Well I don't know then, seriously though you either accept religion, tolerate religion, or dislike and even despise religion. And I mean that towards all religions not just mine. In the end it's agree to disagree attitudes for all of us.
Photon made a good point...discussion is always good no matter your choice.
I do think that man has been forced to tolerate religion...even if it was intolerable at times. I think thats why there is such a large vocal group against it now.
Acceptance and tolerance are good things and I don't think that we should "despise" religious people. I was raised in a healthy religious household, in the mold of evangelical Christianity. I was taught the Earth was created in 6 days etc... It didn't hurt me one bit. I just completed an honours thesis that looked at what the impact that evolutionary biological models of human nature would do to liberal policy frameworks.
I was always taught to keep an open mind. More importantly, I was taught the "good stuff" of Christianity. Love others, be kind and charitable. All that stuff has kept me in very good stead in my life and will continue to do so for the rest of my life.
There are bad religious people out there. No way around it. There is certainly a very ugly side to the evangelical/traditional wings of Christianity, Islam etc... As democrats, religious or not, we should oppose those who wish to impose fear and unjust restrictions absolutely upon an entire society.
Well put and good stance. I most definitely agree that there are some terrible people in the religious groups. They cast ugly shadows on to the rest of us. Tool time tip of the day, never watch or listen to a TV evangelist, it's like an elevator in an outhouse they just don't belong.
Well put and good stance. I most definitely agree that there are some terrible people in the religious groups. They cast ugly shadows on to the rest of us. Tool time tip of the day, never watch or listen to a TV evangelist, it's like an elevator in an outhouse they just don't belong.
They are easy to mock, no doubt, and personally I enjoy watching those shows for the laugh-ability factor
We are fortunate in Canada, our Government and its politician stay away from god as much as possible, even to the point where they are negatively viewed if they mention god. This is a country truer to separation of church and state than the US of A.
But when you look at the US, that's where most of us heathens are most concerned, up until Obama. Imagine a good portion of the US Congress is under the belief the end of days is going to happen in their lifetime, in other words, 20-40 years.
How do you think that affects their policy decisions, their decisions and votes on all kinds of issues. Examples of that being global warming, mid-east policy, and the list goes on.
If you sit there with this belief, it harms the country. Even a good portion of congress and the senate are people who don't believe in Evolution, like its a 'belief' so harmless as to think you can ignore the whole scientific community on something. Still waiting to see them debating theory of gravity and such other 'theories.'
But the problem is, the USA is the most powerful and influential nation on this planet, and its fundy base is really powerful at pushing its agenda. Be it abortion rights, be it stem cell research, be it the pervasive negative attitudes against science which ironically is one of the major reasons for the US' success.
Its just that is the battle, Canada, we have some issues to deal with, seperate school systems for example; but the US has a major hill to climb and even the tiny mention by Obama of 'non-believers' is a real step to even moving forward.
Most religious use the excuse, "oh well I'm not like those evangelicals..." but you are part of that club, and you aren't freaking out against them when they preach, since ironically they are usually just following the bible to the letter and how can you argue that.
Literalism vs moderates, but there is no 'war' between you, because you feel like they are, even if they are a bit nutty, part of the same family.
How much play does the comments of evangelicals on gays causing Katrina, and all of the other nonsense that the leaders of christians in the US say year after year.
Its the Atheist's job? Well sure, but if moderate is your belief, why are you not seething mad to see such comments from the leaders of your faith.
By mentioning, for the first time in an inaugural address, the 16.1 percent of Americans who check "no"’ when asked about religion, Obama turned it into the most controversial line in his speech -- praised by The New York Times editorial board and cited by some Christians as evidence that he is a heretic, and in his well-spoken way, a serious threat.
With that one line, the president "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian," said’ Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.’"
Nice.
Quote:
Not so, Jackson says: "Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation."’
Not a very nice agree to disagree attitude
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
By Obama recognizing the unbelievers, it may make that segment of the population more respectable and thus be a threat to Christianity, so I see why they are protesting. Not that's it's right of course and is another example of religious thought not doing the right thing.
Another thing, I'd check the no in the religious box too but it dosn't mean I don't believe, far from it.
Great speech by the way with Obama trying to be inclusive. He'd make a great minister once he leaves office as he understands life far better than most religious leaders. I don't know if he'll solve all the Americans problems but the Americans are lucky to have him.
Most religious use the excuse, "oh well I'm not like those evangelicals..." but you are part of that club, and you aren't freaking out against them when they preach, since ironically they are usually just following the bible to the letter and how can you argue that.
Literalism vs moderates, but there is no 'war' between you, because you feel like they are, even if they are a bit nutty, part of the same family.
Its the Atheist's job? Well sure, but if moderate is your belief, why are you not seething mad to see such comments from the leaders of your faith.
1. Most religious do not say they are unlike the others that surround them. I don't agree with some of the nutjobs in the church but there is just as many nutjobs who aren't a part of the church so lets face it whatever side of the fence you are on..there is a share of kooks and we may or may not agree with them.
2. There is war, buddy take a look at how many sects of Christianity there are, there is a church for everything and the difference between one group and another could come down to one sentence in the Bible. Last I recall there are over 200 major church sects of belief.
3. I'm not mad at them the same way I'm not mad at you. I simply don't agree with you, I don't agree with some of them. You seem to think it's either your in or your out type club but its not, stop painting it that way.
The Following User Says Thank You to Finny61 For This Useful Post:
During a discussion at work a few weeks back, we were discussing religion, and I came to a revelation.....
After a little digging (wikipedia-I know-grain of salt), my hunch was confirmed. In fact, I was surprised to learn that Islam actually worships the same God (I`ll admit I was a bit ignornant) as Christianity!!! Islam differs in that it believes the Christians have INTERPRETED it wrong!! (Based on the Qur`an)
From Wikipedia:
Muslims believe that God revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, God's final prophet, through the angel Gabriel, and regard the Qur'an and the Sunnah (words and deeds of Muhammad) as the fundamental sources of Islam. They do not regard Muhammad as the founder of a new religion, but as the restorer of the original monotheistic faith of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. Islamic tradition holds that Jews and Christiansdistorted the revelations God gave to these prophets by either altering the text, introducing a false interpretation, or both.
Hindus also believe in one supreme God: (again wikipedia)
Hindus believe in a supreme personal god, with other celestial entities called Devas
This was the basis for my revelation: They all believe the same fundamental thing---There is only one God!! So If they really believe this, then how can they say THEIR God is right, while another isn`t---IT`S THE SAME GOD (if they`re right-only one God).
Their differences seem to stem from INTERPRETATION alone! Even within different sects of each religion, they tend to pick and choose what to emphasize, to suit themselves.
To get on topic (Religions: Legit or otherwise), I lean toward the sceptical side on all religious teachings, they all seem to be derived from some guy who was told this by a God, or passed down for many generations (before written word) and then written thousands of years later.
I do however believe that some of the morality taught (in my case Christianity) is valid and useful. Why can`t we all just get along, I think John Lennon was closer to the solution with his song Imagine (No Heaven, No Hell, No Countries, No Religion), but went a bit too far (No possesions)....What would be left to fight for.....
Are you sure that the above is the "good stuff" of Christianity? My kids love me without question and would give the shirts off their back to help others...yet they aren't Christian. Many other atheist children are the same. So the question begs asking...where do the Heathen children get their "good stuff"?
When my kids grow up can they say "More importantly, I was taught the "good stuff" of Atheism. Love others, be kind and charitable?"
Further to the above...whatabout the Christian children who didnt get the above message? Did their parents teach them poorly or by different Christian standards?
Fair enough. I'm not saying that those are "exclusive" to humanity. I am saying that they are good universal human traits and that the Christian model can do a good job at explaining them.
Cheese, I get your perspective, but sometimes you act like you've got a real chip on your shoulder. Yes, a skeptical upbringing can be just as good, if not better, than an evangelical upbringing. Very few people on this forum disagree with you. Least of all me.
Fair enough. I'm not saying that those are "exclusive" to humanity. I am saying that they are good universal human traits and that the Christian model can do a good job at explaining them.
Cheese, I get your perspective, but sometimes you act like you've got a real chip on your shoulder. Yes, a skeptical upbringing can be just as good, if not better, than an evangelical upbringing. Very few people on this forum disagree with you. Least of all me.
1. Most religious do not say they are unlike the others that surround them. I don't agree with some of the nutjobs in the church but there is just as many nutjobs who aren't a part of the church so lets face it whatever side of the fence you are on..there is a share of kooks and we may or may not agree with them.
2. There is war, buddy take a look at how many sects of Christianity there are, there is a church for everything and the difference between one group and another could come down to one sentence in the Bible. Last I recall there are over 200 major church sects of belief.
3. I'm not mad at them the same way I'm not mad at you. I simply don't agree with you, I don't agree with some of them. You seem to think it's either your in or your out type club but its not, stop painting it that way.
Yes there are kooks "outside" of the church. They arent trying to enroll millions into a Faith though.
Christianity itself has 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches composed of 1,888 million affiliated Christians.
There were at one time believed to be near 100,000 different denominations of Christianity.
The exact number of religions in the world is unknown. Best estimates place the number around 4200.
There are roughly 2500 deities in the various known religions.
(Out of all of these...which are legitimate?)
I think most atheists would "let go" of the your in or out club, as long as theists played the same game. No door knocking, no phone calls, flyers or demands on our time. If we want to join we will find you.
If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in. In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject God. You think their gods are imaginary, and they think your God is imaginary. In other words, each religious person on earth today arbitrarily rejects thousands of gods as imaginary, many of which he/she has never even heard of, and arbitrarily chooses to "believe" in one of them.
Last edited by Cheese; 01-25-2009 at 07:40 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
Photon made a good point...discussion is always good no matter your choice.
I do think that man has been forced to tolerate religion...even if it was intolerable at times. I think thats why there is such a large vocal group against it now.
How is it a healthy discussion when 85% of those partaking in the discussion don't find any compromise in discussion. There is nothing healthy about this at all. As Pete had said about 'chip on the shoulder' I can definitely see it in half the posts let alone just one.
The Following User Says Thank You to Finny61 For This Useful Post:
I think it's very healthy to examine and challenge your own beliefs. If the way I think cannot stand up to any level of scrutiny or criticism, then why in the world do I think what I do.
I've changed my mind on many things based off of discussions on forums.
What's unhealthy about that?
Maybe I don't understand what kind of compromise in discussion you are talking about, are you saying that people disagreeing and actively discussing what they disagree about is unhealthy?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I think it's very healthy to examine and challenge your own beliefs. If the way I think cannot stand up to any level of scrutiny or criticism, then why in the world do I think what I do.
I've changed my mind on many things based off of discussions on forums.
What's unhealthy about that?
Maybe I don't understand what kind of compromise in discussion you are talking about, are you saying that people disagreeing and actively discussing what they disagree about is unhealthy?
Well you go find me an even spread of posts that bring the positives out of religion and those that see nothing of it. You'll find your majority in the latter. Also note I'm perfectly comfortable with accepting other possibilities, those others would never dare consider my beliefs, that's what can drive me nuts the most if anything. That's the unhealthiness in this discussion, a lack of being open to religion but shutting the door on it.
You can't make a dead dog do tricks, if someone has no interest in my belief then how can I convince them otherwise? Right? You have to realize that religion is based on a leap of faith, do I have all the answers ? No. If I did then I guess I'm God.
Last edited by Finny61; 01-25-2009 at 09:57 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Finny61 For This Useful Post:
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
I am in no way a religious guy...and certainly understand both theists and atheists way of approaching how they look at the subject.
What I really dont understand is the belittling that happens on both sides of the debate. Fundamentalism/extremism is seen on both sides and it leads to....nothing but more of the same.
No one should be 'forced" to have to listen to anyone espousing their beliefs if that person does not share them, but IMO there is little harm in politely declining to listen. (not accusing anyone of that in THIS thread) However, there is little doubt that there are some atheists that actually think that "flying spaghetti monster' is an appropriate comparison to what they believe god to be...when the person they are discussing with have deep and very real feelings/beliefs that god is a very legitimate entity (whatever form it may take). It's embarrassing IMO and makes it extremely difficult to have a real discussion. its like calling them completely stupid for having a belief system that the other does not comprehend. Where would humanity be if that was always the case? Arrogance usually stops any good discussion...and it appears on both sides of the debate, but moreso from the atheists.
There is a terrific book that covers this very subject and for anyone interested in seeing how these conversations can be carried out in a real way and for some really thought provoking stuff i suggest it as a mandatory read.
Its called "The reason for God: Belief in an age of skepticism" Certianly provided me with some answers as well as new questions...from both perspectives.
Publishers Weekly has said well that this is a book for "skeptics and the believers who love them." Believers will rejoice in a book that carefully and patiently answers the objections of their skeptical friends and does so with grace and in a way consistent with the Bible. Skeptics will see that even their skepticism is founded on some kind of faith and will be challenged to discern those underlying beliefs. May this book convince us all that we can believe and can believe reasonably, even in this age of skepticism.
The Following User Says Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
Well you go find me an even spread of posts that bring the positives out of religion and those that see nothing of it. You'll find your majority in the latter.
So a meaningful intelligent rational discussion can only occur if there's an equal number of posts on each side of the topic? That seems like an arbitrary way to evaluate it, to me at least.
It's not the job of someone who's an opponent of religion to bring up the positives; that'd be a deficiency on the part of the religious proponents wouldn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finny61
Also note I'm perfectly comfortable with accepting other possibilities, those others would never dare consider my beliefs, that's what can drive me nuts the most if anything. That's the unhealthiness in this discussion, a lack of being open to religion but shutting the door on it.
I think you mischaracterize those people. A great number of them come from a position of religious belief, so they have considered other possibilities.
And if you bother to ask them "What would change your mind about religion" I bet most would have a positive answer about what would convince them, or what if changed in religion would make it appealing to them etc.
Some have examined religion and in general found it wanting and not redeemable.. that isn't unhealthy as long as they've come to that position honestly and can support it with reasoning. And even those, if new information was provided that compelled them to change their position, I bet they would change.
I know that's one of the reasons I enter into these discussions, is because I am constantly looking for something new, something else to test my ideas.
But I can appreciate your position, a lot of opponents of religion have had a great deal of practice and time, so the list of issues can be substantial and well traversed, so while it can seem like a person is unwilling to listen or consider something, in fact that's often because the thing to be considered has already been considered and discarded many times over, doing it again and again becomes frustrating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finny61
You can't make a dead dog do tricks, if someone has no interest in my belief then how can I convince them otherwise? Right? You have to realize that religion is based on a leap of faith, do I have all the answers ? No. If I did then I guess I'm God.
Well that's true, but if they had no interest I don't think they'd be discussing to begin with. Though I guess some are in it just to convince you.
I do realize that religion is based on a leap of faith, and ultimately I respect you because you admit it and recognize it. It's the people that don't that cause more problems because they try to substantiate their faith with facts, almost pretending it's a science.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
But I can appreciate your position, a lot of opponents of religion have had a great deal of practice and time, so the list of issues can be substantial and well traversed, so while it can seem like a person is unwilling to listen or consider something, in fact that's often because the thing to be considered has already been considered and discarded many times over, doing it again and again becomes frustrating.
quote]
So perhaps the easiest illustration is that its easy for me to feel like the Independent seat in the House of Commons?
What I really dont understand is the belittling that happens on both sides of the debate. Fundamentalism/extremism is seen on both sides and it leads to....nothing but more of the same.
Humans are humans, that never stops. Not much you can do about that except just filter it out and try to focus on what's actually being said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
However, there is little doubt that there are some atheists that actually think that "flying spaghetti monster' is an appropriate comparison to what they believe god to be...when the person they are discussing with have deep and very real feelings/beliefs that god is a very legitimate entity (whatever form it may take). It's embarrassing IMO and makes it extremely difficult to have a real discussion. its like calling them completely stupid for having a belief system that the other does not comprehend. Where would humanity be if that was always the case? Arrogance usually stops any good discussion...and it appears on both sides of the debate, but moreso from the atheists.
The whole point of the FSM is to pick an entity that clearly is ridiculous, one that a believer would agree does not exist, and then illustrate that if the believer applies the same patters of logic, reasoning, thought, faith, etc (all the things that a believer will say to support their belief in God) to the FSM, then it's easy to see how the logic, reasoning, faith, etc fail, because when applied to the FSM they do not bring about a compelling belief in the FSM.
Do some people do it disrespectfully, sure probably, but again that's human nature. And to say it's the atheists that do it more, I doubt it.
There's enough disrespect to go around, it's an emotionally charged issue, people are emotional, that's just the way it goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Its called "The reason for God: Belief in an age of skepticism" Certianly provided me with some answers as well as new questions...from both perspectives.
Hm.. looks like a book on apologetics, and from the reviews doesn't seem there's anything new in it. Maybe worth a look though, but one review said that one of the points made in the book is without God we can't tell the difference between right and wrong, which doesn't get my hopes up about the book if that's the level it's at.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
So perhaps the easiest illustration is that its easy for me to feel like the Independent seat in the House of Commons?
In a hostile country.
Sometimes it's just a numbers game, you have to have the energy to roll a boulder uphill, and discussing religion here I'm sure can seem like that for the religious. Like I said, I think that's because most non-religious have put a lot of thought into why they think what they do and their positions are well practiced and polished.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Are you sure that the above is the "good stuff" of Christianity? My kids love me without question and would give the shirts off their back to help others...yet they aren't Christian. Many other atheist children are the same. So the question begs asking...where do the Heathen children get their "good stuff"? 
