+TheAlabamaRambler Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 (edited) and if you want to make a point against tracts : follow the GC rule : trade up just take out the tract and trade up... with whatever you consider is "up". Well there ya go... a good answer! Anytime you see a Catholic tract in a cache trade up by replacing it with a Baptist one! Edited August 16, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 and if you want to make a point against tracts : follow the GC rule : trade up just take out the tract and trade up... with whatever you consider is "up". Well there ya go... a good answer! Anytime you see a Catholic tract in a cache trade up by replacing it with a Baptist one! I think to trade even it would take three Baptists ones (just kidding). I can't speak for Baptists, but 99.99% of Catholics leave normal swag like carabiners, geocoins and travel bugs. I'm not completely sure about that last 0.01%, but there are always exceptions to the rule. Link to comment
+wigglesworth Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 QUOTE(Roadtorque @ Aug 15 2008, 11:46 PM) Encouraging doubt makes no sense not only in religion but in anything where there is a teacher student relation. Encouraging doubt is to be encouraged. This is the basis of discovering the world around us. Challenge and investigate - it may well be that in the end the concept being challenged is sound but the journey to investigate may well have many positive side effects! Link to comment
Roadtorque Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 QUOTE(Roadtorque @ Aug 15 2008, 11:46 PM) Encouraging doubt makes no sense not only in religion but in anything where there is a teacher student relation. Encouraging doubt is to be encouraged. This is the basis of discovering the world around us. Challenge and investigate - it may well be that in the end the concept being challenged is sound but the journey to investigate may well have many positive side effects! See this is where the topic got changed. I agree that you should not accept anything at face value just because someone told it to you. I agree with you and KBI on that point. But what KBI basically said at first is " a good teacher will encourage you to doubt them". Or at least thats what I took from it. I'm saying that a teacher that starts class by saying "you have good reason to doubt everything I say" just took himself out of the teaching position. On the other hand a good teacher like KBI said that teaches and is not scared by students seeking alternate explinations and presenting them to the him is very good in my opinion too. This is the problem with KBI's post, he will state something and then kind of warp it on you to stab you in the back. Lets stick with the topic of what was said so we dont misunderstand anyone please Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 (edited) I found it, in a book by Richard Dawkins. Speaking of Richard Dawkins watch this intro. After the intro click on the link to the movie trailer and then watch the "NEW Super Trailer." P.S. I guess some of us are rebels. Edited August 16, 2008 by TrailGators Link to comment
Mushtang Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 QUOTE(Roadtorque @ Aug 15 2008, 11:46 PM) Encouraging doubt makes no sense not only in religion but in anything where there is a teacher student relation. Encouraging doubt is to be encouraged. This is the basis of discovering the world around us. Challenge and investigate - it may well be that in the end the concept being challenged is sound but the journey to investigate may well have many positive side effects! See this is where the topic got changed. I agree that you should not accept anything at face value just because someone told it to you. I agree with you and KBI on that point. But what KBI basically said at first is " a good teacher will encourage you to doubt them". Or at least thats what I took from it. I'm saying that a teacher that starts class by saying "you have good reason to doubt everything I say" just took himself out of the teaching position. On the other hand a good teacher like KBI said that teaches and is not scared by students seeking alternate explinations and presenting them to the him is very good in my opinion too. This is the problem with KBI's post, he will state something and then kind of warp it on you to stab you in the back. Lets stick with the topic of what was said so we dont misunderstand anyone please Wow, that's quite a stretch. You're saying that KBI is warping what you said to stab you in the back, yet where in the sentence "a good teacher will encourage you to doubt them" does it say anything about when or how they encourage it? You're warping what KBI said and adding "starts the class by saying you have good reason to doubt everything I say". Surly that's not the only way a teacher can encourage doubt. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(Roadtorque @ Aug 15 2008, 11:46 PM) Encouraging doubt makes no sense not only in religion but in anything where there is a teacher student relation. Encouraging doubt is to be encouraged. This is the basis of discovering the world around us. Challenge and investigate - it may well be that in the end the concept being challenged is sound but the journey to investigate may well have many positive side effects! See this is where the topic got changed. I agree that you should not accept anything at face value just because someone told it to you. I agree with you and KBI on that point. But what KBI basically said at first is " a good teacher will encourage you to doubt them". Or at least thats what I took from it. I'm saying that a teacher that starts class by saying "you have good reason to doubt everything I say" just took himself out of the teaching position. On the other hand a good teacher like KBI said that teaches and is not scared by students seeking alternate explinations and presenting them to the him is very good in my opinion too. This is the problem with KBI's post, he will state something and then kind of warp it on you to stab you in the back. Lets stick with the topic of what was said so we dont misunderstand anyone please Wow, that's quite a stretch. You're saying that KBI is warping what you said to stab you in the back, yet where in the sentence "a good teacher will encourage you to doubt them" does it say anything about when or how they encourage it? You're warping what KBI said and adding "starts the class by saying you have good reason to doubt everything I say". Surly that's not the only way a teacher can encourage doubt. Nobody is warping anything. KBI said something that could be taken many different ways. The one way that he meant is only crystal clear to him. The rest of have to guess. Then if someone guesses the wrong one then you guys jump all over the person for guessing wrong. This happens all the time and it constantly pulls these threads off the track. So do us a favor and clearly state what you mean so we don't waste a bunch of time. By the way, I get understand a teacher telling kids to question (better word than "doubt") when it comes to anything that science has never been able to prove. Science's goal is to try to answer these questions. If science can't answer a question then it needs to go back to the drawing board. Edited August 16, 2008 by TrailGators Link to comment
+KBI Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 I found it, in a book by Richard Dawkins. Speaking of Richard Dawkins watch this intro. After the intro click on the link to the movie trailer and then watch the "NEW Super Trailer." That’s too bad. I like Ben Stein. That’s disappointing to hear about him being involved in something like that. Mimicking Michael Moore won't help his credibility, either. I found an informative review of the movie here: link (My favorite part is the claim that “Darwinism” was responsible for the Holocaust. That should be a big credibility boost as well.) Also – and speaking of Michael Moore – remember what I said about anti-science types butchering evidence, misrepresenting theories, and taking quotes out of context whenever it suits their purposes? It would appear this movie you’ve found is another classic example of exactly that kind of deceit: link Intentionally misleading people in order to promote a pet dogma is dadgum close to evil, in my opinion. You don't suppose any good and wholesome people such as devout religious believers are associated with something this dishonest, do you? Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 (edited) I found it, in a book by Richard Dawkins. Speaking of Richard Dawkins watch this intro. After the intro click on the link to the movie trailer and then watch the "NEW Super Trailer." That's too bad. I like Ben Stein. That's disappointing to hear about him being involved in something like that. Mimicking Michael Moore won't help his credibility, either. I found an informative review of the movie here: link (My favorite part is the claim that "Darwinism" was responsible for the Holocaust. That should be a big credibility boost as well.) Also – and speaking of Michael Moore – remember what I said about anti-science types butchering evidence, misrepresenting theories, and taking quotes out of context whenever it suits their purposes? It would appear this movie you've found is another classic example of exactly that kind of deceit: link Intentionally misleading people in order to promote a pet dogma is dadgum close to evil, in my opinion. You don't suppose any good and wholesome people such as devout religious believers are associated with something this dishonest, do you? I thought what was in the trailer that I provided was interesting and made some good points worth discussing. I got a link to the trailer in an email and I have not seen the movie. It's too bad that the movie made some odd assertions after such a thought provoking trailer. Here is another review of the movie and the Wiki article. They make it sound more like Stein was saying that Hitler was "influenced" by Darwinism. Influenced or not you can't condemn science because of an insane freak. I guess I'll have to see the movie and not take someone else's word for it. Anyhow, the trailer did have some interesting points. P.S. I also do not like Michael Moore. P.P.S. Your last question sounds like a dig. Are you insinuating that the entire Jewish religion is somehow wrong because of one suggestion brought up in Ben Stein's movie? If that is not what you meant, you sure made it sound that way. Edited August 16, 2008 by TrailGators Link to comment
+KBI Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 Your last question sounds like a dig. Are you insinuating that the entire Jewish religion is somehow wrong because of one suggestion brought up in Ben Stein's movie? If that is not what you meant, you sure made it sound that way. I said nothing about “the entire Jewish religion.” What about my post made it sound like I said “the entire Jewish religion?” A strawman argument doesn't help your credibility. No, I questioned why the individuals who created this movie, if they believe their cause is legitimate and right, would see the need to revert to outright deception—and I further wondered, honestly, whether anyone capable of such deception considers themselves “religious.” What do you think? Do you think the makers of this film consider themselves religious? Do you think that, while promoting such dishonesty, they consider themselves good examples of the kinds of decency, truthfulness, honor, morality and virtue that their religion teaches? Link to comment
+KBI Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 Here is ... the Wiki article. Thanks. That link is interesting too. From the Wikipedia article: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial 2008 independent documentary film promoting intelligent design. The movie contends that mainstream science suppress criticism of both the evidence for evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the theory explaining this evidence. The film, hosted by Ben Stein, contends that this scientific theory contributed to the Nazi Holocaust, communism, atheism and Planned Parenthood. Furthermore, the film claims that American educators and scientists who believe that there might be evidence of intelligent design in nature are being persecuted for these beliefs. The general media response to the film has been largely unfavorable. It received a 8% ("Rotten") meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes. Multiple reviews, including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described the film as propaganda. The Chicago Tribune's conclusion was "Rating: 1 star (poor)," while the New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry." One of the few positive reviews appeared in Christianity Today. I never heard of this "conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" until you brought it up, but I don't think I'll be wasting my money on a ticket or DVD. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 Your last question sounds like a dig. Are you insinuating that the entire Jewish religion is somehow wrong because of one suggestion brought up in Ben Stein's movie? If that is not what you meant, you sure made it sound that way. I said nothing about "the entire Jewish religion." What about my post made it sound like I said "the entire Jewish religion?" A strawman argument doesn't help your credibility. No, I questioned why the individuals who created this movie, if they believe their cause is legitimate and right, would see the need to revert to outright deception—and I further wondered, honestly, whether anyone capable of such deception considers themselves "religious." What do you think? Do you think the makers of this film consider themselves religious? Do you think that, while promoting such dishonesty, they consider themselves good examples of the kinds of decency, truthfulness, honor, morality and virtue that their religion teaches? I got it from this statement: You don't suppose any good and wholesome people such as devout religious believers are associated with something this dishonest, do you? Ben Stein is Jewish and the Holocaust adversely impacted the Jewish people. So who else would you mean by religious people? I have no idea if the makers of this film consider themselves to be religious or not. Even if I did I wouldn't be condemn religion because of a movie. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 (edited) Here is ... the Wiki article. Thanks. That link is interesting too. From the Wikipedia article: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial 2008 independent documentary film promoting intelligent design. The movie contends that mainstream science suppress criticism of both the evidence for evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the theory explaining this evidence. The film, hosted by Ben Stein, contends that this scientific theory contributed to the Nazi Holocaust, communism, atheism and Planned Parenthood. Furthermore, the film claims that American educators and scientists who believe that there might be evidence of intelligent design in nature are being persecuted for these beliefs. The general media response to the film has been largely unfavorable. It received a 8% ("Rotten") meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes. Multiple reviews, including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described the film as propaganda. The Chicago Tribune's conclusion was "Rating: 1 star (poor)," while the New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry." One of the few positive reviews appeared in Christianity Today. I never heard of this "conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" until you brought it up, but I don't think I'll be wasting my money on a ticket or DVD. I might rent it. I typically like to view both sides of every coin before drawing my own conclusions. The movie does make some interesting points. I have the ability of taking the good stuff and leaving the bad stuff when I watch a movie or read a book. I do believe that there is some intolerance of religion going on these days. This thread provides plenty of evidence of that. However, there still are a lot of people who can look past a little piece of paper in cache and move on. Good for them! Edited August 16, 2008 by TrailGators Link to comment
Mushtang Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 KBI said something that could be taken many different ways. The one way that he meant is only crystal clear to him. The rest of have to guess. Then if someone guesses the wrong one then you guys jump all over the person for guessing wrong. This happens all the time and it constantly pulls these threads off the track. So do us a favor and clearly state what you mean so we don't waste a bunch of time. I see. So I guess we're the only ones that say things that could be taken more than one way, and get upset when someone takes it wrong???? I remember not too long ago you seemed to have the same problem. I think you guys are confusing the way I used the word care. So once again if you do something, it's just "one of those things". If we do the same thing, we're pulling threads off track and wasting time. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 (edited) KBI said something that could be taken many different ways. The one way that he meant is only crystal clear to him. The rest of have to guess. Then if someone guesses the wrong one then you guys jump all over the person for guessing wrong. This happens all the time and it constantly pulls these threads off the track. So do us a favor and clearly state what you mean so we don't waste a bunch of time. I see. So I guess we're the only ones that say things that could be taken more than one way, and get upset when someone takes it wrong???? I remember not too long ago you seemed to have the same problem. I think you guys are confusing the way I used the word care. So once again if you do something, it's just "one of those things". If we do the same thing, we're pulling threads off track and wasting time. Huh? When did I say it's just "one of those things" after I did that? Are you making stuff up? When I do it, I will take the time to try to better explain what I meant. What you justed posted was an example of that. Edited August 17, 2008 by TrailGators Link to comment
Mushtang Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 (edited) So once again if you do something, it's just "one of those things". If we do the same thing, we're pulling threads off track and wasting time. Huh? When did I say it's just "one of those things" after I did that? You didn't say it, but you reacted like it. That's why I didn't put it in a quote box with your name on it. Edited August 17, 2008 by Mushtang Link to comment
+flask Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 wow. you have all but guaranteed this thread will get closed. going off-topic. wow. Link to comment
Mushtang Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 wow. you have all but guaranteed this thread will get closed. going off-topic. wow. Guilty. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 wow. you have all but guaranteed this thread will get closed. going off-topic. wow. Post 563 was on-topic. However, how much more can be said about those little pieces of paper? Everyone agrees that they are inappropriate for caches. Link to comment
+KBI Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Everyone agrees that they are inappropriate for caches. Speak for yourself, please. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 (edited) Everyone agrees that they are inappropriate for caches. Speak for yourself, please. Everyone in this thread has agreed. Edited August 17, 2008 by TrailGators Link to comment
+KBI Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Everyone agrees that they are inappropriate for caches. Speak for yourself, please. Everyone in this thread has agreed. Better? Everyone in this thread has agreed to what? Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Everyone agrees that they are inappropriate for caches. Speak for yourself, please. Everyone in this thread has agreed. Better? Everyone in this thread has agreed to what? Everyone in this thread agrees that religious tracts are inappropriate for caches. Is that clear enough for you now? Link to comment
+KBI Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Everyone in this thread agrees that religious tracts are inappropriate for caches. Is that clear enough for you now? Yes, and it was just as clear the other times you said it as well. When did *I* agree to that? Link to comment
+flask Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 wow. you have all but guaranteed this thread will get closed. going off-topic. wow. Post 563 was on-topic. However, how much more can be said about those little pieces of paper? Everyone agrees that they are inappropriate for caches. ah, memories... y'all didn't remember, did you? Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 wow. you have all but guaranteed this thread will get closed. going off-topic. wow. Post 563 was on-topic. However, how much more can be said about those little pieces of paper? Everyone agrees that they are inappropriate for caches. ah, memories... y'all didn't remember, did you? Link to comment
Mushtang Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Everyone agrees that they are inappropriate for caches.Speak for yourself, please. Everyone in this thread has agreed. Better?Everyone in this thread has agreed to what? Everyone in this thread agrees that religious tracts are inappropriate for caches. Is that clear enough for you now? I agree, speak for yourself. I never indicated that I thought they were inappropriate for caches. In fact I quite clearly suggested that if people don't like them they're free to ignore them. I'm sure some people want to see them. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Everyone in this thread agrees that religious tracts are inappropriate for caches. Is that clear enough for you now? Yes, and it was just as clear the other times you said it as well. When did *I* agree to that? You love to argue don't you? Link to comment
+KBI Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Everyone in this thread agrees that religious tracts are inappropriate for caches. Is that clear enough for you now? Yes, and it was just as clear the other times you said it as well. When did *I* agree to that? You love to argue don't you? Can you answer my question? If not, then is it that difficult to admit you didn’t know what the heck you were talking about when you made a blanket statement about what "everybody" thinks? Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Everyone in this thread agrees that religious tracts are inappropriate for caches. Is that clear enough for you now? Yes, and it was just as clear the other times you said it as well. When did *I* agree to that? You love to argue don't you? Can you answer my question? If not, then is it that difficult to admit you didn't know what the heck you were talking about when you made a blanket statement about what "everybody" thinks? When I said that, I couldn't find one post that was for them. They were all against them. So my statement was based on what I read. Now that there is new info I have to change my statement. So almost everyone in this thread agrees that religious tracts are inappropriate for caches. Link to comment
Roadtorque Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 cant go with you on this one TG. I dont mind religious material in caches. In fact I quite enjoy it and find it often times more valuable then the rest of the stuff thats in there that I consider junk. There are about 3 things I will take from a cache. Religious stuff (to look at then I often put it back for others), geocoins, and caribiners. All else to me is junk Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 I wonder what those folks who like or leave tracts in caches would think about this one. I'm wondering if they would be so tolerant as to leave it. Link to comment
Mushtang Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 I wonder what those folks who like or leave tracts in caches would think about this one. I'm wondering if they would be so tolerant as to leave it. That's AWESOME. I'm not going to leave them in caches, but I am going to print some and have them near my front door for the times that the witnesses come knocking. They give me their literature and I'll give them mine. How they react to mine will determine how I react to theirs. Thanks Coyotered!!!! Link to comment
+KBI Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 (edited) I wonder what those folks who like or leave tracts in caches would think about this one. I'm wondering if they would be so tolerant as to leave it. I seriously doubt it -- generally speaking, of course. Might make for an interesting experiment! Monitoring how the prostheletizers handle that dilemma would be a conclusive way to directly test the self-confidence of the “true believers” who “only wish to educate others.” From the linked 'tract:' "Don't be afraid to question. The truth is never embarrassed by honest inquiry." That is a beautiful quote! I think I understand: The DNA molecule was not discomfited when its function was revealed. Relativity was not self-conscious when Newtonian physics was finally coaxed into stepping aside to allow us a clearer view. The planet Mercury didn’t shriek and grab a towel when the first telescopes were pointed her way. In other words: The truth cannot and will not be insulted, humiliated or in any other way made uncomfortable by our sincere attempts to learn it, whatever the truth turns out to be ... so relax, and feel free to ask questions! If I found a tract like that I believe I would remove it only long enough to make copies, and then put it back. But now that I have CoyoteRed's link, I already have access to copies! And no, I don't plan on putting any copies of that pamphlet into any Geocaches. While I don’t mind finding printings of a religious subject (pro OR con) in caches, I nevertheless do not like the idea of placing them in caches. I only ever discuss this subject with people who have already demonstrated a willingness to talk about it. I don’t foist my views of religion on unsuspecting people any more than I show unsuspecting people the scar in my armpit. (Which is never, in case that wasn’t clear. ) Edited August 17, 2008 by KBI Link to comment
+Snow Birds Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 A couple of days ago, I came across a religious CD in a cache. I thought of this thread. I smiled to myself, put it back in the can, and moved on. No problem. Someone else might like it. To me it was just as valuable as the Barney doll. I left it there, too! I would have a problem with an ammo can stuffed full of tracts. But just 1 or 2, I just ignore them. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 I don't think religious tracts like the one CR posted (and others with other beliefs) are appropriate for a fun game where we are all just trying to have fun and get along. It just causes bad blood. Link to comment
+Snow Birds Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 "In other words: The truth cannot and will not be insulted, humiliated or in any other way made uncomfortable by our sincere attempts to learn it, whatever the truth turns out to be ... so relax, and feel free to ask questions!" That reminded me of an evening in Germany in the AF. Four of us were on duty. Two of us were atheists. One guy was seriously religious. The fourth was just there. About once a week, the religious guy would throw out a subject at us and we'd all get into a discussion. He would throw out his beliefs and my friend and I would chop him down at every turn. (remember...he started it!) The discussions always ended up with him questioning what he believed. Nobody ever got mad, in fact, we were all pretty good friends. On this particular evening, he came in the room, looked around and said "Oh good! We have 2 atheists, 1 christian, and 1 catholic". The catholic guy was understandably a little offended! One evening, I asked him why he did this when we always ran him straight into the ground. It must be awfully frustrating. He said that we proposed ideas that went against what he believed and he didn't have an answer or solution, so it prompted him to read the bible until he came up with one! He was actually growing his beliefs by confronting us with ideas so that we could cause him look deeper. I admired him for that! Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 I don't think religious tracts like the one CR posted (and others with other beliefs) are appropriate for a fun game where we are all just trying to have fun and get along. It just causes bad blood. I agree. But for the sake of equal time... Link to comment
+Snow Birds Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 I don't think religious tracts like the one CR posted (and others with other beliefs) are appropriate for a fun game where we are all just trying to have fun and get along. It just causes bad blood. I believe that in any given cache, you could find something to offend someone, somewhere. I knew a woman who was offended by a water pistol because it represented violence! I knew another woman who was offended by anything, even a picture, of a snake! She would love the Geocoin that I just nabbed that has a coiled snake on the back! It's a "Cache Critters on Patrol". Just as a fun test...next time you find a cache, look through all the little trinkets and see if any ONE of them is even slightly offensive. If you can honestly say "no", then you are fortunate! As for religious stuff, this country was founded on christian principles, so I tolerate them. I don't have to believe in a god to believe in the philosophies. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Science teaches: For every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Aristotle taught it as balance. The point is that the harder one side pushs the harder the other side will push back. So if people really want everyone to keep their personal beliefs private then they have to keep their own beliefs private. Like I said, tracts don't bother me, I just think they throw off the balance and lead to trouble. Link to comment
Mushtang Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 So if people really want everyone to keep their personal beliefs private then they have to keep their own beliefs private. I, for one, would be all for this. One side of the belief feels that it's okay for folks to believe whatever they want, just as long as they don't try and push their beliefs on others. The other side feels that it's their duty to push their beliefs on others in order to save them from certain damnation. (I thought for sure that word would be turned into "dadgumation") Which side do you think is more likely to agree not to leave tracts? Link to comment
+Vinny & Sue Team Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 I have probably written this before, either in this thread or another on this forum, but here goes: I happen to not be allied with any one religion, although I have a very strong background and grounding and background both in Christianity and Buddhism (I am trying so hard here not to mention my secondary allegiances to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and also to J. R. "Bob" Dobbs.... sigh...!), but I am a mystic and am very spiritually oriented and have a very strong and deep spiritual practice and connection with Divinity which guides my entire life. And yes, I say this even though I am also a degreed scientist and also also a trained electrical/electronics engineer. I personally do not mind finding MOST types of religious material in caches (although I encounter such stuff rarely, and primarily when caching in an near the Rocky Mountain states), but the one exception is the category of preachy, sanctimonious holier-than-thou tracts which preach hatred and hostility and/or the related concept that the religion that they are pushing is the only one right religion and that everyone else who follows other religions (or none at all) is gonna suffer horribly for eternity as punishment for the "error of their ways". That latter type of hateful propaganda material is, to me, incredibly distasteful and massively disrespectful trash, and I CITO it whenever I find it. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Just as a fun test...next time you find a cache, look through all the little trinkets and see if any ONE of them is even slightly offensive. If you can honestly say "no", then you are fortunate! As for religious stuff, this country was founded on christian principles, so I tolerate them. I don't have to believe in a god to believe in the philosophies. I can honestly say that I have never found something in a cache that has offended me. I have found things that have bored me but that's something different. I totally agree with religious tolerance. If the "entire" world had it then we wouldn't be fighting anymore. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 So if people really want everyone to keep their personal beliefs private then they have to keep their own beliefs private. I, for one, would be all for this. One side of the belief feels that it's okay for folks to believe whatever they want, just as long as they don't try and push their beliefs on others. The other side feels that it's their duty to push their beliefs on others in order to save them from certain damnation. (I thought for sure that word would be turned into "dadgumation") Which side do you think is more likely to agree not to leave tracts? The only thing each of us can really do is lead by example. Link to comment
+KBI Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 I can honestly say that I have never found something in a cache that has offended me. I have found things that have bored me but that's something different. I totally agree with religious tolerance. If the "entire" world had it then we wouldn't be fighting anymore. Then maybe you should have a little sit-down talk with this guy: Everyone in this thread agrees that religious tracts are inappropriate for caches. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 I can honestly say that I have never found something in a cache that has offended me. I have found things that have bored me but that's something different. I totally agree with religious tolerance. If the "entire" world had it then we wouldn't be fighting anymore. Then maybe you should have a little sit-down talk with this guy: Everyone in this thread agrees that religious tracts are inappropriate for caches. I would but I don't talk to myself. Do you? If you had kept reading you would have seen that new thread data was posted. So I changed my position on that based on the new data. Weren't you the one preaching that we should change our positions based on new information? Link to comment
+Circles Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 In the finest traditions of CITO I purge EVERY cache of objectionable materials, dog biscuits, chewing gum, condoms, bibles. They all go in the trash - where they belong. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 In the finest traditions of CITO I purge EVERY cache of objectionable materials,<snip>, bibles. They all go in the trash - where they belong. Certainly many people would like to see the Bible. I wonder what Mushtang would say about people throwing away swag that other people would like to see? I never indicated that I thought they were inappropriate for caches. In fact I quite clearly suggested that if people don't like them they're free to ignore them. I'm sure some people want to see them. Link to comment
+KBI Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 If you had kept reading you would have seen that new thread data was posted. So I changed my position on that based on the new data. Weren't you the one preaching that we should change our positions based on new information? Yes – except that it wasn't new data. You never had any data to justify your blanket statement in the first place. The fictitious consensus you reported was never there – you simply corrected your claim after protests appeared. Link to comment
+KBI Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 In the finest traditions of CITO I purge EVERY cache of objectionable materials, dog biscuits, chewing gum, condoms, bibles. They all go in the trash - where they belong. I wouldn't throw away a Bible. Why would I – would I throw it away simply because it contains statements contrary to my beliefs? Nobody should ever be afraid of mere information. Link to comment
Recommended Posts