U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-11-2011, 11:55 AM
 
604 posts, read 637,643 times
Reputation: 261

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplight View Post
I won't bother discussing whether the cross should stay or go, because that's obviously being well covered in this thread. But a quote by the mayor in the article caught my eye:



This is, to me, the epitome of the Christian South. To them atheists are some entirely foreign beings who have nothing to do with their town. The atheist is a West coast thing, or a North East thing, but it can't be a Southern thing! The South is far too good, wholesome, and righteous for there to be atheists living here! This is the attitude I saw over and over while I lived there.



Yeah, that's probably true, assuming they couldn't remain anonymous in doing so. They're probably afraid to let anyone in town know they're atheists!
Well, does not having a religion, make you an atheist?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2011, 12:04 PM
 
3,488 posts, read 3,147,309 times
Reputation: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
I am afraid you have created a position for me I do not hold and then attacked it. I do not identify with the strawman you have erected at all.

I think CERTAIN ideas should be treated equally yes, not ALL.

For example I do not think religious ideas should be tolerated AT ALL at this time given they are all entirely unsubstantiated in any way and are so indistinguishable for simple lies.

However what I was doing was not comparing ALL ideas, but comparing ALL ideas within a certain context... religion... and the fact is the existence of Thor and the existence of Yahweh for example have each got exactly the same amount of evidence going for and against them. That is: None.

As such THESE ideas should be afforded equal respect and tolerance as the other as there is nothing to distinguish between them unlike the idea you gave in your 5 step Random example above where there is very much a basis for distinguishing between the ideas. So the analogy you make does not hold.

What bothers me in THAT context therefore is the idea that one should be afforded more respect solely on the basis that is has more people subscribing to it. Ideas that are equally grounded in reality should not be treated differently simply because one has more subscribers.

As an example of this I retold a point made by a man better than I. If you think saying latin at your pancakes turns them into elvis people will call you insane. If you think saying latin at crackers turns them into Jesus people will call you catholic. If you really can see no problem with that, given the claims are pretty much identical, then I have a lot more work to do on this thread that I thought.

Yet in terms of evidence, argument, and grounding in reality the two ideas are identical. There is no more reason to think crackers become magical in the presence of latin and not pancakes. Not one. Why would we therefore afford respect to one idea and not the other? Again: Simply because of numbers.
I see what you're saying, but even in the scientific community where "facts" are important - if a scientist's ideas are not backed up by the majority of his peers (you know... the peer review system), you will probably only hear the scientist referred to as "a kook".

As to religious dominance in a community being bad, because it's equally as fanciful as a fan of Thor - the situation is not always about what is true. It's very much about what a community thinks is important to them. This is not always based on truth claims. Groundhog Day is pretty scientifically impossible, and it would be entirely insensitive and anti-social of some lone, brave soul to demand that the tradition should be ended because he thinks it's a waste of time, or it can be demonstrated "untruthful". Maybe you're not taking the idea of community solidarity into account. It's real, it's what cements a group together, and outsiders are seen as a threat to that solidarity - NO MATTER HOW TRUTHFUL THEY ARE. RIght? 1000s of years of history drive this point home again and again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
2,705 posts, read 2,505,010 times
Reputation: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
In Christianity the biggest Idol is the bible, which rather then just take as a series of text it is instead often seen as imbued with miraculous qualities such imfalability and inerrent accuracy.

In many ways the bible itself is worshipped, but the Christians who are doing it don't recognize that they are doing so.
Good insight!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
9,745 posts, read 13,649,795 times
Reputation: 14764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kings Ranger View Post
Well, does not having a religion, make you an atheist?
Well my last response to this question was deleted for being off-topic, so I'm not sure how I can respond to it otherwise, and I'm guessing this one will be deleted too for the same reason. If that's the case, then why was Kings Ranger's question no also deleted? And for that matter, half the comments in this thread don't necessarily address the OP. So I'll say it again, not having a religion does not necessarily make one an atheist. Not believing in a deity does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 06:30 AM
 
5,463 posts, read 5,781,996 times
Reputation: 1803
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers View Post
In all seriousness - I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Could you clarify?
You seem hell-bent on proving his religious beliefs wrong - but to what purpose? Even if you could, it doesn't make it any more legal to keep the religious symbol of one brand of faith up on public property to the exclusion of all others, no matter how irrational those other non-represented beliefs might seem to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 08:39 AM
 
3,488 posts, read 3,147,309 times
Reputation: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
You seem hell-bent on proving his religious beliefs wrong - but to what purpose? Even if you could, it doesn't make it any more legal to keep the religious symbol of one brand of faith up on public property to the exclusion of all others, no matter how irrational those other non-represented beliefs might seem to you.
Oh - I see. Yes, it might come off that way, but it's not meant in that manner.

One of my over-arching points is that most of the disagreements, hatreds, intolerance, etc, could be easily solved by approaching the original text (that forms the basis for several of these religions) with fresh eyes - eyes that have not undergone thousands of years of hermeneutical wrangling.

As part of this, the correct 'defining of terms' is sometimes necesarry. This isn't done to insult, offend or shock - it's done to help people approach the texts as close to their original context as possible. If a misuse of a term results in a separation of people (the term 'idol' branding other people), then that's not very helpful.

And arguing a point here and there in Judaism is normal - it's quote common, in the later Jewish writings, to have several people argue for several different views. After all - they were struggling with the problem of whether they should be trying to make the laws of the Torah fit more modern circumstances, or not - and all the difficulties this entails.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2011, 01:33 AM
 
7,811 posts, read 5,058,518 times
Reputation: 2972
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers View Post
I see what you're saying, but even in the scientific community where "facts" are important - if a scientist's ideas are not backed up by the majority of his peers (you know... the peer review system), you will probably only hear the scientist referred to as "a kook".
I would likely call a scientist a kook too if he was fervently espousing entirely baseless claims. The whole enterprise of science is to put forward substantiated ideas, not unsubstantiated ones. The problem with the analogy of putting a fire out with gasoline or water in the above posts for example is that the two ideas and positions are very much substantiated and we can argue them and show the difference between them.

When saying it would be fine to erect a massive cross, essentially a testament to death and execution, but not a massive hammer however we are not doing the same thing as the Water/Gasoline analogy because there literally is no difference between these claims OTHER than the number of people who subscribe to them. The non existence of Thor but the existence of Yahweh simply is not something we have established as fact on any level. The two claims are identical in the amount of evidence for them: None.

My point is therefore very easy to grasp: I am merely espousing my discomfort at the idea that Tolerance for either idea should be affected merely by the number of people who subscribe to each idea. I do not think Tolerance and Respect are subjects where strength by numbers should be involved.

Of course it is not really my problem, I am merely expressing my discomfort. I am actually one who thinks people should be respected, not ideas. People should be tolerated not ideas. The ideas of religion... given they are not just mildly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated should be... in my book... not tolerated or respected at all. On any level.

The idea that a god came to earth in order to impregnate a child to cause her to give birth to himself so he could walk around long enough in order for people to discover magic crackers.... or the idea an illiterate pedophile with Cynophobia in a cave wrote books that were dictated to him by invisible beings in the cave with him.... are not ideas to be tolerated or respected. They are examples of ideas to be dismissed, ridiculed and scoffed and actively kept out of our halls of power, education and science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kings Ranger View Post
Wow, that one pretty much answers my question and clears everything up for me...
Glad to be of assistance. If I can enlighten you on anything else you need only ask. My time is your time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top