1
   

It's time you realised where we're coming from

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 09:56 pm
Chumly wrote:
An apt demonstration of the workings of a religious mind Smile

Chumly,

Until I just read that post, I was going to really try to answer you differently than I did. However, after this, forget it.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 11:31 pm
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.


*yawn* same ol' same ol'

Wilso starts another 'I think Christians are (insert perjorative)' thread.

Oh look he's using the royal 'we'. Could be interesting.

Nah.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2006 05:16 am
Ok the non-religious mind is superior (in the minds of the non religious) to the fairy tale believing nutcakes of faith.

I fail to see how that even matters. We can't make ourselves appealing to all mankind.....so what's the point.

I'm a person who believes in Jesus. If that makes me look like an idiot to someone......who are they? Just another person....somewhere with a different view.

You can get man's views on these matters from billions of sources.

I have a question:

How do you all think the current uses, tools and knowledge of the sciences could be viewed in hundreds or thousands of years from now....even farther.

Could they end up being viewed as extremely primitive, foolish, and considered being from the "dark ages" or "stone age" of science?

People might even say......look how ignorant mankind was then with their infantile understanding of science and the universe!

No? It's impossible right?

I think not. People are so 'headstrong' and so full of pride it borders insanity sometimes.

Who gives a rat's ass whether wilso is able to comprehend anything. Since he is unable to comprehend something....it must be those he is unable to comprehend that are in need of help.....not him. For we all know he can comprehend all that is right in the universe.

But, hey...what do I know? I'm just some guy.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2006 06:02 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Chumly wrote:
An apt demonstration of the workings of a religious mind Smile

Chumly,

Until I just read that post, I was going to really try to answer you differently than I did. However, after this, forget it.


You owe him no answer....you owe him nothing....you never did.

He only seeks to ridicule and mock. If God wants to handle this guy....he will have him.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2006 07:14 am
bm
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2006 12:47 pm
Re: It's time you realised where we're coming from
real life wrote:
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.


*yawn* same ol' same ol'

Wilso starts another 'I think Christians are (insert perjorative)' thread.


You are indulging a specific paranoia . . . Wilso did not specifically mention christians. You really shouldn't berate someone else because of your poor reading skills.

Quote:
Oh look he's using the royal 'we'. Could be interesting.

Nah.


That is referred to as the royal pejorative, and this is not a case which applies--he does not speak for a nation, he simply takes it upon himself to speak for all atheists. One might accuse him of hubris, but not of having used the royal pejorative.

Same old same old . . .
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2006 02:22 pm
Bartikus wrote:
Ok the non-religious mind is superior (in the minds of the non religious) to the fairy tale believing nutcakes of faith.

I fail to see how that even matters. We can't make ourselves appealing to all mankind.....so what's the point.

I'm a person who believes in Jesus. If that makes me look like an idiot to someone......who are they? Just another person....somewhere with a different view.

You can get man's views on these matters from billions of sources.

I have a question:

How do you all think the current uses, tools and knowledge of the sciences could be viewed in hundreds or thousands of years from now....even farther.

Could they end up being viewed as extremely primitive, foolish, and considered being from the "dark ages" or "stone age" of science?

People might even say......look how ignorant mankind was then with their infantile understanding of science and the universe!

No? It's impossible right?

I think not. People are so 'headstrong' and so full of pride it borders insanity sometimes.

Who gives a rat's ass whether wilso is able to comprehend anything. Since he is unable to comprehend something....it must be those he is unable to comprehend that are in need of help.....not him. For we all know he can comprehend all that is right in the universe.

But, hey...what do I know? I'm just some guy.



Very likely indeed....

How does that further any support of religion?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2006 02:37 pm
personally, i think that the most serious attack on christianity (as in walking the path of the christ), has come from within the faith's own body.

pope urban's crusade and those that followed, torqumada, mary queen of scots, the spanish mission network, cotton mather, witch trials, the temperance league, the "christian" underpinning of the kkk, ernest angsley, pat robertson, jerry falwell, bob jones, robert tilton ( Rolling Eyes ) randall terry, eric rudolph, roy moore, pedophile priests, and george bush jr. have not done a lot to help you guy's in the image department. and that's just a few of the leaders.

some of the deacons and lay people are pretty over the top as well. an example;

my folks live in a small east tennessee town. my father is a freemason and a shriner. he travelled extensively in his career, but since retiring 20 years ago, he has spent the bulk of his time in doing "good works", with his masonic brothers. this has included a variety of "drives" for funds supporting children's hospitals, new shoes and clothing for the poor as well as councilling men with any one or combination of social problems like alcoholism, violence and depression. he has never asked for or received a penny for his efforts. and he would never accept it being forced into his hand.

also, he is a lifelong christian.

of course, in the area where they live, evangelism is pretty big, and they frequently have someone knocking at the door with "the good news".

on one such occassion, (knock, knock knock!), my pop was engaged by a local deacon and his, uhhh, deacon in training or whatever. it was a short conversation but it went sort of like;

"hello sir, we are visiting homes to bring you the words of jesus christ".

dad says, "well, you're a little late there, friend."

the fellow says "are you a christian?"

pop says, "yes, i am. always have been".

then the guy got kind of all stood up and asked him, " have you been born again?".

dad; "no, i got it right the first time.. <wink> ". (dad has a sense of humor, ya see..)

the fellow looks him dead in the eye and says; "huh! you're no christian!" and stomps off with mini-deacon in tow.

now imagine how that came across to the old man. add to that the constant yowlings of some nutjob minister down in chattanooga about how evil freemasons are.

and let us not forget the whining from self interested dudes at fox etc. "the secular war on christianity" ?? "the secular liberal war on christmas" ??

please...

most of the numbers i've seen indicate that only a small percentage of christians are the rabid, theocracy happy, strong arm types that i've described here.

but mainstream christians are letting them get away with appearing to be the representitives of your whole faith in america.

surely you must see the difference between a solid christian leader such as the reverend billy graham and the partisan foolishness of his son, franklin ? it's day and night, man.

i have great respect for one of our local christian ministers, robert shuller. i have never heard him utter a harsh word towards anyone.

conversely, i've never heard jerry falwell utter anything but condemnation and pompous self agrandisements at anyone unfortunate enough to be within earshot of his braying.
--------

look, i disagree with wilso's characterization that all people of faith, and all religion is totally bogus. in it's best form, spiritual faith can do much to alleviate the suffering we all encounter in our lives.

it's when zealots like the christian ott'ers i've mentioned hijack your megaphone and get into everybody's face, and you do nothing but "back the team", that you lose my support.

imho, christianity isn't about teaching i.d. in science classes, insisting that everyone consult jesus over even the most mundane task or even that everyone must say "merry christmas" instead of "happy holidays".

to me, it's more about understanding christ's message than the words themselves and taking responsibility for yourself to walk that path in your daily life without anyone else's validation.

in other words, if you really have a faith that is strong, you carry it with you everyday, in or out of church, and should have no need to splash it all over everyone else or to control every bit of information, the government or insist that when i pledge allegiance to my country, that i swear fealty to your god.

that's where i'm coming from, anyway... Idea
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2006 03:57 pm
Wilso wants theists to know where atheists are coming from.

Prior to 9/11 and European incidents of suicide bombings I would have said that we were coming from a position of bemused disinterested tolerance. Now the situation has changed because the claim is that "moderate theism" has paved the way for extremism. Tolerance is changing to alarm.

Theists who think nothing has changed have their heads in the sand. Our former "freedoms" have been curtailed by stringent security procedures and our economies are threatened by concomitant insecurities of essential supplies.

Now it may be that certain sociological forces are in play which are a direct result of global communications drawing us towards centralization, and we are witnessing a backlash involving polarization of tribal groupings with vested interests in parochial traditions. If so, any greater degree of theist-atheist divide could be a reflection of the degree of such polarizing forces. But whatever the "explanation" of the persistence of theism into the 21st century we can no longer assume "freedom of belief" is a personal or local issue.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2006 06:27 pm
Fresco, unfortunately your assessment is correct.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2006 06:37 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Neo, do you mean what you're saying now?
Sorry to have waited so long. I have other diversions. For the record, this is what I posted:
neo, about 2 days ago wrote:
I find the atheist and agnostic positions to be wholly understandable and much more substantive in logic than the drivel posted by many believers. After all, the history of religion is crammed with the psychopathic excesses of power hungry clergy.

But who keeps the robe on the back of the cleric? Is it not the politician who depends on the popular superstition to maintain order and deliver his soldiers to the front?

The smartest politician would be the atheist who keeps his religious mouth shut.
I keep returning to one of my favorite all time quotes:
Denis Diderot wrote:
Mankind will never truly be free until the last king has been strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
In spite of all this, I'm still a fervent believer.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2006 06:40 pm
Good post, DTOM.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2006 06:40 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Chumly wrote:
An apt demonstration of the workings of a religious mind Smile

Chumly,

Until I just read that post, I was going to really try to answer you differently than I did. However, after this, forget it.
A little dry humor, you can tease me if you want!
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 12:15 am
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.


And that is the crux of the biscuit right there in a pea pod "I find it absolutely incomprehensible that a rational human being could possibly believe in an omnipotent, all knowing, all seeing being".

Rationality is not an inherent and consistent function of the human condition - so what else is new?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 12:20 am
Chumly,

It might also be said that "I find it absolutely incomprehensible that a rational human being could not possibly believe in an......." But, I don't. We just have differing views.

Doesn't make either one of us less than or more than the other.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 12:30 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Chumly,

It might also be said that "I find it absolutely incomprehensible that a rational human being could not possibly believe in an......." But, I don't. We just have differing views.

Doesn't make either one of us less than or more than the other.
Emotionalism, idealism, spirituality, superstition, religiosity, shoe fashions, dogs as pets, cigarettes, none of which bow down to rationality
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 12:32 am
Now wait just a minute there Chumly! You cannot tell me that shoe fashion is irrational! OMG! How could you say such a thing? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 12:34 am
rationality

n 1: the state of having good sense and sound judgment; "his rationality may have been impaired"; "he had to rely less on reason than on rousing their emotions" [syn: reason, reasonableness] 2: the quality of being consistent with or based on logic [syn: rationalness]
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 12:40 am
Life would be pretty boring if we based it solely on rationality, OTOH life would be woefully inadequate if we abandoned rationality. I don't see how art can be circumscribed within the confines of rationality alone for example.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 09:51 am
Chumly,

I do understand what you are saying. I just had to throw that thing in about the shoes. It's a woman thing!

If everyone were completely rational it would probably be a pretty dull world. I am sure A2K would be a lot more boring.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 08:05:58