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.
Is there something wrong with accepting others beliefs and defending their right to believe them? I don't support any religious group that causes harm to others or is simply trying to scam someone. In regards to lifestyle choices, if if does no harm, I will defend it even if I don't believe in it. All lifestyles are a choice, all that matters is that the individuals cause no harm.
Or does the actions of one or a few speak for the whole group?
There have been some comments on your defending religion, though you say you don't subscribe to any religion.
I am prepared to accept that and also that religion can have some good effects. I recognise the good it can do by inspiring sportmen or philanthropists and making people give up an anti- social life and become model citizens. I see the marvellous architecture and music it inspires.
On the other hand, apart from the evils done in the name of religion or at least providing that inspiration for less constructive purposes, my problems are twofold
(1) that it is based on a lie. Sorry - and that is my opinion, though an informed one, but the truth is important to me. That's why I can be tolerant to individual beliefs but not let preaching, social interference and apologetics for god - claims pass without opposing them.
(2) there is a question of how well we could do without religion. I am not sure that the anti social might not be that way because, in the failure of religion to engage them, they have no social back - up. It's 'why should we behave well if there is no God' in action. If you think atheism through, you develop a social responsibility without religion. Religion of course doesn't do that and, when the religious go unbeliever, there is no backup. That is, religion in a way breeds potential anti - social behaviour.
The other aspect of your argument is about agnosticism and the application of logic. the a-logical aspect simply has to be left on the shelf as speculative. We can know nothing much about it and all that we can say is that many things are possible, but believing just one rather easy somewhat anthropomorphic 'take' on it is just a bit too easy. Agnosticism does not reasonably enjoin belief to the extent of arguing with those who reserve belief until there is better evidence.
Don't know whether this helps to resolve the issues at all.
What if I said, the pursuit of technological and scientific advances?
I am not sure how such a change would improve your position at all. I would answer in EXACTLY the same way which is to point out that such a pursuit is also values neutral in that it does not tell you what to do with that technology once you have it.
Whatever way you label it, you are simply talking about people getting answers and what methodology they use to get those answers.
What they DO with those answers is a separate issue and Science is value free on such issues. It simply does not tell us how to use, or not use, knowledge.
Take Nuclear Fission for example. Used one way it can provide near infinite, clean and safe power for the masses. Used another way it can make weaponry of massive destructive capabilities.
Science was just the methodology by which we found out how to engage in Nuclear Fission. What to do with that knowledge.... energy or weaponry.... has simply nothing to do with science at all.
The comparison however is to religion and religion is FAR from value free. It very much does tell people how to act, when, with who and why. Your comparison of the two things therefore is not helpful.
Based on the silence I can reason that if you have to use a current frame of time, and look at the individual good and bad deeds done under the flag of religion/spiritual, the good does outweigh the bad. There are far more peaceful religious/spiritual people than violent ones.
Kinda makes a person rethink and redefine a few opinions about religion/spirituality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Silence? You must know than my entire life does not hinge on this forum...I do have a lot of other things that take up my time.
I do agree with you that there are far more religious people that do no harm... It's just too bad that the ones that do harm cost so many peoples lives.
Here we have the classic example of a troll post, where the OP becomes incensed when they feel they are being ignored, even briefly.
I am not sure how such a change would improve your position at all. I would answer in EXACTLY the same way which is to point out that such a pursuit is also values neutral in that it does not tell you what to do with that technology once you have it.
They don't tell you how to use it because it has a very straight forward purpose. Weapons are made to kill, weapons that were made in the name of technological advancement.
Quote:
Whatever way you label it, you are simply talking about people getting answers and what methodology they use to get those answers.
What they DO with those answers is a separate issue and Science is value free on such issues. It simply does not tell us how to use, or not use, knowledge.
Take Nuclear Fission for example. Used one way it can provide near infinite, clean and safe power for the masses. Used another way it can make weaponry of massive destructive capabilities.
Science was just the methodology by which we found out how to engage in Nuclear Fission. What to do with that knowledge.... energy or weaponry.... has simply nothing to do with science at all.
The comparison however is to religion and religion is FAR from value free. It very much does tell people how to act, when, with who and why. Your comparison of the two things therefore is not helpful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
There have been some comments on your defending religion, though you say you don't subscribe to any religion.
I am prepared to accept that and also that religion can have some good effects. I recognise the good it can do by inspiring sportmen or philanthropists and making people give up an anti- social life and become model citizens. I see the marvellous architecture and music it inspires.
On the other hand, apart from the evils done in the name of religion or at least providing that inspiration for less constructive purposes, my problems are twofold
(1) that it is based on a lie. Sorry - and that is my opinion, though an informed one, but the truth is important to me. That's why I can be tolerant to individual beliefs but not let preaching, social interference and apologetics for god - claims pass without opposing them.
(2) there is a question of how well we could do without religion. I am not sure that the anti social might not be that way because, in the failure of religion to engage them, they have no social back - up. It's 'why should we behave well if there is no God' in action. If you think atheism through, you develop a social responsibility without religion. Religion of course doesn't do that and, when the religious go unbeliever, there is no backup. That is, religion in a way breeds potential anti - social behaviour.
The other aspect of your argument is about agnosticism and the application of logic. the a-logical aspect simply has to be left on the shelf as speculative. We can know nothing much about it and all that we can say is that many things are possible, but believing just one rather easy somewhat anthropomorphic 'take' on it is just a bit too easy. Agnosticism does not reasonably enjoin belief to the extent of arguing with those who reserve belief until there is better evidence.
Don't know whether this helps to resolve the issues at all.
It with attitudes like these that feed the voice of hate. You can't even agree to let it drop if it meant standing next to someone who believes in something you do not, for a good cause.
People with opinions like these are the problem. They can't stand the violence that some cause, yet rather than do anything about it, they attack those that have nothing to do with the violence that people cause, not because they are apart of the problem, but because they are afraid of taking on those that are responsible for the violence. It is the easy way out and a poor excuse to attack and belittle those that think differently than they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native
Here we have the classic example of a troll post, where the OP becomes incensed when they feel they are being ignored, even briefly.
You ignored the post that followed that I apologized for the silence comment. You neglected to say anything about the actual comment that I made. Maybe if I ask again, you won't chicken out... Do you feel that in the current time frame of today, one year, five years, and 10 years, that there are more people that use religion in a bad way than a good way. Now, I will need statistics and not pictures or maps that have no relation to it.
All these posts are a fine example of how some people can't set aside their differences and come up with a plan to unit and stop the violence that is done in the name of religion, science, and politics.
(1) that it is based on a lie. Sorry - and that is my opinion, though an informed one, but the truth is important to me. That's why I can be tolerant to individual beliefs but not let preaching, social interference and apologetics for god - claims pass without opposing them.
based on a lie? If that is what you want to believe, I am ok with that. But, without proof, you really have no argument if we are focusing on the good religion does.
[QUTOE](2) there is a question of how well we could do without religion. I am not sure that the anti social might not be that way because, in the failure of religion to engage them, they have no social back - up. It's 'why should we behave well if there is no God' in action. If you think atheism through, you develop a social responsibility without religion. Religion of course doesn't do that and, when the religious go unbeliever, there is no backup. That is, religion in a way breeds potential anti - social behaviour.[/quote] it's odd that you say this. Because most anti-religious and people that do not believe in anything spiritual or "religious" are anti-social. Not saying they all are or that the majority are, just the anti-social people I know are.
So the answer is this, since the anti-social and violent can be both religious, non-religious, spiritual and all things in between, the goal should be to encourage social behavior be found in any constructive way possible, be it through atheism, theism, or any form of belief that does not encourage hate.
based on a lie? If that is what you want to believe, I am ok with that. But, without proof, you really have no argument if we are focusing on the good religion does.
Quote:
(2) there is a question of how well we could do without religion. I am not sure that the anti social might not be that way because, in the failure of religion to engage them, they have no social back - up. It's 'why should we behave well if there is no God' in action. If you think atheism through, you develop a social responsibility without religion. Religion of course doesn't do that and, when the religious go unbeliever, there is no backup. That is, religion in a way breeds potential anti - social behaviour.
it's odd that you say this. Because most anti-religious and people that do not believe in anything spiritual or "religious" are anti-social. Not saying they all are or that the majority are, just the anti-social people I know are.
So the answer is this, since the anti-social and violent can be both religious, non-religious, spiritual and all things in between, the goal should be to encourage social behavior be found in any constructive way possible, be it through atheism, theism, or any form of belief that does not encourage hate.
and
Quote:
It with attitudes like these that feed the voice of hate. You can't even agree to let it drop if it meant standing next to someone who believes in something you do not, for a good cause.
People with opinions like these are the problem. They can't stand the violence that some cause, yet rather than do anything about it, they attack those that have nothing to do with the violence that people cause, not because they are apart of the problem, but because they are afraid of taking on those that are responsible for the violence. It is the easy way out and a poor excuse to attack and belittle those that think differently than they do.
While I would love to co- exist with others no matter what whacky views they espoused, we have a duty to argue against what's demonstrably doubtful. That is not helped by those who shut their eyes to the evidence. That just makes the job harder and polarizes attitudes. damning the ones making the case as doing some kind of 'hate -speech' is part of the problem.
The fact is that Christianity is demonstrably based on a lie. I said sorry, but the evidence is there. If you won't look or listen but lash out in defence of a religion you say you don't believe rather than respect my view in the way that theists seem to expect for their slamming of the unbelievers, then you are fuelling the fires of hate, not me.
The fact is that Christianity is demonstrably based on a lie. I said sorry, but the evidence is there. If you won't look or listen but lash out in defence of a religion you say you don't believe rather than respect my view in the way that theists seem to expect for their slamming of the unbelievers, then you are fuelling the fires of hate, not me.
AREQUIPPA is that matter of morals or moralism? Solely, for the skpetic to be moral, eh?
and While I would love to co- exist with others no matter what whacky views they espoused, we have a duty to argue against what's demonstrably doubtful. That is not helped by those who shut their eyes to the evidence. That just makes the job harder and polarizes attitudes. damning the ones making the case as doing some kind of 'hate -speech' is part of the problem.
The fact is that Christianity is demonstrably based on a lie. I said sorry, but the evidence is there. If you won't look or listen but lash out in defence of a religion you say you don't believe rather than respect my view in the way that theists seem to expect for their slamming of the unbelievers, then you are fuelling the fires of hate, not me.
Please, by all means demonstrate for me how Christianity is a lie, or any religion for that matter. I respect no view that demands others that are doing no harm succumb to another belief or denounce their own beliefs.
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.
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.
And the troll lurks under the bridge.........
