FC Community
Discussion Boards => Suggestions => Topic started by: southernhorizons on October 19, 2012, 09:17:54 am
-
There seems to be a lot of complaints about so-called Christian "persecution", rudeness, etc. when certain people post religious threads and don't like the negative responses. I suspect that a lot of times, they are doing it to start an argument, at least they know the consequences before they post, so they are not exactly innocent victims.
Anyway, maybe Admin could start a subforum for non-discussion posts, so that people who want to ask for prayers, or post daily bible quotes, or even daily wiccan spells (or whatever they're called), can do so without being challenged. Then if they post these things in the regular forums, they have no one but themselves to blame for the attacks.
-
Cool I like that as long as people dont use it to post mean things but i like idea of a prayer/best wishes/hopes/thoughts of the day board its optimisitc and all religions and i mean allll should be able to participate
-
There seems to be a lot of complaints about so-called Christian "persecution", rudeness, etc. when certain people post religious threads and don't like the negative responses. I suspect that a lot of times, they are doing it to start an argument, at least they know the consequences before they post, so they are not exactly innocent victims.
Anyway, maybe Admin could start a subforum for non-discussion posts, so that people who want to ask for prayers, or post daily bible quotes, or even daily wiccan spells (or whatever they're called), can do so without being challenged. Then if they post these things in the regular forums, they have no one but themselves to blame for the attacks.
At least you're honest enough about trying to suggest a subforum to suppress opposing viewpoints however, if no replies are permitted, such would simply be unchallenged declarations, (which should fall under FC's policy for locking threads which contain inaccurate information).
-
Cool I like that as long as people dont use it to post mean things but i like idea of a prayer/best wishes/hopes/thoughts of the day board its optimisitc and all religions and i mean allll should be able to participate
They'd still use it for unopposed religious proselytizing, (and this was revealed as the actual intent of the suggestion). There are other venues for such things as xtians competing to see who is the most faith-blinded, such would extraneous on FC as they already have the "ignore" button here.
The suggestion could be modified to simplify the contentious situation; FC could prohibit any overtly religious posts. That way, there's nothing to overtly contend, (this is not an actual suggestion since it would be unworkable; religious adherents toss their belief into unrelated threads and forums now, and would again).
-
We can only hope that this happens. Would be nice though. :thumbsup:
-
Hopefully, such a blatant suggestion to suppress opposition to religious oppression will be disregarded as the offensive idea it is.
-
damn, falcon, just take a chill pill and relax. Is somebody holding a gun to your head telling you what to read and what not to read? Geeze! Man, I don't like a whole lot of things about this society that I've lived in for 60 fn years and I've learned to just turn my head to most of it. So what's wrong with freedom of speech?
-
damn, falcon, just take a chill pill and relax. Is somebody holding a gun to your head telling you what to read and what not to read? Geeze! Man, I don't like a whole lot of things about this society that I've lived in for 60 fn years and I've learned to just turn my head to most of it. So what's wrong with freedom of speech?
Exactly, what's wrong with freedom of speech when it disagrees with yours? It eitehr works both ways or doesn't work at all.
-
I thought the point of a subforum was so you didn't have to read it unless you actually wanted to. What's wrong with that? Ok..so like I'd like to see a subforum on holistic medicine. Would that be so wrong?
-
I thought the point of a subforum was so you didn't have to read it unless you actually wanted to. What's wrong with that?
That isn't the point of a subforum though. There's no requirement to read/post to any forum or subforum. The suggestion to restrict responses in regards to religious posts so that such proselytization could go unopposed was made and objected to.
Ok..so like I'd like to see a subforum on holistic medicine. Would that be so wrong?
Not every subject matter needs its own forum or subforum; that's why FC established the Off Topic forum and Debate & Discuss subforum, (and the D&D subforum already lists contentious subjects such as religion and politics). A thread on "holistic medicine" could be started in the Off Topic forum and therefore, doesn't need a separate subforum.
If one reads the OP's suggestion down-thread, it was to "start a subforum for non-discussion posts, so that people who want to ask for prayers, or post daily bible quotes, or even daily wiccan spells (or whatever they're called), can do so without being challenged". That means a request for an unopposed platform for religious proselytiation was being made so that specious religious claims could go unchallenged.
-
So, apparently, the OP is asking for an Off Topic category that would not be included for debate, such as a "Religious Only" category. That might actually be a good idea and would eliminate any risk of oppression of non-religious readers. I can respect anyone's right to their own belief system whether I agree with it or not and I can appreciate limiting posts of that nature to a particular area so that no one feels threatened by expounding on their own religious faith so long as they keep it within that assigned category of Off Topic.
-
So, apparently, the OP is asking for an Off Topic category that would not be included for debate, such as a "Religious Only" category. That might actually be a good idea and would eliminate any risk of oppression of non-religious readers.
No, not every subject matter needs its own forum or subforum; that's why FC established the Off Topic forum and Debate & Discuss subforum, (and the D&D subforum already lists contentious subjects such as religion and politics). The suggestion is essentially for a platform for unopposed religious proselytization which suppresses dissent. That's not a good idea since FC is not a theocracy.
I can respect anyone's right to their own belief system whether I agree with it or not and I can appreciate limiting posts of that nature to a particular area so that no one feels threatened by expounding on their own religious faith so long as they keep it within that assigned category of Off Topic.
Such "limits" being suggested are the total suppression of dissent. Instead of such oppressive "limits", I can appreciate the option to oppose such repressive religious 'suggestions'.
-
Therefore he/she seem to think they will not be able to express all their thinking's of what isn't or is real of when the word GOD is spoken. I for one am tired of repeated post of what may or may not be real when the word GOD is spoken. Freedom of speech is well known, but also freedom of religion is also well known. Freedom to not be condemned of what you believe in and Freedom to have choices of what is spoken without being criticized or corrected by someone who thinks that GOD doesn't or have never existed. Its just tiresome to think if you post your prayer that there is this person who is gonna come in and comment with their thoughts of whats wrong with your belief. Can we not just send a prayer without someone saying something against it. This is a moderated forum after all.
-
Therefore he/she seem to think they will not be able to express all their thinking's of what isn't or is real of when the word GOD is spoken. I for one am tired of repeated post of what may or may not be real when the word GOD is spoken.
The above emphasizes precisely why a suggestion for unopposed religious proselytization is a subpar idea. It promotes blind faith and religious superstition by 'suggesting' that a platform for unopposed religious propaganda be established when there already is a forum, (Off Topic), and subforum, (Debate & Discuss), available for such topics. Apparently, there are some religious adherents who would suppress dissent if they could and are 'suggesting' that FC do so. That's not only reprehensible, it's un-American and suppression was not what I served in the military to protect.
Freedom of speech is well known, but also freedom of religion is also well known. Freedom to not be condemned of what you believe in and Freedom to have choices of what is spoken without being criticized or corrected by someone who thinks that GOD doesn't or have never existed. Its just tiresome to think if you post your prayer that there is this person who is gonna come in and comment with their thoughts of whats wrong with your belief. Can we not just send a prayer without someone saying something against it. This is a moderated forum after all.
These forums are not moderated to suppress dissent against superstitious religious beliefs. Those who have the option to express such "faith" do not have the option to suppress dissent. Those with dissenting viewpoints have the same option as religious adherents, otherwise it's a one-way street which should be opposed.
-
Even if there were such a board, it wouldn't matter. Given the number of religious threads that are not in the off topic/debate forum, they would still post everywhere.
-
So what would be so difficult about someone starting a new topic in the discussion board-other topic area for religious posts, and another one for wiccan- etc even with something like that posts have a way of wandering and not ending up where they should be. That alone has been a topic of much discussion here but it might be worth a try, just in case folks might be able to take advantage of something that is already in place.
-
Even if there were such a board, it wouldn't matter. Given the number of religious threads that are not in the off topic/debate forum, they would still post everywhere.
Yes, but then the posters couldn't claim "persecution," if they choose not to use the "persecution-free" subforum.
-
Asking for prayers is not proselytization. Here is the definition of proselytization copied from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
Definition of PROSELYTIZE
intransitive verb
1: to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
transitive verb
: to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause
Asking for prayers is not trying to recruit someone to one's faith; in fact it implies that you're asking people who already subscribe to that faith.
The "platform for unopposed religious propaganda" (according to falcon) could be used just as well by him or any other atheist to "proselytize" or recruit someone to their way of thinking, as well.
I did not make that suggestion to start a proselytizing subforum, but merely a safe haven for those who do not want to proselytize, or argue about religious beliefs, but merely to communicate with those who already have those beliefs (like asking for prayers.)
No one has to read all the posts. If someone doesn't want to be "proselytized", there is no need for them to read posts which have religious topics.
-
We already have a seperate subforum. it's called the D&D.That's where posters are supposed to go when they are looking for a debate over an issue.Topics posted in Off Topic were meant to be exempt from constant arguing.For the most part,atheists have used this properly.Falcon is the only one who has really abused the OT area.
The only way a religious subforum would work,would be if falcon were kept out via password protection,otherwise he's just gonna follow and harrass folks in there.
-
Asking for prayers is not proselytization.
Asking for "prayers", (magical intercessory rituals on the behalf of others), proselytizes/promotes religious beliefs regarding "prayer".
The "platform for unopposed religious propaganda" (according to falcon) could be used just as well by him or any other atheist to "proselytize" or recruit someone to their way of thinking, as well.
Since "athesism" is not a belief, (it's a lack of religious beliefs), then logically, it cannot be proselytized therefore, your false conclusion is intended to obscure your suggestion for an unopposed xtian propaganda platform.
I did not make that suggestion to start a proselytizing subforum, but merely a safe haven for those who do not want to proselytize, or argue about religious beliefs, but merely to communicate with those who already have those beliefs (like asking for prayers.)
Right; an unopposed propaganda platform to "communicate" "about religious beliefs" while repressing dissenting points of view - sounds like a theocratic suppression of speech.
No one has to read all the posts. If someone doesn't want to be "proselytized", there is no need for them to read posts which have religious topics.
No one has to read any dissenting points of view either but, several of teh more repressive xtians here want to completely suppress them.
-
Even if there were such a board, it wouldn't matter. Given the number of religious threads that are not in the off topic/debate forum, they would still post everywhere.
Yes, but then the posters couldn't claim "persecution," if they choose not to use the "persecution-free" subforum.
Firstly, they still claim "persecution" where there is none while spamming unrelated forums and threads with religious propagandizing so, "Optiwoman's" observation is correct. Secondly, a "persecution-free subforum" is a call for repressive suppression of dissent and an inherently despicable suggestion as such.
-
There seems to be a lot of complaints about so-called Christian "persecution", rudeness, etc. when certain people post religious threads and don't like the negative responses. I suspect that a lot of times, they are doing it to start an argument, at least they know the consequences before they post, so they are not exactly innocent victims.
Anyway, maybe Admin could start a subforum for non-discussion posts, so that people who want to ask for prayers, or post daily bible quotes, or even daily wiccan spells (or whatever they're called), can do so without being challenged. Then if they post these things in the regular forums, they have no one but themselves to blame for the attacks.
-
There seems to be a lot of complaints about so-called Christian "persecution", rudeness, etc. when certain people post religious threads and don't like the negative responses. I suspect that a lot of times, they are doing it to start an argument, at least they know the consequences before they post, so they are not exactly innocent victims.
Anyway, maybe Admin could start a subforum for non-discussion posts, so that people who want to ask for prayers, or post daily bible quotes, or even daily wiccan spells (or whatever they're called), can do so without being challenged. Then if they post these things in the regular forums, they have no one but themselves to blame for the attacks.
A "suggestion" for unopposed religious propagandizing is a call for suppresive censorship. It promotes blind faith and religious superstition by 'suggesting' that a platform for unopposed religious propaganda be established when there already is a forum, (Off Topic), and subforum, (Debate & Discuss), available for such topics. Apparently, there are some religious adherents who would suppress dissent if they could and are 'suggesting' that FC do so. That's not only reprehensible, it's un-American and suppression was not what I served in the military to protect.
These forums are not moderated to suppress dissent against superstitious religious beliefs nor, to promote such beliefs. Those who have the option to express such "faith" do not have the option to suppress dissent. Those with dissenting viewpoints have the same option as religious adherents, otherwise it's a one-way street which should be opposed.
-
Falcon is the only one who has really abused the OT area.
If you're going to lie, make it more plausible instead of being a biased opinion without basis, (no such 'abuse' has occurred except by religious adherents spamming the Off Topic forum with incessant superstitious propgandizing).
The only way a religious subforum would work,would be if falcon were kept out via password protection,otherwise he's just gonna follow and harrass folks in there.
The 'suggestion' to block an FC member by 'nym just to suppress dissent suggests harassment and selective censorship. This is repellant and repressive, even for a repressive xtian fundie.
-
falcon9, my good man......
HOW do you do it??
There is now two threads going (thinly attempted to be disguised as another topic) that pretty much are all about YOU!!
:o :D :thumbsup: ;D
Don't you feel VERY VERY special?? I know I feel very very special posting this to you........
;) ;)
-
falcon9, my good man......
HOW do you do it??
There is now two threads going (thinly attempted to be disguised as another topic) that pretty much are all about YOU!!
:o :D :thumbsup: ;D
Don't you feel VERY VERY special?? I know I feel very very special posting this to you........
;) ;)
Those who support repression apparently will stoop to any attempt to suppress dissenting viewpoints.
-
Asking for prayers is not proselytization. Here is the definition of proselytization copied from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
Definition of PROSELYTIZE
intransitive verb
1: to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
transitive verb
: to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause
Asking for prayers is not trying to recruit someone to one's faith; in fact it implies that you're asking people who already subscribe to that faith.
The "platform for unopposed religious propaganda" (according to falcon) could be used just as well by him or any other atheist to "proselytize" or recruit someone to their way of thinking, as well.
I did not make that suggestion to start a proselytizing subforum, but merely a safe haven for those who do not want to proselytize, or argue about religious beliefs, but merely to communicate with those who already have those beliefs (like asking for prayers.)
No one has to read all the posts. If someone doesn't want to be "proselytized", there is no need for them to read posts which have religious topics.
I see exactly what you are saying. Since we have Bible verse threads and prayer threads, and they are already inundated with opposition from a select few, it is very obvious that they would do the same thing if it was set up "persecution-free (so-to-speak,) because they would cry that they were being restricted from sharing their opposition.
At one time, the Bible verse threads and prayer thread, and even quote threads were really fun. People who were interested shared back and forth, asked for prayers, shared answers to prayers, offered encouragement, support, and inspiration to others, and there was none of these accusations of them being labeled "proselytizing," except for an occasional poster who would share their opposition of something, but that was fine. The only real heated and sparked Bible threads were the Debate and Discuss ones where it was noted to "enter at your own risk." There I can see and agree that things would be said that are being said in the Bible verse threads - and "enter at your own risk" serves as a warning for that.
I like the idea, but it won't be left alone, unless by choice, and it's obvious that won't happen.
-
Even if there were such a board, it wouldn't matter. Given the number of religious threads that are not in the off topic/debate forum, they would still post everywhere.
Yes, but then the posters couldn't claim "persecution," if they choose not to use the "persecution-free" subforum.
Firstly, they still claim "persecution" where there is none while spamming unrelated forums and threads with religious propagandizing so, "Optiwoman's" observation is correct. Secondly, a "persecution-free subforum" is a call for repressive suppression of dissent and an inherently despicable suggestion as such.
Sounds like whining and worrying is going on...
-
I did not make that suggestion to start a proselytizing subforum, but merely a safe haven for those who do not want to proselytize, or argue about religious beliefs, but merely to communicate with those who already have those beliefs (like asking for prayers.)
No one has to read all the posts. If someone doesn't want to be "proselytized", there is no need for them to read posts which have religious topics.
I see exactly what you are saying. Since we have Bible verse threads and prayer threads, and they are already inundated with opposition from a select few, it is very obvious that they would do the same thing if it was set up "persecution-free (so-to-speak,) because they would cry that they were being restricted from sharing their opposition.
It isn't a "cry", it's pointing out that the suggestion specifically includes censoring oppostion posts, (which makes a suggestion for such a subforum an exclusive xtian 'preserve' which is intended to exclude non-xtian opposition to religious propagandizing). The bottomline being that the "suggestion" to establish a subforum for unopposed religious propagandizing is inherently repressive/suppressive and offensive.
-
I did not make that suggestion to start a proselytizing subforum, but merely a safe haven for those who do not want to proselytize, or argue about religious beliefs, but merely to communicate with those who already have those beliefs (like asking for prayers.)
No one has to read all the posts. If someone doesn't want to be "proselytized", there is no need for them to read posts which have religious topics.
I see exactly what you are saying. Since we have Bible verse threads and prayer threads, and they are already inundated with opposition from a select few, it is very obvious that they would do the same thing if it was set up "persecution-free (so-to-speak,) because they would cry that they were being restricted from sharing their opposition.
It isn't a "cry", it's pointing out that the suggestion specifically includes censoring oppostion posts, (which makes a suggestion for such a subforum an exclusive xtian 'preserve' which is intended to exclude non-xtian opposition to religious propagandizing). The bottomline being that the "suggestion" to establish a subforum for unopposed religious propagandizing is inherently repressive/suppressive and offensive.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we already know what you're saying - we hear it all the time. I didn't say I disagreed with it, anyway. It's a great idea, but it hasn't worked before and won't now, because of the reason you keep throwing in our faces. It's still repressive/suppression/offensive/condemning/judgmental/intolerant/disrespectful to constantly badger only believers' threads when they aren't debating, but are topics of choice for some who do enjoy them. Other posters, typically ignore them, while going strong in the debate ones, but oh no, you can't let Christians or believers in whoever they choose have their freedom to share and express with each other - verses, prayers, quotes, etc. - you have to try and hush/scold/reprimand and be just plain hateful. They aren't bothering you.
I don't care if you like the topic title or not - it's allowed. Otherwise, you would have a leg to stand on. Make an atheist thread. I don't believe that view, but others do and if they want to share back and forth, that's great. If they want to debate and it's in the Debate area, then yes, that would change things.
You don't have an issue with Wiccans discussing - especially since you even took the opportunity to make your own thread. You have mentioned posting other "legit" religions, including Satanism. Why do you seem to tolerate those others and don't mess with them, and even encourage conversation, yet you bash believers for even attempting a verse or quote thread. It's very obvious the hatred you have and I have never known any military person to be as intolerant as you are, when it comes to people who choose God.
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we already know what you're saying - we hear it all the time. I didn't say I disagreed with it, anyway.
You've already tacitly agreed with the 'idea' of censoring/prohibited/restricting viewpoints which oppose those of xtians specifically so, your admission comes as no surprise.
You don't have an issue with Wiccans discussing - especially since you even took the opportunity to make your own thread.
One rarely, (if ever), observes wiccans trying to actively recruit others to their 'religion' however, that thread did reveal some xtians who posted in it are intolerant of non-xtian belief systems, (as the content of their posted replies unambiguously shows). That thread was not begun to 'troll' hypocritical xtians though; it was begun to demonstrate that there are other belief systems than xtianity which do not share that particular set of superstitions.
You have mentioned posting other "legit" religions, including Satanism. Why do you seem to tolerate those others and don't mess with them, and even encourage conversation, yet you bash believers for even attempting a verse or quote thread.
The implicit assumption by many xtians, (especially the more fundamentalist cults/sects), that xtianity is the 'only "true" religion' was being countered with examples of other federally-recognised religions, including wicca and satanism. I've never explicitly indicated that I was either but, have explicitly stated that I don't adhere to any specious religious superstitious belief.
It's very obvious the hatred you have ...
That's a subjective assumption on your part which attempts to project an emotion onto someone who has asserted no particular "hatred" for either xtians or xtianity. I do have considerable contempt for any religion which has plagiarized other belief systems over centuries of time, tortured and killed non-believers over those same centuries and instigated such reprehensible pograms as the crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts. These atrocities are not 'endearing' qualities worthy of my respect for the exact same religious beliefs which allegedly 'justified' them and which are the same exact superstitious beliefs followers of those religions have today.
... and I have never known any military person to be as intolerant as you are, when it comes to people who choose God.
You weren't actually in the military then and, if your contention concerning never having been a xtian were valid, (they're not), you'd know that people are more intolerant than tolerant - wherever one goes.
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we already know what you're saying - we hear it all the time. I didn't say I disagreed with it, anyway.
You've already tacitly agreed with the 'idea' of censoring/prohibited/restricting viewpoints which oppose those of xtians specifically so, your admission comes as no surprise.
You don't have an issue with Wiccans discussing - especially since you even took the opportunity to make your own thread.
One rarely, (if ever), observes wiccans trying to actively recruit others to their 'religion' however, that thread did reveal some xtians who posted in it are intolerant of non-xtian belief systems, (as the content of their posted replies unambiguously shows). That thread was not begun to 'troll' hypocritical xtians though; it was begun to demonstrate that there are other belief systems than xtianity which do not share that particular set of superstitions.
You have mentioned posting other "legit" religions, including Satanism. Why do you seem to tolerate those others and don't mess with them, and even encourage conversation, yet you bash believers for even attempting a verse or quote thread.
The implicit assumption by many xtians, (especially the more fundamentalist cults/sects), that xtianity is the 'only "true" religion' was being countered with examples of other federally-recognised religions, including wicca and satanism. I've never explicitly indicated that I was either but, have explicitly stated that I don't adhere to any specious religious superstitious belief.
It's very obvious the hatred you have ...
That's a subjective assumption on your part which attempts to project an emotion onto someone who has asserted no particular "hatred" for either xtians or xtianity. I do have considerable contempt for any religion which has plagiarized other belief systems over centuries of time, tortured and killed non-believers over those same centuries and instigated such reprehensible pograms as the crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts. These atrocities are not 'endearing' qualities worthy of my respect for the exact same religious beliefs which allegedly 'justified' them and which are the same exact superstitious beliefs followers of those religions have today.
... and I have never known any military person to be as intolerant as you are, when it comes to people who choose God.
You weren't actually in the military then and, if your contention concerning never having been a xtian were valid, (they're not), you'd know that people are more intolerant than tolerant - wherever one goes.
I have not personally been in the military, but coming from a military family, marrying a military man, and having a military child, these things have given me many an opportunity to see, talk with, hear from, and be told about, with regards to most military members being tolerant, respectful, and courteous of those who either believe in God, or in someone/thing else, or dis-believe any and all things. There are other things that have helped shape an evaluation of this, such as Chaplains in the military, statistics made, amongst others, including even our elections and how the military, as a whole, votes for a candidate, reacts to a candidate, etc. You choose to not see it because of how steeped you are in your intolerance.
-
I have not personally been in the military, but coming from a military family, marrying a military man, and having a military child, these things have given me many an opportunity to see, talk with, hear from, and be told about, with regards to most military members being tolerant, respectful, and courteous of those who either believe in God, or in someone/thing else, or dis-believe any and all things.
Though I come from generally the same military background, I was active duty. Having talked to other active duty personnel, there are some attitudes which had to outwardly comply with military regulations, (while sometimes contradicting actual perceptions held). That said, a greater percentage of the population is 'judeo-xtian' than not so, that statistic carries over into military personnel as well. This does not mean that military xtians were any more or less "tolerant" of non-xtians than civilian xtians, (and they often were not).
-
I have not personally been in the military, but coming from a military family, marrying a military man, and having a military child, these things have given me many an opportunity to see, talk with, hear from, and be told about, with regards to most military members being tolerant, respectful, and courteous of those who either believe in God, or in someone/thing else, or dis-believe any and all things.
Though I come from generally the same military background, I was active duty. Having talked to other active duty personnel, there are some attitudes which had to outwardly comply with military regulations, (while sometimes contradicting actual perceptions held). That said, a greater percentage of the population is 'judeo-xtian' than not so, that statistic carries over into military personnel as well. This does not mean that military xtians were any more or less "tolerant" of non-xtians than civilian xtians, (and they often were not).
I want to say first that i support all military men and women,When i think i have it hard ,i think of you guys.Everytime i hear a fighter plane go over my house ,I say to myself "You think you got it bad,imagine being in that plane ,in time of mass ,terrorism and war".War scares me to death,and with out brave people like you guys ,we wouldn't be able to feel safe at all. :angel12: :angel11: :wave: :peace:so i'm here to say thank you ,for being there then and now.You guys are great .thanks for your post.Good night and may god be with us ALL.
-
I want to say first that i support all military men and women,When i think i have it hard ,i think of you guys.Everytime i hear a fighter plane go over my house ,I say to myself "You think you got it bad,imagine being in that plane ,in time of mass ,terrorism and war".War scares me to death,and with out brave people like you guys ,we wouldn't be able to feel safe at all. :angel12: :angel11: :wave: :peace:so i'm here to say thank you ,for being there then and now.You guys are great .thanks for your post.
Thanks for your appreciation of the sacrifices of all who served.
Good night and may god be with us ALL.
Others have chosen to opt-out of such a religious sentiment, which is somewhat less than "all."
-
You don't have an issue with Wiccans discussing - especially since you even took the opportunity to make your own thread.
One rarely, (if ever), observes wiccans trying to actively recruit others to their 'religion' however, that thread did reveal some xtians who posted in it are intolerant of non-xtian belief systems, (as the content of their posted replies unambiguously shows). That thread was not begun to 'troll' hypocritical xtians though; it was begun to demonstrate that there are other belief systems than xtianity which do not share that particular set of superstitions.
So it is not proselytizing for a Wiccan to post his/ her beliefs in a thread, but it is proselytizing for a Christian to do so! Now you're making up your own definition for proselytizing.
Oh, by the way, one of the definitions of proselytizing that I posted earlier is:
2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
So it can be used for people promoting other "causes" besides religion, including your dis-belief.
-
You don't have an issue with Wiccans discussing - especially since you even took the opportunity to make your own thread.
One rarely, (if ever), observes wiccans trying to actively recruit others to their 'religion' however, that thread did reveal some xtians who posted in it are intolerant of non-xtian belief systems, (as the content of their posted replies unambiguously shows). That thread was not begun to 'troll' hypocritical xtians though; it was begun to demonstrate that there are other belief systems than xtianity which do not share that particular set of superstitions.
So it is not proselytizing for a Wiccan to post his/ her beliefs in a thread, but it is proselytizing for a Christian to do so! Now you're making up your own definition for proselytizing.
Oh, by the way, one of the definitions of proselytizing that I posted earlier is:
2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
So it can be used for people promoting other "causes" besides religion, including your dis-belief.
I agree with you. By him posting a Wiccan thread, he is in essence, alluding to recruiting someone to join that particular belief system. Otherwise, a Wiccan would share a thread with other Wiccans for discussions, and for those who may be interested in checking it out.
-
You don't have an issue with Wiccans discussing - especially since you even took the opportunity to make your own thread.
One rarely, (if ever), observes wiccans trying to actively recruit others to their 'religion' however, that thread did reveal some xtians who posted in it are intolerant of non-xtian belief systems, (as the content of their posted replies unambiguously shows). That thread was not begun to 'troll' hypocritical xtians though; it was begun to demonstrate that there are other belief systems than xtianity which do not share that particular set of superstitions.
So it is not proselytizing for a Wiccan to post his/ her beliefs in a thread, but it is proselytizing for a Christian to do so! Now you're making up your own definition for proselytizing.
Oh, by the way, one of the definitions of proselytizing that I posted earlier is:
2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
So it can be used for people promoting other "causes" besides religion, including your dis-belief.
I agree with you. By him posting a Wiccan thread, he is in essence, alluding to recruiting someone to join that particular belief system. Otherwise, a Wiccan would share a thread with other Wiccans for discussions, and for those who may be interested in checking it out.
Such a conclusion lacks substantiation due to the fact that I'm not a wiccan and therefore, aren't recruiting or proselytizing for wiccans. Conversely, you two are xtian fundies and are promoting/propagandizing/proselytizing that belief system.
-
You don't have an issue with Wiccans discussing - especially since you even took the opportunity to make your own thread.
One rarely, (if ever), observes wiccans trying to actively recruit others to their 'religion' however, that thread did reveal some xtians who posted in it are intolerant of non-xtian belief systems, (as the content of their posted replies unambiguously shows). That thread was not begun to 'troll' hypocritical xtians though; it was begun to demonstrate that there are other belief systems than xtianity which do not share that particular set of superstitions.
So it is not proselytizing for a Wiccan to post his/ her beliefs in a thread, but it is proselytizing for a Christian to do so! Now you're making up your own definition for proselytizing.
Oh, by the way, one of the definitions of proselytizing that I posted earlier is:
2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
So it can be used for people promoting other "causes" besides religion, including your dis-belief.
I agree with you. By him posting a Wiccan thread, he is in essence, alluding to recruiting someone to join that particular belief system. Otherwise, a Wiccan would share a thread with other Wiccans for discussions, and for those who may be interested in checking it out.
Such a conclusion lacks substantiation due to the fact that I'm not a wiccan and therefore, aren't recruiting or proselytizing for wiccans. Conversely, you two are xtian fundies and are promoting/propagandizing/proselytizing that belief system.
False. You may not be Wiccan, but you are posting a thread, providing information about it, and encouraging others to come into that thread, including providing updated information. You are indeed helping to promote Wiccan by what you are doing, whether you admit it or not.
And again, I am a CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST - stop, please, with the sarcastic shortcuts you are doing just to be ugly. A Bible verse thread is NOT demanding anyone to come in there, period. It's posted, just like the Wiccan thread you posted, for those who would or might take an interest and either join in, just read, or ask questions. NO ONE is being forced to open threads in this forum, no matter what the topics are.
But, since you continue to lie and still accuse about that, then you need to see the point that if you are accusing Christians of doing that, that you are also indeed doing the same thing - even about something you aren't even a part of. You are doing it, too, to get back at the Christian posts. So what? All members can post topics, join in, oppose with COMMON COURTESY, not join in, without the loathing you promote against Christians.
-
You may not be Wiccan, but you are posting a thread, providing information about it ...
Yes, that's true.
... and encouraging others to come into that thread ...
What "encouraging" do you imagine is occurring?
You are indeed helping to promote Wiccan by what you are doing, whether you admit it or not.
No, such informational threads promote awareness and counter specious xtian disinformation about non-xtian religions.
And again, I am a CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST - stop, please, with the sarcastic shortcuts you are doing just to be ugly.
The abbreviations "fundie xtian" contain no inherent 'ugliness' and simply denote what they're abbreviating. Unless you're implying that being a fundie xtian is inherently "ugly" of course. If so, that would be refreshingly-honest of you for once.
-
You may not be Wiccan, but you are posting a thread, providing information about it ...
Yes, that's true.
... and encouraging others to come into that thread ...
What "encouraging" do you imagine is occurring?
You are indeed helping to promote Wiccan by what you are doing, whether you admit it or not.
No, such informational threads promote awareness and counter specious xtian disinformation about non-xtian religions.
And again, I am a CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST - stop, please, with the sarcastic shortcuts you are doing just to be ugly.
The abbreviations "fundie xtian" contain no inherent 'ugliness' and simply denote what they're abbreviating. Unless you're implying that being a fundie xtian is inherently "ugly" of course. If so, that would be refreshingly-honest of you for once.
You use them sarcastically. It seems as if you are actually afraid of typing the word "Christ" in front of "-tian..."
Nope, you are promoting Wiccan, even though you aren't involved in it. And deliberately...
-
And again, I am a CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST - stop, please, with the sarcastic shortcuts you are doing just to be ugly.
The abbreviations "fundie xtian" contain no inherent 'ugliness' and simply denote what they're abbreviating. Unless you're implying that being a fundie xtian is inherently "ugly" of course. If so, that would be refreshingly-honest of you for once.
You use them sarcastically. It seems as if you are actually afraid of typing the word "Christ" in front of "-tian..."
On the contrary, it's entirely possible to use the unabbreviated terms sarcastically or, not sarcastically. Your inherently-biased impressions of their usage has no objective basis - especially the specious one regarding being "afraid" of words, (unless that applies to a xtian fundie who is "afraid" of such words as "logical reasoning" and "valid evidence" because they're anathema to blind faith).
-
And again, I am a CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST - stop, please, with the sarcastic shortcuts you are doing just to be ugly.
The abbreviations "fundie xtian" contain no inherent 'ugliness' and simply denote what they're abbreviating. Unless you're implying that being a fundie xtian is inherently "ugly" of course. If so, that would be refreshingly-honest of you for once.
You use them sarcastically. It seems as if you are actually afraid of typing the word "Christ" in front of "-tian..."
On the contrary, it's entirely possible to use the unabbreviated terms sarcastically or, not sarcastically. Your inherently-biased impressions of their usage has no objective basis - especially the specious one regarding being "afraid" of words, (unless that applies to a xtian fundie who is "afraid" of such words as "logical reasoning" and "valid evidence" because they're anathema to blind faith).
Write "Christian" then, when you use that word again.
-
Write "Christian" then, when you use that word again.
Issue more 'commands' which are ignored, fundie xtian.
-
Write "Christian" then, when you use that word again.
Issue more 'commands' which are ignored, fundie xtian.
Stop with the name-calling.
-
Write "Christian" then, when you use that word again.
Issue more 'commands' which are ignored, fundie xtian.
Stop with the name-calling.
It isn't name-calling when you've posted that you are a fundie xtian.
And again, I am a CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST
That one is easy to ignore, issue another one without violating FC posting policies.
-
falcon9, my good man......
HOW do you do it??
There is now two threads going (thinly attempted to be disguised as another topic) that pretty much are all about YOU!!
:o :D :thumbsup: ;D
Don't you feel VERY VERY special?? I know I feel very very special posting this to you........
;) ;)
LOL!!!
-
These religious posts seem to be getting worse. In OFF TOPIC I cant find a decent topic to post in because all I see is threads about religious christians. I think people are making these threads to be spiteful and cause problems. I would like to be able to find a thread of real different topics and not have to go through all the religious ones just to find a decent one about different things. This is sickening and ruining a good time on FC.
-
These religious posts seem to be getting worse. In OFF TOPIC I cant find a decent topic to post in because all I see is threads about religious christians. I think people are making these threads to be spiteful and cause problems. I would like to be able to find a thread of real different topics and not have to go through all the religious ones just to find a decent one about different things. This is sickening and ruining a good time on FC.
I agree; they appear to be spamming such religious proselytizing out of spiteful evangelicism.
-
Hmmnn hsn't stopped or slowed down your posting activity that I can see lol
-
These religious posts seem to be getting worse. In OFF TOPIC I cant find a decent topic to post in because all I see is threads about religious christians. I think people are making these threads to be spiteful and cause problems. I would like to be able to find a thread of real different topics and not have to go through all the religious ones just to find a decent one about different things. This is sickening and ruining a good time on FC.
There are plenty of other topics between Off Topic and Debate/Discuss. Not sure where you are looking...
-
Hmmnn hsn't stopped or slowed down your posting activity that I can see lol
If that's intended to be a jab at someone you allegedly have on "ignore", you're misusing it as an "ostrich button", (to not-ignore someone you've claimed to ignore). If not, failing to attribute who you're replying in a post is just a vague 'jab'.
-
These religious posts seem to be getting worse. In OFF TOPIC I cant find a decent topic to post in because all I see is threads about religious christians. I think people are making these threads to be spiteful and cause problems. I would like to be able to find a thread of real different topics and not have to go through all the religious ones just to find a decent one about different things. This is sickening and ruining a good time on FC.
There are plenty of other topics between Off Topic and Debate/Discuss. Not sure where you are looking...
It isn't happening only in the Off topic forum or D&D subforum; such evangelizing religious posts have been inappropriately posted in various FC-related forums as well.
-
These religious posts seem to be getting worse. In OFF TOPIC I cant find a decent topic to post in because all I see is threads about religious christians. I think people are making these threads to be spiteful and cause problems. I would like to be able to find a thread of real different topics and not have to go through all the religious ones just to find a decent one about different things. This is sickening and ruining a good time on FC.
There are plenty of other topics between Off Topic and Debate/Discuss. Not sure where you are looking...
Yeah there are plenty of other stuff after you have to literally sift through most of the Religious christian stuff. Its pathetic that there is so many. Its becoming annoying.
-
These religious posts seem to be getting worse. In OFF TOPIC I cant find a decent topic to post in because all I see is threads about religious christians. I think people are making these threads to be spiteful and cause problems. I would like to be able to find a thread of real different topics and not have to go through all the religious ones just to find a decent one about different things. This is sickening and ruining a good time on FC.
There are plenty of other topics between Off Topic and Debate/Discuss. Not sure where you are looking...
Yeah there are plenty of other stuff after you have to literally sift through most of the Religious christian stuff. Its pathetic that there is so many. Its becoming annoying.
True, especially when several evangelizing religious adherents are initially flooding the various forums with such proselytizing propaganda, (while only a few are refuting a small percentage of those bible-thumping and evangelizing posts).
-
These religious posts seem to be getting worse. In OFF TOPIC I cant find a decent topic to post in because all I see is threads about religious christians. I think people are making these threads to be spiteful and cause problems. I would like to be able to find a thread of real different topics and not have to go through all the religious ones just to find a decent one about different things. This is sickening and ruining a good time on FC.
There are plenty of other topics between Off Topic and Debate/Discuss. Not sure where you are looking...
Yeah there are plenty of other stuff after you have to literally sift through most of the Religious christian stuff. Its pathetic that there is so many. Its becoming annoying.
Sorry about that. When I go to Off Topic and Debate/Discuss, I see a great mixture of so many different topics to choose from, not just religious threads. Maybe our "forum page" looks different from each others'? :)
-
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTwKypf8HE2epa_3LhWquvbRK7046VXe704ZgmXjkJnXORgHNO-_A)
-
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTwKypf8HE2epa_3LhWquvbRK7046VXe704ZgmXjkJnXORgHNO-_A)
That's an irrational sentiment since the delusion is a belief that some supernatural entity exists despite a lack of substantiating evidence.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSzhUuebukAlhK-hJYILaov-r8gLEGWQt2Cz5ibJgiUwomRVb1QaQ)
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSzhUuebukAlhK-hJYILaov-r8gLEGWQt2Cz5ibJgiUwomRVb1QaQ)
The religiously-biased opinion of a faith-blinded religious adherent has no substantive weight.
-
(http://www.misanthropytoday.com/wp-content/uploads/atheist-idiot.jpg)
-
(http://www.misanthropytoday.com/wp-content/uploads/atheist-idiot.jpg)
"Atheism" isn't a religion, nor a religious belief system. "Atheism is not a religion, an ideology, a world view, or anything like that. If this seems wrong, consider the fact that theism is also not a belief system, religion, ideology, world view, or anything like that. Theism and atheism are single data points or positions: theism is the presence of a belief in the existence of at least one god of some sort, atheism is the absence of any sort of belief.
While theism is not a belief system, many belief systems are theistic in that they contain or rely upon theism. Christianity is a theistic belief system (specifically, a theistic religion). Many new age belief systems are also theistic. A political party founded on Christianity would probably qualify as a theistic ideology.
All the same is true about atheism: while atheism itself is not a belief system, there are many belief systems which are atheistic. Objectivism and Humanism are atheistic philosophies. There are also atheistic religions: Religious Humanism, Raelians, Ethical Culture, some forms of Buddhism, etc.
When you described atheism as a belief system, you made a common error but it is an error nonetheless. If you want to talk about logic, there's a simple observation that might make it clear for you.
If "atheism" is a "belief system," then you should be able to point to the single belief system that is shared by all Objectivists, communists, liberals, conservatives, Buddhists, Raelians, anarchists, Religious Humanists, Secular Humanists, Jews, and libertarians who are atheists. What is that belief system? What are it's various premises, positions, doctrines, propositions, etc.?"
-
(http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/atheism.jpg)
-
(http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/atheism.jpg)
That's not how burden of proof works; the religious adherents who claim such an entity exists have the burden of proof obligation to substantiate their specious claims, not those who challenge them to substantiate religious claims, (proving something doesn't exist is largely a logical fallacy, with the exception of making that an initial claim). Naturally, the religious adherents spamming with these empty religious assertions has no intention of backing them up, (just in making such empty proclamations), nor, of providing substantive evidence for them.
-
(http://www.misanthropytoday.com/wp-content/uploads/atheist-idiot.jpg)
"Atheism" isn't a religion, nor a religious belief system. "Atheism is not a religion, an ideology, a world view, or anything like that. If this seems wrong, consider the fact that theism is also not a belief system, religion, ideology, world view, or anything like that. Theism and atheism are single data points or positions: theism is the presence of a belief in the existence of at least one god of some sort, atheism is the absence of any sort of belief.
While theism is not a belief system, many belief systems are theistic in that they contain or rely upon theism. Christianity is a theistic belief system (specifically, a theistic religion). Many new age belief systems are also theistic. A political party founded on Christianity would probably qualify as a theistic ideology.
All the same is true about atheism: while atheism itself is not a belief system, there are many belief systems which are atheistic. Objectivism and Humanism are atheistic philosophies. There are also atheistic religions: Religious Humanism, Raelians, Ethical Culture, some forms of Buddhism, etc.
When you described atheism as a belief system, you made a common error but it is an error nonetheless. If you want to talk about logic, there's a simple observation that might make it clear for you.
If "atheism" is a "belief system," then you should be able to point to the single belief system that is shared by all Objectivists, communists, liberals, conservatives, Buddhists, Raelians, anarchists, Religious Humanists, Secular Humanists, Jews, and libertarians who are atheists. What is that belief system? What are it's various premises, positions, doctrines, propositions, etc.?"
Where is the link you got this from?
I personally believe many get hung up on "atheism" being a "belief system" of sorts, mainly because the stronger and/or militant atheists have a common goal: to get rid of Christianity. Because of that goal, there is much effort put into achieving that goal, which, to some, indicates a belief system of sorts, because of the perseverance and dedication to that "goal," kind of like Christians persevere and are dedicated to Christ. I'm not saying it's a belief system - just giving a reason why many do.
-
(http://www.misanthropytoday.com/wp-content/uploads/atheist-idiot.jpg)
"Atheism" isn't a religion, nor a religious belief system. "Atheism is not a religion, an ideology, a world view, or anything like that. If this seems wrong, consider the fact that theism is also not a belief system, religion, ideology, world view, or anything like that. Theism and atheism are single data points or positions: theism is the presence of a belief in the existence of at least one god of some sort, atheism is the absence of any sort of belief.
While theism is not a belief system, many belief systems are theistic in that they contain or rely upon theism. Christianity is a theistic belief system (specifically, a theistic religion). Many new age belief systems are also theistic. A political party founded on Christianity would probably qualify as a theistic ideology.
All the same is true about atheism: while atheism itself is not a belief system, there are many belief systems which are atheistic. Objectivism and Humanism are atheistic philosophies. There are also atheistic religions: Religious Humanism, Raelians, Ethical Culture, some forms of Buddhism, etc.
When you described atheism as a belief system, you made a common error but it is an error nonetheless. If you want to talk about logic, there's a simple observation that might make it clear for you.
If "atheism" is a "belief system," then you should be able to point to the single belief system that is shared by all Objectivists, communists, liberals, conservatives, Buddhists, Raelians, anarchists, Religious Humanists, Secular Humanists, Jews, and libertarians who are atheists. What is that belief system? What are it's various premises, positions, doctrines, propositions, etc.?"
Where is the link you got this from?
I personally believe many get hung up on "atheism" being a "belief system" of sorts, mainly because the stronger and/or militant atheists have a common goal: to get rid of Christianity. Because of that goal, there is much effort put into achieving that goal, which, to some, indicates a belief system of sorts, because of the perseverance and dedication to that "goal," kind of like Christians persevere and are dedicated to Christ. I'm not saying it's a belief system - just giving a reason why many do.
Here is the link....
http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/07/atheism-is-religion.html
-
(http://www.misanthropytoday.com/wp-content/uploads/atheist-idiot.jpg)
"Atheism" isn't a religion, nor a religious belief system. "Atheism is not a religion, an ideology, a world view, or anything like that. If this seems wrong, consider the fact that theism is also not a belief system, religion, ideology, world view, or anything like that. Theism and atheism are single data points or positions: theism is the presence of a belief in the existence of at least one god of some sort, atheism is the absence of any sort of belief.
While theism is not a belief system, many belief systems are theistic in that they contain or rely upon theism. Christianity is a theistic belief system (specifically, a theistic religion). Many new age belief systems are also theistic. A political party founded on Christianity would probably qualify as a theistic ideology.
All the same is true about atheism: while atheism itself is not a belief system, there are many belief systems which are atheistic. Objectivism and Humanism are atheistic philosophies. There are also atheistic religions: Religious Humanism, Raelians, Ethical Culture, some forms of Buddhism, etc.
When you described atheism as a belief system, you made a common error but it is an error nonetheless. If you want to talk about logic, there's a simple observation that might make it clear for you.
If "atheism" is a "belief system," then you should be able to point to the single belief system that is shared by all Objectivists, communists, liberals, conservatives, Buddhists, Raelians, anarchists, Religious Humanists, Secular Humanists, Jews, and libertarians who are atheists. What is that belief system? What are it's various premises, positions, doctrines, propositions, etc.?"
Where is the link you got this from?
I personally believe many get hung up on "atheism" being a "belief system" of sorts, mainly because the stronger and/or militant atheists have a common goal: to get rid of Christianity. Because of that goal, there is much effort put into achieving that goal, which, to some, indicates a belief system of sorts, because of the perseverance and dedication to that "goal," kind of like Christians persevere and are dedicated to Christ. I'm not saying it's a belief system - just giving a reason why many do.
Here is the link....
http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/07/atheism-is-religion.html
Thanks for the link - many great points and relevancy made there. I was also wanting falcon9 to provide his link - he's always adamant that everyone provides links to give the correct credit where credit is due. I wanted to look more into that.
Thanks for yours, too. While there are many who disagree that it's a religion, there are still some good points offered in this blog. :)
-
(http://www.misanthropytoday.com/wp-content/uploads/atheist-idiot.jpg)
"Atheism" isn't a religion, nor a religious belief system. "Atheism is not a religion, an ideology, a world view, or anything like that. If this seems wrong, consider the fact that theism is also not a belief system, religion, ideology, world view, or anything like that. Theism and atheism are single data points or positions: theism is the presence of a belief in the existence of at least one god of some sort, atheism is the absence of any sort of belief.
While theism is not a belief system, many belief systems are theistic in that they contain or rely upon theism. Christianity is a theistic belief system (specifically, a theistic religion). Many new age belief systems are also theistic. A political party founded on Christianity would probably qualify as a theistic ideology.
All the same is true about atheism: while atheism itself is not a belief system, there are many belief systems which are atheistic. Objectivism and Humanism are atheistic philosophies. There are also atheistic religions: Religious Humanism, Raelians, Ethical Culture, some forms of Buddhism, etc.
When you described atheism as a belief system, you made a common error but it is an error nonetheless. If you want to talk about logic, there's a simple observation that might make it clear for you.
If "atheism" is a "belief system," then you should be able to point to the single belief system that is shared by all Objectivists, communists, liberals, conservatives, Buddhists, Raelians, anarchists, Religious Humanists, Secular Humanists, Jews, and libertarians who are atheists. What is that belief system? What are it's various premises, positions, doctrines, propositions, etc.?"
Where is the link you got this from?
I personally believe many get hung up on "atheism" being a "belief system" of sorts, mainly because the stronger and/or militant atheists have a common goal: to get rid of Christianity. Because of that goal, there is much effort put into achieving that goal, which, to some, indicates a belief system of sorts, because of the perseverance and dedication to that "goal," kind of like Christians persevere and are dedicated to Christ. I'm not saying it's a belief system - just giving a reason why many do.
Here is the link....
http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/07/atheism-is-religion.html
Thanks for the link - many great points and relevancy made there. I was also wanting falcon9 to provide his link - he's always adamant that everyone provides links to give the correct credit where credit is due. I wanted to look more into that.
Thanks for yours, too. While there are many who disagree that it's a religion, there are still some good points offered in this blog. :)
You're welcome. :)
-
While there are many who disagree that it's a religion, there are still some good points offered in this blog. :)
None of that specious nonsense which avoids logical reasoning indicates that atheism is a religion. It remains the inherently biased religious opinion of a religious adherent and eschews reasoning, attempting to replace it with 'you can't prove something doesn't exist' arguments.
-
(http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/atheism.jpg)
Actually, all the "it's", a contraction for "it is", should be "its", a possessive form. It's hard to make a snappy comeback with misspellings and bad grammar.
-
(http://rlv.zcache.com/atheism_is_ignorance_bumper_sticker-p128466187021551888en8ys_400.jpg)
-
(http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/atheism.jpg)
Actually, all the "it's", a contraction for "it is", should be "its", a possessive form. It's hard to make a snappy comeback with misspellings and bad grammar.
That's alright, I don't have high expectations of those blinded by religious faith, (noting that the xtian zealots are once again trying to confuse 'not-theism' with being a "religion", in and of itself).
-
(http://rlv.zcache.com/atheism_is_ignorance_bumper_sticker-p128466187021551888en8ys_400.jpg)
The 'bumpersticker' posted is false; rational thinking and logical reasoning are methods to dispel ignorance, not embrace it like religious belief systems do.
-
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/28088471.jpg)
-
[-anti-anti-religious spam-]
You're trolling and it isn't subtle, xtian troll.
-
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/23499312.jpg)
-
[-more xtian trollling=]
You're still rolling and it still isn't subtle, xtian troll.
-
While there are many who disagree that it's a religion, there are still some good points offered in this blog. :)
None of that specious nonsense which avoids logical reasoning indicates that atheism is a religion. It remains the inherently biased religious opinion of a religious adherent and eschews reasoning, attempting to replace it with 'you can't prove something doesn't exist' arguments.
Not completely. I don't think remediagirl will mind if we expand on this a little. Please remember I said in a previous post that I'm not saying that Atheism is necessarily a "religion" but there are some points made that do make some good sense.
http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/07/atheism-is-religion.html
Childs makes the case:
Atheism is a religion.
"Atheism IS a religion. I know that some have made that statement without much evidence. And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it. I’ve heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair color. Clever. I guess I don’t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesn’t prove it is not there. (I would advise any atheist readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.)
A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. Consider this:
1. They have their own worldview.
Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.
2. They have their own orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
3. They have their own brand of apostasy.
Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”
4. They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.
5. They have their own preachers and evangelists.
And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.
6. They have faith.
That’s right, faith. They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation.
***There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask:
1. Why do we have self-awareness?
2. What makes us conscious?
3. From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong?
They just take such unexplained things by … faith.
There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer. There are days when every honest Christian will admit doubt. But we don’t become atheists. It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there. And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith.
Not only is Atheism a religion, the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do disagree with his one statement that "we don't become atheists." There are ones I know who have turned their backs on God, and have become atheists.
Would you answer the questions in blue? Thanks!
-
http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/07/atheism-is-religion.html
Childs makes the case:
Atheism is a religion.
"Atheism IS a religion. I know that some have made that statement without much evidence. And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it. I’ve heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair color. Clever. I guess I don’t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesn’t prove it is not there. (I would advise any atheist readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.)
A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. Consider this:
1. They have their own worldview.
Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.
2. They have their own orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
3. They have their own brand of apostasy.
Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”
4. They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.
5. They have their own preachers and evangelists.
And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.
6. They have faith.
That’s right, faith. They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation.
***There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask:
1. Why do we have self-awareness?
2. What makes us conscious?
3. From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong?
They just take such unexplained things by … faith.
There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer. There are days when every honest Christian will admit doubt. But we don’t become atheists. It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there. And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith.
Not only is Atheism a religion, the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do disagree with his one statement that "we don't become atheists." There are ones I know who have turned their backs on God, and have become atheists.
Would you answer the questions in blue? Thanks!
Already did when a former xtian member of FC brought up the same invalid 'arguments' under the same invalid premise. Further, they aren't 'your' arguments and none of your have shown any intention of debating these points. Maybe another non-xtian would like to address those "points" they missed from being discussed a few months ago. Btw, each of those "points" was thoroughly-refuted by logical, pont-by-point.
-
Maybe another non-xtian would like to address those "points".....
Wow..that's kinda lazy. Guess he didn't have an answer. What's new!
As stated, those "points" were already addressed and refuted. Just because you're too lazy to look up those refutations, (and manifestly uninterested in presenting your own counter-arguments), why should I bother reposting the whole thing just for you blind faithers to dodge again?
-
Maybe another non-xtian would like to address those "points".....
Wow..that's kinda lazy. Guess he didn't have an answer. What's new!
As stated, those "points" were already addressed and refuted. Just because you're too lazy to look up those refutations, (and manifestly uninterested in presenting your own counter-arguments), why should I bother reposting the whole thing just for you blind faithers to dodge again?
Sounds like you are the one doing the dodging...but of course don't you always!
-
Maybe another non-xtian would like to address those "points".....
Wow..that's kinda lazy. Guess he didn't have an answer. What's new!
As stated, those "points" were already addressed and refuted. Just because you're too lazy to look up those refutations, (and manifestly uninterested in presenting your own counter-arguments), why should I bother reposting the whole thing just for you blind faithers to dodge again?
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQvCSZGSgUviTm6I9e9taEz3htM0bLMzZKVm6CBQhn4c3VjPjfi)
-
http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/07/atheism-is-religion.html
Childs makes the case:
Atheism is a religion.
"Atheism IS a religion. I know that some have made that statement without much evidence. And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it. I’ve heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair color. Clever. I guess I don’t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesn’t prove it is not there. (I would advise any atheist readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.)
A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. Consider this:
1. They have their own worldview.
Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.
2. They have their own orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
3. They have their own brand of apostasy.
Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”
4. They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.
5. They have their own preachers and evangelists.
And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.
6. They have faith.
That’s right, faith. They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation.
***There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask:
1. Why do we have self-awareness?
2. What makes us conscious?
3. From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong?
They just take such unexplained things by … faith.
There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer. There are days when every honest Christian will admit doubt. But we don’t become atheists. It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there. And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith.
Not only is Atheism a religion, the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do disagree with his one statement that "we don't become atheists." There are ones I know who have turned their backs on God, and have become atheists.
Would you answer the questions in blue? Thanks!
Already did when a former xtian member of FC brought up the same invalid 'arguments' under the same invalid premise. Further, they aren't 'your' arguments and none of your have shown any intention of debating these points. Maybe another non-xtian would like to address those "points" they missed from being discussed a few months ago. Btw, each of those "points" was thoroughly-refuted by logical, pont-by-point.
Thank you for showing your refusal to answer the questions in blue. Your right to do so. By the way, I disagree that each of those "points" were thoroughly refuted; some are only partially refuted.
I agree they aren't my arguments, because I even said that I was not saying Atheism is a religion - I was showing that the points made were sensible, because of the loyalty and devotion to Hawkins, Darwin, etc., and the goal of ridding the world of Christianity.
-
Wow..that's kinda lazy. Guess he didn't have an answer. What's new!
As stated, those "points" were already addressed and refuted. Just because you're too lazy to look up those refutations, (and manifestly uninterested in presenting your own counter-arguments), why should I bother reposting the whole thing just for you blind faithers to dodge again?
Sounds like you are the one doing the dodging...but of course don't you always!
No, that would be the xtian zealots; as a massive number of archived posts in evidence shows. If you're too lazy to look up those refutations of the illogical xtian 'arguments', (which the member "jcribb16" had partly participated in/is aware of), then that's your lazy choice.
-
"... denying something doesn’t prove it is not there."
Requesting that the xtian claimant provide evidence to substantiate their claim that something is there doesn't mean it is when they can't.
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3436/3857846708_53f00af792.jpg)
-
(http://i49.tinypic.com/6h5cut.jpg)
-
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTp-Y9fs1L71JF7AFQKMKhqScNVLMigT4zvnBb1ujOnMgoqdxKB)
-
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTp-Y9fs1L71JF7AFQKMKhqScNVLMigT4zvnBb1ujOnMgoqdxKB)
Exactly; which means it's not a "religion" like those who have so-called "prophets", (though these have been demonstrated to actually be pseudo-prophets in that nothing "prophesized" has come about, even with various specious stretching of them to try covering non-prophesy).
-
NON PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS:
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ1uAwlZDXv4oqNkw8YOTubRMQU0-ipNS-SppuAdwatze3dnr8S)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpwbEiqAqiAtKz-WOhPUkBOdmibw_HaZz0Ey9TOUIR0ni0b2A_)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTWYkDt_5agYw7n9lKBhCj5yM7cYOJzqSyxyPaWARHhV_YaZRZ)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUykK8zAe3AD4KwEQmclneyG0PRakPZ8rx0lIzURTP5pF5j3T3)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4-IretB2ZPjt12-O8TcVejtHoR5yZAjDoyojDmrDlmLQdRaFI8g)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbjpqSEDWIJh2fqpTzHl4tCdZOp79Z9sMXNiWqY3NykrN-GohNzA)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRq3tk7J4suu862_kWUzauhs_PG0v5qCgSMIdg54aKhpkcAptVa)
-
PROSELYTIZING ORGANIZATIONS:
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ1uAwlZDXv4oqNkw8YOTubRMQU0-ipNS-SppuAdwatze3dnr8S)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpwbEiqAqiAtKz-WOhPUkBOdmibw_HaZz0Ey9TOUIR0ni0b2A_)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTWYkDt_5agYw7n9lKBhCj5yM7cYOJzqSyxyPaWARHhV_YaZRZ)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUykK8zAe3AD4KwEQmclneyG0PRakPZ8rx0lIzURTP5pF5j3T3)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4-IretB2ZPjt12-O8TcVejtHoR5yZAjDoyojDmrDlmLQdRaFI8g)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbjpqSEDWIJh2fqpTzHl4tCdZOp79Z9sMXNiWqY3NykrN-GohNzA)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRq3tk7J4suu862_kWUzauhs_PG0v5qCgSMIdg54aKhpkcAptVa)
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQQKzd2VGLmapxsZNCXDKbRv348yeUr7Djo6wjlcjcOKe3Fjd0)
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQQKzd2VGLmapxsZNCXDKbRv348yeUr7Djo6wjlcjcOKe3Fjd0)
On the contrary, my posts opposing religious evangelical proselytizing are not intended to "convert" faith-blinded zealots to "atheism". It's doubtful that minds closed by blind faith for so long could be freed from the prison of their own self-delusions unless the 'believers' choose to do it themselves.
-
You would think that someone that hates proselytizing so much would shut up about religion. Would not help the threads stay on top so much that everyone has access to them easily. :dontknow:
-
You would think that someone that hates proselytizing so much would shut up about religion. Would not help the threads stay on top so much that everyone has access to them easily. :dontknow:
I'm not posting for the scrolling-impaired; I'm posting because there's no implicit or explicit provision for xtian evangelizing to go unopposed on a non-religious PTC site.
-
Why bang your heads against a wall at a site where it's clear that the moderators are not going to censor people who are not violating the rules? A sub-forum here is not the answer. If all of you self-identified Christians are so tired of having any of your beliefs questioned, there are any number of dedicated Christian forums on the Internet that are censored, I mean moderated, to keep out opposing viewpoints. Then you can all quote scripture and be happy.
-
Why bang your heads against a wall at a site where it's clear that the moderators are not going to censor people who are not violating the rules? A sub-forum here is not the answer. If all of you self-identified Christians are so tired of having any of your beliefs questioned, there are any number of dedicated Christian forums on the Internet that are censored, I mean moderated, to keep out opposing viewpoints. Then you can all quote scripture and be happy.
It may be that some of the evangelizing religious adherents are posting on those moderated, (censored), venues/newsgroup/forums however, it's clear from their posts that they'd prefer unopposed evangelizing on FC as well. It should be clear by now that such unopposed religious evangelizing isn't going to happen here.
-
:dontknow: Huh? :dontknow: now i know why i never read this part of the forum lol.....
-
Why bang your heads against a wall at a site where it's clear that the moderators are not going to censor people who are not violating the rules? A sub-forum here is not the answer. If all of you self-identified Christians are so tired of having any of your beliefs questioned, there are any number of dedicated Christian forums on the Internet that are censored, I mean moderated, to keep out opposing viewpoints. Then you can all quote scripture and be happy.
(http://www.raptureready.com/imagehead/Atheism1.jpg)
Atheists are so opposed to anything linked to God that their hatred gets in the way of common sense. They pride themselves on being free of religious dogma yet they cling to one creed─“In death there is no hope.” It's not about having our beliefs questioned...it's the hate involved that I have a problem with. Maybe it has something to do with not having any hope that makes one subject others to their biased and prejudiced opinion over and over and over when we are only lending some inspiration to fellow Christians. Maybe not having hope makes some spend huge amounts of time focused on religion when they claim that they have no use for it. Constantly belittling and pointing the finger rather than just stating a view and moving on.
-
Why bang your heads against a wall at a site where it's clear that the moderators are not going to censor people who are not violating the rules? A sub-forum here is not the answer. If all of you self-identified Christians are so tired of having any of your beliefs questioned, there are any number of dedicated Christian forums on the Internet that are censored, I mean moderated, to keep out opposing viewpoints. Then you can all quote scripture and be happy.
(http://www.raptureready.com/imagehead/Atheism1.jpg)
Atheists are so opposed to anything linked to God that their hatred gets in the way of common sense. They pride themselves on being free of religious dogma yet they cling to one creed─“In death there is no hope.” It's not about having our beliefs questioned...it's the hate involved that I have a problem with. Maybe it has something to do with not having any hope that makes one subject others to their biased and prejudiced opinion over and over and over when we are only lending some inspiration to fellow Christians. Maybe not having hope makes some spend huge amounts of time focused on religion when they claim that they have no use for it. Constantly belittling and pointing the finger rather than just stating a view and moving on.
This is the exact point I've tried to make. Thanks for posting this.
-
NON PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS:
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ1uAwlZDXv4oqNkw8YOTubRMQU0-ipNS-SppuAdwatze3dnr8S)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpwbEiqAqiAtKz-WOhPUkBOdmibw_HaZz0Ey9TOUIR0ni0b2A_)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTWYkDt_5agYw7n9lKBhCj5yM7cYOJzqSyxyPaWARHhV_YaZRZ)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUykK8zAe3AD4KwEQmclneyG0PRakPZ8rx0lIzURTP5pF5j3T3)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4-IretB2ZPjt12-O8TcVejtHoR5yZAjDoyojDmrDlmLQdRaFI8g)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbjpqSEDWIJh2fqpTzHl4tCdZOp79Z9sMXNiWqY3NykrN-GohNzA)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRq3tk7J4suu862_kWUzauhs_PG0v5qCgSMIdg54aKhpkcAptVa)
Girl, you are a busy one! :thumbsup:
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQQKzd2VGLmapxsZNCXDKbRv348yeUr7Djo6wjlcjcOKe3Fjd0)
It's only fair to oppose atheism, just as believing in God is being opposed. You pegged it!
-
Why bang your heads against a wall at a site where it's clear that the moderators are not going to censor people who are not violating the rules? A sub-forum here is not the answer. If all of you self-identified Christians are so tired of having any of your beliefs questioned, there are any number of dedicated Christian forums on the Internet that are censored, I mean moderated, to keep out opposing viewpoints. Then you can all quote scripture and be happy.
(http://www.raptureready.com/imagehead/Atheism1.jpg)
Atheists are so opposed to anything linked to God that their hatred gets in the way of common sense. They pride themselves on being free of religious dogma yet they cling to one creed─“In death there is no hope.” It's not about having our beliefs questioned...it's the hate involved that I have a problem with. Maybe it has something to do with not having any hope that makes one subject others to their biased and prejudiced opinion over and over and over when we are only lending some inspiration to fellow Christians. Maybe not having hope makes some spend huge amounts of time focused on religion when they claim that they have no use for it. Constantly belittling and pointing the finger rather than just stating a view and moving on.
This is the exact point I've tried to make. Thanks for posting this.
You're very welcome! :)
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQQKzd2VGLmapxsZNCXDKbRv348yeUr7Djo6wjlcjcOKe3Fjd0)
I love these graphics,remediagirl. ;D Nicely done!
-
(http://i.imgur.com/fYoBl.jpg)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/5gqEV.jpg)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/pHuDt.png)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/dKiQO.png)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/pNwnu.jpg)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/pNwnu.jpg)
It's generally more logically-efficient and rational for a claimaint to prove their initial claim than to have a challenger disprove some specious claim. That's why the burden of proof is on the initial claimaint, (in this instance, on the dodging religious adherents who never provide such evidence to support their claim that the 'deity' they believe in, exists).
-
Why bang your heads against a wall at a site where it's clear that the moderators are not going to censor people who are not violating the rules? A sub-forum here is not the answer. If all of you self-identified Christians are so tired of having any of your beliefs questioned, there are any number of dedicated Christian forums on the Internet that are censored, I mean moderated, to keep out opposing viewpoints. Then you can all quote scripture and be happy.
(http://www.raptureready.com/imagehead/Atheism1.jpg)
Atheists are so opposed to anything linked to God that their hatred gets in the way of common sense. They pride themselves on being free of religious dogma yet they cling to one creed─“In death there is no hope.” It's not about having our beliefs questioned...it's the hate involved that I have a problem with. Maybe it has something to do with not having any hope that makes one subject others to their biased and prejudiced opinion over and over and over when we are only lending some inspiration to fellow Christians. Maybe not having hope makes some spend huge amounts of time focused on religion when they claim that they have no use for it. Constantly belittling and pointing the finger rather than just stating a view and moving on.
This is the exact point I've tried to make. Thanks for posting this.
You're very welcome! :)
The problem here is that you assume I'm an atheist because I don't agree with you wholeheartedly. Actually, I'm an ordained Christian minister who is simply embarrassed by self-identified Christians acting in ways that are fairly contrary to the Bible and common decency.
-
Why bang your heads against a wall at a site where it's clear that the moderators are not going to censor people who are not violating the rules? A sub-forum here is not the answer. If all of you self-identified Christians are so tired of having any of your beliefs questioned, there are any number of dedicated Christian forums on the Internet that are censored, I mean moderated, to keep out opposing viewpoints. Then you can all quote scripture and be happy.
Atheists are so opposed to anything linked to God that their hatred gets in the way of common sense. They pride themselves on being free of religious dogma yet they cling to one creed─“In death there is no hope.” It's not about having our beliefs questioned...it's the hate involved that I have a problem with. Maybe it has something to do with not having any hope that makes one subject others to their biased and prejudiced opinion over and over and over when we are only lending some inspiration to fellow Christians. Maybe not having hope makes some spend huge amounts of time focused on religion when they claim that they have no use for it. Constantly belittling and pointing the finger rather than just stating a view and moving on.
The problem here is that you assume I'm an atheist because I don't agree with you wholeheartedly. Actually, I'm an ordained Christian minister who is simply embarrassed by self-identified Christians acting in ways that are fairly contrary to the Bible and common decency.
This just in: the debate takes a surprise twist when it is revealed that a non-evangelizing xtian has rebuted evangelizing xtians at every turn. Your point about not agreeing is well-made; it isn't some 'pact' to "agree to disagree", it's a more of a contrast between rationality and irrationality.
Given that you're identifying as a xtian minister, doubtless some of the more strident religious adherents here will try to sway your opposing viewpoints through appeals to your belief system, (though I'm not implying in any way taht they can, I do have a question or two myself). How do you reconcile a religious belief which lacks an evidentiary basis with rationality, (which has a basis in reason)?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/bqOqm.jpg)
-
[-inane flame-]
Minus 666 points anytime a religious zealot uses an inane flame to troll instead of respond rationally.
-
[-inane flame-]
Minus 666 points anytime a religious zealot uses an inane flame to troll instead of respond rationally.
Minus 777 points anytime an atheistic zealot uses an inane flame picture or quote to troll instead of responding rationally. You do come up with some pretty good ideas sometimes!! ;D
-
Why bang your heads against a wall at a site where it's clear that the moderators are not going to censor people who are not violating the rules? A sub-forum here is not the answer. If all of you self-identified Christians are so tired of having any of your beliefs questioned, there are any number of dedicated Christian forums on the Internet that are censored, I mean moderated, to keep out opposing viewpoints. Then you can all quote scripture and be happy.
Atheists are so opposed to anything linked to God that their hatred gets in the way of common sense. They pride themselves on being free of religious dogma yet they cling to one creed─“In death there is no hope.” It's not about having our beliefs questioned...it's the hate involved that I have a problem with. Maybe it has something to do with not having any hope that makes one subject others to their biased and prejudiced opinion over and over and over when we are only lending some inspiration to fellow Christians. Maybe not having hope makes some spend huge amounts of time focused on religion when they claim that they have no use for it. Constantly belittling and pointing the finger rather than just stating a view and moving on.
The problem here is that you assume I'm an atheist because I don't agree with you wholeheartedly. Actually, I'm an ordained Christian minister who is simply embarrassed by self-identified Christians acting in ways that are fairly contrary to the Bible and common decency.
This just in: the debate takes a surprise twist when it is revealed that a non-evangelizing xtian has rebuted evangelizing xtians at every turn. Your point about not agreeing is well-made; it isn't some 'pact' to "agree to disagree", it's a more of a contrast between rationality and irrationality.
Given that you're identifying as a xtian minister, doubtless some of the more strident religious adherents here will try to sway your opposing viewpoints through appeals to your belief system, (though I'm not implying in any way taht they can, I do have a question or two myself). How do you reconcile a religious belief which lacks an evidentiary basis with rationality, (which has a basis in reason)?
Scientists who identify as Christians struggle with this issue constantly. I think in some sense there really is no reconciliation, ay least not one that satisfy you logically. It's one of those paradoxes that life is full of. We have two hemispheres in our brain-one loves reason and logic and the other likes color, music, poetry, and art. In most people, one is more dominant than the other. I'm either lucky or unlucky depending on your point of view
in having more balance than most people. I can function in a profession that requires me to use logic and reason to do research, write, and argue effectively on my clients' behalf.
At the same time, I can have religious beliefs that I will admit have no basis in either fact or logic. A lot of people can't live with that kind of paradox. For some reason, I can. Unlike most of the people here, I'm an esoteric Christian, not an exoteric Christian. I interpret the Bible symbolically and not as the literal word of God because it makes no sense to me whatsoever to interpret it literally. I don't think interpreting it symbolically lessens its value as a code of living. Heaven and hell are states of mind, not literal places. If I do something wrong, I did it. Satan did not "tempt" me or make me do. That kind of lack of responsibility is one of my biggest issues with many "Christians"
Sometimes I question my own beliefs. Since I do believe in God (or a Supreme Creator regardless of the name used), I like to exercise the reasoning capacity that I was born with and constantly re-examine my beliefs. If beliefs are worth living by, they should hold up to some scrutiny. If you go into a frenzy anytime someone points out an inconsistency or a flaw, then on some level, you are not that sure of them yourself. Those of you who get steamed at falcon9 should actually be glad that he's around to question your beliefs. If nothing else, he makes you try to articulate why you believe in what you believe. Try resist the urge to go along with the herd mentality and just gang up on him.
So I don't have a logical explanation that will really satisfy you, falcon9. All I can tell you is that there are Christians who actually think for themselves (even if we are in the minority). Some of us actually use words rather than pictures to convey our thoughts.
-
[-inane flame-]
Minus 666 points anytime a religious zealot uses an inane flame to troll instead of respond rationally.
Minus 777 points anytime an atheistic zealot uses an inane flame picture or quote to troll
Responses to trolling aren't necessarily trolling the initial troller in and of themselves, however. When a religious zealot spams multiple threads, multiple times, with the same/similar inane graphics intended to troll; they're trolling, (that hasn't been done by posters opposing religious superstitions).
-
[-inane flame-]
Minus 666 points anytime a religious zealot uses an inane flame to troll instead of respond rationally.
Minus 777 points anytime an atheistic zealot uses an inane flame picture or quote to troll
Responses to trolling aren't necessarily trolling the initial troller in and of themselves, however. When a religious zealot spams multiple threads, multiple times, with the same/similar inane graphics intended to troll; they're trolling, (that hasn't been done by posters opposing religious superstitions).
Sure it has, but that's okay if you don't want to admit it - we understand your different way of thinking, totally. ;)
-
Scientists who identify as Christians struggle with this issue constantly. I think in some sense there really is no reconciliation, ay least not one that satisfy you logically. It's one of those paradoxes that life is full of. We have two hemispheres in our brain-one loves reason and logic and the other likes color, music, poetry, and art. In most people, one is more dominant than the other. I'm either lucky or unlucky depending on your point of view in having more balance than most people. I can function in a profession that requires me to use logic and reason to do research, write, and argue effectively on my clients' behalf.
At the same time, I can have religious beliefs that I will admit have no basis in either fact or logic. A lot of people can't live with that kind of paradox. For some reason, I can. Unlike most of the people here, I'm an esoteric Christian, not an exoteric Christian. I interpret the Bible symbolically and not as the literal word of God because it makes no sense to me whatsoever to interpret it literally. I don't think interpreting it symbolically lessens its value as a code of living. Heaven and hell are states of mind, not literal places. If I do something wrong, I did it. Satan did not "tempt" me or make me do. That kind of lack of responsibility is one of my biggest issues with many "Christians".
That's an interesting viewpoint, though I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as "balanced", (still searching for a more apropos description ...). The point you raised about the lack of responsibility, (implicitly, palming it off on a supernatural cause), is one I'd agree with, as well as not taking metaphysical metaphors literally.
As far as the mutually-exclusive positions of logic and illogic; my view is that it's not a matter of "balance" per se but, a matter of switching selectively back and forth between them, (rather than holding mutually-exclusive viewpoints simultaneously). It's my further observation that we all tend to be both 'selectively' logical and illogical, depending on various parameters, (which will vary from person to person - some preferring to base such parameters on previous;y-held irrational persepectives and others, upon previously-held rational perspectives). Situational irrationality isn't exactly choosing to be illogical sometimes but, more of a 'mindset'. For instance, I've chosen to be illogical before however, I'd done so as a reasoned choice, (which I realize by now is not the most common way of thinking and usually not during a nominal 'debate').
Sometimes I question my own beliefs. Since I do believe in God (or a Supreme Creator regardless of the name used), I like to exercise the reasoning capacity that I was born with and constantly re-examine my beliefs. If beliefs are worth living by, they should hold up to some scrutiny. If you go into a frenzy anytime someone points out an inconsistency or a flaw, then on some level, you are not that sure of them yourself.
It's good to question assumptions, (especially your own), in order to reveal any inherent "flaws". Applying rational skepticism to religious beliefs is nominally problematic for a 'believer' because most tend to equate skepticism with a doubt which undermines "faith". There's an implicit dilemma in questioning 'a belief for which there is no evidence', (something lawyers normally concern themselves with as part of their job), and retaining a 'blind faith' unquestioningly.
Those of you who get steamed at falcon9 should actually be glad that he's around to question your beliefs. If nothing else, he makes you try to articulate why you believe in what you believe. Try resist the urge to go along with the herd mentality and just gang up on him.
A few have done as you've suggested and the remainder may be afraid of questioning their own "faith" or, simply aren't able to articulate any rational reasoning to support it, (there may be other reasons however, it seems those two are the predominate ones). Thusfar, no religious adherent has posited any actual reason, (as in logical line of reasoning, in lieu of 'rationales'), for their religious beliefs. They've tossed out several unsupported supernatural attributions, (unsupported by evidence themselves), as religious opinions but, no logical reasons. Some non-religious posters have speculated that this is due to there being no logical reasons for holding illogical superstitious beliefs.
Naturally, the 'believers' themselves speculate otherwise, but, not logically. Thus they've essentially held that they're illogical for illogical non-reasons. :o
So I don't have a logical explanation that will really satisfy you, falcon9. All I can tell you is that there are Christians who actually think for themselves (even if we are in the minority). Some of us actually use words rather than pictures to convey our thoughts.
I appreciate the refreshing difference in your approach, though. It may be that you are unable to articulate a logical explanation because, (as some have postulated), it's an 'experiential' thing. I disagree with such a postulation since it is possible to determine that being under water for an hour will cause drowning - without having to experience drowning before arriving logically at that conclusion. Similarly, it's possible to examine the illogic, (and any extant logic), in a religious belief. Before the 'flame-wars', that's what I arrived on FC doing and there are many lengthy discussions on these matters in the archives. What happened all too quickly was that the religious adherents reverting to 'bible thumping' when asked to produce substantive evidence, (and this was rejected on the basis of attempting to use unsupported hearsay/unsubstantiated religious claims to support religious claims - which is circular and not rational). If I, (or members who'be been here much longer than I), can recall those old threads for reference, that'll be done.
-
... we understand your different way of thinking, totally. ;)
I doubt that since your way, (irrational, illogical), is diametrically-opposed to rational thinking/logical reasoning.
-
Sorry not to get back with you on this sooner. Life interfered.
Scientists who identify as Christians struggle with this issue constantly. I think in some sense there really is no reconciliation, ay least not one that satisfy you logically. It's one of those paradoxes that life is full of. We have two hemispheres in our brain-one loves reason and logic and the other likes color, music, poetry, and art. In most people, one is more dominant than the other. I'm either lucky or unlucky depending on your point of view in having more balance than most people. I can function in a profession that requires me to use logic and reason to do research, write, and argue effectively on my clients' behalf.
At the same time, I can have religious beliefs that I will admit have no basis in either fact or logic. A lot of people can't live with that kind of paradox. For some reason, I can. Unlike most of the people here, I'm an esoteric Christian, not an exoteric Christian. I interpret the Bible symbolically and not as the literal word of God because it makes no sense to me whatsoever to interpret it literally. I don't think interpreting it symbolically lessens its value as a code of living. Heaven and hell are states of mind, not literal places. If I do something wrong, I did it. Satan did not "tempt" me or make me do. That kind of lack of responsibility is one of my biggest issues with many "Christians".
That's an interesting viewpoint, though I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as "balanced", (still searching for a more apropos description ...). The point you raised about the lack of responsibility, (implicitly, palming it off on a supernatural cause), is one I'd agree with, as well as not taking metaphysical metaphors literally.
As far as the mutually-exclusive positions of logic and illogic; my view is that it's not a matter of "balance" per se but, a matter of switching selectively back and forth between them, (rather than holding mutually-exclusive viewpoints simultaneously). It's my further observation that we all tend to be both 'selectively' logical and illogical, depending on various parameters, (which will vary from person to person - some preferring to base such parameters on previous;y-held irrational persepectives and others, upon previously-held rational perspectives). Situational irrationality isn't exactly choosing to be illogical sometimes but, more of a 'mindset'. For instance, I've chosen to be illogical before however, I'd done so as a reasoned choice, (which I realize by now is not the most common way of thinking and usually not during a nominal 'debate').
Sometimes I question my own beliefs. Since I do believe in God (or a Supreme Creator regardless of the name used), I like to exercise the reasoning capacity that I was born with and constantly re-examine my beliefs. If beliefs are worth living by, they should hold up to some scrutiny. If you go into a frenzy anytime someone points out an inconsistency or a flaw, then on some level, you are not that sure of them yourself.
It's good to question assumptions, (especially your own), in order to reveal any inherent "flaws". Applying rational skepticism to religious beliefs is nominally problematic for a 'believer' because most tend to equate skepticism with a doubt which undermines "faith". There's an implicit dilemma in questioning 'a belief for which there is no evidence', (something lawyers normally concern themselves with as part of their job), and retaining a 'blind faith' unquestioningly.
Those of you who get steamed at falcon9 should actually be glad that he's around to question your beliefs. If nothing else, he makes you try to articulate why you believe in what you believe. Try resist the urge to go along with the herd mentality and just gang up on him.
A few have done as you've suggested and the remainder may be afraid of questioning their own "faith" or, simply aren't able to articulate any rational reasoning to support it, (there may be other reasons however, it seems those two are the predominate ones). Thusfar, no religious adherent has posited any actual reason, (as in logical line of reasoning, in lieu of 'rationales'), for their religious beliefs. They've tossed out several unsupported supernatural attributions, (unsupported by evidence themselves), as religious opinions but, no logical reasons. Some non-religious posters have speculated that this is due to there being no logical reasons for holding illogical superstitious beliefs.
Naturally, the 'believers' themselves speculate otherwise, but, not logically. Thus they've essentially held that they're illogical for illogical non-reasons. :o
So I don't have a logical explanation that will really satisfy you, falcon9. All I can tell you is that there are Christians who actually think for themselves (even if we are in the minority). Some of us actually use words rather than pictures to convey our thoughts.
I appreciate the refreshing difference in your approach, though. It may be that you are unable to articulate a logical explanation because, (as some have postulated), it's an 'experiential' thing. I disagree with such a postulation since it is possible to determine that being under water for an hour will cause drowning - without having to experience drowning before arriving logically at that conclusion. Similarly, it's possible to examine the illogic, (and any extant logic), in a religious belief. Before the 'flame-wars', that's what I arrived on FC doing and there are many lengthy discussions on these matters in the archives. What happened all too quickly was that the religious adherents reverting to 'bible thumping' when asked to produce substantive evidence, (and this was rejected on the basis of attempting to use unsupported hearsay/unsubstantiated religious claims to support religious claims - which is circular and not rational). If I, (or members who'be been here much longer than I), can recall those old threads for reference, that'll be done.
I think I do make a conscious choice to hold what you regard as an irrational belief. If people are self-aware enough, they can choose to how they want to behave or react in a given situation. If they aren't self-aware, then they will react in a knee jerk fashion.
Yes, some part of it experiential. A number of things have happened in my life that are convincing to me. Trust me, I looked hard for rational explanations. Sometimes I even found them. But enough of these things occurred that went beyond mere coincidence or serendipity. I think at some point, either on this thread or another debate thread, another poster actually listed some experiences that she had that were sufficient proof for her at least of the existence or God or a supreme being. For her, those were truth, at least spiritual truth. Neither you or I had those experiences so neither of us can really address the validity or truth of them for another individual.
I am curious as to where intuition fits into your framework if it does at all. In other words, do you ever follow a "hunch" or a "gut feeling" that may not necessarily have a rational basis in deciding your actions?
If you can remember any of the old threads, I'd like to browse them sometime even if they are locked to further comment.
-
You're entitled to that. There should not be a debate about this.
-
Sorry not to get back with you on this sooner. Life interfered.
Scientists who identify as Christians struggle with this issue constantly. I think in some sense there really is no reconciliation, ay least not one that satisfy you logically. It's one of those paradoxes that life is full of. We have two hemispheres in our brain-one loves reason and logic and the other likes color, music, poetry, and art. In most people, one is more dominant than the other. I'm either lucky or unlucky depending on your point of view in having more balance than most people. I can function in a profession that requires me to use logic and reason to do research, write, and argue effectively on my clients' behalf.
At the same time, I can have religious beliefs that I will admit have no basis in either fact or logic. A lot of people can't live with that kind of paradox. For some reason, I can. Unlike most of the people here, I'm an esoteric Christian, not an exoteric Christian. I interpret the Bible symbolically and not as the literal word of God because it makes no sense to me whatsoever to interpret it literally. I don't think interpreting it symbolically lessens its value as a code of living. Heaven and hell are states of mind, not literal places. If I do something wrong, I did it. Satan did not "tempt" me or make me do. That kind of lack of responsibility is one of my biggest issues with many "Christians".
That's an interesting viewpoint, though I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as "balanced", (still searching for a more apropos description ...). The point you raised about the lack of responsibility, (implicitly, palming it off on a supernatural cause), is one I'd agree with, as well as not taking metaphysical metaphors literally.
As far as the mutually-exclusive positions of logic and illogic; my view is that it's not a matter of "balance" per se but, a matter of switching selectively back and forth between them, (rather than holding mutually-exclusive viewpoints simultaneously). It's my further observation that we all tend to be both 'selectively' logical and illogical, depending on various parameters, (which will vary from person to person - some preferring to base such parameters on previous;y-held irrational persepectives and others, upon previously-held rational perspectives). Situational irrationality isn't exactly choosing to be illogical sometimes but, more of a 'mindset'. For instance, I've chosen to be illogical before however, I'd done so as a reasoned choice, (which I realize by now is not the most common way of thinking and usually not during a nominal 'debate').
Sometimes I question my own beliefs. Since I do believe in God (or a Supreme Creator regardless of the name used), I like to exercise the reasoning capacity that I was born with and constantly re-examine my beliefs. If beliefs are worth living by, they should hold up to some scrutiny. If you go into a frenzy anytime someone points out an inconsistency or a flaw, then on some level, you are not that sure of them yourself.
It's good to question assumptions, (especially your own), in order to reveal any inherent "flaws". Applying rational skepticism to religious beliefs is nominally problematic for a 'believer' because most tend to equate skepticism with a doubt which undermines "faith". There's an implicit dilemma in questioning 'a belief for which there is no evidence', (something lawyers normally concern themselves with as part of their job), and retaining a 'blind faith' unquestioningly.
Those of you who get steamed at falcon9 should actually be glad that he's around to question your beliefs. If nothing else, he makes you try to articulate why you believe in what you believe. Try resist the urge to go along with the herd mentality and just gang up on him.
A few have done as you've suggested and the remainder may be afraid of questioning their own "faith" or, simply aren't able to articulate any rational reasoning to support it, (there may be other reasons however, it seems those two are the predominate ones). Thusfar, no religious adherent has posited any actual reason, (as in logical line of reasoning, in lieu of 'rationales'), for their religious beliefs. They've tossed out several unsupported supernatural attributions, (unsupported by evidence themselves), as religious opinions but, no logical reasons. Some non-religious posters have speculated that this is due to there being no logical reasons for holding illogical superstitious beliefs.
Naturally, the 'believers' themselves speculate otherwise, but, not logically. Thus they've essentially held that they're illogical for illogical non-reasons. :o
So I don't have a logical explanation that will really satisfy you, falcon9. All I can tell you is that there are Christians who actually think for themselves (even if we are in the minority). Some of us actually use words rather than pictures to convey our thoughts.
I appreciate the refreshing difference in your approach, though. It may be that you are unable to articulate a logical explanation because, (as some have postulated), it's an 'experiential' thing. I disagree with such a postulation since it is possible to determine that being under water for an hour will cause drowning - without having to experience drowning before arriving logically at that conclusion. Similarly, it's possible to examine the illogic, (and any extant logic), in a religious belief. Before the 'flame-wars', that's what I arrived on FC doing and there are many lengthy discussions on these matters in the archives. What happened all too quickly was that the religious adherents reverting to 'bible thumping' when asked to produce substantive evidence, (and this was rejected on the basis of attempting to use unsupported hearsay/unsubstantiated religious claims to support religious claims - which is circular and not rational). If I, (or members who'be been here much longer than I), can recall those old threads for reference, that'll be done.
I think I do make a conscious choice to hold what you regard as an irrational belief. If people are self-aware enough, they can choose to how they want to behave or react in a given situation. If they aren't self-aware, then they will react in a knee jerk fashion.
Yes, some part of it experiential. A number of things have happened in my life that are convincing to me. Trust me, I looked hard for rational explanations. Sometimes I even found them. But enough of these things occurred that went beyond mere coincidence or serendipity. I think at some point, either on this thread or another debate thread, another poster actually listed some experiences that she had that were sufficient proof for her at least of the existence or God or a supreme being. For her, those were truth, at least spiritual truth. Neither you or I had those experiences so neither of us can really address the validity or truth of them for another individual.
I am curious as to where intuition fits into your framework if it does at all. In other words, do you ever follow a "hunch" or a "gut feeling" that may not necessarily have a rational basis in deciding your actions?
If you can remember any of the old threads, I'd like to browse them sometime even if they are locked to further comment.
I would like to thank you for your comments I highlighted in bold and underlined.
-
I think that you guys turned this suggestion thread into a debate and discussion. What do you think. I suggest maybe continue the conversation in the debate forum. Just a suggestion. Thanks :thumbsup:
-
Sorry not to get back with you on this sooner. Life interfered.
No need to apologize; reply as you can or wish, (presumably, life intereferes for everyone).
I think I do make a conscious choice to hold what you regard as an irrational belief. If people are self-aware enough, they can choose to how they want to behave or react in a given situation. If they aren't self-aware, then they will react in a knee jerk fashion.
'Oddly', if some are making the conscious decision to intentionally hold a superstitious belief for which there is no objective substantiating evidence, then they are choosing to be irrational, (since such a choice doesn't fall under the definition parameters of a "rational" choice). That's fine, as far as making a decision for/against rational logic and people are relatively-free to make such a choice. Pardon the implicit conclusion based upon the previous premise; which would be that a conscious choice to be irrational is unlikely to be a contributing aspect of self-awareness.
Yes, some part of it experiential. A number of things have happened in my life that are convincing to me. Trust me, I looked hard for rational explanations. Sometimes I even found them. But enough of these things occurred that went beyond mere coincidence or serendipity.
Actually, you are contending that such vague, (and subjective), expereiences are being interpreted as going "beyond mere coincidence or serendipity", (note that under the burden of proof obligation for making that initial claim, I could await supporting evidence or, move on after countering that such an assertion remains unsubstantiated and basing one unsubstantiation upon another is a logical fallacy).
I think at some point, either on this thread or another debate thread, another poster actually listed some experiences that she had that were sufficient proof for her at least of the existence or God or a supreme being. For her, those were truth, at least spiritual truth. Neither you or I had those experiences so neither of us can really address the validity or truth of them for another individual.
Those would be considered as unsubstantiated hearsay, would they not? The validity or veracity of 'testimony' can be subjected to examination by reason/logic in that, if any logical internal inconsistancies, (or lies), mutually-exclusive assertions or, obscuring vagueness are revealed by that 'testimony', the witnesses' veracity falls into question/doubt.
I am curious as to where intuition fits into your framework if it does at all. In other words, do you ever follow a "hunch" or a "gut feeling" that may not necessarily have a rational basis in deciding your actions?
No, since such "hunches", "gut feelings" or "intuitions" turn out to be cues not noticed consciously but, processed subconsciously, (and since the conscious mind isn't nominally aware of the underlying logical processing, it interprets the 'sudden' conclusion as an intuitive gut feeling hunch). There is significant hard evidence in support of such a contention and I'd be glad to provide it, (unless others look it up before then), in exchange for your supporting non-ambiguous evidence in regards to 'spiritual experientialism'.
If you can remember any of the old threads, I'd like to browse them sometime even if they are locked to further comment.
Ack; well, using the search feature and typing in such parameters as "religious belief burden of proof blind faith", etc. yields interesting results, (I wouldn't want to pick only the threads/post where religious adherents' contentions are refuted by non-religious logic, nor would it be equitable to present only those posts where religious adherents are evangelizing unopposed). That said, maybe I can find an 'even' cross-section.
-
I think that you guys turned this suggestion thread into a debate and discussion. What do you think. I suggest maybe continue the conversation in the debate forum. Just a suggestion. Thanks :thumbsup:
In a rare cosmic coincidence; I agree - it's now a D&D thread.
-
Do we need to notify a moderator and asked that it be moved then? Or do they monitor the threads on a regular basis? I'll refrain from further comment until I know the proper protocol since I'm the relative newbie here.
-
Do we need to notify a moderator and asked that it be moved then? Or do they monitor the threads on a regular basis? I'll refrain from further comment until I know the proper protocol since I'm the relative newbie here.
Threads are monitored by moderators on a regular basis and sometimes they'll move a thread to a more appropriate forum however, this thread does appear in the Debate & Discuss subforum of Off Topic too, (since the discussion is currently unrelated to the Suggestions forum).
esoteric xtianity (was Re: Subforum suggestion) (http://esoteric xtianity (was Re: Subforum suggestion))