Extreme religious views

[S.A.M.]

A list of my extreme religious views.

Please vote if you consider them extreme or not

1. Everyone has a right to believe or not believe in God

2. The Religion forum should be used only to discuss the scientific nature of religious belief i.e. only that which can be tested.

3. Theists/atheists should not be persecuted for their beliefs, since God is not an empirical absolute and belief, by definition requires no evidence

4. Atheists should be held to the same standards of scientific enquiry in the Religion forum as theists.

 

[John99]

Where's the poll option:

"Who gives a rat's patootie?"

probably 'some other option'

 

[James R]

I voted "no". None of the views listed are extreme, in my opinion.

A comment, though:

2. The Religion forum should be used only to discuss the scientific nature of religious belief i.e. only that which can be tested.

I disagree. I'd say the religion forum is for discussion of any aspect of religion. Comparative Religion is a stricter science-based forum.

Much of religion has no scientific nature, so limiting discussion to scientific issues would pretty much kill off that forum.

 

[Enmos]

A list of my extreme religious views.

Please vote if you consider them extreme or not

1. Everyone has a right to believe or not believe in God

2. The Religion forum should be used only to discuss the scientific nature of religious belief i.e. only that which can be tested.

3. Theists/atheists should not be persecuted for their beliefs, since God is not an empirical absolute and belief, by definition requires no evidence

4. Atheists should be held to the same standards of scientific enquiry in the Religion forum as theists.

These views are not extreme. But you have been known to talk about atheists in less respectable ways. I'll vote 'no' though.

 

[Jan Ardena]

A list of my extreme religious views.

Please vote if you consider them extreme or not

1. Everyone has a right to believe or not believe in God

2. The Religion forum should be used only to discuss the scientific nature of religious belief i.e. only that which can be tested.

3. Theists/atheists should not be persecuted for their beliefs, since God is not an empirical absolute and belief, by definition requires no evidence

4. Atheists should be held to the same standards of scientific enquiry in the Religion forum as theists.

Number 3 is extreme, as it suggests religion only makes sense if it is somehow
propped up by science (jargon).
It is like limiting a discussion of music, to music, which has no more than 3 chords.

Number 4 is not so extreme as it is bizzare. Because atheism is a lack of belief
in God, and requires no scientific scrutiny.

I think we can use science to validate our own perceptions and understandings of our belief or lack of, but it has no bearing on whether God exists, or not.
If God exists, then God is the cause of everything, and our perceptions or belief, or not, is due to God.

God is way to massive to limit to science or religion, IMHO.

Jan.

 

[mikenostic]

These views are not extreme. But you have been known to talk down to atheists in less respectable ways. I'll vote 'no' though.

Fixed that for you.

Sam, while I don't think your religious views themselves are that extreme, BUT your religious views cause your political views to be way, way extreme.

Your religious views = tolerable

Your political views = can take a fuckin one way hike into oblivion

 

[S.A.M.]

You mean because I believe in respecting the sovereignty of nations and the right of people to self determination in their own lands, without the threat of invasion and occupation?

Yeah, that is radical

 

[mikenostic]

You mean because I believe in respecting the sovereignty of nations and the right of people to self determination in their own lands, without the threat of invasion and occupation?

What was your opinion of Saddam and Iraq at the time they unjustly invaded Kuwait back in 1991?
Answer your opinion on that and that only or don't answer it at all; I don't fuckin need to hear about some stupid unrelated topic that you will undoubtedly include in your most likely asinine response.

 

[S.A.M.]

I think it was unnecessary, they should have found some other way of dealing with Kuwait stealing their oil.

 

[Clucky]

I voted for "some other opinion."

That opinion being that although the views you have dictated in the OP are not extreme, it really has no bearing on me whatsoever. Even if they were, why would it matter? You're free to have an opinion on topics, such as these, and people may, or may not, disagree with you, but as long as you can justify such views sufficiently, it really doesn't matter. I don't particularly care how extreme your views are.

 

[S.A.M.]

I disagree. I'd say the religion forum is for discussion of any aspect of religion. Comparative Religion is a stricter science-based forum.

Much of religion has no scientific nature, so limiting discussion to scientific issues would pretty much kill off that forum.

You mean kill off the fun that atheists get baiting and trolling theists.

I voted for "some other opinion."

That opinion being that although the views you have dictated in the OP are not extreme, it really has no bearing on me whatsoever. Even if they were, why would it matter? You're free to have an opinion on topics, such as these, and people may, or may not, disagree with you, but as long as you can justify such views sufficiently, it really doesn't matter. I don't particularly care how extreme your views are.

Thanks Clucky

You remind me of myself when I first joined the forums. Before I was "radicalised" by all the crap thrown at me for my beliefs.

 

[Clucky]

Thanks Clucky

You remind me of myself when I first joined the forums. Before I was "radicalised" by all the crap thrown at me for my beliefs.

I would always consider that a compliment Sam.

 

[Norsefire]

I voted no, but I disagree with number 3

If we're going to have a state, we might as well utilizie it; I do think we should forcibly remove religious people and nationalists from society, and make theism a crime

However this goes against my libertarian beliefs, so that is why I said "if we're going to have a state"


Ah well. Too bad. Just a thought

 

[Pete]

Hi Sam,
Are these really the most extreme views that you have?
I hesitate to call them religious views. I don't think there are any religious views on the list. Anyone reading the list can't even tell whether you believe in God.
But to answer the poll, no. Nothing on the list appears to qualify as extreme, by any ordinary understanding of the word.

Anyway, enough of "About the members", let's get to the real discussion.

2. The Religion forum should be used only to discuss the scientific nature of religious belief i.e. only that which can be tested.

Well, I think the religious forum is also a useful place to discuss such things as philosophy in a religious context, morality, and logical arguments from religious (untestable) premises.

3. Theists/atheists should not be persecuted for their beliefs, since God is not an empirical absolute and belief, by definition requires no evidence

There are a lot of interesting ideas in this one.
I agree with the conclusion (that people shouldn't be persecuted based on whether or not they believe in a godlike supernatural being), but I can't quite fathom the premises given.
What is an "empirical absolute and belief"?
What definition (of God?) specifies that (belief in its existence?) requires no evidence?
What links the premise to the conclusion? I.e. What is your basis for determining whether or not persecution of a person (or group of people) is justified? (Maybe we'd better specify what kind of persecution is involved as well, since its an ambiguous and emotive term.)

 

[SkinWalker]

A list of my extreme religious views.

Please vote if you consider them extreme or not

I don't consider them extreme or views that are religious. Rather, these appear to be views related to religion and the religion forum.

1. Everyone has a right to believe or not believe in God

Agreed.

2. The Religion forum should be used only to discuss the scientific nature of religious belief i.e. only that which can be tested.

Agreed. But I would add that also topical for discussion is the nature in which religion and science affect each other.

3. Theists/atheists should not be persecuted for their beliefs, since God is not an empirical absolute and belief, by definition requires no evidence

Agreed

4. Atheists should be held to the same standards of scientific enquiry in the Religion forum as theists.

Agreed.

Moderator note: (Q)'s posts were deleted as they were flaming/trolling.

 

[S.A.M.]

I agree with the conclusion (that people shouldn't be persecuted based on whether or not they believe in a godlike supernatural being), but I can't quite fathom the premises given.
What is an "empirical absolute and belief"?
What definition (of God?) specifies that (belief in its existence?) requires no evidence?
What links the premise to the conclusion? I.e. What is your basis for determining whether or not persecution of a person (or group of people) is justified? (Maybe we'd better specify what kind of persecution is involved as well, since its an ambiguous and emotive term.)

An empirical absolute would be something that could not only be perceived but whose perception would be agreed upon through consensus.

Belief -any cognitive content held as true

I believe that the difference between belief and knowledge is one of perception.

Premise would imply that knowledge is required to convert belief to conclusion.

Persecution: whatever it is that is the fate of the minority report.

 

[Anti-Flag]

I voted no, but I disagree with number 3

If we're going to have a state, we might as well utilizie it; I do think we should forcibly remove religious people and nationalists from society, and make theism a crime

However this goes against my libertarian beliefs, so that is why I said "if we're going to have a state"


Ah well. Too bad. Just a thought

Given that you started a thread on the distinct possibility of a gods existence and would be on the list of the removed, I'm not entirely sure quite how to say this however;

I'm all for it.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

A list of my extreme religious views.

Please vote if you consider them extreme or not

1. Everyone has a right to believe or not believe in God

How is atheism an extreme? It's only extreme because people insist on believing in God. You can call it a right only if there is some kind of perverse legislation or unjust persecution involved. None of this is necessary.

2. The Religion forum should be used only to discuss the scientific nature of religious belief i.e. only that which can be tested.

Then we're right back to the non-necessity of religion.

3. Theists/atheists should not be persecuted for their beliefs, since God is not an empirical absolute and belief, by definition requires no evidence

Then critiquing for believing should be allowed. Killing them for it is a little harsh. Having no religions would take care of that problem.

4. Atheists should be held to the same standards of scientific enquiry in the Religion forum as theists.

Both are unprovable and do not require speculation although that is what persists. Another point for not needing religion.

* Religion is extreme but the most extreme is indoctrination

 

[Enmos]

SAM, what is the difference between theists and atheists after death ?

 

[Tyler]

1. Everyone has a right to believe or not believe in God

2. The Religion forum should be used only to discuss the scientific nature of religious belief i.e. only that which can be tested.

3. Theists/atheists should not be persecuted for their beliefs, since God is not an empirical absolute and belief, by definition requires no evidence

4. Atheists should be held to the same standards of scientific enquiry in the Religion forum as theists.

Of course 1 ought to be true.

The second is blatantly false and stupid. If the only thing this forum is good for is discussing whether or not religious belief has a scientific grounding then there is essentially only need for one thread. The religious forum ought to be open to any theological debate.

Any belief on religious matters which remains personal - that is, one does not use their religious conviction to limit the freedom of others - ought to be permissible.

If scientific reasoning and proof are the tools two people use to discuss a subject, then they ought to both use that tool appropriately. Of course. Sometimes theological debate does not include much room for reason (N.B. this is not an attack, there are genuinely many theologians - Christian, Buddhist, Taoist - who would argue that reason has only a very small place in theological arguments), in which case two people can use whatever other tool they agree upon.

For instance, I am an atheist, but I feel I could discuss Buddhism and try my best to observe Buddhist lines of reasoning, which are far from 'scientific'.