"He's a Christian? This may be problematic"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Verbatim:

Why should you challenge any one's faith or other believes?
If you are there to actively challenge people you're an asshat nothing more, i don't see any place for any one to challenge anything unless both parties agree to it.

So if somebody states that female genital mutilation is a good thing I shouldn't challenge it? Unless they agree to a debate?
If somebody I associate with says something I feel is immoral, unethical or incorrect, I will challenge that. And I would expect and encourage them to do the same with me.
Religious beliefs and ideals are not always immoral, unethical or incorrect, but like all beliefs or ideals, they sometimes are. And when they are, they do not get a free pass purely because they are religious. I do not to go out of my way to criticise and undermine one's religion.

Verbatim:
You workplace, classroom, or even your hangout place is not a debate floor.

The workplace isn't, but the classroom and the hangout place potentially are.
And that's a good thing. After all, open-minded, honest debate is an excellent way to learn.

Lilani:

Arakasi:
I'm not saying religious people can't use logic, it's just that they seem to turn a blind eye in regards to one of the (potentially) largest aspects of their lives. It's mind boggling.

Which aspects are you referring to, specifically?

Belief. Belief is the foundation from which we build our lives, belief is the foundation of action. That is also why it is one of the most dangerous and potentially destructive aspects of our lives, for what happens when we believe incorrectly? We act incorrectly.

Even as someone who's religious, I tend to have a few mixed feelings about open displays of someone's religion. On the one hand, I wonder if we can talk about our mutual beliefs, but on the other hand, if they're willing to openly display their beliefs, then they are probably a member of the religious right, and I tend to not get along with them whenever I open my mouth. This isn't because I try to get into a screaming contest, but if you've ever tried having a conversation with these people, it tends to get very heated very fast. Not all the time, but far too often. I've even simply stopped talking about politics, science, theology, and philosophy with anyone in my family or at church, simply because it rarely ends well.

The thing is, I have spent most of my life in the Bible Belt, and the unfortunate reality is that even minor diversions from conservative Christianity can get you automatically labelled as a spawn of the devil and an abomination by even your own family. Well, unless you live in the Democratic sections of more Democratically-heavy states (ex. Virginia and Florida), but even then you'll get plenty of religious right fury. Most of the people are nice people if you avoid those topics, though, so I just tend to avoid them.

On the other hand, it can also be somewhat unnerving to even hear someone openly profess their non-Christian viewpoints (be it atheist, agnostic, Muslim, etc.) in these areas, as there tends to be a lot of backlash from those people based on how they get treated by so many Christians. Again, though, most of them are nice so long as you avoid those touchy subjects.

So basically, any open profession of one's beliefs tends to make me put up a red flag and try to avoid the subject, regardless of where that person stands. If the person insists, I may just listen to their rant and do my best to convey that I'm really not interested in their ramblings. If I know the person well enough, though, I may discuss the issue further with them, provided that I know they can calm down enough to not take it to "I'm going to scream my head off at you" levels. I've had quite a few great conversations with some atheists and Muslims who were able to accept that I wasn't going to tear them limb from limb for their beliefs and even among some religious right Christians who didn't tear me limb from limb for my beliefs.

Arakasi:
Belief. Belief is the foundation from which we build our lives, belief is the foundation of action. That is also why it is one of the most dangerous and potentially destructive aspects of our lives, for what happens when we believe incorrectly? We act incorrectly.

Who are you to determine what is correct and incorrect action? Do you think Mother Theresa lead an "incorrect" life, then? Not everybody who is religious leads a positive or constructive life, but neither does everybody who isn't. Different things motivate people to be constructive or positive, or to re-evaluate certain aspects of their life.

Lilani:

Arakasi:
Belief. Belief is the foundation from which we build our lives, belief is the foundation of action. That is also why it is one of the most dangerous and potentially destructive aspects of our lives, for what happens when we believe incorrectly? We act incorrectly.

Who are you to determine what is correct and incorrect action? Do you think Mother Theresa lead an "incorrect" life, then? Not everybody who is religious leads a positive or constructive life, but neither does everybody who isn't. Different things motivate people to be constructive or positive, or to re-evaluate certain aspects of their life.

Mother Teresa may not be the best example to use.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia-pacific/dubious-care-of-the-sick-questionable-politics-and-suspicious-financial-dealings-researchers-claim-mother-teresa-was-not-so-saintly-after-all-29107530.html

Colour-Scientist:
Mother Teresa may not be the best example to use.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia-pacific/dubious-care-of-the-sick-questionable-politics-and-suspicious-financial-dealings-researchers-claim-mother-teresa-was-not-so-saintly-after-all-29107530.html

Hm, interesting. I'll have to look more into that.

My point still stands, though. Of course religion and power can be used to negative effects. Though technically, if Christians would follow Jesus' teachings verbatim, then these secret bank accounts wouldn't exist and pastors wouldn't have such lavish homes. So is religion really to blame, or how people choose to use it? And what determines how people use religion? The a lot of the religious people I know use their motivations to be there for people and put themselves in situations where they can best help others.

I think how a person uses the powers around them is what shapes this world, not the powers themselves. Religion, science, money, politics, and every other force in the world would be inert if not put to use.

Shadowstar38:
I tend to not think too much about religion outside of bitching at you people on the internet. But when I do, it's awkward.

A friend of my brother came by the other day to met me. When I went back to my room, I noticed she was looking a little worried over something in the living room, and she had a side conversation with my brother.

The thing she was looking at was my "youth of the year" plaque from church, which I never bothered to take down. Apparently she's a hardcore atheist and she was afraid we wouldn't get along. Not really sure why just coming up to me and asking about was out of the question.

Are any of you actually that skittish about the subject about the subject of religion in day to day life? Do seeing people display their faith openly make you feel uncomfortable? Are you more tactful when speaking to people in person, or is it one of those "don't bring it up if you don't have to" situations?

I may be agnostic, but I have several friends that are Christian, one in particular who is VERY Christian. On the topic of my parents (lesbians), "I don't agree with what they do, but it is God's place to judge, not mine. They're good people, you're a good person, and that's all I care about."

No one in my social circle pushes their beliefs, though person above refusing to play black in Magic the Gathering because it has demons in it is fairly funny.

The reason both groups think they can't get along is because the worst of both parties have exactly the same problem; they think they're naturally more righteous and knowledgeable because of their beliefs (or lack thereof) regarding religion.

Unfortunately these individuals are also the loudest.

The worst theists think that their belief gives them an infallible moral compass free from the corruption of sin, and intimate knowledge of the true nature of the universe.

The worst atheists think that their disbelief gives them...an infallible moral compass free from the corruption of doctrine, and intimate knowledge of the true nature of the universe.

They're both as arrogant and as wrong as each other and it makes everyone believe that neither group can ever accept the other, and that's a shame because if they just sat down and talked they'd realise they're all equally right because they're all equally stupid.

Mostly when I learn people are religious, christian or otherwise, I just feel sorry for them. It's not hate it's not even contempt or even distrust (for the most part, unless they're Mormon) just pity.

The Lyre:
They are both equally wrong

I disagree. Arguing that Atheism is as wrong as the Religious for their reasons to think that they won't get along well is dishonest. What with one side having been punished for their beliefs for thousands of years and the other having to deal with the side who can now 'exist' having disagreements with them on fundamental beliefs.

I have Christians in my family, and luckily I haven't had any of them try to convert me, unluckily they won't even recognize my choice to be a-religious. Its just a given that I'm religious, and there wont be talk of anything else.

Its good that there aint any larger arguments centered around it, but its still sort of demeaning not.. Well.. Having your beliefs be respected. AND I LIVE IN ONE OF THE LEAST RELIGIOUS COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD.

And if the family can't support the choice, why should religious strangers? Plenty of reason to think you won't get along right there. Now, I met a decent amount of reasonable religious people on the interwebs (Lilani as an example) which gives me reason to believe that there are open-minded folks out there. But I won't for a second believe that the amount of stress the sides have to deal with is -equal- by any means of the word.

So to put it this way, from my perspective. Reason I would have been awkward around say, a Devout Christian is that I fear Judgement. Reason a Christian would 'fear' being around me (Atheist) would be that if they attempt to re-convert me they might be rejected, youknow. Same reason a lot of guys with crushes wont ask their crush out on a date, the fear of rejection. And they are right, they can either try to convert me and be rejected, which will most likely end in an argument of some sort ending with us not getting along. Or they can just live with the knowledge that 'if' they tried I 'might' reconvert.

Most probably not.

Nikolaz72:

The Lyre:
They are both equally wrong

I disagree. Arguing that Atheism is as wrong blahblahblah

You either didn't read or completely missed the point of my post.

I said nothing about the actual content of either belief.

I commented solely on the attitudes of the worst members of both communities.

And if you know that and you're still trying to argue that "Atheists are somewhat less presumptuous so that means they can be as smug as they want because it's all Christianity's fault and they just want to convert me" then you're exactly the kind of person I was talking about.

It's not just religion, but if I discover a person has any belief or standpoint that I don't share, naturally I feel a bit more distanced from them. I have family who are Catholic, I have friends who are conservative, I've had boyfriends who like taking drugs and getting drunk I even have one friend who's come out with some eyebrow raising stuff about race, and while I can still get on with these people of course the fact that they have such a different view on the way the world is is going to be a barrier between us.

Having said that, I wouldn't have thought much of you being in a church. To me it seems that there's a difference between being a part of a religious community and being religious... if that makes sense? It's not going to church that makes me think we're going to be on different wavelengths, it's believing in a totally different reality to the one that I believe in that makes me wary of being able to interact with a person very well.

Lilani:

Arakasi:
Belief. Belief is the foundation from which we build our lives, belief is the foundation of action. That is also why it is one of the most dangerous and potentially destructive aspects of our lives, for what happens when we believe incorrectly? We act incorrectly.

Who are you to determine what is correct and incorrect action?

No one. But all actions will be held accountable by reality.

Lilani:

Do you think Mother Theresa lead an "incorrect" life, then?

Yes, yes I do.

Lilani:

Not everybody who is religious leads a positive or constructive life, but neither does everybody who isn't.

I am aware of that. What I'm saying is that the religious belief system is one of the many wrong ways to live life, as it is not in accordance with reality and thus time-wasting.

The Lyre:

Nikolaz72:

The Lyre:
They are both equally wrong

I disagree. Arguing that Atheism is as wrong blahblahblah

You either didn't read or completely missed the point of my post.

I said nothing about the actual content of either belief.

I commented solely on the attitudes of the worst members of both communities.

And if you know that and you're still trying to argue that "Atheists are somewhat less presumptuous so that means they can be as smug as they want because it's all Christianity's fault and they just want to convert me" then you're exactly the kind of person I was talking about.

I was arguing that it looked completely like you were trying to take the gutless agnostic stance of saying 'Both sides are equally bad and I am superior' Which I've seen shovel-loads of on this forum alone.

What with refusing to go into detail but essentially just presenting one point with another, putting down the arguments and then suggesting that there were clearly as much going on, on both sides.

They're both as arrogant and as wrong as each other

^ this here is what I'm talking about. That there is so snoopishly smug that you appear exactly what you were talking about. Vague post, and allowing you to take a moral highground. Your claim that both sides were equal, and that you have the knowledge judge them below you, is both arrogant and wrong.

'Least that's what it appeared like from my perspective.

Skipping over large parts of the post and writing 'blablabla' didn't help the mood either.

I learned this amazing skill back in highschool where I can sleep with my eyes open, I generally employ that when forced to face the topic of religion. It's really cut back on my blood pressure.

Nikolaz72:

^ this here is what I'm talking about. That there is so snoopishly smug that you appear exactly what you were talking about.

Except that I made it as clear as I possibly could that I was talking about a certain type of person in both parties.

I'm sorry if you find the statement;

"I think that arrogance and self-righteousness are obnoxious qualities"

To be so smug, but I still don't see what that has to do with morals, beliefs, knowledge, or 'sides'.

Even if I am judging people - and I am, though I'm judging people on their actions towards others, rather than their beliefs - I'm still not sure what you think that has to do with "Atheism vs. Theism: Which Is Righter?"

Nikolaz72:
Vague post, and allowing you to take a moral highground. Your claim that both sides were equal, and that you have the knowledge judge them below you, is both arrogant and wrong.

Again, I feel fairly comfortable taking the moral highground over people that actively attempt to display their 'natural' superiority because their personal beliefs on God are more right than any other.

I realise the irony of that, but, again, the difference is that I'm not judging people based on their beliefs - I'm judging very specific kinds of people that treat others poorly to make themselves feel superior. I'm talking about how people treat each other, and you respond trying to tell me how much more 'right' Atheism is and how that apparently justifies something. Which is really, really depressing, as it's exactly the kind of harmful attitude I was talking about.

The post isn't 'vague' - I'm not attempting to debate anyone, I don't need details when my point has nothing to do with debating Atheism vs. Theism - and neither does this thread. The thread asks "Are you/why are you uncomfortable around people of opposing beliefs?"

And I gave an answer - because there are bad apples in every group that act like complete dicks because they're so certain they're right.

EDIT; Hell, I don't even need to give examples - this thread is already derailing into a religious argument. This is exactly what I'm talking about. No one can even answer OP's questions without making it about who's naturally 'right'.

Vegosiux:

Arakasi:

I'm not talking political as much as simple logic which, as we all know, is all it takes to debunk religion.

Actually it's more complicated than that because it's logically impossible to prove an existential negative with 100% certainty unless you posses all the available information in the universe, and you can't possess that because Heisenberg.

What logic does do, however, is show how there's no need for a deity and therefore how it's irrational to believe one exists.

Can you logically prove that there's no need for religion?

The Lyre:

Nikolaz72:

^ this here is what I'm talking about. That there is so snoopishly smug that you appear exactly what you were talking about.

Except that I made it as clear as I possibly could that I was talking about a certain type of person in both parties.

Wait what.

The Lyre:
the worst of both parties

Nevermind... Thought you were putting everyone on all sides in the same boat. Anyway, I still argue that even the worst of both sides are not equally dickish and judgemental, what with one sides extreme not even arguing for temporary torture for the others sides beliefs, and the other sides extreme arguing for eternal torture (And in many cases, imprisonment and forced conversion in life as the only way to prevent said eternal torture)for the same thing.

I, in my own opinion. Have perfectly good reason to think that Atheists have the moral high-ground over many Christians on this point. And I have little reason to change that unless I start to see some proper evidence to counteract the piles of materials I've read through the day on various subjects of religion, history and politics.

Nikolaz72:

The Lyre:

Nikolaz72:

^ this here is what I'm talking about. That there is so snoopishly smug that you appear exactly what you were talking about.

Except that I made it as clear as I possibly could that I was talking about a certain type of person in both parties.

Wait what.

The Lyre:
the worst of both parties

Nevermind... Thought you were putting everyone on all sides in the same boat. Anyway, I still argue that even the worst of both sides are not equally dickish and judgemental, what with one sides extreme not even arguing for temporary torture for the others sides beliefs, and the other sides extreme arguing for eternal torture (And in many cases, imprisonment and forced conversion in life as the only way to prevent said eternal torture)for the same thing.

I, in my own opinion. Have perfectly good reason to think that Atheists have the moral high-ground over many Christians on this point. And I have little reason to change that unless I start to see some proper evidence to counteract the piles of materials I've read through the day on various subjects of religion, history and politics.

How many is many? Just out of curiosity. That is, how many christians do you feel you are superior morally too? 50%? 20%? Or is it just on one particular subject that you feel morally superior too.

Bentusi16:

Can you logically prove that there's no need for religion?

Not any more than I can prove there's no need for war, what's your point here?

Bentusi16:

Nikolaz72:

The Lyre:

Except that I made it as clear as I possibly could that I was talking about a certain type of person in both parties.

Wait what.

The Lyre:
the worst of both parties

Nevermind... Thought you were putting everyone on all sides in the same boat. Anyway, I still argue that even the worst of both sides are not equally dickish and judgemental, what with one sides extreme not even arguing for temporary torture for the others sides beliefs, and the other sides extreme arguing for eternal torture (And in many cases, imprisonment and forced conversion in life as the only way to prevent said eternal torture)for the same thing.

I, in my own opinion. Have perfectly good reason to think that Atheists have the moral high-ground over many Christians on this point. And I have little reason to change that unless I start to see some proper evidence to counteract the piles of materials I've read through the day on various subjects of religion, history and politics.

How many is many? Just out of curiosity. That is, how many christians do you feel you are superior morally too? 50%? 20%? Or is it just on one particular subject that you feel morally superior too.

In short, I feel superior to the people who want me to suffer eternal torture in hell. Whatever percentage that might be, disregarding the African catholics and the Russian Orthodox I figure 20 would be accurate. If we include those two it might be as many as 50%.

The rest are just peachy, can hardly be anything else what with coming from a Christian family. Having studied religion in great intensity I can even say that I have sympathy for many of the worlds religions, Christianity was once a small little judged religion in Rome. Islam made an honest attempt to unite warring factions which, if succeeded would at least have prevented the Abrahamic religions from destroying the crap out of eachother. Jews I've never understood, they worship an awfully judgemental god whom aint even loving, but at least hell doesn't exist in their faith to my knowledge, and our god despite saying he is, really Isn't that loving. So they aren't all bad. Except for the Orthodox ones whom not only mooch off of the rest of the jews, expecting them to work so that they can do religious studies, but also make the lives of the Palestinians hell by at least a large majority believing themselves to rightfully take what they want due to their past mistreatment.

The Religious people whom believe that even if I'm an atheist, I still get to sit out chilling with them in heaven as long as I was a decently good guy, if what they believe turns out to be true (I'd personally convert in a heartbeat if I ended up in the alleged Heaven mind you). And aren't trying to force something like creationism down other childrens throat using the schoolsystem, heck. Maybe even believe that god created Evolution and thereby believe in Evolution. I don't just tolerate, but I respect them.

The Lyre:
Good for you. So do Bob and Ben. People don't like Bob and Ben. Bob and Ben have no friends, because Bob and Ben can't stop telling people how much better they are than everyone else.

Plenty of friends both religious and non-religious. But thanks for your input nontheless. I'm glad that you've found a way to feel superior to both Bob and Ben, keep fighting the good fight.

But yes, I will most likely think that the Scientist is superior to the Holyman. What with whatever he argues being grounded in facts and the other guy argues from a millenia old book consisting only of stories ripped off from other, older religions. Which only sympathetic character is the communistic protagonist whom most that since worshipped him has completely misunderstood.

The Lyre:

Even if you yourself believe that being an Atheist makes you superior - so what? You didn't come up with the ideas. You didn't come up with the arguments. It's all just copy-pasta you borrow from recorded debates and Wikipedia articles on paradoxes. And then the same kind of person from the other side just quotes scripture at you - or, again, Wikipedia articles.

Where'd this come from? I've never copypasted my arguements from wikipedia articles. And I've never watched a recorded debate with an Atheist in my life. My words are my own. And why do someone have to come up with a completely unique set of beliefs themselves if they want to argue for it? I mean I'm sure my opinions aren't the same as all other atheists, but its not like you would care. To be honest if anyone here runs around with a tired point that has been made a thousand times before on this very forum. It's you mate. You argue the same that every Agnostic who wishes to feel morally and intellectually superior come here to argue, using most the same words.

BiscuitTrouser:

manic_depressive13:

Threadcreator:
Why name Weak Atheism - Agnostic Atheism?

It's probably an attempt to differentiate atheism from spiritualism by pretending that we would be prepared to admit change our minds in the face of 'evidence'.

Thats a bit silly isnt it? If god appeared before me RIGHT NOW i dont think its physically possible to delude myself enough to claim he isnt real. I dont mean like a vision. Like creating life and destroying mountains and such in a way that cant possibly be my imagination, confirmed by others also. I dont think people can physically reject physical evidence like that. My lack of belief in god isnt a choice. I just cant convince myself to honestly say i think it is real. Likewise i cant convince myself to not think the cup in front of me is real. Im just incapable of it. Its not pretending at all.

You probably feel like Manic Depressive here. I feel a bit more like BiscuitTrouser.

That being said, I 'did' feel tempted to put down the XKCD comic, but its just 'that' good. Still, I stopped myself. To an extra unique little snowflake in your eyes : P.

edit:

Vegosiux:

Bentusi16:

Can you logically prove that there's no need for religion?

Not any more than I can prove there's no need for war, what's your point here?

Just curious, since you said you could use logic to disprove the need for a deity. Most people use the two interchangeably.

Bentusi16:

Vegosiux:

Bentusi16:

Can you logically prove that there's no need for religion?

Not any more than I can prove there's no need for war, what's your point here?

Just curious, since you said you could use logic to disprove the need for a deity. Most people use the two interchangeably.

Indeed, they do. But they're not the same. As science advances to explain phenomena that have been previously attributed to deities; it's not Thor that makes lightning, and it's not Morana that makes winter come or makes people die. Thor and Morana are deities, concepts of things that people, at a time, could not explain for themselves.

Religion is a whole other can o' worms though. It has...degrees of adherence. Many religious people do not read the Bible as the exact word of god, but more as a book of stories and interpretations that makes it easier for them to cope. And here's the important distinction. If anyone chooses to remain ignorant, that's their choice. As long as they do not try to make others stay ignorant, I can accept it.

I mean...I love my remaining grandmother, may whatever God she believes in grant her mercy. She's a devout Catholic, but at the same time, she interprets her religion the way she thinks is right, she does not follow the dogma, she does not vote for the party that's closest to "catholic" in Slovenia, she doesn't think her God hates those who do not conform.

She tells me she prays for me every night, and you know, I'm an atheist, but I am happy that she does. Because her prayer is not a way to "talk to her God and make Him fix me", it's a way of her showing she cares, that she simply wishes things turn out in my favor. Sure it's her faith, she's religious, but...to her it's just a means, not an end. I mean if I decided to go for a same-sex marriage (for example) she'd tell me she didn't expect it, that she found it strange, but that it's my decision to make and she'll, well, pray for me and as long as I'm happy, she will be too.

She's pretty much what I could describe the "virtue" of religion - following a rough, vague set of teachings (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself...) maybe even talking to some "entity" she believes is the mediator, but it's her who decides what this entity is, not the dogma. If the pope, ex cathedra, suddenly decided that something is evil, the first thing she would do would be check if it really is evil in her opinion.

And that's how I see this. Religion as a personal thing is perfectly fine.

But the moment it's used as a mass advertising tool, it has overstepped its boundaries and must be opposed. So basically...religion is okay as long as it does not try to "convert".

PS: Anyone who wishes to question my grandmother, I've known her for 30 years. I daresay I know her better than any of you. Am actually quite upset this disclaimer is necessary.

Vegosiux:
Indeed, they do. But they're not the same. As science advances to explain phenomena that have been previously attributed to deities; it's not Thor that makes lightning, and it's not Morana that makes winter come or makes people die. Thor and Morana are deities, concepts of things that people, at a time, could not explain for themselves.

Religion is a whole other can o' worms though. It has...degrees of adherence.

Mythology, such as Thor, or works of fiction, such as Star Wars and Dr. Who, have degrees of adherence.

Maybe the best thing religion can do is officially re-brand as mythology. Then people can have a portrait of Jesus on their wall or hanging in their cubicles at work and it would be no different than a favorite anime character. The Bible would just be like a really bad fan-fiction, probably turned into manga, but at least the world wouldn't get so offended, just otakus.

One of my best friends is a fairly devout Protestant that goes to congregation every week and reads a Bible passage daily and even though I am an Atheist leaning slightly towards Agnostic we get along great and its never been a problem in our friendship, we both respect each others stance and we have even had some interesting discussions about religion and philosophy. Sometimes we both let something slip that might be offensive in some minds but we never get angry or upset, he knows that while organised religion offends me I respect individuals even though I often do not understand the mind set. I know that he believes strongly and doesn't understand my mindset either and I think he hopes one day I may find myself finding the joy and hope he has with his beliefs (he has never tried to "save" me though).

Sometimes he says stuff that amuses me, like without thinking he says "God bless you" and things like that. He also told me he said prayers when he went to church when I was in hospital a few years back. I do not mock him or get offended, I know he means well by it. Likewise when religion makes me angry like if someone kills someone because of religion or people are subjected to bigotry he knows I sort of mean well by it, he sees that its compassion and the trampling of human rights thats making me angry.

Day to day though when it comes to other people religion is rarely brought up, its generally not a big deal in my region in England. Its more important in other parts of the UK but for most of my life its not something that gets raised often, most people only attend Church for three reasons. Christenings, weddings and funerals and that's about it. Why people still bother with Christenings I don't know, often the parents never go to church unless it was for one of those three reasons and most of the Anglicans have never even been confirmed themselves. They don't send their children for confirmation lessons either, they have a Christening but they never take the kid again (unless for one of those three reasons).

I don't know whether its because its become an ingrained "tradition" and people that are otherwise Atheist or Agnostic feel its all part of getting your kid a name or something, or possibly because if the kid wants to get a C of E wedding later in life. I don't know, anyone know why? Its actually frustrating as an Atheist because lobby groups often use Christening statistics as an argument claiming X amount of people are members of a the C of E, of course they don't use confirmation statistics all that much... If it wasn't for Christenings the UK would probably be even more secularised than it is.

The only reason religion ever caused me a personal problem in my life was actually because of a wedding, my ex wife wanted to have the whole white wedding thing and I refused. She wasn't particularly religious but she wanted to have the whole big day going on with the epic dress and ten thousand bridesmaids, I argued against it because I didn't really believe in it and didn't feel the need for "Gods approval" and its not like we hadn't been playing hide the sausage for the better part of two years and already had a kid. Eventually I agreed for her because she was really looking forward to it which caused a problem with some of my Catholic family members that where not all that impressed with an Anglican wedding and subsequently my Aunt, Uncle and Cousin didn't attend.

Nikolaz72:
Christianity was once a small little judged religion in Rome. Islam made an honest attempt to unite warring factions which, if succeeded would at least have prevented the Abrahamic religions from destroying the crap out of eachother. Jews I've never understood, they worship an awfully judgemental god whom aint even loving, but at least hell doesn't exist in their faith to my knowledge, and our god despite saying he is, really Isn't that loving.

That is one thing I have to respect with Islam, its honesty. Christianity makes out what a loving Father God is and then in the next breath the smitings, torments, genocides and eternal damnation in hell start up. At least Islam is honest in that its about "Obedience to Allah" and anyone that falls in line will receive "provision" with everyone else being screwed.

The Lyre:

I'm holding all sides to the same standards.

Bob: "I'm a 'holy man' so I'm superior! Anyone who holds beliefs that contradicts my own must be naturally inferior, and ignorant!"

Ben: "I'm a 'scientist' so I'm superior! Anyone who holds beliefs that contradicts my own must be naturally inferior, and ignorant!"

I don't see any difference. Both of these kinds of people think they've found the one 'real' way of looking at the universe, the only difference is that one is right.

Fixed that for ya.

To be honest, I would think you'd be entirely right if you'd just limited your point to how these two camps conduct themselves.

But, then you went and ruined it, by implying their ideas and beliefs themselves are worth just as much as eachothers'.

OP:I'm not an Athiest, but I usually try to avoid anybody that is trying to proselytize their views, whether they be Atheist, Religious, Agnostic, Deistic, or something else. As long as I don't feel pressure or harassed to join them, I get along with everybody.
:D

Nikolaz72:

From my POV it just seems Republicanism in the U.S has been about Racism and Intolerance since time immemorial

Then your POV is in need of reading the history of the US and which political party it was that freed African slaves and which party it was that opposed abolition.

Better yet, do yourself a favor a look up the first Black American senator, Hiram Rhodes Revels. He was the first POC in the US Senate and Congress. The reason why I bring him up was that he was elected as a Republican Alderman and when he first attempted to join the Democrat Senate, the Democrats threw a temper tantrum and brought up
Dred v. Scott as a "justification" for their racist discrimination.

So kindly read up on some US history next time you feel the need to tell the rest of us your POV on the "history" of US political parties-especially when some of us happen to be Americans.

Nikolaz72:

And say theres a completely reasonable person that flies that flag in his yard, youknow what the neighbors will think?

They will think his a racist, intolerant, bigot.

No, I can gladly say that beside you, a person on the internet and somebody who isn't American, I have never met anybody that so devoutly equated having a the US flag out on forth of July with nationalism or "racis[m], intoleran[ce], bigot[ry]".

Nikolaz72:

And this guy aint a racist intolerant bigot, his just patriotic. But the Republican party has ruined the good reputation of patriots effectively.

According to who? Europeans?

EDIT:

Nikolaz72:
Islam made an honest attempt to unite warring factions which, if succeeded would at least have prevented the Abrahamic religions from destroying the crap out of eachother.

Thanks but no thanks. Jews were not, nor are we now looking to be like the EU and be ruled under one party in the Middle East or the rest of the world for that matter.

Nikolaz72:
Jews I've never understood, they worship an awfully judgemental god whom aint even loving, but at least hell doesn't exist in their faith to my knowledge, and our god despite saying he is, really Isn't that loving. So they aren't all bad.

Again, its not just about religion but about our identity as an ethnic group and culture.

Nikolaz72:
Except for the Orthodox ones whom not only mooch off of the rest of the jews, expecting them to work so that they can do religious studies,

Before you make make more antisemetic crap up about Orthodox Jews, you should take the time to realize that not all Orthodox Jews live in Israel, nor are all Orthodox Haredi.

Nikolaz72:
but also make the lives of the Palestinians hell by at least a large majority believing themselves to rightfully take what they want due to their past mistreatment.

Yeah its horrible that the indigenous Jews got fed up with being persecuted for over a thousand years by Europeans and Arabs and that they just wanted to go back home the entire time they were in exile.

Almost makes you wonder why most of the Jewish diaspora chose to leave their ancient land.... oh wait, not it doesn't because it was the Roman Empire that committed ethnic cleansing and forced them to live in exile and persecution for over a millennium.

Arakasi:
Yes, yes I do.

Why is it incorrect? Would it not have been incorrect if she'd done the same things, but without being religiously motivated? If so, then why rate people's lives so arbitrarily?

I am aware of that. What I'm saying is that the religious belief system is one of the many wrong ways to live life, as it is not in accordance with reality and thus time-wasting.

Reading lots of fantasy or science-fiction isn't in accordance with reality and wastes time, as well. And who are you to say people aren't allowed to waste a bit of time? We are on an Internet forum dedicated to video games, after all. Nobody has a prerogative to fulfill any standard of efficiency but their own. Your definition of efficiency or what is wasting time only applies to you. To apply that standard to others is just arrogant and judgmental.

If someone isn't being a bad person, then what does it matter what their motivations are? What does it matter to you if somebody is motivated by the Bible, or the Koran, or Yoda[1]? Life's too short and people are too complicated to get all wrapped up in what inspires or drives them.

[1] Do, or do not. There is no try.

Lilani:

Arakasi:
Yes, yes I do.

Why is it incorrect? Would it not have been incorrect if she'd done the same things, but without being religiously motivated? If so, then why rate people's lives so arbitrarily?

I don't think one necessarily could have done the same things - prayer and such, without it being religiously motivated. I'm sure she did some good things, by whatever definition of good you use, and some bad things, by the same measure. But when trying to find out what is good and bad, following the mumbo jumbo of the Catholic church is not the way to go.

Lilani:

I am aware of that. What I'm saying is that the religious belief system is one of the many wrong ways to live life, as it is not in accordance with reality and thus time-wasting.

Reading lots of fantasy or science-fiction isn't in accordance with reality and wastes time, as well. And who are you to say people aren't allowed to waste a bit of time? We are on an Internet forum dedicated to video games, after all. Nobody has a prerogative to fulfill any standard of efficiency but their own. Your definition of efficiency or what is wasting time only applies to you. To apply that standard to others is just arrogant and judgmental.

Again, this depends on how you view time wasting. If you are a hedonist like myself, none of those things you mentioned are truly time wasting. If you know you're doing something entirely to make yourself feel good, how is that not in accordance with reality?

Lilani:

If someone isn't being a bad person, then what does it matter what their motivations are? What does it matter to you if somebody is motivated by the Bible, or the Koran, or Yoda[1]? Life's too short and people are too complicated to get all wrapped up in what inspires or drives them.

I beg to differ, as an aspiring philosopher it is entirely interesting to examine people's motivations and drives, and the potential underlying philosophies that inform them. One can argue that the end (good caused) justifies the means (delusion, or incorrect belief) but there can and will be a miss-fire from time to time, even when trying to do good, if one does so from faulty information (not that you still can't fuck up with the correct information, but it's a matter of likelihood).

Just so you know, it's not difficult to find criticisms of Mother Teresa. No one is above critique, see here and here. No one is perfect, but we can try to be, and success, I think, will have to ultimately utilise the correct metaphysical and philosophical framework.

[1] Do, or do not. There is no try.

Shadowstar38:

Are any of you actually that skittish about the subject about the subject of religion in day to day life? Do seeing people display their faith openly make you feel uncomfortable? Are you more tactful when speaking to people in person, or is it one of those "don't bring it up if you don't have to" situations?

Well, people tend to take their believes rather serious and as someone who has a tendency to discuss stuff like religion very critical i try to avoid the topic. They won't convince me, i won't convince them, but their feelings will probably get hurt, so why bother? That said, i don't have a problem with people who display their faith openly. Most religious people i have met were nice people, so unless someone tries to force his believes on others i don't care.

I'm willing to admit that I do feel a certain amount of unease around people who are religious, especially if I'm meeting them for the first time. Its not like I'm going to start screaming my lack of belief from the rooftops, if the topic does come up, I don't want to have someone flip out on me. It may have to do with my already somewhat severe social anxiety, but knowing that religion can be a very touchy subject with people, it adds yet another aspect of social interaction that makes me feel stressed.

Arakasi:
Again, this depends on how you view time wasting. If you are a hedonist like myself, none of those things you mentioned are truly time wasting. If you know you're doing something entirely to make yourself feel good, how is that not in accordance with reality?

Ah, I understand now. It's not that you're anti-theist, it's just that you are intolerant to every belief system you don't agree with. As an aspiring philosopher, as you state below, that is rather bad form to be so partial, don't you think?

I beg to differ, as an aspiring philosopher it is entirely interesting to examine people's motivations and drives, and the potential underlying philosophies that inform them. One can argue that the end (good caused) justifies the means (delusion, or incorrect belief) but there can and will be a miss-fire from time to time, even when trying to do good, if one does so from faulty information (not that you still can't fuck up with the correct information, but it's a matter of likelihood).

Just so you know, it's not difficult to find criticisms of Mother Teresa. No one is above critique, see here and here. No one is perfect, but we can try to be, and success, I think, will have to ultimately utilise the correct metaphysical and philosophical framework.

Yes, thank you, somebody has already pointed these things out to me about Mother Teresa. And this was my response:

Hm, interesting. I'll have to look more into that.

My point still stands, though. Of course religion and power can be used to negative effects. Though technically, if Christians would follow Jesus' teachings verbatim, then these secret bank accounts wouldn't exist and pastors wouldn't have such lavish homes. So is religion really to blame, or how people choose to use it? And what determines how people use religion? The a lot of the religious people I know use their motivations to be there for people and put themselves in situations where they can best help others.

I think how a person uses the powers around them is what shapes this world, not the powers themselves. Religion, science, money, politics, and every other force in the world would be inert if not put to use.

Lilani:

Arakasi:
Again, this depends on how you view time wasting. If you are a hedonist like myself, none of those things you mentioned are truly time wasting. If you know you're doing something entirely to make yourself feel good, how is that not in accordance with reality?

Ah, I understand now. It's not that you're anti-theist, it's just that you are intolerant to every belief system you don't agree with. As an aspiring philosopher, as you state below, that is rather bad form to be so partial, don't you think?

No, I'm not intolerant to every belief system that is not my own. Simply to those that don't hold up under logical reasoning, and/or evidence. I am very open to change, should evidence or good argument lead me to it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked