Jump to content

Photo

Defend your brand of Fairy Tale!


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#1 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 27 January 2012 - 11:59 AM

In the 2012 thread, I made some comments that were rather critical of religion which steered the discussion a bit off-topic for a bit. If anyone wants to discuss religion, I'd be happy to debate here. Its a big topic with so many rabbit holes. I'll talk about any of them and how religion is wrong. We can start at the beginning if you want. Anyone here want to defend creationism/ID? Otherwise suggest another topic (morality without religion, seperation b/t church & state, abortion, monotheism, the fictional and thoroughly ridiculous books of reference, etc).
  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#2 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,072 posts

Posted 27 January 2012 - 02:50 PM

lol im going to go out on a limb here and assume you are an atheist? If I am wrong, then let me know.
  • 0

#3 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,808 posts

Posted 27 January 2012 - 04:17 PM

I believe only in the flying spaghetti monster.
  • 1
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#4 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 27 January 2012 - 04:33 PM

Yes I am an athiest. Episcopal upbringing (Catholic Light).

The FSM is just as valid as Zeus or Allah or whatever. So if you want to discuss his noodly appendages go right ahead.

Edited by devilsadvoc8, 27 January 2012 - 04:33 PM.

  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#5 oofrostonoo

oofrostonoo

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,464 posts

Posted 27 January 2012 - 04:33 PM

I think it was necessary to explain things that couldn't be explained. I think humans are more and more quickly growing out of it.

I was raised Catholic and learned good moral lessons but as far as it factually explaining existence and a creator...I never bought into that part. Even as a little kid; I always thought it was more of a fairy tale that offered some good lessons.

Two thousand years ago people didn't know where the sun went at night... how would they know the answer to the most puzzling important question that exists.
  • 0
Posted Image

#6 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,072 posts

Posted 27 January 2012 - 04:42 PM

Yes I am an athiest. Episcopal upbringing (Catholic Light).

The FSM is just as valid as Zeus or Allah or whatever. So if you want to discuss his noodly appendages go right ahead.



Ah ok. I guess I would consider myself Agnostic as I do believe in some higher spirit, but not neccessarily a god or gods. I am not a fan of organized religion and do believe in evolution.

I had a Presbyterian upbringing, but never really went to church much as my parents would tell me the Bible is as just as good of a read as the Grimm Brothers tales lol.

However, I feel the constant attack on religion is just as silly as the constant attack by religious nuts on "non-believers." I guess I feel that people should practice and believe in whatever they want just dont preach it to others when it is unwanted and do not shove it down someone elses throat. This goes for both sides.
  • 0

#7 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 27 January 2012 - 05:20 PM

Ah ok. I guess I would consider myself Agnostic as I do believe in some higher spirit, but not neccessarily a god or gods. I am not a fan of organized religion and do believe in evolution.

I had a Presbyterian upbringing, but never really went to church much as my parents would tell me the Bible is as just as good of a read as the Grimm Brothers tales lol.

However, I feel the constant attack on religion is just as silly as the constant attack by religious nuts on "non-believers." I guess I feel that people should practice and believe in whatever they want just dont preach it to others when it is unwanted and do not shove it down someone elses throat. This goes for both sides.

I'll agree and disagree with you. What people choose to do in their own lives is fine. I don't have any interest in homosexuality but that doesn't make it wrong. Whatever makes you happy go for it. If you want to practice some religion on your own time, fine. That's where we agree.

Where we disagree is (1) where religion starts to influence public affairs and (2) Where someone's beliefs are so wrong and they influence public affairs that in my opinion they should hold any public office. Now we may not disagree at all on #1 but it is rare that someone with strong religious beliefs doesn't bring them into politics or their business. Let's just say we agree for now on #1.

As for #2, If someone says that they believe that the earth is flat would you support them for public office? If someone can ignore the preponderance of scientific evidence in favor fairy tales written by goat herders thousands of years ago, I question their intellectual abilities. I worry that that irrational thought may influence their decisions that impact ME. Belive in Zeus or whatever but you have no credibility with me to make any ANY decisions for others.
  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#8 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,072 posts

Posted 27 January 2012 - 06:04 PM

I'll agree and disagree with you. What people choose to do in their own lives is fine. I don't have any interest in homosexuality but that doesn't make it wrong. Whatever makes you happy go for it. If you want to practice some religion on your own time, fine. That's where we agree.

Where we disagree is (1) where religion starts to influence public affairs and (2) Where someone's beliefs are so wrong and they influence public affairs that in my opinion they should hold any public office. Now we may not disagree at all on #1 but it is rare that someone with strong religious beliefs doesn't bring them into politics or their business. Let's just say we agree for now on #1.

As for #2, If someone says that they believe that the earth is flat would you support them for public office? If someone can ignore the preponderance of scientific evidence in favor fairy tales written by goat herders thousands of years ago, I question their intellectual abilities. I worry that that irrational thought may influence their decisions that impact ME. Belive in Zeus or whatever but you have no credibility with me to make any ANY decisions for others.



If someone said that the earth is flat and they are running for public office then I would think they are an idiot. However I do feel pretty much all of congress and both political parties are full of idiots so it really wouldn't change my opinion of them already.

Honestly at this moment, I cannot think of a single way religion-influence civic affairs have impeded on my life. I really couldn't care less if my money says "In God We Trust" or not, though the historian in me knows that back 240 years ago our nation was founded by people who had heavy Protestant values and so it would be slightly tragic to lose that bit of heritage. However if that did come off our money my reaction would be more along the lines of "oh that is too bad" rather than outrage. In terms of abortion I am pro-choice, but either way that issue doesn't bother me either as I do not plan on having kids and take precautions against that. I have no problem saying "under god" in the pledge of allegiance and if it is removed, I will have no problem saying it without under god.

Enough about me though, but can you provide an example or two of any laws or ordinances that are religious-influenced and have impacted or impeded your life tremendously? I cannot think of any and when I ask that question to some of my friends who are atheists or just non-practicing, they cannot really give a good example either. Honestly, this is just a bunch of rabble-rousing about nothing and just as silly as the ultra-reiligious nuts rabble-rousing about their agenda.
  • 0

#9 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,808 posts

Posted 27 January 2012 - 07:05 PM

As for #2, If someone says that they believe that the earth is flat would you support them for public office? If someone can ignore the preponderance of scientific evidence in favor fairy tales written by goat herders thousands of years ago, I question their intellectual abilities. I worry that that irrational thought may influence their decisions that impact ME. Belive in Zeus or whatever but you have no credibility with me to make any ANY decisions for others.


Your question reminds me of something my astronomy professor said that you can be a very good lawyer, a successful investment banker, or what have you, and not believe something as fundamental that the earth revolves around the sun. So believing in the burning bush or a talking snake does not mean that you're incapable of having good ideas that matter more to the electorate, such as tax policy, military affairs, public spending, etc.

So until someone starts saying I believe the world was created in seven days 4000 years ago AND it ought to be taught in science class, I generally don't care what someone's religious beliefs are.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#10 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,432 posts

Posted 28 January 2012 - 02:03 AM

I don't care what anyone believes. I hate it when politicians aren't called out for using religion as a criteria for public policy.

The only thing that drives me nuts is when people who are self proclaimed atheists are intolerant of even agnosticism, yet speak on behalf of a hypothetical God. When they use examples along the lines of An omnipotent God doesn't care about you so why believe in him... :blink: If you can come up with the analogies, you can conceive of a creating spirit beyond our comprehension - so why ridicule even the agnostic? Because there is stronger political purpose to being atheist. It's as if admitting there could be a higher spirit invalidates any defense against religious zealots. But religious zealots don't care what you believe.

Atheists interested in a discussion mostly want to belittle a spiritual person - and it all falls under the guise of defending the right to their own beliefs. They're fundamentalists - part of their dogma is that all spiritual people want to convert them. Discussion starts off under that assumption. Which is natural because otherwise what's the point of discussing? Why have a discussion about a God you don't believe in?

The discussion here is even introduced as everyone's Fairy tale - that's condescending and combative. I don't mind Mythology. The discussion you want to have however is Why do people tolerate politicians using religion as justification for creating public policy that clearly infringes on people's civil rights? It's a country founded on separation of church and state. What the heck is up with that? Why did they put "under God" into the pledge after WWII? I feel like that's when it all started - the integration of church and state. I don't approve.

ANYHOW -- I'm up too late.
  • 0

I'm here for the party


#11 mouse

mouse

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,511 posts

Posted 28 January 2012 - 09:25 AM



The discussion here is even introduced as everyone's Fairy tale - that's condescending and combative. I don't mind Mythology. The discussion you want to have however is Why do people tolerate politicians using religion as justification for creating public policy that clearly infringes on people's civil rights? It's a country founded on separation of church and state. What the heck is up with that? Why did they put "under God" into the pledge after WWII? I feel like that's when it all started - the integration of church and state. I don't approve.


This. I used to be somewhat Catholic. Ever since they picked a Nazi to be pope, I've had no involvement with any church. Even when I was religious, I had issues with forcing my views on others. I feel strongly about the separation of church and state, and on a more personal note, I've never believed Christians "got it right" any more than Buddhists or Muslims or Hindus or anyone else.

Insulting everyone for having a religion is unfair, though. Most religious people are intelligent and thoughtful, and don't want their beliefs forced down anyone else's throat. A vocal minority has politicized God and mobilizes people in scary, dangerous ways, but when you call everyone's beliefs fairy tales, you're not much better (though you're not trying to force your views on an entire country, just sharing them on a message board).

I do think the connection between religion and politics has affected my life. I'm not gay, and I've never gotten anyone pregnant, so gay marriage and Roe v. Wade haven't directly affected me, but the attack on Roe V. Wade and the existence of DOMA (which is unconstitutional) are a direct result of religion and politics, and those things are bad for this country and bad for people I care about deeply. Banning gay marriage especially is unconstitutional, and if right wing fundamentalist Christians (notice I didn't say all Christians) didn't have power in politics, gay marriage would be legal, and we wouldn't be comparing ourselves to theocracies in the middle east and Africa when trying to justify our stance. On a more practical note, I would argue that Bush was elected the second time partially because of religion. Abortion became a major campaign issue rather than war or jobs, and Kerry's religion became a problem when conservative Catholic bishops refused to give him communion for being pro-choice. I don't want to get into a political debate on the merits of Bush or Kerry, but I think it's a problem when the presidency of the United States, a country founded on the belief of separation of church and state, is influenced to a large degree by religion (also, how many non-Protestant presidents have we had? 1, and he was still Christian).

To go back to your original post (and sorry, this rambled a bit), I think there are serious issues with religion in America. I also think most religious people are fine, and that many of them agree about these issues. Demonizing people for having faith is unfair, and is not an effective way to successfully resolve the problems we have. If anything is going to get better in this country, it's going to be because people who disagree learn to work together (something we've gotten crappier and crappier at), so insulting a huge bloc of people for their views is just going to exacerbate the problem.
  • 0

Sumus Legio
You don't turn this around in a couple shifts. Its going to take a little time, but I know the guys will come back. Because I can see it. -- Jacques Lemaire

 

sguq.jpg


#12 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 28 January 2012 - 10:37 AM

If you don't think that religion is affecting you consider the following:

If you think overpopulation is an issue, why does a major religion prohibit condoms and other forms of birth control
If you think that you should be able to marry whomever you want, consider the controversy on gay marriage
If you think that the creation myth is not science then why are state legislatures and state school boards still considering rules to teach it alongside evolution to our youth
If you think that women are equal to men, why are hundreds of million of women not afforded equal rights in Muslim countries
If you think that freedom of speech is important why was EVERY major news outlet in this country afraid to publish a cartoon of Mohammed
If you worry that the conflict between Israel and the rest of the ME will spark a nuclear war then consider the role of religion there
If you or a loved one is faced with certain illnesses and you are looking for a cure think about why stem cell research is constrained here in the US
If you lost a loved one in 9/11 consider religion's role in that
If you think that the sexual abuse and the cover up this abuse and the protection of the abusers is wrong, why hasn't the government come down on the catholic church like it does lone offenders like at PSU?
If you think that the mutilation of females in the form of female circumcision is wrong why is this practice allowed to continue (the whole concept of male circumcision is highly questionable as well but less harmful)
If you value free thought why do we allow children to be brainwashed and indoctrinated into fundamentalist religions before their critical thinking skills are mature

I could go on but I think you get the point.

If you want to practice witch craft and be completely ignorant on your own time, I find it sad but I'll let you do it. As soon as your wacky beliefs impact my world I do get aggressive about it PK because it is based on made up fairy tales. We don't pass laws based on Santa's naughty and nice list and we shouldn't pass laws based on the psychotic visions of an illiterate shepherd who had visions in a cave, a shepherd who spoke with burning bush or some "man" who strangely couldn't have a Y chromosome that had zombie powers.
  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#13 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,432 posts

Posted 28 January 2012 - 02:02 PM

Why are you attacking me advoc8? You don't know what I believe.

I never state my beliefs when an atheist puts up a challenge because I find it amusing they assume I have some mythology I must cling to. They never think I am a tolerant atheist. I find that to be akin to the rabid fundamentalist who MUST start with the premiss that I'm going to hell before knowing one damned thing about me.

Why don't you tell me why you choose fairy tale opposed to the less combative mythology? That's what I'm interested in because I think it harms your cause. What is your cause actually? Just to argue with no hope to teach? You can set up the whole the onus is on the believer to prove the existence of God. It's -- blah it's just a tired old rant I'm not amused by - neither side is compelling because I'm comfortable with what I believe.

Now... as for all the things you've called out as being effected by religion. You're implying spirituality caused these things -- but what you MEAN is that dogma does. Why not be less offensive and more specific? Dogma is created to control the masses. It's not a spiritual message it's a tyrannical message. You're not arguing the real point.

But I understand you nonetheless and agree with you. You're just inarticulate -- OR you just know it's a pointless discussion.

You have to start off with basic assumption even if false, in order to set the discussion on the right path for you to pontificate in the way you would like. You want to manipulate the faithful into saying what you want them to... but it' s pointless - you're changing nothing just amusing yourself - feeling like you won something - like you've proven your superiority to yourself - like my signature quote. You can't sway a fundamentalist mind telling them how smart you are and how dumb they are.

All things being equal - you cannot establish the correct point of view - you can only attack with no hope to prove or disprove. You cannot force someone into choosing YOUR path. They have to take their own. Doing your best to belittle their view in attack mode is ineffective. Especially since I expect nothing fresh or compelling will be presented. It will just be the distillation of the writings of atheists smarter than you. :evil: A person is psyched to enter a battle of wits because they have a preconceived outcome which involves their own mental superiority - because they are re-hashing a battle already fought by clearer mind in carefully controlled circumstances (generally their own book).

THIS is the discussion I find interesting. Why do intelligent people have to set themselves up as fundamentalist atheists? You catch more bees with honey. Aggressive mental combat is not the solution to the dissolution of dogma. I've heard Richard Dawkins say that his spreading of the athiest message is to end dogma. It's so hard to get the ear of the minds that follow dogmatic rule. It just seems ineffective to me.

Edited by Pepperkorn, 28 January 2012 - 02:04 PM.

  • 0

I'm here for the party


#14 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,432 posts

Posted 28 January 2012 - 02:14 PM

To streamline a more relevant response to your post now:

Tyrany will exist with or without God

Compassion will exist with or without God

Morality will exist with or without God. Immorality will exist with or without God. And not everyone will agree on the definition of either.

If you take way the belief in God nothing changes - it's will just be given a different name.
  • 0

I'm here for the party


#15 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,072 posts

Posted 28 January 2012 - 04:13 PM

If you don't think that religion is affecting you consider the following:

If you think overpopulation is an issue, why does a major religion prohibit condoms and other forms of birth control
If you think that you should be able to marry whomever you want, consider the controversy on gay marriage
If you think that the creation myth is not science then why are state legislatures and state school boards still considering rules to teach it alongside evolution to our youth
If you think that women are equal to men, why are hundreds of million of women not afforded equal rights in Muslim countries
If you think that freedom of speech is important why was EVERY major news outlet in this country afraid to publish a cartoon of Mohammed
If you worry that the conflict between Israel and the rest of the ME will spark a nuclear war then consider the role of religion there
If you or a loved one is faced with certain illnesses and you are looking for a cure think about why stem cell research is constrained here in the US
If you lost a loved one in 9/11 consider religion's role in that
If you think that the sexual abuse and the cover up this abuse and the protection of the abusers is wrong, why hasn't the government come down on the catholic church like it does lone offenders like at PSU?
If you think that the mutilation of females in the form of female circumcision is wrong why is this practice allowed to continue (the whole concept of male circumcision is highly questionable as well but less harmful)
If you value free thought why do we allow children to be brainwashed and indoctrinated into fundamentalist religions before their critical thinking skills are mature

I could go on but I think you get the point.

If you want to practice witch craft and be completely ignorant on your own time, I find it sad but I'll let you do it. As soon as your wacky beliefs impact my world I do get aggressive about it PK because it is based on made up fairy tales. We don't pass laws based on Santa's naughty and nice list and we shouldn't pass laws based on the psychotic visions of an illiterate shepherd who had visions in a cave, a shepherd who spoke with burning bush or some "man" who strangely couldn't have a Y chromosome that had zombie powers.


I am not a catholic so the condom issue doesn't affect me.

I am not gay so that issue doesn't affect me.

I am not Muslim so that issue doesn't affect me.

I and no one in my family is gravely sick so that has not affected me.

The media is just the media and I can turn off the tv or put down the paper so that doesn't affect me.

I have never been sexually abused by and clergy member and I do not know anyone personally who was sexually abused by a member of the clergy so that doesn't affect me

Please please please just give you an example where it has affected YOU personally and not just hot button issues that doesn't affect me personally.
  • 0

#16 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 09:53 AM

Why are you attacking me advoc8? You don't know what I believe.

I never state my beliefs when an atheist puts up a challenge because I find it amusing they assume I have some mythology I must cling to. They never think I am a tolerant atheist. I find that to be akin to the rabid fundamentalist who MUST start with the premiss that I'm going to hell before knowing one damned thing about me.

Why don't you tell me why you choose fairy tale opposed to the less combative mythology? That's what I'm interested in because I think it harms your cause. What is your cause actually? Just to argue with no hope to teach? You can set up the whole the onus is on the believer to prove the existence of God. It's -- blah it's just a tired old rant I'm not amused by - neither side is compelling because I'm comfortable with what I believe.

Now... as for all the things you've called out as being effected by religion. You're implying spirituality caused these things -- but what you MEAN is that dogma does. Why not be less offensive and more specific? Dogma is created to control the masses. It's not a spiritual message it's a tyrannical message. You're not arguing the real point.

But I understand you nonetheless and agree with you. You're just inarticulate -- OR you just know it's a pointless discussion.

You have to start off with basic assumption even if false, in order to set the discussion on the right path for you to pontificate in the way you would like. You want to manipulate the faithful into saying what you want them to... but it' s pointless - you're changing nothing just amusing yourself - feeling like you won something - like you've proven your superiority to yourself - like my signature quote. You can't sway a fundamentalist mind telling them how smart you are and how dumb they are.

All things being equal - you cannot establish the correct point of view - you can only attack with no hope to prove or disprove. You cannot force someone into choosing YOUR path. They have to take their own. Doing your best to belittle their view in attack mode is ineffective. Especially since I expect nothing fresh or compelling will be presented. It will just be the distillation of the writings of atheists smarter than you. :evil: A person is psyched to enter a battle of wits because they have a preconceived outcome which involves their own mental superiority - because they are re-hashing a battle already fought by clearer mind in carefully controlled circumstances (generally their own book).

THIS is the discussion I find interesting. Why do intelligent people have to set themselves up as fundamentalist atheists? You catch more bees with honey. Aggressive mental combat is not the solution to the dissolution of dogma. I've heard Richard Dawkins say that his spreading of the athiest message is to end dogma. It's so hard to get the ear of the minds that follow dogmatic rule. It just seems ineffective to me.


I wasn't attacking you but if you feel I am, I don't care. Devsman stated that they didn't think that religion affected them and I gave them a list on how it might. If you have some hypersensitivity about something it isn't my fault that is your own personal issue.

Now, since you feel I am attacking you, I will address you directly: You are a hypocrite. You outright dismiss any opinion contrary to yours regarding AGW and belittle other's opinions. Here, when you topic changes to religion that tactic is wrong. :argh: From your ivory tower you state that I am aggressive and insulting yet you feel perfectly comfortable saying:
stated that I am:
Inarticulate
I'll just distill statements from smarter people

I don't give a sh!t what discussion YOU feel is interesting. If you want, start your own thread on that topic.

As for the topic at hand, until people start addressing religion full on as the joke that it is, it will continue to fvck up human existence. The fundamentalists need to be pushed to the margins. Injustices in this world didn't get righted using honey, PK. Brave men and women took stands and called it like they saw it instead of trying to make nice. The founding of this country, women's rights, racial equality, the end of slavery all occurred in this country because people confronted the issue and told people : You are wrong. This is not what our country stands for.
  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#17 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 10:06 AM

I am not a catholic so the condom issue doesn't affect me.

I am not gay so that issue doesn't affect me.

I am not Muslim so that issue doesn't affect me.

I and no one in my family is gravely sick so that has not affected me.

The media is just the media and I can turn off the tv or put down the paper so that doesn't affect me.

I have never been sexually abused by and clergy member and I do not know anyone personally who was sexually abused by a member of the clergy so that doesn't affect me

Please please please just give you an example where it has affected YOU personally and not just hot button issues that doesn't affect me personally.


I have lost a good friend to a disease that stem cells hold promise for curing
I have lost my best friend when they married a fundamentalist
I lost a co-worker on one of the 9/11 planes
I do worry about finite natural resources on this planet so overpopulation is a concern
I do worry about a nuclear ME conflict
My 9 yr old daughter who attends public school is ostracized by the god squad girls at school b/c she doesn't attend church. Not once have I ever told my daughter what I believe. I have never told her god doesn't exist and I haven't told her it does. I will let her make her own decision for the right reasons not because I indoctrinated her in a particular belief structure when her mind has rudimentary critical thinking skills.

Get the movie Jesus Camp from Netflix.
  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#18 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,432 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 01:13 PM

I wasn't attacking you but if you feel I am, I don't care. Devsman stated that they didn't think that religion affected them and I gave them a list on how it might. If you have some hypersensitivity about something it isn't my fault that is your own personal issue. To use an expression I hate: my bad - you are correct - but can anyone be surprized I made it all about me?

Now, since you feel I am attacking you, I will address you directly: You are a hypocrite. You outright dismiss any opinion contrary to yours regarding AGW and belittle other's opinions. Here, when you topic changes to religion that tactic is wrong. :argh: From your ivory tower you state that I am aggressive and insulting yet you feel perfectly comfortable saying:
stated that I am:
Inarticulate
I'll just distill statements from smarter people Yeah -- I meant to say that :evil: I like insulting you - and you seem to enjoy it so!

I don't give a sh!t what discussion YOU feel is interesting. If you want, start your own thread on that topic.

As for the topic at hand, until people start addressing religion full on as the joke that it is, it will continue to fvck up human existence. The fundamentalists need to be pushed to the margins. Injustices in this world didn't get righted using honey, PK. Brave men and women took stands and called it like they saw it instead of trying to make nice. The founding of this country, women's rights, racial equality, the end of slavery all occurred in this country because people confronted the issue and told people : You are wrong. This is not what our country stands for.


I think you're wrong. Your playing into the fundamentalists hands trying to take on a war that no one can win. It's a physical war not a mental one. Their beliefs are rhetorical. Any response then is as well... I'm talking about jihad mostly here. (And crusades etc.)

The change you're citing came about not from society abandoning religion - that's quite a leap. It came about from people folding more progressive beleifs into their religion.

again I state:

Tyrany will exist with or without God

Compassion will exist with or without God

Morality will exist with or without God. Immorality will exist with or without God. And not everyone will agree on the definition of either.

If you take away the belief in God nothing changes - it's will just be given a different name.

Edited by Pepperkorn, 29 January 2012 - 01:24 PM.

  • 0

I'm here for the party


#19 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,432 posts

Posted 29 January 2012 - 01:28 PM

Also you completely disregarded:

The discussion you want to have however is Why do people tolerate politicians using religion as justification for creating public policy that clearly infringes on people's civil rights? It's a country founded on separation of church and state.



Let's not discuss abolishing all religion - instead focus on reinvigorating the concept of separation of church and state. It's a winnable battle. Abolition is never a realistic starting point

(When you disregard responses that are not insulting and directly address your topic you ignore them. I have to insult you and say something off topic to get you to respond, So I am left conclude you want a fight not productive discussion.)

Edited by Pepperkorn, 29 January 2012 - 01:30 PM.

  • 0

I'm here for the party


#20 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 08:39 AM

Also you completely disregarded:



Let's not discuss abolishing all religion - instead focus on reinvigorating the concept of separation of church and state. It's a winnable battle. Abolition is never a realistic starting point

(When you disregard responses that are not insulting and directly address your topic you ignore them. I have to insult you and say something off topic to get you to respond, So I am left conclude you want a fight not productive discussion.)


PK, I am not afraid of any question you might have the mental focus to put together. I have to admit, however, I really only skim your posts as they are generally incoherent dribble but extra points for excellent smiley use.

As for your question, if something is wrong, its wrong. If slavery is wrong, you don't chastise only the slaveowners who treat their slaves poorly. If women should have the right to vote you don't start with allowing them just local elections. You suggest treating the symptoms not the disease. I disagree.
  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users