Jump to content

Home

Christianity is a religion of tolerance and other assorted myths


Achilles
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

This is true but who wants flies in your honey? To be honest if people are fickle enough to run to religion just because they dont like the publicity of atheism who are they really cheating? In the end I see religion as more like honey - who knows how it was made and where it came from but it looks sweet and nice until you get stuck and you cant get out of it.

 

Surely people choose what they want to believe in and aren't swayed by how a religion is though of. Religions or atheism isn't just about attracting 'fans' as a football club would but about showing a belief and trying to make people better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Continuance!
Sorry.

Nancy's argument is that atheists should be extra careful to play really nice with theists because they....well I'm not sure what her reasoning is, but I think it has to do something with scaring them off or offending them or something.

 

My contention is that this kind of thinking isn't present anywhere else. People that don't believe in the loch ness monster don't feel compelled to walk on eggshells around those that do for fear of offending them somehow. Neither do they worry too much about trying to gently cajole them into maybe someday just possibly thinking about reexamining their beliefs (but only if they want to. No rush!).

 

If I walked up to people on the street and told them that god spoke to me while I was rolling around in feces, they'd think I was nuts. But if I told them that he spoke to me while I was rolling around in church, they'd tell me I was blessed.

 

So, as I have stated several times before, I'm don't think for a second that I'm ever going to be able to reason with Nancy, or Jae, or Darth InSidious but perhaps my dialog with them will strike a chord with others. The gist is that the flies will do whatever they want, so the whole vinegar vs. honey thing is pretty irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wholeheartly doubt any religious person would turn atheist just because 'dem people are so nice and adorable', nor would any atheist turn to religion just because the neighbourhood bully is atheist. And as a true atheist one cannot become a "believer". Ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as a true atheist one cannot become a "believer". Ever.
I don't know about that one. There are many accounts of people that claim to be former atheists that are now theists. While some of these people's accounts are questionable (lying for credibility is hardly a new concept) , I'm sure that some are legitimate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am having trouble with is the fact that one can accept something to be divine intervention or whatever when he actually doesn't believe in the existence of a god.

 

Furthermore, why chose a specific religion just because you met god? It all sounds pretty much made up to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am having trouble with is the fact that one can accept something to be divine intervention or whatever when he actually doesn't believe in the existence of a god.
Too many possible scenarios to cover. Let's just say that I believe that there is a social pressure to conform that can, in some circumstances, act as a proverbial chink in the armor. I also believe that we're to some degree hard-wired to look for causality and when faced with a situation where the answer is "I don't know", people tend to freak out (hence my earlier thread on dealing with the unknown in Kavar's) and make stuff up and/or jump to conclusions.

 

Furthermore, why chose a specific religion just because you met god? It all sounds pretty much made up to me.
Enculturation is a bitch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well. Depends. When you define East Germany as 'under a rock', then yes. But I am afraid no. ;~
Sorry, I don't get it :confused:

 

You all seem to be under the impression that I am Nancy. Why is that?
Call it a hunch.

1) We have the amazing coincidence that "Rogue Warrior" creates an account and starts posting right about the same time that Nancy Allen`` gets put on final warning.

2) We have the amazing coincidence that Nancy Allen`` tells us that the brains behind the scenes, "Rogue Warrior", has taken a sudden interest in LF just as her interest is waning.

3) We have the amazing coincidence that "Rogue Warrior's" posts sound exactly like Nancy Allen``'s posts...aside from occasionally remembering that she's supposed to be pretending to be an atheist now.

 

That's a lot of coincidences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well hey, you are just too smart for me then.

 

Joking aside, I can try and counteract those claims, such as joining to carry on the RP characters, Nancy being pro war, pro American and me not, her using religion to get at atheists and me being one myself, ect. But really it does not bother me what you think. If you want to think I am George Bush who am I to stop you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, unless one is raised under a rock, enculturation is a more than adequate explanation for such a "religious base".
Well. Depends. When you define East Germany as 'under a rock', then yes. But I am afraid no.
Sorry, I don't get it :confused:

 

I grew up in former East Germany. Plus, *my* enculturation would not deliver a more than adequate explanation for such a religious base, to the opposite it would explain the lack of a religious base in my mind.

 

So (a) you consider being raised in the GDR as "raised under a rock" or (b) your statement is not quite correct. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the general public has no basic knowledge of any of the three abrahamic religions that refer to "god", and no references to said "god" ever occur in commonly used language in the public forum? If this answer to this is yes, then I would say that this pretty closely resembles "under a rock" however I will have to concede that my language was extreme. If the answer is no, then we would seem to have enculturation, which was my point.

 

People that have religious experiences in muslim countries see allah. People that have religious experiences in christian countries see god. People that had religious experiences in india 6,000 years ago saw krishna. The god (gods, goddess, goddesses, etc) you "see" when you have a "religious experience" depends largely on what society you were raised in. Or simply enculturation for short. Even if you aren't a believer yourself, the social mores of the tribe will provide easy to find reference points for the programming you have received since birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the general public has no basic knowledge of any of the three abrahamic religions that refer to "god", and no references to said "god" ever occur in commonly used language in the public forum? If this answer to this is yes, then I would say that this pretty closely resembles "under a rock" however I will have to concede that my language was extreme. If the answer is no, then we would seem to have enculturation, which was my point.
The answer is not "yes", yet not "no". Of course, knowledge about the religions was there, but religion itself, or faith, or the question "do you believe" played no role at all. Any questions were simply not answered with religious terms. Not necessarily "a rock", but more of a gift, in my eyes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you were enculturated to have knowledge of god, but not a belief. If something happened that caused you to want to believe, then you would have all the framework you needed to know *what* to believe (i.e. basic tenets, etc). That's all I was trying to say.

 

All these people needed was a nudge or a momentary lapse of skepticism. Their social programming did the rest. Make sense now or do you still think I'm off my rocker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey hey, I got where you're coming from from the begin with.. ^^

 

See, of course I got knowledge of different ideas to explain things, yes. But without exceptions, no one around me believed in religion. So the basic tenor I know is to not explain whatever with god or religion, that's what I am trying to say. And seriously present me some proof for god or spiritual experiences all you want, no religion would be an option for me, even if god was my neighbour. ;]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, of course I got knowledge of different ideas to explain things, yes. But without exceptions, no one around me believed in religion.
"Indoctrinated" and "enculturated" are two entirely different things.

 

And seriously present me some proof for god or spiritual experiences all you want, no religion would be an option for me, even if god was my neighbour. ;]
Well then, with all due respect, your beliefs are no less dogmatic than the theists you appear to consider yourself at odds with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Indoctrinated" and "enculturated" are two entirely different things.
I know. And?

 

Well then, with all due respect, your beliefs are no less dogmatic than the theists you appear to consider yourself at odds with.
Why? Because I think theistic religions are "wrong", and that the existence of god does not mean I must follow one? Or that 'theists' got the concept of god totally wrong?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know. And?
Your arguments would make it appear that you do not. Your orgininal statement was:

What I am having trouble with is the fact that one can accept something to be divine intervention or whatever when he actually doesn't believe in the existence of a god.

 

Furthermore, why chose a specific religion just because you met god? It all sounds pretty much made up to me.

But all you have done is a lot of hand waving at my attempts to explain. Therefore, if you "know", and therefore agree, then why are you going to such lengths to be contrary?

 

Why? Because I think theistic religions are "wrong", and that the existence of god does not mean I must follow one? Or that 'theists' got the concept of god totally wrong?
Because you stated that you would refuse to change your position even if presented evidence which invalidated it. Aka "dogmatism".

 

I agree that theistic religions are based on wishful thinking and have no evidence to support any of the claims found within them. What I will not do is say that I refuse to consider any evidence that contradicts what I consider to be "the truth". If I did, I'd be one flaming hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But all you have done is a lot of hand waving at my attempts to explain. Therefore, if you "know", and therefore agree, then why are you going to such lengths to be contrary?
Mm. I think I did express myself unclear in that "first statement". I know the reasons why people jump on conclusions or turn to religion, whatever. I just cannot follow that logic. That is all.

 

Because you stated that you would refuse to change your position even if presented evidence which invalidated it. Aka "dogmatism".
Nah. I would not refuse to change position and I did not say so.

 

I agree that theistic religions are based on wishful thinking and have no evidence to support any of the claims found within them. What I will not do is say that I refuse to consider any evidence that contradicts what I consider to be "the truth". If I did, I'd be one flaming hypocrite.
Of course I would consider any evidence that might contradict my views. Especially then. I did not say otherwise! The more "opposite views" my views "survive", the better. If not, hell yeah, I've learned something (hopefully). And I said any valid proof for any god must not mean that at least one of the religions is right with what it says. I also said I would not feel like following any religion even if my neighbour happen to be (proven) god.

 

I mean, would you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mm. I think I did express myself unclear in that "first statement". I know the reasons why people jump on conclusions or turn to religion, whatever. I just cannot follow that logic. That is all.
If that's what you intended to convey, then fair enough.

 

Nah. I would not refuse to change position and I did not say so.
Well then I'm not sure what we were supposed to walk away with from this:

 

And seriously present me some proof for god or spiritual experiences all you want, no religion would be an option for me, even if god was my neighbour.

 

It sounds very much like that's exactly what you were saying.

 

Of course I would consider any evidence that might contradict my views. Especially then. I did not say otherwise! The more "opposite views" my views "survive", the better. If not, hell yeah, I've learned something (hopefully). And I said any valid proof for any god must not mean that at least one of the religions is right with what it says. I also said I would not feel like following any religion even if my neighbour happen to be (proven) god.

 

I mean, would you?

Since I'm not sure what you're arguing, I don't know if I would agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...