It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does Religious Conservatism Embrace Ignorance?

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh well carry on in your putting the cart ahead of the horse thread . Next up we have a egg that became a monkey . lol




posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
It has to be up to the smarter people to teach the rest of us the error of our ways.

We need, nay, we rely on the smart and brilliant people to direct us onto the path of true enlightenment.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Annee



Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions,[1][2][3][4] but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.[5][6][7][8] Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[9][10] While anti-statism is central,[11] anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system
This based on elder-ship . First order of rank .


Seriously? Maybe on your own small island.

Not for 320+ million people.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

The school system is just ONE part of the problem, but it isn't the part that I was trying to highlight here. In fact, if we were to fix the problems highlighted in the OP, then it would be a LOT easier to fix the problems with our public school standards. I'm pointing out the embracing of ignorance by the right through using strawmans and other lies so that they don't have to update their thinking even though it has been proven wrong many times over.


Can you pick one specific?

Not the schools.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Annee



What is your solution?

If you do away with something - - you have to replace it with something.


Why do we have to replace the parties with something else? The system is open for anyone to run for any office as long as they meet the requirements of age, citizenship, etc. If a candidate did not have a letter next to their name to designate their party affiliation, it would force the voter to actually look in to the candidate's positions instead of voting for their favorite "team".

The purpose of the political parties is to consolidate power in to a central authority that pushes candidates towards certain special interests or issues.

We do not need anything to replace the parties.


There already is several parties besides the main 2.

None of them have made a dent.

Next solution?



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So, why not attempt to create and practice a system of interaction that enables and encourages cooperation instead of spending the same time and resources "correcting" the errors?


We HAVE such a system and it worked wonderfully up until this Christian Nation myth started hitting the scenes. How can two groups of people reach common ground if their entire viewpoints are based on two completely different realities?


It isn't just a matter of "recognizing alternative viewpoints," it's about taking the actual steps to design and participate in a system that allows for mutual exploration and progress.


How can you have mutual exploration and progress if one of the groups in question stubbornly refuses to update its thinking when new evidence is presented and shown?


In one course, effort is spent on winning the battle. In the other, it is spent on mutual progress. Which do you feel is more productive, given that it's just as likely they will convince you that you are "wrong?"


Look, I have no problem debating and coming to compromises on honest to god opinions. However, the religious right seems to think that debating FACTS is an actual debate worth having. When we have these debates though, we don't get time to discuss any solutions to any problems these FACTS are causing.

Case in point. Man Made Climate Change. Instead of trying to debate ways to stop it, the religious right seems to think that we should still be having a debate on whether it is happening or not. Let's disregard whether it is true or not for a second here. Does anyone HONESTLY think that dumping tons of carbon into the air is going for the environment, whether it effects climate or not? If man made climate change really DOES turn out to be fake, is it REALLY such a bad thing that while we believed it was real, we stopped outputting a major pollutant into the air? See these are all points that are blatantly ignored so that the religious right can keep arguing over facts instead of solutions.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Q: Why does Religious Conservatism Embrace Ignorance?

A: The simplest answer: control. Especially in male-dominated patriarchal societies, from which the strictest form of religious control comes from, it's most effective upon the ignorant.
edit on 29-5-2015 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

We HAVE such a system and it worked wonderfully up until this Christian Nation myth started hitting the scenes. How can two groups of people reach common ground if their entire viewpoints are based on two completely different realities?


I'm going to support that.

Jerry Brown said when he first entered politics - - you'd invite your opponent to dinner - - hash out your differences - - and come up with a solution.

Today - - they won't even talk to you. It's their way or the highway.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee



There already is several parties besides the main 2.



I understand that, but I was not saying that we need more parties to compete with the Democrats and Republicans.



None of them have made a dent.


That's because all power has been consolidated in to the two major parties. These two parties have a stranglehold on the political process.



Next solution?


I refer back to my original point. Dissolve all political parties and allow the individual to run for office without the R or D designation. There is no need for any thing else or something new to replace the parties with either.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

I refer back to my original point. Dissolve all political parties and allow the individual to run for office without the R or D designation. There is no need for any thing else or something new to replace the parties with either.


That is not going to happen.

No man is an island.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

The school system is just ONE part of the problem, but it isn't the part that I was trying to highlight here. In fact, if we were to fix the problems highlighted in the OP, then it would be a LOT easier to fix the problems with our public school standards. I'm pointing out the embracing of ignorance by the right through using strawmans and other lies so that they don't have to update their thinking even though it has been proven wrong many times over.


Can you pick one specific?

Not the schools.


The rights insistence on thinking that while being undereducated on something, they are better informed on the matter than people who have been studying it their whole lives. Then building strawmans to attack it. The right's insistence on attacking academia by calling it such stupid names as "liberal indoctrination" centers. Like being better informed just SUDDENLY makes you a liberal or something.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

But like I pointed out earlier, the Democratic party isn't godless either. It is majority Christian as well.

The difference between the right and left in this instance comes down to fundamentalism vs "spiritualism". The Christian right would like to see a theocracy in this country, in practice, if not by name. The left takes a more "spiritual" approach to Christianity, and therefore, see their Christianity as something more of a personal matter, than a public one that should dictate everyone elses life.

It's rigid legalism vs guiding principles. The wrath of god vs a personal relationship with the "divine". I think this is at least partially where the great divide is.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

The school system is just ONE part of the problem, but it isn't the part that I was trying to highlight here. In fact, if we were to fix the problems highlighted in the OP, then it would be a LOT easier to fix the problems with our public school standards. I'm pointing out the embracing of ignorance by the right through using strawmans and other lies so that they don't have to update their thinking even though it has been proven wrong many times over.


Can you pick one specific?

Not the schools.


The rights insistence on thinking that while being undereducated on something, they are better informed on the matter than people who have been studying it their whole lives. Then building strawmans to attack it. The right's insistence on attacking academia by calling it such stupid names as "liberal indoctrination" centers. Like being better informed just SUDDENLY makes you a liberal or something.


Liberal indoctrination is about thinking instead of control.

Fear based religion is about mind control.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

$imple-
Divide and Conquer so you wont see "us"

Who is us?

Genesis 3 verse 22
Elohim- Apex predatory reptilian species---Fear Feed Fight and Fornicate. That's all they know.

Naturally its so absurd and out there in left field you will never buy it.
Might add its not a David Icke or Sitchin concept or theory. Its a historical one.
edit on 29-5-2015 by superluminal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Ah yes, I haven't mentioned the phrase "critical thinking" in the thread yet, but you are right. The better the education, the better your critical thinking skills. Therefore it reasons that a person with better critical thinking skills would easily see the flaws in logic with the right's strawmans.

Though I kind of hope it would be kind of a HUGE red flag that whenever someone goes off and becomes better educated, they stop identifying with the right because they don't believe the claims anymore. But nope, instead just a rationalization that they are straight up indoctrinating them to believe otherwise... It's like the whole movement not only embraces ignorance but is self-perpetuating. It's absurd!



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Though I kind of hope it would be kind of a HUGE red flag that whenever someone goes off and becomes better educated, they stop identifying with the right because they don't believe the claims anymore. But nope, instead just a rationalization that they are straight up indoctrinating them to believe otherwise... It's like the whole movement not only embraces ignorance but is self-perpetuating. It's absurd!


I don't necessarily agree with that.

I think you need to separate the leaders and followers.

Being an educated intelligent leader does not mean you are honest and fair to everyone.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
We have a Senate, we have a Congress - - - and a figurehead for those who like to point a finger of blame.

Checks and Balances. Why aren't they working? Or are they?



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Look, by no means am I suggesting that intelligence leads to altruism. What it DOES give you is the critical thinking skills so that you can properly vet these questionable leaders before you vote for them. It gives you the critical thinking skills to identify blatant propaganda trying to get you to mindless vote one way. It gives you the critical thinking skills to think up solutions to problems instead of arguing if they exist or suggesting band-aid fixes. And at the very LEAST, it gives you the critical thinking skills to debate the issues intelligently, even if you don't agree with the issue in question.

I have nothing against someone who holds an opinion other than mine. In fact, I welcome it. Alternate viewpoints have shown me things that I hadn't considered yet and have even led me to change my beliefs. I DON'T welcome unintelligent debate though. If you want to discuss an alternate viewpoint with me, I'd really appreciate it if you were actually properly informed on the subject instead of having just read a bunch of opinions from political pundits.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
It has to be up to the smarter people to teach the rest of us the error of our ways.

We need, nay, we rely on the smart and brilliant people to direct us onto the path of true enlightenment.


I must say that Rush and Ann Coulter have done a magnificent job!

However a little original thought would be nice.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
What it DOES give you is the critical thinking skills so that you can properly vet these questionable leaders before you vote for them. It gives you the critical thinking skills to identify blatant propaganda trying to get you to mindless vote one way. It gives you the critical thinking skills to think up solutions to problems instead of arguing if they exist or suggesting band-aid fixes. And at the very LEAST, it gives you the critical thinking skills to debate the issues intelligently, even if you don't agree with the issue in question.


I'm not the only one having trouble pin-pointing exactly what your point is. I've made comments to try and draw it out.

Your above paragraph does seem to provide clarity.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join