tnf wrote:ic. Sounded like this was heading towards 'ha you're upset.'
I'll answer - the frustration comes from several things - my college advisor and close friend was railroaded out of his position as a biology professor because he was the only guy in the biology department to stand up vocally to the ID movement on campus, particularly in the chemistry department. That was my first taste of religious zealotry perverting science while wielding a powerful political hand at the same time. I could go on about that but I'm not going to. The frustration also stems from the lack of inquisitiveness that I've seen religion have on so many young people. The result will be adults who don't address situations by analyzing information honestly and critically for themselves, but rather instantly turn to the church in order to determine what they should think about a particular subject. I wonder about a possible return to an intellectual dark-age of sorts when it comes to science as a result of the increasing power of Christianity's attack on science and reason. Some may say we are already there. It's obviously not a new problem, nor one I will ever solve or probably even impact.
So yea, that's a general summation of it. My in-laws are the most generous people a person could ever meet and would gave any stranger the shirt off their back, but the very strong role of the church in their lives keeps me constantly reminded of some of the concerns I have.
edit - and to be fair, not ALL christians are out to stop science - i.e. Francis Collins.
ok i i'm see'ing some past dramas like we've all gone through
but i still not 100% clear about the frustration.
is it because you are unable to convince them to think and believe ur way instead of thiers?
it doesn't come as a surprise to most of you that free will sometimes is a scary concept. Being a very social creature by nature everyone wants to belong to something, an organization, an idea/goal, some kind of greater purpose that stretches further than their immediate self.
Sure we are all selfish but that doesn't translate to being self sufficient. My reply is not about those who are brainwashed from birth, but more on the subject of the born-again believers. They take a leap of faith into religion, and when a possitive outcome emerges, they are not inclined to question it's true origins. Faith keeps them content with the idea that religion was the cause, and they need not look any further...why change their plan of attack since at the surface at least, it looks as if faith is a successful proposition.
I truly believe that human nature is attracted to pain and suffering to an extend. It gives them something to hope for, some better outcome to look forward to. Sometimes it doesn't matter what the reason is as long as it creates a defined goal. Take WW2 for that matter, despite of it's dark side and the obvious human suffering that ensued, it has also done great wonders to indivisuals/ families / groups /countries/ allies etc. Some great works of unity, heroism and human potential has come of it and that is the biggest reason why the era fascinates me. When people smiled they smiled more genuinely than I have ever seen anyone smile in my presence. When they where happy they displayed a level of happiness that cannot be shared with anything or any cause that i have at least personally encountered.
So what's so different between us now and our predesesors no more that 3 generation away? Purpose is the obvious answer for me, there was such a strong sense of sincere purpose that overpowered any sort of suffering that the horrors of WW2 could muster up.
As cliché as it may sound, people in true suffering don't get to taste pleasure so often, but when they do the flavor is fuller than anything we today have ever tasted with our spoiled tongues.
I know I'm jumping around but I am lazy else this would be a lot longer.
Tsakali_ wrote:I truly believe that human nature is attracted to pain and suffering to an extend. It gives them something to hope for, some better outcome to look forward to. Sometimes it doesn't matter what the reason is as long as it creates a defined goal.
Not very strange if you think of the misery most Homo Sapiens must have been living in through the ages. Simple genetics - those most inclined to stay hopeful and thankful and not be beaten down by the realities of life have also been the ones who have managed to pull through and procreate, thus spreading and reinforcing this inclination further down the generations. A certain amount of self-deception have proved to be beneficial to the chances of survival for the individual.
plained wrote:
is it because you are unable to convince them to think and believe ur way instead of thiers?
It's just a personal frustration that stems from the uphill battle I've had to fight to not have evolutionary science put on par with the actions of the Nazis and whatnot. Wanting to see things at least approached with an open mind. The only analogy I can think of right now is being a math teacher and having a good majority of your students come into class thinking 2+2=3 due to the teachings of their church and being absolutely against any sort of learning about information to the contrary. Their parents would leave messages on your phone talking about how you're not going to manipulate their child into buying your 2+2=4 godless math. Your inlaws would bombard you with all sorts of pamphlets, CD's, books, etc., that talked about how Christian math is shattering the evil atheist myth of 2+2=4. Politicians would banter about how 'we need to address both sides of the debate' in the education system in an attempt to create the false sense that there is a debate between a 2+2=3 and the 2+2=4 crowd in the scientific community.
So, at the end of the day, you are just left with a bit of a feeling of frustration at how ridiculous the issue has become and a feeling of frustration that you have to go through this bullshit every time you bring up 2+2=4.
Apparently I'm the only one who feels frustration at situations that routinely cause unnecessary drama.
fyi, next time you use examples please try to take from real life because having an argument as to why 2+2 might = 3 for conversation's shake is a bit tough.
Tsakali_ wrote:fyi, next time you use examples please try to take from real life because having an argument as to why 2+2 might = 3 for conversation's shake is a bit tough.
what?
what?
You didn't catch the real world examples throughout that whole thing.
Tsakali_ wrote:fyi, next time you use examples please try to take from real life because having an argument as to why 2+2 might = 3 for conversation's shake is a bit tough.
no its not. reading your poor spelling is whats tough.
good point...:icon27: if you like I'll repost in greek
Tsakali_ wrote:fyi, next time you use examples please try to take from real life because having an argument as to why 2+2 might = 3 for conversation's shake is a bit tough.
what?
what?
You didn't catch the real world examples throughout that whole thing.
I did, but the sarcasm was distracting
don't worry it's ok to be a little bitter, If i was surrounded with a bunch of religious fanatics I would be too.
E-mail threats cast "wide net" at CU-Boulder
In addition to evolutionary biology profs, the chancellor and others got messages.
By John Ingold
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 07/13/2007 01:34:01 AM MDT
An individual who sent threatening packages and e-mails to several University of Colorado evolutionary biology professors also e-mailed messages to CU-Boulder chancellor G.P. "Bud" Peterson.
CU spokesman Bronson Hilliard said the individual appeared to be "casting a wide net" among university officials, sending e-mails to Peterson, the vice chancellor for undergraduate education, the head of the ecology and evolutionary biology department and several other faculty members. Hilliard said Peterson is taking the messages seriously.
"He's concerned," Hilliard said. "Our faculty cannot work and conduct research in a climate of fear."
CU police detectives began investigating the threats, which claim to be from a religious group and which criticize the professors for backing evolution, in the past week. On Monday morning, faculty members found packages of documents slipped under lab doors.
CU police Cmdr. Brad Wiesley said detectives continue to investigate the threats and have sent the documents for forensic testing. He said detectives believe a single individual may be behind the threats.
"It's purported to be representing a group," Wiesley said, "but I have not heard more than the name of one person."
Wiesley would not name the individual or discuss whether detectives had contacted the person.
Purported excerpts of the messages have appeared online at a site called The Panda's Thumb, which is devoted to critiquing "the claims of the antievolution movement." Hilliard said the posted messages are "consistent" with those sent to CU professors but couldn't confirm whether they are word-for- word copies.
In the messages, the individual cites plans to file legal charges against the professors, compares the professors to child molesters and mentions a pastor's message about killing "the enemies of Christian society."
"But I believe it is far more effective to take up a pen to kill the enemies of Truth," the message states.
"I charge you and your devilutionist colleagues with being the source of every imaginable evil in our society," another reads. "... I charge you with being a murderer of souls."
Hilliard said the university prides itself on being a place where diverse views are accepted and debated.
"What he's doing," Hilliard said, "is way beyond debate."
it wasn't mean to be overly sarcastic. it was attempting to use a metaphor that explained the source of said frustration in a more deliberate fashion by making it apparent how ridiculous the arguments against science and reason science teachers in the states have to deal with from parents and students from strong religious backgrounds. And since biological evolution is as certain as 2+2=4, and the arguments we deal with are about as misinformed as 2+2=3, and since many of the 'moral' arguments you deal with are about as ridiculous as a moral argument against 2+2=4 the metaphor was simply a way to make the whole issue clearer. And the voice of the 2+2=3 crowd can be a strong one that the country's science teachers are continually being urged to be both vigilant towards and vocal about. So its not a matter of bitterness, or being upset because "I can't get everyone to believe exactly what I do" or whatever plained accused me of and asked me about at the same time. It's the frustration that stems from having to continually be distracted from the process of science education (in a much larger picture than just in the classroom) to deal with the public's perception of a debate that simply doesn't exist. So the best way I could describe my frustration would be to compare it to the frustration the country's mathematicians would have if they had to routinely address the '2+2' debates as they attempted to teach math and increase the public's perception of the subject in general.
So yea, really nothing more I can say. If you get, great, if not, great. If you are above the emotion of frustration now and then, more power to you.
Last edited by tnf on Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
plained wants to chastise people for trying to make others accept their feelings and beliefs; and at the same time he is trying to be the authority on whether you deserve to be frustrated or not.
