Jump to content

User talk:Mamgeorge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mamgeorge (talk | contribs) at 20:41, 31 July 2006 (→Science & Religion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Religion

Nonreligious

The label "nonreligious person" is a true oxymoron. It is impossible for anyone to exist without deeply held beliefs that are unprovable. The man golfing on Sunday will kill for his right to do so; or kill the possibilities that prevent it. When pressed to defend his choices, his manner will exhibit the same irrationality of any self respecting fanatic. Such a one assumes his choices do not have eternal consequences, pretends he is not perpetuating a system, and in all cases, believes something unprovable about his rights. Are these unprovable values inherently "better" than the claims of any competing philosophy? Not for the tolerant!

Behavior comes from beliefs. It is impossible to act out a behavior without some internal expectation. In all areas of behavior: whether in business, politics, government, etc., your behavior is controlled by your beliefs (such as in your resulting actions on taxes, education, healthcare, abortion, justice, punishment, separation of church & state, burial, etc.). Any "rational" position depends ultimately upon the unprovable assumptions that judge between actions.

Inclusiveness

Most "tolerant" people piously assert the value of their doubts, and the resulting choices, as if they have intrinsic value. After that assumption is the larger one that it does not matter what we believe, or that all beliefs are equal. Such "tolerance" claims offending contradictions between, say, Hinduism and Islam, can be syncretized without destroying the essence of either. This sterilization "forces" the belief that only what does not contradict has value, or that only global acceptence is required for truth. This perpetutes the claim that unique claims have no value; merely another exclusive claim which in itself is an unprovable belief.

If by nonreligious someone dares to say "I believe in spirituality, I just do not support organized religion"; they are clearly failing to face this ugly truth. The insistant acceptance of personally chosen values has no moral authority over the worshippers whose faith requires them to disembowel tortured innocents against their will (see Aztec, Korowai, etc.). The "nonreligious" person who disagrees with that has failed to think through the effects of their beliefs.
The root of atheists, agnostics, "nonreligious", "new-agers", mystics, and any other nonformal religion is ultimately: the self. The picking and choosing of values, no matter how "pious", ultimately comes from the "human spirit" of the chooser. For those that do not recognize an authoritative guide, they become the Ultimate Judge by default. Those who claim "religion" but ultimately create the standards they use are guilty of the same: their god is themselves; they answer only to themselves (which, by the way, is a foundational attack on the root of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, & Hinduism). What is so fascinating about this is the apparant blindness caused by terms like "agnostic"; because in effect, whether you believe there may be a god or not is less important than the final decision that you will control the value of right and wrong.
Such saccarin sentiments are sweet for issues like choosing beer, "Precious Moments" statues, and burial caskets, but unviels its diseased logic when you recognize the cause of pain. For every one death from a natural disaster "without cause", hundreds brutally die, and are dying, from the hands of their fellow man, with a "human" cause.

Inclusiveness Causes

It is probable that the use of this idea is to prevent embarrassment by association with negative parts of religion, such as religious fanatics. This is a convenient deception, and has two parts:
1) The belief that religious errors are the fault of religion. Of course, any fanatic can be just as self determined; ignorantly (or otherwise) acting on motives that do not perpetuate the priorities of religious founders. In such a case, it is not the religion, but again, the "human spirit" providing the drive. Thus we have a "straw man"; for example, blaming Catholicism when a professed Catholic acts in ways not supported by the church. See article below on violence.
2) The need to pacify society. Note that this behavior results from the belief in the societies intrinsic value; the choice of accepting societal demands is as much of a religion, complete with rules (norms), priests (the popular), and punishments (avoidance). It appears that, at this time, claiming the system is intrinsically flawed is more socially supportive; probably due to the easily manipulated state of the aquiescent in a market society.
notes:
"Human Spirit", of course, is capable of much that is beautiful; the issue is one of moral authority.
mamgeorge 21:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judgmental

Beliefs come from our external shaping and internal tendencies. the history of human purity proves both must be judged. The concept that judgment is inappropriate is a culturally perpetuated myth apparently intended to defend a pluralistic worldview. It is often defended from a corrupt interperatation of the Christian scripture "Judge not..." (Matt 7:1).

Of course, this is a perversion of the intent, revealed simply by reading the net few verses. In Matt 7:6 of the same chapter we see that Matt 7:1 identifies a different use of the word. This "dual use" is clearly identified in John 7:24. It includes at least two approaches;
1) Judgement used for control. This includes unfair comparisons, based on appearances, or personal standards. Matt 7:1, et. al. This is the "wrong judgement" of John 7:24.
2) Judgement used for evaluation. This includes measured comparisons, based on intent, or Godly standards. Matt 7:6, et. al. This is the "right judgement" of John 7:24.
Possibly this sloppy exegesis comes from the attempt to minimize moral reaction by an ad hominem attack. This is deduced from the use of the phrase as an invective (i.e., an attack); an amoralist presumes a greater understanding than the moralist; presumably one who can not supply the balance of the scripture to match the sense of impropriety.
for example, imagine a person who recognizes that something is wrong but has not learned how to verbalize why. The phrase "judge not" is used out of context to imply to this person that no questioning at all is appropriate. It is often followed by the phrase "all beliefs are equal". Apparantly, this has been common enough in our culture to replace the intended meaning. "Judge not" becomes "Shut up. My way is right. You do not have the right to question it. Your contribution is worthless." The opposite is true; we are commanded to question everything, especially our rights, and our appropriateness to question as well; with the intent of understanding the governing motives and recognizing the global effects.
mamgeorge 21:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violence & Injustice

The accusation that religion is the cause of wars apparantly masks a terrified denial of the root causes. Wars are born in the violence, lust, or foolishness of the "human spirit". None of the religious founders (Jesus, Mohammed, Vyasa, Buddha, Laozi, who account for 80% of human beliefs) intended to perpetuate war or violence.

The justifications for violence come from the human soul. Not even the devil is powerful enough to be blamed for that. It is our own "human spirit" that athiests, agnostics, and the "nonreligious" want to extol as worthy of setting a moral policy. If babies were born "inherently" good, then immorality could not perpetuate.
The effectiveness of ideologies may be debated; but not the source. Hostility never needed formalized ideology to breed, and no instituionalization removes it. It is in our soul; to deny this is to deny ourselves and make smokescreens to protect our wounded pride. Such accusations for any ideology is probably unintentional by the accuser. The frightening aspect of the demandingness of an undesired ideology is much easier to blame than facing the implications of what "freedom of choice" really means.

Sadly, what can be applied to "religious" wars can be applied to other atrocities; Inquisitions, Book burnings, Imperialism, Proselytizing, and other actions are merely the natural expressions of the "Human Spirit"; violence, control, greed, and pride come from us. The mere fact that someone can ask "What Would Jesus/Mohammed/Vyasa/Buddha/Laozi Do" shows that there is a distinction between an "enlightened" undertanding and a "natural" one.

mamgeorge 21:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science & Religion

I would like to affirm a set of ideas that are normally seen as contradicting or exclusive: I believe the Bible is Gods word, and truly enjoy nearly all branches of science.

There is often tremendous conflict between these positions, particularly on statements regarding Creation & Evolution. The reality to me is that both positions are probably unresolvable, must be embraced, and the conflicts acknowledged.

Honestly, we know so little about the universe. Consider our more recent discoveries:

Does not discovery reveal the transient nature of understanding? Is not every carefully documented observation ultimately open to a redifinition tha undergirds the assumptions such details are dependant upon? If so, observational truth appears as elusive as philosophical consensus. Is then truth elusive?
The book "Contact" (by Carl Sagan) exposes this quandry with appropriate vulnerability. In it, he portrays a scientist forced to describe something wonderful without evidence. He even rejects a secular conclusion (i.e. numinous (ultimately a secular cause for religion). It was more than clever; it was honest.
mamgeorge 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science

Biology, Taxonomy

Passerine

Humanities

Chinese mythology

Chinese Literature

Chinese Formatting

Formatting

Thanks for adding several missing articles. You don't necessarily have to clear out the clean-up tags - they're there to notify other editors of articles that may need to be formatted to become more suitable as an article. For a general guide to formatting for Chinese-related articles, see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) & Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). See: Du Fu as an example of excellent formatting for Chinese-related articles. Hope that helps--Confuzion 23:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confuzion, Thanks for the help and advice. I personally would like to see characters and numbered pinyin become the norm (recommendations I made in "MOS for China articles"), but I do not expect this to become the norm!
mamgeorge 13:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on Pinyin

Hi, thanks for your contributions on the Chinese mythology page. Just a few notes about Pinyin.

1. The Pinyin for 女媧 is "Nüwa" not "Nuwa". "女" is pronounced "Nü" as in "Nyu", not "Nu" as in "Noo".

2. When denoting a Chinese word or phrase by Pinyin, it is represented with one "word". If it is a proper noun, only the first letter is capitalised. Thus, its "Hanyu Pinyin", NOT "HanYu PinYin", and thus "Shangdi" not "ShangDi".

3. The same for books and authors: it's "Shijing" or "Shi Jing" (depending on whether you think its one or two words), but NOT "ShiJing". "Mozi" not "MoZi".

Hope that helps. --Sumple (Talk) 22:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sumple, Thank you for your corrections. The mistakes were due to my "greenness". I went back and modified nearly every page I butchered in order to update its conformity. After an edit war with someone committed to preserving Wade-Giles (no joke) I was very willing to use a more standardized practice.
mamgeorge 12:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Hi, I commend you on being so patient in dealing with the user in question. I'm not sure if I'm the best person to mediate this dispute since I've had some difficulties with this particular user myself in the past. It seems that you've tried to make an effort to communicate on the talk pages, but the other user has not been willing to discuss the issue. I think it's reasonable to assume that there's doubt regarding the validity of Lie Yukou as a real historical figure - I'm sure it's not just Giles.

I do find many of this particular user's habits to be rather troublesome; the user in question has also removed information at Sun Tzu that had questioned whether Sun Tzu was a real person (A view shared by many scholars, besides Giles). You might want to check out Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. You can ask for other user's input on this user's conduct by making a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (Maybe the best step to take at the moment). If that doesn't work, you can also request mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Hope that helps--Confuzion 00:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mamgeorge&oldid=66918291"