Whose God

[Bob78164]

That's a bit condescending, no?

I don't think so. I'm fairly sure that Tocque would cheerfully agree that no amount of evidence could possibly shake her beliefs (she might use the word "faith") on this issue. The remaining statements I made either describe my own reaction to that world view (in response to Tocque's guess about why people who share my views have such strong feelings on the subject) or make the (I believe) uncontroversial statement that enough people make faith-based, rather than evidence-based, decisions to affect public policy. I don't see how any of that is condescending. --Bob

Faith based doesn't necessarily erase evidence based decisions. They are not mutually exclusive. Yes, it was condescending.

How about those folks who base their decisions on lobbyists, financial gain and miscreancy?

We may have to agree to disagree about whether my statement was condescending. And I do see the faith-based decision paradigm (as opposed to any individual decision -- obviously there will be many instances when both paradigms lead to the same decision) as directly contrary to the evidence-based decision paradigm because the whole point of "faith," as I understand that term, is that faith describes a belief to which one adheres, and acts on, no matter how much contrary evidence mounts against the belief.

I don't understand the point of your final paragraph. People (particularly public servants) who make bad faith decisions based on venal considerations are simply breaching their trust, but that tells us nothing about whether they use faith or evidence what good public policy would be if they weren't breaching their trust. --Bob

[Tocqueville3]

That's not why, at least in my case.

My issue with this mind set is that as far as I'm concerned, particularly over the last eight years, far too much public policy has been made from a position of belief without, and often in the face of, evidence. So it bothers me when otherwise-intelligent people buy into the meme that it's a good thing to believe something so strongly that no amount of contrary evidence could possibly change your mind.

I wouldn't care (or at least, not so much) if you and yours were the only people that meme could affect. But that's demonstrably not the case. --Bob

That's a bit condescending, no?

I don't think so. I'm fairly sure that Tocque would cheerfully agree that no amount of evidence could possibly shake her beliefs (she might use the word "faith") on this issue. The remaining statements I made either describe my own reaction to that world view (in response to Tocque's guess about why people who share my views have such strong feelings on the subject) or make the (I believe) uncontroversial statement that enough people make faith-based, rather than evidence-based, decisions to affect public policy. I don't see how any of that is condescending. --Bob

I would "cheerfully" agree that nothing could shake me from my faith.

My faith is what guides me to make the decisions that I make. Unfortunately, I am sinner and I don't always make the right choices. I mean, really. If faith can't guide you, what can?

[madamemeisha]

I mean, really. If faith can't guide you, what can?

Common sense? To say that one needs faith to be guided through life is implying that atheists/agnostics just run around wreaking havoc and chaos with no regard for their own lives or the wellbeing of their fellow man. This simply isn't true. I am not guided by faith in a higher power, but I manage to make it through my day.

[Beebs52]

I don't think so. I'm fairly sure that Tocque would cheerfully agree that no amount of evidence could possibly shake her beliefs (she might use the word "faith") on this issue. The remaining statements I made either describe my own reaction to that world view (in response to Tocque's guess about why people who share my views have such strong feelings on the subject) or make the (I believe) uncontroversial statement that enough people make faith-based, rather than evidence-based, decisions to affect public policy. I don't see how any of that is condescending. --Bob

Faith based doesn't necessarily erase evidence based decisions. They are not mutually exclusive. Yes, it was condescending.

How about those folks who base their decisions on lobbyists, financial gain and miscreancy?

We may have to agree to disagree about whether my statement was condescending. And I do see the faith-based decision paradigm (as opposed to any individual decision -- obviously there will be many instances when both paradigms lead to the same decision) as directly contrary to the evidence-based decision paradigm because the whole point of "faith," as I understand that term, is that faith describes a belief to which one adheres, and acts on, no matter how much contrary evidence mounts against the belief.

I don't understand the point of your final paragraph. People (particularly public servants) who make bad faith decisions based on venal considerations are simply breaching their trust, but that tells us nothing about whether they use faith or evidence what good public policy would be if they weren't breaching their trust. --Bob

I ask you, what difference does it make whether those bad decisions are made, venally, due to breach of their faith or because they're disregarding their evidence? I don't understand your question with my last paragraph.

Maybe it's similar to voting. Whether someone votes because they like someone's look, background, beliefs, public service, shoe size, I don't care. Their vote is legitimate. Which is why I don't understand why you discount someone who makes a decision based on faith.

[Tocqueville3]

I mean, really. If faith can't guide you, what can?

Common sense? To say that one needs faith to be guided through life is implying that atheists/agnostics just run around wreaking havoc and chaos with no regard for their own lives or the wellbeing of their fellow man. This simply isn't true. I am not guided by faith in a higher power, but I manage to make it through my day.

Okay...but this is prolly it for me. I don't mean that one with no faith can't make it through life. I'm just saying that faith can be a equally good or even better motivator for making decisions to get you through life.

[BackInTex]

I mean, really. If faith can't guide you, what can?

Common sense? .

You mean like " a long long long long time ago there was nothing. Then it exploded"?

I am not guided by faith in a higher power, but I manage to make it through my day.

Lots of people make it through the day. No question about that. But what about eternity?

[clem21]

Since it's award season I figured I could help out here..ahem ahem

And the award for thread that was most obviously and predictably going to devolve into stupid fights and head-butting iiiisssss...

[Appa23]

(withdrawing from this thread)

[Bob78164]

I ask you, what difference does it make whether those bad decisions are made, venally, due to breach of their faith or because they're disregarding their evidence? I don't understand your question with my last paragraph.

Maybe it's similar to voting. Whether someone votes because they like someone's look, background, beliefs, public service, shoe size, I don't care. Their vote is legitimate. Which is why I don't understand why you discount someone who makes a decision based on faith.

I'm not sure what you mean by "discount" in this context. The issue for me isn't whether the vote is "legitimate." I'm not sure what you mean by that, other than "entitled to be counted," and that's more or less self-evident.

But I do think the country would be better off if more people made decisions (particularly political decisions) based on evidence rather than faith. Just as I'm fairly sure we can all agree that the country would be worse off if, say, more people made decisions, as they once did, based on patent racism.* The vote of a racist isn't "illegitimate" and no one is "discounting" their votes for any reason other than their political impotence based on a well-deserved lack of numbers. But we can all agree that we're glad not many people (relatively speaking) cast votes and make decisions on that basis.

If someone is acting venally and in bad faith, it doesn't matter what their underlying principles are because they're ignoring them anyway. But I believe that most public servants at least try to act in good faith. There are certainly counterexamples, but I believe that in America, they are the exception, rather than the rule. And for those who are acting in good faith, principles (both their own and those of their constituents) matter.

*This should be evident, but to avoid misunderstanding, I'll say expressly that I am not equating faith-based decision making to hatemongering racism. I'm simply illustrating the point that we all have preferences as to how other people make decisions, and one of my preferences is for evidence-based decisions. --Bob

[Beebs52]

I ask you, what difference does it make whether those bad decisions are made, venally, due to breach of their faith or because they're disregarding their evidence? I don't understand your question with my last paragraph.

Maybe it's similar to voting. Whether someone votes because they like someone's look, background, beliefs, public service, shoe size, I don't care. Their vote is legitimate. Which is why I don't understand why you discount someone who makes a decision based on faith.

I'm not sure what you mean by "discount" in this context. The issue for me isn't whether the vote is "legitimate." I'm not sure what you mean by that, other than "entitled to be counted," and that's more or less self-evident.

But I do think the country would be better off if more people made decisions (particularly political decisions) based on evidence rather than faith. Just as I'm fairly sure we can all agree that the country would be worse off if, say, more people made decisions, as they once did, based on patent racism.* The vote of a racist isn't "illegitimate" and no one is "discounting" their votes for any reason other than their political impotence based on a well-deserved lack of numbers. But we can all agree that we're glad not many people (relatively speaking) cast votes and make decisions on that basis.

If someone is acting venally and in bad faith, it doesn't matter what their underlying principles are because they're ignoring them anyway. But I believe that most public servants at least try to act in good faith. There are certainly counterexamples, but I believe that in America, they are the exception, rather than the rule. And for those who are acting in good faith, principles (both their own and those of their constituents) matter.

*This should be evident, but to avoid misunderstanding, I'll say expressly that I am not equating faith-based decision making to hatemongering racism. I'm simply illustrating the point that we all have preferences as to how other people make decisions, and one of my preferences is for evidence-based decisions. --Bob

You still haven't shown me how evidence-based-only, as opposed to faith-based-only, decisions are better. You're unable, as am I, to discern the reason for the venality behind any bad guy's decision--lack of faith, bad genes, drunk, etc. You assume people act in good faith. I don't assume, anymore, that public figures do act in good faith. Plus, what is good faith?
Much is smoke and mirrors. Having bad faith or having good faith that you don't agree with makes no difference in the grand scheme of decision making.

[madamemeisha]

Lots of people make it through the day. No question about that. But what about eternity?

[/quote][/quote]

It doesn't concern me. When I'm dead, I'll be dead. End o' story.

[Bob Juch]

I refuse to discuss mythology.

[Beebs52]

I refuse to discuss mythology.

See, here's a good example of what I was trying to express earlier. Whether or not you agree, he said what he believes. No emoticons. No "In my opinion".

QED

[clem21]

QED

MATH TERM ALERT! MATH TERM ALERT!

MUST.....AVERT....EYES......

[Beebs52]

QED

MATH TERM ALERT! MATH TERM ALERT!

MUST.....AVERT....EYES......

It keeps the morning crust out of your eyes. It's fine.

[cindy.wellman]

[quote="clem21"][/quote]


OK Clemsters, that is my favorite avatar of yours to date. She is so sweet!

[christie1111]

OK Clemsters, that is my favorite avatar of yours to date. She is so sweet!

That really is a cute photo!

[ToLiveIsToFly]

Plus, isn't it a given that when one expresses an opinion that it is "yours"? Is it truly necessary to add "I think" or "I believe" or IMHO? Obviously, unless you're talking about someone else's statement, it's what YOU believe. It's sorta already in there.

I assume this is aimed at me. Usually, that's true. Statements like "I have a strong relationship with God", "I am going to Heaven" etc, sure. But statements like "This is true. Even if you don't believe it, it's true", no.

Of course it is. If you don't think it's true, then it's not true for you. It IS true for someone else. And, obviously, it's what the other person believes. Why should a qualifier be necessary? Just curious, seriously. It's been a question of mine about a lot of posts about a lot of subjects.

Wow. I put the boy down and fell asleep in the process. Looks like I missed an excrement storm. Oh well.

I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that for some people there is a god and for other people there isn't. Either there is or there isn't. We're not all correct - some of us are wrong. Or there is more than one god, or there was one or some a long time ago and now there isn't. Or we're going to create the first one in a hundred years or so. But none of these mean that we're all right, they would mean that we're all wrong.

So if I'm right, Tocque is wrong. If Tocque is right, I'm wrong. I don't think Tocque would be very happy with "well, I believed in god and it guided my life this way and I'm glad I did even though it turned out there really isn't one".

I do think you can believe something and that there can be different levels of how you express it, and that how you do it matters. "I believe X is true" is a different statement from "X is true" is a different statement from "X is true. Even if you don't believe it, X is true for you." I would interpret the third statement as trashing the belief of those who don't believe X.

And I agree with everybody that says it's generally not a big deal when people do this. At least it's not a big deal in a forum like this. If you live in this country and are an atheist, you get used to the idea that you're in the minority, and the majority is comfortable enough in their majority-hood to act as if your belief is not worthy of respect. If you're an atheist and you see a thread like this, if you don't want to see people trashing your beliefs, you stay away. Really, you can say what you like about these things and as long as you don't try to make me live according to your beliefs, I'm going to be ok.

But if you make statements that I think can fairly be interpreted as trashing my beliefs, and then you say that it's an admirable quality to disagree with someone without trashing them or their beliefs, I'm going to point out that you're doing it.

[peacock2121]

I didn't read tocque as saying she had the quality she admired. She did not display that quality, you are correct. I read her as saying I displayed that quality and she acknowledged that. I think tocque would readily agree that she struggles with not getting snarky or offensive (being on the offense, not the other meaning). She might even call that a sin, I don't know.

I have learned that tocque knows that she is not usually the person her God teaches her to be. I also know that she doesn't think that it is personal to her - it is what it is to be human.

The 'it is what it is to be human' is where tocque and I agree. We are all flawed and struggle, to some extent to be 'better'. The what is better and who says what is better is where our paths start to diverge. She looks to God (or the Bible), I don't. I look to who I want to be, the person who fulfills me and represent who I want to represent. I fail as often as the next guy in being that, just like tocque fails.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

I didn't read tocque as saying she had the quality she admired. She did not display that quality, you are correct. I read her as saying I displayed that quality and she acknowledged that. I think tocque would readily agree that she struggles with not getting snarky or offensive (being on the offense, not the other meaning). She might even call that a sin, I don't know.

I have learned that tocque knows that she is not usually the person her God teaches her to be. I also know that she doesn't think that it is personal to her - it is what it is to be human.

The 'it is what it is to be human' is where tocque and I agree. We are all flawed and struggle, to some extent to be 'better'. The what is better and who says what is better is where our paths start to diverge. She looks to God (or the Bible), I don't. I look to who I want to be, the person who fulfills me and represent who I want to represent. I fail as often as the next guy in being that, just like tocque fails.

I have nothing to respond to this. If I'm pointing out something that everyone acknowledges anyway, then let's move on.

[DevilKitty100]

I have nothing to respond to this. If I'm pointing out something that everyone acknowledges anyway, then let's move on.

I would, but after sloshing through this thread I no longer have the will to live.

[Bored Sweeper]

I think sweeping up a swarm of dead locusts is easier than cleaning up this unholy mess. If there is a God, I'm going to assume He'd like me to smite this whole damn thread for Him.....


<SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP>

[peacock2121]

Uh oh

You said if

[littlebeast13]

Uh oh

You said if

Bored sweepers have beliefs too.

You are living in the sweeper's reality whether you agree with him or not. Deal with it....

lb13

[peacock2121]

Uh oh

You said if

Bored sweepers have beliefs too.

You are living in the sweeper's reality whether you agree with him or not. Deal with it....

lb13

reality is a whole other subject.

I will not be starting that thread.