most money. When was the last time MTV actually played videos regularly?

[mox 298]

Just FYI, many these days who were sure that the shroud was a fake have been changing their mind...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html

The Turin shroud is a fantastic puzzle, for sure. Various techniques used to reproduce the shroud (usually involving covering a bas relief statue with a wet shroud and then using dye, paints, or some other substance) have come really close, but to date the exact method to reproduce the shroud has not been discovered. But even if the shroud does date to the time of Christ, there's no evidence to show that the man on the shroud actually is Christ. He looks a lot like a medieval depiction of Christ, but then so does Jeff Bridges.

Right now, science can't explain the shroud 100%, so religious nuts have jumped on the "science can't explain it so it must be a miracle!" bandwagon. Of course, once upon a time science couldn't explain disease either, but eventually "evil humours" was replaced with "microscopic organisms." Eventually they'll figure it out. But even when they do, that shouldn't take away from what a fantastic work of art it is. It shows that even 800-2,000 years ago, humans were damn clever.

I actually like some of these shows...religious history, ufos, 2012, etc. I guess one man's "junk" is another man's treasure. Maybe some belong on another channel, but I see nothing wrong with having religious history. It is a little unfortunate that just about every channel seems to start out on one ideal and then caves to whatever is cheap to produce and earns the most money.

If the shows weren't so misleading, I'd agree. Religious history is interesting to me too, but when they talk about Adam and Eve or Noah or Moses as if they had really existed, they should at the very least make a disclaimer that everything they're presenting is for entertainment value only, much like they do on those shows that delve into "what if the Nazis had won" or "what if the South won the Civil war?" Otherwise people might actually start believing that #######.

When was the last time MTV actually played videos regularly?

Ha! I know right? Actually I think there's a companion channel to MTV now that you have to watch if you want videos. But I sure miss the 80's when you could actually be entertained by MTV. Now it's just insufferable tripe.

[SMR 368]

I'll direct you to my previous posts (here and here), where I show that these crimes were NOT committed in the name of atheism. They were committed in the name of Marxist philosophy. Saying that the persecution of religion in the Soviet Union was committed in the name of atheism is like saying that the US homestead act in the 19th century was committed in the name of atheism. Stalin didn't want people thinking about atheism any more than he wanted them thinking about Christianity. He wanted them thinking about the state.

Your analogy is off so I'm not going to go there. People in the USSR and communist China were abused, persecuted, and often executed on the sole basis that they believed in God and the persecution was done by those who professed a belief in the absence of God and that a belief in God was detrimental to society. The fact that they were also communists simply qualifies what kinds of atheists they were (communists are a subset of atheists). Their belief in the absence of God is the critical foundation of the reasoning for their actions. People were killed because they believed in God and their killers didn't.

Mox, perhaps you feel that your particular breed of atheism would not ever cause you to persecute others. But I can assure you that there are many religious people who feel the same about their religion. You are essentially arguing that religion is bad because someone, somewhere, sometime killed or persecuted someone in the name of religion. Yet when someone, somewhere, sometime killed or persecuted someone in the name of atheism, you cling to the other characteristics of those atheists to differentiate and essentially object to the assumption that all atheists can be grouped together (a valid objection). Yet somehow you don't see the fallacy in claiming that all religion is bad on the basis that certain religions have been the basis for persecution at certain times.

I'm not arguing that all atheists are persecuting non-atheists or that atheism is a source of evil in the world. I'm simply pointing out that your claim that religion is a source of evil and that atheism is some sort of refuge from that is flawed and overly-simplistic. Also, when evaluating religion, you need to consider the good that it brings into the world. I would conjecture that atheism cannot compete with religion on this basis.

Most of what you say about the emperor, etc. seems to me to be a difference in the way that we see things and we'll probably have to agree to disagree. As I said in my previous post, whether or not someone who uses religion to control people is really an atheist is a philosophical question.

[mox 298]

Yet when someone, somewhere, sometime killed or persecuted someone in the name of atheism, you cling to the other characteristics of those atheists to differentiate and essentially object to the assumption that all atheists can be grouped together (a valid objection).

Read The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They lay out their position on religion quite clearly. Stalin persecuted religion in the name of Soviet Communism, not in the name of atheism. Religion was seen as a symptom of working class unhappiness. Hence Marx's famous "religion is the opium of the people" quote. As I said before, Stalin didn't want you thinking anything about religion, including the lack of religion. He wanted you thinking about the state.

To say that Lenin persecuted religion in the name of atheism is like saying the US government slaughtered native Americans in the name of atheism because of the Constitutional separation from religion. It wasn't atheist dogma that drove Stalin, it was Socialist dogma.

[baron555 934]

People were killed because they believed in God and their killers didn't.

And Cortez did the opposite in Central America.

[LvivLovers 39]

But even if the shroud does date to the time of Christ, there's no evidence to show that the man on the shroud actually is Christ.

I'd be prone to believe that it belong to Christ if it was shown to date to that exact period. It seems likely to me that if someone is going to go through the trouble of carrying the thing along for 2 millenia that it's the real deal. It would be one thing to go and create a forgery after the fact, but if it's really from that time period, someone would likely have had to decide at THAT time to perpetrate the fraud. If that were the case, I'd think it's even more likely that it belonged to someone they really thought was Christ. Now whether or not one wanted to believe that person was anything other than a regular man would be another debate. That's why the scientist who later believed the carbon dating was flawed referred to him as the historical Christ...he's not saying he believed Christ was anything other than a man...but that he thought it was possible the shroud came from the man people believed was Christ.

He looks a lot like a medieval depiction of Christ, but then so does Jeff Bridges.

lol The Dude!

Right now, science can't explain the shroud 100%, so religious nuts have jumped on the "science can't explain it so it must be a miracle!" bandwagon. Of course, once upon a time science couldn't explain disease either, but eventually "evil humours" was replaced with "microscopic organisms." Eventually they'll figure it out. But even when they do, that shouldn't take away from what a fantastic work of art it is. It shows that even 800-2,000 years ago, humans were damn clever.

Yeah...I think that's sort of silly. I personally am a Christian, but I don't hold to believing in things just because. I still look for scientific explanations to things. I believe in Creationism AND Evolution...I never understood why some people think just because they believe in Creation they have to believe that the Earth was created in a short period of time or is only a few tens of thousands of years old. That just doesn't make sense.

If the shows weren't so misleading, I'd agree. Religious history is interesting to me too, but when they talk about Adam and Eve or Noah or Moses as if they had really existed, they should at the very least make a disclaimer that everything they're presenting is for entertainment value only, much like they do on those shows that delve into "what if the Nazis had won" or "what if the South won the Civil war?" Otherwise people might actually start believing that #######.

Well...naturally coming from my point of view I think they did exist, so I wouldn't agree it's #######. I don't think there's good proof that they DID exist or DIDN'T exist. I mean, I think if you are logical you must realize that humans came from other humans and eventually this process could be traced back to the first humans...now where those were evolved from apes/monkeys I guess is another question. Some people believe everything in the Bible is completely true...I have no idea if that's really the case or not. I believe a lot of things, but maybe some things were the writer's interpretations/explanations of things as they saw them. Fact is, humans are flawed, so I wouldn't be surprised if some things were recounted from person to person and written down completely different than how they started out. Maybe some things were made up to explain things, maybe some things were real events. Some things are certainly hard to fathom or seem extremely unlikely. I know enough to know that none of us could know so I don't let it trouble me further than that. I am always interested to hear facts about such things to try to make up my mind whether or not such things are rooted in fact or not. A disclaimer might not be a bad idea (after all we are a society that has to warn people that hot coffee is hot so as not to get sued or as I saw on a door to a doctor's office just yesterday "Pull handle to open door")...I wouldn't say that it's purely for entertainment value though as that would reflect an athiest viewpoint and not a believer's view point.

Ha! I know right? Actually I think there's a companion channel to MTV now that you have to watch if you want videos. But I sure miss the 80's when you could actually be entertained by MTV. Now it's just insufferable tripe.

Yeah. They do have another channel with videos but I've never watched it to be honest...I think it's always been in some other cable package or something that I don't have. I still find the concept silly though. If you're going to change your content from your original concept, you should be forced to change the name of your channel. Maybe MTV would become RTV (R being reality)? Dunno. Funny VH1 quickly followed MTVs lead too.

Anyway, to each their own! At least we have the choice to watch what we want and believe what we want! =)

[mox 298]

As I said in my previous post, whether or not someone who uses religion to control people is really an atheist is a philosophical question.

I don't see this as a philosophical distinction at all. A philosophical distinction would be something like "what's better, Democracy or a Republic?"

Maybe it's the parameters you're setting for the argument. My assumption is:

- The leader (let's call him Reginald) does not believe in any religion or God, and is therefore an atheist.

- Reginald pretends to believe in the religion he has affiliated himself with. (let's call the Religion "Fooism.")

- Reginald convinces some non-zero number of believers in Fooism to accept him as their leader.

- Reginald convinces his followers to do bad things in the name of Foo.

Given these assumptions, the question is: "Were the bad things done in the name of Fooism or atheism?"

I think the answer is pretty obvious. The bad things were done in the name of Fooism. Just ask his followers. If people were killed in the name of Foo (even though secretly Reginald does not believe in Foo) then Fooism is to blame, not atheism. If Reginald had 10,000 followers who *did* believe in Foo, and those 10,000 followers killed a bunch of people in the name of Foo, then these crimes were committed in the name of religion. More to the point, if Fooism never existed, Reginald would never have been able to trick his followers into doing bad things in the name of Fooism.

Flip this on its back: if Reginald *did* actually believe in Fooism, but he then tricked a bunch of atheists into believing that he himself was an atheist, and then he convinced all of his atheist followers to go out and kill a bunch of people in the name of atheism, well then this would be a crime committed in the name of atheism, wouldn't it?

[SMR 368]

Read The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They lay out their position on religion quite clearly. Stalin persecuted religion in the name of Soviet Communism, not in the name of atheism. Religion was seen as a symptom of working class unhappiness. Hence Marx's famous "religion is the opium of the people" quote. As I said before, Stalin didn't want you thinking anything about religion, including the lack of religion. He wanted you thinking about the state.

To say that Lenin persecuted religion in the name of atheism is like saying the US government slaughtered native Americans in the name of atheism because of the Constitutional separation from religion. It wasn't atheist dogma that drove Stalin, it was Socialist dogma.

You're still trying to qualify the type of atheism. Atheism has nothing to do with the slaughtering of native Americans. A belief that God does not exist (atheism) had everything to do with the slaughter of Orthodox Christians in the USSR. That was the reason they did it--because they believed that belief in God was false and detrimental to society. That is a form of atheism. The fact that communist philosophy was the basis for their atheism doesn't change that. As I said, my point is that atheism is broad, just like religion.

You say it isn't accurate to say that Lenin persecuted in the name of atheist dogma but rather communist. And no one has persecuted in the name of religious dogma but rather in the name of the dogma of a specific religion. Communist is a sub-category of atheist, just as Islam is a subcategory of religious.

[SMR 368]

I don't see this as a philosophical distinction at all. A philosophical distinction would be something like "what's better, Democracy or a Republic?"

Maybe it's the parameters you're setting for the argument. My assumption is:

- The leader (let's call him Reginald) does not believe in any religion or God, and is therefore an atheist.

- Reginald pretends to believe in the religion he has affiliated himself with. (let's call the Religion "Fooism.")

- Reginald convinces some non-zero number of believers in Fooism to accept him as their leader.

- Reginald convinces his followers to do bad things in the name of Foo.

Given these assumptions, the question is: "Were the bad things done in the name of Fooism or atheism?"

I think the answer is pretty obvious. The bad things were done in the name of Fooism. Just ask his followers. If people were killed in the name of Foo (even though secretly Reginald does not believe in Foo) then Fooism is to blame, not atheism. If Reginald had 10,000 followers who *did* believe in Foo, and those 10,000 followers killed a bunch of people in the name of Foo, then these crimes were committed in the name of religion. More to the point, if Fooism never existed, Reginald would never have been able to trick his followers into doing bad things in the name of Fooism.

Flip this on its back: if Reginald *did* actually believe in Fooism, but he then tricked a bunch of atheists into believing that he himself was an atheist, and then he convinced all of his atheist followers to go out and kill a bunch of people in the name of atheism, well then this would be a crime committed in the name of atheism, wouldn't it?

Well, the reason I see this as philosophical is that the question is not is atheism or fooism evil, but rather is the practitioner of atheism or the practitioner of fooism evil. Belief systems are are neither evil or good. People are.

[mox 298]

I'd be prone to believe that it belong to Christ if it was shown to date to that exact period.

So 2,000 years ago the population of the earth was about 300 million. There were at least a couple million or so in the Middle East, possibly more. (these are off the top of my head, I could be off by a couple million or so.) Given the limitations of carbon dating, you're allowing yourself to believe that this artifact with the imprint of a bearded man who had been executed by the most common capital punishment of the day could be based on a single man (who may or may not have even existed) within plus or minus several hundred years. And this is even assuming that it's some kind of rubbing off an actual person, and not just a bas relief. It's quite a leap of faith even for a believer.

It seems likely to me that if someone is going to go through the trouble of carrying the thing along for 2 millenia that it's the real deal.

Up until the 14th century there is no record of the shroud. But even supposing it dates from approximately 30AD, that's only about 600 years that somebody's been carrying it around. Before then it seems to have languished. But you're also discarding the alternative that the reason somebody carried it around for so long is because *they* were fooled into believing it was the real thing. There's practically an endless number of "weeping" and "bleeding" statues that the Catholic Church has kept around for hundreds of years, even after they've been scientifically shown to either be fraudulent or at least have a scientific explanation (such a stone statue that "weeps" only when the local humidity level reaches the point to condense water vapor trapped in the stone). The reason is simply that they're huge revenue generators. No doubt the Turin shroud has garned more than a few coins over the years. It may have even been manufactured just for that purpose.

It would be one thing to go and create a forgery after the fact, but if it's really from that time period, someone would likely have had to decide at THAT time to perpetrate the fraud. If that were the case, I'd think it's even more likely that it belonged to someone they really thought was Christ. Now whether or not one wanted to believe that person was anything other than a regular man would be another debate. That's why the scientist who later believed the carbon dating was flawed referred to him as the historical Christ...he's not saying he believed Christ was anything other than a man...but that he thought it was possible the shroud came from the man people believed was Christ.

During the period of time that Christ is said to have lived, you couldn't swing a cat without hitting a self-proclaimed prophet. Religion was big business back in the day, and the Romans hated every one of them. So even if it does come from the period, it could actually be a depiction of any number of prophets. And remember that Christianity didn't even catch on until long after Christ is said to have died.

Yeah...I think that's sort of silly. I personally am a Christian, but I don't hold to believing in things just because. I still look for scientific explanations to things. I believe in Creationism AND Evolution...I never understood why some people think just because they believe in Creation they have to believe that the Earth was created in a short period of time or is only a few tens of thousands of years old. That just doesn't make sense.

This is what's so inexplicable to me. I don't understand how you can adhere to a religion without adhering to the entirety of it. I get why you would think that it's silly to believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago, because it's absolutely silly. But in the same vein, the idea that a man who is his own father was born to a woman who was a virgin, performed miracles such as raising the dead, was eventually killed but then literally came back to life and then literally took to the sky and flew up to heaven--why isn't that silly?

Some people believe everything in the Bible is completely true...I have no idea if that's really the case or not.

This is also inexplicable to me. By the standards set forth in Christianity, either all of the bible is true, or none of it is true. Jesus even said that you are either a believer or you aren't. So if you believe that Christ died for your sins based on biblical scripture, then you must also believe that if your children are disobedient you must stone them, as commanded in Deuteronomy. (and remember, the New Testament does not supersede the Old Testament. Jesus said he was here on earth to fulfill the old prophesies, not to discard them.)

Anyway, to each their own! At least we have the choice to watch what we want and believe what we want! =)

For now. Until we atheists come to power, and then watch out!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Your analogy is off so I'm not going to go there. People in the USSR and communist China were abused, persecuted, and often executed on the sole basis that they believed in God and the persecution was done by those who professed a belief in the absence of God and that a belief in God was detrimental to society. The fact that they were also communists simply qualifies what kinds of atheists they were (communists are a subset of atheists). Their belief in the absence of God is the critical foundation of the reasoning for their actions. People were killed because they believed in God and their killers didn't.

Mox, perhaps you feel that your particular breed of atheism would not ever cause you to persecute others. But I can assure you that there are many religious people who feel the same about their religion. You are essentially arguing that religion is bad because someone, somewhere, sometime killed or persecuted someone in the name of religion. Yet when someone, somewhere, sometime killed or persecuted someone in the name of atheism, you cling to the other characteristics of those atheists to differentiate and essentially object to the assumption that all atheists can be grouped together (a valid objection). Yet somehow you don't see the fallacy in claiming that all religion is bad on the basis that certain religions have been the basis for persecution at certain times.

I'm not arguing that all atheists are persecuting non-atheists or that atheism is a source of evil in the world. I'm simply pointing out that your claim that religion is a source of evil and that atheism is some sort of refuge from that is flawed and overly-simplistic. Also, when evaluating religion, you need to consider the good that it brings into the world. I would conjecture that atheism cannot compete with religion on this basis.

Most of what you say about the emperor, etc. seems to me to be a difference in the way that we see things and we'll probably have to agree to disagree. As I said in my previous post, whether or not someone who uses religion to control people is really an atheist is a philosophical question.

I disagree. Communists were not "athiests" so much as they did not believe in any authority except the government. Obviously, the Christian religion survived communism and was even active during communism as long as they kept out of the business of the state...which is where they belong...OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT.

Incidentaly, I am not an atheist, such would require much more thought about the existence (or not) of a God than I am willing to devote to the subject. I am areligious.

[SMR 368]

I disagree. Communists were not "athiests" so much as they did not believe in any authority except the government. Obviously, the Christian religion survived communism and was even active during communism as long as they kept out of the business of the state...which is where they belong...OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT.

Incidentaly, I am not an atheist, such would require much more thought about the existence (or not) of a God than I am willing to devote to the subject. I am areligious.

a·the·ist   [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA

–noun

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Now, there is nothing in the definition that says an atheist can't believe in other things (the government for example). The definition is really straightforward and simple. If you disbelieve or deny the existence of a supreme being, you are an atheist. Communists in Russia denied the existence of a supreme being. Thus, they were/are atheists.

Moreover, this distinction is not only semantics. The belief that a belief in God was detrimental to society and a sign of mental illness led to an unjust persecution of a segment of a population. That is, atheism was used as a justification for oppression in the exact same way that various religions have been. This is very germane to the discussion. As I said, just because you may think certain atheists are not aggressive and don't use it as a reason to oppress is really beside the point. Many religious people feel the same way. There are destructive and degenerate belief structures but it's ridiculous to classify all "religious" belief structures as such while ignoring that some "atheist" belief structures have the same negative characteristics.

The Orthodox church survived communism in spite of the government and because there were many people at many levels who remained faithful. The communist government did not allow the church to openly function and routinely executed believers. I personally know people who practiced religion in secret for fear of retribution from the government. Staying out of the business of the government was really not enough for protection.