Why does religion = sacred? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Why does religion = sacred?


High-Gear
07-14-2012, 08:03
On another thread I referred to religious stories as a myths and another member claimed "offense".

So I ask...

Why does a person's religious views automatically garner respect and protection?

Why is it OK for me to tell another I think they are wrong on any other topic, but religion?

Should it be this way, or does this protection sheild extremeists from their views being exposed through open discourse?

Input from all sides is welcome.:)

JBnTX
07-14-2012, 08:06
delete

High-Gear
07-14-2012, 08:20
It's called respect for other's beliefs.

Ok, but why? Why a different level of respect vs. your political beliefs, or belief in brand of truck?

NMG26
07-14-2012, 08:56
People who are offended when you diss their religion are just being childish.

I prefer to have criticism of my beliefs so I can make changes if I find them to be in want.

The dogmatic can not stand for their beliefs to possibly be wrong. It is fighting words to question them. This is the case with those locked in sectarianism. Heresy is the word sect. It means "party spirit". It is akin to a political party. Religion and politics will get people going.

JBnTX
07-14-2012, 09:01
deleted

JBnTX
07-14-2012, 09:04
deleted

High-Gear
07-14-2012, 09:12
Because it's such an important part of MOST people's lives.
I dont think the level of personal importance should matter. Who cares if something is really, really important to YOU? If a person really, really liked NASCAR, would I be barred from saying F1 is better?

Why do you respect the elderly, a police officer, your parents or someone important in your own life?
I dont respect people just because they are old (jerks grow old too) I give them the same respect I'd afford anyone else until they lose that respect. I don't respect corrupt police officers, or abusive parents either. These people are not above being questioned?

So why is religion special?

High-Gear
07-14-2012, 09:17
.

I've never heard an atheist admit anything other than he knows for a fact
that he's right and all believers are wrong.

That's why atheists can never, and will never, respect the beliefs of believers.

You have not been paying attention then. Most atheists I know dont claim there is definately not a god, they dont see any evidence for a claimed god or gods. Therefore one can not make god a part of the equation, as things work perfectly well without god.

muscogee
07-14-2012, 09:23
It's called respect for others beliefs.
A concept totally foreign to atheists.

Just read the posts that come after mine.

So if someone believes in gay marriage we should respect that. Glad we agree.

Vic Hays
07-14-2012, 09:42
You have not been paying attention then. Most atheists I know dont claim there is definately not a god, they dont see any evidence for a claimed god or gods. Therefore one can not make god a part of the equation, as things work perfectly well without god.

So, since atheists refuse to see any evidence they refuse to respect anyone else's opinion?

II Peter 2:19 promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption; for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he also brought into bondage.

lethal tupperwa
07-14-2012, 09:49
There are no nonbelievers in heaven

NMG26
07-14-2012, 09:56
There's also an equal chance that those beliefs might possibly be right, too.
Funny the non-believers never recognize that point.

I hear a lot of believers say they might be wrong, but they still choose to believe in God based on faith.

I'm a believer.

You notice I was talking about dogmatic believers. The believers who say they might be wrong are not in that catagory.

I choose to believe, but allow my beliefs to change if I am moved in another direction. Often this is called deliverence, or being set free from a doctrine that is imprisoning. The truth shall set you free.


I've never heard an atheist admit anything other than he knows for a fact
that he's right and all believers are wrong.

That's why atheists can never, and will never, respect the beliefs of believers.

Respect is a two way street. I'm not seeing it in your response.

Geko45
07-14-2012, 10:43
There's also an equal chance that those beliefs might possibly be right, too. Funny the non-believers never recognize that point.

Because it's not true. There is a chance that one of the many theistic belief systems is correct (there are so many that contradict each other), but not an equal one. The position that there is no god is supported by all available evidence. The position that there is a god is supported by no evidence at all. Neither position can be proven conclusively, but that is far different than saying that they are equally valid. That is the point many theists never seem to recognize.

I've never heard an atheist admit anything other than he knows for a fact that he's right and all believers are wrong.

This is a lie as I know for a fact that it has been said here many times by atheists, but I have no doubt you will go on repeating this untruth.

JBnTX
07-14-2012, 11:01
deleted

Syclone538
07-14-2012, 11:19
Because it's such an important part of MOST people's lives.

Why do you respect the elderly, a police officer, your parents or someone important in your own life?

Why should they get any higher respect than some stranger walking down the street?

They shouldn't. You should get the respect deserve.


There's also an equal chance that those beliefs might possibly be right, too.
Funny the non-believers never recognize that point.
...

No there is not. Not even close.

...
I hear a lot of believers say they might be wrong, but they still choose to believe in God based on faith.
...

I wouldn't say a lot, but yeah there are some.

...
I've never heard an atheist admit anything other than he knows for a fact that he's right and all believers are wrong.
...

This I think is just a flat out lie. I doubt you can even find one atheist in this forum claiming this. It is possible to find a couple though.

JBnTX
07-14-2012, 11:41
delete

Bren
07-14-2012, 11:45
There's also an equal chance that those beliefs might possibly be right, too.
Funny the non-believers never recognize that point.

I hear a lot of believers say they might be wrong, but they still choose to believe in God based on faith.

I've never heard an atheist admit anything other than he knows for a fact
that he's right and all believers are wrong.

That's why atheists can never, and will never, respect the beliefs of believers.

So non-believers are disrespectful...yet believers are also non-believers as to most religions. I'll bet you're a non-believer in many religions.

A chrsitian only believes in one more religion that I do, yet there are a large number that neither of us believe in. On the flip side, the christian believes/says a lot more about how evil other religions are than the average atheist. From what I see, Chrsitians hate wiccans, odinists, hindus, vodouists, etc. a lot more than any atheist I ever met.

So before you criticize non-believers, consider how that reflects on you as a "mostly non-believer."

G23Gen4TX
07-14-2012, 11:48
Who cares if they get insulted? Telling me I'm going to hell is insulting to me. Saying I can eat pork is insulting to me.

If you critisize me be man enough to take my criticism.

Gunhaver
07-14-2012, 12:15
Why does religion = sacred?

Because it's not like they can actually back their claims up with any real evidence so they need something to fall back on. When I first saw the title I misread it as "Why does religion = scared?"
I think it's more fitting that way.

NMG26
07-14-2012, 13:25
delete

Glad to see you have allowed your position to change.

That is called humility. It is a virtue.

Do share with us, what made you change your mind so we can all get something out of it!

Syclone538
07-14-2012, 13:35
My guess is that after two of us called him a liar, he tried to find an atheist on this forum saying they know there is no god, and failed to find any.

High-Gear
07-14-2012, 16:15
I'm still waiting for a valid reason why a person's religious beliefs are so sacred no one should question them.

Tilley
07-14-2012, 23:43
So if someone believes in gay marriage we should respect that. Glad we agree.

Congradulations bro!:supergrin:

Tilley
07-14-2012, 23:51
I'm still waiting for a valid reason why a person's religious beliefs are so sacred no one should question them.

Honestly? For me it's because you guys are wrong and destined to burn in a really bad place. When you make fun of what we hold as sacred, you are adding fuel to your own fire...:steamed:

As much as you may think I am kidding, I'm really not. You have been sold a bill of goods by the prince of darkness. You're eyes have been blinded by Satan and you can't even see it.

I really am sorry you folks believe the way you do and I wish there was something I could do to help change your mind, but I am not the one to do the impossible. Only the Holy Spirit can.

I really wish the best for you guys.

Tilley
07-14-2012, 23:53
Why does religion = sacred?

Because it's not like they can actually back their claims up with any real evidence so they need something to fall back on. When I first saw the title I misread it as "Why does religion = scared?"
I think it's more fitting that way.

Hater...bad! Bad!:shocked:

Tilley
07-14-2012, 23:56
Who cares if they get insulted? Telling me I'm going to hell is insulting to me. Saying I can eat pork is insulting to me.

If you critisize me be man enough to take my criticism.

Why in the world did I take you off my "Ignore List" again? :dunno:

High-Gear
07-15-2012, 09:33
Honestly? For me it's because you guys are wrong and destined to burn in a really bad place. When you make fun of what we hold as sacred, you are adding fuel to your own fire...:steamed:

As much as you may think I am kidding, I'm really not. You have been sold a bill of goods by the prince of darkness. You're eyes have been blinded by Satan and you can't even see it.

I really am sorry you folks believe the way you do and I wish there was something I could do to help change your mind, but I am not the one to do the impossible. Only the Holy Spirit can.

I really wish the best for you guys.
So because you really, really believe it no one can question it? Or ridicule your beliefs?

This is the same line of thinking used by radical muslims. You can't mock their beliefs, because god will hate you, and them for putting up with it.
http://doodiepants.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/behead-those-who-insult-islam.jpg
Do you not see a problem with this? You don't hold their views sacred, why do you demand people hold your views as such?

G23Gen4TX
07-15-2012, 09:37
Why in the world did I take you off my "Ignore List" again? :dunno:

"god" told you to?

steveksux
07-15-2012, 09:48
I always wonder how compelling it would be if a voodoo priest shaking chicken bones at Christians were to shake even more chicken bones at them in an attempt to convince them to abandon Christianity? Even a whole lot of chicken bones in their face? Add some chanting and dancing maybe?

How much respect would their beliefs be given? Probably not much. I bet they'd probably be offended, thinking their voodoo beliefs are sacred. Are they afforded the respect such a sincere conviction of sacredness deserves? Not holding my breath.

Theists dismiss many thousands of religions as superstitions, just like atheists. The difference is just one less out of the thousands.

Randy

muscogee
07-15-2012, 09:52
Honestly? For me it's because you guys are wrong and destined to burn in a really bad place. When you make fun of what we hold as sacred, you are adding fuel to your own fire...:steamed:

As much as you may think I am kidding, I'm really not. You have been sold a bill of goods by the prince of darkness. You're eyes have been blinded by Satan and you can't even see it.

I really am sorry you folks believe the way you do and I wish there was something I could do to help change your mind, but I am not the one to do the impossible. Only the Holy Spirit can.

I really wish the best for you guys.

I know you really believe this and you mean well. However, you're seriously mistaken. There's not a shred of believable evidence to support your belief. That's why it doesn't frighten me.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 10:33
Who cares if they get insulted? Telling me I'm going to hell is insulting to me. Saying I can eat pork is insulting to me.

If you critisize me be man enough to take my criticism.

Ouch. Life without bacon is bad.

NMG26
07-15-2012, 10:39
Honestly? For me it's because you guys are wrong and destined to burn in a really bad place.


It offends you that people are wrong and that God is going to have them burn forever?
I think the offense would be better placed on the one that made the place of eternal torment.
Don't worry though because hell is just an invention of the human mind.


When you make fun of what we hold as sacred, you are adding fuel to your own fire...:steamed:


Making fun us part of our culture. Watch a sitcom some time. Laugh it off. Learn to look past the ridicule to what is really being said.


As much as you may think I am kidding, I'm really not.


No one thinks you are kidding. We know you really see the world the way you are saying you do.

You have been sold a bill of goods by the prince of darkness. You're eyes have been blinded by Satan and you can't even see it.


Now the same can be said of you. You have believed a lie. A lie is a thing that gets into your head and brings you to wrong conclusions. Your Satan and demons are nothing but doctirnes and lies that you have been led to believe.
You can be free of them, but it will take some work.
Most people never change their false beliefs. They "die in their sins".



I really am sorry you folks believe the way you do and I wish there was something I could do to help change your mind, but I am not the one to do the impossible. Only the Holy Spirit can.


The Holy Spirit is never offended. If that is the Spirit that is in you, then it should teach you to not be offended as well.

"God offended", is a product of man's imagination.
If God is not offended, why are you?

Geko45
07-15-2012, 10:39
I don't ever want to hear another theist ask, "Why do atheists bother with arguing against religion?"

muscogee
07-15-2012, 11:14
It offends you that people are wrong and that God is going to have them burn forever?
I think the offense would be better placed on the one that made the place of eternal torment.
Don't worry though because hell is just an invention of the human mind.

Making fun us part of our culture. Watch a sitcom some time. Laugh it off. Learn to look past the ridicule to what is really being said.

No one thinks you are kidding. We know you really see the world the way you are saying you do.

Now the same can be said of you. You have believed a lie. A lie is a thing that gets into your head and brings you to wrong conclusions. Your Satan and demons are nothing but doctirnes and lies that you have been led to believe.
You can be free of them, but it will take some work.
Most people never change their false beliefs. They "die in their sins".

The Holy Spirit is never offended. If that is the Spirit that is in you, then it should teach you to not be offended as well.

"God offended", is a product of man's imagination.
If God is not offended, why are you?

:yourock:

G23Gen4TX
07-15-2012, 12:03
Ouch. Life without bacon is bad.

I just saw that I made a mistake. I meant "NOT allowed to eat pork".

Anyways, never been a big fan of bacon. Chinese BBQ pork on the other hand...

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 12:09
I just saw that I made a mistake. I meant "NOT allowed to eat pork".

Anyways, never been a big fan of bacon. Chinese BBQ pork on the other hand...

Hmmm. I've never had anyone try to stop me, and I've eaten pork in at least 4 muslim countries that I can think of off the top of my head. OK, might have been helpful that I had a few thousand heavily armed friends with me at the time.....

I'm a pretty big fan if pork too....


http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/meat2.jpg

But we have an almost unlimited supply down here with the feral hogs being available year round, no limit.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

Guss
07-15-2012, 12:33
http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/files/2008/01/addiscartoon1.jpg

High-Gear
07-15-2012, 12:43
http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/files/2008/01/addiscartoon1.jpg

Te guy on thhe left reminds me of snowbird.:rofl:

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 12:57
http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/files/2008/01/addiscartoon1.jpg

Funny. But come to think of it, the only people that have tried to convert the way I believe in the last 5 years ago or so, have been the atheists, and then it was here. I honestly cannot remember when the last time was that someone even asked if I wanted to attend their church...

Interesting perspective though. No one has ever attempted to hit me with a cross for being an agnostic.

Geko45
07-15-2012, 12:58
http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/files/2008/01/addiscartoon1.jpg

That was effin awesome!

:thumbsup:

Geko45
07-15-2012, 13:01
Funny. But come to think of it, the only people that have tried to convert the way I believe in the last 5 years ago or so, have been the atheists, and then it was here.

Really, an atheist forced you to visit RI here on GT for the purposes of "converting" you???

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 13:18
Really, an athiest forced you to visit RI here on GT for the purposes of "converting" you???

Whoever said I was forced??! You sure read an awful lot in between the lines there.

I'm just pointing out the simple fact the last several dozen times I was proselytized to, it was by an atheist. No need to be upset about it. Relax. :wavey:

Geko45
07-15-2012, 13:26
Whoever said I was forced??! You sure read an awful lot in between the lines there.

I'm just pointing out the simple fact the last several dozen times I was proselytized to, it was by an atheist. No need to be upset about it. Relax. :wavey:

Who said I was upset? You sure are reading an awful lot between the lines there...

:tongueout:

My point is, you chose to visit this forum where you know what the ongoing debate is. You clearly want to participate in it or you would not be here.

And again, which atheists here were actually proselytizing to you? Are you sure that was their purpose? Be aware that stating one's own opinion is a far different thing than trying to "convert" you.

High-Gear
07-15-2012, 13:27
Whoever said I was forced??! You sure read an awful lot in between the lines there.

I'm just pointing out the simple fact the last several dozen times I was proselytized to, it was by an atheist. No need to be upset about it. Relax. :wavey:

Funny,
I've not had the same experience. In fact I have not seen any atheist try to convert anyone, just have discussions and ask for evidence. I on the other hand have been told I will burn in hell if I don't accept Jesus.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 13:43
Who said I was upset? You sure are reading an awful lot between the lines there...

:tongueout:

My point is, you chose to visit this forum where you know what the ongoing debate is. You clearly want to participate in it or you would not be here.

And again, which atheists here were actually proselytizing to you? Are you sure that was their purpose? Be aware that stating one's own opinion is a far different thing than trying to "convert" you.

I get the difference. I've been flat out told that I was really a theist and an atheist in the same thread. It happens. I guess it is a matter of opinion, but when someone states that only their way of believing is supported by evidence, and that even considering it possible that life was designed is illogical, I would call that proselytizing.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 13:45
Funny,
I've not had the same experience. In fact I have not seen any atheist try to convert anyone, just have discussions and ask for evidence. I on the other hand have been told I will burn in hell if I don't accept Jesus.

And if there is no hell, who cares? I wonder why these rabid christian doomsayers don't bother with the agnostics. I must be doing something wrong...... Or maybe right, depending on what it is we are supposed to do about that sort of behavior.

Geko45
07-15-2012, 13:53
I guess it is a matter of opinion, but when someone states that only their way of believing is supported by evidence, and that even considering it possible that life was designed is illogical, I would call that proselytizing.

So, wouldn't you have to also consider the original claims made by the opposing side that spurred those rebuttal statements as also proselytizing and if so then you have, in fact, been proselytized to by both sides (or perhaps neither)?

Lone Wolf8634
07-15-2012, 14:01
I wonder this myself.

Some folks get all bent out of shape when you refer to their particular brand of faith as a myth, yet it's perfectly fine to have posts like this:

Honestly? For me it's because you guys are wrong and destined to burn in a really bad place. When you make fun of what we hold as sacred, you are adding fuel to your own fire...:steamed:

As much as you may think I am kidding, I'm really not. You have been sold a bill of goods by the prince of darkness. You're eyes have been blinded by Satan and you can't even see it.

I really am sorry you folks believe the way you do and I wish there was something I could do to help change your mind, but I am not the one to do the impossible. Only the Holy Spirit can.

I really wish the best for you guys.

Which when viewed from the "other" side of the debate, could be construed as patronizing, arrogant and more than a bit "offensive", I mean, really, quit judging me.:supergrin:

Yet most Atheist here can take this for what it is. A simple declaration of his belief. I may not agree with it, but be offended by it? Nah.

Geko45
07-15-2012, 14:06
Some folks get all bent out of shape when you refer to their particular brand of faith as a myth, yet it's perfectly fine to have posts like this:

And which Cavalry Doc apparently believes he was not included in even though he is a self described agnostic.

:whistling:

Lone Wolf8634
07-15-2012, 14:10
And which Cavalry Doc apparently believes he was not included in even though he is a self described agnostic.

:whistling:

I've quit worrying about CD.

He's having to much fun.

High-Gear
07-15-2012, 14:10
I guess it is a matter of opinion, but when someone states that only their way of believing is supported by evidence, and that even considering it possible that life was designed is illogical, I would call that proselytizing.

Or a statement of fact, backed up by evidence?

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 14:18
So, wouldn't you have to also consider the original claims made by the opposing side that spurred those rebuttal statements as also proselytizing and if so then you have, in fact, been proselytized to by both sides (or perhaps neither)?

I seem to be sensing more tolerance from the theists.

My personal feeling is that since there is no proof, there is no reason to be rude about someone else wanting to believe what they want to believe. Sort of a Rodney King approach....

High-Gear
07-15-2012, 14:30
I seem to be sensing more tolerance from the theists.

My personal feeling is that since there is no proof, there is no reason to be rude about someone else wanting to believe what they want to believe. Sort of a Rodney King approach....

Except Rodney King never flew a plane into a building, or blew himself up on a bus, or tried people as witches.

Geko45
07-15-2012, 14:30
I seem to be sensing more tolerance from the theists.

Really? One side is telling the other that they will burn in hell for their lack of faith (in this very thread even) while the other says "let's follow where the evidence leads" and you think the theists are being more tolerant? I think you are being fairly selective in your interpretation.

My personal feeling is that since there is no proof, there is no reason to be rude about someone else wanting to believe what they want to believe.

But there is proof. Not conclusive proof, but strong inductive evidence for one position (atheism) and no evidence at all for the other (theism). That is indisputable (if you are being intellectually honest), and despite this lack of evidence there are many theists that still want to impose thier personal interpretation of what god wants on the rest of us.

But that's ok, you just keep going with your personal impressions.

NMG26
07-15-2012, 14:32
So, wouldn't you have to also consider the original claims made by the opposing side that spurred those rebuttal statements as also proselytizing and if so then you have, in fact, been proselytized to by both sides (or perhaps neither)?

No, he is proselytizing for agnosticism.

It is the sacred unknown.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 14:33
And which Cavalry Doc apparently believes he was not included in even though he is a self described agnostic.

:whistling:

Oh, I guess I am included, but since that was a response to a particular person, meh :dunno: Other than here, I don't talk about religion a lot IRL. Last dozen or so times I was in a church, it was to vote.

Funny, but if you tell someone that you aren't sure their god exists or not, they don't seem to get all that bent out of shape. Tell them they believe in a fairy tale, and they are stupid for believing it, and you tend to get a slightly different reaction.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 14:34
No, he is proselytizing for agnosticism.

It is the sacred unknown.

:thumbsup:

Gunhaver
07-15-2012, 14:38
I seem to be sensing more tolerance from the theists.

My personal feeling is that since there is no proof, there is no reason to be rude about someone else wanting to believe what they want to believe. Sort of a Rodney King approach....

If your beliefs can't stand up to a little rudeness, scrutiny or application of logic then those beliefs aren't really worth believing are they? That's why I eventually ended up on the side that whines the least and fails at debate the least.

Geko45
07-15-2012, 14:43
That's why I eventually ended up on the side that whines the least and fails at debate the least.

Which inversely explains why Calvary Doc usually ends up on the other.

:whistling:

(Sorry Doc, just didn't want you to feel left out in all the rudeness)

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 14:44
Really? One side is telling the other that they will burn in hell for their lack of faith (in this very thread even) while the other says "let's follow where the evidence leads" and you think the theists are being more tolerant? I think you are being fairly selective in your interpretation.



But there is proof. Not conclusive proof, but strong inductive evidence for one position (atheism) and no evidence at all for the other (theism). That is indisputable (if you are being intellectually honest), and despite this lack of evidence there are many theists that still want to impose thier personal interpretation of what god wants on the rest of us.

But that's ok, you just keep going with your personal impressions.

Looks like both sides started in on one another quite early. It will continue until people drop out of the conversation, become more polite, or the thread is locked. Just like the rest.

Heck, I got razzed earlier today because I actually pointed out that atheists claim science backs up their belief system, and AM wouldn't believe me.

As far as I can tell, science does support agnosticism quite well, as there is not one bit of evidence one way or the other about whether an intelligence was present at the moment of creation, or if life has a design. The more you know, the more you realize you don't know.

Who knows? Really no one does. But a lot of people think they do. As long as everyone would be respectful about it, and not push their beliefs onto each other (and I'm talking about all sides), RI would be a much nicer place to discuss things.

:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 14:48
If your beliefs can't stand up to a little rudeness, scrutiny or application of logic then those beliefs aren't really worth believing are they? That's why I eventually ended up on the side that whines the least and fails at debate the least.

That's a pretty good excuse to behave badly. Some over-use is bound to happen.

Is debate really about winning? You're not keeping score in a private spreadsheet or something are you?

Geko45
07-15-2012, 14:49
As far as I can tell, science does support agnosticism quite well, as there is not one bit of evidence one way or the other about whether an intelligence was present at the moment of creation, or if life has a design. The more you know, the more you realize you don't know.

Who knows? Really no one does. But a lot of people think they do. As long as everyone would be respectful about it, and not push their beliefs onto each other (and I'm talking about all sides), RI would be a much nicer place to discuss things.

I didn't read what AM posted, but I doubt it was intended in quite the manner presented. As for the rest, this is just the usual "muddy the waters" bit in an effort to make it seem unknowable. We can't know everything, but there is a lot we do know and we are adding to that everyday. This makes the bolded portion of your quote demonstrably false.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 14:51
Which inversely explains why Calvary Doc usually ends up on the other.

:whistling:

(Sorry Doc, just didn't want you to feel left out in all the rudeness)

Oh, I get plenty. It's alright. These are just mild disagreements. I've been in a few vigorous debates that involved the use of precision explosive devices. This is nothing.

ETA: Seeing that you are Air Force, a couple of those disagreements included surface to air missiles, both in the air and on the ground.

Lone Wolf8634
07-15-2012, 14:51
Looks like both sides started in on one another quite early. It will continue until people drop out of the conversation, become more polite, or the thread is locked. Just like the rest.

Heck, I got razzed earlier today because I actually pointed out that atheists claim science backs up their belief system, and AM wouldn't believe me.

As far as I can tell, science does support agnosticism quite well, as there is not one bit of evidence one way or the other about whether an intelligence was present at the moment of creation, or if life has a design. The more you know, the more you realize you don't know.

Who knows? Really no one does. But a lot of people think they do. As long as everyone would be respectful about it, and not push their beliefs onto each other (and I'm talking about all sides), RI would be a much nicer place to discuss things.

:wavey:

You got razzed because science doesn't try to "back up" Theism, Agnosticism or Atheism. Science doesn't care one way or the other.

And Atheism isn't a "belief system"

Geko45
07-15-2012, 14:55
Oh, I get plenty. It's alright. These are just mild disagreements. I've been in a few vigorous debates that involved the use of precision explosive devices. This is nothing.

ETA: Seeing that you are Air Force, a couple of those disagreements included surface to air missiles, both in the air and on the ground.

I was SAC, so we spent our time considering debates of a thermonuclear nature.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 14:58
Except Rodney King never flew a plane into a building, or blew himself up on a bus, or tried people as witches.

Funny, neither have I. I say we go after the people that ARE doing that. You should try to be careful, leave the peaceful ones intact. The rest?

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/GWOT.gif

We would always tell the good ones to stay away from the bad ones, and then recommend a distance that was about twice the blast radiance of the most common used AP munition in the area.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 14:59
I was SAC, so we spent our time considering debates of a thermonuclear nature.

WPAFB? Grew up near there.

There is a certain finality in those kind of debates.

Geko45
07-15-2012, 15:04
WPAFB? Grew up near there.

There is a certain finality in those kind of debates.

No, SAC HQ on Offutt AFB. I worked in Bldg 500. We were gauranteed a good 30 minutes of life should a war ever break out (being centrally located in the middle of the country), but then we would have been hit with about a dozen nukes trying to get down to the underground command post.

good times...

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 15:10
You got razzed because science doesn't try to "back up" Theism, Agnosticism or Atheism. Science doesn't care one way or the other.

And Atheism isn't a "belief system"

Gecko seems to think the scientific evidence points toward one side:
"But there is proof. Not conclusive proof, but strong inductive evidence for one position (atheism) and no evidence at all for the other (theism). "

Which was the point I was trying to make in the other thread and here. Neither side knows for sure, some are only 99.999% sure they are right, but it's all based on available experience, what we have been told, and a lot of faith.

It sure seems like a system of beliefs to me. It's awful interesting how it can be debated so vigorously that atheism is the only choice of "intelligent and thinking men", if they had no belief system to base their certainty on.

Not a ding, just an observation.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 15:14
No, SAC HQ on Offutt AFB. I worked in Bldg 500. We were gauranteed a good 30 minutes of life should a war ever break out (being centrally located in the middle of the country), but then we would have been hit with about a dozen nukes trying to get down to the underground command post.

good times...

I spent some of the cold war setting in the middle of the Fulda Gap. One Armored Cavalry Regiment, against 10 soviet armored divisions. Course, we had our own nukes too. It would have been very bright.

G23Gen4TX
07-15-2012, 15:23
Hmmm. I've never had anyone try to stop me, and I've eaten pork in at least 4 muslim countries that I can think of off the top of my head. OK, might have been helpful that I had a few thousand heavily armed friends with me at the time.....

I'm a pretty big fan if pork too....


http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/meat2.jpg

But we have an almost unlimited supply down here with the feral hogs being available year round, no limit.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

Try getting pork in Israel.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 15:38
Try getting pork in Israel.


On Israel’s Only Jewish-Run Pig Farm, It’s The Swine That Bring Home the Bacon

While there are a number of similar farms in Israel, Kibbutz Lahav is unique because, as its slogan suggests, it is “the meat from the Kibbutz.” All the other pig breeders operate in a zone in the North dominated by Christian Arabs, the only place where raising pork is legal, according to a 1962 law. Kibbutz Lahav, a Jewish-run farm, proudly operates outside the legal zone.

Lahav’s pig breeding gained widespread notoriety because of its legal loophole, almost talmudic in its ingenuity, in which the kibbutz is exempt from the law and can rightfully raise pigs for research as a part of its Animal Research Institute. Thus, the kibbutz raises pigs for science and eats the excess, developing over the years a rather staggering excess


Read more: http://forward.com/articles/13245/on-israel-s-only-jewish-run-pig-farm-it-s-the-/#ixzz20jJqHGLG


http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs7/i/2005/271/d/1/Just_Google_It_by_doctor_a.gif


I won't be going to Israel. I'm happy where I am.

Geko45
07-15-2012, 15:43
Gecko seems to think the scientific evidence points toward one side:

What science is uncovering seems to be supporting one conclusion more than the other. What Lone Wolf is saying is that (when conducted properly) science is dispassionate about the outcome. If the observed results begin to point in another direction then the ethical researcher is obligated to follow the results wherever they lead (even if they lead away from what you would have preferred).

In a very real sense, this is how I became an atheist. I was believer for most of my life and truly wanted it to be true, but I could no longer ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Religion works the other way around, it starts with assumptions of what is true and searches for data to backup the pre-determined conclusion. This fundamental difference between religion/theism and science/atheism is part of the reason why atheists get so riled up when you call it a religion. You are equating them to what they consider unethical behavior.

G23Gen4TX
07-15-2012, 16:07
On Israel’s Only Jewish-Run Pig Farm, It’s The Swine That Bring Home the Bacon



Read more: http://forward.com/articles/13245/on-israel-s-only-jewish-run-pig-farm-it-s-the-/#ixzz20jJqHGLG


http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs7/i/2005/271/d/1/Just_Google_It_by_doctor_a.gif


I won't be going to Israel. I'm happy where I am.

I know exactly what it is like in Israel. Sometimes it's not far from the Taliban way of thinking.

muscogee
07-15-2012, 16:52
I seem to be sensing more tolerance from the theists.

That's because you argue and reason like a theist.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 17:22
What science is uncovering seems to be supporting one conclusion more than the other. What Lone Wolf is saying is that (when conducted properly) science is dispassionate about the outcome. If the observed results begin to point in another direction then the ethical researcher is obligated to follow the results wherever they lead (even if they lead away from what you would have preferred).

In a very real sense, this is how I became an atheist. I was believer for most of my life and truly wanted it to be true, but I could no longer ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Religion works the other way around, it starts with assumptions of what is true and searches for data to backup the pre-determined conclusion. This fundamental difference between religion/theism and science/atheism is part of the reason why atheists get so riled up when you call it a religion. You are equating them to what they consider unethical behavior.

The problem is the scientific method, which is a good method, is run by people, that have problem with ethics, ego, greed and a host of other issues. MMGW, Cold Fusion, a few drugs that turned out to not be so great, and whether or not eggs are good for you or not, are just some examples.

I think it continues to show there is no proof one way or the other. Nothing says there did or did not have to be a fuse lit by an intelligence for the Big Bang to happen. And, as it turns out, it's not that big of a deal for me day to day. I can go about my business, and whether there is or is not a god is of very little inconvenience to me. I do still try to be a good guy, because I like being good to people. I don' need a reason for that.

While science has explained how a lot of stuff works, what piece of evidence finally overwhelmed you and led you to believe there was no god?

For me, I went to church as a child, stopped in my early teens, was a pretty sure atheist by the time I graduated HS, but then started to learn just how complex life is. I went from being very sure there was no god, to at least giving it a fair possibility, in my own mind at least. Of course, that brings up a lot of other questions, like whether that deity, if it existed, still exists, or exists here? So I ended up landing in the middle. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I'm comfortable with that.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 17:24
That's because you argue and reason like a theist.

Have I tried to get you to believe in a deity, or told you you were going to heck in an handbasket? Nope, I have not. So why would you say that?

I do dare to point out that atheism is a choice too? Essentially a matter of faith, occasionally held to with ardor......

It's not blasphemy if it's not a religion. :wavey:

Geko45
07-15-2012, 17:30
I do dare to point out that atheism is a choice too? Essentially a matter of faith, occasionally held to with ardor......

Well, one out of three anyway.

:sigh:

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 17:32
I know exactly what it is like in Israel. Sometimes it's not far from the Taliban way of thinking.

Never been there. I've never worked with Israeli Defense forces, but have worked with the military of numerous other countries. Not particularly attached to them one way or the other, except for the natural American trait to root for the underdog. But that article seemed to show that one could get some pork in Israel if they wanted.

Now the Taliban, I do know a little bit about. Do the Israelis treat their women that bad? (http://www.ask.com/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women)

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/TOLERANCE-1.jpg

That is a pretty harsh comparison. How are they similar?

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 17:37
Well, one out of three anyway.

:sigh:

It's not a bad thing to believe there is no deity, at least not to me. But one should be able to see, that science has explained a lot, but has not explained a lot too. Since there is no real evidence, and there may not ever be any possibility that any tangible evidence will be able to show it all just sort of happened, there will always be the possibility that there is a design, and at least was a designer. Choosing to be sure that there has never been a deity or deities is a choice, based on faith, that their interpretation of the data is the correct interpretation.

No big.

Geko45
07-15-2012, 17:46
The problem is the scientific method, which is a good method, is run by people, that have problem with ethics, ego, greed and a host of other issues. MMGW, Cold Fusion, a few drugs that turned out to not be so great, and whether or not eggs are good for you or not, are just some examples.

But the ingenious thing about it is that methodology and results are published and are supposed to be repeatable by others. For instance, the examples you cite were all called into question for the lack of repeatable results by independent third parties (one is really just politics anyway).

I think it continues to show there is no proof one way or the other.

And this is just politics too. The data does support one conclusion over the other. It's just not one people like to accept. Therefore, many people (like you) try to take a compromising middle ground and claim "no proof one way or the other" when in fact there is. I get it, politics is a real concern in this world, I'm just not going to lie to myself when I can plainly see that the propositions are not equally valid.

While science has explained how a lot of stuff works, what piece of evidence finally overwhelmed you and led you to believe there was no god?

It's a preponderance of the evidence really, combined with enormous inconsistencies I found in the bible as well. Not really possible to put my finger on one thing and say "this is it", but reading the bible from cover to cover pretty much dispelled any notion for me that it contained divine truth.

For me, I went to church as a child, stopped in my early teens, was a pretty sure atheist by the time I graduated HS, but then started to learn just how complex life is. I went from being very sure there was no god, to at least giving it a fair possibility, in my own mind at least.

That explains some. If you're an atheist at 18 then you're probably not an atheist at all. More likely you are just rebelling against your parents. Not in all cases, but many. I arrived at atheism in adulthood after a concerted, multi-year scholarly effort to "find god". What I found was a lack of a god. Took me a couple more years to come to terms with I had learn. Really didn't want to accept it at first, but I am much happier in life now that I have realized the truth.

As stated by others, I concede that I am only 99.999% sure, but that .001% possibility that I am wrong is of no practical concern to me.

Geko45
07-15-2012, 17:50
Since there is no real evidence.

You keep repeating this and I keep repeating that there is plenty of evidence that god is not possible. I guess we will agree to disagree on this point. But I don't see it as a coin toss. I see compelling evidence that a supreme deity is simply not possible. Not conclusively so, but as certain as I can be of anything else in this world. Look in the other thread on Stephen Hawking if you want to read what it is.

High-Gear
07-15-2012, 17:54
Have I tried to get you to believe in a deity, or told you you were going to heck in an handbasket? Nope, I have not. So why would you say that?

I do dare to point out that atheism is a choice too? Essentially a matter of faith, occasionally held to with ardor......

It's not blasphemy if it's not a religion. :wavey:

Atheism is the default position, until we are told of other's god stories. You can claim to be a 50/50 agnostic, but that is not an honest position. You have to choose to ignore all the parts of the various religions which do not make sense, and ignore the way the universe works perfectly well without god.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 17:56
But the ingenious thing about it is that methodology and results are published and are supposed to be repeatable by others. For instance, the examples you cite were all called into question for the lack of repeatable results by independent third parties (one is really just politics anyway).



And this is just politics too. The data does support one conclusion over the other. It's just not one people like to accept. Therefore, many people (like you) try to take a compromising middle ground and claim "no proof one way or the other" when in fact there is. I get it, politics is a real concern in this world, I'm just not going to lie to myself when I can plainly see that the propositions are not equally valid.



It's a preponderance of the evidence really, combined with enormous inconsistencies I found in the bible as well. Not really possible to put my finger on one thing and say "this is it", but reading the bible from cover to cover pretty much dispelled any notion for me that it contained divine truth.



That explains some. If you're an atheist at 18 then you're probably not an atheist at all. More likely you are just rebelling against your parents. Not in all cases, but many. I arrived at atheism in adulthood after a concerted, multi-year scholarly effort to "find god". What I found was a lack of a god. Took me a couple more years to come to terms with I had learn. Really didn't want to accept it at first, but I am much happier in life now that I have realized the truth.

As stated by others, I concede that I am only 99.999% sure, but that .001% possibility that I am wrong is of no practical concern to me.

The choice between theism and atheism, really has nothing to do with christianity. It's the step before that choice has to be made, if it hasn't been rendered moot.

Nothing says that the monotheistic god described in the bible had to be the deity, or that the deity was omniscient, omnipresent, or even immortal. Nothing says whether there were one or more, or whether any of them are within our corner of the universe. When you think of that, and many other possibilities, to me at least, it's close to an even bet.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 18:01
You keep repeating this and I keep repeating that there is plenty of evidence that god is not possible. I guess we will agree to disagree on this point. But I don't see it as a coin toss. I see compelling evidence that a supreme deity is simply not possible. Not conclusively so, but as certain as I can be of anything else in this world. Look in the other thread on Stephen Hawking if you want to read what it is.

What evidence shows that it was not possible for a deity, or deities to be involved in creation?

I honestly see many wonders discovered by science, and none of it says whether or not there is a design, or this is random chance.

Are we talking about the same thing? I get the feeling that you are talking about disproving the bible, instead of disproving the existence of A deity.

Geko45
07-15-2012, 18:06
Nothing says that the monotheistic god described in the bible had to be the deity, or that the deity was omniscient, omnipresent, or even immortal. Nothing says whether there were one or more, or whether any of them are within our corner of the universe. When you think of that, and many other possibilities, to me at least, it's close to an even bet.

But if you remove those attributes from god and/or allow for the possibility of multiple "gods" then you are no longer really talking about a god(s), but rather some sort of super advanced (but finite) race of beings, which is a completely different topic altogether.

Geko45
07-15-2012, 18:10
What evidence shows that it was not possible for a deity, or deities to be involved in creation?

Look in the other (Hawking) thread. Not interested in typing it all again. However, the argument is only geared towards disproving a single supreme being that is omniscient, omnipotent and eternal. Polytheism (a super advanced race of finite beings) is a completely different issue.

Are we talking about the same thing? I get the feeling that you are talking about disproving the bible, instead of disproving the existence of A deity.

No, my "proof" (99.999%) would apply to the christian, judeo and muslim god (and some denominations of Hinduism) or any other that had those same attributes.

muscogee
07-15-2012, 18:39
Have I tried to get you to believe in a deity, or told you you were going to heck in an handbasket? Nope, I have not. So why would you say that?

See your second paragraph.

I do dare to point out that atheism is a choice too? Essentially a matter of faith, occasionally held to with ardor......

It's not blasphemy if it's not a religion. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 18:46
See your second paragraph.

That is merely an objective observation. You don't have to admit for it to still be true. Or maybe it isn't for you. That's OK too.

muscogee
07-15-2012, 18:52
That is merely an objective observation. You don't have to admit for it to still be true. Or maybe it isn't for you. That's OK too.

Prove it's true.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 18:57
Prove it's true.

Well, OK.

I submit that I have pointed out that atheism is a choice.


Done.

G23Gen4TX
07-15-2012, 19:00
Never been there. I've never worked with Israeli Defense forces, but have worked with the military of numerous other countries. Not particularly attached to them one way or the other, except for the natural American trait to root for the underdog. But that article seemed to show that one could get some pork in Israel if they wanted.

Now the Taliban, I do know a little bit about. Do the Israelis treat their women that bad? (http://www.ask.com/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women)

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/TOLERANCE-1.jpg

That is a pretty harsh comparison. How are they similar?

Yes, you can get pork in Israel. That is if the religious people don't burn the store that sells it, first.

Big pile or small pile, they still smell like doodoo.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 19:07
Yes, you can get pork in Israel. That is if the religious people don't burn the store that sells it, first.

Big pile or small pile, they still smell like doodoo.

Looks like that store has been there for quite a while.

Seems I heard you can get wine there too. Women can drive, you can buy pork, women can serve in the military, vote.......

I see more differences than similarities, don't you too now?

Gunhaver
07-15-2012, 19:12
Looks like that store has been there for quite a while.

Seems I heard you can get wine there too. Women can drive, you can buy pork, women can serve in the military, vote.......

I see more differences than similarities, don't you too now?

I bet you can get toilet paper there too.

High-Gear
07-15-2012, 19:16
Well, OK.

I submit that I have pointed out that atheism is a choice.


Done.

Atheism is not a choice, it is the default position. We are born without belief in deities. Believing in gods without evidence is a choice.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 19:17
I bet you can get toilet paper there too.

See? We are approaching consensus.

Cavalry Doc
07-15-2012, 19:21
Atheism is not a choice, it is the default position. We are born without belief in deities. Believing in gods without evidence is a choice.

We are an inquisitive bunch though, usually, the question will be asked, and answered in short order. Sometimes, some people will take a true wait and see attitude.

The default is ignorance. We really don't know how we (species) got here. Far as I can tell, we still don't, but we have learned a lot on the way. We still have much to learn before we can claim to understand our current existence.

Gunhaver
07-15-2012, 19:25
Atheism is not a choice, it is the default position. We are born without belief in deities. Believing in gods without evidence is a choice.

Yes. Often overlooked or flat out ignored by the theists (and the occasional "agnostic") that's how we all start out life. That can't be said of any other religion.

Kind of like how we all start out life not owning a vacuum cleaner. Then no matter how many salesmen show up to sell you various types of vacuum cleaners, you can either decide that you could use one or maybe realize that you have hardwood floors and have no need for one. But apparently, according to the salesmen, the more you insist to those salesmen that you don't need a vacuum cleaner, the more you're just like the people who do want them. :dunno:

muscogee
07-15-2012, 19:34
Well, OK.

I submit that I have pointed out that atheism is a choice.


Done.

Submit all you want. That's not proof. It's saying, "Have too". that doesn't work past the third grade.

Gunhaver
07-15-2012, 19:34
See? We are approaching consensus.

I got no beef with the Jewish people. They tend to be above average in the intelligence and hard work departments. A wise man once said, "A trailer park has never burned down because a menorah was accidentally knocked over."

Plus they make an awesome hot dog.

Norske
07-15-2012, 19:47
I believe all organized religion was invented by mankind at the time we converted from hunter gatherers to agriculture, at the end of the last ice age. 10-15,000 years ago.

It was invented to be what we now tend to think of as "government".

For most of mankind's racial memory, "religion" and "government" were one and the same thing.

Religious leaders were governmental leaders and vice versa.

There was no "sectarian law" versus "religious law". There was just capital "L", "LAW".

Religion itself invented the concept of "God" to justify it's own existence, and more importantly, to justify the authority it claimed over all members of the society it ruled.

Questioning the given dogma concerning "God" was literally a revolutionary act, with dire consequences to the questioner.

Stop and consider the case of Jesus himself.

The Roman authorities had removed temporal authority from the Jewish governmental/religious leaders. They were desperate to retain what religious authority remained to them but no longer had secular authority to enforce their authority with force as before.

Jesus was converting Jews away from the ancient faith.

This was a clear threat to the remaining authority of the Jewish religious leaders.

They then conned the Roman Authorities, Pilate in particular, into believing Jesus was a revolutionary bent on overturning Roman secular authority.

And the Romans nailed him to the cross. :steamed:

Why are there so many different Gods?

Why are there so many different Religions?

Why are there so many differing schisms within the "same" religion?

Because Religion has nothing to do with "God".

Religion has everything to do with the authority of the "insiders" - Clergy, by whatever name they are called - within it.

This is why theists get so incensed by agnostics and aetheists questioning their dogmatic beliefs about God.

This is why established religions are so hostile to new schisms and new religions. They threaten the existing rice bowls of the clergy then in authority.

The single best thing mankind has done for itself in the last 10K or so years was to enshrine the concept of "separation of church and state" withing the CotUS.

Without secular authority, religion cannot enforce its dogma upon the unwilling.

Remember, Islam believes that Western-style separation of church and state is literally the work of Satan.

Jihadi Muslims believe it to be their religious duty to Allah to reverse the separation of church and state and return all of mankind to their own brand of Theocratic absolute dictatorship.

Sharia.

That is why 3,000+ Americans died on 9/11/01 and thousands more since fighting would-be Islamic dictatorship.

Mankind would be wise to continue the trend to separation by growing up, admit that not one of us truly knows the nature of God than any other of us,

Abandon religion.

berniew
07-15-2012, 20:22
Submit all you want. That's not proof. It's saying, "Have too". that doesn't work past the third grade.

Wait - you disagree with Neal Peart?

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."

muscogee
07-15-2012, 21:08
Wait - you disagree with Neal Peart?

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."

Not sure I understand that.

G23Gen4TX
07-15-2012, 22:07
I believe all organized religion was invented by mankind at the time we converted from hunter gatherers to agriculture, at the end of the last ice age. 10-15,000 years ago.

It was invented to be what we now tend to think of as "government".

For most of mankind's racial memory, "religion" and "government" were one and the same thing.

Religious leaders were governmental leaders and vice versa.

There was no "sectarian law" versus "religious law". There was just capital "L", "LAW".

Religion itself invented the concept of "God" to justify it's own existence, and more importantly, to justify the authority it claimed over all members of the society it ruled.

Questioning the given dogma concerning "God" was literally a revolutionary act, with dire consequences to the questioner.

Stop and consider the case of Jesus himself.

The Roman authorities had removed temporal authority from the Jewish governmental/religious leaders. They were desperate to retain what religious authority remained to them but no longer had secular authority to enforce their authority with force as before.

Jesus was converting Jews away from the ancient faith.

This was a clear threat to the remaining authority of the Jewish religious leaders.

They then conned the Roman Authorities, Pilate in particular, into believing Jesus was a revolutionary bent on overturning Roman secular authority.

And the Romans nailed him to the cross. :steamed:

Why are there so many different Gods?

Why are there so many different Religions?

Why are there so many differing schisms within the "same" religion?

Because Religion has nothing to do with "God".

Religion has everything to do with the authority of the "insiders" - Clergy, by whatever name they are called - within it.

This is why theists get so incensed by agnostics and aetheists questioning their dogmatic beliefs about God.

This is why established religions are so hostile to new schisms and new religions. They threaten the existing rice bowls of the clergy then in authority.

The single best thing mankind has done for itself in the last 10K or so years was to enshrine the concept of "separation of church and state" withing the CotUS.

Without secular authority, religion cannot enforce its dogma upon the unwilling.

Remember, Islam believes that Western-style separation of church and state is literally the work of Satan.

Jihadi Muslims believe it to be their religious duty to Allah to reverse the separation of church and state and return all of mankind to their own brand of Theocratic absolute dictatorship.

Sharia.

That is why 3,000+ Americans died on 9/11/01 and thousands more since fighting would-be Islamic dictatorship.

Mankind would be wise to continue the trend to separation by growing up, admit that not one of us truly knows the nature of God than any other of us,

Abandon religion.

I'm just quoting it again. Cause it's true.

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 05:15
Submit all you want. That's not proof. It's saying, "Have too". that doesn't work past the third grade.

Can you go back to the start of this sidebar conversation of ours and tell me exactly what it is you would like to prove?

Looked to me that I was supposed to prove that I have stated that
Atheism is a choice, and I have stated that.

It is a choice, barring some internal compulsion.

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 05:22
Wait - you disagree with Neal Peart?

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."

And the answer to the question is yes, of course.

Gunhaver
07-16-2012, 05:37
Can you go back to the start of this sidebar conversation of ours and tell me exactly what it is you would like to prove?

Looked to me that I was supposed to prove that I have stated that
Atheism is a choice, and I have stated that.

It is a choice, barring some internal compulsion.

What would you call a person that has never had any religious ideas presented to them in their entire lives? How have they made a choice without ever having a list to choose from?

High-Gear
07-16-2012, 10:48
And the answer to the question is yes, of course.

Atheism is the default. One then can accept someone elses myths, or makes up their own, or continue with a naturalistic view of the world.

muscogee
07-16-2012, 11:16
Can you go back to the start of this sidebar conversation of ours and tell me exactly what it is you would like to prove?

Looked to me that I was supposed to prove that I have stated that
Atheism is a choice, and I have stated that.

It is a choice, barring some internal compulsion.

Prove atheism is a choice.

Is believing 2+2=4 a choice? Is believing the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west a choice? Is believing obviously absurd statements are not true a choice?

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 13:04
Prove atheism is a choice.

Is believing 2+2=4 a choice? Is believing the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west a choice? Is believing obviously absurd statements are not true a choice?

Well, 2+2 is pretty easy, but the sun doesn't really rise in the east, it's pretty much stationary at the center of the solar system, it becomes visible in the east each day as the earth spins. Some things you have to think about.

Either a deity was or was not involved in creation, and as none of us witnessed that event, yeah, choosing to believe one way or the other, with surety, IS a choice. The choice is believing that is absurd to begin with.

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 13:07
Atheism is the default. One then can accept someone elses myths, or makes up their own, or continue with a naturalistic view of the world.

Ignorance is the default. At first, you simply don't know, then once theories are presented, you choose which to believe in.

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 13:08
What would you call a person that has never had any religious ideas presented to them in their entire lives? How have they made a choice without ever having a list to choose from?

I'd call them agnostic. Without any ideas about how the current existance came to be, one would simply be ignorant of how it got here.

RC-RAMIE
07-16-2012, 13:18
I'd call them agnostic. Without any ideas about how the current existance came to be, one would simply be ignorant of how it got here.

And you would be wrong again. You know Atheist freely admit we are ignorant of how it got here, well real Atheist not your version of one.

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 13:47
And you would be wrong again. You know Atheist freely admit we are ignorant of how it got here, well real Atheist not your version of one.

But you're still sure it didn't get here at least one way, right?

RC-RAMIE
07-16-2012, 13:58
But you're still sure it didn't get here at least one way, right?

No.

I don't know how it got here but I see no evidence to support any of the God theories out there.

muscogee
07-16-2012, 14:41
Either a deity was or was not involved in creation, and as none of us witnessed that event, yeah, choosing to believe one way or the other, with surety, IS a choice. The choice is believing that is absurd to begin with.

It's only a choice if you don't have all the information of you don't understand it. Do you really think Genesis makes more sense than the scientific explanation. If you do, then you don''t understand the facts.

muscogee
07-16-2012, 14:46
I'd call them agnostic. Without any ideas about how the current existance came to be, one would simply be ignorant of how it got here.

You don't choose. One make sense, the other doesn't. No one chooses for something to make sense. It does or it does not. Of course one could choose to remain ignorant, as so many here have demonstrated.

High-Gear
07-16-2012, 14:58
Ignorance is the default. At first, you simply don't know, then once theories are presented, you choose which to believe in.

You and I will disagree on this one. The definition of atheist is not believing in a god. The default is not having belief in a god. It may be because of ignorance, but the default IS atheism.

You are atheistic toward the Great Hershey Bar god aren't you? Oh, you've never heard of the Great Hershey Bar god...sit back and I'll tell you.

Give me a break, it is mid afternoon and I'm craving a Hershey bar.:supergrin:

At any rate you didn't believe in the chocolate bar creation regardless if you are ignorant of its existance or not. Now you can choose to believe it or pass. Then again if you hold your 50/50 agnostic line here you will argue since we cant prove it false, we have to give it equal consideration as every other explaination of how we came to be.

I for one do not know for a certainity it is not possible, but I do reject the Hershey Bar creation myth because there is no evidence. Just as I reject all other creation myths. That is why I consider myself an atheist rather than an agnostic.

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 16:24
http://i.word.com/idictionary/atheist

:dunno:

High-Gear
07-16-2012, 16:56
http://i.word.com/idictionary/atheist

:dunno:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

Are we really going to debate over petty use of "disbelieve" vs. "believes not"?

I guess if that is what you want to hang your hat on.

So are you 50/50 agnostic with reference the Hershey Bar Creation Story? Don't call it a myth because I might get offended!

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 17:03
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

Are we really going to debate over petty use of "disbelieve" vs. "believes not"?

I guess if that is what you want to hang your hat on.

So are you 50/50 agnostic with reference the Hershey Bar Creation Story? Don't call it a myth because I might get offended!

Look, I'm sorry you cannot use the word "atheist" correctly in a sentence. Perhaps this person can help:

That said, these folk are correct in that there ought to be a word, or words, which embrace the amorphous gray area lying between affirmative belief in a deity (i.e. theism) and affirmative belief that there is no deity (i.e. atheism). However, they are wrong to assume the solution to that problem is to throw open the meaning of “atheism” to be much wider than it had been. At it turns out, that problem has already been solved!
That solution was devised by T.H. Huxley in the 19th century, when he coined the term “agnostic.” He described the meaning of this word and its genesis rather specifically:
When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain “gnosis” — had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion ...[5]

Given what Huxley did by coining “agnosticism,” no useful purpose is served by fostering the notion that “atheism” = “agnosticism” or that all agnostics are also atheists. If you are what Huxley describes as an “agnostic,” then you are, in fact “an agnostic” and not “an atheist” by the traditional dictionary definitions of that word. If on the other hand you are what those dictionaries describe as “atheist,” then you are “an atheist” and not “an agnostic.” Huxley defined “agnosticism” in such a way as to exclude atheists: Those who “know” either that a deity does not exist, have — as Huxley put it — “attained a certain ‘gnosis’” and therefore are rather specifically not what he envisions as “agnostic.”

It really is that simple, and there is no need to go any further. Redefining “atheism” by widening its scope, and quibbling over the difference between knowledge and belief, only confuses the meanings of words as they’re widely understood, and provides ammunition for theists, who really need not be given any more than they currently do.

That said, I quite understand the effort here. Atheists are trying to force open the term to include as many people as possible in their “club,” if you will. But opening the definition of “atheism” really will have only one ultimate effect, which is to make it so wide that it no longer means anything at all. If the solution is to create a “club” of non-theists and non-theism, the terms “freethinker” and “freethought” are available, and more than suffice for that purpose. Redefining “atheist” and “atheism,” on the other hand, won’t help, especially when dictionaries don’t uniformly support it.


http://uctaa.net/articles/meds2/med40/med796.html



Please follow the link and read the entire article before getting upset.

I'm not the only one that is attempting to help people here with corect word usage.

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 17:28
You don't choose. One make sense, the other doesn't. No one chooses for something to make sense. It does or it does not. Of course one could choose to remain ignorant, as so many here have demonstrated.

You do realize that you've told my a reason for choosing, instead of telling me you didn't choose, don't you?

One could choose to acknowledge ignorance, which is an honest choice.

High-Gear
07-16-2012, 17:29
Look, I'm sorry you cannot use the word "atheist" correctly in a sentence. Perhaps this person can help:




Please follow the link and read the entire article before getting upset.

I'm not the only one that is attempting to help people here with corect word usage.

For the purpose of our discussion I think you are being petty. I've said it before, I don't discount the minute possibility of a deity of some description, so by your strict definition in SOME dictionaries I would be agnostic...However, for all practical purposes I consider myself atheist.

As I am literally agnostic about trolls, fairies, and unicorns...however for all practical purposes I am atrolistic, afairistic, and aunicornistic.

Now are you aHershey barist, or are agnostic to the existance of the Great Hershey Bar? Dont make me swear out a fatwa with almonds against you!:tongueout:

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 17:33
No.

I don't know how it got here but I see no evidence to support any of the God theories out there.

And whoever said man, as a group, will ever know all there is to know?

We are not all that impressive as a group. We have other animals here on earth that can predict earthquakes, navigate without assistance over thousands of miles, see in the dark, feel their way in the dark with sound, see infra red and ultra violet.

Arrogance is a human trait though.

Ever thought it might be, but might be different than the stories man has developed?

RC-RAMIE
07-16-2012, 17:53
And whoever said man, as a group, will ever know all there is to know?

We are not all that impressive as a group. We have other animals here on earth that can predict earthquakes, navigate without assistance over thousands of miles, see in the dark, feel their way in the dark with sound, see infra red and ultra violet.

Arrogance is a human trait though.

Ever thought it might be, but might be different than the stories man has developed?

What is so arrogant about I don't know how it happened. Yes I have thought it might be different there is literarily unimaginable number of possibilities. Even one that might contain a deity and when some credible evidence is provided to support it I will no longer be a Atheist to the idea of a god. Just the same way you are a Atheist to every Greek god.


....

muscogee
07-16-2012, 18:03
You do realize that you've told my a reason for choosing, instead of telling me you didn't choose, don't you?

One could choose to acknowledge ignorance, which is an honest choice.

So 2=2=547 if you choose for it to be?

ksg0245
07-16-2012, 18:15
Look, I'm sorry you cannot use the word "atheist" correctly in a sentence. Perhaps this person can help:




Please follow the link and read the entire article before getting upset.

I'm not the only one that is attempting to help people here with corect word usage.

The problem with citation is that neither you nor that author understand the terms you're attempting to redefine. It's astounding you still haven't grasped your error, given how many times it's been clearly pointed out to you, with various citations.

Theists assert deities.

Atheists reject the assertion of deities.

Agnostics claim the existence of deities isn't and likely can't be known.

But of course, for your needs, belief and knowledge must be equivalent, and there is only one acceptable dictionary.

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 18:17
So 2=2=547 if you choose for it to be?

Now you are being obstinate. It's OK to choose. It's sorta what free will is all about. It's a good thing.

Get comfortable in your own skin.

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 18:19
The problem with citation is that neither you nor that author understand the terms you're attempting to redefine. It's astounding you still haven't grasped your error, given how many times it's been clearly pointed out to you, with various citations.

Theists assert deities.

Atheists reject the assertion of deities.

Agnostics claim the existence of deities isn't and likely can't be known.

But of course, for your needs, belief and knowledge must be equivalent, and there is only one acceptable dictionary.

Any third grade teacher will tell you that words mean what their definitions say they mean.

You have every right to ignore your elementary education and choose your own definition to the words you use, and I have every right to use the correct definition.

It's elementary Mr. Watson.

muscogee
07-16-2012, 18:24
Now you are being obstinate. It's OK to choose.

I'm obstinate? :rofl:

It's sorta what free will is all about. It's a good thing. Free will is a myth. Did you choose to speak English of your own free will?

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 18:28
For the purpose of our discussion I think you are being petty. I've said it before, I don't discount the minute possibility of a deity of some description, so by your strict definition in SOME dictionaries I would be agnostic...However, for all practical purposes I consider myself atheist.

As I am literally agnostic about trolls, fairies, and unicorns...however for all practical purposes I am atrolistic, afairistic, and aunicornistic.

Now are you aHershey barist, or are agnostic to the existance of the Great Hershey Bar? Dont make me swear out a fatwa with almonds against you!:tongueout:

Read that again, and tell me I'm the petty one. :tongueout:


I'm the bearer of an inconvenient truth, that many atheists, aren't atheists at all, if you believe what they say on GTRI. They are more accurately described as agnostics.

I understand the quandary, If you are an atheist, then you have made a choice about what to believe that you cannot possibly know for sure is correct, and therefore, would have faith, and if that faith was strong enough to actually cause you to defend it vigorously, that would be ardor, and that would make you a religious fellow, just like all the rest of them. Oh, bother!, said Poo.........http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/205/0/a/Classic_Pooh_by_Mirz123.png



If you are actually an agnostic, how can you hammer the theists about their stories with any sense of absolute clarity..... while admitting you have no proof or real evidence that you are right either. http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs42/f/2009/058/c/9/_tigger__by_Synfull.gif



It's all rather depressing, huh? http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/015/2/9/Eeyore_by_Tewateroniakwa.gif

It doesn't have to be. All it has to be is what it is.



Remember, don't shoot the messenger. Tip your waiters.... I'll be here all week.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

High-Gear
07-16-2012, 18:30
And whoever said man, as a group, will ever know all there is to know?

We are not all that impressive as a group. We have other animals here on earth that can predict earthquakes, navigate without assistance over thousands of miles, see in the dark, feel their way in the dark with sound, see infra red and ultra violet.

Arrogance is a human trait though.

Ever thought it might be, but might be different than the stories man has developed?

Man has overcome the deficiencies of his physical limitation to accomplish each of these things (to various degrees) by using his intellect. I'd say that is pretty impressive!

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 18:33
I'm obstinate? :rofl:

Free will is a myth. Did you choose to speak English of your own free will?

You're really bad at this whole "example" thing.

Yes, it was a choice, but a logical one. Considering it was what the people that were feeding me were speaking. And if I wanted to communicate with them, it was the way to go. It was a choice fed by both positive and negative feedback loops, just like your choice to believe the way you do. :upeyes:

It is possible to overcome simple reactionary choices, people do it all the time. It's not natural to run toward the sound of gunfire, or into a burning building.... etc etc etc

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 18:38
Man has overcome the deficiencies of his physical limitation to accomplish each of these things (to various degrees) by using his intellect. I'd say that is pretty impressive!

Maybe you've only seen "man" at his best. I've seen him at his worst. No need to try to shock you with the details, but I've seen the results of things done to children and old ladies that would shock most people.

Some men are noble, "man" is an animal.

Some people are wise, "man" is not.

http://www.garthbigelow.com/images/Meetings.jpg

High-Gear
07-16-2012, 18:41
Any third grade teacher will tell you that words mean what their definitions say they mean.

You have every right to ignore your elementary education and choose your own definition to the words you use, and I have every right to use the correct definition.

It's elementary Mr. Watson.

Right, and we don't use any other word colloquially in every day speech. I bet you argue with folks that it is not truly "Raining Cats and Dogs", and a guy is not "cool" with a body temp of 98.6 degrees.

You continue to make the mistake that because one can't prove everything there is to know, or disprove a deity, they are equally viable alternative theories. That is a falsehood.

If you would answer my question about the great Hershey bar god, you would admit it is not an equally viable explaination. Even though I made it up earlier, I can not disprove it, therefore you must be agnostic about it. If you deny it, you are choosing to have faith in its nonexistance, therefore you are religious, not agnostic!

So which is it? Do you give equal credence to the Great Hershey Bar God, or are you a religious fellow who denies his existance?

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 19:19
Right, and we don't use any other word colloquially in every day speech. I bet you argue with folks that it is not truly "Raining Cats and Dogs", and a guy is not "cool" with a body temp of 98.6 degrees.

You continue to make the mistake that because one can't prove everything there is to know, or disprove a deity, they are equally viable alternative theories. That is a falsehood.

If you would answer my question about the great Hershey bar god, you would admit it is not an equally viable explaination. Even though I made it up earlier, I can not disprove it, therefore you must be agnostic about it. If you deny it, you are choosing to have faith in its nonexistance, therefore you are religious, not agnostic!

So which is it? Do you give equal credence to the Great Hershey Bar God, or are you a religious fellow who denies his existance?



When we are trying to be clear, we use words precisely.

I give equal weight to the lack of proof both sides in the argument have. Both sides are going on pure faith. To their credit, one side will admit that.

In some ways theists are more intellectually superior in their beliefs, and atheists are more moral in theirs. Not quite the paradox one would imagine if he thought about it.

High-Gear
07-16-2012, 19:54
When we are trying to be clear, we use words precisely.



Well, if you asked what race my red haired, pale skined, freckled, green eyed wife was to be precise I'd have to say she is bi-racial. You see she is 1/32nd cherokee indian. However for all practical purposes she is caucasian. Ask anyone who looked at her they would more specifically say she is of Scots-Irish descent.

However since we all came from Africa originally I guess she is not bi-racial at all, she is African American, just to be precise like you demand.

Not willing to answer the question I have posed several times, eh doc?

Cavalry Doc
07-16-2012, 20:00
Not willing to answer the question I have posed several times, eh doc?

No, just waiting to point out that a lack of belief in any single theistic story, is not atheism. Not by the actual definition.

So, think about it, are you really an atheist, or just anti-[insert name of other religion here]?

Think about that one for a bit before you answer. No, really, think about it. :wavey:

Syclone538
07-16-2012, 21:11
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4949357734331984&id=680226005c2162f249b25712901d674b

Syclone538
07-16-2012, 21:14
...
If you would answer my question about the great Hershey bar god, you would admit it is not an equally viable explaination. ...

I went through this with him on FSM. He would never answer questions about it. He would only say that he was ok with people believing in it, but would not give me odds on it's existence.

ksg0245
07-16-2012, 22:14
Any third grade teacher will tell you that words mean what their definitions say they mean.

You have every right to ignore your elementary education and choose your own definition to the words you use, and I have every right to use the correct definition.

It's elementary Mr. Watson.

It's ironic you imply something is being ignored while ignoring the parts of the definitions that contradict you and rejecting all but one dictionary.

Watson was a doctor.

Animal Mother
07-16-2012, 22:21
Not willing to answer the question I have posed several times, eh doc?He does seem to have a problem with that, doesn't he?

ksg0245
07-16-2012, 22:35
No, just waiting to point out that a lack of belief in any single theistic story, is not atheism. Not by the actual definition.

Like this Collins Dictionary (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/atheist) definition?

a person who does not believe in God or gods

Or this American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/atheist) one?

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Or this Webster's New World College Dictionary (http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist) one?

An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power.

So, think about it, are you really an atheist, or just anti-[insert name of other religion here]?

Think about that one for a bit before you answer. No, really, think about it. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 06:44
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4949357734331984&id=680226005c2162f249b25712901d674b

As pointed out earlier, I believe a linear evaluation is more accurate.

Atheist > Atheistic Agnostic > Agnostic < Theistic Agnostic < Theist.

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 06:49
It's ironic you imply something is being ignored while ignoring the parts of the definitions that contradict you and rejecting all but one dictionary.

Watson was a doctor.

If Dr Watson takes offense, I'll be sure to apologize.

Like I said, people here can use the words correctly, or not. I'll stick to the correct definitions. The definitions of atheist are quite clear to me.

Lone Wolf8634
07-17-2012, 07:11
No amount of debate is gonna change CD's mind on this subject. The way I see it, there's two possibilities here:

1. CD has made up his mind. He's right, we're wrong and thats just the way its gonna be. He's gonna hold on to his misguided opinion even through being told by Atheists (You know, the people he's attempting to pigeonhole?)that it's incorrect. He's gonna hold to his position with ardor and faith through thick and thin, because after all, he's got a book that told him so!

2. CD's having entirely too much fun to back down now. He managed to get every Atheist on this board to respond to him, and by virtue of simply reciting the same tired mantra over and over again, he continues to receive the attention and drama over an opinion that isn't even pertinent to any conversation, debate or argument that is currently on the first page.

If the words "atheism is a religion" come up again, the only response necessary is "No, it's not:yawn:."


Just MHO.

RC-RAMIE
07-17-2012, 07:13
No amount of debate is gonna change CD's mind on this subject. The way I see it, there's two possibilities here:

1. CD has made up his mind. He's right, we're wrong and thats just the way its gonna be. He's gonna hold on to his misguided opinion even through being told by Atheists (You know, the people he's attempting to pigeonhole?)that it's incorrect. He's gonna hold to his position with ardor and faith through thick and thin, because after all, he's got a book that told him so!

2. CD's having entirely too much fun to back down now. He managed to get every Atheist on this board to respond to him, and by virtue of simply reciting the same tired mantra over and over again, he continues to receive the attention and drama over an opinion that isn't even pertinent to any conversation, debate or argument that is currently on the first page.

If the words "atheism is a religion" come up again, the only response necessary is "No, it's not:yawn:."


Just MHO.

Over two years now that other thread feels like a family member, a in-law but still family.




....

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 07:16
I went through this with him on FSM. He would never answer questions about it. He would only say that he was ok with people believing in it, but would not give me odds on it's existence.

The issue is that the premise is intentionally absurd. FSM and this new Hershey god are simple constructs. The first step is bypassed completely by those constructs. The first question is whether there is or was a deity or deities. Having stopped there, being agnostic, I don't feel a compulsion to disprove the existance of every imaginable deity. Especially considering that if there was one, it's obvious that humans have differing opinions on what the nature of that deity or deities are. Some of the opinions are mutually exclusive.

My approach is to be respectful of the beliefs of others, as their belief (most of them anyway) does little or no harm to me. So, if you truly are a pastafarian, and that leads you to be nice to others, fine with me. If our friend wants to believe in a chocolate god, that's fine with me too.

It's certainly no worse than Christianity.

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 07:27
No amount of debate is gonna change CD's mind on this subject. The way I see it, there's two possibilities here:

1. CD has made up his mind. He's right, we're wrong and thats just the way its gonna be. He's gonna hold on to his misguided opinion even through being told by Atheists (You know, the people he's attempting to pigeonhole?)that it's incorrect. He's gonna hold to his position with ardor and faith through thick and thin, because after all, he's got a book that told him so!

2. CD's having entirely too much fun to back down now. He managed to get every Atheist on this board to respond to him, and by virtue of simply reciting the same tired mantra over and over again, he continues to receive the attention and drama over an opinion that isn't even pertinent to any conversation, debate or argument that is currently on the first page.

If the words "atheism is a religion" come up again, the only response necessary is "No, it's not:yawn:."


Just MHO.

And don't forget to point out, the heated debate shows that a lot of people hold certain things sacred, not just the theists. :cool:

Take note of the thread title.

Lone Wolf8634
07-17-2012, 07:33
And don't forget to point out, the heated debate shows that a lot of people hold certain things sacred, not just the theists. :cool:

Take note of the thread title.

Or perhaps they just don't like to be labeled something they're not.

Labeling people is bad enough, now your assigning motives?:yawn:

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 07:34
On another thread I referred to religious stories as a myths and another member claimed "offense".

So I ask...

Why does a person's religious views automatically garner respect and protection?

Why is it OK for me to tell another I think they are wrong on any other topic, but religion?

Should it be this way, or does this protection sheild extremeists from their views being exposed through open discourse?

Input from all sides is welcome.:)

If you're talking about me, I believe you called God a "myth". That is not calling me "wrong", it is insulting my beliefs. If it was me, please relay info accurately................

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 07:36
Or perhaps they just don't like to be labeled something they're not.

Labeling people is bad enough, now your assigning motives?:yawn:

I didn't say why they thought their atheistic belief was sacred, I'm sure there are many reasons. I just pointed out that it was sacred to them. Keep the charges straight and accurate please.

Lone Wolf8634
07-17-2012, 07:38
I didn't say why they thought their atheistic belief was sacred, I'm sure there are many reasons. I just pointed out that it was sacred to them. Keep the charges straight and accurate please.

Pardon me, I had no idea you were actually telling us what we think.

Thanks for the clarification.

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 07:42
Pardon me, I had no idea you were actually telling us what we think.

Thanks for the clarification.

Showing, not telling. Is it a choice, or not?

I've been told it's not, while showing it is.

Lone Wolf8634
07-17-2012, 07:43
Showing, not telling. Is it a choice, or not?

No, it's not.:yawn:

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 07:49
No, it's not.:yawn:

How is atheism not a choice when there are obvious alternatives?

Are you saying it's a compulsion? Have you no free will?

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 07:57
Over two years now that other thread feels like a family member, a in-law but still family.




....

It's only been about 20 months, but it has been a thought provoking issue. No?

Lone Wolf8634
07-17-2012, 08:04
How is atheism not a choice when there are obvious alternatives?

Are you saying it's a compulsion? Have you no free will?

Last time.

I do not think pink pegacorns exist. No amount of rationalizing, wishing or wanting will convince me that they are out there. My brain is just not wired to accept anything on faith.

Same with believing in deities. Exactly the same.

So you see, no, I do not have a choice, just the same as I can't fly because my body isn't built for it, I cannot be anything but an Atheist because my brain isn't wired for it. Somehow or another, logical thought replaced mysticism in my matrix.

Sorry if you wont accept that explanation because religion is supposed to be more "profound and meaningful" than pink pegacorns.

It's not.

In my mind it's simply another story told to me in my youth that I grew out of. It's on the same level as the boogy-man, Santy Clause, Tarot cards and.....pink pegacorns pooping skittles on a rainbow.

Lone Wolf8634
07-17-2012, 08:05
It's only been about 20 months, but it has been a thought provoking issue. No?

Not really. Amusing at times, irritating at others, but ultimately unproductive.

Syclone538
07-17-2012, 08:21
If you're talking about me, I believe you called God a "myth". That is not calling me "wrong", it is insulting my beliefs. If it was me, please relay info accurately................

If you are insulted when anyone tells you that they don't believe in the god that you do, that's your problem, not ours.

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 08:25
Not really. Amusing at times, irritating at others, but ultimately unproductive.

You get out of it what you put into it.

RC-RAMIE
07-17-2012, 08:25
it's only been about 20 months, but it has been a thought provoking issue. No?

no...

Lone Wolf8634
07-17-2012, 08:29
You get out of it what you put into it.


Again.... not really.

High-Gear
07-17-2012, 08:32
If you're talking about me, I believe you called God a "myth". That is not calling me "wrong", it is insulting my beliefs. If it was me, please relay info accurately................

The first sentance was about you, I called all gods myths and you took offense.

The sentence you highlighted was a general question, again pretend not everything is about you. Oh wait, don't pretend because not everything is about you!

I was asking in general society it seems there is an unwritten rule that religion is "sacred" and beyond question.


Again I assert calling it a myth is not offensive. A myth is the religious story of a group or tribe. You happen to believe one of many myths. Calling it such does not mean it is offensive. I bet if I said Jesus was a cult leader you would be offended. The definition of cult is a small religious sect outside of the mainstream. What would you call obe guy with 12 followers challenging the mainstream, other than a cult. A cult which grew to become the mainstream, does not change the fact that it started as a cult.

Syclone538
07-17-2012, 08:33
As pointed out earlier, I believe a linear evaluation is more accurate.

Atheist > Atheistic Agnostic > Agnostic < Theistic Agnostic < Theist.

Believing something doesn't make it true.

High-Gear
07-17-2012, 08:51
Believing something doesn't make it true.

And Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 08:52
If you are insulted when anyone tells you that they don't believe in the god that you do, that's your problem, not ours.

That is NOT what was said, pay attention.........

Syclone538
07-17-2012, 08:57
That is NOT what was said, pay attention.........

Anyone that doesn't believe in the god that you do obviously thinks the god you believe in is a myth. I don't understand the problem.

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 09:40
Anyone that doesn't believe in the god that you do obviously thinks the god you believe in is a myth. I don't understand the problem.

Apparently you don't. Think about it a little more.

Syclone538
07-17-2012, 09:52
Apparently you don't. Think about it a little more.

You know I'm atheist, right? What have I ever said to make you think there is any god I don't consider a myth?

muscogee
07-17-2012, 09:59
You're really bad at this whole "example" thing.

Yes, it was a choice, but a logical one. Considering it was what the people that were feeding me were speaking. And if I wanted to communicate with them, it was the way to go. It was a choice fed by both positive and negative feedback loops, just like your choice to believe the way you do. :upeyes:

It is possible to overcome simple reactionary choices, people do it all the time. It's not natural to run toward the sound of gunfire, or into a burning building.... etc etc etc

So you choose to speak English before you were able to talk? You could have chosen any language, but you chose English? I'm not the one having cognitive issues here.

You're a troll and a waste of time. I'm tired of you constantly hijacking threads and demanding everyone fawn over your single trite observation. Do you not know how rude that is? Do you not care? Are you having OCD issues? Get therapy. Feed your emotional issue at someone else's expense. You're going on the ignore list.

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 10:21
You know I'm atheist, right? What have I ever said to make you think there is any god I don't consider a myth?


Let's see................ if I called your dog a "mutt" with disdain in my tone, but you loved him dearly, would that offend you? Numerous examples of this analogy are easily created. Do you get the drift?

Syclone538
07-17-2012, 10:51
As opposed to saying something like, "mix"? Maybe, but that wouldn't make me right and you wrong.

So you take the words myth and mythology as being pejorative or derogatory? I still think that's on you.

Can I say your religion is false without you being offended?
Can I say your god doesn't exist without you being offended?
Can I say you are ignorant about the theory of evolution without you being offended?
Can I say you are ignorant about the big bang theory without you being offended?

Not that you necessarily are, but many theists either don't understand the theories or just create strawmans against them.

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 11:32
As opposed to saying something like, "mix"? Maybe, but that wouldn't make me right and you wrong.

So you take the words myth and mythology as being pejorative or derogatory? I still think that's on you.

Can I say your religion is false without you being offended?
Can I say your god doesn't exist without you being offended?
Can I say you are ignorant about the theory of evolution without you being offended?
Can I say you are ignorant about the big bang theory without you being offended?

Not that you necessarily are, but many theists either don't understand the theories or just create strawmans against them.




1)Yes, it is on me.Respect that please.
2)The things you say DO offend me,why say them if you KNOW it is so?
3)I'm not the Einstein of this board,but spent 8 years (actually 9, last three were year round) in universities. The Constitution guarantees me the right to worship as I please, as it does you to have your opinions about a deity. Is that so hard to comprehend? I made an informed decision to follow Christ................

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 11:36
So you choose to speak English before you were able to talk? You could have chosen any language, but you chose English? I'm not the one having cognitive issues here.

You're a troll and a waste of time. I'm tired of you constantly hijacking threads and demanding everyone fawn over your single trite observation. Do you not know how rude that is? Do you not care? Are you having OCD issues? Get therapy. Feed your emotional issue at someone else's expense. You're going on the ignore list.

It was a logical choice. My twin and I used to use some of our own words that we had apparently just made up, but we knew what we meant. I don't remember that, but that's what I've been told. I'd guess in order to be understood by others, we let those words go. Even if it is the only reasonable choice, it's still a choice.

See now. I actually like you. Oh well. If it makes you feel better, you can ignore what I have to say. It's a free country. You have a choice.

Syclone538
07-17-2012, 11:55
1)Yes, it is on me.Respect that please.
2)The things you say DO offend me,why say them if you KNOW it is so?
3)I'm not the Einstein of this board,but spent 8 years (actually 9, last three were year round) in universities. The Constitution guarantees me the right to worship as I please, as it does you to have your opinions about a deity. Is that so hard to comprehend? I made an informed decision to follow Christ................

1 I don't take offense if you say God is real. You are trying to limit my ability to have a discussion in this forum. I don't respect that, quite the opposite.

2 Because I think it is an important subject to discuss. I'm not trying to offend you, but it seems like it would be impossible to disagree with you on religion without doing so.

3 If you understand them that's great, I was just trying to find out if I could call you ignorant about something without offending you. That seems extremely unlikely.

NMG26
07-17-2012, 12:28
1)Yes, it is on me.Respect that please.
2)The things you say DO offend me,why say them if you KNOW it is so?
3)I'm not the Einstein of this board,but spent 8 years (actually 9, last three were year round) in universities. The Constitution guarantees me the right to worship as I please, as it does you to have your opinions about a deity. Is that so hard to comprehend? I made an informed decision to follow Christ................


Glad you showed up in this thread.

I can see where you might take offence as someone calling your God a myth.

Can we talk about your religion without offending you?

Like blood sacrifce. To me it is an archaic religious practice. Is that offensive to you?

Some people believe that any belief in God is believing in a myth. Now we are talking about beliefs and not "your God". Do you take offence when we talk about your beliefs? If so, then maybe RI is not a forum for you to partake in? It is kind of the point of RI.....talking about beliefs.

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 12:32
1 I don't take offense if you say God is real. You are trying to limit my ability to have a discussion in this forum. I don't respect that, quite the opposite.

2 Because I think it is an important subject to discuss. I'm not trying to offend you, but it seems like it would be impossible to disagree with you on religion without doing so.

3 If you understand them that's great, I was just trying to find out if I could call you ignorant about something without offending you. That seems extremely unlikely.


Don't you think we're chasing rabbits?

1) "Discussing" without using offensive terms (in a conversation with me) should not limit your ability to have an intelligent discussion. Would you prefer I be "offensive" to you? If so, maybe this would be better defined as childish argument.

2) You are incorrect.

3)Calling anyone "ignorant" isn't a good idea.

High-Gear
07-17-2012, 12:39
Let's see................ if I called your dog a "mutt" with disdain in my tone, but you loved him dearly, would that offend you? Numerous examples of this analogy are easily created. Do you get the drift?

Listen please. I have told you I did not have disdain in my "voice", I used the term myth to relate to all religions. You decided to take it as a personal attack. Get over it.



1)Yes, it is on me.Respect that please.
2)The things you say DO offend me,why say them if you KNOW it is so?
3)I'm not the Einstein of this board,but spent 8 years (actually 9, last three were year round) in universities. The Constitution guarantees me the right to worship as I please, as it does you to have your opinions about a deity. Is that so hard to comprehend? I made an informed decision to follow Christ................

I don't care that you are offended by the things I say. It is not my goal to offend you, but I'm nit going to dance around a topic for fear of your fragile feelers.

You do not have a constitutional right to be free from being offended. Again, get over it.

Syclone538
07-17-2012, 12:41
Don't you think we're chasing rabbits?
...

Unfortunately, I think so.

...
1) "Discussing" without using offensive terms (in a conversation with me) should not limit your ability to have an intelligent discussion.
...

You're right, it shouldn't.

...
Would you prefer I be "offensive" to you? If so, maybe this would be better defined as childish argument.
...

As long as you are being honest, I'm not sure you can.

...
2) You are incorrect.
...

That's good to hear.

...
3)Calling anyone "ignorant" isn't a good idea.

Even if it's true?

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 13:01
Unfortunately, I think so.



You're right, it shouldn't.



As long as you are being honest, I'm not sure you can.



That's good to hear.



Even if it's true?

"I'm not sure you can"? Please explain,remember, I'm not Einstein.

What have you accomplished by calling someone "ignorant"? Established superiority? If they ARE ignorant,they won't believe you and you've accomplished nothing,JMHO

Syclone538
07-17-2012, 13:09
"I'm not sure you can"? Please explain,remember, I'm not Einstein.
...

I thought that was pretty clear. I doubt your ability to be offensive to me while being honest.

...
What have you accomplished by calling someone "ignorant"? Established superiority? If they ARE ignorant,they won't believe you and you've accomplished nothing,JMHO

Show them where they need more knowledge on a subject before arguing against it.

Sarge1400
07-17-2012, 13:29
What have you accomplished by calling someone "ignorant"? Established superiority? If they ARE ignorant,they won't believe you and you've accomplished nothing,JMHO

Seems to me you're hung up on some word definitions. You do understand that 'ignorant' can simply mean that you don't know, don't you? There's no negative connotation there. Yes, it CAN be used to try to establish superiority, but I don't think that's the case here.

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 13:41
I thought that was pretty clear. I doubt your ability to be offensive to me while being honest.



Show them where they need more knowledge on a subject before arguing against it.

I must admit this is a pleasant exchange,one which I wish more members on this board (both sides) would emulate.


1) I assume that to be a compliment :whistling:

2) Then show them, you will probably get your point across much better without derogatory remarks.

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 13:45
Seems to me you're hung up on some word definitions. You do understand that 'ignorant' can simply mean that you don't know, don't you? There's no negative connotation there. Yes, it CAN be used to try to establish superiority, but I don't think that's the case here.

I think there is a better way of handling the situation without using "ignorant" directed at someone you are in verbal conflict. ESPECIALLY on this board...................

Sarge1400
07-17-2012, 13:54
I think there is a better way of handling the situation without using "ignorant" directed at someone you are in verbal conflict. ESPECIALLY on this board...................

It appears you've decided to be offended by the word, despite it being used in an unoffensive manner. :dunno: Can't help you there.

Syclone538
07-17-2012, 13:58
I must admit this is a pleasant exchange,one which I wish more members on this board (both sides) would emulate.
...

That's great, that means nothing I have said has been too terribly offensive to you.

...
1) I assume that to be a compliment :whistling:
...

In part, sure. But the point was to show you that you take offense easier then I do. No offense, lol...

What's the most offensive thing a theist would say to an atheist? That I'm going to hell? If you tell me that, I'm going to assume you are telling me because you think it's true, not for the purpose of offending me, and I'm not going to be offended.

...
2) Then show them, you will probably get your point across much better without derogatory remarks.

We just disagree on what is derogatory, and offensive.

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 14:18
That's great, that means nothing I have said has been too terribly offensive to you.



In part, sure. But the point was to show you that you take offense easier then I do. No offense, lol...

What's the most offensive thing a theist would say to an atheist? That I'm going to hell? If you tell me that, I'm going to assume you are telling me because you think it's true, not for the purpose of offending me, and I'm not going to be offended.



We just disagree on what is derogatory, and offensive.


I can live with your responses.................. DOC

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 14:21
It appears you've decided to be offended by the word, despite it being used in an unoffensive manner. :dunno: Can't help you there.

Just went through the "offensive" thing with Syclone. Not doing it again, all info is in previous posts. Please read.

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 14:56
And Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

But playing the lottery is. Collecting stamps is A hobby, not the only one. Not having one specific hobby does not exclude one from being a hobbyist.

It's a choice. People make choices all the time. It's not a big deal.

Norske
07-17-2012, 15:27
1)Yes, it is on me.Respect that please.
2)The things you say DO offend me,why say them if you KNOW it is so?
3)I'm not the Einstein of this board,but spent 8 years (actually 9, last three were year round) in universities. The Constitution guarantees me the right to worship as I please, as it does you to have your opinions about a deity. Is that so hard to comprehend? I made an informed decision to follow Christ................

I'll try to say this without Eric throwing a yellow card at me, but here goes.

My own opinion is that all "organized religion" is a 10,000 year old con game designed to control our individual lives, often against our own best interests.

Am I required to "respect" something I believe to be a dishonest con game?

Am I required to "respect" any mark whom I believe has been taken in by the con game?

Which is to say, the vast majority of all of humanity over the last 10K + years? When it comes to this particular subject?

Is not my distain for organized religion, and the practitioners thereof, also protected by MY rights under the 1st Amendment?

The 1st Amendment protects your right to practice your religion, granted -- so long as you do not attempt to force me to live my life in accordance with your beliefs.

So, please do not send the priests of the Inquisition after me for my refusal to accept the con.

"Freedom of Religion" also provides for "Freedom FROM Religion".

But the only place demanding respect for religion comes from religion itself.

A mark who no longer accepts the con is no longer a mark.

And religion cannot survive without marks.

:dunno:

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 18:55
I'll try to say this without Eric throwing a yellow card at me, but here goes.

My own opinion is that all "organized religion" is a 10,000 year old con game designed to control our individual lives, often against our own best interests.

Am I required to "respect" something I believe to be a dishonest con game?

Am I required to "respect" any mark whom I believe has been taken in by the con game?

Which is to say, the vast majority of all of humanity over the last 10K + years? When it comes to this particular subject?

Is not my distain for organized religion, and the practitioners thereof, also protected by MY rights under the 1st Amendment?

The 1st Amendment protects your right to practice your religion, granted -- so long as you do not attempt to force me to live my life in accordance with your beliefs.

So, please do not send the priests of the Inquisition after me for my refusal to accept the con.

"Freedom of Religion" also provides for "Freedom FROM Religion".

But the only place demanding respect for religion comes from religion itself.

A mark who no longer accepts the con is no longer a mark.

And religion cannot survive without marks.

:dunno:

I was asking Syclone to respect my point of view :rofl:. Most of your dissertation was discussed and I believe Syclone and I at least have an understanding. A lecture from you does not interest me........... I've heard it all before and I follow Christ.

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 19:10
correctionThe first sentance was about you, I called all gods myths and you took offense.

The sentence you highlighted was a general question, again pretend not everything is about you. Oh wait, don't pretend because not everything is about you!

I was asking in general society it seems there is an unwritten rule that religion is "sacred" and beyond question.


Again I assert calling it a myth is not offensive. A myth is the religious story of a group or tribe. You happen to believe one of many myths. Calling it such does not mean it is offensive. I bet if I said Jesus was a cult leader you would be offended. The definition of cult is a small religious sect outside of the mainstream. What would you call obe guy with 12 followers challenging the mainstream, other than a cult. A cult which grew to become the mainstream, does not change the fact that it started as a cult.
Do you realize how contradictory those three sentences are? Why should I spend time reading more? :shocked:

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 19:15
It appears you've decided to be offended by the word, despite it being used in an unoffensive manner. :dunno: Can't help you there.

Gee, you're soooooo convincing:rofl:

High-Gear
07-17-2012, 19:22
correction
Do you realize how contradictory those three sentences are? Why should I spend time reading more? :shocked:

Don't spend any more time reading my posts please.

You have made up your mind to be offended and take everything I say as an attack. I have said repeatedly my intent was not to offend you, but you won't hear it, so I no longer care to adress the issue. Remeber tone of voice can not be determined by the written word. Try to reread my posts without hurt feelings and you might see a difference. Or don't as I truly don't care.

Sarge1400
07-17-2012, 19:25
Gee, you're soooooo convincing:rofl:

Gee, you're suuuuuuch an idiot.:faint:

Geko45
07-17-2012, 19:29
Religion is not something worthy of respect. It is a scourge upon humanity that costs us precious time, resources and lives. The only ethical and moral position is to combat it to the fullest extent allowed within the confines of individual liberty and the law.

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 19:41
Don't spend any more time reading my posts please.

You have made up your mind to be offended and take everything I say as an attack. I have said repeatedly my intent was not to offend you, but you won't hear it, so I no longer care to adress the issue. Remeber tone of voice can not be determined by the written word. Try to reread my posts without hurt feelings and you might see a difference. Or don't as I truly don't care.

You are correct and if I have misinterpreted, I apologize. Realize, whenever a Christian posts, including me, there is an avalanche of criticism and hostility. Learned response.

Cavalry Doc
07-17-2012, 19:42
Religion is not something worthy of respect. It is a scourge upon humanity that costs us precious time, resources and lives. The only ethical and moral position is to combat it to the fullest extent allowed within the confines of individual liberty and the law.

Interesting take on the first amendment.

steveksux
07-17-2012, 19:42
My approach is to be respectful of the beliefs of others, as their belief (most of them anyway) does little or no harm to me.
If only that were true...

How is it respectful to compare Christianity to some superstitious stuff like voodoo?

And yet, that is exactly what calling atheism a religion is. Its equating it to superstitions.

Not to mention an obvious lie, but I guess trolls must have more of an aversion to "offending" people than they do about misrepresentations.

Randy

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 19:45
Religion is not something worthy of respect. It is a scourge upon humanity that costs us precious time, resources and lives. The only ethical and moral position is to combat it to the fullest extent allowed within the confines of individual liberty and the law.

sad.......

Geko45
07-17-2012, 19:49
sad.......

Well, at least I'm willing to respect your right to be completely and totally wrong. I'll argue against it given every opportunity, but I won't try and force you to stop.

Tilley
07-17-2012, 19:51
Well, at least I'm willing to respect your right to be completely and totally wrong. I'll argue against it given every opportunity, but I won't try and force you to stop.

Ass...

scccdoc
07-17-2012, 19:53
Well, at least I'm willing to respect your right to be completely and totally wrong. I'll argue against it given every opportunity, but I won't try and force you to stop.

Well, at least I appreciate that!

Geko45
07-17-2012, 19:57
Ass...

Well, at least I appreciate that!

Well, apparently, Tilley resents it. I guess out of consideration for his free choice I will do my best to oppress him.