The Most Important Question of our Age?

@Didymos Thomas,

So I agree secularism is the western world rather than religious influence, but I can't deny thats because religion was realized as only a matter of interest for the state not of the public. Better science here than religion. Science could have defined capitalism, in that we produce products that people want and science is directed to meet such. Religion can only be directed for centering power and interest to the state.

Science at least is directed at the people's interests.

I just think that the state can redirect science the way religion was used. The army for one. Military science. Actually, does the public have any control on what science does other than through corporate establishments?

2 Replies

@iconoclast,

Quote:

You go on to cite the Dalai Lama and Islam in the middle ages, but the former is a political appointee of an occupying communist-athiest state, and science in the middle ages was hardly what we'd call science, is it?

If your Dalai Lama comment was a question, it was poorly phrased. You say "the former [the Dalai Lama] is a political appointee of an occupying communist-athiest state" and then you go on to pose a question about science in the middle ages.

Quote:

ever heard of a little proto-revolutionary event called the Great Awakening?

The Great Awakening was a religious surge among the common man. The Founding Fathers were not caught up in the fervor. The relation this event has to the American Revolution is this - the average Joe was spurred onto revolution because ministers began to equate the Crown with Satan. The men who drafted the Constitution did not make the same appeals. Indeed, there is a duality to the American Revolutionary spirit - the framers, who had secular ambitions, and the common man with his religious ambitions. Thus, while the population viewed the rebellion in spiritual terms, the actual government is a secular institution.

But, like I said, I'm done quibbling with you. You obviously have no intention to learn, and only want to spread your dogma. While your general concern is an important one, your approach is, not only naive, but ill-informed. Have fun with the remaining crowd.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

DT,

....and not an entirely stupid question either.

Quote:

Despite its officially secular stance, the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) has claimed the power to approve the naming of high reincarnations in Tibet, based on the precedent set by the Qianlong Emperor of the Qing Dynasty. The Qianlong Emperor was said to have instituted a system of selecting the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama by means of a lottery which utilised a golden urn with names wrapped in barley balls.

(wikipedia: dalai lama)

iconoclast.

DT,

Just leave it mate - you're clearly quite upset about something, and i'm sick of your insulting tone. For a moderator you're behaving rather badly, don't you think?

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

I would suggest reading more than just a wikipedia paragraph. If you had taken the time to read that whole entry, I imagine you would have learned that the Dalai Lama was not appointed by the Communist government in China.

Quote:

Just leave it mate - you're clearly quite upset about something, and i'm sick of your insulting tone. For a moderator you're behaving rather badly, don't you think?

Again, the self righteous tone. I'm not upset; everyday I deal with people making claims about issues which they have neglected to study, or even survey. That you find my tone insulting is of no concern to me - I have gone out of my way to keep our conversation civil and useful. And, no, I think I've acted appropriately.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Well, you told me that he wasn't. I know that now. I phrased it within a question because I wasn't sure about it - but I hardly think that constitues a good reason for you to take such a tone with me. You brought up Bhuddism, not me. I haven't claimed to know anything about it - so for you to importune my lack of knowledge on this subject - to talk down to me from a position of authority is abusive.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

Except that I didn't talk down to you about your knowledge, or lack thereof, of Buddhism. All I did was say that I was uninterested in a historical debate with you. I'm sorry if you find this disappointing or insulting, but what else should I do when you try to pursue such a conversation? I should do as I did - explain that I'm not interested.

I'm a moderator, not a professor. My powers include dealing with posts that are spam or personal insults, ect. My authority is not an intellectual authority. As I've not utilized my moderator powers in this thread, the accusation that I've abused by authority is hollow.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Say guys, lets stick to the discussion itself. Any misgivings can be voiced by pm's or the report a post button on the top right of the post. Any personal comments should be left out of the topic, understandable though some may be.

I have sent PM's to both parties on this matter.

I hope this topic can get back on topic..

1 Reply

@Arjen,

Arjen,

I'm going to open up another thread tomorrow 'The Most Important Question 2' - Is there any chance I can move boagies video?

thanks,

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

At the very least, I imagine you can repost the video on the new thread. Shouldn't be a problem.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

DT,

thank you.

iconoclast.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

DT,

Quote:

In any case, I'm done with this particular topic. So far, Iconoclast, you have simply reasserted your views and danced around questions, moving in an irrational, circular motion. It's been fun, but the fun is over. If you decide to give serious consideration to these issues, I suggest you go read. I have two recommendations - "The Battle For God" by Karen Armstrong and "Tartuffe" by Moliere.

You have failed to understand what I'm saying - and palm off your failure on me. But that's okay. Not everyone can see eye to eye. Let's just leave it there.

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

Holiday20310401,

Sorry for the delay in responding to your post - must have missed it at the turn of a page.

You're right, they didn't want to re-fight the 100 years war on American soil so invented secularism, enlightened self-interest, but hardly enlightened. I appreciate it's difficult to challenge these ideas, but when I'm done picking them apart I put many of them back together again - but in a way conducive to the continued existence of the species.

Right now we've got some very deep seated prejudices that stand as obstacles to valid understanding - and can't address the threats we face while upholding patently false basis of analysis as absolute truths.

Whether it will be possible for the public to move the hierarchy depends very much on whether the public can be a little more open minded and courageous in the ideas they embrace, rather than clinging to fond ideas for the sake of a totally illusory sense of security.

All evidence suggests not - and were it not for brave souls like yourself i'd have given up by now.

regards,

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

Quote:

You have failed to understand what I'm saying - and palm off your failure on me. But that's okay. Not everyone can see eye to eye. Let's just leave it there.

Disagreement does not translate to a failure to understand.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

DT,

Not necessarily, but your comments indicate misunderstanding. And it does translate into a moderator behaving like a child. Really, you're not doing yourself or the forum any favours. Why not just drop it. You've killed this discussion defending your delicate sensibilities, pushed it so far off topic it's now a redundant thread. Surely there are other people posting comments critical of your sacred truths. Go persecute someone else in the name of your false ideals, go drown out someone else's right to communicate. But go.

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

Quote:

Not necessarily, but your comments indicate misunderstanding.

I do not see how. I responded to your claims, point by point.

Quote:

And it does translate into a moderator behaving like a child.

Responding to claims is hardly childlike, even if you do not like my responses.

Quote:

Really, you're not doing yourself or the forum any favours. Why not just drop it.

I have dropped the issue - remember, I said I was done and suggested some reading materials that you might find interesting and relevant.

Quote:

You've killed this discussion defending your delicate sensibilities, pushed it so far off topic it's now a redundant thread. Surely there are other people posting comments critical of your sacred truths. Go persecute someone else in the name of your false ideals, go drown out someone else's right to communicate. But go.

Isn't this the problem? Instead of considering what I presented, you restated that I was wrong again and again. Nowhere did I infringe on your right to communicate - instead, I was communicating with you. Nowhere in this thread have I defended my personal beliefs, instead, I have raised criticisms of your personal beliefs regarding religion and the role of religion in human life. Hardly defending what you call my delicate sensibilities. And to say I pushed the thread off topic doesn't seem accurate, either. You are the one who introduced religion into the thread.

If you are concerned with the future of human beings, and your concerns rest on false premises about religion, then the concerns may not be entirely justified - at least in the way you present them. I tried to find some common ground with you, but you refused; what a pity.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

DT,

Quote:

I do not see how. I responded to your claims, point by point.

That's exactly how. And you do it here. You chop up my argument into single lines, respond to each line and ignore the whole. But there's more to the whole than the sum of its parts - and there's no acknowledgement of the whole in your response to each line.

I've explained this before and you took no notice, no matter what I said you continued to do this - on and on for 10 pages, on what's a relatively minor point in the scope of the argument I was trying to make.

I opened this thread to discuss what I think are important real world issues with an epistemological basis, and you diverted into a discussion on religion because you balk at the criticism of religion implicit in my assertion that religiously founded political institutions with economic interests employ science as a tool and ignore scientific knowledge as a rule for the conduct of thier affairs.

But you haven't indicated to me that you understand the argument, only that you object to criticism of religion, and refuse to acknowledge that science has spiritual meaning.

If that's your view, and you have no intention of being swayed from it, continuing to object for ten pages is ruinous of my argument - turning it into a game of attrition on a side issue, rather than constructive debate of the main point, which I might add, you have not addressed once.

Quote:

I tried to find some common ground with you, but you refused; what a pity.

It's not my intention here to find common ground with you - this isn't about you, or at least, it wasn't meant to be. It is now, because despite asking you a number of times to leave me alone - you won't. I'll ask you again, please, leave me alone.

iconoclast.

0 Replies

The Most Important Question of our Age?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know