Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Rachel wrote: "I hate the fact that you seem to use the same examples same sex marriage and slaves,the whole same sex marriage I can see your point, I personally have really thought about it and I am still on the..."Slavery and same sex marriage creep up a lot because they are good examples of how the bible has 'evolved' as well as how it's no more reliable as a moral guide than as a historical document.
Not to mention shellfish, abusing your children and figs.
If the word of god can be altered, then I have to wonder which party is doing it wrong? God or his followers?
If the bible can be so cherry picked by the people who believe it is the word of god then those of us who don't really follow it at all have to wonder whether it has outlived its usefulness.
There are quite a good number of examples, it's just that same sex marriage and slavery are two of the strongest.
Rachel wrote: "whose to say that God didn't create the big bang and gave us basics to human life. I believe he is bigger than our imagination, I don't know how everyone one else sees God(or if you see God at all)..."And whose to say we didn't create god.
Rachel, I actually respect the fact you say you're thinking about the same sex thing (and I should also say, I don't expect my opinion on your opinion to matter, it doesn't....that we can discuss it does). That you may not agree with me on it is fine, but where my questions come from is trying to ascertain how much of a biblical literalist people are....if you were to say "I reject same sex marriage because the bible says so", my question becomes "well then why not accept slavery?". It becomes a question for me of consistency. That the bible is a reflection of its historical origins I agree with, but I take all of it as being historical, and having a very earthly origin. As for the Big Bang, and whether it was god that initiated it, that's something that has come up before, but i am happy to explain my position....that god could have initiated it is something I can't disprove, but it adds nothing to the explanation....it isn't required as a part of the Big Bang theory. And if it comes to well, if there was a Big Bang, then it must have been god who started it, then the rejoinder is, but maybe it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster who started god, who then started the Big Bang. And we can keep going.....so for me, that addition of god seems pointless. It could be, but it doesn't need to be.
I would hate to live in a world where God doesn't exist and the whole cherry picking thing, Don't we all cherry pick what we choose to believe about anything and everything.
I try to see and understand from a different perspective. or How did you come by that? I think it is fun what makes people believe something.
For me "tar brush" is a generalisation, which I took issue with. It wasn't about making fun.As for the American atheist website, I never said you weren't to talk about it, but I said that you shouldn't ascribe their opinions or positions to all atheists. Please bring it up, and highlight it, but when disputing their position, do so with members of the American atheist society, not with atheists. We're not the same.
I fully agree with and accept your position on the difficulties of online communications.....I honestly believe if all of us met in a pub to have this discussion, and I mean all, you, me, cHriS, Shanna, Hazel, Mary, Maria, Gary, Travis etc., we would have a perfectly pleasant discussion, with the same disagreements, but without the rancour, as tone and intent would be a lot clearer.
cerebus wrote: "As for leaving out "key pieces of evidence", if you can tell me what key pieces of evidence you are referring to, I will happily respond, I don't know which bits you are referring to. If it turns into another game of "I can't believe you missed it, look again", you're on your own. "
Key pieces of evidence.... I did mention two key pieces of evidence. But, this will be the last time I point them out. Learning from the criticisms from the other day. If you choose to take this into consideration, great. If not, your choice.
One, in the initial email, I stated many non-believers question simply on the basis of logic and inconsistencies. Yet, you thought I was tarring non-believers, all, with the same "many are answering the clarion call" brush. When I pointed this out, you told me you weren't playing my game.
??
I also mentioned, just now, my post to Rachel from yesterday. I said, in my post to you about "evidence" ....
"Further, you, for some reason, are ignoring the post I sent Rachel yesterday regarding learning from non-believers here that questioning religious beliefs, in and of itself, isn't disrespectful.
Would you like to explain why you leave out key pieces of evidence when making your assumptions and conclusions?"
Okay.... I'll go find the specific paragraph for you and post it here. I did it for Shanna last night. Hold on a second.
In my post to Rachael, I said,
"Sometimes when non-believers question believers here, it seems disrespectful. I say it "seems" disrespectful for a reason. Something I've learned here, from non-believers ... simply questioning believers and religion isn't, in itself, disrespectful."
Therefore, I asked why you seem to leave out key pieces of evidence when making the assumptions you make and when forming your conclusions.
But, hey .... It is what it is. It would be nice if I were heard for what I actually say, but .... And, after all, it's something you asked me to do for you a month or so back. Not make assumptions about your intent and ask you questions for clarification. But, .... If it's to be addressed again, it will be by you. I'm leaving it.
Key pieces of evidence.... I did mention two key pieces of evidence. But, this will be the last time I point them out. Learning from the criticisms from the other day. If you choose to take this into consideration, great. If not, your choice.
One, in the initial email, I stated many non-believers question simply on the basis of logic and inconsistencies. Yet, you thought I was tarring non-believers, all, with the same "many are answering the clarion call" brush. When I pointed this out, you told me you weren't playing my game.
??
I also mentioned, just now, my post to Rachel from yesterday. I said, in my post to you about "evidence" ....
"Further, you, for some reason, are ignoring the post I sent Rachel yesterday regarding learning from non-believers here that questioning religious beliefs, in and of itself, isn't disrespectful.
Would you like to explain why you leave out key pieces of evidence when making your assumptions and conclusions?"
Okay.... I'll go find the specific paragraph for you and post it here. I did it for Shanna last night. Hold on a second.
In my post to Rachael, I said,
"Sometimes when non-believers question believers here, it seems disrespectful. I say it "seems" disrespectful for a reason. Something I've learned here, from non-believers ... simply questioning believers and religion isn't, in itself, disrespectful."
Therefore, I asked why you seem to leave out key pieces of evidence when making the assumptions you make and when forming your conclusions.
But, hey .... It is what it is. It would be nice if I were heard for what I actually say, but .... And, after all, it's something you asked me to do for you a month or so back. Not make assumptions about your intent and ask you questions for clarification. But, .... If it's to be addressed again, it will be by you. I'm leaving it.
Rachel, it is the cherry picking I have trouble with, but as much with discussions of science as religion.....for me accepting evolution as science but rejecting AGW is as inconsistent as the same-sex/slavery inconsistency I bring up.
Rachel wrote: "I would hate to live in a world where God doesn't exist and the whole cherry picking thing, Don't we all cherry pick what we choose to believe about anything and everything."I wouldn't have a problem with the cherry picking the bible thing, if it weren't for that 'word of god' business.
As a collection of stories and moral allegories the bible is fine, but if people are going to claim that it was dictated by a divine being then we start to get into the serious head scratching 'hang on a second...!' part of the conversation.
The "many" and "clarion call": maybe it's just me, but 'many' implied more than I felt was accurate, so i said I felt 'some' would be more appropriate. Pedantic maybe, but I thought more accurate. I didn't think you were making fun, nor did I feel it was asking for special consideration, I just thought it implied a greater incidence of what you were describing than I felt was accurate.I also don't recall suggesting you felt discussion was disrespectful, but in my annoyance at the dishonesty accusations I may have implied otherwise....I'd like to see a specific post where I said that of you, but it is not something I thought you did.
As for hearing what you say I will say I have tried but as before I will also say I have difficulty discerning your meaning from some of the longer stream-of-conscious posts.
cerebus wrote: "Religion not deserving special consideration is not from Dawkins. He may have said it, but he is not unique, he did not originate the thought, and it is not part of some evil atheist manifesto as you seem to suspect. There are some ideas/thoughts that are more generic than any one person, this is one. "
That could be. To take you through it ....
Remember back in the day, when some non-believers here were calling any and all believers "stupid sheep" and were being really crass?
Well, remember when people would call them on their disrespect?
They'd always come out with ... religion doesn't deserve special consideration.
Now, for some reason, I thought that was a phrase one of them thought up for him/herself. And, I thought, "Dang! S/he is really smart and comes up with some witty and catchy sayings." I don't know why I thought that person, the one who used it all the time, came up with it and others here picked it up, but I did.
Then, ....
When I started researching and read the posts and articles on the AA site, I found it there.
This is how they used it ....
They put out a call for non-believers to be as disrespectful as possible to believers in order to "splash water" in their faces and wake them from their religious "stupor" .... Actually, I need to amend that. The call was to target only intelligent believers. Most, they said, were woefully stupid and would be a waste of time and attention. They didn't say "woefully" ... maybe just too stupid. I can't remember and wish they'd not cleansed their site else I could tell you specifically. Wonder why they cleansed their site...?
Anyway, ....
They, then, cautioned those who heeded the call to be ready. Believers would accuse them and attack them for being disrespectful.
They needed to prepare a counterargument.
Their first argument should be ... quote ... "religion doesn't deserve special consideration" ....
Whoa....
That's when I sat back and said, "Dang! That wasn't so-and-so's creation? That wasn't unique to the GR thread. That's a tactic that is being promoted by the American Atheist thread when being intentionally disrespectful to non-believers in order to save them from the "evils" of religion. Shoot!"
Then, ... months later, I started reading some of the big names in Atheism.
And, damn hell! There it was again!!!!
I don't know why I thought the American Atheist site came up with the phrase, but I did.
But, nope, they didn't.
Like I said, .... I can't remember. Did I read it in Dawkins? But, read it I did.
So, I was faced with finding it in the Atheist literature, seeing it on the American Atheist thread ... as a tactic to be used when being a sh*t to a non-believer in order to explain being a sh*t, and remembered it being used here all the time when people would call a believer a "stupid sheep" or something else and someone cried foul.
You might disagree with how I connected the dots, Cerebus. That's cool. Further, I can understand it. Shanna and I went down this path yesterday. Which came first, the chicken or the egg. And, ... maybe it's just part of the lexicon of the group. Yup. I can see that. Of course, there's also the persnickety fact that the AA site put that forward as a tactic. Though, granted, I know, truly, that not everyone follows that site or that dictate. Even the people who used it as a tactic here, after calling people names, stupid sheep and the rest of it, might have been using it simply because it was part of their hearts versus answering the AA call.
That could be. To take you through it ....
Remember back in the day, when some non-believers here were calling any and all believers "stupid sheep" and were being really crass?
Well, remember when people would call them on their disrespect?
They'd always come out with ... religion doesn't deserve special consideration.
Now, for some reason, I thought that was a phrase one of them thought up for him/herself. And, I thought, "Dang! S/he is really smart and comes up with some witty and catchy sayings." I don't know why I thought that person, the one who used it all the time, came up with it and others here picked it up, but I did.
Then, ....
When I started researching and read the posts and articles on the AA site, I found it there.
This is how they used it ....
They put out a call for non-believers to be as disrespectful as possible to believers in order to "splash water" in their faces and wake them from their religious "stupor" .... Actually, I need to amend that. The call was to target only intelligent believers. Most, they said, were woefully stupid and would be a waste of time and attention. They didn't say "woefully" ... maybe just too stupid. I can't remember and wish they'd not cleansed their site else I could tell you specifically. Wonder why they cleansed their site...?
Anyway, ....
They, then, cautioned those who heeded the call to be ready. Believers would accuse them and attack them for being disrespectful.
They needed to prepare a counterargument.
Their first argument should be ... quote ... "religion doesn't deserve special consideration" ....
Whoa....
That's when I sat back and said, "Dang! That wasn't so-and-so's creation? That wasn't unique to the GR thread. That's a tactic that is being promoted by the American Atheist thread when being intentionally disrespectful to non-believers in order to save them from the "evils" of religion. Shoot!"
Then, ... months later, I started reading some of the big names in Atheism.
And, damn hell! There it was again!!!!
I don't know why I thought the American Atheist site came up with the phrase, but I did.
But, nope, they didn't.
Like I said, .... I can't remember. Did I read it in Dawkins? But, read it I did.
So, I was faced with finding it in the Atheist literature, seeing it on the American Atheist thread ... as a tactic to be used when being a sh*t to a non-believer in order to explain being a sh*t, and remembered it being used here all the time when people would call a believer a "stupid sheep" or something else and someone cried foul.
You might disagree with how I connected the dots, Cerebus. That's cool. Further, I can understand it. Shanna and I went down this path yesterday. Which came first, the chicken or the egg. And, ... maybe it's just part of the lexicon of the group. Yup. I can see that. Of course, there's also the persnickety fact that the AA site put that forward as a tactic. Though, granted, I know, truly, that not everyone follows that site or that dictate. Even the people who used it as a tactic here, after calling people names, stupid sheep and the rest of it, might have been using it simply because it was part of their hearts versus answering the AA call.
cerebus wrote: "The "many" and "clarion call": maybe it's just me, but 'many' implied more than I felt was accurate, so i said I felt 'some' would be more appropriate. Pedantic maybe, but I thought more accurate. ..."
Yup. I can see that. And, as you're aware, I changed to "some" on both counts.
What I can't understand...?
How you leaped from my using "many" regarding both those heeding the call and not to my tarring all non-believers with the same brush? That I don't understand.
It is what it is, though, right?
Yup. I can see that. And, as you're aware, I changed to "some" on both counts.
What I can't understand...?
How you leaped from my using "many" regarding both those heeding the call and not to my tarring all non-believers with the same brush? That I don't understand.
It is what it is, though, right?
A world without religion definitely. Religion is the perfect excuse for hatred and war. Given a purely intellectual society, the idea of 'religious crowd control' should be off the table. A truly intelligent society should recognize the stupidity of fighting over superstitions, developing crimes of mass destruction based upon whose god is 'the' god and allowing large portions of society to suffer while small groups control all the wealth and commodities, thereby causing unreast of the masses. However, humans evolved as vicious, murderous beasts. Given the opportunity, humans are more vicious than any four-legged “animal” on the planet. We 'eat our own young' in a lot of ways. Are we capable of overcoming that? Probably not completely, which would be required to allow society to function on a purely intellectual level. While a percentage of humans are capable of overcoming their hard-wired viciousness, the number of “sociopathic” personalities apparently born without the mental limiters that allow for existence within a group based society is an indicator of just how undeveloped our brains still are.
We might have comparatively highly developed intelligence, but that intelligence was developed as a response to being a naked, clawless animal in a world of creatures who considered us easy food. We have, in many ways, not developed very far above that level. The true question should be, IMO, can we all come to agree on one intelligent theory of why and how we are here in order to get past the concept of individual religions so that we have a chance to grow past where we are now?
I think some atheists cherry pick reasons to deny that there is a God...maybe God wanted atheist to exist, to help believers determine if their faith is worth holding on to? ;)
A world without religion definitely. Religion is the perfect excuse for hatred and war. Given a purely intellectual society, the idea of 'religious crowd control' should be off the table. A truly intelligent society should recognize the stupidity of fighting over superstitions, developing crimes of mass destruction based upon whose god is 'the' god and allowing large portions of society to suffer while small groups control all the wealth and commodities, thereby causing unreast of the masses. However, humans evolved as vicious, murderous beasts. Given the opportunity, humans are more vicious than any four-legged “animal” on the planet. We 'eat our own young' in a lot of ways. Are we capable of overcoming that? Probably not completely, which would be required to allow society to function on a purely intellectual level. While a percentage of humans are capable of overcoming their hard-wired viciousness, the number of “sociopathic” personalities apparently born without the mental limiters that allow for existence within a group based society is an indicator of just how undeveloped our brains still are.
We might have comparatively highly developed intelligence, but that intelligence was developed as a response to being a naked, clawless animal in a world of creatures who considered us easy food. We have, in many ways, not developed very far above that level. The true question should be, IMO, can we all come to agree on one intelligent theory of why and how we are here in order to get past the concept of individual religions so that we have a chance to grow past where we are now?
Jean wrote: "I think we definitely need both. As a religious girl, I have a strong faith in Deity and in His creations...science exists to prove His existence, for all things in this world and out point to Him..."His. He. Him. That is the very problem with religion - it sets up a male identity, which encourages the idea of the strong over the weak.
Boy did religion get a bad wrap...personally I think it has helped me become a better person, not as anger as I used to be, I was also much less confident, I appreciate a God who sees the value in me,and doesn't give up
So Shannon, how do you personally discern who is an intelligent, logical thinker who responds to discussion points, and who is under the evil American Atheist mind meld? You really seem to think there is some big conspiracy out there. You seem to think that (many/some) non-believers are not smart enough to come up with these statements on their own. Of course, you will state that you didn't mean anyone on this site was that dumb and mind controled. Oh of course not. Kinda of like when someone says something derogatory about Mexicans or Blacks and then turns to their Mexican or Black brother in law and says, "I don't mean you of course, it's all the other ones."
What exactly do you think your information about the AA website and its talking points proves?
Does the Westboro Baptist Church speak for all Baptists?
Does the KKK speak for all white people?
Does One Million Moms speak for all moms?
Does Master Gardeners speak for all who garden?
I mean I heard a lady at the store say, "I have a way with plants." I know I read that on the Master Gardener Club website as a talking point to recruit new members. She must be be indoctrinated in their methods....
You found a website with a membership smaller than most high schools in California and attached some great, powerful conspiracy to it. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. ( I got that phrase from the obscure writer's of the 1600's conspiracy group I belong to).
@rachel, which bits do you feel atheists are cherry picking?
@rachel, it is good that your belief gave you those things. Do you accept that others get the same things without belief?
Rachael,I have no disrespect for believers. I just don't agree.
It is my opinion, that for many in America, and possibly to lesser extent Europe, we ascribe to believing in god because it's what our cultural says makes you a good person.
Typically, we are born and raised going to church. Then we get in our teens and high school, go a little wild and stop attending church, or become a 2-a-year Christian (Christmas and Easter).
Then comes marriage and children and "Oh no I need to be a role model" SO its back to church. We go more out of habit and cultural expectation than true belief.
I have so many friends and family members who went through this pattern. They do not particularly believes in god...just a vague idea of a higher power. But they go to church because its what good people do in America. They identify with Christians because that means you love apple pie, mom and America. That's the expectation.
They may not believe on god, but would never dream of saying so, and never search for answers because it would be taboo to say you don't believe.
I know many people who attend church for the social aspect and the feeling of belonging. I know others ( like my previous employer) who became an active member of his church as a way to promote his business and gain customers.
Then we have these "megachurch" preachers in America who are almost like rock stars. they live large, make millions and are proud of it. Certainly no the example set by jesus.
In my opinion, people do not like to be questioned about their religious beliefs, because they are exactly that. Beliefs. they are not logical and often the only true answer a believer can give to why they believe is, "Because I just do."
Feelings defy logic and are very hard to defend in arguments.
I honestly tried to feel what people in church were feeling. I went through a phase in my early 20's, got involved in a church, went every Sunday, went to bible class. But honestly, it all felt so phony and I never felt any ah ha moment. I, like everyone in this life, have lost loved ones, suffered heartbreak and setbacks in life. But never once did I feel some great hand guiding or controlling me. I picked myself up, dusted myself off, and went forward myself.
(Shannon, the above are views and ideas expressed by the author,me. Any and all similarities to ideas or talking points from other atheist sources is strictly coincidental)
cerebus wrote: At this stage my questions and comments have probably made it clear where I'm coming from....if a holy text says same sex marriage is wrong, so I am told we should not legalise it based on this,"Sometimes things are made to look overly simplistic for effect or just to strengthen ones position in a debate.
As an example and only because you mention it; same sex marriage. Issues like that are not as black or white as you suggest. There is another section of society that want 'marriage' to stay as it is, for reasons previously discussed. These people also represent a wide section of our society and consist of religious, atheist, gay, straight, men, woman, young and old. Some less well educated folks would call that group 'homophobic'; although I'm not sure if a gay person can be homophobic.
It is not helpful in the discussion to pinpoint 'holy text' as the only barrier against allowing same sex marriage.
The Church of Canada has approved same sex marriage; and some gay people are against same sex marriage. So at best we have a right mix of opinions.
Rachel wrote: "I think some atheists cherry pick reasons to deny that there is a God...maybe God wanted atheist to exist, to help believers determine if their faith is worth holding on to? ;)"Racheal,
I respect your right to have certain views, but man is this idea such a copout. I had a pastor (of a very large church in our area) once tell me that the Earth is truly only 6000 years old. Because the bible is literal and 100% true. So earth was created in exactly 7 days.
When I asked him about dinosaur fossils and geological record, he responded with, "Well, an almighty god would create a world that APPEARED older to test his believers faith." Really?
If everyone believed this then there would be no science. If everything that happened or was discovered was attributed to god's capricious nature then we would never progress in knowledge of our world.
It so easy to say well god just made it seem that way, or god created their minds so they could do scientific research.
However, you would not accept that excuse from your child. "Its okay that i smoked that meth because god gave me a brain that desired meth." "I raped that girl because god gave me a bigger stronger body than hers, so he must have wanted me to do it." Would that fly at your house?
cHriS, you are correct, few issues are black and white, so I ask again, what reasons are there for rejecting equal rights of marriage for same sex couples? For all it's greyness, let's discuss those reasons.
I think I would rather live without religion. Even though it is the show of love, A lot of religions lie to us. We don't know what to believe sometimes. Science, however can explain things logically, its exciting and best of all, its not a lie. Pandora, I agree with you in a sense, but with just science, the world wouldn't be a cold wasteland. Science is full of wonderful discoveries, there's an endless world of things to find out, how can that be drab? Think of it like this, would you rather be lied to and deceived and live a colorful life, or get truth and still have fun in your life. Not everything leads to religion, does it? Music makes our lives fun and colorful, yet does a lot of it relate to religion? No, it doesn't. That's what I have to say. Feel free to make me argue with you!
Leiah wrote: "His. He. Him. That is the very problem with religion - it sets up a male identity, which encourages the idea of the strong over the weak.
"
Not for all religions, Leiah. Just wanted to point that out. The big three? Yup. But, not all.
"
Not for all religions, Leiah. Just wanted to point that out. The big three? Yup. But, not all.
cerebus wrote: so I ask again, what reasons are there for rejecting equal rights of marriage for same sex couples? For all it's greyness, let's discuss those reasons. .."
All the reasons people give for not wanting same sex marriage 'are' reasons. Some maybe more valid that others but they are all reasons, none the less.
Religion is only one. Keeping marriage between a man and a woman is another and one which I support.
BUT.. those are NOT reasons for rejecting equal rights of marriage for same sex couples. They are reasons for not granting marriage.
As I have said previously here in the UK we have equal rights via civil partnership. And we most lightly will allow a marriage, but not in a church. Some sort of compromise I guess.
Until a law is passed granting same sex marriage, there is no rights being rejected.
Mary wrote: "So Shannon, how do you personally discern who is an intelligent, logical thinker who responds to discussion points, and who is under the evil American Atheist mind meld?
You really seem to think t..."
First, I've no idea how to discern that. I know there are options. That's all.
Regarding everything else, ....
I don't believe, given your posts from the last month or so, that you have any desire whatsoever to have a discussion with me and/or to understand my viewpoint. None. Perhaps I'm wrong. If I were to look at the evidence of your posts to me, in total, I'd say that I'm accurate.
Given that, I've no intention to respond to the rest of your post.
Yes, that's me saying, upfront and without equivocation, that I am not going to answer your questions. No playing games. I'm just not going to do this with you.
You really seem to think t..."
First, I've no idea how to discern that. I know there are options. That's all.
Regarding everything else, ....
I don't believe, given your posts from the last month or so, that you have any desire whatsoever to have a discussion with me and/or to understand my viewpoint. None. Perhaps I'm wrong. If I were to look at the evidence of your posts to me, in total, I'd say that I'm accurate.
Given that, I've no intention to respond to the rest of your post.
Yes, that's me saying, upfront and without equivocation, that I am not going to answer your questions. No playing games. I'm just not going to do this with you.
Yes, they are reasons, but they are insufficient as reasons for not extending that right to same sex couples. Wanting to keep the definition as it is now? Well, nobody is forcing those who want to marry under the current definition to not be able to marry, there is no discrimination being introduced there. Extending that right to same sex couples does not impact on opposite sex couples in any way. Saying that until a right is provided there is no right being denied is rubbish, and relies on pure legalism. I will raise the same example again, when denying the right of freedom to slaves, to say that because the legal framework at the time allowed for slavery therefore no right was being denied is bizarre at best. In order to deny that, or any other right, there should be a better example than "the law currently says so". If that is the only recourse, then there is no reason to not extend the right to marry.
Just to clarify Shannon....are you objecting to Leaih's post because it generalises too much?
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "So Shannon, how do you personally discern who is an intelligent, logical thinker who responds to discussion points, and who is under the evil American Atheist mind meld? You really se..."
Shannon, you are partially correct. I find you very frustrating. But I do indeed see your viewpoint. I just do not agree with it. You want to point to the possibility of some atheist conspiracy to lessen the value of anything a nonbeliever says.
You often try to "innocently" throw out these accusations, and then try to pretend like you are being sadly misunderstood when challenged. You spend pages of text trying to explain yourself and defend the use of one word in a sentence to distract from the big idea.
Cerebus or others make a statement, and you want to say they are just talking heads , regurgitating propaganda for some secret society, instead of recognizing his thoughts as his own.That's insulting.
I come by my views through my life experiences, and I am assuming so do you. So if I or someone else states an intellectual argument, it's because we own that intelligence. To insinuate these ideas were not processed through our own studies, experiences and knowledge, but instead spoon fed to us like babies is insulting.
You backed off your argument and changed it to "some'.
I just want to know how it is you are going to discern who is part of the "some".
cerebus wrote: Extending that right to same sex couples does not impact on opposite sex couples in any way. Saying that until a right is provided there is no right being denied is rubbish, and relies on pure legalism. I will raise the same example again, when denying the right of freedom to slaves, to say that because the legal framework at the time allowed for slavery therefore no right was being denied is bizarre at best. In order to deny that, or any other right, there should be a better example than "the law currently says so". If that is the only recourse, then there is no reason to not extend the right to marry. ."
You are not in a position to state that it does not impact on opposite sex couples in any way. You can say 'in your opinion it does not'.
The slaves analogy in not the same thing at all and does not come close enough in any way to be compared to same sex marriage. You are not heightening the plight of same sex marriage you are diminishing the plight of slaves.
"the law currently says so" Yes it does and that is what the law is for. To debate and pass laws. At least in the UK.
Another point, should the government of a country order a church to do something that it opposes?
Well, Chris...in my opinion as a married person for over 27 years, same sex marriage has not impacted, denigrated, or affected my marriage in any way. I would love to hear from those who say it has negatively impacted their marriage and the specifics.
I would also be interested in seeing statistics on how many divorces list "same sex marriage" as their reason for dissolution.
How many marriage counselors list "same sex marriage" as the reason their patients seek counseling.
I'm not sure how else to quantify how many are effected negatively.
Mary wrote: same sex marriage has not impacted, denigrated, or affected my marriage in any way.....Mary, you say that as though you thought maybe it could have.
Mary wrote: I’m not sure how else to quantify how many are effected negatively.
..."
Why do you want to quantify this?
Some people want marriage to stay the same as it is, as it has been. Altering it would change it.
In the Uk we have something called universal benefits. For example each year pensioners receive a one off payment of £200 towards heating bills.
It goes to all pensioners. The ones that are not very well off financially and to billionaires.
One option is to stop payment altogether and save the country money. Another is to have a limit so that if someone earns above a certain limit they don't get the benefit. The third option is to leave things as they are.
At first glance the second option to have a limit seems best, at least the less well off still get something.
But what was a universal benefit now is not universal under option two. The government have made changes to who receives the benefit. Ok today the millionaire won't get it, next others on a lower pay scale will be ruled out and then families that do rely on it won't get it either.
(The government have already done this with child benefit and it does effect some families).
Once you change the rules, you open doors for more changes.
As there is pseudo science there is also pseudo religion. A unity is all inclusive. Exclusive point of view is tainted and erroneous. The point is eternal and timeless. All arguments mean the something is not understood.
Ron wrote: "As there is pseudo science there is also pseudo religion. A unity is all inclusive. Exclusive point of view is tainted and erroneous. The point is eternal and timeless. All arguments mean the somethinh is not understood"..... or understood but not agreed on.
Mary wrote: "You want to point to the possibility of some atheist conspiracy to lessen the value of anything a nonbeliever says. "
Has it ever, for a second, occurred to you that I am innocent?
Evidence...?
You're new here, Mary, and I'm wondering if any of the longtime members will actually come out and back me on this. Not because I'm asking it. Only because it's true ... and based in evidence.
You aren't aware of the times I've stood, side by side, with non-believers and defended your rights? Your right to live your lives and share your opinions without being treated like evil trash, lost souls bound for hell.
You're not aware of all of the times I've said non-believers were right about something. All of the times I've said I've learned from non-believers. Learned from non-believers and your arguments. I've even given specific examples of the things I've learned and what non-believers have been right about.
We're not talking never. We're not talking once. We're not talking couple times.
We're talking consistently, over at least a year if not going on two years.
Heck, I just said it in my post to Rachel yesterday. When I first came here, I thought non-believers questioning faith was disrespectful. I detailed the reasons, my culture and family/neighborhood upbringing. However, I said ... and have cut and pasted once to Shanna and once to Cerebus ... that I learned from non-believers on this point. It's not, in and of itself, disrespectful. I've said, several times, that such questioning, respectful questioning, can be a very good thing and that I'm glad for having learned that lesson. I apply it now in many things, not just this topic. I research now. I don't take someone's word for it or listen to what a politician says or what's on the news and believe it nearly as much as I once did. I think that's a really good thing.
I've even, several times and goodness knows at length, said non-believers have the argument at ... no evidence. Period. End stop. You. Have. The. Argument. You're right ... in that there is no scientific evidence. Further, I've said I can totally and completely understand why non-believers would refuse faith ... based on that and other things. You know why I, despite this, believe given the fact that I shared that.
That ... that ... is the full picture. We'll see if anyone wants to go on the record to confirm that.
You claim I am attempting to "lessen the value of anything a nonbeliever says."
I'm not going to call BS on that due to your being new and not, really, having any insight into who I am or what I stand for.
Other than coming into the thread after some people had given some believers a ration of grief for dancing around questions and not answering them at all. I'd begun to feel that, shoot, maybe everyone should be held to the same darned standard ... especially when they said things like ... I'll answer all of your questions to your satisfaction ... and ... You're making assumptions about me; I'm asking that you stop. If you're confused or have questions, ask questions and I'll answer. I took them at their word and, yes, demanded and hounded because I was sick to death of the hypocrisy I and others perceived and had plenty of evidence for.
But, you know, maybe that was wrong of me.
Regardless, I'm going to suggest something. You're setting yourself up, with statements like the above, as the author of my words, my actions and my, frankly, life story.
I have never and will never play games in order to discredit anything anyone says ... non-believers or no. That goes against everything I believe and stand for and I won't stand silently for it.
Further, I don't play games at all, ever ... despite the accusations Cerebus has made to the contrary.
(Interesting to note, Cerebus ... words have consequences ... even on the Internet.)
Has it ever, for a second, occurred to you that I am innocent?
Evidence...?
You're new here, Mary, and I'm wondering if any of the longtime members will actually come out and back me on this. Not because I'm asking it. Only because it's true ... and based in evidence.
You aren't aware of the times I've stood, side by side, with non-believers and defended your rights? Your right to live your lives and share your opinions without being treated like evil trash, lost souls bound for hell.
You're not aware of all of the times I've said non-believers were right about something. All of the times I've said I've learned from non-believers. Learned from non-believers and your arguments. I've even given specific examples of the things I've learned and what non-believers have been right about.
We're not talking never. We're not talking once. We're not talking couple times.
We're talking consistently, over at least a year if not going on two years.
Heck, I just said it in my post to Rachel yesterday. When I first came here, I thought non-believers questioning faith was disrespectful. I detailed the reasons, my culture and family/neighborhood upbringing. However, I said ... and have cut and pasted once to Shanna and once to Cerebus ... that I learned from non-believers on this point. It's not, in and of itself, disrespectful. I've said, several times, that such questioning, respectful questioning, can be a very good thing and that I'm glad for having learned that lesson. I apply it now in many things, not just this topic. I research now. I don't take someone's word for it or listen to what a politician says or what's on the news and believe it nearly as much as I once did. I think that's a really good thing.
I've even, several times and goodness knows at length, said non-believers have the argument at ... no evidence. Period. End stop. You. Have. The. Argument. You're right ... in that there is no scientific evidence. Further, I've said I can totally and completely understand why non-believers would refuse faith ... based on that and other things. You know why I, despite this, believe given the fact that I shared that.
That ... that ... is the full picture. We'll see if anyone wants to go on the record to confirm that.
You claim I am attempting to "lessen the value of anything a nonbeliever says."
I'm not going to call BS on that due to your being new and not, really, having any insight into who I am or what I stand for.
Other than coming into the thread after some people had given some believers a ration of grief for dancing around questions and not answering them at all. I'd begun to feel that, shoot, maybe everyone should be held to the same darned standard ... especially when they said things like ... I'll answer all of your questions to your satisfaction ... and ... You're making assumptions about me; I'm asking that you stop. If you're confused or have questions, ask questions and I'll answer. I took them at their word and, yes, demanded and hounded because I was sick to death of the hypocrisy I and others perceived and had plenty of evidence for.
But, you know, maybe that was wrong of me.
Regardless, I'm going to suggest something. You're setting yourself up, with statements like the above, as the author of my words, my actions and my, frankly, life story.
I have never and will never play games in order to discredit anything anyone says ... non-believers or no. That goes against everything I believe and stand for and I won't stand silently for it.
Further, I don't play games at all, ever ... despite the accusations Cerebus has made to the contrary.
(Interesting to note, Cerebus ... words have consequences ... even on the Internet.)
Mary wrote: "I just want to know how it is you are going to discern who is part of the "some". "
I doubt I could ever discern that ... unless someone admitted it. I know it's an option. Some question, respectfully, based on logic and inconsistencies. Some question, disrespectfully, because it's on their heart to do so, finding religion to be ridiculous, as Shanna said, regardless of using the same lingo as other non-believers; it's part of the lexicon. Some question, disrespectfully, in order to answer a call to do so.
I'll never know the intentions.
I'll know one thing ....
Option One isn't the only option; that was my point.
I doubt I could ever discern that ... unless someone admitted it. I know it's an option. Some question, respectfully, based on logic and inconsistencies. Some question, disrespectfully, because it's on their heart to do so, finding religion to be ridiculous, as Shanna said, regardless of using the same lingo as other non-believers; it's part of the lexicon. Some question, disrespectfully, in order to answer a call to do so.
I'll never know the intentions.
I'll know one thing ....
Option One isn't the only option; that was my point.
cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote: same sex marriage has not impacted, denigrated, or affected my marriage in any way.....Mary, you say that as though you thought maybe it could have.
Mary wrote: I’m not sure how els..."
Okay Chris...interesting redirect. But I was specifically responding to your comments about reasons to oppose same sex marriage. You said
"You are not in a position to state that it does not impact on opposite sex couples in any way. You can say 'in your opinion it does not'."
So I asked if you feel it does impact opposite sex couples, and how?
I am not saying it does in any way, because in my opinion it does not. So I though you could enlighten me if you are one such person who has had their marriage negatively impacted.
Of course it is apples and oranges for us on the legalities because the US and UK do not recognize civil unions in the same way. Here it differs from state to state and you have blanket coverage under one law? Is that correct.
So you are saying for you, this is about semantics, tradition, and your philosophical/religious ideals.
You want marriage to be solely a religious/biblical/historical word to mean a union between one man and possibly multiple women ( depending on which part of the bible or history you ascribe to)strictly for the purpose of procreation?
And any change to the use of that word causes you fear that things will change for the negative? I do not want to presume, but that is what I am hearing and have heard you say before.
I have no problem keeping the word marriage only for those getting joined through a religious service. I am all for allowing everyone to have the exact same rights through civil union. The right to life or death decision making, insurance, custody, property ownership etc. Then if people feel they need a religious ceremony...go on down to the church. Churches here have always had the right to refuse to marry anyone, and why you'd want to be a member of the church that refused you is beyond me.
I hear the idea that same sex marriage harms traditional marriage. So I would love to quantify it to see how big a problem this really is. But I think it is that the changing of tradition is very hard for some and ends up making them fearful and angry. So maybe that's the impact you mean. One or both people in the marriage get really grouchy when they hear about same sex marriage?
cerebus wrote: "Just to clarify Shannon....are you objecting to Leaih's post because it generalises too much?"
I'm pointing out that other religions exist, as I've done here routinely. American Indian spirituality. Paganism. Etc.... People here, almost exclusively, stress Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Other religions exist that aren't about he and him.
Were you genuinely curious or trying to be cute?
I'm pointing out that other religions exist, as I've done here routinely. American Indian spirituality. Paganism. Etc.... People here, almost exclusively, stress Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Other religions exist that aren't about he and him.
Were you genuinely curious or trying to be cute?
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "You want to point to the possibility of some atheist conspiracy to lessen the value of anything a nonbeliever says. "Has it ever, for a second, occurred to you that I am innocent? ..."
I'm not new. I have been a goodreads member and followed this thread since mid 2011. Same as you I think. I just didn't comment till several months back.
No, I do not think you are innocent, because none of us are. I think you want to appear unbiased and fair, and in the process you end up with your arguments all over the place. Constantly claiming you were misunderstood. That is the frustrating part to me.
Or you argue over the meaning of a single word in order to deflect the larger idea.
If you really believe that many atheists are given talking points to insult believers then say it loud and proud. Don't back down, or fail to back it up, only to assert it again in a later post.
I am very direct. That is my style. If you do not like it, that's on you. I have lived long enough to know that try to get everyone to like you is a losing proposition.
I have very close friends who are believers and we just don't discuss religion. But your participation in this forum implies you do want to discuss it. It does not mean everyone will agree with you or not challenge you.
Mary wrote: "I'm not new. I have been a goodreads member and followed this thread since mid 2011. Same as you I think. I just didn't comment till several months back.
No, I do not think you are innocent, because none of us are. "
That's interesting. So, you would have seen the discussion and dialogue from all that time. You'd have seen when I brought up AA, etc... last fall. You wouldn't have had to go through thousands and thousands of pages to get a feel or find that. Because, ... you now tell me, you were reading this thread, though not commenting, all this time.
As direct as you are, I wonder why you didn't mention that before?
Given your feelings about passive aggressive behavior, I wonder why you asked me to do all of that research for you? Something that would have taken a considerable amount of time on my part.
When I said you'd need to have been reading for at least a year to get a flavor, why weren't you straightforward? Why didn't say you'd been here all along?
I have to tell you, Mary, I find this absolutely fascinating ....
Regarding your last point, I have no desire to have people agree me and don't think it's inappropriate for people to challenge me. If you've been reading all of this time, you'll know, yourself, of all of the times I've said I've learned from non-believers. Unless, of course, you think I was lying or some secret evangelical spy who pretends to stand up for non-believers and says she learns from them only to lull non-believers into a sense of trust ... only to set upon them and take their words and use to call into question everything and anything non-believers ever say. Speaking of conspiracy theories, that's right up there with the best of them. Shannon: Sleeper Spy. It has a ring to it.
No, I don't need people to agree with me and "listen" to me without ever challenging me. For them to be up-and-up and at least moderately respectful in tone would be appreciated.
But, I'm also hoping to win the lottery one day ....
No, I do not think you are innocent, because none of us are. "
That's interesting. So, you would have seen the discussion and dialogue from all that time. You'd have seen when I brought up AA, etc... last fall. You wouldn't have had to go through thousands and thousands of pages to get a feel or find that. Because, ... you now tell me, you were reading this thread, though not commenting, all this time.
As direct as you are, I wonder why you didn't mention that before?
Given your feelings about passive aggressive behavior, I wonder why you asked me to do all of that research for you? Something that would have taken a considerable amount of time on my part.
When I said you'd need to have been reading for at least a year to get a flavor, why weren't you straightforward? Why didn't say you'd been here all along?
I have to tell you, Mary, I find this absolutely fascinating ....
Regarding your last point, I have no desire to have people agree me and don't think it's inappropriate for people to challenge me. If you've been reading all of this time, you'll know, yourself, of all of the times I've said I've learned from non-believers. Unless, of course, you think I was lying or some secret evangelical spy who pretends to stand up for non-believers and says she learns from them only to lull non-believers into a sense of trust ... only to set upon them and take their words and use to call into question everything and anything non-believers ever say. Speaking of conspiracy theories, that's right up there with the best of them. Shannon: Sleeper Spy. It has a ring to it.
No, I don't need people to agree with me and "listen" to me without ever challenging me. For them to be up-and-up and at least moderately respectful in tone would be appreciated.
But, I'm also hoping to win the lottery one day ....
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "I'm not new. I have been a goodreads member and followed this thread since mid 2011. Same as you I think. I just didn't comment till several months back. No, I do not think you are i..."
Nice try Shannon. I said I followed this thread.. I didn't say I memorized it. I did not realize that people needed to state how long they had been here or what they had read. Is that normally done?
I did not check daily. Sometimes weeks passed. I certainly did not read every post, every day. I do not remember seeing any discussion about AA. And as you were the one who brought it up, and remembered seeing it, then you would know way more about where and when it was said than me.
Nice try, but no conspiracy here. Remember the sleeper spy schtick is your creation, I have made no such comments nor do I think there is any truth to it. ( just in case it comes up later and you think I originated that idea.)
Mary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "I'm not new. I have been a goodreads member and followed this thread since mid 2011. Same as you I think. I just didn't comment till several months back.
No, I do not..."
My turn to say, "Ahahaha..."
Keep on keeping on, Mary. I'm sure I'll see you around.
No, I do not..."
My turn to say, "Ahahaha..."
Keep on keeping on, Mary. I'm sure I'll see you around.
Look at all the conflicts in the world today and 99% of them are religion orientated. Common sense, respect and love for, as the Dalai Lama would say all sentient beings is all it takes to co-habit this planet. I couldn't personally live without science but live quite reasonably without religion.
Margaret wrote: "Look at all the conflicts in the world today and 99% of them are religion orientated. Common sense, respect and love for, as the Dalai Lama would say all sentient beings is all it takes to co-habit..."I agree.
Margaret wrote: "Look at all the conflicts in the world today and 99% of them are religion orientated. Common sense, respect and love for, as the Dalai Lama would say all sentient beings is all it takes to co-habit..."
The evidence doesn't back that percentage, Margaret, but I respect your view regarding choosing science over religion.
The evidence doesn't back that percentage, Margaret, but I respect your view regarding choosing science over religion.
Rachel wrote: "I think some atheists cherry pick reasons to deny that there is a God...maybe God wanted atheist to exist, to help believers determine if their faith is worth holding on to? ;)"We cherry pick the complete lack of evidence?
I was with you before, but I think you went a bit out on a limb with that one.
cHriS wrote: "cerebus wrote: At this stage my questions and comments have probably made it clear where I'm coming from....if a holy text says same sex marriage is wrong, so I am told we should not legalise it ba..."Well, if there are mixed opinions, they we'd better not do it.
Giving people rights is fraught with peril.
Letting women vote has caused nothing but trouble...
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...
Oh, ....
When you said, "For some, not many. For some believers it is the same. I will say it again, when an atheist comes here making fun, you can take them on. Until then put the tar brush away," I thought you meant I was making fun. Perhaps that's my mistake.
I also thought, when you said I needed to "put the tar brush" away unless and until someone came here who was intentionally making fun, you were asking for special consideration. No discussion ... unless someone is intentionally making fun.
As an aside, I wonder how one proves intention. It often seems "obvious" ... but .... More often than not, people claim otherwise. That's a hard thing, I suppose.
So, ... When you said I wasn't to talk about what I saw on the American Atheist website, noting that many followed and many did not, you weren't asking for special consideration ... special respect? You were setting a standard that we can only talk about things if the current posters are actively doing them? Is that the thing? Is that a standard that will be expected of all?