Five Myths About Christmas (answered?)

[Beavah]

You seem to hold people as rude and arrogant and disrespectful if they do not agree with or bow down enthusiastically to your ideals or beliefs.

 

Nonsense. But I do reserve da right to respond with longwinded posts and arguments.

 

In this case, I just jumped in to support Tampa Turtle. Calling Jesus a "myth" to a Christian is roughly like calling a black American a monkey. It's demeaning and belittling. Oh, there's not the same dark history of overt racism, so it's not "as big a deal", but still, if that's not the person's intent, he or she shouldn't use the term. If it is their intent, then I reckon most Christians like you or I are big enough people to simply blow them off as they deserve, just as most African-Americans would do the same for the other sort.

 

Or, if they were friends who were just ignorant, would correct them so that they don't inadvertently offer offense to others in the future.

 

I give Merlyn equal status and respect to follow his own beliefs and to view my beliefs in the same way as I view his.

 

Nothing wrong with that, though I personally try not to view Merlyn's beliefs the same way he views mine.

 

Da question is not about opinions, it's about language and conduct in public. It's just fine to think that your boss is an ass. It might even be accurate. It's a different thing to call him an ass to his face in public. If you choose to call him an ass in a public forum, then the rational presumption of everybody is that you intended to be rude and disrespectful. Even though da notion that the fellow is an ass is just an "idea."

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[fred8033]

I agree that using "myth" on people's personal faith when in direct conversation with them is not about conversation. It's about using a loaded word and making a cheap shot.

 

...

 

Beavah wrote: "Yah, but then I'm not sure all UUA's consider themselves Christian, eh?".

 

Wow. I never realized that. I had to look it up.

 

From the uua.org web site... "In addition to holding different beliefs on spiritual topics, individual Unitarian Universalists may also identify with and draw inspiration from Atheism and Agnosticism, Buddhism, Christianity, Humanism, Judaism, Paganism, and other religious or philosophical traditions."

 

Unitarian Unversalists don't even necessarily believe in a God.

 

It also says: "Unitarian Universalists generally agree that "human reason and experience should be the final authority in determining spiritual truth.""

 

Not so much a religion as a dialectic group searching for truth. Interesting. Learn something every day.

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Show me where I claimed Jesus was a myth.

As a matter of fact, a while back when Brent questioned me directly about this, I wrote that Jesus is not a myth. I accept that he really existed, not that I can support that in any objective way.

In this thread as far as I know it has only been a discussion of the use of the term, 'myth', not about some particular instance of calling something a myth. If I'm wrong about this, someone please clarify.

 

Beavah, to respond to one of your other statements, the answer is: you don't know much about science. You aren't even a dilettante with regard to science. You evidently don't know enough to even articulate the basics of how scientific tests are performed, much less apply those methods to your own ideas. Your discussions of science are only slightly more erudite than I read from Tea Party members, maybe not even. Your discussions of science are neither a credit to you nor to anyone who reads those discussions and think they've been subjected to erudition.

 

The UUA faith is non-credal. It is non-Christian, at least in the sense that it rejects the Trinity. At least that is what I am told by the UUA. Personally, the idea of the Trinity has always been impenetrable to me, perhaps someone can explain it in a way that I can understand.

There are persons who are members of the UUA who practice various personal faiths including Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. And there are persons who struggle with the idea of the existence of a deity of any kind. Trevorum or Kudu can probably give a better description. Or, believe it or not, there is a UUA.org website.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

My only point is that if yeh let a community of human beings decide what does and doesn't constitute authentic [insert phrase here], then they will create a belief system that is more or less self-consistent.

 

That only results in a belief system if the inclusion/rejection criteria are all based on what those beliefs are; science doesn't include or exclude people based on their conclusions, it's based on what methods were used to get there.

 

If you conclude that the earth is round by reading goat entrails, that isn't science, even if your results agree with science. On the other end, there are scientific theories that are mutually contradictory, but as long as these theories stay within the scientific method, it's not a problem even if they directly contradict each other. That actually indicates a good area of research.

[Beavah]

Show me where I claimed Jesus was a myth.

 

Doesn't matter if yeh claim Jesus was a myth, God is a myth, Satan is a myth, sin is a myth, Moses parting the Red Sea is a myth. Mine was an example of da concept, not an accusation.

 

Beavah, to respond to one of your other statements, the answer is: you don't know much about science. You aren't even a dilettante with regard to science.... [uninformed personal sleights continue]

 

Yah, I'm not rightly sure which one of my "other statements" that responds to, eh? I reckon that if a fellow were to make a reasoned scientific argument, it would identify da concept in question with reference to previous literature at least. It might even offer a methodology, evidence, and analysis.

 

It's always funny to me how our beliefs or perceptions of folks so strongly color our analysis of their arguments. Besides, a careful reader would realize that I've been discussin' the sociology, philosophy, and epistemology of science, eh? That's a different thing than daily scientific practice, and draws from a different literature.

 

That only results in a belief system if the inclusion/rejection criteria are all based on what those beliefs are; science doesn't include or exclude people based on their conclusions, it's based on what methods were used to get there.

 

So what? It's still a belief system. And honestly, whether it's religion or science, all systems of human thought assume some combination of both methods and core assumptions. Religions also espouse methodologies, and it's possible within any religion to identify different, mutually-contradictory theories that exist and are still considered "religious" in the same way yeh describe those of science. "Just war" theory is an example in many Christian religions. In da same way, science will for da most part reject out of hand anything that smacks of violation of conservation of energy or suggests ESP, or anything else that is presumed to violate its core beliefs.

 

Yeh can't point to any peer-reviewed and replicated studies of da use of goat entrails, can yeh?

 

Beavah

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[SSScout]

I retract my original request.

 

We need a "Philosophy, Syllogism, Faith and Chaplaincy" forum.

 

Bravo, Beavah.

[Stosh]

Gee, a guy goes off for a while and when he comes back, the thread has gotten so far off track it makes no sense anymore.

 

Somehow a few non-factual traditional stories, i.e. myths, about Christmas have turned into a slam by saying all religions are myths.

 

Lovely Christmas sentiments I must say.

 

So, let's begin, those that have anti-religious beliefs, then they will conclude everything the other person says about religion is myth. Like no one could figure this out? By the way, I find just as many myths surrounding atheists as I do those who believe in a God.

 

Once one understands this, then the whole discussion falls apart.

 

1) I believe in Allah, everyone else's beliefs are myths.

2) I believe on Yahweh, everyone else's beliefs are myths.

3) I believe in God, everyone else's beliefs are myths.

4) I believe there is no God, everyone else's beliefs are myths.

 

The myth that atheists hide behind is that they claim they don't believe, but in fact they do, believe there is no God and thus feel they can force their beliefs on others just like they detest from the other believers that are different than them.

 

Myth is a human tradition story that is clearly made up, i.e. Santa Claus came from a poem. Everything surrounding Santa that was not in the poem is mythically added to the original story. After all small children hold Santa in a strong belief system that most adults don't buy into.

 

Santa does work well for the atheist because they can jump in on the Christmas holiday without being a Christian.

 

Stosh

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes, quoting me first:

That only results in a belief system if the inclusion/rejection criteria are all based on what those beliefs are; science doesn't include or exclude people based on their conclusions, it's based on what methods were used to get there.

 

So what? It's still a belief system.

 

No, it isn't.

[packsaddle]

Beavah, "In this case, I just jumped in to support Tampa Turtle. Calling Jesus a "myth" to a Christian is roughly like calling a black American a monkey. It's demeaning and belittling."

And since I was the one asking Tampa Turtle to answer some questions, I took this comment to refer to me. Congratulations, I took the bait. Happy? I merely responded accurately that I never said anything of the sort.

If my deeply held belief that Satan and hell are myths causes other people who consider Satan and hell to be deeply felt objects of reverence to feel disrespected, the only way I can respond is, 'same to you'. As TheScout wrote a while back, "The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together."

 

By the way, I'd like you to stand on a street in pretty much any city where there is a sizable black population, Detroit would be a great place to do this, and alternately proclaim Jesus to be a myth and then call to the black people who are present to inform them that they are monkeys. You would benefit from the resulting lesson in the difference between those two claims.

 

The other comment you made was to Merlyn in which "packsaddle and his ilk" were named as the object. In that comment you mentioned the possibility that there is an official creed that you don't know about. There is no personal slight in what I wrote as I am certain there wasn't in your reference. I merely observe that you don't know much about science if you can make the kinds of statements that you make about science. Even a dilettante would know better. By your own admission you don't know how it works or how to apply it.

You are fond of advising other respondents in these forums (sometimes to Tea Party defenders) when discussing other topics, not to engage in arguments based on the shallow knowledge that comes from thinking that Wikipedia is all that is needed to understand something. Why do you then so casually ignore your own advice?

 

You attempt to draw comparisons and your own personal conclusions about things (such as string theory) for which you are profoundly ignorant. It is as if you possess understanding of these things. Worse, you respond as if you possess truth. You seem to think you can hand advice to others while ignoring it for yourself. If you feel a personal slight in any responses, it is because you set yourself up for it. You make it all about you, Beavah. It isn't about epistemology or intelligent discussion. It's about you being right.

I accept this part of your character when you're discussing topics about which I don't care or have little personal knowledge. But in this case I can't set aside the fact of your ignorance of the topic you claim to understand.

 

Reading something in the science and technology section of a magazine is getting a popularized version written by a correspondent who likely did not himself actually interview the author or understand the primary literature. Perhaps an abstract and summary but probably not the details. In the case of string theory, I doubt that anyone writing such popularized articles has any better understanding than you do after reading their simplifications, at least that is what my former Eagle who is at CERN right now has told me. There are some people who, upon reading these simplifications, often using metaphorical examples, think they actually understand something. Most of the time, they don't. You don't. And at least with respect to string theory, I don't.

The difference is that I admit it.

 

I noted this difference a while back in another thread but I guess that went ignored...until somehow, someone got bent out of shape about the application of the term, 'myth' to something...anything. Again, as TheScout wrote, "The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together."

 

Happy New Year.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[drmbear]

Stosh, I believe in Allah, I believe in Yahweh, I believe in God, I believe there is no God, I believe in Santa Clause (he came to our house). I believe in Love, and Truth, and Wonder. I believe it is incredibly amazing that our minds have moved to consider any of these things beyond the search for food and shelter. I believe it is completely wrong that people have died because their beliefs on these matters did not match another, that wars have been fought over beliefs. I believe it is wrong that we perpetuate those same battles here, among Scouts, on this list. My entire foundational Scouting experience, the most important thing I gathered in my very first years as a Scout, was to be accepting of other people, show respect for other's beliefs, and to seek that ideal of a World Brotherhood of Scouting, eliminating the need for war everywhere in the world. I guess it is just one Scout at a time....

[BartHumphries]

jblake47, I don't think it can be said that atheists do believe in a "God". If I can make a somewhat hackneyed analogy for a moment, I think there's a difference between most religions which say things like, "God is red light" or "God is blue light" or "God is white light" or "God is yellow-polka-dots on cyan and magenta stripes light", and an atheist who says "there is no light at all."

 

To use a common analogy, there's a vast ideological gulf between describing the elephant in the room as "like a snake", "like a spear", "like a tree", etc., and saying that there is no elephant at all in the room.

[Beavah]

Yah, packsaddle, that's an awful lot of text to spend stuck in an ad hominem response, don't yeh think? I reckon it also presumes fact not in evidence, as we sometimes say.

 

I don't mind at all, I know that's often da way all of us are tempted to respond when others touch on our "sacred" beliefs.

 

Beavah

 

 

[Scoutfish]

Beavah,

 

My poiny was not about what you should or shouldn't think. You are free to think what you want> And I fully support that freedom.

 

My point was that you will jump on and chastize somebody for what you ascertain to be rude behaivor.

 

Then (usually) within 2 or 3 posts, you will yourself say hurtful, insulting comments to that person and use your own beliefs about whatever the subject is, to justify your insults - or claim ignorance of thos insults.

 

Cae in point: Merlyn>

 

Merlyn may say ( and I am totally making this example up to get a point across) : Beavah, there is no such thing as God, you are misleading yourself."

 

Then you respond by saying : "Merlyn, I'd expect somebody of you poor mental stature and pkysical looks to not understand why a society that believes in sometrhing therefore proves it's existance through mass idealoogy and by communial acceptance>"

 

The point is, whatever your comment was that you use to justify your belife...you throw out insults and personal attacks>

 

I've never actuallt took you to task for your beliefs 0 which are mostly along the same lines as mine to a degree>

 

But you remind me of an aunt and uncle who would throw out snide and rude remarks to anybody they were talking about and then try to justify it by hiding behind the bible>

 

They would stir up trouble, throw out unfounded accusations and then say they were just trying to hgelp, that they loved us, that they were good Christians, blah blah blah

 

Kinda like a bully who throws the first punch then hides behind his mom all the while saying the other person is trying to start something.

 

DEfend your beliefs..I have no issue with that , nor do I think anybodty else does>

 

But defend them with civility.

 

I will say this for Merlyn, he states his beliefs just as everybody else does in thsi forum> he has that right> But I have not seen him use insults as an offense, only in defense. In that I mean he will not ingage in insults until somebody engages him first>

 

And even though we have different belifes than each other, I somehow am able to see his side and argue with respect and without having to throw personal insults at him to somehow try to justify my beliefs.

 

 

He

[Beavah]

Yah, Scoutfish, while I appreciate da feedback (and would have apprecisted it more in private), I reckon it would be more effective if yeh used an actual example. I reckon even Merlyn would agree that I have never talked about his looks.

 

I have never intended what yeh claim I have done, and if I have been perceived that way I apologize for my failure to communicate. Da forums are a poor communication medium, and while I try to respond to each person as best I can in their own terms, I'm sure I fail more than a anybody. At some point, yeh just trust that fellow scouters will follow St. Ignatius's instructions and try to read things in da best possible light.

 

In this thread Tampa Turtle made an observation (that others besides me agreed with) and got dinged for it, and I commented. TT mentioned that I correctly described his position. People argued their position and I defended mine. The topic raised by TT is that calling religious tenets "myths" isn't courteous, so of course that part of da thread is about courtesy.

 

But da current topic with packsaddle and Merlyn is whether science is just one branch of human rational thought, with characteristics very much the same as all other branches of human rational thought, or whether science is privileged, or to borrow a term, "sacred". From my perspective, science is just one form of human rational thought, and is not privileged. From what I perceive, science is their sacred form of thought, and is privileged.

 

That's not an argument I ever expect to "win", because folks don't give up their sacred systems easily, eh? Nor should they. But I find da discussion interesting, and da most recent turn toward personal attacks (by pack, not Merlyn) to be fascinatin'. That's how all of us react to challenges of what we consider sacred, at some level.

 

Anyway, I enjoy such discussions, because I learn things from 'em. That's why they're worth spending time on. If da arguments weren't interesting they'd just be ignored, and that to my mind would be a far worse insult. Of course, some would say I argue for a living

 

Beavah

 

[Scoutfish]

Well , none us will ever win any argument with an apponnent about opposing sides in person or political beliefs>

 

That's a given, and I enjoy argueing myself. Sometimes It do see things ina different light, mostly I see people and gain respect for their passion of their belief even if we see it from opposite sides, and like you, I think it keeps us all a bit sharper.