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.
I will sometimes hear atheists speak favorably of ancient myths like Thor or Pan with a sort fondness, as compared to the traditional Christian god.
Does this mean that one day in the future, even Jehova will find similar favor with atheists, after he inevitably transforms into a myth?
After watching "Conan the Barbarian" I started listing myself as a "Cromist" whenever some application asked for my religious affiliation. Is that the sort of fondness which you reference?
I could have fun and feel good about the Crom business because it represented absolutely no threat of any sort to me. The same cannot be said of the religious minded who oppose assisted suicide, oppose abortion, want prayer in schools, want Creationism taught in science classes, wish to censor certain books, and have political organizations in place to promote these ideas. All that makes it tough for me to view them with good humor.
Humanism is, I might say, the 'camp' we all ought to be in as part of the secularist campaign - atheists, sortagod -agnostics, pantheists, animists and irreligious theists, and maybe even the the religions who doubt that theirs would be the ones dishing out the orders if America became a theocracy. We diabolicalist ditchscum and they have one thing or aim in common - to see that no one religion gets all the power.
This is a horrible misrepresentation of the atheist rationale, criticism of Religion, Bible or Church, and methodology. What, Ozzy, what in the world hath poisoned your mind against atheism so much that you will dismiss humanism in its' entirety on the (false) suspicion that it is a synonym for 'atheist' As though that was the ultimate discredit that would make it forever something to be shunned by all decent people.
I couldn't disagree more. Anyone who believes in a higher power should be in a community with others who also do, and in reality they are all worshipping the same deity. An atheist might not like that but that's the way it is. Why would they want to try to worship alongside an atheist?
I was under the impression that Humanist has sometimes been used as an alternate term for people who don't want to openly call themselves Atheist. Maybe I'm wrong.
So Dawkin's arguments "all fall flat", and yet there he is a doctoral graduate from the University of Oxford. The holder of over a dozen honorary doctorates. The winner of multiple awards for books he’s authored. The winner of over a dozen other well-recognized awards. Considered one of the top intellectuals in the world by several noted publications. Noted by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world and on the list of a British newspaper as one of the 100 greatest living geniuses.
Oh, ok.
On this particular issue (Is the Bible relevant) yes. Absolutely. The fact that it is relevant to me, and the fact that I don't take it literally, is proof that it is relevant to millions of people.
I couldn't disagree more. Anyone who believes in a higher power should be in a community with others who also do, and in reality they are all worshipping the same deity. An atheist might not like that but that's the way it is. Why would they want to try to worship alongside an atheist?
I was under the impression that Humanist has sometimes been used as an alternate term for people who don't want to openly call themselves Atheist. Maybe I'm wrong.
You are. Both times. Nice going. It is nothing to do with belief or non -belief, let alone modes of worship. It is about working for a secularist -based society that will allow people to Believe and worship as they like, without one kind of belief lording it over the others. This will be in YOUR interests, too, because you don't want Fundamentalist Christian Sharya law demanding regular demonstrations of Christian faith in work and school, mandatory tithing as well as taxes and science books revised to comply with the Bible any more than I do.
You can forget about Science being some kind of belief system. It is like mathematics. It works. It works the same everywhere. There are many religions, but only one science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
On this particular issue (Is the Bible relevant) yes. Absolutely. The fact that it is relevant to me, and the fact that I don't take it literally, is proof that it is relevant to millions of people.
Now, just WHY is it relevant to you? And why should you think that validates it being relevant to millions of others? I know that it is, or they at least tick the right box on the survey, but what makes you think that the value you put on it is the reason why they do, or should?
You are. Both times. Nice going. It is nothing to do with belief or non -belief, let alone modes of worship. It is about working for a secularist -based society that will allow people to Believe and worship as they like, without one kind of belief lording it over the others. This will be in YOUR interests, too, because you don't want Fundamentalist Christian Sharya law demanding regular demonstrations of Christian faith in work and school, mandatory tithing as well as taxes and science books revised to comply with the Bible any more than I do.
You can forget about Science being some kind of belief system. It is like mathematics. It works. It works the same everywhere. There are many religions, but only one science.
Now, just WHY is it relevant to you? And why should you think that validates it being relevant to millions of others? I know that it is, or they at least tick the right box on the survey, but what makes you think that the value you put on it is the reason why they do, or should?
I don't think some people are aware of the influence of faith on science. On the other hand, no one could ever say that atheists have not made a huge contribution to scientific development. But there is also the other side which never seems to be acknowledged.
The Bible is relevant to me because it has provided spiritual guidance. It was written by people who believed in the same God that I do. It was written about something very real, if mysterious, and I always find inspiration in it.
As I was watching the Kavanaugh hearings this week, I came to a firmer conclusion about a theory that I've been playing with in my mind for quite some time, but in the past I always confined it to political elections. However, I'm beginning to believe that it is true of all "organizations". And that is the concept of "over-reach". We see it in elections when one party has been in power too long, they over-reach in terms of policies they force on the public, and then they are voted out of office. But it isn't just in political elections. The Kavanaugh fiasco is another example of over-reach. But that's still politics. But in reality, the concept of over-reach occurs in many, perhaps most "organizations". I've certainly seen it in education. I see it in my community's HOA. I think we see it in television and movie programming. In many aspects of everyday life. We can probably even see it is our own behavior, and how over-reach sometimes comes crashing down on us. Think of the old saying, "The bigger they are, the harder they fall"; that's really about over-reach.
And your position on religion, which is representative of the position most religionists have, is another example of over-reach.
Take your sentence, "The church is the backbone of community for many MANY people". I think that's true. But the over-reach is that all too many christians (and I'm sure this can be said about people of other religions as well) is that they believe that should be an almost-mandatory "backbone-ness". And in that way it becomes a tool of exclusion. And I saw this happen in my own hometown when I was a kid. My town was noted for two things that were religious -- the birth of Mormonism and the 4 main churches on the four corners of the town's main intersection. And those four churches on the four corners played a heavy role in decided who was accepted (to varying degrees) in our community. If you didn't belong to one of those four churches -- Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Episcopal -- then you weren't considered to be quite normal. Dr. Iati's and Dr. Brandetsas' families were looked on as being oddball...even though they were actually nice people...because they were (gasp!) Jewish, and they had to go out of town to go to that "weird church"...a synagogue. Even we catholics were not seen as mainstream...after all, we were two blocks away from those four corners. And the Mormons...oh my goodness. The Mormons were out-and-out disliked, even though (or maybe because) their religion was founded in our town. And then there were the oddball churches (that's how they were looked at) -- the Assembly Of God, for example. Very much looked down on. And if you think I'm just imagining that, when I was in public elementary school, on Wednesdays the kids who went to those four churches on that one intersection were allowed to get out of school an hour early to go to religious school at those four churches, and ultimately the catholics put up such a fuss that they were included, too. But kids who belonged to the splinter religions...nope...stay in school...no religious instruction for you! That sort of backbone-ness is evil...and it's over-reach.
Go over in the politics and other controversies part of the forum. And see this same attitude on a national scale against people who are non-religious, or a different color, or who belong to a really different religion. And so much of that prejudice is based in religion. And that's where the over-reach comes in.
Now, are all religionists that way on the national scene? No. Mostly that's the vocal ones who are so apt to say things like, "Well, if you don't believe in the American way [which they see as christianity], the you ought to go live somewhere else. That's part of that backbone-ness of the community.
Meanwhile, I have a number of friends who are really into their Methodist church. But they don't push it on others. They go, they worship, and it stays with them, but does not become something to result in over-reach. They invite me to occasional events -- a christmas luncheon for seniors (for example) -- but never does a single person suggest I should become a Methodist.
And here's what I see as the difference. You're preaching that the christian faith should be the backbone of the community. What I see as acceptable is that the christian faith should only be seen as the backbone of an individual...an individual who allows other people of other beliefs (including atheism) to have their own moral backbones not dictated by you who feel you are in the majority. When people of a particular belief gang-up on people of people with minority beliefs, that has nothing to do with backbone, but everything to do with bullying.
I think you are simply describing American society at that point in history. All people, even atheists, are suspicious of "outsiders" or anything new and different. And it would have been even worse the farther back in time that you go. Because no one was excluded from the atrocities which occurred in the past, such as the practice of slavery in America, since everyone benefitted from that labor system. The churches in your town were just a reflection of society and communities at that time.
I think you are simply describing American society at that point in history. All people, even atheists, are suspicious of "outsiders" or anything new and different. And it would have been even worse the farther back in time that you go. Because no one was excluded from the atrocities which occurred in the past, such as the practice of slavery in America, since everyone benefitted from that labor system. The churches in your town were just a reflection of society and communities at that time.
Everyone benefited from slavery?
Here's the problem I have with so many of your posts -- just like this one. If it's good, it's because of god. If it's bad, it's because of man. Baloney.
And maybe the churches shouldn't be a reflection of society. Maybe, if they're worth anything at all, they ought to lead society. But instead, just like today, who are they mostly supporting?
I think you are simply describing American society at that point in history. All people, even atheists, are suspicious of "outsiders" or anything new and different. And it would have been even worse the farther back in time that you go. Because no one was excluded from the atrocities which occurred in the past, such as the practice of slavery in America, since everyone benefitted from that labor system. The churches in your town were just a reflection of society and communities at that time.
Everyone? Including the people who were ripped from their homes and families, confined to disease ridden ships, beaten, raped, chained and forced into hard manual labor? If it wasn’t enough to rip them from their families in Africa, they and their descendants had to endure their American families being forcibly torn apart as well, with husbands, wives and children being separated and sold at whim.
Please tell me how those people benefitted from that “labor system”.
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.
