I suppose the best way to start this blog is with a definition of "Faith" from Webster Dictionary. It reads:
(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Cutting to the chase: I am an atheist who is tired of religious people feeling like they have some sort of God-given right to rule over my life.
Another quote that comes to mind is, "Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits." --Dan Barker, former evangelist, author, critic
So what's my point? The bottom line here is that there is not any full proof to back up any of the over 100,000 different religions that exist in our world.
I'm tired of arguing with people who claim that the Bible is the end of any argument.
- The Bible was: written by men, you cannot prove that it was "God inspired."
- It's like a horrible game of telephone over thousands of years
- It has been translated by MEN from language to language
- Votes were taken as to what was going to be included in the Bible, left out, and edited accordingly
All of this, and yet people still try to back up their reasons for discrimination with the words of this book. TO ANY THINKING PERSON, this should be seen as PATHETIC logic and reasoning.
REMINDER: a definition of "Faith" from Webster Dictionary reads:
(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
The very fact that people feel that their one religion is better than others, without proof.
That they are better than others, without proof.
That they will be saved, and others will not, without proof.
That they can rule over other people's lives, without proof.
That they can discriminate and call names, without proof. (and no, don't try to argue that this is not what Jesus would want for an attitude from Christians. How the HELL can anyone know what he would want. Furthermore, prove that he was the son of God and yet God at the same time).
WITHOUT ANY PROOF, I AM DISADVANTAGED, HATED, DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.
If you can find a more cocky group of people, I should like to hear of it.
There are those Christians who believe such things, but can you concede that some Christians are generally good people who have no interest in running your life? Faith in a higher power doesn't necessarily mean that someone's going to automatically become ridiculously judgmental and angry.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
Those of you who know me and my trend in posting on this website probably know what I am most passionate about: Gay Rights and the harmful side-effects, or even direct problems caused by religion.
Nonwithstanding, put yourself in this position:
- you are homosexual
- you were raised being told you would go to hell for being gay
- you realize you are gay at the age of 12 (puberty)
- you become depressed and try to fight it off, pray it away, contemplate suicide
- you make it to age 18 and come out to some friends
- you lose some friends
- you come out to your parents at 19
- luckily they do not disown you *****VERY LUCKY******
- Your parents love you, but think you will go to hell
- You are called a faggot for holding hands in public, you are physically threatened, gay friends of yours have been beaten up for loving someone
- Priests on t.v. say that you can "change" but you cant
- Priests say that it's okay to be gay as long as you do not act on it
- You read a lot, you read the Bible a lot, you think a lot and realize that it's crazy to endorse one religion over the 100,000+ others and that feeling guilty for loving someone is simply stupid.
- You see that people cast votes that prevent you from having 1,200+ rights that straight married couples get
- You see that people think that marriage involves religion, when in fact, you can walk into city hall and sign papers, no priest, no church, no god necessary.
- Your life is regulated, judged, threatened, and considered an abomination by religious folks. They can legislate against your wishes for happiness.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
Wow. That really sucks. If I had to go through that, I'd probably be atheist , too. And just so you know, I definitely support gay rights, 100%. I hope that people will see that gay couples deserve the same rights and respect as other couples. Hopefully within the next four years, this will happen.
I am a total proponent of allowing gays all the rights afforded to everyone else. However, I acknowledge that simply having faith in God and Jesus doesn't automatically mean that someone's going to be anti-gay, prejudicial, unreasonable, and cruel.
I'm trying to get you to look critically at this post and at the underlying feeling that faith is bad and will only make someone worse rather than better. Usually, people don't start out accepting and loving and then find religion and become prejudiced. They use religion as an excuse...it's an excuse for their feelings, not a cause.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
They use religion as an excuse...it's an excuse for their feelings, not a cause.
Very often, I think this is the case. However, I also have to point out religious indoctrination, especially at a very young age, can indeed and often is a very real cause for prejudicial feelings. Anecdotally, I know quite a few people who were taught by their churches to be extremely prejudiced against certain groups (like gays, blacks and jews). And, I know a quite a few people (mostly the same ones) who eventually abandoned their religious beliefs specifically to escape the systemic ignorance that those beliefs entailed.
For example, it is difficult for me to accept that the common christian prejudice against gay people is not based at least in part on the teachings of that religion, when the "holy book" of that religion states, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13) You can take a turd and put it in a nice box, wrap in up in colorful paper and stick a pretty bow on top, but when you open it up it will still smell like $#!%. And as long as that verse (and a few others that I can think of) are being taught to children in Sunday School classes each week, I really won't be able to buy the argument that the religion isn't playing a significant part in shaping the homophobic attitudes that are so common in members of the christian church.
Again, I do think that very often people DO use their religions as an excuse to act out on their fellow humans, but I think that these belief systems play a very significant part not only in excusing that tendency, but also in promoting it through their teachings.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
There are churches and Chrisitans out there who teach their children that God wants them to be intolerant and to hate certain groups. The Bible has a lot of things in it that are very intolerant. Others that come to mind are the verses that tell us to stone adulterers to death and so forth.
Nevertheless, my point is that it's not any better for us to make assumptions about those who are Christians, saying that they're irrational people or prejudiced because they are Christians. And it's still people who are teaching these things, people who were probably prejudiced to begin with. I used to go to a church that taught nothing but the loving principles espoused by Christianity and my mother reinforced those beliefs. As a result, I am not prejudiced even though I grew up in a Christian household. I was just trying to get some acknowledgement that these are individuals who are giving the religion a bad name, not all religious people.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
...but I think that it is important to remember that one needs to approach other individuals as individuals in one's personal dealings. But when one steps back and begins to examine social trends and group dynamics, it becomes apparent just how rare those exceptions can be.
For example, the vast majority of christians belong to denominations that discriminate systematically against gay people and women. The two largest christian denominations (orthodox and roman catholics) forbid women in the priesthood, and preach that gay people are "intrinsically evil" (to use the current pope's terminology).
I hear a lot of christians who feel compelled to defend themselves personally, because they don't want to be viewed as bigots, but when one actively and voluntarily belongs to such a denomination that advocates for discrimination (and I don't know what denomination YOU belong to, of course...would you mind telling us?), it is difficult to take such denials seriously.
As for the issue of rationality, the first and most basic assertion of christian belief is inherently irrational, i.e. the assertion that supernatural places and beings (for which there is absolutely no proof at all) actually exist. These people may be rational most of the time, but once they begin to discuss their religious beliefs, the discussion becomes inescapably irrational, due to the basic, anti-intellectual nature of the premises behind those beliefs.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
That's really all I wanted this blogger to concede: that not all Christians or people or faith are the same and you shouldn't judge someone based on their religious beliefs just like you shouldn't judge someone based on their skin color or sexual orientation.
Personally, I am a Buddhist. I converted about a year ago after some soul-searching in regards to the religion I grew up in. Mainly I was more uncomfortable with the idea that the only reason to be good and kind to people is for some reward that may or may not come after you die. I also had a hard time dealing with many of the frustrating discussions I would get into with other Christians who would then call me a bad Christian because I didn't believe as they did. So, I completely understand where you're coming from.
My family, however, belongs to the Episcopalian denomination and I've always been very proud of our church. They were one of the first denominations to ordain women and we now have a female bishop in a leading position in our church. Even more impressive, in 2003 they elected the first openly gay priest into bishophood who had been in a monogamous relationship with another man for 13 years. They have another gay priest up for bishophood that was nominated in 2006 despite the fact that the Anglican Communion is threatening to cut us off from their organization (1).
They also are open to performing gay marriages, even for priests (2).
So I guess this is just what I'm trying to point out. It's not my defense I'm jumping to here, it's my family's defense and the defense of all the people who view religion as a personal experience that doesn't have to make one irrational or prejudice. My family, like me, see religion as something that should make one more loving, more kind, and just generally make them a better person and I believe it certainly has that potential.
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/nyregion/29church.html
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64490-2004May28.html
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
...for taking a small step towards actual equality within their local province, it is interesting to note that even within this extremely liberal denomination, that decision has cause a severe controversy throughout the Anglican Communion, both at home and abroad which demonstrates just how deep-seated these prejudices are. Gene Robinson is certainly a maverick (and in my opinion, a glutton for punishment), but the fact that he was dis-invited from this years Lambeth Conference demonstrates that discrimination still the rule, even for Anglicans.
As for Buddhism...if I HAD to pick a religion to follow (and thank goodness that I don't), I would probably pick Buddhism. Its a relatively low impact belief system, at least in as much as its focus in mostly inward, and its teaching about compassion seem sincere to me. But, even Budhism has its irrational elements, such as the belief in reincarnation, and various concepts of "gods" and "demons" (whom Siddhartha claimed to have seen) as well as other such silliness.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I think that the ECUSA's actions make them more laudable because they caused such controversy in its wider organization. I tend to think that most of the Pope's actions are more political than religious (though he does use the Bible base them on) but essentially he's looking to keep the followers he has.
Also, I must say that when I answered your question, I didn't expect to get into a conversation about whether my religion is rational or irrational; I thought we were talking about tolerance in Christianity rather than rationality. Since we're here, though, I feel I should address it, since it's exactly the attitude I'm talking about when I ask people to acknowledge that not all Christians are the same. The differences are even more prominent in Buddhism. As Buddhism is non-specific about deities or whether there is a higher power, it has absorbed the minor dieties of various cultures along the according to the country it's in. The Buddha himself was probably also subject to this as he was originally a Hindu, and for all we know, never renounced those gods.
Buddhism, specifically Zen Buddhism which is the sect I follow, doesn't teach its followers to worship any god or demon or even require them to believe that they exist. You can even be a Christian Buddhist or a Jewish Buddhist as long as you follow the Eightfold Path. That is all that is required to be a Buddhist. As far as reincarnation, Zen Buddhism teaches "rebirth" or returning to the whole, not necessarily that you'll come back as another person after you die.
And these are all things that every Buddhist has to decide to believe for him or her self. The Buddha himself told his followers to "be a light unto yourself" and to experience and see what is really there, not be tied to beliefs or rituals or thoughts. These are the teachings I strive to emulate, personally.
When I say that your assumptions are the attitude I'm talking about, this is what I mean: you assumed that I was my label. Just because I give myself a specific label to make conversation easier, it doesn't mean that I embody everything that has ever been thought or said or done in regards to that label. You were so eager to dismiss what I believed as irrational. What is the point in that? If someone's beliefs are not hurting you, why even bring up why you don't follow them? If you've noticed, I have defended Christians all over this site without a single reference to why I'm no longer one until I was asked specifically. I don't think it's relevant and your arguments about the ECUSA would still have been as effective, if not more so because I wouldn't have felt the need to correct you about my personal beliefs and probably would have let this conversation end with your comment.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
Also, I must say that when I answered your question, I didn't expect to get into a conversation about whether my religion is rational or irrational; I thought we were talking about tolerance in Christianity rather than rationality.
I think that the two are closely linked. One of the reasons that "tolerance" is such a difficult concept for most christians is that their religion doesn't provide them with any rational basis to support such a philosophy. The entire premise of the religion is based around the absolute acceptance of certain beliefs, despite the lack of and in some cases directly contradictory evidence to those beliefs. As there is no basis for those beliefs in reason, any and all interactions between a christian and a non-christian are built upon that fundamental irrationality. To use a metaphor with which you might be familiar, such relationships are like a house built upon the sand.
When I say that your assumptions are the attitude I'm talking about, this is what I mean: you assumed that I was my label. Just because I give myself a specific label to make conversation easier, it doesn't mean that I embody everything that has ever been thought or said or done in regards to that label.
I think this is a little disingenuous. The whole point of a labels is to describe in general terms the contents of the container it covers. When you presented yourself as a religious Buddhists, the labels you chose come with some pretty standard definitions. If you differ from those standards, then the label doesn't fit you...at least not fully. If falls to you to clarify when you deviate from the labels that you use. It isn't reasonable to expect others to know your specific quirks without some sort of explanation.
You were so eager to dismiss what I believed as irrational. What is the point in that? If someone's beliefs are not hurting you, why even bring up why you don't follow them?
If you are a Zen Buddhist, who practices that belief system in a religious manner, then what you believe IS irrational. It might not be AS irrational as SOME belief systems, but even Zen Buddhism (as that system of beliefs is commonly defined) includes a number of beliefs that refer supernatural elements (and which are therefore, inherently irrational). Typical Zen practices include the use of the Butsudan, a form of altar used to give offerings to the Bodhisattvas (the worship of supernatural beings). And the Bodhisattvas are themselves alleged to be "celestial beings" (angels) that assist practitioners to transcend Samsara (the reincarnation cycle / Heaven and Hell). Many of the Sutras and Mantras (prayers) that are used--even in Zen Buddhism--are designed as liturgical invocations of supernatural protection and aid. Likewise the concepts of Karma and Dharma (supernatural rewards and punishments) are still essential (and supernatural) elements of Zen. These beliefs may be more subtle than those found in religions like christianity, but many of the same irrational, supernatural elements are still present.
What is the point in that? If someone's beliefs are not hurting you, why even bring up why you don't follow them?
First of all, I would suggest that the idea that these beliefs don't harm people (sometimes me, sometimes people I care about), is a matter for another discussion, because in terms of whether these beliefs are rational or not, the question of whether or not you are "hurting me" is completely irrelevant. I don't seek the truth because I want people to stop hurting me. I seek the truth because I want to know the truth. Interestingly, I would also suggest that the suppression of the desire to think rationally and to discover the truth is one of the greatest harms that religion inflicts upon society.
But turning back to the question of terms of tolerance, I would also suggest that history has shown that true tolerance is at best a very rare commodity among religious adherents, except in the situations which I have previously described. And, considering that rarity, I am skeptical that when tolerance DOES sometimes exist within a religious community, that it is the religion and not some other source that is in fact the origin of that attitude.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"As there is no basis for those beliefs in reason, any and all interactions between a christian and a non-christian are built upon that fundamental irrationality."
Are you talking about interactions regarding religion or any interactions at all?
"If falls to you to clarify when you deviate from the labels that you use. It isn't reasonable to expect others to know your specific quirks without some sort of explanation."
My point was that you didn't ask me what I believed or if I believed those things. You assumed that I did, just as this blogger assumed that religion and religious people were all irrational. And wouldn't it take a lot longer to explain every nuance of my beliefs in answer to that question when I didn't think it would be a topic of discussion?
"in terms of whether these beliefs are rational or not, the question of whether or not you are "hurting me" is completely irrelevant. I don't seek the truth because I want people to stop hurting me. I seek the truth because I want to know the truth."
And other people seek the truth through other avenues, such as through religion. It is all a striving to have meaning in our lives, whether through science or religion. We might have to agree to disagree on this, because I think that criticizing something as personal as someone's religious beliefs or cultural traditions simply because you don't agree with them isn't the way to go. There are exceptions to this, of course, but I didn't think that this was one of them.
I think that it is personal beliefs that create tolerance out of intolerance in religion. Religion was created by humans and it is shaped by humans. I don't believe that it will ever go away, but I believe that individuals can shape it in such a way that it becomes less harmful to society and that religion can and does act as a catalyst for goodness in some individuals. People have misused their creation for so many centuries that it's all tangled up now and if there is a God, then we certainly don't know what he wants anymore. I just don't think it's a lost cause as long as there are good people out there who realize the basic differences between right and wrong.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
Are you talking about interactions regarding religion or any interactions at all?
Consider the context of the discussion. Any interaction in which religion plays a part is founded upon certain irrational premises. These premises often lead the adherents of religion to act in irrational ways. Those actions are not always aggressive or violent, but they are always irrational. Once cannot reach a rational conclusion though an irrational process.
My point was that you didn't ask me what I believed or if I believed those things. You assumed that I did, just as this blogger assumed that religion and religious people were all irrational. And wouldn't it take a lot longer to explain every nuance of my beliefs in answer to that question when I didn't think it would be a topic of discussion?
When you take a short cut, sometimes you get lost. I DID ask you about your beliefs. You told me that you were a buddhist, and later clarified that you were a zen buddhist. Those terms have meanings, and while one might deviate to some small degree from the beliefs commonly associated with those beliefs, one should be safe to assume that someone who identifies himself as a buddhist acutally holds to some and one would expect most of the beliefs that are associated by definition with those terms. If you do NOT hold to at least the core beliefs of buddhims, then you are not a buddhist. And if you do, then like all buddhists (and like all religious people), your beliefs are based on certain irrational premises.
And other people seek the truth through other avenues, such as through religion.
There is an old adage that says you should use the right tool for the right job. A system that relies of pure speculation and which abrogates any attempt to actually test and falsify the reality it supposes in NOT the right tool for seeking "truth." In fact, I would suggest that such systems seem diametrically opposed to that goal.
We might have to agree to disagree on this, because I think that criticizing something as personal as someone's religious beliefs or cultural traditions simply because you don't agree with them isn't the way to go.
Such is often the position of those who hold the weaker argument.
I think that it is personal beliefs that create tolerance out of intolerance in religion.
If that's true, then why not promote those personal beliefs, instead of the religion?
Religion was created by humans and it is shaped by humans.
Indeed. This I think is one of the greatest (and most tragic) ironies of the whole business.
I don't believe that it will ever go away,
We can only hope...
but I believe that individuals can shape it in such a way that it becomes less harmful to society and that religion can and does act as a catalyst for goodness in some individuals.
Making religion less harmful to society is better than doing nothing, I suppose.
People have misused their creation for so many centuries that it's all tangled up
And...BANG! There it is again...the subtle judgment that is the seed from which all religious intolerance grows. The basic assumption in this statement is that YOU know how "creation" SHOULD be used...otherwise, how would you know that it is being "misused?" This is only a very small step away from, "I will MAKE you use creation the way I know that 'god' wants us to."
now and if there is a God, then we certainly don't know what he wants anymore.
That's a pretty big "IF," don't you think? A rational person would start there...and try to resolve the "IF" before jumping to too many conclusions.
I just don't think it's a lost cause as long as there are good people out there who realize the basic differences between right and wrong.
I am remined of a quote...
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ~ Steven Weinberg
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
But religious people can be rational. Buddhist monks sometimes have orphanages attached to the monastary that they run. There are Christian homeless shelters and counseling programs that do a lot of good without necessarily pushing their religion (by which I mean they don't preach to anyone who doesn't want to listen). Churches like ECUS have rejected the hard line against certain groups and taken a more rational stance. These and many more personal interactions are the examples that keep me from lumping every religious person in with every other one.
"Why not promote those personal beliefs..."
I am promoting them by asking people to recognize that not all people who label themselves with a certain religion practice and believe the same way. It's those personal beliefs that keep someone from "group think" of all kinds, which is all organized religion is...people who want to be told what to think rather than do it for themselves.
"People have misued their creation for centuries..."
I'd just like to clarify this because looking back I can see why you misunderstood that sentence, it wasn't very clear. I wasn't talking about "Creation" in general, I was talking about people misusing the thing THEY created: religion. Since it is a human creation, I think I'm safe to say that I can see when people have misused it. For example, I most certainly know that using it for wars and bigotry is misuse.
As for "creation" in general, I really don't think anyONE made it, so I don't think there are any rules but common sense (ie don't pollute so much you can't breathe) guiding us.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
Buddhist monks sometimes have orphanages attached to the monastary that they run. There are Christian homeless shelters and counseling programs that do a lot of good
...and the things that you describe certainly show that. That you may find a "nice" religious person, however, does not make the core premises of their belief system any more rational. But, for the moment I will say "fair enough" to your point.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
You rule at life.
:)
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
I am so sorry for the way supposed godly people have treated you. I am not going to pretend that I know what you are going through or I have experienced even a fraction of the discrimination. I am so sorry for hateful people. Religion, not faith, gives people a sense of authority. I am person who has a lot of faith in the love of God, not the accepted discrimination of people.
I have to admit, I'm fairly impressed by your way of saying this. Though, I do know of a cockier group. Mostly my friends and I. We are fairly pretentious from time to time and love it. =P
All in all, I hear what you are saying loud and clear. A perfect example is my mother, a born again Christian that is trying like hell to save my soul. Granted, I appreciate the offer, but it is not needed from the likes of someone that changed religions from Wiccan to Christian in a few months to fit in with some new friends.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can't ignore me, for I'll not lie down quietly.
http://insanitek.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would first like to say something about your title. I am a Christian and I am a scientist. Science and religion do not have to contradict each other. I believe in evolution, and I believe in God.
Also, I do not believe that any religion is better than any other. I am Christian, but I am also a Democrat, because I do not believe in opposing my religious views upon others.
It seems to me that your post is extremely judgemental and prejudiced against Christians. I can tell you that I would never post something that had "Atheist" and "Stupidity" as tags, because I believe everyone has a right to their own opinions and beliefs.
So maybe this makes you more arrogant that I am.
So long as you do not take much of anything literally in the Bible, which is your faith's constitution... essentially, then I could see how you can be scientifically smart and not bogged down by ancient, re-used mythology.
I associate the stupidity with people who always think their religion must be right without having any backing to it. Hence, why I re-stated the definition of FAITH.
And, call me cocky for thinking so, but I don't think that anybody has it right. ESPECIALLY religions, but this group includes myself...
at least I can admit that I don't have the real answers (directed toward religious folk, not you...)
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
... I am a Christian and I am a scientist. Science and religion do not have to contradict each other. I believe in evolution, and I believe in God.
I am an atheist and a scientist.I disagree I think science and religion do contradict each other.
It seems to me that your post is extremely judgemental and prejudiced against Christians. I can tell you that I would never post something that had "Atheist" and "Stupidity" as tags, because I believe everyone has a right to their own opinions and beliefs.
So maybe this makes you more arrogant that I am.
This is an attitude I do not understand in a scientist. You are taking ThereWentTheWorld to task for not being respectful of an opinion that you do not seem to be willing to defend. No opinion should be given that type of respect. We will never get anywhere with that type or discourse.
What would you do if someone trashed your research in a journal? I would hope you wouldn't respond by saying that person is being arrogant. I would hope that you would present an argument defending your research and pointing out exactly where your antagonist was wrong and perhaps designing and doing critical experiments that distinguish between your and his hypotheses... or thanking the jerk for showing you where you were wrong.
Of course everyone has a right to their opinions. But they do not have the right to others to consider their opinions to have merit simply because they hold them. Frankly, holding the opinion that God magically impregnated a primitive virgin so he could have himself born into a backwater area of the civilized world in order to die a horrible earthly death to atone for sins that everybody commits ... even people who haven't been born yet ... enabling them to have a non-material and poorly-defined soul persist after death in some non-material paradise in glorious communion with God for eternity is ridiculous.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Hi. I read ur article and just thought you might like to read this link:
Logical Absolutes and God
http://www.carm.org/demo3/2_logic/absolutes-God.htm
This has to do with critical thinking. And if ur a student, I'm sure u can appreciate how important that is to deal with the world day by day.....Have a great day!
OK, this article presupposes everything. With that sort of logic, one can argue the truthfulness and delicate lies of everything. Read up on Plato. He was a master at this sort of thing. This lesson is only good for showing that by presupposing things one can come to the reasoned conclusion that they want. Good job on the illustration on Plato's use of logic, but bad for convincing anyone with logical, rational and clear thinking that this is correct.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can't ignore me, for I'll not lie down quietly.
http://insanitek.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By all means, defend your beliefs... We are all waiting.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
Defend my beliefs? This is difficult, but I believe in science over all. There are arguments for and against it, depending on what stance you take. So, I'm leaving it as belief is something personal. I believe in science because it is logical, solid (to me at least), and the concepts just make sense.
Granted, I'm not sure how to defend it other than, "You have your beliefs, I have mine. Let us chat amiably over a cup of tea." I have this argument with my mother daily as she is a born again Christian trying to save my soul. She means well, but we don't agree.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can't ignore me, for I'll not lie down quietly.
http://insanitek.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Can someone tell me if there are any other verses that say homosexuality should be avoided in the bible?
I want to say that the verse used by many Christians and denominations is taken from Leviticus which i believe was written for a very small population and perhaps a small thereatened population, so a rule like this makes more sense in this context. They wanted to expand the population and same sex relations would not help that along. Also it is funny that some use this verse as a reason to hate and emphasize it but hte same book has a rule against wearing a piece of clothing with 2 types of materials,,,,but who cares, lets just focus on the rule that was set out in a context very different from our own as a reason to discriminate against people who are different then us.
so yeah...i still dont think that the bible needs to be read literally but I do believe in God and Jesus is a really amazing example and path to God for me
Jesus' greatest commandments were to love, love God , ourselves and our neighbours as ourselves. So I really dolnt think Jesus would condone hating on or even trying to "change" gay people...acceptance and love my friends
I wrote articles on this:
http://progressiveu.org/192100-bible-never-condemns-homosexuality
http://progressiveu.org/202031-constitutionality-same-sex-marriage-bans
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
peace!
Any divide between revelation and rationality, religion and logic has to be irrational. If religion and rationality cannot walk hand in hand, there has to be something very wrong with either of two! ....................Discussed at length in:
=============================================
REVELATION, RATIONALITY, KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH
=============================================
CONTENTS: Historical perspective—Individual versus society—Islamic school of thought—European and Greek philosophy—Hinduism—Buddhism—Confucianism—Taoism—Zoroastrianism—The question of suffering—Secular viewpoints examined—The concept of God among Aborigines of Australia—The nature of revelation—Divine revelation and rationality—Belief in the unseen—A manifest principle—an everlasting teaching—The Quran and cosmology and E.T.—Entropy and the Finite universe—Origin of life—Different theories and propositions—The essential role of clay/photosynthesis in evolution—Survival by accident or design—and more—
It’s readable at http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/index.html
...then the first step, obviously, would be for you to produce some sort of actual, objective evidence which would indicate that to be the case. This, however, is a challenge that you cannot meet. The entire premise of religion--and yes I do mean ALL religions, without exception--is inherently irrational. A rational person examines the evidence and THEN arrives at a conclusion based on that evidence. Religion speaks from an imagined authority that precludes contrary conclusions, regardless of what the evidence might show.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
This discrimination will only go away when a larger amount of people will wake up, therefore things will get worse before they get any better.
Any worshipper around is in fact a warrior and each and any of them will pick up this role rather than to create an open mindset.
The structure they are a part of is an intelligent construction which does not allow space for thoughts other than the one they are being fed with.
To understand the trauma this involves is easy, one only needs to watch God TV in the living room in order to see where it is being inflicted upon.
Anyhow the egg is bursting, like once was believed the earth was flat, reason found its way to bring change, same will happen again.
Eventually, things will get better, much better!
Can’t help it - tangoterje
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnC1DojrN0o&feature=related
It is said,
Can’t help it - tangoterje