Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think it is morally wrong for someone to believe in a god. I simply think the belief in a God is factually incorrect.
Analogy: if I meet someone on the street who thinks the universe is controlled by invisible aliens from Jupiter, I don't think he is wrong in the moral sense of the term. But I would say he is wrong in the "factual" sense of the term. He can't give me any evidence that the universe is in fact controlled by invisible aliens, so I think he is wrong.
I don't think that makes me a fundamentalist. I'd be more than happy to change my views if the existence of a god or invisible aliens from Jupiter could be substantiated.
I'm guessing you don't believe in the Easter bunny. Does that make you a "fundamentalist non-Easter-Bunnyist"? I'd say no. I'd say it makes you a normal person.
I don't think it is morally wrong for someone to believe in a god. I simply think the belief in a God is factually incorrect.
Analogy: if I meet someone on the street who thinks the universe is controlled by invisible aliens from Jupiter, I don't think he is wrong in the moral sense of the term. But I would say he is wrong in the "factual" sense of the term. He can't give me any evidence that the universe is in fact controlled by invisible aliens, so I think he is wrong.
I don't think that makes me a fundamentalist. I'd be more than happy to change my views if the existence of a god or invisible aliens from Jupiter could be substantiated.
I'm guessing you don't believe in the Easter bunny. Does that make you a "fundamentalist non-Easter-Bunnyist"? I'd say no. I'd say it makes you a normal person.
"Normal"? Based upon what? If you are looking for "FACTS"...the "FACT" of the matter is, as relates to the embrace of theology or belief in God(s)...for the past many thousands of years the "normal" people (based upon how "most"--and that would be "MOST"--people are) are the ones that embrace a theology or believe in God(s).
You have done exactly what most do when posing similar analogies in arguments...especially when trying to equate the theological belief of most people to nonbelief.
Here...let me realign your "analogy" more with what is the way the world REALLY works:
If I met someone on the street, who, like the vast majority of all the people that have ever lived, has been taught by tradition & culture and learned through the most popular and enduring writings in the history of mankind that the world is controlled by (insert belief here)...and I don't believe that myself because he nor anyone else can give me "hard evidence" OR because I believe in a different traditional teaching and writings...I not only think he is wrong in the "moral" sense of the term, but I would also say he is wrong in the "factual" sense of the term. So, I think he is wrong.
If he then points to all of people throughout human history that believe the way he does, and to the long enduring and ultra-prolific writings that support his view...If Atheist, I will proceed to tell him that because he cannot provide empirical evidence to support his views, that he is ignorant, deluded, and part of the "sheeple" class of humans. I will then pick apart the writings I know he holds as sacred, and mock, insult, and bash what is written in those books and I will compare him to little children that believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa, or similar childish beliefs, or concoct some off-the-wall belief that nobody, let alone billions of people, has ever known anybody to actually hold. If I embrace a differing tradition, I refer to him as an "infidel" or "blasphemer" that probably should be eliminated from the world so the "real faith" isn't adulterated.
He will most likely then refer back to what he has been taught through the centuries old traditions held by the billions of others of his culture throughout history, and those thousands of years standing writings, and tell me I am "lost" and/or possessed by an "evil spirit", and that after I die I will be tormented in pain beyond anything I could ever imagine for all of eternity, or whatever other punishment his faith claims will occur, because I don't accept what he believes.
Neither of us is willing to accept the point of view of the other...and continue to slam the other for their differing perception. This causes much division and strife...and real animosity. It gets worse from there.
In my REAL WORLD analogy (as opposed to an analogy that not only doesn't represent the way it REALLY is, but is so rare most have never known of it actually occurring) ALL are Fundies...none are "wrong"...but they will all remain at odds because of their refusal to consider or accept that others hold a differing viewpoint from them.
This does actually describe "normal people"...but is, in fact, the basis of the problems.
Goldie, you're the only poster I've seen who keeps a file of his posts.
I don't really do that Trout. I just happen to remember a lot of the discussions I have had on this board...most threads are a rehash of old subjects brought up to bash differing viewpoints anyway. Most of what this board has become is slamming of religion by Militant Fundie Anti-Religion Atheists and as you can see that is at least half the threads.
All one has to do is a search of their posts using keywords to recall main points...and it brings them right up.
We all have our reasons for being on this board...mine is probably rather rare and unique. It is mostly to take up lagtime in my work that requires me to be on the computer. I try to offer stuff that will elicit strong responses...as I am looking to read responses that will interest/amuse me. Half of my posts now are just cut & paste of old posts. Quick way to serve my purpose...as they still get the hoped for returns. Thanx to all of you for that.
"Upset" would be a wild exaggeration. We are just having a chat here on the internet. "Defensive" would be a far more accurate word to use. I don't deny that Stephen Fry is one of my heroes, because I view life the way he does.
Setting yourself up as some sort of neutral arbiter who is here to come to the rescue of those treated with injustice is a smokescreen because the only people you speak hatefully about are atheists.
I am an atheist and yes that is a part of my character and who I am, so I am always going to defend my stance. I know what is hateful and what is not hateful. I have managed to spend three years on this forum without an infraction. I know what it is to speak nicely to people. I'd be sorry if I ever offended anybody.
But free speech is vital to civilised society. You as an American should know that.
The minute you start curbing your speech, ISIS and organisations like them have won.
Slamming other peoples views and faith is not the cause of the recent killings. The people with the swords and guns in their hands, in the name of god, are the cause of the killings.
It would be rare indeed to find anyone who has killed in the name of atheism. 99.9999% recurring, it is in the name of god.
You don't even need to be an atheist with these people. ISIS just beheaded 21 Egyptian Christians just for being Christian. You can even be the wrong type of Islamic.
Free speech is even more important than it ever was. We will continue to think for ourselves and speak up about the injustices of religion.
I'm so happy that you are not upset...and glad my assessment was off about that...as I love to read your offerings and think you are one of the coolest on the board.
"Free speech" is important...but it has never been "free". People have often paid a heavy price for it. Lately, I wonder if the price some have paid is worth what they got out of it...and many times I conclude they haven't, not to me anyway. And then I wonder, "why?"...but can't come up with a reason the satisfies me.
I'm so happy that you are not upset...and glad my assessment was off about that...as I love to read your offerings and think you are one of the coolest on the board.
I really don't "hate Atheists". This will help explain where I am coming from: https://www.city-data.com/forum/21514745-post37.html
Side Note: Wow, I still miss rifleman...even after all this time.
"Free speech" is important...but it has never been "free". People have often paid a heavy price for it. Lately, I wonder if the price some have paid is worth what they got out of it...and many times I conclude they haven't, not to me anyway. And then I wonder, "why?"...but can't come up with a reason the satisfies me.
I too miss rifleman, Gldn. Your penchant for seeking to provoke the fanatics on all sides of the aisle for your own amusement is not well understood. The only real intolerance I have ever seen you express has been your homo-misia. But you are not phobic just unwilling to see it as anything but a fetish.
Poppycock! This is utter and complete rubbish! Let me paraphrase what you have just said. Only idiots will be willing to say that beheading Coptic Christians is wrong, because it might hurt the delicate religious sensibilities of ISIS. Only a complete fool would challenge the religious views of the KKK ( and yes it was religious), because they might make them angry, and hurt their widdle feefees.
I agree that civility is generally the best way to handle disagreement, but there comes a point when civility is actually just servility, crawling around licking the boots of religious authority. there comes a point when men and women of backbone and courage have to stand up and say "No more." I am sorry that you feel that is stupid, foolish, and ignorant, but that will not convince me tht the best response to religion is to cower spinelessly. No, I will try my best to be civil, to be respectful, but to also call a spade a spade. If religion is doing something shameful, then it needs to be called on it, even if it does make the religious angry.
The whole religious hatespeech stuff is just insanity. The remedy for speech you don't like is more speech, not government oppression. Religion is not such a powerful force that it cannot be changed. Look at what the godless Enlightenment has done for Western Christianity. Even if Christians don't like it or don't want to admit it, freethought, humanism and rationalism have change the way their faith is praciced in a lot of ways, some I like, some I don't. Like it or not, critics of a religion are as much a part of its development as proponents. To silence one and not the other is to stunt both society and religion.
-NoCapo
How would you figure one that is, "hateful, toward hate...I am intolerant, of intolerance...I am biased, against bias"...think that the things that ISIS and the KKK do or have done is cool? Your "paraphrasing" shows you didn't get my point at all.
I didn't make some countries in this world theologically controlled, or billions of people to embrace some religious dogma...I just know that it is a fact that they are, and they do.
They think they are right...others think they are wrong. This will not change. So, what do you now do...see who can insult and/or wipe out who?
I would prefer that everyone is tolerant of each other. But that isn't realistic from a pragmatic view of the real world situation.
I am making the point that "stirring up the nest of bees" isn't the answer. You will never eliminate them all...and the ones you don't will always be coming to get you.
So, at the very least...unless a fight/war is what you are looking for: Keep away from the places you know you don't fit in and are sure to get jammed up...and refrain from saying and doing things that you know full well will "set off" the other side. Also know, that those that feel compelled to "exercise their free speech" are not just risking themselves, but anyone and everyone they associate with...so they may be in for a fight/war too. They should factor that in to their "is it worth it?" assessment.
"Normal"? Based upon what? If you are looking for "FACTS"...the "FACT" of the matter is, as relates to the embrace of theology or belief in God(s)...for the past many thousands of years the "normal" people (based upon how "most"--and that would be "MOST"--people are) are the ones that embrace a theology or believe in God(s).
You have done exactly what most do when posing similar analogies in arguments...especially when trying to equate the theological belief of most people to nonbelief.
Here...let me realign your "analogy" more with what is the way the world REALLY works:
If I met someone on the street, who, like the vast majority of all the people that have ever lived, has been taught by tradition & culture and learned through the most popular and enduring writings in the history of mankind that the world is controlled by (insert belief here)...and I don't believe that myself because he nor anyone else can give me "hard evidence" OR because I believe in a different traditional teaching and writings...I not only think he is wrong in the "moral" sense of the term, but I would also say he is wrong in the "factual" sense of the term. So, I think he is wrong.
If he then points to all of people throughout human history that believe the way he does, and to the long enduring and ultra-prolific writings that support his view...If Atheist, I will proceed to tell him that because he cannot provide empirical evidence to support his views, that he is ignorant, deluded, and part of the "sheeple" class of humans. I will then pick apart the writings I know he holds as sacred, and mock, insult, and bash what is written in those books and I will compare him to little children that believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa, or similar childish beliefs, or concoct some off-the-wall belief that nobody, let alone billions of people, has ever known anybody to actually hold. If I embrace a differing tradition, I refer to him as an "infidel" or "blasphemer" that probably should be eliminated from the world so the "real faith" isn't adulterated.
He will most likely then refer back to what he has been taught through the centuries old traditions held by the billions of others of his culture throughout history, and those thousands of years standing writings, and tell me I am "lost" and/or possessed by an "evil spirit", and that after I die I will be tormented in pain beyond anything I could ever imagine for all of eternity, or whatever other punishment his faith claims will occur, because I don't accept what he believes.
Neither of us is willing to accept the point of view of the other...and continue to slam the other for their differing perception. This causes much division and strife...and real animosity. It gets worse from there.
In my REAL WORLD analogy (as opposed to an analogy that not only doesn't represent the way it REALLY is, but is so rare most have never known of it actually occurring) ALL are Fundies...none are "wrong"...but they will all remain at odds because of their refusal to consider or accept that others hold a differing viewpoint from them.
This does actually describe "normal people"...but is, in fact, the basis of the problems.
What??
Does anyone understand this post? The wording is very confusing and hard to follow.
I too miss rifleman, Gldn. Your penchant for seeking to provoke the fanatics on all sides of the aisle for your own amusement is not well understood. The only real intolerance I have ever seen you express has been your homo-misia. But you are not phobic just unwilling to see it as anything but a fetish.
Think: Enjoying the comedy of Don Rickles---It is not what is said, as much as the reaction to it, that is amusing. But it takes what is said to get the reaction.
BUT...Joking is one thing, insulting and hateful bashing is very different. Through all of human history...people have fought with those that differed from them...and pointing out the differences and directing true mocking and insulting of the "others" for their differing views and ways is a pretty sure method to get a ruckus going. And now-a-days with modern technology, the "offended" party can be at your doorstep from anywhere else in the world in a matter of hours.
Does anyone understand this post? The wording is very confusing and hard to follow.
Sorry. I was so amused by your comparisons that included "invisible aliens from Jupiter" and "fundamentalist non-Easter-Bunnyist"...that I got rambling.
To the initial point: A Fundie is one who is so into their view that they get very invested in time and effort to support their view over differing views, and claim only their view is correct (for whatever reason) and opposing viewpoints are wrong.
To the initial point: A Fundie is one who is so into their view that they get very invested in time and effort to support their view over differing views, and claim only their view is correct (for whatever reason) and opposing viewpoints are wrong.
So by your own definition, you are a Fundie too. You believe that your views are correct and opposing views are wrong.
See your last several posts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
