"God Bless America!"

[zadojla]

native americans are members of north american tribes [american indian, eskimo, aleut and native hawaiians]. the aztecs lived and practiced in mexico. as far as i know most geographers do not concider mexico to be a part of central and therefore north america. but then maybe i am 'quibbling'.

I went looking, and we're both "right". "Native American" is defined by the US government's Bureau of Indian Affairs as you say, although I have found references that use the term for all indigenous peoples of North and South America. Anthropologists used to, when I got my degree, make a distinction between the "Meso-American" civilizations such as the Aztecs and Maya (there were others less famous), and the "Indians" in what is now the US and Canada. This was because there were such differences they had to be studued in different ways. The civilizations were history, long-gone, and we had little ethnographic information. The "Indians" still had liing descendents, but little known history, and were studied by more traditional ethnographic means.

So, I generally use "native american" in the more general sense, but I was also confused, because Mexico and Central America are geographically part of the North American continent. We used the term "meso-American" because Mexico was not included by the term "Central America", which was defined as the countries between Mexico and Columbia when I went to school.

Anyway, now I understand you, and I understand why I didn't understand you.

[Fishteacher73]

so can anyone think of how buddism (or native american spiritualism for that matter) has caused great suffering in the world or not?

 

I think there have been a few posts to illustrate that the Indiginous Americans were all not peaceful nature loving peoples. They were routinely savage and brutal in their warring amongst themselves.

 

As for Buddism...I think a lot of the issue with religion stems mainly from the other two dominant religions, Christianity and Islam. Buddism is much more a philiosophy than a religion in a sense. Many of the Buddist sects believe that they have found a path to enlightenment, not the path to enlightenment. Buddism does not require conversion to reach zen/heaven/valhalla/etc. where as Christainity and Islam do. The problems arise from the institution of these organized religions and their use in subjugating "others". They are by definition segregationist, and this classification into "right" and "wrong" has been used to justify the precieved inferiority of those that do not "belong". It is preached that it is the believer's duty to "spread the word".

 

Now I feel its absolutly true that religion was the basis for almost all art and literature. The church was really the only institution tha could afford both the material costs, as well as the manpower. There was scattered "folk" art used as decoration around, but much of this was faith based as well, or just representaions of daily items. I really do not know of any art that did not have rligious affiliation until the Renaissance, aside from portriature. (I'm not a art history expert by any means though).

[motherengine]

I went looking, and we're both "right". "Native American" is defined by the US government's Bureau of Indian Affairs as you say, although I have found references that use the term for all indigenous peoples of North and South America. Anthropologists used to, when I got my degree, make a distinction between the "Meso-American" civilizations such as the Aztecs and Maya (there were others less famous), and the "Indians" in what is now the US and Canada. This was because there were such differences they had to be studued in different ways. The civilizations were history, long-gone, and we had little ethnographic information. The "Indians" still had liing descendents, but little known history, and were studied by more traditional ethnographic means.

So, I generally use "native american" in the more general sense, but I was also confused, because Mexico and Central America are geographically part of the North American continent. We used the term "meso-American" because Mexico was not included by the term "Central America", which was defined as the countries between Mexico and Columbia when I went to school.

Anyway, now I understand you, and I understand why I didn't understand you.

 

understandable. actually i was far too quick in distiguishing here. my inadequate views concerning geology have made my dislocation of the aztecs from 'indian' tribal peoples seem suspect (even racist possibaly) and so i retract the entire line of argumentation.

[IrishEyes]

understandable. actually i was far too quick in distiguishing here. my inadequate views concerning geology have made my dislocation of the aztecs from 'indian' tribal peoples seem suspect (even racist possibaly) and so i retract the entire line of argumentation.

do you mean 'geography'?

and i don't think any of us meant to imply that you were racist.

however, as a 'Native' American, I am well aware that there are far more groups of 'native' people than the BIA is willing to acknowledge. of course, as it is still called the Bureau of Indian Affairs, i guess that explains a lot, eh?

[motherengine]

do you mean 'geography'?

and i don't think any of us meant to imply that you were racist.

 

yes that is the word my half asleep mind was attempting to write.

 

i don't think anyone was implying that i was being racist, just that i believe the inference could be made from what i wrote.

[motherengine]

But even if I were to grant you all of this, the Anasazi were most definitely in New Mexico and Arizona. There has been lots of evidence of sacrificial ceremonies found in the Anasazi sites like the famous cliff dwellings in Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon...

 

yes i did ignore that particular point of your statement.

[motherengine]

Hey, some of my best friends are witches! Willow, Phoebe, Piper, Prue and Paige (oops! wrong series!) are definitely not evil--although Willow did have that phase after Jonathan shot Tara...

 

No seriously, wiccans are almost always pacifists, but they're like Gypsies and Jews: they get blamed for everything and it becomes impossible to separate truth from fantasy.

 

i agree. twas my point.

[motherengine]

As for Buddism...I think a lot of the issue with religion stems mainly from the other two dominant religions, Christianity and Islam. Buddism is much more a philiosophy than a religion in a sense.

 

basically i am just trying to point out how erroneous it is to condem all world religious based on a negative reaction to christianity's influence. technically buddism is a religion (check out wikipedia's defintions of religion, it is actually quite extensive) as is hinduism and sufism and countless other philosophical based creeds dealing with death and moral behavior. christianity and islamic teachings have more direct links to negative influence (the possible exception being hinduism which may or may not bear the mark of 'sati') but even they can be defended as important aspect of culture.

[motherengine]

Surely it's far more arrogant to say that there is a god, yet be unable to show any kind of evidence. After all, this would assume that you are special in some way, making you one of the selected ones who can see this god. Then I suppose god, too, is rather arrogant.

 

arrogant or delusional or hopeful. the arrogance i was centering on has nothing to do with faith. is it more arrogant to confuse belief with fact or to use facts to support a biased view? your statement [that religion is useless] is still one made from ignorance and (i believe) arrogance and this is what i was pointing out, regardless of its degree.

[motherengine]

For me too. After all, why would people use nothing but a "system of measurement" to guide them? I find it strange that religion is everything for some people. All or nothing.

 

But if people know that there is absolutely no basis for their beliefs, it surely follows that they know it might very well not be true at all. Wouldn't the utter lack of evidence or support actually cause greater discomfort?

 

And what if purple unicorns help people get through the day? You don't know that, do you? There is no difference.

 

1- what you find strange is simply your inability to understand the complexity of other peoples minds coming back at you. i have this experience with people who disregard religion as useless.

 

2- as far as a greater discomfort occuring because of facts not correlating to faith, i think you are missing the fundamental aspect of faith. those whose belief trembles in the wake of a lack of empirical evidence have lost their faith. another one of those 'strange' things i would imagine.

 

3- where is are the scriptural writings concerning how purple unicorns can give eternal life or comfort to the weary masses or the apologists and philosophers lining up in support of their faith in these creatures you must be referring to if you actually see no differance here?

[Stargazer]

1- what you find strange is simply your inability to understand the complexity of other peoples minds coming back at you. i have this experience with people who disregard religion as useless.

No that's not what I find strange.

 

2- as far as a greater discomfort occuring because of facts not correlating to faith, i think you are missing the fundamental aspect of faith. those whose belief trembles in the wake of a lack of empirical evidence have lost their faith. another one of those 'strange' things i would imagine.

Actually, faith is when you believe something without any evidence. The more evidence and data you have, the less faith it takes. So really, the more faith, the less support for it.

 

3- where is are the scriptural writings concerning how purple unicorns can give eternal life or comfort to the weary masses or the apologists and philosophers lining up in support of their faith in these creatures you must be referring to if you actually see no differance here?

Why are scriptural writings necessary, or plenty of people talking about it? None of that would be evidence.

Isn't apologetics something that is necessary to protect ideas that can't stand on their own?

[C1ay]

anyway, my opinion is, this statement is stupid and foolish. plain and simple.

 

I don't see it as a statement myself. I see it as a request from those which believe in him/her/it. It's kind of like blessing someone when they sneeze, you're trying to wish some divine help on them for their ills.

[TacoChang]

"Judo Chop!"

Austin Powers

 

First of all, I would like to apologize for my erronious statistic regarding Sweden. I was using antiquated data and was simply hitting Stargazer below the belt. Suicide is still considered an epidemeic, however in that nation as in the rest of Scandinavia. They are taking measures to curb it with varying degrees of success (puttin' prozac in the water or somthin')

 

I have taken the time to read Stargazer's (and others) discourse in my absence and have this last thing to say to him:

 

"...but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

Albert Einstein.

 

Listen hoss, I wasn't trying to defend religion so much as the possiblity of the validity of religion. Keep that in mind. Always. Also, get yourself a nice book on critical thinking and, with said book still in your lap, read through everything you have past written on this beautiful forum and anylize. You will be a better person for it (yes, everyone else, and I also make mistakes from time to time. I do not deny this.)

[Stargazer]

They are taking measures to curb it with varying degrees of success (puttin' prozac in the water or somthin')

You know, I've seen people say so many crazy things that I'm no longer sure when they are joking, using sarcasm or if they're actually serious.

 

I have taken the time to read Stargazer's (and others) discourse in my absence and have this last thing to say to him:

 

"...but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

Albert Einstein.

Absolutely. I just think that religion has no validity that we have seen so far despite numerous religions and numerous gods through several millennia. Why should I even consider religion after it being nothing but a series of failures? Why should I consider religion when there is science and reason?

 

Listen hoss, I wasn't trying to defend religion so much as the possiblity of the validity of religion. Keep that in mind. Always. Also, get yourself a nice book on critical thinking and, with said book still in your lap, read through everything you have past written on this beautiful forum and anylize. You will be a better person for it (yes, everyone else, and I also make mistakes from time to time. I do not deny this.)

I'm not sure if by "hoss" you mean me, but then again that's not possible. You are telling me to read more books on critical thinking? Is that correct? Worst insult I've recieved in these boards so far. You're telling a skeptic to be more skeptical even though you seem to dislike my skepticism?

[motherengine]

Why are scriptural writings necessary, or plenty of people talking about it? None of that would be evidence.

Isn't apologetics something that is necessary to protect ideas that can't stand on their own?

 

i am not talking about evidence but the obvious differance between an imaginary animal YOU made up to trivialize religion and an entity (invented or not) that has enormous historical relevance regardless of how YOU see it made irrelevant by your faith in scientific fact as representing absolute reality. no idea can stand on its own. faith is required for anything outside of descarte's famous theorem. again, try reading scripture before you attack it. specifically what ideas are you saying 'can't stand on their own' anyway?

[Fishteacher73]

People have had many differnt faiths that had huge implications on mankind that we now scoff at the idea of (but still many cling to the old man in the sky for some reasson). The religions of the ancient Egyptian, Romans, Greeks, etc. all had huge impacts on how and why mankind did what it did, yet the concept of a god that controls the rain is thought a bit foolish today. Historical relevance has no weight in a scientific dialogue. Earth centered universes and flat Earths had huge historical impact on society, but they were wrong and the affect on the population is of little use in determining their scientific merit.

[motherengine]

You are telling me to read more books on critical thinking? Is that correct? Worst insult I've recieved in these boards so far. You're telling a skeptic to be more skeptical even though you seem to dislike my skepticism?

 

i think he was suggesting you read more about critical thinking because some of your arguments are quite weak yet you don't seem to be aware of this as you keep repeating them. critical thinking is a system concerning accuracy in reasoning which is not the same thing as having skepticism at all. when i pointed out what i saw as arrogance in your statement concerning religion as useless instead of responding specifically to what i had written you evaded it by turning the question in on itself:

 

1- 'religion is useless'

 

2- 'this is an arrogant and ignorance statement'

 

3- 'those who support religion are arrogant and ignorant'

 

do you see how number 3 has nothing to do with the statement in number 2? this is what could be called a critical thinking error. so is number 2 actually. a more critical and relevant answer for 2 would actually be 'religion has use if one person finds it useful and because many people have made the claim that religion is useful to them it can be (albiet unempirically but still with much probablity) inferred that religion is useful'. all of this has nothing to do with assuming a flaw and questioning but with calculating and addressing the terms of communication in a debate. critical thinking can be appied to skepticism and it can also be applied to support a belief (religious or otherwise).