I screwed that up. Read the following:
I agree, MommaAngel that you have been treating us atheists much better than we have been treating you. But has it occured to you that we are not just aggressing against you personally? (actually you are a very nice, actually sweet, person); we are, I think, aggressing against the institution that your ideas and values represent. Christianity holds us to be "sinners" (a notion christians made up, not a reality like that of an "apple"), and it would--forcibly if it could--form a society in which our institutions, our forms of entertainment, education, marriage, etc. etc. would conform to Christianity's fundamentalist ideas and ideals. That is much more offensive than anything Wilson can say.
Well maybe not in the case of Wilson.
JLNobody wrote:I agree, MommaAngel that you have been treating us atheists much better than we have been treating you. But has it occured to you that we are not just aggressing against you personally? (actually you are a very nice, actually sweet, person); we are, I think, aggressing against the institution that your ideas and values represent. Christianity holds us to be "sinners" (a notion christians made up, not a reality like that of an "apple"), and it would form a society in which our institutions, our forms of entertainment, education, marriage, etc. etc. would conform to its ideas and ideals. That is much more offensive than anything Wilson can say.
Well maybe not in the case of Wilson.
JLNobody,
If I may just say. It is not atheists who are sinners. We are ALL sinners. Christians are not excempt from sin and, in fact, have to work harder than anybody else to overcome it. It is not our place to label anybody but ourselves as sinners. Some may do that, but who are they to judge. We have to look at ourselves first.
A certain christian parable about a log and an eye comes to mind...
Doktor S wrote:A certain christian parable about a log and an eye comes to mind...
You are, apparently, referring to someone as a hypocrite. Care to share?
A secondary point, Intrepid. You would still impose your doctrinal values into our secular lives. Or would you permit science to study the actual nature of biological change and permit gays to marry?
Actually, I was agreeing with you.
No implications of hyppocracy, just that it is better to deal with ones own problems/issues before addressing someone elses.
At least that's what /I/ got from that jesusism.
JLNobody,
Just because one does not agree with what you believe does not make them wrong. If it does, you set yourself to always be right and therefore totally close minded, don't you?
Intrepid lives in Canada. :wink: Gays can marry there.
JLNobody wrote:A secondary point, Intrepid. You would still impose your doctrinal values into our secular lives. Or would you permit science to study the actual nature of biological change and permit gays to marry?
I, personally, do not feel that anything should be imposed on anybody. I would prefer that church and state be separate. I am not against science. Actually, I find it quite fascinating. I can have my believe in creationism, but still accept that evolution plays a part. As regards to gay marriage, I have said before. I have absolutely no problem with someone who is gay. I accept them as they are. I may not condone their lifestyle, but neither do I condemn it. I know some gay people and I afford them the same courtesy and respect that I afford anyone. They are as welcome into my home as anybody else. I do not hold a prejudice against anyone. If the laws permit gays to marry, then I would not go against that law. On the other hand, I still feel that the institution of marriage was created for man and woman.
I was thinking about this in the shower and had come a way of thinking similar to JL's post above.
I am a person who is slow to anger. I let go of my anger quickly, as well. But, I feel like I've been cornered lately.
Here in MA we generally don't talk to people about religion because, first it's a private issue, and second it's not really a polite topic of convo because it can be so inflamatory. I don't even know what beliefs my apartment mates have (well, I do generally), we don't talk about it.
Now, a2k is a world unto it's own. It's a place to talk about things one may or may not talk about in their daily business. But, the topic of religion (and that of politics) is still a hot one.
I have bitten my tongue, refrained from comment, turned away from distatseful threads for months now. But, these latest, contentious threads have been too much - the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
I heartily agree with JL, that Momma is a sweet person (I like you!). I like Husker. I don't know too much about the other posters in S&R. But, as SQuinney said on one of the other threads, we are getting this crap shoved in our faces from all directions and for many years now. I, for one, am too fed up with it anymore to continue to bite my tongue.
Doktor S wrote:Actually, I was agreeing with you.
No implications of hyppocracy, just that it is better to deal with ones own problems/issues before addressing someone elses.
At least that's what /I/ got from that jesusism.
Thanks for the clarification.
littlek,
I like you too. And I understand what you are saying. With all due respect littlek, if you don't like "this stuff" why hang out in thie S&R Forum at all?
I generally don't. I was pulled into the whole pray for our troops thread more for it's politicalness than for it's religiousness. And, I stayed because, though things got out of control, I thought good points were being raised.
Aaaandddd. Because the religious right seems to be taking over my own little piece of the world, it doesn't seem wise to ignore it entirely anymore.
Doktor S wrote:Actually, I was agreeing with you.
No implications of hyppocracy, just that it is better to deal with ones own problems/issues before addressing someone elses.
At least that's what /I/ got from that jesusism.
Your right Dok. It is always easier to see faults in others than in ourselves. No one likes to think of themselves as being wrong or needing to improve. This takes a humble nature.
The nature mankind gravitates to is one of pride. This is true of ALL people and even though it may 'feel' right......it more times than not works against us.
Momma Angel wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Momma Angel wrote:Why is it that...If it gives you license to treat others any way you deem justifiable, you can keep it. As for me and mine, we will serve the Lord.
Yet you can't show a shred of evidence to support your contention that he exists. Not rational.
Your side truly needs a new script. I do not require proof of God. I have faith. I am sorry you cannot or do not understand the concept.
I understand that accepting a particular model of the universe based on faith has a 50% chance of producing an incorrect answer. I may have faith that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't make it true. Deciding what is true by evidence and logic works. Deciding what is true by having faith will produce correct answers only by coincidence. You are not free to simply define having faith as a method that yields correct conclusions, because any lab test will show that it's a method which does not yield correct conclusions. I may say, "I require no proof that the Earth is round. My test is whether or not my knee aches when I think about a proposition, and my knee never aches when I think about a flat Earth, therefore, I know it is true," but that simply makes me a fool.
Brandon9000 wrote:I understand that accepting a particular model of the universe based on faith has a 50% chance of producing an incorrect answer.
I'd say 50% chance is too high a figure, because the current religions are what we have thought up of. As Pastafarianism and the other mock religions show us, there are other possible models based on "faith" that can be conjured up in the mind and could potentially be equally as true as the mainstream religions.
Re: It's time you realised where we're coming from
Wilso wrote:Atheists that is. We see religion as making as much sense as Alice in Wonderland. It's 2006, and we still see people placing faith in their imaginary friend in the sky. I find it absolutely incomprehensible that a rational human being could possibly believe in an omnipotent, all knowing, all seeing being. My opinion sways between seeing religionists as needing education and counselling, to needing heavy medication and to be locked in a padded room where they can't do any damage.
They are an odd lot alright. Sadly a lot of them are force fed this stuff from youth, and of course we have the huge mega-profit-making multinational churches, TV evangelists etc.
They are not taught to think for themselves, they are taught the exact opposite; that you must follow thier arbitrary dogma.
JLNobody wrote:I couldn't make some changes, so I repeat with changes my previous post.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said; but I'm not sure you realize that what I said was not what I meant.
