Godless Apostate

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I believe in freedom. I believe that everyone should be able to choose his or her own religion. I believe that people should not have to be 'attacked' for their choices, especially since it is a personal nature.

So long as your religion has a long tradition of respecting homosexuals, believing in women's equality, supporting birth control in all forms, embracing a woman's right to choose, encouraging free thought and spends more money helping the impoverished rather than fancy buildings, then I say live and let live. But should your religion falter on any of those points, then of course I'm going to claim that your religion is faulty and not feel the least amount of guilt for saying so.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Facts are superior to superstition.

"Facts" are on their own rather innocuous fragments of information that really accomplish nothing apart for a theory for their organisation and synthesis, and religion is NOT the same thing as "superstition".

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

And that is why religion is for the weak and feeble minded.

I am religious.
I am not intellectually "weak".
I am most certainly not "feeble minded".

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

So long as your religion has a long tradition of respecting homosexuals, believing in women's equality, supporting birth control in all forms, embracing a woman's right to choose, encouraging free thought and spends more money helping the impoverished rather than fancy buildings, then I say live and let live. But should your religion falter on any of those points, then of course I'm going to claim that your religion is faulty and not feel the least amount of guilt for saying so.

Why does any such religion require this impossibly narrow "long tradition" to qualify as valid? You do realise that your above description applies to only an extremely slim segment of virtually all civilisations, and from only a very recent period of time, right? In essence, you've pretty much disqualified every form of human culture as "faulty" by virtue of past sins.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by photon

I do hope you see the difference between someone going into your face and you participating in a thread on a discussion forum though, because they are vastly different.

(And I guarentee you it isn't the atheists or Muslims that are trying to create a state religion in NC).



Have you read the main forum at all? People not having respect for other people has nothing to do with religion, there's just a large portion of jerks in the world.

If people can't even discuss something as inconsequential as hockey without resorting to name calling and contempt, how can you possibly expect it with something as fundamental as religion?

Your expectation needs to be altered. Don't expect anyone from any religion to behave a certain way, because there's always jerks. Rather ignore those and just interact (or not) with those that aren't.



And this entire forum is based around a group of people who think cheering for another team makes one idiotic.

Humans have a very deep tribal instinct, that they self-arrange into tribes and view "foreigners" to the tribe differently is expected and something to overcome, not surprising.



Sure, the only confrontation here is voluntary. North Carolina is where it has the clause in their constitution that prohibits atheists from holding office and where they're trying to have a state religion (unnecessary confrontation).



Because sometimes other people are wrong (and sometimes I'm wrong). Having discussions with other people is a basic human need, and discussions around things everyone agrees on are usually boring. Humans are curious and want to learn about the world around them, changing pre-existing beliefs is key to learning, and that'd be impossible if no one ever challenged what someone else thought was right.

I do agree there are good and bad ways to go about it, but see the jerks comment above; there'll always be people who don't go about it the way you want to.

I actually don't really disagree with anything you said here.

I actually wrote another very long-winded post - and decided to just delete it and leave it just with this thought:

It is not the discussion or even the criticism against religion that bothers me. It is in the disrespectful way in which too many do this. It is no different than 'trolling' - just made to offend and get a rise out of people.

I don't go to church. I don't pray. I don't even think of 'my religion' at all for months on end. I am FAR from a person that would be classified as religious. If I was, I am definitely going to hell for how I led my life thus far. I have loads of friends from all different religions - being an immigrant in a country, raised with other immigrants from all walks of life will do that. Most of my friends are Buddhists, some Islam, some Protestant.. but most are Atheist. If I was to force classify myself into how I lead my life and in what I believe most in, it is atheism, really. That doesn't make me insensitive.

I think what is happening in North Carolina is wrong. However, is it the religion's fault? Or perhaps, it is the people in authority trying to use religion for their benefit? Crooked cops and politicians doesn't make me think that democracy is stupid, or that the rule of law is stupid. Why do people think that just because there are idiots using religion to get what they want makes the religion 'stupid'?

Not sure if I am getting my point across correctly... maybe I don't really have a point, and I am just venting for the sake of venting. It is part of what I feel is happening too much - people are just becoming 'evil' (in a non-religious way, don't worry... I am not here to make you accountable for your sins lol)... people just seem to take joy in hurting someone else - religion or otherwise.

Atheists are no different (in my opinion) from the overly religious that try and convert you. Atheism seems to be a religion now, when you think of it that way. "My Faith is to not have faith."

One of my earliest memories of a kid was when there was a Jehovah's Witness at my door. My mother let her in, being polite. This lady proceeded to tell my mother that she believed in the wrong religion, and because of that she would go to hell, and that we (the kids) would go to hell. My mother was always polite, always warm, always giving. I could see for the first time my mother angry. I didn't grow up to hate Jehovah's Witnesses (actually, dated one in high school for a while). I guess I just grew up hating people who go out of their way to tell someone else that their religion is stupid. Question and criticize is fine - but it is the barbs that are meant to solicit laughs and/or anger out of the other person that I personally feel is wrong.

Hmm... another long-winded post... sorry.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

So long as your religion has a long tradition of respecting homosexuals, believing in women's equality, supporting birth control in all forms, embracing a woman's right to choose, encouraging free thought and spends more money helping the impoverished rather than fancy buildings, then I say live and let live. But should your religion falter on any of those points, then of course I'm going to claim that your religion is faulty and not feel the least amount of guilt for saying so.

Humanity doesn't have a long tradition of access to birth control of any kind, looks like your goalposts are set at "impossible".

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Crooked cops and politicians doesn't make me think that democracy is stupid, or that the rule of law is stupid. Why do people think that just because there are idiots using religion to get what they want makes the religion 'stupid'?

Great quote, and great point.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Humanity doesn't have a long tradition of access to birth control of any kind, looks like your goalposts are set at "impossible".

"Believing in women's equality" and "embracing a woman's right to choose" are ideas that are practically in their infancy, relative to the whole course of human history.

Fun fact here. The very early Christian church was actually radically egalitarian, and as a result found great support among women in the Roman Empire, who were otherwise almost wholly disenfranchised from the fiercely patriarchal social structure of ancient Hellenized Rome. It was a big problem for the early church, and a significant reason why they were so poorly thought of in more respectable segments of the populace.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

"Believing in women's equality" and "embracing a woman's right to choose" are ideas that are practically in their infancy, relative to the whole course of human history.

Fun fact here. The very early Christian church was actually radically egalitarian, and as a result found great support among women in the Roman Empire, who were otherwise almost wholly disenfranchised from the fiercely patriarchal social structure of ancient Hellenized Rome. It was a big problem for the early church, and a significant reason why they were so poorly thought of in more respectable segments of the populace.

Up until the 70's, it would have been "choose what?"

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

...and religion is NOT the same thing as "superstition".

Explain how.

I am religious.
I am not intellectually "weak".
I am most certainly not "feeble minded".

So if God was proven beyond any doubt whatsoever to be a complete and total fallacy, you would instantly stop believing in him and everything associated with him? Because to continue to do so in the face of that evidence would be weak and feeble minded.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

"Facts" are on their own rather innocuous fragments of information that really accomplish nothing apart for a theory for their organisation and synthesis, and religion is NOT the same thing as "superstition".

Religion is the very definition of superstition. They are the same thing.

Facts are evidence-based.

I am religious.
I am not intellectually "weak".
I am most certainly not "feeble minded".

Stupid is as stupid does.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

I am right and you are wrong.

Reminds of pre schoolers and the arguments they have.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Dion

Reminds of pre schoolers and the arguments they have.

Just the smart ones who learn.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Explain how.

Simply put: superstition is the practice of inferring causation from correlation. Religion may have emerged from a superstitious worldview, but the key here is that in many of its present forms, it has in fact emerged. Religion is composed of ritual, culture, social memory, and various cues that bind communities together—not all of them in all places and forms are pattern-seeking behaviours.

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

So if God was proven beyond any doubt whatsoever to be a complete and total fallacy, you would instantly stop believing in him and everything associated with him?

Without question. How does one go about "proving" such a thing?

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Because to continue to do so in the face of that evidence would be weak and feeble minded.

This insinuates that such evidence is demonstrable. Since I know that it is not, I must assume that the only "weak" and "feeble minded" one between the two of us must be you.

[Dion]

Ironically, a true religion would not have to use force or threats because a true religion like a true science is simply a true description of man's relationship and responsibility to the universe and would help any man who followed it. It would be ridiculous to suggest that you would have to force someone to do something that is for his own benefit. Only a false religion, (a superstition), would have to resort to force or threats. You would not have to force people to accept a true religion any more than you would have to force them to drive cars rather than horse drawn carriages.

Paradoxically, the use of force in a religious war is actually an indication of a lack of faith not an assertion of it. Because if a person truly believed that an all powerful 'holy ghost' was controlling everything and the fate of the universe was not alterable by nor dependent upon man, the true believer would never bother to use force, especially if he thought the all powerful 'holy ghost' had ordered him to turn the other cheek. Wars fought over things, like fundamentalist religion, which people don't really believe in anyway, are the height, the epitome of human folly. Can you imagine the absurdity of the human race being exterminated in a conflict over something they don't really believe in anyway?

A true religion is not superstition any more than darkness is light. A true religion is a tool to help man understand and direct his relationship and responsibility to the universe around him. If we examine our experience in physical science, we find clearly that our first advances in the realm of physical science were merely crudely sharpened stones, axes and spears. It is hardly surprising that our first moral or religious systems were inefficient. In a figurative metaphorical sense, our 2,000 year old moral systems are like crudely sharpened stones. But that does not mean that we should abandon all moral or religious ideas any more than we abandoned all tools because our first axes and spears were inefficient

http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/...us/chapVII.htm

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Just the smart ones who learn.

Good to see that you are still working your way through pre-school Reggie. Keep at it. You'll get it eventually.

[FanIn80]

Definition of RELIGIOUS

1. relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2. of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
3. 1. scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
   2. fervent, zealous

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious

I think it's safe to argue that most people, even atheists and/or scientists, demonstrate a faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality, and are therefore religious. While I can understand the argument of science vs scripture, I'd argue that both sides of the debate are equally religious in terms of their own beliefs; therefore, pointing fingers at "religious people" is a tad absurd.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Definition of RELIGIOUS

1. relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2. of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
3. 1. scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
   2. fervent, zealous

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious

An ongoing and lively discussion in comparative religious studies today is in fact the precise definition of "religion". It is really not nearly as simple or generic as standard dictionary definitions, and because of its divergent and incredibly varied appearance through time and from place to place, it remains exceedingly difficult to provide an acceptable definition that adequately captures the essence of what religion is and how it functions. This is why I tend to "fudge" a bit when the topic comes up: in actual fact, religion is probably too complicated to properly define.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Just the smart ones who learn.

You missed my point Reggie. Pre schoolers don't engagae with an intent to argue thier point. I'm right and you're wrong is a childish way to get a rise out of people.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Simply put: superstition is the practice of inferring causation from correlation. Religion may have emerged from a superstitious worldview, but the key here is that in many of its present forms, it has in fact emerged. Religion is composed of ritual, culture, social memory, and various cues that bind communities together—not all of them in all places and forms are pattern-seeking behaviours.

It's all superstition.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Dion

You missed my point Reggie. Pre schoolers don't engagae with an intent to argue thier point. I'm right and you're wrong is a childish way to get a rise out of people.

A skeptic merely needs to be proven wrong. Since there's no evidence of any god(s), it's pretty cut and dried as to who is right.