In God We Trust

[Jason Ross]

Jason Ross:

"So how could one handle say an 18 year old who still believes in Santa Claus?...I was a fundamentalists Christian for a good 18 years of my life."

Connie nailed you:

Originally Posted by Conniekat8...
"Ah, now that may explain why you are in such an over zealous anti-religion kicking back and lashing out mode now. Well, that's too bad. Maybe some day you'll get over it a bit more and look at things more rationally."

You obviously skipped over post #190 of this thread. There is no middle ground of rationality to come "up" or "back" to when you dealing with religion. Just because you see no problem with religion then that must be the best position for someone like me to come to someday. It's like telling an ex-racists who was raised by racists parents who now voices loudly against racism that "Oh you're just overzealous and lashing out because you were a racist for 18 years of your life. Too bad but maybe you'll look at it more rationally one day."

What's laughable is what would be the excuse if I was not an ex-Christian (which she also stated)? Let me guess...Oh well you don't have to knowledge to really understand religion. You're just lashing out because of ignorance. What a fucking joke.

"A man living inside of a fish for 3 days is just as ridiculous as Jewish zombies roaming the streets."

No shit really??

Yes really, now go tell a cherry picking modern Christian that and watch him/her try to convince you that when Jesus died on the cross for your sins the graves opened up and the dead walked the streets. Er wait, you don't really know much of these tales and their location in the bible do you?

"It's all silly and it is cherry picking. Dump one part then dump them all and think for yourself."

Cherry picking is thinking for yourself. Fortunately most religious people are not the simpletons you paint them to be and are able to sift out the useful wisdom from the far-fetched mythology, and dont dump the baby out with the bathwater as you clearly did when you were 18 and found out Santa wasnt coming.

No its not. Cherry picking is taking verbatim what someone else thought of "here" but not what they thought "there" based on desire not rationality. I never painted religious people as simpletons. If you sift out the wisdom from the far fetched mythology then you completely sifted out religion in the process. Religion minus the far fetched mythology and super natural claims equal philosophy. The point is that if you dump one supernatural claim based on rationality then dump all supernatural claims based on rationality.

Jason Rainville

"What are the fundamentals of atheism? How can one be fundamentalist with regard to atheism? Do you know the difference between fundamentalism and intensity/passion?"

Fervent atheists and fervent evangelicals have a lot in common, particularly the absence of doubt. They are both absolutely certain they are right.

The only fundamental of atheism is the rejection of the claim of a god. It's not a claim in itself. It's like calling "not watching tv" a tv station.
There is nothing wrong with religious fundamentalists...the problem is the fundamentals of religion.

[Velocity Kendall]

"It's like telling an ex-racists who was raised by racists parents who now voices loudly against racism that "Oh you're just overzealous"

no, its nothing like that. at least not for most people. were you parents really that bad? ie equivalent to nasty racists?

"There is nothing wrong with religious fundamentalists...the problem is the fundamentals of religion."

Strange, I dont see anything in the fundamentals of islam about blowing oneself up. i doubt mohammad or jesus or buddha would be in favour of it...?

"go tell a cherry picking modern Christian that and watch him/her try to convince you that when Jesus died on the cross for your sins the graves opened up and the dead walked the streets."

Stranger.. Ive spoken to plenty of christians and none of them have ever tried to convince me of anything so bizarre.

Sounds like you had a pretty bad time of religion. I agree that kids shouldnt be exposed to it anymore than they should be given free access to drugs or alcohol. I was a moderate christian till i was 9 or 10 when I decided I wasnt. Care to share?

[tobbA]

Fervent atheists and fervent evangelicals have a lot in common, particularly the absence of doubt. They are both absolutely certain they are right.

Only one of them are, though.

[JFierce]

Your post is insipid and vacuous. But it is also comical, so I'll extend the courtesy of a response for having made me laugh at you.

Tell me: Would you advocate, to someone, the belief in a lie? Would you lie to someone about how they should live their lives? Do you think it is better or worse for people to base their lives on fairy tales, however wonderful and fantastical such tales might be? Do you think it is respectable for someone to keep lying even when they're presented with the facts? How okay are we with believing religious texts purely because they regurgitate intuitive and instinctive pinnacles of human morality?

You know what religions have in common? At their cores, they are all based on lies. But of course, according to you there are so many flavours of these lies that it would be wrong to argue against them: how could you when you haven't even tasted all of the lies out there?

Maybe I'll find a certain lie that I like and then suddenly religion will make sense and it will be a good thing?

When a religion asks you to place your life in the hands of something that doesn't exist, how can you be okay with believing some of what it says but not everything?

Oh my big words to say simply 'stupid' you know you can just be up front in plain english it won't hurt my feelings lol.

But you seem to be confusing as if I view it all as some great truth
that this is scientific, this happened then this happened this man provided a miracle. That's not how I view things when it comes to religion. For me this is not science, I'd view it closer to people trying to answer questions brought up by philosophy than anything and this is where it comes to the gritty of someone saying this was lie that everyone in a religion is so irrational that they base their entire lives on fairytales.


Then once again viewing it as everyone in religion take it literally. When some just view aspects as life lessons, maybe some philosophy, then obviously most religions when it comes down to it goes into some view on death or what comes after with various interpretations the act of explaining. Then others go into a greater being or god which many personalize while others don't. But lumping them all together is fine, it's like saying anyone is an idiot because they believe in anything after death, it's not scientifically rational to believe so but I don't know many people who think that the conscious mind disappears and just ceases to exist.


Well anyways lets see, would I lie to someone to tell them how they should live their lives:

Once again the pretense that all religions demand a set behavior which they don't, usually also inferring that it has some form of punishment to coax them into it and then ignoring the interpretation as just an interpretation of lies either way.


Do you think it's better for people to base their lives on fairy tales:

Once again the assumption that those in religion base their entire lives on fairy tales rather than just drawing a moral interpretation from it, which science doesn't deal in morals and one has to draw it from somewhere it isn't internalized. You can base it on the world around you or use some reference or reading. Most do both in their life. When one just draws on it from the world around them that's often how bigotry and prejudice is passed down. Because the morals presented aren't necessarily good or bad depending on the culture.


Do you think it's ok for someone to keep lying when presented with facts:

If you present someone with evidence that is infallible on something like Jonah in the whale I do expect someone to not believe it. I don't view Jonah as literal or truth, or that he even existed at all. But once again assuming everyone blindly does, that in a religion your turned into a zombie void of thought.

How okay are we with believing religious texts purely because they regurgitate intuitive and instinctive pinnacles of human morality?

These principles aren't intuitive, and not instinctive at all, they're ingrained in the culture over time. Imagine a culture where there is no thoughts whatsoever on the afterlife, consciousness, or anything of the like. Killing someone holds no repercussions. Is it then intuitive and instinctive that killing is bad.

I remember a study that was shown when someone is presented with someone that's in pain, when someone has control of them electrically being shocked, and people are told to ignore it and crank up the juice, that it's part of the study that a surprising amount don't even blink an eye or hesitate they just did it. Morality is culturally relative the same as whipping slaves back in the day was viewed no differently than scolding your dog.


When a religion asks you to place your life in the hands of something that doesn't exist, how can you be okay with believing some of what it says but not everything?

Some religions do ask you to place your life in the hands of something, I have yet to say that is a good thing, I have said that there are people that don't take it as literal as that, or there are those that think their 'personal god' doesn't guide their fate, even scientists go into intelligent design that there's a guiding force behind something like evolution, many scientists view it as some form of god, some don't. Though not every religion believes in a personal god.




Main point is still stereotyping everyone generally and their beliefs/them as irrational fools just because it doesn't fit your views on the universe.

[Jason Ross]

"It's like telling an ex-racists who was raised by racists parents who now voices loudly against racism that "Oh you're just overzealous"

no, its nothing like that. at least not for most people. were you parents really that bad? ie equivalent to nasty racists?

Well the idea of being indoctrinated with false ideas that carry over into adulthood. God does hate gay people and what they do. I do not.

"There is nothing wrong with religious fundamentalists...the problem is the fundamentals of religion."

Strange,I dont see anything in the fundamentals of islam about blowing oneself up. i doubt mohammad or jesus or buddha would be in favour of it...?

I don't think that you are looking hard enough. tidbit.

Life

A time may come when you will be required to sacrifice your life for the sake of Allah. To so lay down your life is the highest act of doing shahadah; you then deserve to be called shahid. Life is your most precious possession. To sacrifice it means you have to sacrifice everything which life gives or makes possible, all concrete and abstract things that have been mentioned earlier.

You can indeed become eager to die in the way of Allah as soon as you realize that your life does not belong to you but to Him, and you must render to Him what is His due. You should also remember that death you can never escape or avoid, that it will always come at the appointed hour and place, in the appointed manner (al-Imran 3:185, 144-5, 154-6 ; al-Nisaa 4:78). You should also know that those who die in the way of Allah attain a life, for themselves and their community and their mission, which transcends their death: "And say not of those slain in God's way, "They are dead"; Nay, they are alive but you perceive it not."(al-Baqarah 2:154)

Let there be no love of this world, let there be no fear death.

Only then can you attain the strength necessary to sacrifice your life. Only by being ready to die can you overwhelm hostile forces. Only then the door of success shall open. By dying you attain life, both for yourself and for the community. Unless you are prepared to die you forfeit the right to live especially as a community.

Not that everyone of us will be called upon to give away his life. But the yearning to do so must burn in every heart. "One who does not fight or even thinks of fighting in the way of Allah will die the death of a hypocrite", said the Prophet, blessings and peace be on him (Muslim). He also said: "By Him in whose hands is my life, I love that I die in the way of Allah and made alive, that I die again and again given life, I again die and once again given life, only to die again in the way of Allah." (Bukhari, Muslim)

"go tell a cherry picking modern Christian that and watch him/her try to convince you that when Jesus died on the cross for your sins the graves opened up and the dead walked the streets."

Stranger.. Ive spoken to plenty of christians and none of them have ever tried to convince me of anything so bizarre.

Next time you get a chance, dig a little bit into what the "rational" Christian believes. My guess is that they did not want to you know what they really believe because it's bizarre.

Sounds like you had a pretty bad time of religion. I agree that kids shouldnt be exposed to it anymore than they should be given free access to drugs or alcohol. I was a moderate christian till i was 9 or 10 when I decided I wasnt. Care to share?

I deconverted at around 18 or so and admitted total non-belief at around 30 but unlike you think I had a wonderful time being a Christian. I was special. God chose me, talked to me, comforted me. I had friends who felt the same. Discussing how special God made me made me feel good. But it made me lazy. Made me believe that things would come to me just because of who I was. Not what I made myself into. It was all a facade. It was me chosing me, me talking to myself, and me comforting me. I was totally back in control of what I wanted in life.

[Lady Medusa]

What are the fundamentals of atheism? How can one be fundamentalist with regard to atheism?

Ever heard the phrase Militant Atheist. That's what most atheists are like. Its like fundie-mentality. "My beliefs are the only beliefs that should be allowed so I'm going to push it upon you" or "Destroy all other belief-systems" kind of deal.

I wish people could just respect that people have different views and beliefs*, and that they believe* in any way they want :/ Is that really too much to ask for in this world?

* I'm speaking religion when I say believe. A person shouldn't believe they are the king of unicorns and rub themselves in peanut butter so that the pixies will come. You might see it just as bonkers to believe in some deity, but as long as they just shut up you can't really tell

[s.ketch]

So analysing the pros and cons of religion is bad, but youre annoyed because we're not talking about the "actual merits" (pros and cons) of religion. You blew it.

Stop framing the conversation and then replying to it. It's a cute, but play another hand. Everything I say you put in your own words and then ask rhetorical questions.

"History isn't dictated by a list of pros and cons"
"SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU CAN'T EVALUATE SOMETHING WITH PROS AND CONS? HMMM SOUNDS SILLY TO ME"

That's fucking annoying. Like a gnat at a barbecue. I was initially making a remark about how everything a Christian does isn't dictated by religion. If a monk invents chords, it's doesn't have to be because his faith compells him to. He's a monk. Sitting around all day in some monastery gets boring. I don't doubt for a second they had libraries and had hobbies like classical literature and math. Anyone who sits in a room and studies really hard for years are bound to do some great stuff regardless of their beliefs. So I didn't really see the point in giving a tally mark to God because some bored people invented stuff.

Which brings me back to the whole pros and cons thing that you continue to (willfully?) not understand. If we sat down right now and made a chart with religion and non-religion on opposite sides and decided that we all come up with something good each side did in history and that would once-and-for-all prove who's more beneficial to humanity, that wouldn't be a very objective way of solving anything. Why you ask? Is it because I'm stupid for not thinking that making a pros/cons list is a great way to decide who I'm going to take to the Winter Ball? No. Because the "winner" would be decided on who gets the most tallies. And tallies would come from someone who know's more trivia about history. And that's it. Research. Whoever can do more wins. Doesn't matter who's actually right or what actually happened. If someone can name one more "victory" for a side, then they "win." Now please don't be afraid to take this talking of winning and losing out of context.

haha yeah ok storm off without actually answering any of my questions.

"Storm off"....from a thread...on the internet. So basically what we have here is if I don't answer silly questions then I must be mad.

Which questions? Well, the one where I asked you if political correctness being responsible for legally enforce workplace equality wasnt a good thing for one.

Irrelevant question. You know what I meant by political correctness. And it's a fallacy to assume that PC being great in one, highly unrelated circumstance means it's great in all circumstances. The world of ideas is not one of "equal rights." Ideas about how the universe works are judged based on evidence, logic, and how well they predict the future. Well-founded ideas are not equal to unfounded ideas that are popular and make people feel good. It's not a democracy. All ideas don't deserve equal respect. If you respect the idea that reptillians are controlling the world, bully for you. I don't have to and there is no rule or bill of rights that says I have to. I just have to let those people express their silly ideas and then I get to make silly long-winded posts.

its like your arguing against yourself.

It feels like it sometimes. The people I enjoy arguing with don't post much anymore.

Ho ho and remember that time you outright lied and said I called you a fascist? That was terrible Muriel!

"You seem to think everyone should be exactly like you"

HIEL WEISEL

Ever heard the phrase Militant Atheist. That's what most atheists are like. Its like fundie-mentality. "My beliefs are the only beliefs that should be allowed so I'm going to push it upon you" or "Destroy all other belief-systems" kind of deal.

"My non-existent beliefs are the only beliefs that should be allowed so I'm going to push something that isn't there onto you!"

[Conniekat8]

I used the word as being roughly synonymous with "undue fanaticism." With some of the atheists I have met online, it is like that: not only do you have to agree with them that all religion is utterly evil, you have to agree with it in terms as passionate as the ones they use, or otherwise you are one of the enemy. And they won't stop badgering you about it until you either agree or you go away.

Yeap, yeap, over zealous extremists.
They are a royal PITA no mater what denomination, or lack thereof.

Just because you see no problem with religion then that must be the best position for someone like me to come to someday.

I don't think I ever made an assertion that I see no problems with religion. Had you paid attention to what I was actually saying, and wasn't so busy twisting most of what I said in a number of posts, you would have noticed that my position has always been that religions have good and bad things in them.

Where we differ is that you insist that religions are all horrible, and there are no redeeming qualities to them whatsoever. I think that's a rather ignorant, extremist, emotionally immature and emotionally charged and position you have taken on religion.

I'm mot going to go point by point with you. I have no need to convince you of anything, and I've seen enough to make up my mind about your position. It's been .... interesting.

Ever heard the phrase Militant Atheist. That's what most atheists are like. Its like fundie-mentality. "My beliefs are the only beliefs that should be allowed so I'm going to push it upon you" or "Destroy all other belief-systems" kind of deal.

I wish people could just respect that people have different views and beliefs*, and that they believe* in any way they want :/ Is that really too much to ask for in this world?

* I'm speaking religion when I say believe. A person shouldn't believe they are the king of unicorns and rub themselves in peanut butter so that the pixies will come. You might see it just as bonkers to believe in some deity, but as long as they just shut up you can't really tell

Lot of supposed atheists are really anti-theists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist"

they're so flippin' knowledgeable (just ask them, they have to declare their credentials, because reading through their stuff, you can't tell), they don't even know where they belong.

[blogmatix]

Fervent atheists and fervent evangelicals have a lot in common, particularly the absence of doubt. They are both absolutely certain they are right.

And that, I think, is the key to the whole thing. The fervent have a low tolerance for any uncertainty. Perhaps it makes them nervous or something.

I have noticed over the years that both fervent atheists and fervent evangelicals are like this not only about their religion or its absence. They have this absolute certainty about everything. They will cling, for example, to their political ideologies with the same fanaticism, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that their ideas won't work.

This is partly why the "war on drugs" is still going on, decades after it has become clear that it achieves the exact opposite of what it was intended to achieve, and why extreme versions of libertarianism keep on flourishing.

[blogmatix]

I was initially making a remark about how everything a Christian does isn't dictated by religion. If a monk invents chords, it's doesn't have to be because his faith compells him to. He's a monk. Sitting around all day in some monastery gets boring. I don't doubt for a second they had libraries and had hobbies like classical literature and math. Anyone who sits in a room and studies really hard for years are bound to do some great stuff regardless of their beliefs. So I didn't really see the point in giving a tally mark to God because some bored people invented stuff.

We should perhaps draw a distinction here between religion in the broad sense, and the church in particular. The monks who wrote books and invented musical notation were not just a bunch of bored guys who happened to be religious, sitting around in monasteries. The monasteries were specifically an institution of the church, and the activities of the monks were not merely condoned by the pope. It was church policy to preserve and copy books, and it was by papal decree that a specific (and quite huge) collection of chants be memorized (and thus any help in preserving the chants was actively encouraged).

Therefore, with at least some of this stuff, the church must get the credit. Especially considering the barbarism of the secular governments of the Middle Ages.

Must religion in general get the credit? Clearly not - some religions may well be very fanatically anti-knowledge. But it also illustrates that religion is in itself actually kind of irrelevant. Some people are nice. Some are not. Irrespective of whether they are religious or not.

[Velocity Kendall]

Sketch

"Everything I say you put in your own words and then ask rhetorical questions. "

Er no I used your own words. You said "And no, [talking about chalking up the pros and cons] it's not a good way of analyzing history."
And then later, complaining you felt the conversation was off topic: "It's more about the social aspect ...than the actual merits of religion."
Merits, pros, call em what you like bro.

"You know what I meant by political correctness."

Ohhh I seeee, so Im expected to interpret you sometimes, but not others? Man this is confusing! See I thought by political correctness you meant the modern legal basis that forces all workplaces to operate equal opportunities employment regardless of sex, sexuality, race or age. Which to me sounds like a good thing.
But I see now, what you really meant was a derogatory Daily Mail shorthand for what you see as the intrusive meddling of big government! You shouldve been more clear in your lazy mischaracterisation.

"I just have to let those people express their silly ideas and then I get to make silly long-winded posts. "

Well Im not sure you have to...

"The people I enjoy arguing with don't post much anymore. "

do you find that happens a lot?

"Stop framing the conversation and then replying to it....
Is it because I'm stupid for not thinking that making a pros/cons list is a great way to decide who I'm going to take to the Winter Ball? No.
Because the "winner" would be decided on who gets the most tallies. And tallies would come from someone who know's more trivia about history."

Ha ha ha no your stupid because you cant stick to your own rules or construct a metaphor that makes any sense silly! (here's a hint; your list of pros should be limited to whoever'll say yes.)

"Anyone who sits in a room and studies really hard for years are bound to do some great stuff regardless of their beliefs."

Wow you should start your own religion with this stuff man, its like deep and stuff.

Blogmatix

"The fervent have a low tolerance for any uncertainty. "

In a quantum world, that kind of thing will never do. Or will it? All I know for certain is I cant be sure.

[Jason Rainville]

Ever heard the phrase Militant Atheist. That's what most atheists are like..............

Question was rhetorical. there are no fundamentals of atheism, there are therefore no "fundamentalist" atheists. Militant, passionate? Sure, but not fundamentalist. Or as blog described "undue fanaticism." Term seems more accurate.

[s.ketch]

Ha ha ha no your stupid

Oh, I'm being trolled. Got it.

[Elwell]

Ever heard the phrase Militant Atheist. That's what most atheists are like.

No, it's not. Most atheists are the people you meet every day at the bank, supermarket, park, school, even at church. They keep quite out of embarrassment, fear, or simply because religion isn't important enough to them to fight about. But, because of the small percentage that aren't embarrassed, that aren't afraid, that do think that these issues are important and should be discussed, more and more come out of the closet every day.
Sound familiar?

[Brendan N]

Oh my [...] god.

Main point is still stereotyping everyone generally and their beliefs/them as irrational fools just because it doesn't fit your views on the universe.

You should read your posts out loud, your sentence construction is terrible. Your last sentence isn't even complete, it's missing a clause. "Insipid" and "vacuous" are not big words, you should know them, and neither of them mean "stupid." "Stupid" is just mildly synonymous. If I thought your post was stupid I'd have called it stupid, but I thought it was insipid and vacuous.

Your previous post was comical, and this one certainly doesn't disappoint. I think your latest work has gained a subtlety that you did not have before: you've developed this little tactic, which many may not notice. I'm going to call it "The Inverted Strawman" or "Namwarts" for short: instead of making false assumptions (which is what often happens in a strawman), you accuse me of making false assumptions and then back it up with false statements. I'm not sure the logic behind the naming there is sound but hey, what do you care, right? It sounds disgusting enough to be applicable here. Some of your namwarts include:

Once again the pretense that all religions demand a set behavior which they don't,[...]

Name one religion that does not impose a set of morals, demands specific behaviour or posits laws or ethics and is not a parody religion. Just one.

[...]science doesn't deal in morals[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality

When one just draws on it from the world around them that's often how bigotry and prejudice is passed down.

This is quite brilliant. If I understand you correctly - and I'm having a tough time doing that - science can lead to bigotry and prejudice? Bigotry and prejudice?

I don't view Jonah as literal or truth, or that he even existed at all.

What? You can't disprove Jonah and the whale, and the Bible says it's true. Bible's word against yours.

These principles aren't intuitive, and not instinctive at all, they're ingrained in the culture over time. Imagine a culture where there is no thoughts whatsoever on the afterlife, consciousness, or anything of the like. Killing someone holds no repercussions.

This isn't funny - it's just embarrassingly erroneous:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Though not every religion believes in a personal god.

Every religion makes supernatural claims. That is how we define them. Those claims may be regarded as false until empirically proven otherwise. No such claim has ever been proven empirically. Therefore all religions make false claims. Either I made a mistake in that line of reasoning, or I'm right.

I have said that there are people that don't take it as literal as that, or there are those that think their 'personal god' doesn't guide their fate, even scientists go into intelligent design that there's a guiding force behind something like evolution, many scientists view it as some form of god, some don't.

I don't know how that comes close to answering the question. I'm asking you how you can be okay with meeting certain religious demands and you're saying "I know people who suffer from intellectual schizophrenia." You don't seem to be dodging the question so much as hysterically running away from it, screaming and arms flailing.

You're a real hoot, you.
Your turn!

(I'm sorry I'm picking on you but you seem to be the most inept here and I like easy winnings. I wanted to tell you earlier but I was super afraid of hurting your feelings.)

[Brendan N]

Ever heard the phrase Militant Atheist. That's what most atheists are like. Its like fundie-mentality. "My beliefs are the only beliefs that should be allowed so I'm going to push it upon you" or "Destroy all other belief-systems" kind of deal.

I wish people could just respect that people have different views and beliefs*, and that they believe* in any way they want :/ Is that really too much to ask for in this world?

* I'm speaking religion when I say believe. A person shouldn't believe they are the king of unicorns and rub themselves in peanut butter so that the pixies will come. You might see it just as bonkers to believe in some deity, but as long as they just shut up you can't really tell

If you substitute "Atheist" with "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Jew" you'll realize just how stupid that sounds. Fun little exercise.

Also, please don't ask me to respect something as if I have a choice. I cannot magically conjure up respect - especially not for something like religion, which is based on lies, or it's subscribers, who believe in lies. And you can ask me to cease my criticisms and parodies and comments until Jesus comes back - it's not going to stop me. Your options are to engage me in conversation, civil or otherwise, or to walk away. I don't care.

[enrigo]

Name one religion that does not impose a set of morals, demands specific behaviour or posits laws or ethics and is not a parody religion. Just one.

From the religions I'm familiar with, I'd guess Zen meets this requirement. But because they use a lot of jokes and unexpected things to give you a knee jerk reaction, it could easily be a parody religion depend on how you look at it.

Then there is Tantra which are against denying and repressing moral codes, it was known to encourage people who are inclined to use sexual indulgence as a spiritual practice.

These religion holds little power in the world though,,, among the major religion maybe Buddhism is closest to not having moral rules.

[Randis]

i was in club nintendo when i was young

[Velocity Kendall]

Rolfs Cartoon Club (y'can join t'day!)

[Lady Medusa]

Oh god, people really took me literal there.
Brendan- I didn't ask you. But I still wish it could be like that.. Like in "I wish there were living rainbows and unicorns in every forest, is that so much to ask for?" Sure it'd be nice, but not in any way realistic. Like World Peace. Seriously is that ever going to happen? (Obvious answer would be "Yes, once religion has been eradicated". But no, it's not, because people find other things to wage wars over)

You guys are only reacting because I only literally attacked the atheist side. Fundies are just as silly if not even more silly. I don't give a fuck about the neutrals.

Most atheists go around thinking that most or all religious people are fundies. Like the religious people will think most atheists are militant.

S.Ketch, You know what I meant. Ok let me rephrase that. "My opinion is the only one valid, so I'm going to push yours out and replace them with mine".. I kind of want it to be versatile because it applies to both sides... I'm talking about that mentality there.

Ugh, Why am I so horrible at wording myself. And You've ignored me all the way until now.. I don't see how all you rational people took any offence or even note of what I said anyway :/
Edit: I'm not offended, just confused. I just want to be understood properly.

[JFierce]

You should read your posts out loud, your sentence construction is terrible. Your last sentence isn't even complete, it's missing a clause. "Insipid" and "vacuous" are not big words, you should know them, and neither of them mean "stupid." "Stupid" is just mildly synonymous. If I thought your post was stupid I'd have called it stupid, but I thought it was insipid and vacuous.

Your previous post was comical, and this one certainly doesn't disappoint. I think your latest work has gained a subtlety that you did not have before: you've developed this little tactic, which many may not notice. I'm going to call it "The Inverted Strawman" or "Namwarts" for short: instead of making false assumptions (which is what often happens in a strawman), you accuse me of making false assumptions and then back it up with false statements. I'm not sure the logic behind the naming there is sound but hey, what do you care, right? It sounds disgusting enough to be applicable here. Some of your namwarts include:



Name one religion that does not impose a set of morals, demands specific behaviour or posits laws or ethics and is not a parody religion. Just one.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality




This is quite brilliant. If I understand you correctly - and I'm having a tough time doing that - science can lead to bigotry and prejudice? Bigotry and prejudice?




What? You can't disprove Jonah and the whale, and the Bible says it's true. Bible's word against yours.



This isn't funny - it's just embarrassingly erroneous:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality



Every religion makes supernatural claims. That is how we define them. Those claims may be regarded as false until empirically proven otherwise. No such claim has ever been proven empirically. Therefore all religions make false claims. Either I made a mistake in that line of reasoning, or I'm right.



I don't know how that comes close to answering the question. I'm asking you how you can be okay with meeting certain religious demands and you're saying "I know people who suffer from intellectual schizophrenia." You don't seem to be dodging the question so much as hysterically running away from it, screaming and arms flailing.

You're a real hoot, you.
Your turn!

(I'm sorry I'm picking on you but you seem to be the most inept here and I like easy winnings. I wanted to tell you earlier but I was super afraid of hurting your feelings.)

Ah I love people with such a ridiculously condescending attitude.
They pretend to be the foremost expert in every field and are infallible in every way.

Oh I know what they mean with the wording, though you might want to look up the definition of the words yourself. Here straight from a dictionary if that doesn't do it for you for Vacuous.

"expressing or characterized by a lack of ideas or intelligence; inane; stupid"

But of course vacuous is everyday speech that a majority of people use right, and anyone who doesn't use as such is just lacking in basic intelligence. Your being egregiously condescending, oh my.



If you really think science deals in morals you can. Morals are built on culture or we can have a long nature vs nurture debate on whether it's biology or our interactions that decide what is right or wrong. I'm not discounting biology as it certainly might effect things on the base level but not much as a whole.

Do we need to get into the definition of Morality....

a moral discourse, statement, or lesson
b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2
a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct
b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3
: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4
: moral conduct : virtue


These things are not in us from the moment we're born. Although I will say I jumped the gun with killing, wasn't thinking about basic empathy I remember a study that even rats show that.


This is quite brilliant. If I understand you correctly - and I'm having a tough time doing that - science can lead to bigotry and prejudice? Bigotry and prejudice?


And your telling me I'm twisting words around good lord.
Humans gather our views on morality, what is right or wrong from what is around us, our parents neighbors, our society, our culture. So therefore if that culture is full of prejudice it's highly likely that unless exposed to an outside force those are the views your going to take on, anything beyond something like basic empathy for another being is learned.
So we keep morality out of science, studying biology, or chemistry doesn't give us our beliefs, our morality. Sociology is the closet to giving us a sense of morality in studying human society and culture.

Science doesn't deal in morality, Sociology seeks to 'study' human behavior in society but even that is not objective.


http://www.sociology.uiowa.edu/nsfwo...ality_2008.pdf

Principle (1) Moral judgments are not capable of objective truth or falsehood.




Name one religion that does not impose a set of morals, demands specific behaviour or posits laws or ethics and is not a parody religion. Just one.

I should have worded this to be more clear. Your statement was 'would you lie to someone to tell them how to live their lives'. Then just after you say 'do you think it's better or worse for people to base their lives on fairy tales'. All of these are loaded questions so you answer Yes I would, then your validating that they believe in lies and fairy tales which I'm presuming you mean in the literal sense. If I say No, then you say well then religion is all lies so there's no point in it.

There's no way to answer it so I made the assumption of you viewing it all in the literal sense of they all believe in a personal god, with decrees that you have to follow, once again the believe it all or not at all.

But as to your question above, there's a few that don't 'impose or demand' behavior. I'll just say Unitarianism for now.

From people I've met in that faith it's pretty open in that they don't condemn you differences in belief or behavior, so if your welcome to believe what you want, and they don't condemn you for your beliefs or behavior it seems to me it's a religion that doesn't impose morals or behavior to follow. Key word impose, there's a difference between someone saying your going to burn in hell if you don't follow this belief and to each their own.


Every religion makes supernatural claims. That is how we define them. Those claims may be regarded as false until empirically proven otherwise. No such claim has ever been proven empirically. Therefore all religions make false claims. Either I made a mistake in that line of reasoning, or I'm right.


There's a difference between personal god and the belief in a god, Panentheism believes in a god, not one that guides your every action or specific being.



This is getting into the distinction between organized religion and religious beliefs though. I'm not a fan of organized religion they believe what they believe though.




I'm not taking it any further than this though. A) Your condescending and an asshole who likes to name call. B) These religious topics never die until the people in them get sick of arguing.

[onionface]

My all time favourite futurama scene happens to be about creationism.

[Black Spot]

I deconverted at around 18 or so and admitted total non-belief at around 30 but unlike you think I had a wonderful time being a Christian. I was special. God chose me, talked to me, comforted me. I had friends who felt the same. Discussing how special God made me made me feel good. But it made me lazy. Made me believe that things would come to me just because of who I was. Not what I made myself into. It was all a facade. It was me chosing me, me talking to myself, and me comforting me. I was totally back in control of what I wanted in life.

You never read the parable of the talents?

[Conniekat8]

(I'm sorry I'm picking on you but you seem to be the most inept here and I like easy winnings. I wanted to tell you earlier but I was super afraid of hurting your feelings.)

You should pick on someone bigger then you. You might learn something... and if you win, it's that much sweeter. A gimmie is slim fare for self esteem.
Also, picking on the weak (or perceived weak) is not nice.

Also, please don't ask me to respect something as if I have a choice.

Why not ask you? Are you afraid you might listen?

[Conniekat8]

As for 'religions imposing morals' here's something I went through that may be interesting to some...

In my very young days I was more intent on rejecting religion and decided to come up with my own moral and value system.

I spent many years tinkering with, investigating a sizeable number of various philosophical, psychological, new age and eventually historical and religious concepts.

Something that our 'free thinkers' here need to consider, you're never really 'free thinking in a vacuum' all any of us can do is understand, build and expand on things that are already there... unless we grew up on another planet completely isolated from the rest of the world, so even all this 'free tinkling' chest thumping isn't as free as some participants would have you believe.

Anyway, back to my personal experience, after couple decades or more of investigating things (I seem to remember getting interested in these things around age 13-15, and I'm 42 now) I ended up coming up with a value system of my own that it uncannily similar to the value systems that most religions seem to have in common. Especially when it comes to how to take care of yourself, and your family and friends, and how to treat people around you.

Being a trained scientist/engineer, part of the religion I have trouble accepting are some blind beliefs. However, when mot misused and abused, I can see how those can also be useful on occasion to keep people out of trouble.

I'm not entirely sure what classification I fall into, when it comes to personal beliefs somewhere between an Agnostic, Atheist, Pantheist and secular humanist. When it comes to social interaction, I allow some of the christian customs, and I was raised catholic.

Bottom line for me is, it doesn't really matter too much for me what label or classification I fall under, because that is not going to change my behavior and my value system.

[Conniekat8]

pld: pld: pld:

Oh, oops, I thought I was in the 'kill the character above' thread.....

[blogmatix]

Oh god, people really took me literal there.
Brendan- I didn't ask you. But I still wish it could be like that.. Like in "I wish there were living rainbows and unicorns in every forest, is that so much to ask for?" Sure it'd be nice, but not in any way realistic. Like World Peace. Seriously is that ever going to happen? (Obvious answer would be "Yes, once religion has been eradicated". But no, it's not, because people find other things to wage wars over)

I just had a neat idea: let's define religion as "that which wars are fought over."

It occurs to me that at least in the modern world, when wars happen it is time and again because large numbers of people hold absolutely fanatically to some or other belief system, albeit not necessarily one involving supernatural entities. They believe in the state, or in "my country, right or wrong," or communism, or the Dear Leader, or the inherent evil and inferiority of other races - what they all have in common is thoughtless, fanatical belief.

You do not stop this by eradicating belief in supernatural things. Belief in supernatural things is a mere subset of thoughtless belief.

Anyway, back to my personal experience, after couple decades or more of investigating things (I seem to remember getting interested in these things around age 13-15, and I'm 42 now) I ended up coming up with a value system of my own that it uncannily similar to the value systems that most religions seem to have in common. Especially when it comes to how to take care of yourself, and your family and friends, and how to treat people around you.

This is hardly surprising, because the basic moral intuitions seem to be more or less universal in all cultures. E.g. virtually everyone has some or other version of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Indeed, even chimps, baboons and dogs - i.e. social mammals - have an understanding of this principle. Such ideas do not "come from religion."

Being a trained scientist/engineer, part of the religion I have trouble accepting are some blind beliefs. However, when mot misused and abused, I can see how those can also be useful on occasion to keep people out of trouble.

Indeed, although it is of course better to think long and clearly about them, or you run the risk of confusing the letter of the law with the spirit of the law. Much of what Jesus said (or at least, reportedly said, according to the gospels) centered around this theme: if the law says you shouldn't work on Sunday, should doctors treat the seriously injured on a Sunday? Should you feel smugly superior to the morally deficient, or is such smugness a moral deficiency in itself?

Fundies, amongst other things, are people who tend to stick to the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit. Especially when it suits them.

Now I have often observed this phenomenon (and it ties in with your observation that genuine "free" thinking is far more difficult than we think): whenever there is a discussion about issues that people get emotional about and where it can be difficult to ascertain facts, lots of people, including and even especially staunchly "free thinking" atheists, have a tendency to revert to whatever religious morals they grew up with.

Most people will nowadays agree that racism is wrong. But stir the emotions a little - drugs, weapons of mass destruction, global warming, kiddie porn - and many atheists will mindlessly revert to values they got straight from some or other religious system, without realizing it.

Bottom line for me is, it doesn't really matter too much for me what label or classification I fall under, because that is not going to change my behavior and my value system.

Indeed: the only moral system worth bothering with is one that is not affected by belief in supernatural beings. Because what do we do if we find out that 1) there is a god, and 2) he's an utterly immoral monster? Do we then abandon our own system of morals and follow the monster?

Once again, that is something fundies do. The god they believe in is an utterly immoral monster, and they follow him around for utterly selfish reasons - they want to get the reward at the end.

Are God's moral values good simply because he carries a bigger stick than us, or can we evaluate them in some other way? If there is such another way, then why do we need God to prescribe our morals in the first place? If there isn't another way, then the only basic moral value is "might is right."

I think moral values evolved like anything else, and all normal people have fairly good moral intuitions. We then invented gods not so much to create moral values as to enforce them. If you believe in an invisible Big Brother in the sky watching you all the time, you may well be more likely to behave. It's a sort of religious equivalent of a cop on every street corner.

What do you do if you want to break the rules but you're scared of the Invisible Big Brother? Well, you become a fundie. Because then you can believe that for one thing, God will forgive you whatever wrong you did, if you ask humbly enough. And you also get to do whatever evil you like as long as you stay within the literal letter of the law. Rather strangely, fundamentalism is a creative way of thumbing your nose at Jesus.

The fundies are like the type of naughty school children who, when told trowing paper planes in class is against the rules, throw a spitball instead and then smugly tell the teacher that it was after all not a paper plane, so there. All hurt and surprised when they end up in detention anyway! :-)

[Elwell]

Most atheists go around thinking that most or all religious people are fundies.

Seriously, AGAIN?!!?
Is your reading comprehension really that bad, or did you just not bother with my post?
One thing I can say confidently about most atheists is that they're more knowledgeable on religious issues than most believers.

[Jason Ross]

Seriously, AGAIN?!!?
Is your reading comprehension really that bad, or did you just not bother with my post?
One thing I can say confidently about most atheists is that they're more knowledgeable on religious issues than most believers.

A common quote is that if want to become an atheist, then just read the bible.

[Lady Medusa]

Sorry. Should have put "it seems to me" and "outspoken" in that sentence.

Sometimes I just don't think lately, and I'm sorry for that. Guess it's something stuck from my childhood.
I used to get rubbed in trash for apparently being a fundamentalist. All I did was not laugh at the holocaust jokes and hang out with a religious person with glasses. Oh yeah, and someone managed to dig up that I went to Sunday school one year. Sure, it is what we deserved given what religion has done.. still feels a bit unfair when you're in it I guess. Yeah. I know, Boo fucking hoo, everyone has been bullied and far worse than that. I'm just a weak pathetic fuck for letting it get to me.
And I do kind of put things one the edge I guess (exaggerating it, using stronger words than I need to). Comes from working in advertising, I guess.. I'm sorry about that too.

Edit: Most people I've talked to on the matter have been extremely militant about it. Hence my foolish usage of the word "most" and also why it seems to be somewhat hard-wired in my brain.
I'm also sorry for posting slightly drunk most of the times in here. That doesn't exactly help in articulating yourself. (It's not a good idea to drink when you're already dizzy. Rather obviously)