You have every reason to disagree with the decisions made with those truths in mind. When I say they are not your truths to refute, I mean that you can't validly refute them except to yourself.
Now that's just post-modernist poppycock. Truth is truth, regardless of the perspective. For instance, either the superstitious activities of believers engaged in rituals like prayer actually do appease supernatural agents or they don't (in this case, quantitative analyses have shown they do not).
I am truly thinking, but this truth you will never find; my thoughts are as subjective as any supernatural agent.
The idea of one true god came around the same time as Christianity. Prior to this, gods were gods, and people didn't generally fight over them. Keep that in mind - that not all religions claim to offer the One True Faith - and you may see how the assumption that no god for you means no god for everyone is a leap of logic.
baumgarten said:
If the refutations are such that one only need make a distinction between fantasy and reality, then others too can agree.
And if it is such that those making the claims appear to be unable to make that distinction, shouldn't those claims be scrutinized to understand whether or not they are indeed fantasy?
And if those truths appear as fantasies, and they do indeed affect me, it should be within my right to refute them openly.
Yea! apparently prayers dont do squat!
click
The reason why atheists, secularists, humanists got to speak out against rhetorical theists is cause with their voting power, they do control, manipulate government's decision, on many issues. Such as abortion, prostitution, ellicit drugs, etc.. And even going as far as regulating birth control. click If not stoped these theist nutheads would even make wanking agaisnt the law!
Godless
click
The reason why atheists, secularists, humanists got to speak out against rhetorical theists is cause with their voting power, they do control, manipulate government's decision, on many issues. Such as abortion, prostitution, ellicit drugs, etc.. And even going as far as regulating birth control. click If not stoped these theist nutheads would even make wanking agaisnt the law!
Godless
baumgarten said:
When someone applies religious belief to an assertion, the result is acceptance of the assertion as definitive truth (not probable truth) without considering supportive or contradictive evidence. Belief get's tied so close to a 'believers' sense of self that to challenge it with other belief's or reality tiself is frequently the equivelant of threatening the life and self worth of the 'believer'. Humans tend to fight tooth and nail against anything that threatens them to that degree. When belief is taken to fanatical levels it tends to produce the same threat/fight affect but proactively (it doesn't wait for the challenge... it just goes to war).
The negative results of belief are evident and dominant. It kills people, promotes suffering, promotes ignorance, and retards progress. So why do we need a voice of reason indeed?
baumgarten said:
I disagree. Your thoughts are your own now, but there may come a time when science is able to discern those thoughts by tapping into the very objective quantity of electrical impulses and neural activity that occurs. Already, neuroscientists are able to look at neural activity and get an idea of the emotional and linguistic state the brain. So, you are quite incorrect in the assertion that your "thoughts are as subjective as any supernatural agent."
baumgarten said:
Christianity was not the first religious cult to make a monotheistic claim. Something that my scientific study of religion has revealed to me thus far. So, you might say that, in one sentance, I refutted two of your assertions at one time!
As further refutation, people certainly did fight over their gods (polytheistic peoples) prior to the introduction of monotheism. The differences between the Hyksos and the Egyptians are but one shining example. Mesoamerican examples can be found in the most cursory literature review.baumgarten said:
Which religions don't claim to offer a "one true faith?"
@ Crunchy Cat: Well said.
This brings up a point which I find very important: the hostile reaction of many believers to any challenge to their beliefs. Faith and the imposition of it are mutually exclusive, and it is the latter with which I take issue most. It does lead to terrible conflict and war, and that is exactly why zealotry is something that needs to be avoided. You can't fight zealotry by directly confronting it, though, or the aforementioned hostility will arise, and instead of tossing around the idea of making wanking illegal, the zealots will go right ahead and do it. I am much more in favor of open and civil discourse conducted in a sensitive manner. On the political stage, this is how to get things done. Turn people on to the concept of "live and let live," and their crusades will lose meaning.Crunchy Cat said:
Hinduism and Buddhism, two major religions, right off the top of my head.
Recently I spent a whole morning talking on line with a theist friend. Catholic, his take is that the catholic religion should be the one and only religion, and that it should be authorative because it's the word of god, according to him, I was very much in disagreement with his stance, we ended up arguing. I talked to him very seldom, I considered him a friend. But becuase of our difference of beliefs, it also comes to confrontation. I told him that he was becoming too much a zealot, on his stance. I don't carry my atheist beliefs on my shoulders, most people don't even know I'm an atheist. But the reason why is because I try to avoid confrentation of this type. At least on line, I can say "your an idiot" and not smacked around. LOL But they do carry on with such zeal, and history has shown, and showing, that religious zealots aim to rule by force!
Godless
Buddhism is the only one that I would almost agree with, but there are many that would argue that The Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path are considered a universal truth and, therefore, a "one true faith." Moreover, while Theravada Buddhists don't accept that there are gods, Mahayanists are a different story. To them Buddha is both savior and lord, establishing, yet again, a "one true faith" that must be followed in order to attain buddhisattva and enlightenment.
The Hindu believe that every soul is trapped in a cycle of birth-death-rebirth and that their practices are the only way to appease their supernatural agents, which are all aspects of Brahma. In other words, they believe they have a "one true faith." Indeed, this is the reason why so few Hindu people leave the fold.
The Hindu believe that every soul is trapped in a cycle of birth-death-rebirth and that their practices are the only way to appease their supernatural agents, which are all aspects of Brahma. In other words, they believe they have a "one true faith." Indeed, this is the reason why so few Hindu people leave the fold.
baumgarten said:
Your position is part of a natural progression that seems to be expanding. I'd like to explain it in detail but I don't have the essay endurance of folks like Tiassa so for now I'll refrain
. I'll speculate where I predict an end-point of the progression will likely be. I forsee the creation of a mind virus that has roughly the following attributes:* Promotes evidentual thinking
* Promotes ethical decision making
* Promotes responsibility and accountability
* Promotes learning and risk taking
* Promotes freedom and creativity
* Promotes flexible segragation
* Promotes a strong relationship with the self
* Promotes healthy relationships with everything else
* Condemns oppression
* Condemns cynacism
* Condemns destructive intent
I see this happening naturally as a result of becoming more educated about reality. Eventually, reality might contradict every single fantastic claim or religion and I am pretty convinced large populations can't survive in a healthy way without a mind virus, so something will have to be synthesized and it will likely be based on scientific knowledge of human psychological needs.
SkinWalker said:
I take serious issue with this assertion, since I have a close friend who is not only a Hindu, but a Brahmin. We have discussed this issue on several occasions and to great depth. Serious Hindu's, and I mean the religiously educated, do not believe that their's is the "One True Faith". They believe that the religious practices of other faiths are just as appropriate in influencing one's rebirth, and so to be a good Catholic is to be a good Hindu, to be a good Jew is to be a good Hindu, to be a good Muslim is to be a good Hindu, etc... because the word "Hindu" means "to remove darkness" in the literal sense, and so anyone who takes steps to remove themselves from spiritual ignorance is considered a Hindu, not just the people who practice the religious rituals prevalent on the Indian subcontinent.
The reason why so few people leave the fold has more to do with social bonds with your family and with the community of your birth.
There would be those that might argue that familial and societal bonds to a religious faith equate to recognizing it as a the most appropriate faith if not the "one true faith."
Diversity among the Hindu believers is great -perhaps greater than within any other religion. One of the reasons is that no ecclesiastical hieracrchy controls the beliefs and practices of Hindus as a whole. But, despite their specific differences, they all belong to the same religion and identify themselves as "Hindu."
If it were a simple matter of familial and societal bonds that maintain and sustain the Hindu religion, we would see more evidence for the success of evangelical religions like Christianity and Islam among Hindu culture, particularly since Hinduism is not an evangelical faith. It could be said that this fact supports your argument that the Hindu don't recognize theirs as the "one true faith," since they don't seek to prosyletize it to infidels or non-believers. However, I would argue (while recognizing that logic) that the Hindu faith is secure from evangelicalism and does not feel the need (perhaps partially because of the lack of central hierarchy) to evangelize. This security comes from the probable acceptance that, while other faiths may be right for other cultures, the Hindu faith is right for Hindu cultures. Indeed, the Hindu see themselves as following the "one true faith" that is for people native to the Indian subcontinent and that the rest of the world is not fit for Hinduism and this may be why it isn't evangelical in nature.
Diversity among the Hindu believers is great -perhaps greater than within any other religion. One of the reasons is that no ecclesiastical hieracrchy controls the beliefs and practices of Hindus as a whole. But, despite their specific differences, they all belong to the same religion and identify themselves as "Hindu."
If it were a simple matter of familial and societal bonds that maintain and sustain the Hindu religion, we would see more evidence for the success of evangelical religions like Christianity and Islam among Hindu culture, particularly since Hinduism is not an evangelical faith. It could be said that this fact supports your argument that the Hindu don't recognize theirs as the "one true faith," since they don't seek to prosyletize it to infidels or non-believers. However, I would argue (while recognizing that logic) that the Hindu faith is secure from evangelicalism and does not feel the need (perhaps partially because of the lack of central hierarchy) to evangelize. This security comes from the probable acceptance that, while other faiths may be right for other cultures, the Hindu faith is right for Hindu cultures. Indeed, the Hindu see themselves as following the "one true faith" that is for people native to the Indian subcontinent and that the rest of the world is not fit for Hinduism and this may be why it isn't evangelical in nature.
C
charles cure
Guest
baumgarten said:
take a look at history. as far as christianity goes, faith and the imposition of it are definitely not mutually exclusive. the christian mission may not be able to torture and destroy whole civilizations of people into believeing that jesus is their saviour anymore, but they still connive and manipulate behind the scenes and attempt to enshrine their beliefs in law so that no one can escape them. its just a less violent and overt way of shoving god down everyone's throat, but its no less real.
religions have never been able to subscribe to the philosophy of live and let live. if you believe that you have divine knowledge of the one true path to humanity's salvation, and a direct link with god through your own specific type of spirituality, then respect for the beliefs of others is precluded completely. everybody else is just a poor fool muddling through life until they die and fall into a pit of fire because their god has the wrong name, or because they had an abortion, or because they weren't baptized...etc. that is the reality of religious belief, whether the believer is moderate in his or her views or not. religious belief is unique in that the unproveable nature of divine knowledge always leads to zealotry. there may be some sensible moderates who tow the line for social or economic advantage, but the people who are "true believers" are inevitably zealots. the moderates who thoughtlessly go along with and sanction the behaviour of the overzealous and destructive elements of their congregations are nothing more than a support base that allows this kind of behavior and bigotry to exist and perpetuate itself.
A religion is not the abuses of it. Do you believe that the divine providence claimed by a king is real? Do you believe that the Catholic church actually holds divine authority - that everything it says and does is granted by God?
Religion is, first and foremost, the people who make it up. Christianity is the helpful neighbor down the street, your old elementary school playmates, your teachers and professors, and most people who you never hear about because they don't cause any sort of zealous ruckus. All those people are Christianity, and yet their faith obviously does not include the imposition of it.
Now you're just making things up. When's the last time a rabbi tried to convert you to Judaism?
C
charles cure
Guest
baumgarten said:
actually it does. christianity is the kid i went to elementary school with who grew up to be pro-life and votes for pro-life politicians. christianity is the people across the street from my apartment harrassing women that go to planned parenthood to get birth control. christianity is the woman my girlfriend works with at the pharmacy who won't do her job because she thinks god opposes the morning after pill. george w. bush is christianity, and his crusade against islam in the name of national security is part of it too. christianity is the old man in the wheelchair at wal-mart in fayetteville, north carolina who told me god didnt give us bodies so we could pollute them with tattoos. christianity is teachers in kansas who want to warp the minds of children by teaching intelligent design as science. christianity is the supreme court who gets to decide right to die cases and make judgements on whether or not we should be able to do stem-cell research. these people impose their beliefs through action. they are our society, you're totally right, i just don't see them as benign and harmless in the way that you do because i know better.
as a philosophy, "live and let live" is necissarily anti-dogmatic. there is no other rule than "its ok to do what you want and i will ignore it if it doesnt harm me". that isn't religion. the religious strive for the inclusion of their ideas as a part of what is acceptable or unacceptable in terms of social behavior. religion, because it is dogmatic, cannot live and let live. a christian minister cannot even let his own congregation pick and choose which rules to follow without reminding them of some kind of consequence. a jewish person can't eat milk and meat together or shellfish or other non-kosher foods without infringing upon the edicts of their religion and facing consequences. the minute that you have a rule to follow and impose it on people by threatening to ostracize them or exclude them from your group and the benefits of membership in that group, you cease to subscribe to the "live and let live" philosophy. while a rabbi may not have recently tried to convert me to judaism, the israelis have destroyed the lives and homes of millions of palestinians because of religious differences recently. that doesn't sound too "live and let live" to me.
baumgarten said:
also, judaism encourages diversity of belief. to believe anything else makes the observer just as ignorant on the subject as those who claim otherwise.