A Few Observations

[MarcAC]

Only within the confines of your imagination, if that's what you refer to as part of nature. For the rest of us, he is an invisible non-entity.

Hmmmm...

I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.

Was it a compliment Q?

I couldn't agree more...

Theist is to reality as Einstein is to physics.

 

[S.A.M.]

See it that way if you wish. Faith is open to criticism unlike persecuting a person based on the colour of their skin, sexual orientation or gender. Religious beliefs, as with taste in music are open to question. I criticise friends and family all the time for their taste in music, irrational belief in sky fairies or belief in Astrology.

If someone believes Jesus floated off into the sky or that there is a teapot circling the sun, I'm sorry, but they are open to ridicule and we should question their sanity. To stand by and 'respect' a persons beliefs - no matter how irrational - would be something to be offended about.

Do you not believe that everyone has the freedom to practise his or her faith?

And did someone put you in charge of deciding what everyone else in the world should or should not believe?

 

[MarcAC]

I disagree, your actions define who you are.

My beliefs are a basis for my actions.

 

[wsionynw]

My beliefs are a basis for my actions.

My point was that your beliefs do not define you as a person (to the outside world). If you choose to act upon your beliefs then that's up to you, but it will be the actions that define you, not the thoughts running around your head.

 

[KennyJC]

Do you not believe that everyone has the freedom to practise his or her faith?

Of course I do.

And did someone put you in charge of deciding what everyone else in the world should or should not believe?

No, but I do my best to try and make people see sense and learn to be rational.

 

[MarcAC]

See it that way if you wish.

We're all free to criticize and ridicule...

I usually look upon criticisms such as the typical, stereotypical "fanaticism, fairytale, what-not belief" with indifference (usually faling to respond except to have a laugh).

There is constructive criticism and ridicule... which is destructive criticism.

Destructive criticism is counter productive and exposes ill-informed, naiive, un(der)educatated, un(der)exposed, unproductive, lazy, and thoughtless individuals for who they are.

I have no reason to complain about that - effect your own undoing.

 

[S.A.M.]

Of course I do.

No, but I do my best to try and make people see sense and learn to be rational.

Your two statements show that your belief that people practice their faith is linked to a belief that you should "convert" them.

So what is the difference between you and a religious evangelist?

 

[MarcAC]

My point was that your beliefs do not define you as a person (to the outside world). If you choose to act upon your beliefs then that's up to you, but it will be the actions that define you, not the thoughts running around your head.

I think we're just blind men exploring the same elephant.

I get you.

 

[ggazoo]

Simply put - it is bullshit.

Had you prefixed " I think..." with the abouve statement, it would have more suited our political correct discssion. lol

A lot of people on here fault Chrsitians for not being educated. Well, it works both ways, beacuse of lot of athesists are uneducated as to why we believe.

It stinks to high heaven and people around the world who believe the collection of myths associated with an organised religion are not doing pleasant things in society. I was force-fed your bullshit religion at school and more was taught about Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve than things that could actually constitute a good education.

That reminds me a bit of the controvsery going on right on here in Canada. The controvsery is that Canadians have to adapt to how the immagrants live, not the other way around. Now, I'm all for immigration, but I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Canadians. However...... the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct! " crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.

Now what gets me about your point of view Kenny, is that Christianity, in your mind, is nothing but negative.

"We Stand On Guard For Thee" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women.......on Christian principles.............founded our nation..... and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home.

I have a hatred for the Christian right in America and the damage they are currently doing to our world via war, as well as fanatic Muslims who think it's ok to kill in defence of Islam. Aside from the damage religion does to politics, law, education, human rights, freedom and social health - the downright irrationality and lazy mindedness of it all is nothing short of pathetic.

"Muslims who think it's ok to kill in defence of Islam". That's the key line there. They think it's ok, but it's not. Religion isn't a reason to kill, it's an exuse. If not religion, they would find some other excuse. You can't fault religion for the choices of individuals.

 

[KennyJC]

We're all free to criticize and ridicule...

I usually look upon criticisms such as the typical, stereotypical "fanaticism, fairytale, what-not belief" with indifference (usually faling to respond except to have a laugh).

There is constructive criticism and ridicule... which is destructive criticism.

Destructive criticism is counter productive and exposes ill-informed, naiive, un(der)educatated, un(der)exposed, unproductive, lazy, and thoughtless individuals for who they are.

I have no reason to complain about that - effect your own undoing.

I hear you talking like this a lot, but never hear you actually explain why atheists (or anybody who criticizes your dubious religion) are all of the above. Is that because you can not do so without exposing the root of your obvious superstitious beliefs?

Reply with non-answers all you like, it's not fooling me.

A lot of people on here fault Chrsitians for not being educated. Well, it works both ways, beacuse of lot of athesists are uneducated as to why we believe.

I have already read your post that details why you believe, it is rather typical and similar to why people believe in bullshit concepts like Astrology.

Now what gets me about your point of view Kenny, is that Christianity, in your mind, is nothing but negative.

I already know this. But take a look at conservative American's and tell me that this is a good advert for Christianity. The teachings of Christ and the apparently sound morals of Christianity (ignoring the Old testament and parts of the New of course) are probably better adhered to by secularists.

It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home.

I live in a nation where nearly 50% of the population are atheist or non-religious. I'm happy where I am.

P.S. Please stop editing your posts while I am trying to reply to your origional one, it is annoying.

. Religion isn't a reason to kill, it's an exuse. If not religion, they would find some other excuse. You can't fault religion for the choices of individuals.

Ggazoo: It appears I know more about your religion than you do. I can point to many parts of the Bible to show you that it is perfectly ok to kill in defence of your religion. I would also not be hard pressed to do the same with the Quran.

So what is the difference between you and a religious evangelist?

Rationality.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

1. Obvious really but the USA is not the world. Many times what goes on there is extrapolated into what happens everywhere. This can be erroneous in the extreme! More of you need to get about more or at least admit that you have no experience of elsewhere.

Why do you care, who is your target audience, and why should they care?

2. Neither truth nor correct judgment are a function of numbers of believers. (You voted in Bush not once but twice and we in the UK have probably done things as (no perhaps not quite as) stupid).

Correct.

3. There are many variants of christainity in regard not only to practice but also some beliefs. Many (most) of these are outside of the USA - see 1. This implies that what you see of 'christians' in the USA may or may not necessarily apply elsewhere in the whole rest of the world.

Why do you care, who is your target audience, and why should they care?

4. Roman Catholic beliefs are based on tradition and scripture in that order (their defiinition). Whilst they are as entitled to their beliefs as the next man or woman, Roman Catholic theology should not be confused with scripture. They may not necessarily accord.

Ok.

5. The Southern Baptist Church has still not managed to get rid of the infiltration of freemasonry, because of the great strength of the latter and the number of freemasons in the church. This applies in part to the Church of England but the C of E official position is that christianity and freemasonry are incompatible. This is probably a far more serious threat than any anything to do with homosexuality.

IMO, religion's biggest threat is science because it will continue to find evidence falsifying the assertions of religion.

6. To an outsider, the US church seems strangely racially segregated. The white conservative wings seem to be very into the 'American Dream'. This is essentially based on the worship of money and is totally incompatible with christianity as espoused in the Bible.

If you mean racially segregated then you are quite correct and IMO it's the result of cultural segregation and the natural human disposition to avoid difference and embrace likeness.

7. The hatred shown soemtimes by some of these same conservatives towards homosexuals, those working in abortion clinics etc. is total anathema to any true evangelical bible believing christian. God loves everyone. His love is not withdrawn whatever you do and it is not for other people to pass judgement. It is even more wrong for them to hate people or hurt people just because they believe that they are doing wrong. This is not in accordance with christianity at all ('love your neighbour as yourself').

This might serve as a point of evidence contradicting your claim that 'God' exists. For such a 'perfect' life form, it's a lousy teacher, role model, and coach.

8. I have met some great US christians so clearly not all are like those in (7) above, but I do get the impression that there are rather too many in that category.

I'm sure the Xian you met had their own set of issues.

9. George Bush does not seem to represent a christian believer to me. In fact whatever his spiritual beliefs (probably none - I don't know) Michael Moore seems closer to the teachings of Jesus Christ than George Bush.

GB is not responsible for his actions. He believes he is doing 'God's will. That's what a true Xian believer does. They remove responsibility from their lives and accept accountability upon death.

10. Whatever goes on in the USA, almost all the christians that I know here are happy to socialise with agnostics, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or whatever. I get the impression that this is different in the USA.

It's not different in California.

11. It is possible to respect others beliefs without agreeing with them. You may also try to convert people in a nice way (by the good example of loving them). Yo cannot convert people with 'Hellfire and Damnation' speeches. People who try to use this method are sadly misguided.

It's possible when the belief's don't affect the non/other believer.

12. A very large number of christians I know are thinking intelligent people who can be very logical in their thinking. Conversely I know many atheists and agnostics who are not at all logical. The use of invective on this site by contributors against believers on the basis of their 'inate stupidity' demeans the contributors concerned. Rational logical argument does not consist of abuse and name calling however you may disagree with their view. On the contrary it indicates ignorance, bad manners and a lack of intellectual prowess to counter the argument.

The behaviors you don't seem to like exist and have been demonstrated by believers and non-believers alike. Bringing an ideal to a public forum is not likely going to change it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Rationality.

So you believe that all theists are irrational?

 

[Jenyar]

I can point to many parts of the Bible to show you that it is perfectly ok to kill in defence of your religion.

"... a time will come when anyone who kills you will think that by doing this he is serving God. People will do these things to you because they have not known either the Father or me." (John 16:2-3)​

The only way for someone to effectively defend his faith is to hold on to it even under the threat of death. Only physical kingdoms are defended by physical means. I think you will find it impossible to apply your texts to anything but a limited national jurisdiction (the way a constitution does). The principle might be universally valid: treason against God is a capital offense, but who will cast the first stone? We don't have that moral authority or legal jurisdiction.

Rom. 12:19-20
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink..."​

Take a survey of all countries around the globe and note how many countries who still practice or endorse religious persecution are Christian. Compare that with the ones that have made it state policy. In the instances where Christian states have in the past indulged and participated in such paradoxical political expansionism, they have never escaped condemnation from within Christianity itself, and have never survived that condemnation.

 

[MarcAC]

I hear you talking like this a lot, but never hear you actually explain why atheists (or anybody who criticizes your dubious religion) are all of the above. Is that because you can not do so without exposing the root of your obvious superstitious beliefs?

Reply with non-answers all you like, it's not fooling me.

We clearly are not on the same channels of communication.

My statement regarding constructive and destructive criticism was a general one - not applicable only to religion (and hence atheists).

It would expose nothing about my religion as compared to what it would expose concerning human nature.

You say to someone; "You are an ass..."

They hardly know you except that you display certain reactions to certain aspects of their character.

And that's all you say... what should the person think or feel?

Do you explain why they're an ass? Or why you think they're an ass? No...

You just say; "You're simply... an ass."

That's an example of an attempt at ridicule.

If you don't explain, what should the person conclude?

Maybe you just can't explain because your statement - you're an ass - is borne more out of some emotive reaction than anything rational.

Or maybe you can try to explain but you fear that once you start explaining then the person will have a chance to defend him/her- self and you might start looking like the ass instead... or you both look like asses... or it turns out no one is an ass...

Now:

Destructive criticism is counter productive: as illustrated above...

...and exposes ill-informed - don't know anything about the person

...naive - forms judgement without sufficient information

...un(der)educatated - has no(limited) concept of sharing knowledge to increase and improve knowledge

...un(der)exposed - locked away in a small cultural circle and doesn't know how to embrace something new

...unproductive - doesn't contribute anything to a discussion

...lazy - don't care to think about why they think the person as "simply an ass" until after they're asked

...thoughtless - don't think, just react

...for who they really are.

 

[KennyJC]

So you believe that all theists are irrational?

Of course I do. I have said this many times but it never gets directly addressed. If I was to write pages and pages of supernatural miracles quoted in religious text in the Quran and the Bible, I would be here all night... therefor, it must be assumed that people who believe pages of such "events" could only be described as irrational.

"... a time will come when anyone who kills you will think that by doing this he is serving God. People will do these things to you because they have not known either the Father or me." (John 16:2-3)

Thank you, Jenyar. You made my point perfectly - I can quote something in black and white which is clearly instructive, yet you can appear to post something that contradicts it within the very same book.

MarkAC: Please could we stick to discussing religion and not the laws of conversation. Once again you reply with nothing that addresses your own superstitious beliefs, which is the only thing I want to discuss. Naturally you don't want to draw attention to this, so you stick with distractive techniques which I am so used to from theists on this forum.

 

[S.A.M.]

Of course I do. I have said this many times but it never gets directly addressed. If I was to write pages and pages of supernatural miracles quoted in religious text in the Quran and the Bible, I would be here all night... therefor, it must be assumed that people who believe pages of such "events" could only be described as irrational.

So this is an opinion that you have or a fact that you have logically ascertained?

I mean you can prove there is no God, right?

 

[KennyJC]

So this is an opinion that you have or a fact that you have logically ascertained?

I mean you can prove there is no God, right?

Again, another classic distraction technique. I would question you on why you feel the need to distract from all of the alements I raise with regards to religion. Espeically in my last post which you did not give a relevant reply.

Obviously nobody can prove there is no God the same as nobody can prove there is one. Examples of the FSM or the teapot orbiting the sun apply just the same.

I feel I can prove that organised religions are false by simply quoting highly regarded quotes from the Bible and the Quran. Obviously science has proved many religious concepts false, but by simply stating religious quotes, simple common sense is required to know that these far fetched tales bite the dust by usage of common sense.

Would you agree that Mohammed (peace be upon him, obviously) flew to heaven in a winged horse of fire? Or would you agree that this was a myth? If you agree that it was a myth then what good does it do with 99% of all religious text in your religion?

I look forward to another distractive post from you, but please keep it related to the irrationality of religion.

 

[superluminal]

So you believe that all theists are irrational?

No. Just their conclusions.

 

[S.A.M.]

No. Just their conclusions.

Which the same rationale that theists use when comparing their religions?

So what makes you so special?

 

[superluminal]

Which the same rationale that theists use when comparing their religions?

So what makes you so special?

I can juggle?