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.
It is not well said. Many here have said they are OK with others having religious beliefs. But when the religious fundamentalists want to enforce their claims on others, we need to stop this by pointing out the errors in their claims and methodologies.
But this upsets some of the moderate theists as well, because it also effects their beliefs. Which is probably why they always end up attacking the skeptic, and not the person making the bad arguments.
Discussing one's belief in a designated area is not forcing anything onto anyone...some people simply want to nitpick and/or angry because of the tenets related to various faiths...the number #1 is sex.
What exactly is the argument? One side is arguing for freedom of speech for their religious beliefs, which they do have the right to. The other side then turns this into enforcing religious beliefs. How was this jump made?
Judging others beliefs and conduct is rational, moral, and correct. Corpses don’t conduct wars killing others who believe in other deities, or none at all. Mystics do that. We have a world where mystics hate other mystics for no rational reason at all. Just “believing” and “having faith” and “personal experiences” with different deities. Or even with same damnable deity but different doctrine. And then shooting others who behave or believe differently.
So simply letting irrational belief systems destroy the world is not something we are going to do. We are going to JUDGE, and we are going to REJECT as necessary and where necessary to build a better future world. A world where everyone will judge others using rational criteria. And will reject mysticism in every one of its forms.
The First Commandment in the Newer New Testament:
Thou shalt judge your brethren on a rational basis, and shall act on that judgment.
The Second Commandment in the Newer New Testament:
Thou shalt not use faith or have faith without appropriate evidential warrant. For to do so is an affront to your nature and primary tool of survival, your mind, and should be considered a dereliction of your duty to survive.
The Third Commandment in the Newer New Testament:
Thou shalt not own other people. Slavery shall be considered an affront to reason, and this commandment shall supersede all the detritus in the Old Testament that offered specific details on how to enslave your fellow men.
I’ll write more of the New Better News Bible subsequently as needed. As it stands, it already blows the existing one right out the door and not a moment too soon.
This sounds like a version of utopianism, which is dangerous with its black and white, all or nothing thinking. "If we can only get rid of that bad thing called ....... then we can have a better world! Join the cause!" I completely disagree. Human nature is irrational, greedy, self-serving, rapacious, and deceitful. It is also kind, loving, honest, altruistic, rational, and cooperative. Proper integration of the 'irrational' with the rational is what makes a better world. It won't solve everything, but it will help, incrementally. And it doesn't demonize any one thing, like you are doing with religious belief.
Things like art are irrational. I have a hobby, which is perhaps the most useless and irrational hobby a person can have: I make abstract expressionist art. Totally irrational. There is no purpose, other than to do it. No images that you can make out. It's process over content. And yet...it has value. It allows a channel through which the irrational elements of the human psyche--which are natural and unavoidable-- can integrate in a healthy way with the rational--creating wholeness. You cannot excise the irrational. There are also many outlets for the proper integration of aggression, which is irrational--martial arts, sports, movies. Rather than eliminate, it is better to find ways to somehow integrate, with the goal being wholeness.
Art, religion, music, poetry--these are not rational and don't have to be. They will not give you the evidence you keep demanding. That doesn't make them bad. What makes them harmful is when they are not properly integrated with the rational in healthy ways--such as through a pluralistic society, secular laws, debate, diversity of thought, freedom of speech and religion, and tolerance. You don't seem to be arguing for integration, but for progressive "re-education" of what you declare 'wrong beliefs.' You're couching it in impartiality by saying the 'evidence' will be the ultimate arbiter--the objective standard--so it will be fair and just for everyone. But that is naive.
This sounds like a version of utopianism, which is dangerous with its black and white, all or nothing thinking. "If we can only get rid of that bad thing called ....... then we can have a better world! Join the cause!" I completely disagree. Human nature is irrational, greedy, self-serving, rapacious, and deceitful. It is also kind, loving, honest, altruistic, rational, and cooperative. Proper integration of the 'irrational' with the rational is what makes a better world. It won't solve everything, but it will help, incrementally. And it doesn't demonize any one thing, like you are doing with religious belief.
..
You don't seem to be arguing for integration, but for progressive "re-education" of what you declare 'wrong beliefs.' You're couching it in impartiality by saying the 'evidence' will be the ultimate arbiter--the objective standard--so it will be fair and just for everyone. But that is naive.
I wonder at this view. I can understand and even agree with the observation that human nature makes it very hard to change human nature. But this defeatism that seems almost like a denialist rejection of any hope of making humanity better, strikes me as a battle against any improving our lot so as to ensure that Jesusgod is the only Hope.
Maybe bias on my part but this 'No, we cannot make things better! You shouldn't even be trying!" ethos that I hear from the religious side that is all supposed to be about love just befogs me. I can't help but think about the approval of suffering in India, in Childbirth and at the pyre and all in the name of divine love.
Because they know pretty well that, if you alleviate suffering, nobody is rushing to church. Like i say, just a gut feeling I have that might explain this incomprehensible hostility to the idea of trying to improve humanity and society.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-03-2020 at 06:49 AM..
Improving humanity starts with addressing the 3 fingers pointing back at yourself.
A youth may say to an elder "Aren't you the same one who mucked things up in the first place? And now you are evangelizing the remedy?! You've had your turn in the sun."
"The Times, they are-a changing" eh? I have always been a glass half - full optimist and counting life as a lottery -win rather than a curse. I have never seen the point in blaming all the problems on our dads. That's just a way of excusing ourselves from being responsible.
I have seen this in the workplace "I didn't ask to be born. This life is a martyrodom for me, so everyone has to run around to do everything for me that I can't be assed to do for myself."
Haven't we heard it before? "They should do this..." This needs to be done, so the Authorities should just make it happen.
The half -full view makes be look back and see what our forebears (or maybe fore-apes) did for us and not squander those advantages. I admit it is looking desperately bad since the heady days of the first 'Nones' returns, but even if he gets off and becomes stronger (let the reader understand) and the global rush to the instinct -driven Right is unstoppable, I doubt that the ideals will be lost and a later generation will do what he haven't been able to do this century.
Discussing one's belief in a designated area is not forcing anything onto anyone...some people simply want to nitpick and/or angry because of the tenets related to various faiths...the number #1 is sex.
Do you even read what people write?
I am not talking about people who want to discuss their beliefs, I am talking about the fundamentalists. The ones who want a theocracy, or to force woo such as creationism into education and politics. And Forrest IWas is using these same arguments in this thread.
It is not our fault this then brings in non-fundamentalists, who then make equally bad arguments such as evidence is not evidence but a preference, who think evidence is the same as personal taste in music, or that we do not want other people to enjoy their religious beliefs.
As for angry at bad religious tenets, yes, I get angry at all bigotry, religious or not. Religion does not get the free pass just because criticism hurts some peoples feelings.
I am not talking about people who want to discuss their beliefs, I am talking about the fundamentalists. The ones who want a theocracy, or to force woo such as creationism into education and politics. And Forrest IWas is using these same arguments in this thread.
It is not our fault this then brings in non-fundamentalists, who then make equally bad arguments such as evidence is not evidence but a preference, who think evidence is the same as personal taste in music, or that we do not want other people to enjoy their religious beliefs.
As for angry at bad religious tenets, yes, I get angry at all bigotry, religious or not. Religion does not get the free pass just because criticism hurts some peoples feelings.
Have you assessed yourself for any traces of bigotry and desires to limit the freedoms of others because their freedoms may hurt your feelings?
What exactly is the argument? One side is arguing for freedom of speech for their religious beliefs, which they do have the right to. The other side then turns this into enforcing religious beliefs. How was this jump made?
The thread in short. Creationists want to force their beliefs into schools, and IWas is using their arguments. When we skeptics demonstrate why the creationist arguments are very bad, the usual suspects make silly arguments about methodology and straw man our position on freedom of religion instead of responding to the OP.
The thread in short. Creationists want to force their beliefs into schools, and IWas is using their arguments. When we skeptics demonstrate why the creationist arguments are very bad, the usual suspects make silly arguments about methodology and straw man our position on freedom of religion instead of responding to the OP.
Atheist do not believe Christianity is valid...crickets....no one needs to Paul Revere that news in.
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.
