Pick Up vs. Your religion conflict

[Guest]

[quote1235261251=Just/Us]
[quote1235232611=Sleek] response source is from wikipedia! :P Even I can write stuff on there. You can't really trust it.[/quote1235232611]

[link=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html]Check out this news article that says Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica[/link]


[/quote1235261251]

Medias such as news aren't 100% correct all the time. You shouldn't rely on those articles that were reported by some staff writer. I do agree wikipedia has some great and accurate stuff but not 100% of those are correct.

I don't think you should believe all the information provided in certain aspect of complicated thing such as religion on wiki. I wish wiki explained all the mysterious things that religions have.
Just because wiki is AS accurate AS britannica doesn't mean that all the issues it explains are reliable. I bet some are 100% correct and some aren't.

[Guest]

[quote1235262251=JJE]
LOL didn't read this particular wikipedia entry Bullrun but are you really trying to tell us Wikipedia is a super reliable source? We joke all the time at work about one of our co-workers who had a wikipedia entry describing him as a 'wunderkind'. Wikipedia is great, but not an authoritative source just because it fits your particular argument. There's some real good stuff on it, true... but authoritative -- no.

I'm curious where the 'religious self righteousness' in this thread is? Seen some religious bigotry, but that's about it.

Group theory? Dependence on the stupid group of people known as voters in this country is what is flushing it down the toilet. The group is the reason no one trusts the free market anymore, because the group has decided perceived handouts from the government are more important to them than the big picture. And if you're telling me a group of stupid people collectively is smarter than one extremely bright, intelligent leader -- then maybe you should start selling bridges as well, because I sure don't believe that at all. I'll bet a group could come up with all kinds of beliefs you don't agree with BR :)

Westfall had one of the better responses and one of the few who actually answered the original post rather than going off on his own personal rant/tangent. Either you reconcile the differences or choose to go against your own belief and face what you believe might be the consequences.

Personally, I don't listen to others and make my own decisions on these kinds of issues based on all the available information and a lot of deep thought. In the end it's the kind of decision you have to live with yourself over and not for what someone else says you should believe. If you believe the bible is the 100% literal word of god, then you better start following all it prescribes and not just in terms of sex. If, however, you believe the bible is a collection of religious stories and beliefs written by men (who are by definition within the bible itself fallible sinners) and put together hundreds of years after Jesus' lifetime, then its reasonable to read it and know that much of it is a reflection of the time it was written in (for example in the old testament where slavery is considered just fine and dandy) -- and make moral judgements based on philosophical principles and ideals that you can see being truly consistent with how you personally perceive god. For example, me personally -- I can't see god sending someone to hell because he chose to have premarital sex (or a variety of other things many conservative christians believe). That's not the kind of god I could ever choose to believe in. That doesn't mean because of that I automatically have to believe no god exists either.

Even if you don't believe in god or jesus at all, or even if he ever existed, I still think there is a lot of wisdom in many of his teachings and to just discard that based on other factors is ignorant. It's like saying 'well I hate romans and greeks, so that means their philosophies are ignorant and useless.' Unfortunately I see a lot of that attitude in this thread.

I certainly get it, all the fundamentalist preachers and self righteous christians have turned off a lot of people and so anything christian is to be ragged on mercilessly. It does get to a point though where antichristianity is as ignorant as the bible thumpers, though.

And please don't take this as being from some hard core christian or something, I don't even go to church - in fact I personally believe the majority of people who do are hypocrites because most don't really live christian lifestyles and just go becaue they think they should. That doesn't mean I see no value in religion or christanity either -- I just have my own take on it (that doesn't involve attacking it at any mention).

Rant/tangent mode: off
[/quote1235262251]


Hmmm, study after study has shown that a LARGE group of people tend to make better decisions assuming that they have ALL of the infomration necessary to make said decision.

You cited the election. People didn't have all of the information, they just heard rhetoric and voted for a personality. They didn't have all of the information to make a proper decision because the Obamanation didn't give all of the information.

An example of group theory at work:

Francis Galton, (1822-1911)a British Scientist who conducted anthropometric and psychometric studies on human behavior, is famous for his "ox" guesstimation study. Dr. Galton queried a crowd about the weight of an ox, and their guesses compiled and averaged were within one pound of its actual weight.

Now, greed and fear can distort the way the group 'thinks' thus giving up irrational decisions.

From an economics and government perspective, I would rather rely on groups to make decisions than a centralized individual...free market vs. centralized planning...it seems that you are a proponent of the former rather than the latter.

You got off on your tangent a little too soon bro...