When has religion irked you personally and why?

Yup, it's the ole equate non-religion to religion simply on the basis that the non-religion is argued as 'religiously' (read vigorously).

Replace the belief in god with that of the hoeny aliens (who destroyed god way back in 89) and you'll see how fair a comparison it is.

Page 25 just appeared - and disappeared!

I think that is a very interesting statement, too, cav.

Seems by Craven's and bunny's responses that it has the making of a good debate. Personally, I think most of what maliagar says is bogus doublespeak, but if Craven likes indulging him, the debate room sounds like the perfect place. Hope he is game.

dlowan, Cav, everyone:


One of the things that is driving Maliagar nuts -- and probably causing him to act the way he is right now -- is the fact that he now realizes one of his most cherished "beliefs" has been shattered.

He honestly "believed" that the Catholic Church was aboveboard about explaining away troublesome passages from the Bible - in an holistic approach to interpretation.

But he was shown that the Church does not do anything of the sort; that the Church sweeps troublesome passages under the rug, so to speak - and makes no attempt at all to deal with them.

MY GUESS: He hasn't fully worked that out in his mind yet. He is still in deep denial on it. But the truth is a powerful force - and eventually it will work its way up from his lower consciousness to his consciousness.

Unfortunately, once a thing as structured as that belief goes - so much of the rest starts to crumble too. And that possibility must be mind-numbingly terrifying for Maliagar to deal with.

All I can hope is that when the awakening comes, he is not repairing a roof; helping move a piano up a flight of stairs; or defusing a bomb - because it is going to jolt him like he's never been jolted before.

I can also hope that all of you are charitable enough toward Maliagar to hope the same thing.

Well, you know what they say, one can criticize behaviour, but not the person. Annoyance at someone is never the same thing as unacceptance.

Cav, i think it is essential to all religionist to assert that others who do not subscribe to their particular beliefs nevertheless subscribe to some equivalent belief. This is why religionist see atheists as practicing a religion. Saddly, there are enough atheist who proseltyze and worship science to reinforce this belief by religionists. The only "acts of faith" in which i indulge are those predicated upon assumptions about the social contract. I believe that because of the consensual basis for traffic regulation, people will stop at red lights and stop signs. But i also know that there can be exceptions, and that a mistake in such a situation can be fatal, so i keep my eyes open.

My protestant grandmother made sure that i leaned the Baltimore catechism, and attended catholic instruction. But i questioned their story from the outset, at age five, because their actions did not match their story. As there was no religious content in my homelife, no one ever discussed with me my objections to the behavior of "The Brothers and Sisters of Charity," and, unchallenged, my opposition grew to the point that at age 13, i agreed to go through the confirmation ritual without making trouble, so long as it was understood that i would not thereafter willing participate in any religious ritual.

Absent a homebred religious component, my world view has always operated nicely without such a component, and religion rarely irks me on more than a philosophical basis, as it does not affect my daily life. As an atheist, i don't proseltyze, don't care if others believe what i know to be true, and feel no compulsion to defend my views. The religious have usually gotten that part of their make-up at home, when young and impressionable, and therefore make the mistaken assumption that it is part and parcel of human nature, and that one would feel a lack were it not present. Hence they ascribe to atheists and agnostics a religious fervor in their beliefs. As i have already noted, this is saddly too often the case, with atheists and agnostics out to prove the rectitude of their positions. And it may well be that these people have replaced religion in their lives with irreligion. All of those people whom i have known in my life who had no religious component in the home have not shown any inclination to supply themselves one in adulthood.

I gotta say that maliagar is a prime example of the insular, sophistic thinking which has dominated the RCC since the leadup to Vatican I and Vatican II, bringing about the current crisis of relevance which has rendered the institution the fastest shrinking religion on the planet. The expansion rate is now below the birthrate, and there is the very real prospect of another devastating schism, one likely to result in a North American Catholic Church, which will look on The Vatican much as the Brits today regard The Royal Family.

Meh, I agree. Each to their own. I don't think I ever believed in a god, and never felt any pressure to explain why, unless provoked by theists. I still don't feel compelled to do so, hence my being irked at being asked to by some. Belief of any sort is personal, and need not be explained or proven to anyone, IMO.

Setanta,

In some ways it's a paradox. The next step is to level accusations about proseltyzing about not proseltyzing and call that a religion too.

I suppose, although i don't proseltyze about not prosyletizing either (i think we're both spelling that wrong). Mostly, i just avoid the discussions altogether, and have mostly only discussed the topic on-line. I avoid religious threads here now, because of the stench from the smitten equine carcass--i only dropped in here after Cav explained to me Saturday night why he started this thread.

Well, yeah, it was supposed to be more of a sharing thing, something a bit different from the other religious debates, but hey...

Yes, we are both spelling it wrong, odd because when I saw your typo I made a mental note to avoid it.

I honestly don't think you do, in fact there are several people here who usually only say it once (e.g. roger, said it way back when and if you missed it so be it).

Thing is, when equating beliefs is made on a linguistical level (and associating religion with non-religion based on wordplay) we open up a word association game.

When I first became an atheist I was quiet about it. I had heard an anecdote about someone who'd lost their faith but didn't want to curse others to the same fate and I'd followed that reasoning.

Later on in my life I made efforts to campaign for the education of my brothers, sisters and peers and for a certain religious group to stop covering for pedophiles.

I have received letters urging me to "forgive them as Jesus would" and the group continues to protect the identities of pedophiles who molested girls I grew up with. Since then I have been far less vocal about the whole thing. I don't usually seek out religious discussion but when in one 'bear that teh opponent might beware of thee' and all.

As to the obnoxious nature of proselytizing I agree that it's equally obnoxious on either side. But I just don't go so far as to equate them as comparable beliefs.

I heard rumor that Maliagar and Kev are out having a party together.

I think what timber says about the decrease in the RCC is only part of it; they are also suffering the lack of people seeking priesthood - not a small problem. I also agree with Frank about maliagar's recognition that the RCC's interpretation of the bible may be troublesome as the basis for his faith in the church. I think maliagar will have many struggles ahead of him - if he's honest to himself.

I wish maliagar well - enlightenment, too.

maliagar is busy in a swan dive holding onto an umbrella full of holes.

nah maligar simply gave up in his effort to exorcise the unwashed masses.

Dammit! I bathed today! Don't you be a casting of your nasty nasturtiums HERE!

Yeah, caught his highwire act ... he ain't gone, just elsewhere. Presently, he can be found dangling over at: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=340375#340375 , his contributions there start with: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=342961#342961

When teaching evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve