Do belief systems deserve respect?

[Doreen]

I have already mentioned that there is no true Democratic process if there were the Minorities would never have a say ever. A democratic process is Majority rules look up the definition. They only reason minorities have a say is due in part to a healthy section of the majority just dont give a shit.

The majority does not rule in the US. The majority is allowed to choose between candidates chosen by the elite - at best. The candidates chosen by the elite will serve the elite. Further, via lobbying and other non-democratic processes, the elite has much more influence over legislation, enforcement, interpretation of law, government action and oversight than the person on the street. The US is an oligarchy and any other interpretation is deluded.

They except what they are told and the except what is given to them. And as for Cancer treatments the results seem to speak for themselves,

They speak poorly. As one example of the problem, non-patentable treatments are marginalized, both directly from trials and then indirectly via PR campaigns and pressure on the government by pharamceutical companies. Second the medical community treats cancer much as the religious treated a wide variety of psychological disorders as demonic possession in need of exorcism. A battle is fought against the tumor or cancer, rather than taking a holistic approach. Much of a the mainstream approach to cancer treatment is carcinogenic and radically damages the very immune system that with support could contribute or solely cause the removal of the cancer, which often arrived due to other damage to the immune system in the first place.

If the effected persons did not receive the treatment they would surely die

This is not the case. And I know this from personal experience, where I was told the same thing and, well, it worked out not to be correct. Nor did it work out to be correct for most of my peers who followed the same non-mainstream treatment.

there is not magical Cancer fairy that come along and cures you in your sleep or inflicts you with the disease.

Not sure where this came from.

As for them being intelligent I would say with the given results yes they are at this point.

Their statistics are so so at best.

The motivations for wars well that ties back to religion it is My god has a bigger dick then your god or My god has a big Hat then your god so on so forth. And dont say the war is over Oil as it is not it is about religious intolerance period. As long as there is religion you will have wars.

Which implies that without religion war will stop which seems very naive to me. Of course the Gulf War was about money and power. Religious paranoia was used to gather support, of course, by it was a means and not the motivation, and other motivation would be found if needed. And atheists bought all the WOMD BS along with intellectuals in general. The US has fought really a rather huge amount of wars, skirmishes and battle in South America alone at the behest of corporations who wanted money and power. We did not fight these wars because they were Catholic or followed native pagan religions.

Since this is off topic I will leave these tangents here, but it seems to me certain cults are still controlling your views of reality.

 

[parmalee]

Don't all Muslims want Islam to be a world wide religion? In the Quran, anyone who is not a Muslim is a "Loser" that will burn in eternal lakefire.

is that a direct quote, or are you just paraphrasing? and can you honestly tell me that you don't wish for atheists to "Take over the World"?

"Colloquial" is irrelevant. Every definition I've read of a cult describes any religion.

spoken like a true positivist.

 

[parmalee]

Actually its the cult of Samitism and I suggest the title of Awesome Goddess would not be amiss.

the cult of parmalee has actually managed to sway quite a few about the world--particularly the finns, the french (except for that one hideous b...), the italians (in spite of my misgivings about their "touchiness"), and some japanese and new zealanders. some americans too, except for security guards in airports.

 

[parmalee]

Sometimes it is frightening how similarly we think.

yeah, i've kinda noticed that too. weird.

 

[parmalee]

As long as there is religion you will have wars.

as long as there is the state you will have wars.

of course, i do not believe that the state controls the war machine, but it feeds it nonetheless.

 

[(Q)]

is that a direct quote, or are you just paraphrasing? and can you honestly tell me that you don't wish for atheists to "Take over the World"?

Why would you say that? The only one wish would be that the cults of the world disappear so that we can all be humans working together as one rather than automatons to non-existing gods that divide and conquer us all.

 

[(Q)]

Actually it is not clear in Islam what happens to those who end up in Hell, both muslims and non-believers who end up there alike may be saved in the end.

If they accept Islam.

 

[iceaura]

But did it miss the mark in the situation it was used here? I don't think so.

I do. This flipping of the implication arrow, to set up the strawman "atheism" for objection, is visible here as everywhere else on this forum.

Find me a theist here who agrees that there is no reason or evidence supporting a belief in the existence of God, but others should believe anyway.

Find me an atheist here who argues that there is no reason or evidence supporting doubt of the existence of God, but others should disbelieve anyway.

Religious paranoia was used to gather support, of course, by it was a means and not the motivation, and other motivation would be found if needed.

You may be underestimating the difficulty and importance of "gathering support". As in painting a house, where "preparation of the surface" is easy to dismiss with a phrase, but the mechanisms of its accomplishment are well worth evaluating. It isn't true that any old tool will suffice.

And atheists bought all the WOMD BS along with intellectuals in general.

Some did. A comparatively much higher proportion did not, if one extrapolates from the public and identifiable intellectual community. A fair proportion identified the "gathering of support" (along with the "identification of enemy") as obviously and too crucially employing theistic religion, and the whole project as dubious on that ground alone.

 

[parmalee]

The situation is usually that someone has reason to disbelieve a proposition, and therefore assert its falsity with some degree of confidence however small, but that the reason is thought inadequate by the truism repeater - who then insists on misrepresenting the degree of confidence as a claim of certainty, and the assertion as therefore unsupported.

The missing sister observation - that having no reason to believe a proposition puts any burden of providing reason on its assertion, not its denial - is more often relevant without misrepresentation.

the problem is that the proposition is not understood in the same way by both parties--and more often than not, the one who has reason to disbelieve has defined the terms on his own terms. moreover, the reason cited by the disbeliever may very well be inadequate if the, um, non-disbeliever allows for a definition which does not require that certain criteria be met, i.e. "evidence" of manifestation.

 

[parmalee]

Why would you say that? The only one wish would be that the cults of the world disappear so that we can all be humans working together as one rather than automatons to non-existing gods that divide and conquer us all.

um, i suggest you review the definition of cult--which i admittedly failed to comprehend initially--and consider that statement again.

 

[(Q)]

um, i suggest you review the definition of cult--which i admittedly failed to comprehend initially--and consider that statement again.

Done, what's your point?

 

[parmalee]

Find me a theist here who agrees that there is no reason or evidence supporting a belief in the existence of God, but others should believe anyway.

the bolded part excluded, i suggest you take a comprehensive survey of the religions of the world. you seem to be overlooking--or denying the existence of--a significant portion of "believers."

Find me an atheist here who argues that there is no reason or evidence supporting doubt of the existence of God, but others should disbelieve anyway.

surely, you are being facetious here.

 

[parmalee]

Done, what's your point?

Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: \ˈkəlt\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate — more at wheel
Date: 1617
1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/CULT

see no. 5

 

[parmalee]

or are you deferring to the colloquial sense of the term "cult" here?

 

[(Q)]

Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: \ˈkəlt\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate — more at wheel
Date: 1617
1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/CULT

see no. 5

Yeah, and see the rest of those definitions, like 1-3? Notice how they jive perfectly with most any religion?

 

[parmalee]

Yeah, and see the rest of those definitions, like 1-3? Notice how they jive perfectly with most any religion?

yes, i already acknowledged that i was initially going by the colloquial usage of cult--so i accept that religions are cults.

but notice no.5--do you deny membership amongst such?

 

[(Q)]

yes, i already acknowledged that i was initially going by the colloquial usage of cult--so i accept that religions are cults.

but notice no.5--do you deny membership amongst such?

Ah yes, you're probably referring, for example, the film, "Rocky Horror Picture Show" that plays most Friday midnights at 2nd run theaters everywhere in which the viewers dress up and act out all the parts? Cult film.

 

[iceaura]

the problem is that the proposition is not understood in the same way by both parties

Misunderstandings abound, no doubt.

Find me a theist here who agrees that there is no reason or evidence supporting a belief in the existence of God, but others should believe anyway.
”
the bolded part excluded, i suggest you take a comprehensive survey of the religions of the world. you seem to be overlooking--or denying the existence of--a significant portion of "believers."

The bolded part is not excluded, in the relevant context.

But I'll bite on the tangent: Example?

Believers who agree that there is no reason or evidence supporting their belief?

“
Find me an atheist here who argues that there is no reason or evidence supporting doubt of the existence of God, but others should disbelieve anyway.
”
surely, you are being facetious here.

Not at all. Q, for example, is continually devoting posts to presenting evidence supporting his doubts of the existence of God - say, that children believe according to their parent's beliefs, rather than the kind of independent influence an existent entity, of the kind claimed, would have.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

as long as there is the state you will have wars.

of course, i do not believe that the state controls the war machine, but it feeds it nonetheless.

If the blinders of Religion were lifted off of the people in a true democratic process the State would not have a leg to stand on would they things would likely be worked out between the parties if they logically sat down and talked it over. Instead of saying this is mu God given right to have what you have. Case and point Israel and Palestine among many many others.

 

[parmalee]

Misunderstandings abound, no doubt.

i think this critical to the relevance and pertinence of the notion we are talking about--see below.

The bolded part is not excluded, in the relevant context.

But I'll bite on the tangent: Example?

Believers who agree that there is no reason or evidence supporting their belief?

certain traditions of apophatic or negative theology--note: some, by no means all--neither require "evidence" or reason (as epistemological means) for belief in god (however one defines, or does not define, such)--such terms are generally employed in describing variants of catholicism, but i am using them broadly to describe such variants amongst any of the world's religions.

Not at all. Q, for example, is continually devoting posts to presenting evidence supporting his doubts of the existence of God - say, that children believe according to their parent's beliefs, rather than the kind of independent influence an existent entity, of the kind claimed, would have.

hmmm. i think you are being a little generous here : disregarding (Q) for the moment, just browse through some of the threads in the "religion" subforum--i think you will encounter a number of examples of such.

(yeah, yeah. i know the onus is on me, but i'm not in the mood (at the moment) to do the work myself--but i'm confident that there are many examples.)