Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Actually I don't celebrate it - for personal reasons previously stated. That being said, I don't condemn anyone who does celebrate it.To spend the month doing good works is commendable. But that's not limited to the month of December, it can be done any time and has nothing at all to do with Christmas.
The point of the exercise, at least for me, was informational. I really enjoy reading the views expressed here, and while I don't agree with some and do agree with some - I have learned a lot.
I thought it would be interesting, given the personalities found here, to see who celebrates and who doesn't - as compared to those same individuals' beliefs.
That's all - as I said previously, I really don't have an agenda or any ulterior motives here - I just like the different views.
Oh, and about the golden calf, I think (I may be wrong - Gary probably knows) - they took all their jewelry and made the golden calf as a celebration of their freedom from the Egyptians. They were praying to the calf (an idol)as part of their worship of God. Similar to the way some religions pray to statues of saints (idols) in their worship to God. Both are rejected. God doesn't want idols used in his worship, he finds it offensive. At least that's what I get from the story.
It is found in the Old Testament, and yes, Jesus did override the old laws - but in 1 John 5:21 it states again to flee from idols. From that I surmise that God didn't change his stance on that one.
So far no one has commented on this, the attitude of Christians who celebrate:
"let me honor you with the traditions and practices of a group of people who don't worship you and who worship other gods and let me do it on one of their holy days to add insult to injury."
What do you think of that statement in particular?
Maria wrote: "Shannon, I don't claim to know for certain what god thinks. I don't even know for certain that there is a god. I just know what I've read personally in the bible and using that to come to my con..."Guess it's a good thing God doesn't exist huh?
It's interesting Maria that in one paragraph you state you don't know what god thinks or if such a being exists and and then promptly begin to tell us exactly that which he finds offensive.
Maria wrote: "Oh, and about the golden calf, I think (I may be wrong - Gary probably knows) - they took all their jewelry and made the golden calf as a celebration of their freedom from the Egyptians. They were praying to the calf (an idol)as part of their worship of God. "
Pulled out my Bible. Exodus 32:1 ... "When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, [they] gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, Up, make us gods to go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." I don't know. Is that about gods or God?
Regarding the following, ...
"So far no one has commented on this, the attitude of Christians who celebrate:
"let me honor you with the traditions and practices of a group of people who don't worship you and who worship other gods and let me do it on one of their holy days to add insult to injury."
What do you think of that statement in particular?"
Well, ....
On the one hand, my first reaction is to say my thoughts aren't overly relevant. I'm not your average believer, am I? As I've said, I think all faiths are an attempt to know "God" and all faiths know certain truths. Further, I have a connection to Native American teachings. So, my sharing my thoughts on that statement would ... what ...? I think you might want to ask a more average believer, one who views himself/herself as a Christian, pure and simple. If you want the thoughts of a Christian, pure and simple, regarding trees and lights and celebrating Christ on December 25th, you might want to hold out for someone else.
If you want my thoughts given who I am, .... I think, to a certain extent, I've already answered. I don't know "God's" mind. If I had to guess what would tick "God" off, it wouldn't be Christmas trees. I'm guessing "God" is more concerned with murder and rape and lies and cheating and .... But, that's a guess. Further, as I said, I don't limit "God" to the "God" portrayed by fallible men who wrote the Old Testament thousands of years ago. Given that, I don't view "God" as an angry and jealous deity.
Or, do you want me to get at the attitude of the people who celebrate?
First, I'd have to assume your characterization of their attitude is accurate. I've not known many, if any, people who have ever voiced such an attitude. Let's say there are such people. I feel like asking me my thoughts on their attitude toward Christmas trees is asking me to judge them. That's not something I'm going to do, especially given the fact that I don't view "God" as angry and jealous. That would skew my answer, yes?
Further, if we're going to talk the history of the thing, I guess we'd actually better get down to it. The above statement is fairly simplistic. The rulers who were attempting to turn all Europeans into Christians picked the 25th for a very specific reason. They were attempting to convert people to Christianity; they were trying to force them to abandon the old ways. In order to do this, picking the 25th was a tactic. Let's make it more palatable. Let's lure them. Allow them to celebrate Christ on the 25th, with their old ways and traditions. Time will pass. Eventually, it will become about Christ and Christianity, with a minimum of force.
Years passed. A thousand years passed. Think of all those generations of people. Do you truly think all of those generations of people said, "Woo hoo! Hey, God! We're gonna honor you with the traditions of another God! Rock on and, by the way, stick it," or something of that nature? I, personally, don't think that's how it happened.
Further, when people put up Christmas trees today, I don't think they're, at this point, practicing with another people's traditions and practices. Another people's traditions and practices from a thousand years ago. A thousand years. And, yes, there are Pagans today. However, to my understanding, there was a break in practicing Paganism, due to forced conversion, and current Paganism is being pieced together by people who are trying to reclaim the old ways.
So, I guess, ultimately, I'd say the topic isn't as simplistic as it might seem.
Pulled out my Bible. Exodus 32:1 ... "When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, [they] gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, Up, make us gods to go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." I don't know. Is that about gods or God?
Regarding the following, ...
"So far no one has commented on this, the attitude of Christians who celebrate:
"let me honor you with the traditions and practices of a group of people who don't worship you and who worship other gods and let me do it on one of their holy days to add insult to injury."
What do you think of that statement in particular?"
Well, ....
On the one hand, my first reaction is to say my thoughts aren't overly relevant. I'm not your average believer, am I? As I've said, I think all faiths are an attempt to know "God" and all faiths know certain truths. Further, I have a connection to Native American teachings. So, my sharing my thoughts on that statement would ... what ...? I think you might want to ask a more average believer, one who views himself/herself as a Christian, pure and simple. If you want the thoughts of a Christian, pure and simple, regarding trees and lights and celebrating Christ on December 25th, you might want to hold out for someone else.
If you want my thoughts given who I am, .... I think, to a certain extent, I've already answered. I don't know "God's" mind. If I had to guess what would tick "God" off, it wouldn't be Christmas trees. I'm guessing "God" is more concerned with murder and rape and lies and cheating and .... But, that's a guess. Further, as I said, I don't limit "God" to the "God" portrayed by fallible men who wrote the Old Testament thousands of years ago. Given that, I don't view "God" as an angry and jealous deity.
Or, do you want me to get at the attitude of the people who celebrate?
First, I'd have to assume your characterization of their attitude is accurate. I've not known many, if any, people who have ever voiced such an attitude. Let's say there are such people. I feel like asking me my thoughts on their attitude toward Christmas trees is asking me to judge them. That's not something I'm going to do, especially given the fact that I don't view "God" as angry and jealous. That would skew my answer, yes?
Further, if we're going to talk the history of the thing, I guess we'd actually better get down to it. The above statement is fairly simplistic. The rulers who were attempting to turn all Europeans into Christians picked the 25th for a very specific reason. They were attempting to convert people to Christianity; they were trying to force them to abandon the old ways. In order to do this, picking the 25th was a tactic. Let's make it more palatable. Let's lure them. Allow them to celebrate Christ on the 25th, with their old ways and traditions. Time will pass. Eventually, it will become about Christ and Christianity, with a minimum of force.
Years passed. A thousand years passed. Think of all those generations of people. Do you truly think all of those generations of people said, "Woo hoo! Hey, God! We're gonna honor you with the traditions of another God! Rock on and, by the way, stick it," or something of that nature? I, personally, don't think that's how it happened.
Further, when people put up Christmas trees today, I don't think they're, at this point, practicing with another people's traditions and practices. Another people's traditions and practices from a thousand years ago. A thousand years. And, yes, there are Pagans today. However, to my understanding, there was a break in practicing Paganism, due to forced conversion, and current Paganism is being pieced together by people who are trying to reclaim the old ways.
So, I guess, ultimately, I'd say the topic isn't as simplistic as it might seem.
Maria wrote: "To spend the month doing good works is commendable. But that's not limited to the month of December, it can be done any time and has nothing at all to do with Christmas."
Yeah. I know.
I've committed myself to good works, charity, throughout the year since I was in high school. I regularly, year in and year out, work on several projects that could be seen as such.
I do, however, amp up my efforts during the Christmas season.
Yeah. I know.
I've committed myself to good works, charity, throughout the year since I was in high school. I regularly, year in and year out, work on several projects that could be seen as such.
I do, however, amp up my efforts during the Christmas season.
R.C. wrote: "Shannon, please help me out here. I cannot reconcile these two statements of yours:
God put us here to do good works and help one another. Her opinion and teaching at this time of year.
But, th..."
Well, first, R.C., I think you might be missing something.
Take a look.
The first statement was about my mother's teachings to me. Right? "Her opinion..."
The second statement was mine.
Right?
Regarding why I believe in a higher power versus just being happy, well .... I've been asked those questions before and have given really detailed answers. If I were to repeat all of that now, I'm guessing someone would claim boredom and say I was being repetitious. My answer to that question is here, though, throughout this thread over the last year.
Further, I'm 100% certain that many non-believers do good works and have lots of fun during the holidays. That's awesome and not something I dispute.
God put us here to do good works and help one another. Her opinion and teaching at this time of year.
But, th..."
Well, first, R.C., I think you might be missing something.
Take a look.
The first statement was about my mother's teachings to me. Right? "Her opinion..."
The second statement was mine.
Right?
Regarding why I believe in a higher power versus just being happy, well .... I've been asked those questions before and have given really detailed answers. If I were to repeat all of that now, I'm guessing someone would claim boredom and say I was being repetitious. My answer to that question is here, though, throughout this thread over the last year.
Further, I'm 100% certain that many non-believers do good works and have lots of fun during the holidays. That's awesome and not something I dispute.
R.C. wrote: "Shannon wrote: "R.C. wrote: "Shannon, please help me out here. I cannot reconcile these two statements of yours:
God put us here to do good works and help one another. Her opinion and teaching a..."
How do you figure?
In the first instance, you were getting at a contradiction. How did I explain "God" wanting good works and my stating I didn't know the mind of "God"? Well, the first statement was made by my mother; it was her opinion. Whereas, I stated I didn't know the mind of God.
So, .... How does that answer nothing? It's not a contradiction as the first statement wasn't even mine.
In addition, I'd ask you if you're new to this thread. I'm fairly sure you're not. I've seen you, throughout the last year, make comments from time to time. So, my next question would be whether or not you've read the posts over the last year or if you just read sporadically? If you've read the posts over the last year, you'll have read mine and will know I've answered your question, at least twice over.
If you haven't read my posts, you can go back and do so. I've not avoided that question or any questions posted to me by non-believers. I've answered them all, at great length and as honestly as I know how. I've frankly shared more of myself ... why I think and feel as I do ... than most of the people who post here.
I simply am not in the mood to repeat myself, again, and to have people say I'm boring them by repeating myself, which has happened before when I've answered the same questions that have posed to me in a slightly different way. A damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. So, given the fact that that's been asked and answered several times already, I'm going with damned if I don't.
So, my response explains, well nothing, how?
Perhaps you could clarify.
God put us here to do good works and help one another. Her opinion and teaching a..."
How do you figure?
In the first instance, you were getting at a contradiction. How did I explain "God" wanting good works and my stating I didn't know the mind of "God"? Well, the first statement was made by my mother; it was her opinion. Whereas, I stated I didn't know the mind of God.
So, .... How does that answer nothing? It's not a contradiction as the first statement wasn't even mine.
In addition, I'd ask you if you're new to this thread. I'm fairly sure you're not. I've seen you, throughout the last year, make comments from time to time. So, my next question would be whether or not you've read the posts over the last year or if you just read sporadically? If you've read the posts over the last year, you'll have read mine and will know I've answered your question, at least twice over.
If you haven't read my posts, you can go back and do so. I've not avoided that question or any questions posted to me by non-believers. I've answered them all, at great length and as honestly as I know how. I've frankly shared more of myself ... why I think and feel as I do ... than most of the people who post here.
I simply am not in the mood to repeat myself, again, and to have people say I'm boring them by repeating myself, which has happened before when I've answered the same questions that have posed to me in a slightly different way. A damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. So, given the fact that that's been asked and answered several times already, I'm going with damned if I don't.
So, my response explains, well nothing, how?
Perhaps you could clarify.
i cant't live in a world without them both :)
Mine wrote: "i cant't live in a world without them both :)"Yeah, science provides some great spell checkers :-)
Shanna said "It's interesting Maria that in one paragraph you state you don't know what god thinks or if such a being exists and and then promptly begin to tell us exactly that which he finds offensive."It's interesting also that the only things I stated are what I actually read in the Bible, which tells us what the character of God thinks. Just like Gone with the Wind tells us what Scarlett thinks. Or Shakespeare tells us what Hamlet thinks.
I don't presume to "know" these things and just because I comment on what they may "think" or "feel" doesn't mean I think they are real beings. I just read and draw my own conclusions based on what is written in the book.
Shannon wrote: "R.C. wrote: "Shannon wrote: "R.C. wrote: "Shannon, please help me out here. I cannot reconcile these two statements of yours:God put us here to do good works and help one another. Her opinion a..."
Boring, move on, lol. Just teasing
Drew wrote: "Boring, move on, lol. Just teasing"
Didn't I say someone would say, "Boring!"
;)
Didn't I say someone would say, "Boring!"
;)
"Shannon wrote: "R.C. wrote: "Shannon, please help me out here. I cannot reconcile these two statements of yours:God put us here to do good works and help one another. Her opinion a..."
Shannon wrote to RC: In addition, I'd ask you if you're new to this thread. I'm fairly sure you're not. I've seen you, throughout the last year, make comments from time to time. So, my next question would be whether or not you've read the posts over the last year or if you just read sporadically? If you've read the posts over the last year, you'll have read mine and will know I've answered your question, at least twice over.
Shannon, I find that comment disturbing. Do you mean new people aren't welcome here (a) Unless they have read this board rom the beginning (b)you expect them to read all of them (c) they ask questions that fluster you?
If you aren't willing to answer a question you "have answered at least twice over," why don't yu go back and copy/paste it, or learn to shorten your replies without going back to Genesis, so to speak. Every defendable platform doesn't require long, detailed explanations.
And an aside about new people: I noticed that a new person, named Mohammed came in, and quoted Albert Einstein. He was totally ignored. When I did that I was rudely dismissed.
Colleen wrote: "Shannon, I find that comment disturbing. Do you mean new people aren't welcome here (a) Unless they have read this board rom the beginning (b)you expect them to read all of them (c) they ask questions that fluster you?"
Not sure why you'd think this, Colleen.
In my opinion, everyone is welcome here. I'm fully aware that new people join and don't necessarily go back and read all of the old posts. That would take a long time given the number of posts.
R.C., if memory serves, has posted here, off and on, since I've been posting. If he's been reading all of the posts, he's seen my answers to his question. Over and over again. If he only reads sporadically, I let him know the question has been asked and I've answered, several times. He could go back and look.
I'm not, at this point in my posting here, going to answer a question I've answered multiple times. Is it because the question flusters me? Hardly. I've faced a certain amount of, hmmm, derision for having repeated myself. I'm going to attempt to avoid repeating myself. I'm not going to go back and cut and paste in order to compile a post for R.C., especially since he's not new to this thread. If R.C. or someone who is new really and truly wants to know how I'd answer R.C.'s question and doesn't want to go back to read the posts over the last few months, that person could message me privately and ask. I'd answer. That way, I'd not repeat myself and take heat from others for boring them, etc...
Regarding "every defendable platform" ....
I actually don't see my postings here in that light. Some might, I suppose. I don't. I find the thread interesting, sometimes challenging. It makes me think. I learn things. I'm learning new things about science and non-believers. I try to be as open and honest as possible, in order to share of myself and, perhaps, dispel certain ideas about believers. Some believe atheists are immoral, etc...; I don't. Some who post here have said they do so to dispel those beliefs. Conversely, I think some develop stereotypes about believers. Not all believers fit that stereotype. At any rate, I don't see myself as having a platform that I need to or want to defend. Though, if I were to be totally and completely honest, if I had a platform it would be about freedom and the rights of everyone, believer and non-believer alike, to choose their own paths.
Not sure why you'd think this, Colleen.
In my opinion, everyone is welcome here. I'm fully aware that new people join and don't necessarily go back and read all of the old posts. That would take a long time given the number of posts.
R.C., if memory serves, has posted here, off and on, since I've been posting. If he's been reading all of the posts, he's seen my answers to his question. Over and over again. If he only reads sporadically, I let him know the question has been asked and I've answered, several times. He could go back and look.
I'm not, at this point in my posting here, going to answer a question I've answered multiple times. Is it because the question flusters me? Hardly. I've faced a certain amount of, hmmm, derision for having repeated myself. I'm going to attempt to avoid repeating myself. I'm not going to go back and cut and paste in order to compile a post for R.C., especially since he's not new to this thread. If R.C. or someone who is new really and truly wants to know how I'd answer R.C.'s question and doesn't want to go back to read the posts over the last few months, that person could message me privately and ask. I'd answer. That way, I'd not repeat myself and take heat from others for boring them, etc...
Regarding "every defendable platform" ....
I actually don't see my postings here in that light. Some might, I suppose. I don't. I find the thread interesting, sometimes challenging. It makes me think. I learn things. I'm learning new things about science and non-believers. I try to be as open and honest as possible, in order to share of myself and, perhaps, dispel certain ideas about believers. Some believe atheists are immoral, etc...; I don't. Some who post here have said they do so to dispel those beliefs. Conversely, I think some develop stereotypes about believers. Not all believers fit that stereotype. At any rate, I don't see myself as having a platform that I need to or want to defend. Though, if I were to be totally and completely honest, if I had a platform it would be about freedom and the rights of everyone, believer and non-believer alike, to choose their own paths.
Shannon wrote: Though, if I were to be totally and completely honest, if I had a platform it would be about freedom and the rights of everyone, believer and non-believer alike, to choose their own paths.So far, you and I think alike on some levels, or at least the freedom of everyone to their own beliefs. Of course everone who posts does leave their comments open to anything, including derision. I have been on the receiving end of that myself. I think a better question to you might be...how does one find old posts by someone? I am just figuring out how to make sure that when I respond to someone, it appears in that form, and not just some off the wall comment :)
In order to find an old post, you have to trawl through every post previous to the one where you were told there was an older post, so you may find it within a few posts, or you may be searching for pages and pages (and there are 50 posts per page).As such, its generally polite of the person who claims they've answered a question previously to simply reiterate their answer, instead of expecting people to spend ages trawling for a post they may never find. It is the solution with the least amount of work.
Hazel wrote: "In order to find an old post, you have to trawl through every post previous to the one where you were told there was an older post, so you may find it within a few posts, or you may be searching fo..."I agree there!
Gary wrote: Now there is obviously more complexities to this than a simple rule, which is part of the reason the bible immediately contradicts itself.For example, if killing someone is wrong, is it the action of killing them, or just the result? Is allowing someone to die through inaction as wrong as choosing to kill them?
What if you are in a situation where killing one person saves another? or if killing one person saves one hundred?
."
It is only as complex as you want to make it.
It is not the action of killing them, nor just the result, it is the taking of a life.
Give me an example of a genuine case where killing one would save one hundred, otherwise it is only a conundrum.
Yet strangely enough we have all but abandoned religion in law in modern western society
But that is not the issue here, it was the religious influence from past generations that has got us this far. Those influences will remain, for the most part, for something to come regardless of whether religion is being abandoned.
Religion apparently never has anything to do with the moral choice of going to war, yet religion is apparently also the main influence of our morals? You can't have it both ways..
I don’t see a conflict here. I did say good and bad morals. Explain the conflict.
Then you need to read some modern science. What answers are you talking about
As I have said before, an alternative to god. What happened before the big bang, what is beyond our universe, are we alone, is there life after death.
Wiki:Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force
Yes I understand all that, and yes they are theories and I know that science has more than one ‘theory’ to explain, for example, what is beyond our universe. I watched a programme a couple of months ago, explaining to seperate scientific hypotheses/theories about what is, if anything, beyond our universe. But, explaining how science has arrived at these hypotheses/theories, still makes them only theories.
So instead you pick a religion to be "truth" and ignore all the other explanations?
No, I don’t pick any religion, I pick god and I don’t ignore other explanations. Quite the opposite, I am very interest, but as I said above, what other explaination IS correct?
.But if you are using "belief" then it is a religion, even if the belief isn't in a god. If you "believe" in aliens then that is a religion..
No that is just you using your ‘wordsmith’ skills to put knots where there need not be knots. And anyway does a religion not have to be defined.
Actually that might be a good analogy, if you accept that aliens are possible (even likely) but do not "believe" in them until you have clear evidence that they exist then you actually have a chance of finding out who they are, where they are and what their nature is. Due to the distances involved we may never find out, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look, because sometimes we get surprised. Meanwhile the religious
equivalent would be picking an entity like "ET" or Scientology's "Thetans" and believing in them. Not only do we have no evidence to support this version of aliens, but it may also blind us to evidence of real alien life or even convince us to not bother looking at all.
I will go with that.
If you apply the law of averages then we are just an ordinary life force amount billions of others, many of which are far more advance than we are.
If we are alone, that would seem to add more strength to the god belief/theory, as we would be unique.
I agree we should look, we may get a surprise. May be you will also be surprised if god appears one day.
Money on space projects could be better spent, but because it is not being better spend then someone has to have the belief that aliens are a very good possibility.
And talking of space, the race to the moon. It was about who could get there first to stick a flag on the moons surface to claim it as their own; not because the first nation there would be closer to god.
Sorry I don't follow.
"But so did shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics endure, until they were no longer ignored."
Shellfish and wearing mixed fabric was an 'issue' at one time, but not now. Some things today may be an issue with the church, just as shellfish was, but maybe one day they also will be ignored.
Hazel wrote: "As such, its generally polite of the person who claims they've answered a question previously to simply reiterate their answer, instead of expecting people to spend ages trawling for a post they may never find. It is the solution with the least amount of work. "
Ahahahahahaha....
Okay.
In order to be generally polite ....
Why don't I just focus on being happy? General happiness? Don't worry. Be happy now. Don't worry, be happy now. Why believe in a higher power?
Well, when I was a very little girl, my parents didn't take me to church and didn't talk with me about God, etc.... One day, I almost got hurt in a odd accident. I didn't. My mother freaked. I told her not to worry. The people in the light were there and loved me and would take care of me.
I remember the incident. I was in pre-school or Kindergarten. I remember seeing this light, this energy. Sensing it. Knowing it was there. I also had this feeling that there were people in the light, that I'd been there before I was born, and that it was a glorious place of complete and utter love.
My mother freaked yet again. Thought I needed religious education, took me to a church. That didn't work. Another long story that I've already shared. At any rate, she told me the "light" and "people in the light" was God. She bought a Bible for me and showed me a picture of God, a white-haired man, in clouds. I remember laughing and telling her that wasn't the light.
I knew, in the very depth of myself, that there was this light and an energy, people, in the light who loved me very deeply. It was very profound, and I continue to "feel" that presence. That feeling, that knowing, has been with me all of my life. The above memory is one of my first memories.
When I first shared this, Hazel told me my brain might have been misfiring; I can't remember exactly. It was an imaginary friend. Her mother would have just thought it was an imaginary friend. Interesting what parents do to their children, given that my mother assigned this episode to God.
Of course, I was never that sort of child. I never had an imaginary friend. I never had a blanket. I never had a teddy I always had to have. I didn't believe in fairies and didn't believe in Santa and the Easter bunny past the age of four or five.
I had a knowing.
I place a lot of stock in the knowing due to the type of kiddo I was, my knowings, and the fact that I'd not had any religious indoctrination prior to that time.
Why else do I believe? Well, I just detailed one reason just a day or two ago. Yes? I prayed once, when scared and desperate, and the lump I had immediately, that day, began to shrink. The doctor couldn't believe it. Told me he couldn't explain it. There have been other incidents in my life, when I prayed and had faith. My prayers were answered. I was also told at some of those times, by doctors, that what happened to my body couldn't be explained, medically.
Now, when I've shared this before, various people, at the very same time, wrote to question me, to tell me I had no scientific proof, of which I freely admit. To say sometimes people who claim such are delusional. Sometimes it's a coincidence. Oh, and .... One of my personal favorites ... How arrogant are you, Shannon, to believe God loves you so much that he'll heal you when he won't heal others. Why? Why you? Why not others? I think there might also have been various discussions around the ignorance of believers, calling believers sheep, etc... at that particular time.
I've also shared about my knowings. The fact that, all of my life, I've known things, known that things were about to happen. I was pretty nervous about sharing that. Who knew what would be said? Of course, I've seen some of the derogatory statements made about people who claim to have knowings. Charlatans! Delusional charlatans! Snicker. Snicker. But, I threw caution to the wind and shared this.
In particular, I shared a story of saving my young cousin from falling down a flight of stairs. All of a sudden, I just knew something was wrong with him and knew he was at the basement stairs. That made no sense, given the fact that he was napping. My aunt and I were in the living room and I just ran for the basement stairs in another area of the house. There he was, about to tumble down the stairs. My uncle had come home and forgotten to close the door and ....
I don't know what it is, this thing I have. There was even a time when I wondered if I was off my nut. I sat with my father, a math/science type, and we went through every incident I'd ever experienced ... putting things in columns ... not enough info, could be a coincidence, so detailed and discussed with someone prior to the event it could not be a coincidence, etc.... Several math formulas and equations later, my father said, statistically speaking, I had something, but he didn't know what.
I've wondered if this comes from "God" ... from that light I always knew to be there.
At the time I brought this up, I have to say Drew was very nice and said he wasn't going to tell me I was off my nut. Though, he didn't attribute it to "God" but to unexplained phenomena.
A bit later, I mentioned, given the fact that I have this thing, which can't be scientifically explained, I'm more open to the possibility that things exist that I can't prove, scientifically. At that point, there was a chorus of ... We do not say, because we can't explain something, that God exists! God of the GAPS! Grrrr...!
Define "we" ....
Of course, that's not the reason I believe. I don't believe due to gaps.
Reading and considering my actual words, one might see that, given the fact that I have knowings that can't be scientifically proven and have lived with this my entire life and have, at times, been horribly treated as a result, I'm not about to tell someone else they're wrong or a liar or delusional when they "know" something is true, etc... even if they can't prove it. I'm more open to such unexplainable ideas given the fact that I'm one of the poster children for unexplained phenomena. Just because it can't be proven in a lab, doesn't mean I'm a liar or crazy ... despite the fact that plenty of people likely think that and some have said it to my face.
Those are the main reasons I believe in a higher power. Oh, I also remember sharing that I had special feelings of oneness with "God" at certain times. One time was at a church in Montreal. It was the most amazing feeling I've ever experienced. At the time, Hazel posted that the phenomena I described happens to people all the time, though I can't remember what she called it. It was, of course, a coincidence that I had that feeling while in a church. I could have just as easily felt it when .... I'm not sure. Folding laundry.
So, those are the reasons I believe. Believing makes sense to me, in ways I can't describe, and it always has. It's a feeling I have. At this point in my life, I've learned to trust my feelings.
P.S. .... "Claims" ...?
Ahahahahahaha....
Okay.
In order to be generally polite ....
Why don't I just focus on being happy? General happiness? Don't worry. Be happy now. Don't worry, be happy now. Why believe in a higher power?
Well, when I was a very little girl, my parents didn't take me to church and didn't talk with me about God, etc.... One day, I almost got hurt in a odd accident. I didn't. My mother freaked. I told her not to worry. The people in the light were there and loved me and would take care of me.
I remember the incident. I was in pre-school or Kindergarten. I remember seeing this light, this energy. Sensing it. Knowing it was there. I also had this feeling that there were people in the light, that I'd been there before I was born, and that it was a glorious place of complete and utter love.
My mother freaked yet again. Thought I needed religious education, took me to a church. That didn't work. Another long story that I've already shared. At any rate, she told me the "light" and "people in the light" was God. She bought a Bible for me and showed me a picture of God, a white-haired man, in clouds. I remember laughing and telling her that wasn't the light.
I knew, in the very depth of myself, that there was this light and an energy, people, in the light who loved me very deeply. It was very profound, and I continue to "feel" that presence. That feeling, that knowing, has been with me all of my life. The above memory is one of my first memories.
When I first shared this, Hazel told me my brain might have been misfiring; I can't remember exactly. It was an imaginary friend. Her mother would have just thought it was an imaginary friend. Interesting what parents do to their children, given that my mother assigned this episode to God.
Of course, I was never that sort of child. I never had an imaginary friend. I never had a blanket. I never had a teddy I always had to have. I didn't believe in fairies and didn't believe in Santa and the Easter bunny past the age of four or five.
I had a knowing.
I place a lot of stock in the knowing due to the type of kiddo I was, my knowings, and the fact that I'd not had any religious indoctrination prior to that time.
Why else do I believe? Well, I just detailed one reason just a day or two ago. Yes? I prayed once, when scared and desperate, and the lump I had immediately, that day, began to shrink. The doctor couldn't believe it. Told me he couldn't explain it. There have been other incidents in my life, when I prayed and had faith. My prayers were answered. I was also told at some of those times, by doctors, that what happened to my body couldn't be explained, medically.
Now, when I've shared this before, various people, at the very same time, wrote to question me, to tell me I had no scientific proof, of which I freely admit. To say sometimes people who claim such are delusional. Sometimes it's a coincidence. Oh, and .... One of my personal favorites ... How arrogant are you, Shannon, to believe God loves you so much that he'll heal you when he won't heal others. Why? Why you? Why not others? I think there might also have been various discussions around the ignorance of believers, calling believers sheep, etc... at that particular time.
I've also shared about my knowings. The fact that, all of my life, I've known things, known that things were about to happen. I was pretty nervous about sharing that. Who knew what would be said? Of course, I've seen some of the derogatory statements made about people who claim to have knowings. Charlatans! Delusional charlatans! Snicker. Snicker. But, I threw caution to the wind and shared this.
In particular, I shared a story of saving my young cousin from falling down a flight of stairs. All of a sudden, I just knew something was wrong with him and knew he was at the basement stairs. That made no sense, given the fact that he was napping. My aunt and I were in the living room and I just ran for the basement stairs in another area of the house. There he was, about to tumble down the stairs. My uncle had come home and forgotten to close the door and ....
I don't know what it is, this thing I have. There was even a time when I wondered if I was off my nut. I sat with my father, a math/science type, and we went through every incident I'd ever experienced ... putting things in columns ... not enough info, could be a coincidence, so detailed and discussed with someone prior to the event it could not be a coincidence, etc.... Several math formulas and equations later, my father said, statistically speaking, I had something, but he didn't know what.
I've wondered if this comes from "God" ... from that light I always knew to be there.
At the time I brought this up, I have to say Drew was very nice and said he wasn't going to tell me I was off my nut. Though, he didn't attribute it to "God" but to unexplained phenomena.
A bit later, I mentioned, given the fact that I have this thing, which can't be scientifically explained, I'm more open to the possibility that things exist that I can't prove, scientifically. At that point, there was a chorus of ... We do not say, because we can't explain something, that God exists! God of the GAPS! Grrrr...!
Define "we" ....
Of course, that's not the reason I believe. I don't believe due to gaps.
Reading and considering my actual words, one might see that, given the fact that I have knowings that can't be scientifically proven and have lived with this my entire life and have, at times, been horribly treated as a result, I'm not about to tell someone else they're wrong or a liar or delusional when they "know" something is true, etc... even if they can't prove it. I'm more open to such unexplainable ideas given the fact that I'm one of the poster children for unexplained phenomena. Just because it can't be proven in a lab, doesn't mean I'm a liar or crazy ... despite the fact that plenty of people likely think that and some have said it to my face.
Those are the main reasons I believe in a higher power. Oh, I also remember sharing that I had special feelings of oneness with "God" at certain times. One time was at a church in Montreal. It was the most amazing feeling I've ever experienced. At the time, Hazel posted that the phenomena I described happens to people all the time, though I can't remember what she called it. It was, of course, a coincidence that I had that feeling while in a church. I could have just as easily felt it when .... I'm not sure. Folding laundry.
So, those are the reasons I believe. Believing makes sense to me, in ways I can't describe, and it always has. It's a feeling I have. At this point in my life, I've learned to trust my feelings.
P.S. .... "Claims" ...?
I think religion and science are both important but than depends on individual beliefs.
Sorry been away for a bit and missed loads.Shannon wrote: "Personally, I do feel there are benefits to prayer. Regarding the virus I had and my dehydration, I think I healed as a result of medical science and was comforted by a truly lovely nurse and my prayer and feeling of connection with God. "
There are proven benefits to prayer, both the persons praying and the person being prayed for, as long as they are aware that people are praying for them. These are known effects which are analogous to non-religious placebo effects.
Shannon wrote: "I, at another time in my life, believe I experienced a miraculous healing due to my faith."
First I am really glad it happened.
I would not say it was miraculous though, however it may indeed have been due to faith as mentioned above. However, recession of growths is not unknown even outside of prayer or medical intervention. Truly miraculous healings would be the growing back of a lost limb or organ overnight, which has never been recorded. The sudden recession of a growth meanwhile is not miraculous as much as fortunate.
Yes your faith may have indeed influenced this effect, however it has been shown that faith in non-religious procedures have similar success rates of producing seemingly 'miraculous' results. Again these healings are not unique to religion.
Shannon wrote: "I'm grateful I live in a time and a place when/where I don't have to choose between my faith and science. In my opinion, I think that's the point ... not to be forced to choose. "
People like me mainly talk on threads like this not because we hate people being happy with faith, but because people are being forced to choose. People are trying to deny people being taught the truth (as we know it best) in science and history because of people's religion. People are being told they are immoral everyday because of religion. People are being denied basic rights, or people are demanding the right to deny others rights, all based on religion.
You are not really in a place where you are free to choose between the two. Your taxes pay for the tax exempt status of certain peoples beliefs while other peoples beliefs are denied equal footing. Religion influences social decisions based on peoples beliefs rather than actual evidence or reason.
In the UK we are having a "conscience clause" being added to the gay marriage bill just because in the end religious people want to maintain their right to discriminate against certain people which is viewed as more important than the rights of individuals not to be discriminated against, all because "religion" trumps other considerations.
Colleen wrote: "Sorry you feel picked on Gary. I could go back and totally restructure my offendingpost, and it would be a different flavor.
My frustration got the best of me and I tend to dish out what I think or feel I have been served! I imagine that if this thread had a moderator, I may have been booted! "
Well feeling 'picked on' in this circumstance is nothing compared to how you can daily feel in a society that is far more religious than religious people tend to realise. From billboards on Churches proclaiming me deficient or corrupt to people on here or elsewhere that automatically equate a lack of faith to a lack of morals.
However, I do tend to speak out when I feel I have been misrepresented, but thank you for your kind correction. Far from edit the post and move on I am far more impressed by the courage of an honestly stated correction or retraction. Thank you.
I do understand your point now, I agree that long meandering posts can be easily misinterpreted, which is why I try to directly answer point by point. Unfortunately, it is often hard to explain some points concisely, particularly to someone not highly educated in the field you are referring to, and sometimes I find myself anticipating and feeling compelled to pre-empt the common errors that people will undoubtedly respond with.
(I recently found out that apparently US high school education does not include a lot of physics post 1865, which suddenly explained a lot of the issues I have had on here with Americans. With the way physics has advanced in the last century its hard to describe how difficult this makes it to address some of the religious assumptions about the nature of the universe. It would be like trying to read these threads using Middle-English.
So most of my responses I strive to keep short and to the point, which is why I tend to only quote relevant parts, otherwise it is easy to lose the point amidst a plethora of quoted text and verbose language.
Maria wrote: "RC said: "A better question would have been one asking modern monotheists why they partake in a celebration of ancient pagan traditions"As I have said earlier most modern monotheists are practising ancient polytheistic beliefs that have been co-opted to a new usage. For example the amount of Christians who believe the dead go to heaven which is a re-imaging of pagan beliefs such as Valhalla or Elysium, where one strict interpretation of the bible would show that the dead get laid to rest until Judgement day when they will either be resurrected to the "New Eden" or burned in the lake of fire.
Meanwhile the whole idea of "god" dying and being resurrected is an old tradition based on ideas linked to solar cycles that can be seen with Baal, Melqart, Eshmun, Attis, Tammuz, Ra/Osiris, Zalmoxis, Asclepius, Orpheus, Dionysus and Odin. Many Christian beliefs about Christ's role as perfect sacrifice, being both mortal and god, spending 3 days "in the Earth" are pagan rites of human sacrifice and blood magic. The symbol of the cross is an adoption of the ancient Ankh symbol shared across many cultures just as the fish symbol is a fertility symbol linked to the cycle of life/death/rebirth.
About the only potentially unique thing about Christ was his rebellion against established religious authority, the tolerance of others and the philosophy of helping the poor and unfortunate and avoiding conflict. However this is the one part routinely dropped by most modern Christians.
Unfortunately that humanitarian message has been generally lost in the mysticism.
cHriS wrote: "Tried? Show me...."Certainly.
cHriS wrote: "Most of what you have written above is a smoke screen to hide the fact that your point about how the Ireland conflict started 'the cause' was not correct. And my point is, if you are doing this with the Irish topic, you may also be doing this with other subjects."
This was based on your quibble that somehow a factor involved in a conflict was not a cause, despite that being a completely spurious argument. E.g. a factor of a dog being kicked was me swinging a foot at it, however you would then try to claim that this meant I did not cause the dog to be kicked because me swinging a foot was only a factor.
So you tried to use your own "smokescreen" of spurious definitions of terms (again) to try to then imply that because you had in your mind "proved" me wrong here that therefore I would be wrong elsewhere.
The irony here being that I started on the subject by clearly saying it wasn't a good example of a religious war due to it being only one factor in many!
Gary --
As an aside, ...
If you're reading and answering posts in order, I can't help but have noticed you didn't address any of my questions, questions posed to you. They were not rhetorical.
Given the fact that you, in a post to Colleen, spoke to standing up for yourself when you're misrepresented, I await your responses.
As an aside, ...
If you're reading and answering posts in order, I can't help but have noticed you didn't address any of my questions, questions posed to you. They were not rhetorical.
Given the fact that you, in a post to Colleen, spoke to standing up for yourself when you're misrepresented, I await your responses.
cHriS wrote: "It is not the action of killing them, nor just the result, it is the taking of a life."Ok, that's your definition, now why is it wrong?
cHriS wrote: "Give me an example of a genuine case where killing one would save one hundred, otherwise it is only a conundrum."
What about the recent shootings? Several right wing Americans contend that if someone had been armed then they could have shot the gunman as indeed actually happened elsewhere in the US recently where an off-duty cop shot a gunman before they could shoot anyone else. How many lives did they save by killing that one person? Obviously we don't know, but how many lives saved are worth the taking of one.
Of course its a conundrum, but a conundrum is exactly what a real ethical decision is.
cHriS wrote: "But that is not the issue here, it was the religious influence from past generations that has got us this far. Those influences will remain, for the most part, for something to come regardless of whether religion is being abandoned."
There is no evidence of that. There is every evidence that the laws of the Roman Republic were based on conscience and political expediency. Those parts that were based in belief were largely abandoned.
cHriS wrote: "I don’t see a conflict here. I did say good and bad morals. Explain the conflict."
If religion gives both good and bad morals then its moral influence is neutral and therefore the equivalent to it not existing.
cHriS wrote: "As I have said before, an alternative to god. What happened before the big bang, what is beyond our universe, are we alone, is there life after death."
What happened before the big bang? Well if space and time came into existence in the big bang there was no "before" for it to come from. So the question is irrelevant, but hard for humans who exist in apparently linear time to imagine. Just as the curvature of the Earth is generally easy to ignore day to day.
What is "beyond our universe"? Since the term means "everything" then something "beyond our universe" would then be part of the set "everything" and therefore would not be beyond it.
Are we alone? Maybe, maybe not. However, deciding "yes" or "no" before we've found out the actual answer is disingenuous.
Is there "life after death"? Life is a process. When you stop mixing an egg does the process of mixing carry on in a ghostly form, or have we just stopped turning the handle?
Besides are there alternatives to god? Yes. Hundreds. Thousands. Potentially infinite alternatives that we have imagined or have yet to imagine. We're in a computer. A wizard did it. Faeries. Many gods. We're all gods. Perhaps its a Goddess. The Force. etc. etc.
The point is if we don't know, then it's ok to say we don't know and wait until we do know. If we just make up an answer just to feel better then how can we discover what is really there?
cHriS wrote: "Yes I understand all that, and yes they are theories and I know that science has more than one ‘theory’ to explain, for example, what is beyond our universe."
I know scientists are lazy at this too but "hypotheses" should be used in this context. A scientific theory is something else.
Second "beyond our universe" is misleading. When physicists use this they mean "beyond the visible 4 dimensional universe". Again it is an irritating laziness that then gets misinterpreted outside the field.
cHriS wrote: "I watched a programme a couple of months ago, explaining to seperate scientific hypotheses/theories about what is, if anything, beyond our universe. But, explaining how science has arrived at these hypotheses/theories, still makes them only theories."
Hypotheses (not your fault I know). The problem is when people talk about "String Theory" or "M Theory" and wonder why people think that "evolution is just a theory". In context scientists know the difference, but it causes problems in public discourse.
cHriS wrote: "No, I don’t pick any religion, I pick god and I don’t ignore other explanations. Quite the opposite, I am very interest, but as I said above, what other explaination IS correct?"
We don't necessarily know, but this doesn't mean that the god you picked is the right explanation, or even the right god. We can say what is most likely to be incorrect and the idea of a human like intelligence that operates on non-human scales is one of the ideas most likely to be incorrect.
And picking "god" isn't "picking" a religion, it is a religion. Because you believe in that idea.
cHriS wrote: "No that is just you using your ‘wordsmith’ skills to put knots where there need not be knots. And anyway does a religion not have to be defined."
No its not "wordsmithing" when you use words for what they mean, its "language".
Religion is the belief in an idea that is held to be true without necessarily evidence. It tends to be involving gods but their are non-theistic religions.
cHriS wrote: "If you apply the law of averages then we are just an ordinary life force amount billions of others, many of which are far more advance than we are."
Unfortunately, without an idea of how likely each event in the formation of intelligent life is we cannot say that. We now know that planets are common which is a plus point, we know that life started on Earth almost as soon as it was cool enough to support it. Unfortunately we don't know if this is because life arising is "easy" or whether its a rare event that has to happen early in a planets history or not at all.
However, for billions of years life did not get more complicated than a microbe, and then after all that time only one specific kind of creature developed the cell structure that led to every multicellular plant, animal and fungus on the planet. Then when animals became established on land, intelligent life (as far as we know) did not arise despite conditions being no better than now, for hundreds of millions of years.
cHriS wrote: "If we are alone, that would seem to add more strength to the god belief/theory, as we would be unique."
First, how can we ever establish that we are "alone"? It's proving a negative again. We can prove that we are not alone, but until then we may not have recognised intelligence, life or perhaps we are alone "for now". So it will never add strength to the theory.
Furthermore being alone would also mean that it is less likely that there is a god because the existence of god would mean that we are not alone.
cHriS wrote: "I agree we should look, we may get a surprise. May be you will also be surprised if god appears one day."
Maybe I will. The point is then I won't have to believe it, I can observe it. You cannot look if you believe because you already think you know what you are looking at.
cHriS wrote: "Money on space projects could be better spent, but because it is not being better spend then someone has to have the belief that aliens are a very good possibility."
???
Don't follow you I'm afraid.
cHriS wrote: "And talking of space, the race to the moon. It was about who could get there first to stick a flag on the moons surface to claim it as their own; not because the first nation there would be closer to god."
Actually the main reason was to show American supremacy over the "godless commies" after the fear and uncertainty over the world after the USSR put the first satellite and man into space.
This is why the US had a plan to "Nuke the Moon" just to show the USSR that nowhere was beyond the reach of American weaponry.
cHriS wrote: "Shellfish and wearing mixed fabric was an 'issue' at one time, but not now. Some things today may be an issue with the church, just as shellfish was, but maybe one day they also will be ignored. "
Exactly, like rules on sexuality or on believing one thing and not another.
Shannon wrote: "If you're reading and answering posts in order, I can't help but have noticed you didn't address any of my questions, questions posed to you. They were not rhetorical. "Sorry must have missed them, I will look back when I have a minute.
Shannon wrote: "In your opinion."Fair enough, in my opinion which is based on observation and data, not belief or anecdote.
The point is that I have asked many times here what is a unique positive that only religion gives us, and some people (not you) have claimed that morality is derived from religion, or referred to things like charity, hope or comfort, which we both know are not unique to religion.
If I've missed something, please illustrate.
Shannon wrote: "Others might have been touched by their faith in ways that you don't understand. Touched by faith when all else failed."
Or perhaps I do understand because I've been there?
Just implying I don't agree because I don't understand means nothing. Perhaps you don't agree because you don't understand?
Shannon wrote: "I worry at how definitively you speak. Your opinion is not necessarily the beginning and ending of fact and reality for all others."
Of course it isn't, yet you are on the side of belief which is nothing but the definitive statement of fact and reality for oneself and others. I am willing to have independent arbitration, which is why I advocate science.
If science discovers god, we won't need to 'believe' in him.
Shannon wrote: "We do not have prayer in schools. We do not pass out Bibles. We do not entertain religious speakers. We do not teach religion, except in terms of history, etc.... We teach evolution. We follow the division between church and state and don't preach to children."
I know. Thanks to the First Amendment. However it is constantly and consistently under fire from people who want to replace teaching of science with religious ideology.
Shannon wrote: "So, while other schools in other parts of the country and while some students bring religion/faith into the school, they usually face a pretty high and very public consequence."
Whereas people have successfully violated the first amendment by encouraging "spontaneous" prayer at public events, putting stickers to "remind" students that evolution is "just a theory" in science textbooks etc.
The school system has done fairly well I think, however with 40% of Americans believing in Creationism I think it is not doing as well as it should.
Shannon wrote: "I also repeatedly come down on the side of non-believers having the right to choose for themselves and stand for their not facing consequences as a result.
Are you purposely ignoring that?"
No. I agree with that and respect you for it. However, this is why it doesn't sit with the rest of what you say.
How does a non-believer get the choice to not believe if they taught from an impressionable age that a belief is the truth?
Shannon wrote: "I come down on the side of freedom of choice."
Again, fantastic! My own daughter is more interested in paganism than non-theism. That's her choice, I hope I have presented her with enough information to make that choice and have never told her that "God definitely does not exist" when she was young and impressionable.
Shannon wrote: "When have I spoken out in support of the idea that religion has practically nothing to do with warfare?"
You didn't. Chris did. I was answering him and you answered me. So if we agree then that's fine.
Shannon wrote: "Religion has been the cause of some wars. Definitely.
Religion has likely been the cause of many wars. Most probably.
However, I've said, it has not been the cause of all or most wars. To say such is to mislead."
Agreed.
(Though "most" comes down to what you define a 'cause' for example most religious cultures use religious language in propaganda in the support of war, but I would agree that this does not constitute a major cause of most wars.)
Shannon wrote: "Was it your intent to misrepresent me? Or, is there another reason for such a mistake?"
I think you have commented on my answers to Chris were he stated that religion was "rarely if ever" a cause of war.
If we agree then fine.
Shannon wrote: "I advocate for choice. The choice of believers and non-believers. I choose to live my life in accordance with my ideals. I choose not to dictate the path others walk, even if it leads to things I, personally, do not support and would not do myself."
That I know you have said, and I agree with.
Shannon wrote: "I will always say each group has the right to choose as they will. Further, I will endeavor to always respect their right to choose, even if I don't respect their individual choices."
Freedom of choice is not simply a matter of saying it though. Choice needs to be made available for people to be able to take it.
From my own example, I did not realise for many years that non-belief was even a choice. No one explained how this was an option, and people did not speak of religion as opinion. People talked about religion as fact and equivocated belief with certainty. I still see these attitudes at work here and elsewhere. After all religious belief is often respected, while questioning it is regarded as offensive, yet questioning belief is part of the choice to not believe.
Shannon wrote: "Again, this is inaccurate information. The last time you mentioned such, I gave even more identifying information in order to clarify. Why do you continue to say I live in a predominately religious area despite my telling you otherwise?"
Because according to a Pew survey in 2009 the least religious state (New Hampshire and Vermount) still had 54% of people who believed in god with an absolute certainty.
It may be less religious than the other states, but the majority are absolutely certain god exists. Apparently about 24% have no religion but that still means that three quarters do. Therefore the area you live in is predominantly religious.
Shannon wrote: "Phrased differently, why would you believe something that has no basis in actual fact or in the evidence I've presented?"
I don't "believe". The evidence is that more people are religious there than are not. You perhaps believe different because you are comparing the highly religious US in general with the less highly religious New England. But that is a relative comparison.
Shannon wrote: "Feel free to Google information on Vermont and New Hampshire. We're the two least religious states in the United States."
I did. The point is that you are the least religious states in the United States, that does not make you therefore non-religious.
Meanwhile doing research I came across this article which referenced the report that the tax exempt status of religion costs the us $71 Billion a year and then analyses how much of that actually goes to charitable humanitarian causes rather than maintaining that religion.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index....
I apologise that I have not had chance yet to verify the references. However, that is 71 Billion pounds of tax going preferentially to the religious over the non-religious. Unless the majority goes to charitable causes without religious indoctrination or principles being the goal, is that freedom of choice?
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "When have I spoken out in support of the idea that religion has practically nothing to do with warfare?"
You didn't. Chris did. I was answering him and you answered me. So if we agree then that's fine."
You're right. I didn't. Yet, you wrote that I did. May I assume, from the above, that you're saying you misspoke?
You didn't. Chris did. I was answering him and you answered me. So if we agree then that's fine."
You're right. I didn't. Yet, you wrote that I did. May I assume, from the above, that you're saying you misspoke?
Gary wrote: "I did. The point is that you are the least religious states in the United States, that does not make you therefore non-religious."
No. It definitely does not make us non-religious.
Interestingly, some here have claimed Scandinavian countries are largely secular and/or predominately atheist, yet many have similar percentages to Vermont and New Hampshire. A point of confusion there.
I guess it depends on what you meant when you said I lived in a "predominately" religious area. Personally, I don't think 54% percent of the populous being religious equates to my area being predominately religious. I guess we think of the word and percentages differently.
No. It definitely does not make us non-religious.
Interestingly, some here have claimed Scandinavian countries are largely secular and/or predominately atheist, yet many have similar percentages to Vermont and New Hampshire. A point of confusion there.
I guess it depends on what you meant when you said I lived in a "predominately" religious area. Personally, I don't think 54% percent of the populous being religious equates to my area being predominately religious. I guess we think of the word and percentages differently.
Gary wrote: This was based on your quibble that somehow a factor involved in a conflict was not a cause, ..."Unless you are not understanding that we are referring to the CAUSE, you have once again illustrated the 'smokescreen' you are using to evade the original question.
The cause was territorial and a factor (one among others)that maybe prolonged the troubles was religion.
And as you point out it was a 'factor'.
Factor: A circumstance, fact, or influence that contributes to a result or outcome.
Other factors contributed to, but were not the cause.
So you tried to use your own "smokescreen" of spurious definitions of terms (again) to try to then imply that because you had in your mind "proved" me wrong here that therefore I would be wrong elsewhere.
Well that is one way of putting it. Your way. I would have said... rather than you agree with me on this one you added non relevant 'factors' into the equation to suggest that there were other causes, taking you down a road that you found difficult to turn back on.
The original suggestion in a previous post (I don't remember who's)stated that most wars were started because of religion, which is not true.
The irony here being that I started on the subject by clearly saying it wasn't a good example of a religious war
It was not a war at all.
Ok, that's your definition, now why is it wrong?I could write a book about this, or maybe it should have a new thread all of its own. I’m not sure I can do the question justice with just a short reply…but I will have a go.
Most people in most societies regardless of religion, in general would agree that we should not take a human life. Morals. But, they will add a caveat or justification why it is ok to kill.
So what they end up doing is trying to justify the justification, because we cannot agree when or if a justification is allowed or if the law is wrong to allow it.
Or does ‘not kill / taking a life’ mean just that with no caveat.
I could list all the ways we humans use to take a life, but we all know what they are and while one person maybe quite happy to agree to abortion they may be against capital punishment. And they will be able to justify their reasons to themselves and some, but not all others.
Why is it wrong? Morals, which have been passed down from previous generations.
.What about the recent shootings? Several right wing Americans contend that if someone had been armed then they could have shot the gunman as indeed actually happened elsewhere in the US recently where an off-duty cop shot a gunman before they could shoot anyone else.
I don’t see how the person who could have been armed and who would have shot the gunman, would have known in advance what he was about to do.
If religion gives both good and bad morals then its moral influence is neutral and therefore the equivalent to it not existing.
So if I kill someone and then save another, I am quits?
Plus, you are assuming that the good and bad morals are equal in percentage terms.
Well if space and time came into existence in the big bang there was no "before".
IF. And if not? Science does not know.
.Second "beyond our universe" is misleading. When physicists use this they mean "beyond the visible 4 dimensional universe". Again it is an irritating laziness that then gets misinterpreted outside the field.
Yes and no. One scientific hypotheses/theory is that our universe is only one of many bubbles So again science does not have an answer. Which is my point. They are not able to come up with anything that is any more or less valid, than a god.
We can say what is most likely to be incorrect and the idea of a human like intelligence that operates on non-human scales is one of the ideas most likely to be incorrect.
I agree, to many it is most likely to be incorrect. But there is nothing that science can offer, now, that is more likely.
The earth may not have been flat but everyone agreed, I guess, that it was a shape of sorts. That was the common ground. Until science and the belief in a god can find common ground………..
Unfortunately, without an idea of how likely each event in the formation of intelligent life is we cannot say that.
This was suggested on a TV programme by reputable people in their field, using the habitable goldilocks zone around stars and taking the lowest percentage of possibilities in each calculation and even then the results were in billions.
"Money on space projects could be better spent, but because it is not being better spend then someone has to have the belief that aliens are a very good possibility."
???
Don't follow you I'm afraid.
If governments are spending money that could be better spent in say, healthcare, on looking for et’s, then I think, they must think, that there has to be a good possibility of finding evidence of alien life.
Exactly, like rules on sexuality or on believing one thing and not another.
Things do change. And maybe the majority views on gay marriage will change, given time. New generations, new ideas, ever changing. But to call anyone who is not in agreement with gay marriage, homophobic, is only pushing the ‘change’ further back into the future.
Mine wrote: "i cant't live in a world without them both :)"Me either because they are what we rely on and what gets us through the day.
Religion has discipline and gives you the path to choose
Science is where minds that go beyond others and invent something so beautiful and so not describable that people need or want in their lives
Mahz wrote: "Mine wrote: "i cant't live in a world without them both :)"Me either because they are what we rely on and what gets us through the day.
Religion has discipline and gives you the path to choose
S..."
You assume that we all rely on them both but that is untrue. I don't not rely on religion at all and I get through the day with ease.
Drew wrote: "Mahz wrote: "Mine wrote: "i cant't live in a world without them both :)"Me either because they are what we rely on and what gets us through the day.
Religion has discipline and gives you the pat..."
Well I'm not dissing the people who do but just that some people do have a religion that they rely on, and some on science and some on both like me
How do you know that you rely on religion? Have you ever tried going without it? You can't be sure that you need something rather than want it until you've lived without it, as you have no point of comparison. I propose you live the whole of 2013 without any religion in your life, consider it a scientific experiment.
Gary wrote: "Meanwhile doing research I came across this article which referenced the report that the tax exempt status of religion costs the us $71 Billion a year and then analyses how much of that actually goes to charitable humanitarian causes rather than maintaining that religion.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index....
I apologise that I have not had chance yet to verify the references. However, that is 71 Billion pounds of tax going preferentially to the religious over the non-religious. Unless the majority goes to charitable causes without religious indoctrination or principles being the goal, is that freedom of choice?"
First, I'm not a fan of tax exempt status in general. From what little I've ever heard and/or read about organizations who received such, there are, in my opinion, ridiculous abuses. For example, I've heard of political organizations, obviously tied to one party or the other, who have tax exempt status. Why? Because they do polls ...? I admit I don't know much about this subject; however, I'd favor eliminating tax exempt status for everyone.
Regarding the above, I find myself wondering how much money is given to non-religious groups. Obviously, 71 billion ? (dollars/pounds) is a lot of money. It sounds huge, especially when phrased in the above manner ... given preferentially to religious over non-religious organizations. Some might leap to the conclusion that non-religious outfits receive a pittance. That might be an unfortunate assumption. I honestly don't know how much money they receive, by comparison.
But, again, I'd be just as pleased if tax exempt status was denied all organizations. That is a very uninformed opinion, though.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index....
I apologise that I have not had chance yet to verify the references. However, that is 71 Billion pounds of tax going preferentially to the religious over the non-religious. Unless the majority goes to charitable causes without religious indoctrination or principles being the goal, is that freedom of choice?"
First, I'm not a fan of tax exempt status in general. From what little I've ever heard and/or read about organizations who received such, there are, in my opinion, ridiculous abuses. For example, I've heard of political organizations, obviously tied to one party or the other, who have tax exempt status. Why? Because they do polls ...? I admit I don't know much about this subject; however, I'd favor eliminating tax exempt status for everyone.
Regarding the above, I find myself wondering how much money is given to non-religious groups. Obviously, 71 billion ? (dollars/pounds) is a lot of money. It sounds huge, especially when phrased in the above manner ... given preferentially to religious over non-religious organizations. Some might leap to the conclusion that non-religious outfits receive a pittance. That might be an unfortunate assumption. I honestly don't know how much money they receive, by comparison.
But, again, I'd be just as pleased if tax exempt status was denied all organizations. That is a very uninformed opinion, though.
Hazel wrote: "How do you know that you rely on religion? Have you ever tried going without it? You can't be sure that you need something rather than want it until you've lived without it, as you have no point of..."I have not a year bot a month and to be honest I was guilty for doing that
Why? Because my belief has grown stronger by the day and it will keep going like that, and I have also experienced a world without science and yup that was hard too
I mean this is my opinion it's not like just because I have a religion that I can't live without science too!
you've experience the world without science? So you lived without a building to shelter in, without clothes and tools, without fire and the ability to create it?
Not exactly that but somewhere near it, but hey who said I can't live without it?
what do you mean by somewhere near it? Yes or no, you've lived without shelter, clothing fire, and tools? You know, the things that science gives us, which by the way includes the tools to catch and/or gather the food we need to survive.
Mahz wrote: "Not exactly that but somewhere near it, but hey who said I can't live without it?"
Actually, from my reading, you said the opposite. Just because you have religion, doesn't mean you can't live without science.
;)
Actually, from my reading, you said the opposite. Just because you have religion, doesn't mean you can't live without science.
;)
I've lived in Afghanistan before and you know the conditions there, do I need to expand more.?
so, no, you've lived with less science, but not without science. And next, can you name something that religion does that cannot be achieved by secular means?
is there anything that religion does, that it provides, that it inspires that is good, that cannot be achieved by non religious means, ie secular means?
Gary wrote: "Gary wrote: "Meanwhile doing research I came across this article which referenced the report that the tax exempt status of religion costs the us $71 Billion a year and then analyses how much of that actually goes to charitable humanitarian causes rather than maintaining that religion.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index....
I apologise that I have not had chance yet to verify the references. However, that is 71 Billion pounds of tax going preferentially to the religious over the non-religious. Unless the majority goes to charitable causes without religious indoctrination or principles being the goal, is that freedom of choice?""
So, I just did some reading. The article about the professor from Florida, etc.... I attempted to find information regarding how much money goes to tax exempt status in general. Didn't have much luck. But, I kept coming up with the above, in different forms.
I found an article regarding this.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/r...
Within this article, I found the following ...
"Their article appears in the current issue of Free Inquiry magazine, published by the Council for Secular Humanism, an organization of nontheists. U.S. tax law grants religious groups and other nonprofits the exemptions because of their charitable nature.
And while the authors do not claim theirs is a comprehensive or unbiased appraisal, their findings have raised eyebrows in the nontheist community, which has long sought to eliminate the tax exemptions on the grounds that they unfairly favor religious institutions."
Ummm....
This makes me more than a little nervous. I remember, months ago, trying to find information on ... I can't remember. The benefits of prayer. I don't know. I do know I found some articles and information. However, the studies were sponsored by religious colleges and universities, etc.... Given that, I disregarded their information and didn't share it here.
I'm not saying you shouldn't have shared the information, Gary. Information is a good thing. Further, they might be right.
Given the fact that they're bias, I find their information suspect.
Do you know what I would love? LOVE! I'd love it if a non-bias group would study this. Are there any non-bias groups anymore? People who study something, without needing to be paid by a group with a horse in the race?
I really and truly would like to know more about this but would like a non-bias read. How much money is lost to tax exempt organizations each year, total? How much goes to religious vs. non-religious groups? How many groups who claim they are charitable organizations, etc... really are and how many are not? How many have serious and unquestioned links to political parties? Etc....
Dissatisfied with the lack of information available.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index....
I apologise that I have not had chance yet to verify the references. However, that is 71 Billion pounds of tax going preferentially to the religious over the non-religious. Unless the majority goes to charitable causes without religious indoctrination or principles being the goal, is that freedom of choice?""
So, I just did some reading. The article about the professor from Florida, etc.... I attempted to find information regarding how much money goes to tax exempt status in general. Didn't have much luck. But, I kept coming up with the above, in different forms.
I found an article regarding this.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/r...
Within this article, I found the following ...
"Their article appears in the current issue of Free Inquiry magazine, published by the Council for Secular Humanism, an organization of nontheists. U.S. tax law grants religious groups and other nonprofits the exemptions because of their charitable nature.
And while the authors do not claim theirs is a comprehensive or unbiased appraisal, their findings have raised eyebrows in the nontheist community, which has long sought to eliminate the tax exemptions on the grounds that they unfairly favor religious institutions."
Ummm....
This makes me more than a little nervous. I remember, months ago, trying to find information on ... I can't remember. The benefits of prayer. I don't know. I do know I found some articles and information. However, the studies were sponsored by religious colleges and universities, etc.... Given that, I disregarded their information and didn't share it here.
I'm not saying you shouldn't have shared the information, Gary. Information is a good thing. Further, they might be right.
Given the fact that they're bias, I find their information suspect.
Do you know what I would love? LOVE! I'd love it if a non-bias group would study this. Are there any non-bias groups anymore? People who study something, without needing to be paid by a group with a horse in the race?
I really and truly would like to know more about this but would like a non-bias read. How much money is lost to tax exempt organizations each year, total? How much goes to religious vs. non-religious groups? How many groups who claim they are charitable organizations, etc... really are and how many are not? How many have serious and unquestioned links to political parties? Etc....
Dissatisfied with the lack of information available.
I would hate to give up both benefits of science and technology; however, I would definitely not be able up the comfort of prayer and the realization that God has already blessed me by allowing me to survive the diabetic coma lasted a week. I feel compelled to announced that God is alive and well and still performing, despite the brain that I have suffered I am still able to communicate with others in an intelligent manner.
Hazel wrote: "is there anything that religion does, that it provides, that it inspires that is good, that cannot be achieved by non religious means, ie secular means?"
I've answered this question before.
Question....
Did you disagree with my answer? Would you like me to think of other things? Or, do you want others to answer the question?
Just curious.
(Oops. Didn't scan up. Even though you didn't "respond" to the other poster, I think you were talking with M ... not asking in general.)
I've answered this question before.
Question....
Did you disagree with my answer? Would you like me to think of other things? Or, do you want others to answer the question?
Just curious.
(Oops. Didn't scan up. Even though you didn't "respond" to the other poster, I think you were talking with M ... not asking in general.)
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
A couple things come to mind. First, do you celebrate Christmas today? If so, how do you get round the issues you've voiced?
Regarding the calf, wasn't that about worship? Weren't they said to be worshiping the calf as an idol? Do Christians who have trees with lights worship the tree as another god?
(Do Christians and others, including non-believers, worship commercialism through their tree and gifts, and would "God" find that offensive?)
Ultimately, what is the point of this exercise? Do non-believers celebrate Christmas? Why do Christians celebrate Christmas, which has ancient roots in a Pagan holiday? I find myself wondering at the end result. A cry of hypocrisy? Judgment? Or, is there no end result?Just an intellectual exercise? Or, is it a call to ban Christmas? I don't know.
I'm not entirely sure that some of the Christians who have a tree and give presents are celebrating the birth of Christ. I think some have a tree because it's pretty and give gifts for fun and habit. Does that have anything to do with spiritual pursuits? Then, you have some who spend the month doing good works and giving gifts of oneself in order to show love. I'd say that's more in line with my understanding of the messages I've read in the Bible as allegedly voiced by Jesus, James, etc.... That is what makes Christians, belief in Christ and the messages attributed to him. The Old Testament is there, but .... To my understanding, many Christians believe the Jesus spoken of in the New Testament came to free them from the "law" of the Old Testament. So, for many Christians, it would be important to look at the New Testament in addition to Moses. That might give a different perspective.
Enter non-believers chanting, "Cherry-pickers! Contradiction! Contradiction!"
Ehhh....
As I said, for me, given the fact that I was raised thinking all religions are an attempt to know "God" and all know some truths, having a tree, which harkens back to Pagan celebrations a thousand years ago, isn't a sticking point. I, personally, don't limit "God" to the ideas written by men who lived thousands of years ago and were fallible. But, again, as you said ... that's me.