NationStates Jolt Archive

A counter-strike to the attack on athiesm. Let the debating begin. Word of warning, ignore CannibalChrist's post even though he'll likely be providing evidence for this side of the argument, I suspect he is out with the sole purpose of making Christianity look bad. Anywho, debate this, because we know this side of the issue is just as true as the other.

Radical people of any religion (or lack) will try and present their view to you to try and get you to believe it. Christianity has a natural propensity for it, however, as the Bible specifically says you should "spread the word" by witnessing for Christ.

Radical people of any religion (or lack) will try and present their view to you to try and get you to believe it. Christianity has a natural propensity for it, however, as the Bible specifically says you should "spread the word" by witnessing for Christ.
Being radical about anything pushes people away from whatever it is that you're being radical about rather than pulls people to it. For example, KKK = Radical Christians. Al Qaida, the Taliban = Radical Muslims, etc.

Significantly less interesting than the "Radical Athiests..." post I suppose...

It's interesting to note that atheists don't have anywhere near as much influence on politics as christians, except in China. Take Australia as an example. While there is supposed to be a separation of church and state here, such as the government is not supposed to fund any religious cause, religious schools are receiving a lot of funding from the federal government.

Because athiests (most) don't have some sort of far-fetched idea that they want millions to blindly accept. Most athiests are athiest. And that's it. Most of them don't try converting people to athiesm but they do get a pretty loud voice when someone tries converting them. All Christians, radical or not, make an effort to spread the word about their God.

No, it's simply because atheists (notice the spelling, please) are not a majority. Being non-religious, culturally, is a relatively new idea. :fluffle:

Additionally, athiests don't have as many united ideas...the only thing that ties all athiests together is their disbelief in God. Some have morals and some don't. They make up their mind on the morality of individual issues. In Christianity, part of being a Christian is (or is supposed to be) morality, therefore, Christians tend to have a very strong voice in the politics of things like Capital Punishment, Abortion, Cloning, etc.

on an added note those who profess to be the most "christian" or religious are also usally the biggest hypocrites of all

on an added note those who profess to be the most "christian" or religious are also usally the biggest hypocrites of all

You listen to John Vanderslice but I hear you aren't that cool :mp5:

:fluffle:

You listen to John Vanderslice but I hear you aren't that cool :mp5:

:fluffle:
its not cool to be cool-its cool to be real

its not cool to be cool-its cool to be real

cool :D

Have to agree with that. I've heard of 'christian' 14 year old sl*ts trying to get with 18-20 year old guys.
And of course we've all heard of the priests who love children a bit too much for the parents to like; but they won't believe it until the priest is about due to retire, so it won't matter...

cool :D
dont say that cause it means uncool

dont say that cause it means uncool

NO WAY
:fluffle:

Being radical about anything pushes people away from whatever it is that you're being radical about rather than pulls people to it. For example, KKK = Radical Christians. Al Qaida, the Taliban = Radical Muslims, etc.

i would tend to disagree with your assessment of the popularity of radicalism. sometimes radical movements and ideas can be very well recieved. the bolsheviks were very radical socialists and yet they won out over a slew of more moderate parties in the russian revolution. radicals are often the purest manifestation of their particular view point. they are not burdened by the contradictions and compromises of the moderates. they also often simplify the debate into black and white arguments and clear slogans that draw people in especially in times of chaos and uncertainty.

Finally, an intelligent post that contrasts what I've said. And I agree with it. Although, I have to make a few sidenotes on that. 1) That was politics and not religion; politics are a little easier to sway (I should've clarified I was talking about religion when I mention fanaticism, but oh well) 2) Russia was in a terrible state and ready to try anything new to try improving itself so the most radical group put themselves out as the ones that knew the way.
As far as the Bolsheviks in Russia, the same can be said for Hitler's rise to power in Germany and Mouselini's (spelling?) rise to power in Italy, both coming out of depression and in a nation full of people looking to try anything new. In these instances, it is the fanatics that appear to have all the answers for you.

i think you can make a similar comparison in religion. radical theology is often simplified theology. fanatics aren't interested in the subtle points of debate about the nature of man and god, they are intersted in being on god's side on the issues and fighting against those who they perceive as opposing god's will.

this can be very appealing, who wouldn't want to fight for absolute right and truth against a clearly defined evil. isn't the bliss of accepting god's will and the confort of struggling on the side of right more satisfying to most people than dry debate about subtle points of doctrine, or bland ecumenical(sp?) acceptance that everyone is partially right, and most people endevour to do right even at cross purposes.

NO WAY
:fluffle:
yeah--its cool to be uncool but in a cool way

A Christian who does not try to push their views on me or on public policy is, to me, sort of like a person who is wearing a funny hat. You know the hat is stupid, and it sort of bugs you, but you try to ignore it even though it is huge and floppy and bright pink with big metallic-green feathers. If you can deal with the funny hat, many Christians are pretty OK; but sooner or later, they always have to say, "So, how come YOU aren't wearing a funny hat?" and I have to say, "Please fuck off."

A Christian who does not try to push their views on me or on public policy is, to me, sort of like a person who is wearing a funny hat. You know the hat is stupid, and it sort of bugs you, but you try to ignore it even though it is huge and floppy and bright pink with big metallic-green feathers. If you can deal with the funny hat, many Christians are pretty OK; but sooner or later, they always have to say, "So, how come YOU aren't wearing a funny hat?" and I have to say, "Please fuck off."

That's the best analogy for it I ever heard :D

A Christian who does not try to push their views on me or on public policy is, to me, sort of like a person who is wearing a funny hat. You know the hat is stupid, and it sort of bugs you, but you try to ignore it even though it is huge and floppy and bright pink with big metallic-green feathers. If you can deal with the funny hat, many Christians are pretty OK; but sooner or later, they always have to say, "So, how come YOU aren't wearing a funny hat?" and I have to say, "Please fuck off."
And again, all atheists have different views on Christianity...to me, I only find Christians annoying because typically, aside from going to church and believing in God, I practice what they profess (be moral) much more than any of the Christians I know. I suppose this got confused somewhere, but now every Christian's only goal is to get into heaven and most denominations (or at least from the view point that people of most denominations have explained it to me) believe that to do that you only have to do some sort of thing. To some denominations it is be baptised, others say "accept Jesus Christ as your saviour," etc. None of them have the prerequisite of getting into heaven as being things like being a good person and believing in morals and doing what is right because it is the right thing to do. These types of things are very important to me and it is the fact that these things are not stressed that I've been convinced to question more and believe less about Christianity.

and radical liberals don't?

I hate to say stuffed down others throats and gay marriage in the same sentence, but its an unavoidable example

for every crazy right wing Christian there are more than a few crazy left wing athiests that are just as annoying to us

you have no right to complain

gee, ive been exposed to many thousands of people in my day. the vast majority were presumably christian

the number who needed to tell me about their religion without being asked is vanishingly small

i find that a simple "thank you but im not interested" works for just about any situation.

I hate to say stuffed down others throats and gay marriage in the same sentence, but its an unavoidable example

for every crazy right wing Christian there are more than a few crazy left wing athiests that are just as annoying to us

The difference here is very simple. The kind of radical Christian being complained about will tell me I should convert to Christianity, a radical liberal will not tell me I should marry someone of my own sex. So the latter isn't shoving anything down your throat, it's simply a matter of stopping you shoving your prejudice down the throats of homosexuals. Ditto most liberal ideas - I won't force you to take drugs, I just want both of us to be allowed to do so; I won't force you to abandon your faith, I just want both of us to be allowed; I won't force you to voice your political ideals, I just want both of us to be allowed to do so....etc.

How dare they force you to have choices in life! ;)

A Christian who does not try to push their views on me or on public policy is, to me, sort of like a person who is wearing a funny hat. You know the hat is stupid, and it sort of bugs you, but you try to ignore it even though it is huge and floppy and bright pink with big metallic-green feathers. If you can deal with the funny hat, many Christians are pretty OK; but sooner or later, they always have to say, "So, how come YOU aren't wearing a funny hat?" and I have to say, "Please fuck off."
LOL.LOL.LOL.

and radical liberals don't?

I hate to say stuffed down others throats and gay marriage in the same sentence, but its an unavoidable example

for every crazy right wing Christian there are more than a few crazy left wing athiests that are just as annoying to us

you have no right to complain
how can you call yourself a christian and oppose equal rights?

I believe that half of the anti-Christian sentiment *coughBottlecough* is mispalced teenage angst at their parents asking them to go to Church when they'd rather be playing counterstrike, but anyway, I have a question to put to you.

I am a Christian, I couldn't care less if gays are allowed to marry or not. It makes no difference to me. In your view is this a contradiction? Am I some foul and evil sinner?

Someone earlier mentioned Christian schools in Australia. I'm going to approach this from an entirely New Zealand perspective. New Zealand has a large number of State funded Catholic Primary and Secondary schools. Is this because the country is run by Catholics? Indeed not. Catholics are a minority of the population (15%). The current Prime Minister is an avowed atheist. The reason is the Catholic Church couldn't afford to keep the schools running so it handed them over to the State. The State wants everyone to have a high school education, many Catholic parents want their children at Catholic schools, everyone is happy. It has absolutely nothing to do with Christian control of the State, it's all to do with respecting the wishes of the people.

I believe that half of the anti-Christian sentiment *coughBottlecough* is mispalced teenage angst at their parents asking them to go to Church when they'd rather be playing counterstrike

actually, you couldn't be further off-base. i'm not a teenager, i don't know what counterstrike is, and my parents are a non-observant Jew and a Unitarian who allowed me (at my request) to attend churches and temples of many different denominations in my quest to understand how and why people adopt superstition as a way of life.

my anti-Christian sentiment is the same as my anti-unicorn-worship sentiment; i don't think it makes any more sense to believe in God than it does to believe in unicorns, and i don't see why i should give more respect to a group who worship the former as i do to a group who worship the latter.

Seems a lot of these folk are so busy ramming their stuff down others' throats that they forget a bit of listening is a Good Thing.

If people were more inclined to listen, and to accept others for what they are rather than trying to change them, then there wouldn't be a need for us to be posting this stuff on the forum ;)

actually, you couldn't be further off-base. i'm not a teenager, i don't know what counterstrike is, and my parents are a non-observant Jew and a Unitarian who allowed me (at my request) to attend churches and temples of many different denominations in my quest to understand how and why people adopt superstition as a way of life.

my anti-Christian sentiment is the same as my anti-unicorn-worship sentiment; i don't think it makes any more sense to believe in God than it does to believe in unicorns, and i don't see why i should give more respect to a group who worship the former as i do to a group who worship the latter.
what wrong with people having faith in things bigger then them? why limit yourself to one world?and how do you know unicorns dont exist somewhere in time? By shutting off all possibilitys of things your being as closed minded as the religious fanatics

what wrong with people having faith in things bigger then them? why limit yourself to one world?

nothing, and i don't. what is wrong is when people pick something to believe in simply because it feels nice and makes them all warm and fuzzy, and they ignore reality in favor of their superstition. current numbers show that over 90% of Americans who are religious belong to the exact same denomination as their parents, basically showing that most people are going with the easiest and most comfortable path rather than actually examining the serious questions. i think that's lazy and not worthy of any more respect than if an adult decided to continue believing in Santa because it is a nice story; we'd call a 25 year old who sincerely believes in Santa "disturbed" or "troubled," yet we don't see anything wrong with another adult who believes that there is a celestial father-figure telling them not to eat meat on Fridays.

i have faith in intangible things bigger than myself, and physics would be one prime example. i cannot limit myself to a single world because, as a scientist, i personally travel through several different worlds each day, from the universe that exists between atoms to the world of organs in a body to the world of gravitational wells in the universe. personally i don't understand how anybody could find fairy tales as interesting and inspiring as reality is, but then i also don't know why some people think that Brittany Spears is a gifted musician...it's all a matter of taste, i suppose.

if you want to ask me why i don't believe in God then all i can say is: why don't you believe in unicorns? why do you think that one myth is more valid than the millions of others? why do you think that the particular faith you were born into or chose to follow just happens to be the right one, out of all the possible faiths? what makes you think that what you are worshipping is actually God, and not some incredibly powerful demon pretending to be God? and most importantly, why do you think you need to believe in the first place?

actually, you couldn't be further off-base. i'm not a teenager, i don't know what counterstrike is, and my parents are a non-observant Jew and a Unitarian who allowed me (at my request) to attend churches and temples of many different denominations in my quest to understand how and why people adopt superstition as a way of life.

my anti-Christian sentiment is the same as my anti-unicorn-worship sentiment; i don't think it makes any more sense to believe in God than it does to believe in unicorns, and i don't see why i should give more respect to a group who worship the former as i do to a group who worship the latter.

Thats a very bad attitude to have in life. I could just as well say "I'm white, I see no reason why I should respect anyone who isn't." You are a bigot. People have a right to freedom of expression. You believe you are superior but you have no logical or intellectual argument to base your wide variety of poorly contrived flame baiting on.

nothing, and i don't. what is wrong is when people pick something to believe in simply because it feels nice and makes them all warm and fuzzy, and they ignore reality in favor of their superstition. current numbers show that over 90% of Americans who are religious belong to the exact same denomination as their parents, basically showing that most people are going with the easiest and most comfortable path rather than actually examining the serious questions. i think that's lazy and not worthy of any more respect than if an adult decided to continue believing in Santa because it is a nice story; we'd call a 25 year old who sincerely believes in Santa "disturbed" or "troubled," yet we don't see anything wrong with another adult who believes that there is a celestial father-figure telling them not to eat meat on Fridays.

i have faith in intangible things bigger than myself, and physics would be one prime example. i cannot limit myself to a single world because, as a scientist, i personally travel through several different worlds each day, from the universe that exists between atoms to the world of organs in a body to the world of gravitational wells in the universe. personally i don't understand how anybody could find fairy tales as interesting and inspiring as reality is, but then i also don't know why some people think that Brittany Spears is a gifted musician...it's all a matter of taste, i suppose.

if you want to ask me why i don't believe in God then all i can say is: why don't you believe in unicorns? why do you think that one myth is more valid than the millions of others? why do you think that the particular faith you were born into or chose to follow just happens to be the right one, out of all the possible faiths? what makes you think that what you are worshipping is actually God, and not some incredibly powerful demon pretending to be God? and most importantly, why do you think you need to believe in the first place?
well I try to believe in everything just as a form of insurance and I agree with the first part of your post about people just following an easy path since I dont like that either and thats my main complaint against fundamentalist religious types...I believe in faith in general and not in competing "myths" as you call them... whether Im worshipping a God or a Demon isnt a crucial difference since whatever it is its fulfilling me and is worthy of my worship for that reason alone...I feel the need to believe because it gives me self empowerment

Thats a very bad attitude to have in life. I could just as well say "I'm white, I see no reason why I should respect anyone who isn't." You are a bigot. People have a right to freedom of expression. You believe you are superior but you have no logical or intellectual argument to base your wide variety of poorly contrived flame baiting on.

i don't think i ever said i did not tolerate people who are religious, i simply don't respect them for it any more than i would respect somebody for believing in Santa at the age of 25. i respect their right to believe what they want, and i don't claim to be superior...that seems to be purely your own editorialization, and it is quite illuminating as to your own insecurities. if you don't think my logic is sound then i would encourage you to find the flaws in it rather than throwing a tantrum because you don't like what i think.

for somebody who is trying to call me a bigot, you certainly are quick to pass judgment. if it is wrong for me to say religious superstition is bad, then why is it right for you to say that my beliefs are bad? by your own standard you too are a bigot. if you had taken the time to read any of my positions on these forums you would know that i am just about the strongest supporter of freedom of expression that you will ever find, and i think my stance on that is made stronger by the fact that i even defend those right for things i don't approve of (such as religion).

one can dislike something and not be a bigot, or think something is bloody stupid and still not be a bigot. that's where i stand on religion. i think it is silly and dangerous and lazy and futile, but i am not bigoted because i defend peoples' right to be as silly and dangerous and lazy and futile as they damn well please (provided they don't try to pass laws requiring me to be the same way).

well I try to believe in everything just as a form of insurance and I agree with the first part of your post about people just following an easy path since I dont like that either and thats my main complaint against fundamentalist religious types...I believe in faith in general and not in competing "myths" as you call them... whether Im worshipping a God or a Demon isnt a crucial difference since whatever it is its fulfilling me and is worthy of my worship for that reason alone...I feel the need to believe because it gives me self empowerment
that is quite possibly the most honest response i have ever received. kudos for being so aware of your reasons for believing; even if i cannot agree with those reasons, i can admire your rare honesty in facing them.

i don't think i ever said i did not tolerate people who are religious, i simply don't respect them for it any more than i would respect somebody for believing in Santa at the age of 25. i respect their right to believe what they want, and i don't claim to be superior...that seems to be purely your own editorialization, and it is quite illuminating as to your own insecurities. if you don't think my logic is sound then i would encourage you to find the flaws in it rather than throwing a tantrum because you don't like what i think.

for somebody who is trying to call me a bigot, you certainly are quick to pass judgment. if it is wrong for me to say religious superstition is bad, then why is it right for you to say that my beliefs are bad? by your own standard you too are a bigot. if you had taken the time to read any of my positions on these forums you would know that i am just about the strongest supporter of freedom of expression that you will ever find, and i think my stance on that is made stronger by the fact that i even defend those right for things i don't approve of (such as religion).

one can dislike something and not be a bigot, or think something is bloody stupid and still not be a bigot. that's where i stand on religion. i think it is silly and dangerous and lazy and futile, but i am not bigoted because i defend peoples' right to be as silly and dangerous and lazy and futile as they damn well please (provided they don't try to pass laws requiring me to be the same way).actually Santa Claus is a real life historical figure lol

that is quite possibly the most honest response i have ever received. kudos for being so aware of your reasons for believing; even if i cannot agree with those reasons, i can admire your rare honesty in facing them.
thanks-Im trying to be as honest as possible but Im just as curious in your reasons for choosing not to believe. Do you think death is final?

Thats a very bad attitude to have in life. I could just as well say "I'm white, I see no reason why I should respect anyone who isn't."

That's rather a poor analogy. Being white or black or whatever is a natural state, and not something you can change unless you happen to be Michael Jackson. It's not an idiotic choice that that person has made, like say, being a fundamentalist christian.

thanks-Im trying to be as honest as possible but Im just as curious in your reasons for choosing not to believe. Do you think death is final?

i can't fully call it a choice not to believe; i honestly can't make myself ignore my sense long enough to believe in any of the Gods that religion has proposed, any more than i can make myself believe in Santa. though the stories are nice and potentially comforting, i can't just let my own desire for safety trump what i know of the world.

i don't necessarily disbelieve in God, just so we are clear. i don't believe it is possible for me to know one way or the other, and so i conclude that the best thing for me to do is live according to secular morals and principles (since i could never know whether a God i chose would be the right one or not). i don't know whether there is some all-powerful being that created the universe, and i don't think there is any way somebody could prove there is, so i don't see why i should worship such a potentiality rather than worshiping, say, a group of beings, or a giant unicorn with the same role.

i do indeed believe that death is final, in the sense that my consciousness will not survive the death of my neural tissue, but i believe i will live on through the legacy i leave behind and the memories others carry of me. i've never been especially worried about death, though that may be because at a young age i was diagnosed with a medical condition that was expected to kill me before i reached 30. i have long since come to terms with death and the finite existence i lead, and it just doesn't seem depressing or scary to me.

actually Santa Claus is a real life historical figure lol
St. Nick is indeed based on a real-life figure, but there is no bearded and jolly fellow who flies through the air in a reindeer-powered sled delivering presents to the children of the world via chimney shoots. similarly, i believe there probably was a human person who provided the template for what became the Jesus myth, but i do not believe that person had magic powers or rose from the dead.

See, I don't believe in any organized religions. I believe there's SOMETHING bigger then us. However, it's more of a vague, shapless "something," not the large, smiting kind.

And both my parents are hardcore christians :p

See, I don't believe in any organized religions. I believe there's SOMETHING bigger then us. However, it's more of a vague, shapless "something," not the large, smiting kind.

And both my parents are hardcore christians :p

just a question (and this can go for anybody who holds similarly generalized views of God):

if you don't have any specific conception of God, then do you try to worship Him/Her/It? do you try to base your morality on God, if you don't make assertions about the nature of God? or is it just something you kind of speculate about from time to time, but don't actually use to change the way you would otherwise act?

See, I don't believe in any organized religions. I believe there's SOMETHING bigger then us. However, it's more of a vague, shapless "something," not the large, smiting kind.

And both my parents are hardcore christians :p
thats about where I stand too

I believe that he/she/it created me and everything else.

As my equals in this sense, I should therefore better life in general for others ;)


I base my morality on the fact that I am like everyone around me-a living, concious(sp?) human being. They deserve to be treated as I deserve to be treated, with exceptions rarely made, and only if they break this rule to a great degree.


As for worship, I believe the greatest form of worship to a creator is to treat it's creations with utmost respect.

I believe that he/she/it created me and everything else.

As my equals in this sense, I should therefore better life in general for others ;)


I base my morality on the fact that I am like everyone around me-a living, concious(sp?) human being. They deserve to be treated as I deserve to be treated, with exceptions rarely made, and only if they break this rule to a great degree.


As for worship, I believe the greatest form of worship to a creator is to treat it's creations with utmost respect.

i hold essentially exactly the same moral values, except that i don't believe we were created by a conscious being. i believe that the same forces contributed to the existence of all other humans, and therefore i am not inherently of more or less value than anybody else. only my actions and my successes in life can improve me or my world, and the best way to honor my existence is to prove myself worthy of it.

i can't fully call it a choice not to believe; i honestly can't make myself ignore my sense long enough to believe in any of the Gods that religion has proposed, any more than i can make myself believe in Santa. though the stories are nice and potentially comforting, i can't just let my own desire for safety trump what i know of the world.

i don't necessarily disbelieve in God, just so we are clear. i don't believe it is possible for me to know one way or the other, and so i conclude that the best thing for me to do is live according to secular morals and principles (since i could never know whether a God i chose would be the right one or not). i don't know whether there is some all-powerful being that created the universe, and i don't think there is any way somebody could prove there is, so i don't see why i should worship such a potentiality rather than worshiping, say, a group of beings, or a giant unicorn with the same role.

i do indeed believe that death is final, in the sense that my consciousness will not survive the death of my neural tissue, but i believe i will live on through the legacy i leave behind and the memories others carry of me. i've never been especially worried about death, though that may be because at a young age i was diagnosed with a medical condition that was expected to kill me before i reached 30. i have long since come to terms with death and the finite existence i lead, and it just doesn't seem depressing or scary to me.I dont believe in a higher power as defined by religion-I dont follow religious teachings at all-I have my own personal relationship with God.There is a way of contacting "God" or the higherpower or whatever label wanna call it with your senses if you are open to it thru certain meditational practices. I dont believe death is final since energy never dies and our conscussness is an energy field. I think we transform to another plane and leave this one but remain very much alive forever in one form or another.

I don't even bother speculating on death.

It's going to happen, why worry about it?

Besides, nobody's come back yet (as far as I nokw, I'm not too into that ghost stuff), so it must be nice ;)

St. Nick is indeed based on a real-life figure, but there is no bearded and jolly fellow who flies through the air in a reindeer-powered sled delivering presents to the children of the world via chimney shoots. similarly, i believe there probably was a human person who provided the template for what became the Jesus myth, but i do not believe that person had magic powers or rose from the dead.
we are more then just bodily tissue. were also non-physical conscusness that never dies--theres no rising theres just transformation

I dont believe in a higher power as defined by religion-I dont follow religious teachings at all-I have my own personal relationship with God.There is a way of contacting "God" or the higherpower or whatever label wanna call it with your senses if you are open to it thru certain meditational practices. I dont believe death is final since energy never dies and our conscussness is an energy field. I think we transform to another plane and leave this one but remain very much alive forever in one form or another.

the only beef i would have is your statement that energy never dies. this is correct, but matter/energy often is changed and broken down and recombined; to say that we must continue on in our conscious form after death simply because energy is conserved is like saying that a bit of food "goes on" after you eat it. the molecules of that food may endure, and its energy certainly doesn't just disappear, but it is not in any way maintained in any semblence of its original form. similarly, the molecules of our nervous system will not just blink out of existence, but it is the whole construct of the brain which brings consciousness and that whole will not survive the deterioration of our tissues.

I believe that he/she/it created me and everything else.

As my equals in this sense, I should therefore better life in general for others ;)


I base my morality on the fact that I am like everyone around me-a living, concious(sp?) human being. They deserve to be treated as I deserve to be treated, with exceptions rarely made, and only if they break this rule to a great degree.


As for worship, I believe the greatest form of worship to a creator is to treat it's creations with utmost respect.

so you believe in ONE god? do you believe that this god is all knowing/powerful/loving/etc? do you believe that this god knows you personally? is it the christian god without all the complicated rules that you dont want to follow?

i base my morality on knowing that if i treat everyone with respect, my life goes way better. lack of respect brings on many many problems.

just a question (and this can go for anybody who holds similarly generalized views of God):

if you don't have any specific conception of God, then do you try to worship Him/Her/It? do you try to base your morality on God, if you don't make assertions about the nature of God? or is it just something you kind of speculate about from time to time, but don't actually use to change the way you would otherwise act?
speaking for myself I think my morality would remain the same whether I believed in God or not but God adds an element of infinite possiblity

we are more then just bodily tissue. were also non-physical conscusness that never dies--theres no rising theres just transformation

well, i don't personally believe that is the case. i have yet to be given any evidence of such a phenomenon, so i cannot chose to accept it any more than i can chose to accept unicorns or faeries.

I believe in a single god out of convinience more then anything else. If there's more then one, well, hey Y'All, I mean this for all of You :p


It's most definatly not the christian god lol


As for being loving and whatnot, I couldn't begin to tell you. I'm not a god ;)

speaking for myself I think my morality would remain the same whether I believed in God or not but God adds an element of infinite possiblity

and that's the sort of position about God that i can respect; if you base all your morality on wishful supernatural thinking then i see it as a problem, but if you have a moral code that endures beyond the question of God then you are (in my opinion) on far more solid ground. after all, how can it be moral to simply do what is right so that you get into heaven or avoid hell? isn't it far better to do what is right out of appreciation for your fellow humans and yourself? since when is the reward principle a solid system of values for adults? sure, we bribe or threaten kids to get them to behave until they fully understand morals, but shouldn't we expect better than that from adults?

I don't even bother speculating on death.

It's going to happen, why worry about it?

Besides, nobody's come back yet (as far as I nokw, I'm not too into that ghost stuff), so it must be nice ;)
its smart not to waste time speculating on death and to not worry about the inevitable but people have come back--maybe just not in a form that you can recognize

I believe in a single god out of convinience more then anything else. If there's more then one, well, hey Y'All, I mean this for all of You :p


It's most definatly not the christian god lol


As for being loving and whatnot, I couldn't begin to tell you. I'm not a god ;)

ok ok i came back to this because i thought i was kinda harsh before

so do you worship this god in anyway or just believe in him/her/it?

what place does this god have in your life?

I told you, I worship in my own way by treating people with general kindness. Most of the time, if a person creates something, the greatest compliment to them is to respect and enjoy what they created. If everything in this world is created, then treat the world nicely and try to better the future in general.


As for what role they play, well hell, if it tweaks around with my life, I don't see it, which is good enough for me.

now im not trying to be mean to you here, i just dont really understand amorphous gods

so does that mean that if you found out that there were no gods of any kind that your reason for being good to other people would be gone?
its a good attitude for sure but what if god turned out to be that mean SOB ffrom the old testament and he really wanted you to go around smiting people?

i guess my underlying problem is that i have a deepseated belief (which i would NEVER tell anyone about, especially not a believer) that the majority of people are secret atheists but they dont dare take that leap into nothingness.

so dont address that, i would never suggest that you are insincere. i dont know you. i just wanted to kinda pin down "the point" of this kind of god

No, it's simply because atheists (notice the spelling, please) are not a majority. Being non-religious, culturally, is a relatively new idea. :fluffle:

Actually, there are some tribal cultures (where people are quite happy with their life, since they didn't meet missionaries) that do not have beliefs in a higher power.


As for me, I am ignorant about it. I think I am spiritual and moralistic, but I think that if a higher power exists, and if that higher power is moralistic, it would disapprove of the church.
These religions, these cults, that people force onto others are a disgusting mean to incute cultural values for some and a mean to make money for others, like the televangelists. How do you think televangelists get tv shows? They are becoming an elite, thanks to the money of sheep.

You should check out what missionaries did and still do in the amazon forest, for example. The indigenous are very happy with their own cosmogony, they are kind, they love and respect nature and they live in peaceful communities. And then what happens? Missionaries bring "the word of god" and take them from their homes, introducing them to television, to "civilization" and ultimately to poverty. And they become christians, yes. Poor, unhappy, christians that will hunt endangered species and that will log to feed themselves and their family. Some might even be "lucky" enough to make money being servants in the huge properties of the evangelists...


I'm not saying that you aren't entitled to having your beliefs, but you should never, ever force them onto others.

Open your eyes, do unbiased research and with enough reflection you will see the truth.

Free your minds.

Hi, I'm new here. I hope you don't mind me adding a reply.



You should check out what missionaries did and still do in the amazon forest, for example. The indigenous are very happy with their own cosmogony, they are kind, they love and respect nature and they live in peaceful communities. And then what happens? Missionaries bring "the word of god" and take them from their homes, introducing them to television, to "civilization" and ultimately to poverty. And they become christians, yes. Poor, unhappy, christians that will hunt endangered species and that will log to feed themselves and their family. Some might even be "lucky" enough to make money being servants in the huge properties of the evangelists...

I'm not saying that you aren't entitled to having your beliefs, but you should never, ever force them onto others.

Open your eyes, do unbiased research and with enough reflection you will see the truth.

Free your minds.

The spanish initially used South American natives for slave labour when mining for silver. The natives didn't have much resistance to european diseases, which had been brought across the atlantic, and began to die off. The solution to this lack of labour was to use Europeans, and later, Africans instead.

This doesn't seem to be much related to Radical Christians stuffing views into other throats.

I am not Christian, but I imagine that if a new and -from my perspective- enlightened people came to my land with amazing technology (gunpowder, metal, horses & horseriding, dogs and seafaring) the pressure to convert would have been very strong. So no 'stuffing' would be required. Everyone would be queuing up to be baptised.

The first contact between europeans and previously -relatively- isolated peoples was often an occasion where the natives had to come to terms with foreign technology. There is one story about how one man tried to steal a saber (which being a shining object, seemed an attractive target). He nearly got away with it, however he tried to grab it by the wrong end, and slashed his hand open. (I think its a cool story, so I just had to include it)

Considering that these native peoples would have been instantly aware of their technological disadvantages, their desire for knowledge would have been huge and missionaries would have been only to happy to oblige.

So I doubt 'stuffing' was involved. That many native peoples haven't become equally wealthy as other peoples is certainly regrettable, but I don't think it is because of Christian missionary activity.

I think your version of events, Tribal Ecology, is too simple and brings in religion as the dominant factor in a situation where it isn't.
I also feel your perception of the lives of native Americans is rather utopian.

I hope that wasn't too long.

the only beef i would have is your statement that energy never dies. this is correct, but matter/energy often is changed and broken down and recombined; to say that we must continue on in our conscious form after death simply because energy is conserved is like saying that a bit of food "goes on" after you eat it. the molecules of that food may endure, and its energy certainly doesn't just disappear, but it is not in any way maintained in any semblence of its original form. similarly, the molecules of our nervous system will not just blink out of existence, but it is the whole construct of the brain which brings consciousness and that whole will not survive the deterioration of our tissues.
I see what your saying but I dont think it matters how our physical bodies break down because we're not our bodies--our bodies are just a room we're renting while we're here.If you ever practiced deep meditation at some point you realize that your body is not your real you--its just a physical vessel

well, i don't personally believe that is the case. i have yet to be given any evidence of such a phenomenon, so i cannot chose to accept it any more than i can chose to accept unicorns or faeries.
maybe the standards your using to accept something as evidence doesnt apply in this realm. You cant use physical standards of evidence to proof something on a non physical level. Youd need to create a different standard of proof

and that's the sort of position about God that i can respect; if you base all your morality on wishful supernatural thinking then i see it as a problem, but if you have a moral code that endures beyond the question of God then you are (in my opinion) on far more solid ground. after all, how can it be moral to simply do what is right so that you get into heaven or avoid hell? isn't it far better to do what is right out of appreciation for your fellow humans and yourself? since when is the reward principle a solid system of values for adults? sure, we bribe or threaten kids to get them to behave until they fully understand morals, but shouldn't we expect better than that from adults?
I agree with your point in this-I think the people that believe in God in this context do so out of childish fear

now im not trying to be mean to you here, i just dont really understand amorphous gods

so does that mean that if you found out that there were no gods of any kind that your reason for being good to other people would be gone?
its a good attitude for sure but what if god turned out to be that mean SOB ffrom the old testament and he really wanted you to go around smiting people?

i guess my underlying problem is that i have a deepseated belief (which i would NEVER tell anyone about, especially not a believer) that the majority of people are secret atheists but they dont dare take that leap into nothingness.

so dont address that, i would never suggest that you are insincere. i dont know you. i just wanted to kinda pin down "the point" of this kind of godif you believe that death is final and in this void of nothingness then how do you explain ghosts? there are branches of science called metaphysics that deal with non-physical entities--theres more things to indicate that life goes on then that death is just some final meaningless leap into nothingness

if you believe that death is final and in this void of nothingness then how do you explain ghosts? there are branches of science called metaphysics that deal with non-physical entities--theres more things to indicate that life goes on then that death is just some final meaningless leap into nothingness

i believe that ghosts and other similar supernatural manefestations are psychologically induced.

i believe that ghosts and other similar supernatural manefestations are psychologically induced.
ok then even if thats the case-it shows that our thoughts can still exist on the non physical plane if they can be expressed in such a manner--which would indicate more evidence resting in there being an afterlife (I believe in pre-lifes too tho-its my theory that we were always alive)

(I believe in pre-lifes too tho-its my theory that we were always alive)

At least your consistent.

However, my opinion is that your personality cannot exist without an intact brain. People who are brain damaged experience personality changes, so surely this is some argument that our consciousness and personality doesn't survive death.

At least your consistent.

However, my opinion is that your personality cannot exist without an intact brain. People who are brain damaged experience personality changes, so surely this is some argument that our consciousness and personality doesn't survive death.its true we may also escape our earth bound personalities too-but we have a central core to our being that transends all these things--a superself

how can you call yourself a christian and oppose equal rights?

You've never spoken with a christian american before?

You've never spoken with a christian american before?
no I usally shout at them

no I usally shout at them

Well, they still call themselves christian and they oppose equal rights...

Well, they still call themselves christian and they oppose equal rights...
then theyre hypocrites

then theyre hypocrites

How so?

Opal...man wtf...

I clearly said "radical atheists are no better than radical Christians" or something of the sort


AND I CLEARLY seperated radical atheists and cool (lack of a better word) atheists

I don't what more can I do

now im not trying to be mean to you here, i just dont really understand amorphous gods

so does that mean that if you found out that there were no gods of any kind that your reason for being good to other people would be gone?
its a good attitude for sure but what if god turned out to be that mean SOB ffrom the old testament and he really wanted you to go around smiting people?

i guess my underlying problem is that i have a deepseated belief (which i would NEVER tell anyone about, especially not a believer) that the majority of people are secret atheists but they dont dare take that leap into nothingness.

so dont address that, i would never suggest that you are insincere. i dont know you. i just wanted to kinda pin down "the point" of this kind of god


For starters, the only way to find out if there is or isn't a god is to die. And yeah, it's kinda hard to stop being nice then :p

But no, that wouldn't stop me. Simply because, god or no god, we're all still living breathing human beings who deserve each other's respect. Futhermore, whatever happens to me after death, I know that I can leave behind a legacy here. It doesn't have to be a big one. When I die, so long as I've positivly affected others, I'll be happy.


As for god being a mean SOB, I simply don't even consider that to be in any way possible. Maybe it's a bit of pig headed-ness or being a bit closeminded on my behalf, but **shrugs** that's the way it is.

ok then even if thats the case-it shows that our thoughts can still exist on the non physical plane if they can be expressed in such a manner--which would indicate more evidence resting in there being an afterlife (I believe in pre-lifes too tho-its my theory that we were always alive)

no, it would mean that human psychology is expressed through our action of passing on stories and superstitions...if you want to refer to abstractness as another plane then i guess that's your choice, but i think it's a very misleading stance. i don't really see how you take the psychological drive to create superstition (which is rooted in physical anatomy and instincts) as evidence for a supernatural afterlife.

and as for pre-lifes, how do you then account for the increasing population? where are all the new consciousnesses coming from?

and radical liberals don't?

I hate to say stuffed down others throats and gay marriage in the same sentence, but its an unavoidable example

for every crazy right wing Christian there are more than a few crazy left wing athiests that are just as annoying to us

you have no right to complain

Religious freedom means that any consenting adults should be able to get married, as long as it is not bigamy. Gays have the right to participate in any religious ritual they want to, and to have it sanctified by anyone who is willing.

No other Christians gonna post on this thread? I'll have a go then!
I made this point in the parallel "Radical atheists stuff views down others throats" thread, but I'll try it here as well.
What constitutes "stuffing a viewpoint down someone's throat"?
This is a general forum, in which people post views. No one is forced to read any thread, or to agree with anything they read in any post. Where is the stuffing? I read all kinds of stuff that I disagree with on this forum, especially in the threads about God, but I never consider that some kind of mind-control is being attempted here. If I think a poster is wrong on some point, and I can think of a way to express my disagreement, I often do. Whose throat is being stuffed?
In general society, it's a bit different, because a message can be presented in so many ways that it has some subconscious effect, but I don't believe even direct brainwashing of the Communist style (sit 'em down in a locked room and tell them the same things over and over and over again, 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, for as long as it takes) can actually change a strongly held belief.
Bottle, you say that you are strongly in favour of freedom of expression. Probably many of y'all are as well. How does expressing one's sincerely held beliefs differ from throat-stuffing?

I think radical anybody stuffs their views down other people's throats. They don't have to be Christian....or even religious.

How so?
cause true christianity doesnt mean persecuting people

no, it would mean that human psychology is expressed through our action of passing on stories and superstitions...if you want to refer to abstractness as another plane then i guess that's your choice, but i think it's a very misleading stance. i don't really see how you take the psychological drive to create superstition (which is rooted in physical anatomy and instincts) as evidence for a supernatural afterlife.

and as for pre-lifes, how do you then account for the increasing population? where are all the new consciousnesses coming from?
what I meant about the ghost thing is that if a persons thoughts can take on a life of their own that way OUTSIDE of the body then that would indicate that consoiusness doesnt have to be physically bound. Insofar as all the increasing population goes I think maybe each plane is like a different major in disembodied consiousness college and more thought patterns are choosing to take an advanced course in earth--or maybe God is just a chronic masterbator

what I meant about the ghost thing is that if a persons thoughts can take on a life of their own that way OUTSIDE of the body then that would indicate that consoiusness doesnt have to be physically bound. Insofar as all the increasing population goes I think maybe each plane is like a different major in disembodied consiousness college and more thought patterns are choosing to take an advanced course in earth--or maybe God is just a chronic masterbator

i don't see how people's thoughts are taking on a life of their own. people's thoughts motivate actions, and those actions have repercussions...what about that shows that consciousness isn't physically bound? if anything, it confirms it; we have to engage in physical actions to communicate our thoughts to other people, and they have to be able to perceive our actions with their physical sense for those actions to communicate successfully. there is no way for human thoughts to contact one another without physical action and interaction.

as for the rest of it, it sort of sounds like you just make this stuff up as you go. do you really believe it, or is it just some idea you kick around?

OK, my quick 2 cents (without having read every previous page)

Yes, radical Christians who assault people with their religious beliefs and attempt to convert them at every opportunity are a royal pain in the @$$. I know they think they are doing the right thing, but really - keep your beliefs to yourself. It's not like I have never heard of Christianity - if I want to explore it, I'll do it of my own accord, thank you very much. In that regard, they are like those @$$holes who call you at home to sell you some product you will never need. I also wonder how they can be so certain that their religion is the right one - I mean, it's neither the oldest or most widely practiced religion in the world, just a splintered offshoot of Judaism.

Now, having said that, rabid atheists who proudly spout venom at all Christians or other religious at every opportunity are just as bad. You don't believe in in afterlife? That's cool. But respect the fact that some people do, and don't give them grief about it. Don't assume people are idiots just because they have spiritual beliefs. You've made your choice, let them make theirs. If you continually attack people over their beliefs, then you are no different than those pushy Christians who continually wave their bibles and spout dogma at passersby. Anyway, if atheists want a real challenge, fly over to Islamabad and tell a crowd of fundamentalist Muslims that religion is stupid. :P

cause true christianity doesnt mean persecuting people

But what is "true" Christianity? There are almost as many conceptions of Christianity as there are Christians. Your "true" Christianity may mean not persecuting people, but Tomas de Torquemada's "true" Christianity meant that he would have happily persecuted you for holding that view. Despite the clamouring protestations of its various adherents, there is no hard objective "true" Christian religion, or any other religion for that matter. Most other religions seem to cope with this, and deal happily with the inevitable clashing or even contradictory traditions: it's just the monotheistic bigass "Holy Book" ones that are capable of twisting themselves up to the point where they'll happily kill you for eating the wrong sort of bread on the wrong sort of day.

Now, having said that, rabid atheists who proudly spout venom at all Christians or other religious at every opportunity are just as bad. You don't believe in in afterlife? That's cool. But respect the fact that some people do, and don't give them grief about it. Don't assume people are idiots just because they have spiritual beliefs. You've made your choice, let them make theirs. If you continually attack people over their beliefs, then you are no different than those pushy Christians who continually wave their bibles and spout dogma at passersby. Anyway, if atheists want a real challenge, fly over to Islamabad and tell a crowd of fundamentalist Muslims that religion is stupid. :P

for the record, i agree with you, and i don't think it accomplishes anything to call names or insult people for being religious. however, look at it from the perspective of an atheist:

the people who made the biggest stink about seeing the nude breast of Janet Jackson several months back also happened to belong to a superstitious club that gets together once a week to kneel before the image of a nearly-naked man nailed to a torture device, where they then chant in unison and engage in blood-drinking and cannibalism rituals. we consider somebody disturbed if they tell us they see Elvis, while simultaneously refering to a book about similar hallucinatory experiences as "Holy." we do not allow children to vote because we believe they are not intellectually mature enough to make complex moral judgments and discriminate between fact and hype, yet 90% of American adults claim that the primary reason they are virtuous is because a demi-god's father sent him to Earth to be murdered 2000 years ago.

look through the eyes of somebody who doesn't believe in superstition; they feel about God-worship the way you would about somebody who sees tiny fairies following them everywhere they go. for many atheists, it is a matter of urgent concern, especially since people who are "suffering" from religious beliefs are allowed to vote on issues that effect everyone. many atheists are genuinely trying to help others, to "cure" them of what the atheist perceives as a delusion.

again, i am not saying that aggressive atheism is necessarily the way to go. i personally don't go that way, and i have yet to see a case where such tactics actually changed anybody's mind. but when you really put yourself in the atheists' shoes then you can begin to see how it's not that far-fetched an idea after all...you can at least see why they would be acting that way, just as i am sure we can all see why Christians try to convert others if they sincerely believe they are saving a soul.

i don't see how people's thoughts are taking on a life of their own. people's thoughts motivate actions, and those actions have repercussions...what about that shows that consciousness isn't physically bound? if anything, it confirms it; we have to engage in physical actions to communicate our thoughts to other people, and they have to be able to perceive our actions with their physical sense for those actions to communicate successfully. there is no way for human thoughts to contact one another without physical action and interaction.

as for the rest of it, it sort of sounds like you just make this stuff up as you go. do you really believe it, or is it just some idea you kick around?
but in the case of ghosts thats an example of disembodied thoughts on a non physical plane expressing themselfs...and if it sounds like Im making stuff up its only cause of having discussion like this that I can modify what I think

but in the case of ghosts thats an example of disembodied thoughts on a non physical plane expressing themselfs...and if it sounds like Im making stuff up its only cause of having discussion like this that I can modify what I think

why do you believe in ghosts?

why do you believe in ghosts?
cause theres one in my house

Call me crazy, but I'm Catholic. I wear my cross under my shirt and I go to church on Sundays.

BUT!

Wait for it …

I support gay marriages, social equality, and right to choose!

I hate fundamentalists who give us normal Cathics a bad name. I really do

Call me crazy, but I'm Catholic. I wear my cross under my shirt and I go to church on Sundays.

BUT!

Wait for it …

I support gay marriages, social equality, and right to choose!

I hate fundamentalists who give us normal Cathics a bad name. I really do

how can you support any of those things and be Catholic? isn't the thing that separates Catholics from other Christians the belief in the divinity and infalibility of the Church? so how can you reject Church doctrine yet still claim to be Catholic? wouldn't that be like saying you're a Christian who just doesn't believe in Jesus?

how can you support any of those things and be Catholic? isn't the thing that separates Catholics from other Christians the belief in the divinity and infalibility of the Church? so how can you reject Church doctrine yet still claim to be Catholic? wouldn't that be like saying you're a Christian who just doesn't believe in Jesus?

its just what catholics DO

the eternal nature of the church means you can disagree and yet not need to move on to another denomination. sorta like disagreeing with your nutty right wing grandfather but never considering disowning him.

its just what catholics DO

the eternal nature of the church means you can disagree and yet not need to move on to another denomination. sorta like disagreeing with your nutty right wing grandfather but never considering disowning him.

so you get to just pick and choose what parts of God's word you like, even though the supposedly infalible Vicar of Christ (who, as a Catholic, you recognize as THE authority of God on Earth) has a different opinion?

that sounds to me like what PROTESTANTS do, since they are far more likely to view the Catholic Church as something of a nutty uncle than Catholics are.

what wrong with people having faith in things bigger then them? why limit yourself to one world?and how do you know unicorns dont exist somewhere in time? By shutting off all possibilitys of things your being as closed minded as the religious fanatics

Sorry to barge into this discussion.

Personally, I'm an agnostic/nihilist/skeptic/whatever, and I consider myself open-minded, but I do have some problems with religious folks. Primarily because of religion's affects on the actions of individuals and politics/society. To bring myths into the physical world and have society shaped by them is a little irksome, in my opinion.

If someone gave me objective evidence of unicorns, I would have no choice but to accept that they are a reality (unless "reality" isn't "real," but for the sake of practicality I've learned to disregard whether this Universe is "real" or "imaginary."). The same goes for "God," if someone/something gave me hard-proof, or evidence - something that transcends the individual, unlike belief/faith - I could accept it. I still may have to question whether "God" is a rational and ethical being, and a source of guidance assuming he/she/it exists, but at least I could see that there is perhaps some solid footing for these currently ludicrous ideas/morals/ethics/culture/etc. in society.

If someone said that flour should no longer be used in cooking, because the mole-people of the 8th dimension had declared home-use of flour immoral, would you sit idly by as most of society began throwing all its bread and cookies in the sewers? Would you be 100% accepting of these beliefs, when you could no longer find your favorite snack in the store, because the "mole-people" have declared you a sinner? How 'bout when the schools stop teaching geometry, because it goes against the new religion's declaration that the "mole-people" never created angles.

Sorry again for butting-in.

The bible is thousands of years old, has been tampered with repeatedly by man, and has been translated into numerous different languages.

I believe in what Christ said, that treat others as you would like to be treated, that faith is prescious, that love rules hatred, ect.

I don't believe that if you eat shellfish or sleep with someone of the same sex you're going to go to hell.

so you get to just pick and choose what parts of God's word you like, even though the supposedly infalible Vicar of Christ (who, as a Catholic, you recognize as THE authority of God on Earth) has a different opinion?

that sounds to me like what PROTESTANTS do, since they are far more likely to view the Catholic Church as something of a nutty uncle than Catholics are.
catholics are allowed to be hypocrites cause they have confession

No other Christians gonna post on this thread? I'll have a go then!
I made this point in the parallel "Radical atheists stuff views down others throats" thread, but I'll try it here as well.
What constitutes "stuffing a viewpoint down someone's throat"?
This is a general forum, in which people post views. No one is forced to read any thread, or to agree with anything they read in any post. Where is the stuffing? I read all kinds of stuff that I disagree with on this forum, especially in the threads about God, but I never consider that some kind of mind-control is being attempted here. If I think a poster is wrong on some point, and I can think of a way to express my disagreement, I often do. Whose throat is being stuffed?
In general society, it's a bit different, because a message can be presented in so many ways that it has some subconscious effect, but I don't believe even direct brainwashing of the Communist style (sit 'em down in a locked room and tell them the same things over and over and over again, 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, for as long as it takes) can actually change a strongly held belief.
Bottle, you say that you are strongly in favour of freedom of expression. Probably many of y'all are as well. How does expressing one's sincerely held beliefs differ from throat-stuffing?

excellent post, reactivist. i routinely skip threads i know i wont like. no one can force you to read or to listen to their evangelism.

if you dont like it, just say "no thanks" and move on.

The bible is thousands of years old, has been tampered with repeatedly by man, and has been translated into numerous different languages.

I believe in what Christ said, that treat others as you would like to be treated, that faith is prescious, that love rules hatred, ect.

I don't believe that if you eat shellfish or sleep with someone of the same sex you're going to go to hell.

and thus you are not Catholic, you are Christian. to be Catholic you must recognize the divine nature of the Catholic Church, and accept its rulings on scripture because that is an inherant part of being a Catholic. if you choose to interpret the Bible in a way that is not consistent with the Church's interpretation then you are not a Catholic...that's not meant as an insult, it's simply the definition.

Sorry to barge into this discussion.

Personally, I'm an agnostic/nihilist/skeptic/whatever, and I consider myself open-minded, but I do have some problems with religious folks. Primarily because of religion's affects on the actions of individuals and politics/society. To bring myths into the physical world and have society shaped by them is a little irksome, in my opinion.

If someone gave me objective evidence of unicorns, I would have no choice but to accept that they are a reality (unless "reality" isn't "real," but for the sake of practicality I've learned to disregard whether this Universe is "real" or "imaginary."). The same goes for "God," if someone/something gave me hard-proof, or evidence - something that transcends the individual, unlike belief/faith - I could accept it. I still may have to question whether "God" is a rational and ethical being, and a source of guidance assuming he/she/it exists, but at least I could see that there is perhaps some solid footing for these currently ludicrous ideas/morals/ethics/culture/etc. in society.

If someone said that flour should no longer be used in cooking, because the mole-people of the 8th dimension had declared home-use of flour immoral, would you sit idly by as most of society began throwing all its bread and cookies in the sewers? Would you be 100% accepting of these beliefs, when you could no longer find your favorite snack in the store, because the "mole-people" have declared you a sinner? How bout when the schools stop teaching geometry, because it goes against the new religion's declaration that the "mole-people" never created angles.

Sorry again for butting-in.I dont think religion should be enforced in anyway

and thus you are not Catholic, you are Christian. to be Catholic you must recognize the divine nature of the Catholic Church, and accept its rulings on scripture because that is an inherant part of being a Catholic. if you choose to interpret the Bible in a way that is not consistent with the Church's interpretation then you are not a Catholic...that's not meant as an insult, it's simply the definition.

No offense taken. :)

No offense taken. :)

well, feel free to correct me if my understanding really is wrong, but my dictionary claims to support me...though good ol' Webster has been known to miff on religion from time to time.

and thus you are not Catholic, you are Christian. to be Catholic you must recognize the divine nature of the Catholic Church, and accept its rulings on scripture because that is an inherant part of being a Catholic. if you choose to interpret the Bible in a way that is not consistent with the Church's interpretation then you are not a Catholic...that's not meant as an insult, it's simply the definition.

no no bottle, to be catholic you must be baptised into the holy roman catholic church. you can be a bad catholic and still be a catholic

you can have your own mind and still be a catholic.

catholics all over the world have various disagreements with formal church policy. they are still catholics.

there is much more to the catholic church than the bible. 2000 years of big thinkers have come up with all kinds of notions that come and go in the church.

in fact you cant get yourself OFF the roles of the catholic church if you decide its all BS and want to get yourself officially "de baptised" you are considered catholic as long as you arent excommunicated.

then you are an excommunicated catholic

no no bottle, to be catholic you must be baptised into the holy roman catholic church. you can be a bad catholic and still be a catholic

you can have your own mind and still be a catholic.

catholics all over the world have various disagreements with formal church policy. they are still catholics.

there is much more to the catholic church than the bible. 2000 years of big thinkers have come up with all kinds of notions that come and go in the church.

in fact you cant get yourself OFF the roles of the catholic church if you decide its all BS and want to get yourself officially "de baptised" you are considered catholic as long as you arent excommunicated.

then you are an excommunicated catholic

interesting. so it has nothing to do with how you live or what you believe; being Catholic is simply about whether or not you were given the club's secret baptizmal password?

wow, and my respect for Catholicism hits a new low...

Just read the last few posts, and some general points to make:

1. True, religion cannot be forced onto anybody because religion is a personal experience. You can claim to be religious but if you don't believe, you don't believe. It's not whether religion should be forced onto anyone, because religion simply can't be forced. It has to be accepted.

2. Going to church; being baptised; even taking up religious posts doesn't mean you are Christian. If you don't believe, or follow the guidelines, it's all redundant.

Just as a warning: I haven't read much of the debate, so I'm going to put my thoughts in. If they've already been mentioned, oh well.

Religion to me is simply a state of mind. I consider myself an agnostic with a passing belief in a higher power, but nothing very devout or solid. As a friend defined one day during lunch, religion can be in many forms, its just how we define it. As for me: it is in people who question what they are told (be it from birth in the case of organized religion, or in the media as they get older). For others, it is belief in nothing, or the belief that friends provide the greatest help. Et cetera, et cetera.

Most of my friends are Christians as I go to a Catholic School, but they really don't go on about it. These are the type of Christians that appeal to me the most. The ones that keep their religion more to themselves and don't feel a need to spread it to others. They simply acknowledge the fact that they are Christians and try to live life as such. They don't go after me for not believing, they don't try to convert the muslims (we have a few), they enjoy life. Those are the christians I like.

Atheists can go the same way as well. I have met several atheists, most of which are pretty good guys/girls as well. However, there are one or two who are very vocal about their beliefs. This is just as bad as radical, vocal christians for exactly the same reasons that make us hate any fundamentalist.

Then we get into Jerry Falwell and company. They try to ram religion down every one's throats. If your beliefs don't match up with their's, you're going to hell and you're wrong. This is the kind of Christian I tend to go after. Just because they deserve to have their beliefs shot down. Forcing other people to believe something is stupid, wrong, and definatly a good way to get smack down by someone.

Anyway, I guess the basic idea before I digress into a rant is this: keep religion to yourself, it'll make a whole lot of people a lot happier if they dan't have to deal with your beliefs as well as their own.

And again, all atheists have different views on Christianity...to me, I only find Christians annoying because typically, aside from going to church and believing in God, I practice what they profess (be moral) much more than any of the Christians I know. I suppose this got confused somewhere, but now every Christian's only goal is to get into heaven and most denominations (or at least from the view point that people of most denominations have explained it to me) believe that to do that you only have to do some sort of thing. To some denominations it is be baptised, others say "accept Jesus Christ as your saviour," etc. None of them have the prerequisite of getting into heaven as being things like being a good person and believing in morals and doing what is right because it is the right thing to do. These types of things are very important to me and it is the fact that these things are not stressed that I've been convinced to question more and believe less about Christianity.

Actually, there is a by good deeds Christian. They're called Catholics.

Actually, there is a by good deeds Christian. They're called Catholics.
I was brought up Catholic which would probably explain that I am how I am now...which I am proud of...I wish the Catholic church was more dominant around the US, not because they're necessarily more right than any other denomination, but because they at least make people nicer...I mean, if you have to tell all your sins to another person, wouldn't that make you less likely to commit some of the worse ones?

Because athiests (most) don't have some sort of far-fetched idea that they want millions to blindly accept. Most athiests are athiest. And that's it. Most of them don't try converting people to athiesm but they do get a pretty loud voice when someone tries converting them. All Christians, radical or not, make an effort to spread the word about their God.

This is another example of a post from a liberal who is ignorant of history. Most atheists "don't try converting people to atheism" he says. Oh boy. What about the Soviet Union? Pol Pot, Mao, Mengistu? Only someone who perceives the world in the most simplistic way could ever post something so completly dumb.

Judeao/christian/islamic beleif seems to be the most evangalistic (I.E. wanting to convert other to their beliefs) of all the worlds religions. Is it any surprise that they would try to force their beliefs on you as an individual?

Jim

Ya know, I find it unfair that people are complaining about Christians that are trying to "force things down their throats". To me it's called "sharing something I enjoy". Cool down, peeps, we're just trying to be nice, maybe sometimes the wrong way, but we're still trying to be nice. 8-)

I want to throw something in here for a minute. First off, I am a very devout Christian. However, I am also a far-left Communist. Some of you will claim apparent contradiction but you really shouldn't.
Christians are supposed to be 'Christlike'. That is how we are supposed to act, treat others, and come to conclusions. What does that mean as a whole? Jesus himself was peaceful, forgiving, kind, just, wise, anti-establishment, anti-hypocrisy, and he also was an early Anarcho-Socialist. This shows us one thing: 99.999% of people who call themselves 'devout Christians' are just complete hypocrites. Just as the members of Al-Qaida are hypocrites using Islam to justify their hatred of the western world, so also are the christians that drive the logical to atheism simply justifying their foul minds by claiming to be devout. They're simply disgusting bigots justifying their barbaric nature with religion. Don't believe a word they say about being Christians. They are hypocrites who give something beautiful a horrible name.

This is another example of a post from a liberal who is ignorant of history. Most atheists "don't try converting people to atheism" he says. Oh boy. What about the Soviet Union? Pol Pot, Mao, Mengistu? Only someone who perceives the world in the most simplistic way could ever post something so completly dumb.
That was completely uncalled for and although I didn't say it (I should have), I meant athiests today. And even as you mention these groups, does it outdo the measures all the way down to the individual level that Christian and other religious groups take to convert people? DOES IT? Therefore, comparitively, religious groups tend to be much worse about attempting to convert people.

Ya know, I find it unfair that people are complaining about Christians that are trying to "force things down their throats". To me it's called "sharing something I enjoy". Cool down, peeps, we're just trying to be nice, maybe sometimes the wrong way, but we're still trying to be nice. 8-)

Well, I don't see why you find it unfair. If you read the first post, you'll find that this was started in response to a similar thread discussing atheism and being stuffed down people's throat. And not that this has much do to with anything, but as enjoyable as you may find your religion, I don't think people are supposed to come to church to hang out and play video games on Wednesday night...anyway, it's not the nice side of Christianity we're talking about here. We're talking about the few people that give Christianity a bad name with their "I'm right, you're wrong, even though I have no proof" attitude.

That was completely uncalled for and although I didn't say it (I should have), I meant athiests today. And even as you mention these groups, does it outdo the measures all the way down to the individual level that Christian and other religious groups take to convert people? DOES IT? Therefore, comparitively, religious groups tend to be much worse about attempting to convert people.

I just realized that the personal attack on me was made by "Democratic Nationality." He had no reason to attack me except that he is still bitter that he got called on racism in another thread then couldn't find any solid facts to back his argument so he resorted to picking apart the unimportant parts of statements. Anyway, Democratic Nationality, I hope you'll find some maturity some where along the road...and maybe even go check those facts about South Africa that I posted for you...

I haven't followed all of this debate but I get the impression that most contributors are assuming that trying to convert someone - whether to Christianity, atheism or whatever - is A Bad Thing.

But is that always true? If one of your friends tells you that they're thinking of committing suicide, do you try to change their mind or not? I've been in that position and I'd say you have a moral responsibility to do so.

Jesus challenged the ideas and beliefs of everyone he met, exposing when they were destructive, hypocritical or just plain wrong. That's why his own people (interestingly, the most religious ones!) ultimately crucified him. He also taught and demonstrated how to live a life of complete fulfillment and integrity.

Consistent Christians aim to follow in Jesus' footsteps - we've found something good, and we want other people to benefit from it too. That doesn't give us a right to force anyone to agree with us, but does give us a duty to try and persuade everyone.
I'm sorry for times when we do that in an overbearing or condemnatory way. There's no excuse for that. 'Christian' commentators, particularly on political issues, often make me cringe too.
But I don't apologise for believing that God is willing and able to change anyone's life for the better, and for trying to help them discover that for themselves.

so you get to just pick and choose what parts of God's word you like, even though the supposedly infalible Vicar of Christ (who, as a Catholic, you recognize as THE authority of God on Earth) has a different opinion?
I'm not a Catholic so I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Papal Infallibility has only been exercised twice in church history. On the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (which makes me snigger) and on the lack of original sin in the Virgin Mary (I can't remember the proper term). So technically, the Catholic Church's teachings on homosexuality could be wrong.

I don't actually mind preachy Christians, though I do reserve the right to take the piss. I object to Christians (and any other religious group) attempting to use the state to enforce their beliefs on godless heathens like meself.

Jesus challenged the ideas and beliefs of everyone he met, exposing when they were destructive, hypocritical or just plain wrong. That's why his own people (interestingly, the most religious ones!) ultimately crucified him. He also taught and demonstrated how to live a life of complete fulfillment and integrity.


Well that's because he didn't have the internet.

I'm not a Catholic so I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Papal Infallibility has only been exercised twice in church history. On the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (which makes me snigger) and on the lack of original sin in the Virgin Mary (I can't remember the proper term). So technically, the Catholic Church's teachings on homosexuality could be wrong.

I don't actually mind preachy Christians, though I do reserve the right to take the piss. I object to Christians (and any other religious group) attempting to use the state to enforce their beliefs on godless heathens like meself.

but then again i must ask: why be Catholic if you don't believe in the Church? that's what the Reformation was about, and that's what a Protestant IS...a Christian who decided he didn't agree with the Church's interpretation and rules regarding the Bible and the Christian God.

but then again i must ask: why be Catholic if you don't believe in the Church? It's less not beliving in the Church, more disagreeing with certain elements. Why be a liberal if you don't agree word for word with everything John Stuart Mill wrote? ;)

It's less not beliving in the Church, more disagreeing with certain elements. Why be a liberal if you don't agree word for word with everything John Stuart Mill wrote? ;)

if you disagree with the fundamental principles that distinguish your group from other groups, then i don't see why you would claim to belong. one may agree with Mill on certain points but still agree on the basic principles of Liberalism, but one cannot disagree with the Holy Mother Church and still be a Catholic...it's part of the definition.

but then again i must ask: why be Catholic if you don't believe in the Church? that's what the Reformation was about, and that's what a Protestant IS...a Christian who decided he didn't agree with the Church's interpretation and rules regarding the Bible and the Christian God.

Religion and denomination is a matter of opinion. There is (or was until recently -- I haven't checked) a schismatic Pope somewhere in Spain. He'll tell you that he's a Catholic, and John Paul II isn't. They've both done the traditional excommunicating each other thing. JP2 has more adherents, to be sure, but then that's just a matter of majority opinion. Without any legally enforceable system of copyright, anyone can call themselves Catholic if they want to, or claim to be Pope for that matter. It's all in the head.

A friend and I founded a religious fraternity for Poll Tax avoidance purposes in the 1980s, and I can tell you from personal experience that it's a very, very grey area. We were sent a hastily tricked-up questionnaire, asking us things like "How many hours a day do you spend in prayer?" One quick ecumenical meeting later, we decided that the only true form of communion with the Divine comes in sleep, so we put down "8 hours, more at weekends". Admittedly the last official word we received said that they didn't think we were a real religion, but if we wanted to appeal, we could -- but still, the tax bill never came and to date I've never been asked for the money.

Jeldred, that's genius! Consider me an adherent. My devotion to sleep and thus communing with the divine is second to none.

Religion and denomination is a matter of opinion. There is (or was until recently -- I haven't checked) a schismatic Pope somewhere in Spain. He'll tell you that he's a Catholic, and John Paul II isn't. They've both done the traditional excommunicating each other thing. JP2 has more adherents, to be sure, but then that's just a matter of majority opinion. Without any legally enforceable system of copyright, anyone can call themselves Catholic if they want to, or claim to be Pope for that matter. It's all in the head.

A friend and I founded a religious fraternity for Poll Tax avoidance purposes in the 1980s, and I can tell you from personal experience that it's a very, very grey area. We were sent a hastily tricked-up questionnaire, asking us things like "How many hours a day do you spend in prayer?" One quick ecumenical meeting later, we decided that the only true form of communion with the Divine comes in sleep, so we put down "8 hours, more at weekends". Admittedly the last official word we received said that they didn't think we were a real religion, but if we wanted to appeal, we could -- but still, the tax bill never came and to date I've never been asked for the money.

oh, i certainly think anybody can CALL themselves a Catholic...people can call themselves whatever they damn well please, particularly when we are dealing with superstitions that are all equally insane. but my point is that if you are going to reject the fundamental principles of a given group then why on earth would you WANT to claim you belong to that group?

MY Birth certificate says that im a "Roman Catholic", im almost ashamed of this. I dont believe in a higher authority that one cannot touch or see or feel that can dictate my life, it seems to me that it was a clever idea thought of years ago as a form of social control. Granted, it has meant that all over the world people have shared common principles, almost like a constitutional bill of rights, people are scared to go against it. However, that does not mean that their is such thing as a god. Is their one correct religion? are the others all wrong? the way i see it, is they are all wrong.

Religion leads to this :sniper: :mp5: :headbang: , it causes more trouble than its worth, G.W.'s Baptist Crusade against Islam. He uses the actions of a few extermists to tarnish the reputation of all followers of that particuarlar religion. Some christians believe homosexuals should be burnt upon a stake. Israel persecutes the palestinians, yet the west seem so prepared to stand up for israel, is it fear of being labeled anti semitic? Why cant the people of Israel and Palestine get along and settle their differences peacefully? it does seem impossible with all their partisan religious beliefs drilled into their minds the minute they leave the womb. Is G.W.'s obvious dislike of Islam the reason he supports the state of Israel, many European states are getting fed up with the actions of Israel.

Religion causes division and conflict, why cant we have global communion? People cant tolerate each others religion and live side by side. I hold no religious beliefs and dont think their is a "god". I think if people really thought about the issue, the end result would be peace..... whats more important to you? peace of your betraying your god?

oh, i certainly think anybody can CALL themselves a Catholic...people can call themselves whatever they damn well please, particularly when we are dealing with superstitions that are all equally insane. but my point is that if you are going to reject the fundamental principles of a given group then why on earth would you WANT to claim you belong to that group?

Well, if we give them the benefit of the doubt and discount the slightly more sordid tax-avoidance thing, I suppose it could depend on what one person sees as the "fundamental principles". Old Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Holy Inquisition, as was), no doubt sees strict obedience to Papal decree and the pronouncements of the various Councils (possibly with the exception of Vatican II) as among the "fundamental principles" of Catholicism. Presumably THW considers other aspects of the faith as being "fundamental" -- charity, community, not taking the whole thing too seriously maybe. Now personally I wouldn't want to belong to a club that had someone like Ratzinger in it, but it takes all sorts.

if you disagree with the fundamental principles that distinguish your group from other groups, then i don't see why you would claim to belong. one may agree with Mill on certain points but still agree on the basic principles of Liberalism, but one cannot disagree with the Holy Mother Church and still be a Catholic...it's part of the definition.
I don't think it is though. Apart from the two essential things I mentioned before. Someone could be a Catholic for a lot of reasons- belief in the Church's pastoral work, love of ritualised worship, a thing for nuns etc. and still be against the church's teachings on homosexuality. I don't understand where you're getting the idea that agreeing with everything the Church does is an integral part of Catholicism from.

Jeldred, that's genius! Consider me an adherent. My devotion to sleep and thus communing with the divine is second to none.

Happy to have you. May the gentle rasping of your prayers continue each day well into the afternoon.

but my point is that if you are going to reject the fundamental principles of a given group then why on earth would you WANT to claim you belong to that group?

It is perfectly illogical, so humans do it all the time.
It is quite possible to consider oneself, Christian or, in my experience Jewish, but still possess so much doubt that the core values of that religion are questioned.
However, if your family are from that religion, and so is much of the comunity, there is little pressure to question the status quo, especially if there are no easy answers to fill take its place.

Most of these weakest link 'religious' types are the least aggressive, and can be a lot more accomodating towards other beliefs. Such behaviour I would expect you to approve of, Bottle.

I just realized that the personal attack on me was made by "Democratic Nationality." He had no reason to attack me except that he is still bitter that he got called on racism in another thread then couldn't find any solid facts to back his argument so he resorted to picking apart the unimportant parts of statements. Anyway, Democratic Nationality, I hope you'll find some maturity some where along the road...and maybe even go check those facts about South Africa that I posted for you...

Awwww, did I hurt your feelings by making reference to the sheer historical stupidity of your post about atheism? I'm sorry if I made you look less than well-informed. No offense intended. And when I made the post about atheism I had no previous recollection of who you were, so it was nothing personal. Okay? Can't we just get along in future? :)

Sometimes i come across glib of confusing.
Just like to say i really appreciated the way Bottle, MKULTRA and Goed carried page 3.
Good for you folks.

And page 4. Still reading.

Awwww, did I hurt your feelings by making reference to the sheer historical stupidity of your post about atheism? I'm sorry if I made you look less than well-informed. No offense intended. And when I made the post about atheism I had no previous recollection of who you were, so it was nothing personal. Okay? Can't we just get along in future? :)
Sometimes I hate Al Gore.