|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 10, 2018 2:10:28 GMT
I am a reader, too, but as an artist, a picture is worth a thousand words. And the pictures I saw in my Italian High Renaissance art history class was what started my questioning. Odd, because it was originally painted to support Christian beliefs, not make one question beliefs. I would be interested in seeing that picture. It was a series of paintings, over several years of study, back in the dark ages when professors used slides. I still have the textbook, though, and perhaps I can find some of them online. The subject of many of them were torturing non-believers or heretics, or the threat of eternal damnation. Religion, in the proto-renaissance and renaissance, was reinforced by fear. The Christian Crusades were every bit as bloody and cruel as any Islamic jihad of today. That clashed with the 20th century Western image of a loving god, the figure of Jesus surrounded by happy children, that I had been raised with. Then I took courses in Oriental art history; calm, serene images of the Buddha and the joyous sculpture of the Hindu faith which reveled in reproduction (as in the Kama Sutra). Very confusing for a simple Southern Baptist girl raised in the suburbs of the Bible Belt. In a sense, I became a student of comparative religion. Eventually, over a very long period of time, including some periods of emotional chaos, I came to the same conclusion that Christopher Hitchens came to, that since obviously all religions could not be right, the logical conclusion was that they were all wrong. That, coupled with my survival of cancer, because of advances in medical science, pretty much sealed my atheism. I'm not proselytizing here, just explaining my 'journey' and how it started. So now I refer to myself as fact-based, not faith-based. Perhaps because of my experience with medical science, I developed an interest in biology, evolution and infectious disease, and how that has effected life on this planet. But that's a story for another day... |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 10, 2018 2:20:57 GMT
I would be interested in seeing that picture. It was a series of paintings, over several years of study, back in the dark ages when professors used slides. I still have the textbook, though, and perhaps I can find some of them online. The subject of many of them were torturing non-believers or heretics, or the threat of eternal damnation. Religion, in the proto-renaissance and renaissance, was reinforced by fear. The Christian Crusades were every bit as bloody and cruel as any Islamic jihad of today. That clashed with the 20th century Western image of a loving god, the figure of Jesus surrounded by happy children, that I had been raised with. Then I took courses in Oriental art history; calm, serene images of the Buddha and the joyous sculpture of the Hindu faith which reveled in reproduction (as in the Kama Sutra). Very confusing for a simple Southern Baptist girl raised in the suburbs of the Bible Belt. In a sense, I became a student of comparative religion. Eventually, over a very long period of time, including some periods of emotional chaos, I came to the same conclusion that Christopher Hitchens came to, that since obviously all religions could not be right, the logical conclusion was that they were all wrong. That, coupled with my survival of cancer, because of advances in medical science, pretty much sealed my atheism. I'm not proselytizing here, just explaining my 'journey' and how it started. So now I refer to myself as fact-based, not faith-based. Perhaps because of my experience with medical science, I developed an interest in biology, evolution and infectious disease, and how that has effected life on this planet. But that's a story for another day... That is very interesting. I often wonder how people who were brought up with a strong religious background break the shackles of their religion and 'lose faith'. I was brought up in a very 'progressive' academic and legal family by a strong atheist father who also had an interest in socialism in a democracy and a strong sense of egalitarian equality, and a lukewarm Scottish Presbyterian mother and was sent to a Church of England school because it gave me the best education and had a progressive headmistress who was a closet atheist and we all suspected a lesbian, though in those days it was just becoming acceptable for single women to live alone and be independent. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 10, 2018 3:04:14 GMT
It was a series of paintings, over several years of study, back in the dark ages when professors used slides. I still have the textbook, though, and perhaps I can find some of them online. The subject of many of them were torturing non-believers or heretics, or the threat of eternal damnation. Religion, in the proto-renaissance and renaissance, was reinforced by fear. The Christian Crusades were every bit as bloody and cruel as any Islamic jihad of today. That clashed with the 20th century Western image of a loving god, the figure of Jesus surrounded by happy children, that I had been raised with. Then I took courses in Oriental art history; calm, serene images of the Buddha and the joyous sculpture of the Hindu faith which reveled in reproduction (as in the Kama Sutra). Very confusing for a simple Southern Baptist girl raised in the suburbs of the Bible Belt. In a sense, I became a student of comparative religion. Eventually, over a very long period of time, including some periods of emotional chaos, I came to the same conclusion that Christopher Hitchens came to, that since obviously all religions could not be right, the logical conclusion was that they were all wrong. That, coupled with my survival of cancer, because of advances in medical science, pretty much sealed my atheism. I'm not proselytizing here, just explaining my 'journey' and how it started. So now I refer to myself as fact-based, not faith-based. Perhaps because of my experience with medical science, I developed an interest in biology, evolution and infectious disease, and how that has effected life on this planet. But that's a story for another day... That is very interesting. I often wonder how people who were brought up with a strong religious background break the shackles of their religion and 'lose faith'. I was brought up in a very 'progressive' academic and legal family by a strong atheist father who also had an interest in socialism in a democracy and a strong sense of egalitarian equality, and a lukewarm Scottish Presbyterian mother and was sent to a Church of England school because it gave me the best education and had a progressive headmistress who was a closet atheist and we all suspected a lesbian, though in those days it was just becoming acceptable for single women to live alone and be independent. It is interesting to hear your story, too. It sounds like you had a positive childhood that set the stage for a meaningful adulthood. Maybe everyone on the board should do their 'bio', too.  |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 10, 2018 3:13:54 GMT
I would be interested in seeing that picture. It was a series of paintings, over several years of study, back in the dark ages when professors used slides. I still have the textbook, though, and perhaps I can find some of them online. The subject of many of them were torturing non-believers or heretics, or the threat of eternal damnation. Religion, in the proto-renaissance and renaissance, was reinforced by fear. The Christian Crusades were every bit as bloody and cruel as any Islamic jihad of today. That clashed with the 20th century Western image of a loving god, the figure of Jesus surrounded by happy children, that I had been raised with. Then I took courses in Oriental art history; calm, serene images of the Buddha and the joyous sculpture of the Hindu faith which reveled in reproduction (as in the Kama Sutra). Very confusing for a simple Southern Baptist girl raised in the suburbs of the Bible Belt. In a sense, I became a student of comparative religion. Eventually, over a very long period of time, including some periods of emotional chaos, I came to the same conclusion that Christopher Hitchens came to, that since obviously all religions could not be right, the logical conclusion was that they were all wrong. That, coupled with my survival of cancer, because of advances in medical science, pretty much sealed my atheism. I'm not proselytizing here, just explaining my 'journey' and how it started. So now I refer to myself as fact-based, not faith-based. Perhaps because of my experience with medical science, I developed an interest in biology, evolution and infectious disease, and how that has effected life on this planet. But that's a story for another day... Elsewhere I mentioned that I met smarter atheists in real life than I have here. I mentioned they did not claim to be idealistic, rather they claimed to be realistic. There's more though. The very smartest atheists (very rare) I met in real life believed that there could and should be an atheist's "ten" commandments, much like the Jewish Ten Commandments except that it would exclude any rule that a person acknowledge any god. Some of my best work on Examiner.com addressed those atheists and their ideas. I noted that failure to acknowledge a god at least by individuals in their own minds (publicly not so much necessary) left no check on the tyranny of the majority. A good argument does appear that the problems today are the result of a tyrannical (very misinformed) majority. You may disagree of course, but too many have failed science, not because they they are religious, but because they failed religion first. Science doesn't work by voting, maybe it should, but it got along rather well without voting before. Too many amateur "scientists" are voting and there is a need to correct that. I believe fear of god would give them the circumspection they lack. I'm sorry I have no experience to compare to yours with cancer. I see people on television who believe they would be in far worse condition except for medical treatments they received. They should know if anyone does I suppose. However they don't know. Medical science isn't the same as physics or chemistry, however much it employs them. It can be very difficult to tell what things would be like in other conditions we cannot test. The math strongly suggests that more "cancer" is being detected recently, but not that would have lead to death. Compare cancer "cure" rates with cancer "death" rates to see the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2018 3:31:25 GMT
It was a series of paintings, over several years of study, back in the dark ages when professors used slides. I still have the textbook, though, and perhaps I can find some of them online. The subject of many of them were torturing non-believers or heretics, or the threat of eternal damnation. Religion, in the proto-renaissance and renaissance, was reinforced by fear. The Christian Crusades were every bit as bloody and cruel as any Islamic jihad of today. That clashed with the 20th century Western image of a loving god, the figure of Jesus surrounded by happy children, that I had been raised with. Then I took courses in Oriental art history; calm, serene images of the Buddha and the joyous sculpture of the Hindu faith which reveled in reproduction (as in the Kama Sutra). Very confusing for a simple Southern Baptist girl raised in the suburbs of the Bible Belt. In a sense, I became a student of comparative religion. Eventually, over a very long period of time, including some periods of emotional chaos, I came to the same conclusion that Christopher Hitchens came to, that since obviously all religions could not be right, the logical conclusion was that they were all wrong. That, coupled with my survival of cancer, because of advances in medical science, pretty much sealed my atheism. I'm not proselytizing here, just explaining my 'journey' and how it started. So now I refer to myself as fact-based, not faith-based. Perhaps because of my experience with medical science, I developed an interest in biology, evolution and infectious disease, and how that has effected life on this planet. But that's a story for another day... Some of my best work on Examiner.com...(publicly not so much necessary) I hope your "best work" excluded phrases like that. Science doesn't work by voting Indeed it doesn't! And because it doesn't, your vote on what is/isn't science, and who failed science, means jack shit. Medical science isn't the same as physics or chemistry, however much it employs them. It can be very difficult to tell what things would be like in other conditions we cannot test. The math strongly suggests that more "cancer" is being detected recently, but not that would have lead to death. Compare cancer "cure" rates with cancer "death" rates to see the problem. See, this is when that "science doesn't work by voting" thing comes in handy because it means your non-scientific proclamations about what science doesn't know can be summarily dismissed because your vote doesn't matter. Wonderful how that works! |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 10, 2018 3:40:46 GMT
It was a series of paintings, over several years of study, back in the dark ages when professors used slides. I still have the textbook, though, and perhaps I can find some of them online. The subject of many of them were torturing non-believers or heretics, or the threat of eternal damnation. Religion, in the proto-renaissance and renaissance, was reinforced by fear. The Christian Crusades were every bit as bloody and cruel as any Islamic jihad of today. That clashed with the 20th century Western image of a loving god, the figure of Jesus surrounded by happy children, that I had been raised with. Then I took courses in Oriental art history; calm, serene images of the Buddha and the joyous sculpture of the Hindu faith which reveled in reproduction (as in the Kama Sutra). Very confusing for a simple Southern Baptist girl raised in the suburbs of the Bible Belt. In a sense, I became a student of comparative religion. Eventually, over a very long period of time, including some periods of emotional chaos, I came to the same conclusion that Christopher Hitchens came to, that since obviously all religions could not be right, the logical conclusion was that they were all wrong. That, coupled with my survival of cancer, because of advances in medical science, pretty much sealed my atheism. I'm not proselytizing here, just explaining my 'journey' and how it started. So now I refer to myself as fact-based, not faith-based. Perhaps because of my experience with medical science, I developed an interest in biology, evolution and infectious disease, and how that has effected life on this planet. But that's a story for another day... Elsewhere I mentioned that I met smarter atheists in real life than I have here. I mentioned they did not claim to be idealistic, rather they claimed to be realistic. There's more though. The very smartest atheists (very rare) I met in real life believed that there could and should be an atheist's "ten" commandments, much like the Jewish Ten Commandments except that it would exclude any rule that a person acknowledge any god. Some of my best work on Examiner.com addressed those atheists and their ideas. I noted that failure to acknowledge a god at least by individuals in their own minds (publicly not so much necessary) left no check on the tyranny of the majority. A good argument does appear that the problems today are the result of a tyrannical (very misinformed) majority. You may disagree of course, but too many have failed science, not because they they are religious, but because they failed religion first. Science doesn't work by voting, maybe it should, but it got along rather well without voting before. Too many amateur "scientists" are voting and there is a need to correct that. I believe fear of god would give them the circumspection they lack. I'm sorry I have no experience to compare to yours with cancer. I see people on television who believe they would be in far worse condition except for medical treatments they received. They should know if anyone does I suppose. However they don't know. Medical science isn't the same as physics or chemistry, however much it employs them. It can be very difficult to tell what things would be like in other conditions we cannot test. The math strongly suggests that more "cancer" is being detected recently, but not that would have lead to death. Compare cancer "cure" rates with cancer "death" rates to see the problem. My cancer was genetic - my father's mother died of it before I was born. My father's sister died of it when I was 12. I was diagnosed with it at 35 and fully expected to die of it before 40. I am now 64. Statistically, I may have a recurrence and die of it. And, yes, this is all anecdotal. But I would have died of it without aggressive treatment. Clearly my life was extended. Actually, advances in medical science may have had a negative effect on evolution; children that would have died in childhood now live long enough to reproduce and pass on unsuccessful genetic combinations. But I did not reproduce; that genetic code will die with me. And, the observation that cancer is being detected more frequently? In the wise words of my veterinarian, whom I have known for over thirty years, "If you live long enough, you get cancer." |
|
DairyHeiress
Junior Member
Soooooo....soooooo tired of WINNING.
@dairyheiress
Posts: 2,497
Likes: 1,664
|
Post by DairyHeiress on Jan 10, 2018 3:53:54 GMT
www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/88842957/The-parent-trap-Why-child-free-people-are-happierMoreover, you should be proud of the fact that you haven't imposed a risky, unneeded and unasked for existence on someone, and aren't going to further contribute towards the degradation of the ecosystem. I suppose it's difficult to overcome the emotional desire for children, but try to realise intellectually that your yearning is just your genetic programming trying to trick you. Wow. You're not the guy to call at 3am with a sad story.... |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 10, 2018 4:09:11 GMT
In the wise words of my veterinarian, whom I have known for over thirty years, "If you live long enough, you get cancer." Clever and priceless, but not true. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 10, 2018 4:17:09 GMT
1. I hope your "best work" excluded phrases like that. 2. your non-scientific proclamations about what science doesn't know can be summarily dismissed because your vote doesn't matter. 1. Everybody's a critic. 2. I can't make this up, not all of it anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 10, 2018 4:17:38 GMT
In the wise words of my veterinarian, whom I have known for over thirty years, "If you live long enough, you get cancer." Clever and priceless, but not true. Au contraire, true, and coming from a real practicing scientist over a 40 year career of observation, diagnosis and treatment in a multi-species practice. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 10, 2018 4:23:30 GMT
Clever and priceless, but not true. Au contraire, true, and coming from a real practicing scientist over a 40 year career of observation, diagnosis and treatment in a multi-species practice. and brought to your attention by a career journalist. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 10, 2018 4:31:06 GMT
Au contraire, true, and coming from a real practicing scientist over a 40 year career of observation, diagnosis and treatment in a multi-species practice. and brought to your attention by a career journalist. Have you made a living at it? My vet did, and managed to raise 5 kids, pay for their college education and retire with a secure financial future. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2018 4:31:06 GMT
1. I hope your "best work" excluded phrases like that. 2. your non-scientific proclamations about what science doesn't know can be summarily dismissed because your vote doesn't matter. 1. Everybody's a critic. 2. I can't make this up, not all of it anyway. 1. I could be more like you and brag that I've written criticism that's been accepted by a few websites (but I don't want to, so I won't). 2. What you can make up is only limited by your imagination, and you seem to have a big one that's not constrained much by reality, facts, evidence, science, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 10, 2018 5:05:42 GMT
and brought to your attention by a career journalist. Have you made a living at it? My vet did, and managed to raise 5 kids, pay for their college education and retire with a secure financial future. People often refuse to listen to comments on medical data from anyone who is not a doctor. One reason for that is of course because the doctor has first hand information. What you and they do not seem to understand is that very little of a doctor's information is first hand. Insurance companies have data from hundreds and even thousands of doctors. The state has "cause of death" data from all the doctors. Of course doctors have access to that data as well, but no longer is it "first hand" to them. In fact it's more "first hand" to the insurance companies and the state. In others words I am not impressed by your veterinarian's silly word games. A huge problem with health care politically is that so many people refuse to take advice from insurance companies "because they aren't doctor's" despite the fact the insurance companies have better information than the doctors. This might shock you but most of my close relatives work in some medical capacity or other although only one is a full doctor. We know perhaps better than others how doctors are human beings. No, they are not always the most intelligent people in the room. Often they are selfless. Often they are dedicated. Those are fine qualities that can lead to success. Not all of them are even that though. Elsewhere I said that if lumberjacks gave the intelligence tests then lumberjacks would score higher on them. I stand by that. Still I say that doctors are not the most "reasonable" or "scientific" people. I believe I can say that from good standing. In my long experience they are not good at making arguments. That's probably because they never have to make any argument. People are accustomed to take their word without question. I however am not accustomed to taking anyone's word without a healthy skepticism. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 10, 2018 6:03:20 GMT
Have you made a living at it? My vet did, and managed to raise 5 kids, pay for their college education and retire with a secure financial future. People often refuse to listen to comments on medical data from anyone who is not a doctor. One reason for that is of course because the doctor has first hand information. What you and they do not seem to understand is that very little of a doctor's information is first hand. Insurance companies have data from hundreds and even thousands of doctors. The state has "cause of death" data from all the doctors. Of course doctors have access to that data as well, but no longer is it "first hand" to them. In fact it's more "first hand" to the insurance companies and the state. In others words I am not impressed by your veterinarian's silly word games. A huge problem with health care politically is that so many people refuse to take advice from insurance companies "because they aren't doctor's" despite the fact the insurance companies have better information than the doctors. This might shock you but most of my close relatives work in some medical capacity or other although only one is a full doctor. We know perhaps better than others how doctors are human beings. No, they are not always the most intelligent people in the room. Often they are selfless. Often they are dedicated. Those are fine qualities that can lead to success. Not all of them are even that though. Elsewhere I said that if lumberjacks gave the intelligence tests then lumberjacks would score higher on them. I stand by that. Still I say that doctors are not the most "reasonable" or "scientific" people. I believe I can say that from good standing. In my long experience they are not good at making arguments. That's probably because they never have to make any argument. People are accustomed to take their word without question. I however am not accustomed to taking anyone's word without a healthy skepticism. If you had gone into the insurance business, you could have made a living at it. It's a protection racket. The tallest buildings in New York are owned by insurance companies. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2018 7:25:48 GMT
Have you made a living at it? My vet did, and managed to raise 5 kids, pay for their college education and retire with a secure financial future. Elsewhere I said that if lumberjacks gave the intelligence tests then lumberjacks would score higher on them. I stand by that. IQ tests are standardized, you dolt. They don't have ones tailored to each profession or affiliation. Leave it to you to say something so stupid and then double down on it even after the stupid has been pointed out. Of course, you have to believe such made-up nonsense in order to reconcile the fact that atheists score a higher average on those tests than believers. It's what happens when you form your beliefs before looking at the evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 10, 2018 7:52:50 GMT
Have you made a living at it? My vet did, and managed to raise 5 kids, pay for their college education and retire with a secure financial future. People often refuse to listen to comments on medical data from anyone who is not a doctor. One reason for that is of course because the doctor has first hand information. What you and they do not seem to understand is that very little of a doctor's information is first hand. Insurance companies have data from hundreds and even thousands of doctors. The state has "cause of death" data from all the doctors. Of course doctors have access to that data as well, but no longer is it "first hand" to them. In fact it's more "first hand" to the insurance companies and the state. In others words I am not impressed by your veterinarian's silly word games. A huge problem with health care politically is that so many people refuse to take advice from insurance companies "because they aren't doctor's" despite the fact the insurance companies have better information than the doctors. This might shock you but most of my close relatives work in some medical capacity or other although only one is a full doctor. We know perhaps better than others how doctors are human beings. No, they are not always the most intelligent people in the room. Often they are selfless. Often they are dedicated. Those are fine qualities that can lead to success. Not all of them are even that though. Elsewhere I said that if lumberjacks gave the intelligence tests then lumberjacks would score higher on them. I stand by that. Still I say that doctors are not the most "reasonable" or "scientific" people. I believe I can say that from good standing. In my long experience they are not good at making arguments. That's probably because they never have to make any argument. People are accustomed to take their word without question. I however am not accustomed to taking anyone's word without a healthy skepticism. I know you don't have a sense of humour, butt despite that I am going to re-tell one of my all time favourite jokes, as someone else might enjoy it. "So there was a queue of the recently deceased at the Pearly Gates, waiting for St Peter to assess their case for admission into Heaven. They had their noses pressed up against the gates searching for clues as to what Heaven was really like. Suddenly, a gaunt bearded figure appeared rushing inside the gates with long hair flowing, wearing a white coat and with a stethoscope around his neck and a biro in his top pocket, mumbling to himself and barking orders to a few unfortunate angels. One of the deceased raised up the courage to enquire of St Peter...'Who is that, St Peter?' St Peter replies...' Oh! That's God....he thinks he's a doctor'!" |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 10, 2018 12:02:51 GMT
IQ tests are standardized, you dolt. However true that is, there are indeed standardized tests for generic information and thought processes, but their "validity" decreases with age past young adulthood. That is to say that other factors overwhelm native intelligence as the years go on. You can call them "intelligence" but they are really application and access to relevant information. Furthermore it is not the evidence you are using. Atheists did not score higher on standardized intelligence tests. They scored higher on special tests designed to find out how much people know about things in the Bible that the people giving the tests didn't understand themselves. Does it really help to say, "you dolt"? Then I say it about you. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2018 12:16:26 GMT
IQ tests are standardized, you dolt. Atheists did not score higher on standardized intelligence tests. ( and more) ( and still more). They scored higher on special tests designed to find out how much people know about things in the Bible that the people giving the tests didn't understand themselves. No they didn't (where the hell did you get that from?). |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 10, 2018 12:30:02 GMT
Atheists did not score higher on standardized intelligence tests. ( and more) ( and still more). They scored higher on special tests designed to find out how much people know about things in the Bible that the people giving the tests didn't understand themselves. No they didn't (where the hell did you get that from?). From you. We've been over this before and you actually did have a link back then. I argued successfully that the most accomplished hospitals have strong religious ties and/or dependence on religious funding. Cedar Sinai, Loma Linda, Catholic hospitals too numerous to mention. Did you know Oral Roberts founded a hospital? You argued that the AAAS was/is atheist. I asked whether anyone in the AAAS actually has a job. You still haven't answered. |
|
