Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Travis wrote: "chris wrote: "They can call each other what ever they like, as long as I am not obliged to take them seriously."which, oddly enough is pretty much how I feel about religion."
...and I agree.
cHriS wrote: "As for my previous comment, rights for almost everyone…..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/new...
….the world is going mad. "
How's being a part of the European Union working for you guys?
This has me thinking about rights ....
Regarding rapists and murderers, what is the precedent regarding voting? I don't think people in the US, in jail or not, can vote if convicted of a felony. But, I'm actually not sure about that. Would have to check.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...
Regarding marriage, ....
Is marriage, for anyone, a right?
Stay with me.... For me, discrimination isn't acceptable. Isn't denying one person something another can have discrimination? Like, ... apartments. One can't rent only to whites or only to Christians or only to ... purposely not accepting renters who are Asian or non-believers or .... That's discrimination.
But, here's the thing .... Do I have a fundamental human right to an apartment?
I've not thought this through and haven't done any reading on this issue. So, I'm not sure but what my thoughts would change and evolve on this topic.
Having said that, .... Separate and apart from gay unions/marriage, I wonder at some of the things that are now being considered rights.
Looking at the blurb on the above site, I'm not as into the third cousin rights ... and on and on. Rather reminds me of education and the need for everyone to get an award phenomena.
However, speaking of the European Union and rights .... I wonder what's being done regarding human trafficking in Europe. (Of course, I wonder about that everywhere. Dirty little secret that it is ... it doesn't get much play.) Ultimately, when thinking about rights, I'll admit my bias. While prisoners are human beings and should be afforded certain rights ... the right to be clothed, fed, and not tortured, I'm far more interested in the rights of victims. Perpetrators.... Not so much. That's me. All of the victims of human trafficking in Europe and all of the children whose bodies are rented out for money by adults who should be locked up forever .... Well, I'd want to focus on that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/new...
….the world is going mad. "
How's being a part of the European Union working for you guys?
This has me thinking about rights ....
Regarding rapists and murderers, what is the precedent regarding voting? I don't think people in the US, in jail or not, can vote if convicted of a felony. But, I'm actually not sure about that. Would have to check.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...
Regarding marriage, ....
Is marriage, for anyone, a right?
Stay with me.... For me, discrimination isn't acceptable. Isn't denying one person something another can have discrimination? Like, ... apartments. One can't rent only to whites or only to Christians or only to ... purposely not accepting renters who are Asian or non-believers or .... That's discrimination.
But, here's the thing .... Do I have a fundamental human right to an apartment?
I've not thought this through and haven't done any reading on this issue. So, I'm not sure but what my thoughts would change and evolve on this topic.
Having said that, .... Separate and apart from gay unions/marriage, I wonder at some of the things that are now being considered rights.
Looking at the blurb on the above site, I'm not as into the third cousin rights ... and on and on. Rather reminds me of education and the need for everyone to get an award phenomena.
However, speaking of the European Union and rights .... I wonder what's being done regarding human trafficking in Europe. (Of course, I wonder about that everywhere. Dirty little secret that it is ... it doesn't get much play.) Ultimately, when thinking about rights, I'll admit my bias. While prisoners are human beings and should be afforded certain rights ... the right to be clothed, fed, and not tortured, I'm far more interested in the rights of victims. Perpetrators.... Not so much. That's me. All of the victims of human trafficking in Europe and all of the children whose bodies are rented out for money by adults who should be locked up forever .... Well, I'd want to focus on that.
Sai Thein Than wrote: "Actually, this is a question on the reading group guides. I like the topic so I bring it up here.I'm an atheist myself so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I'm not implying that re..."
I'd prefer science, so long as it does not become religion.
cerebus wrote: "Great American Hypocrites: Shattering the Big Myths of Republican Politics"
Haven't read such a colorful book description in many a moon.
Regarding American politics, there's a lot of hypocrisy.
GW Bush and the Republicans as fiscal conservatives? Pork, pork, pork. $$ Bailouts, etc.... A joke.
Obama and the Democrats as transparent protectors of people's rights, including privacy rights? Oh, excuse me, ... just fell off the sofa laughing.
I wonder, though, if this author can do the same thing? See the hypocrisy in both parties.... Would one need to be able to do so in order to show good judgment?Clearly, this book is about Republicans and their hypocrisy. Fine. Does he have a book about Democrats and their hypocrisy? Did he consider writing a book that explores both?
Yeah, ... a bunch of anti-Republican people will buy the book and laugh at the witty jabs of the author who "took the gloves off" in order to save unwitting Americans from falling for Republicans who are packaged in Western virility. Yay!
The same holds true with books written by people like Ann Coulter, shudder. Republicans, somewhere, find her amusing, I suppose.
That sort of glimpse into hypocrisy, in my opinion, doesn't go far enough, if at all, to create change. Looking only at one side or another continues to foster the same polarization and happy horse**** that we've been living with for five shades of forever. Bias? Throw it out and actually look at the problem.
Here's a thought. Maybe people from both sides should get together and write a book. Two people who really care about the country and politics and are willing to take an honest look at and give an honest approach to the problem. A Democrat could have the first third to detail Republican hypocrisy, a Republican could have the second third for Democratic hypocrisy, and they could come together on the last third ... what does it mean and how to move forward. That...? That would be freaking awesome.
Haven't read such a colorful book description in many a moon.
Regarding American politics, there's a lot of hypocrisy.
GW Bush and the Republicans as fiscal conservatives? Pork, pork, pork. $$ Bailouts, etc.... A joke.
Obama and the Democrats as transparent protectors of people's rights, including privacy rights? Oh, excuse me, ... just fell off the sofa laughing.
I wonder, though, if this author can do the same thing? See the hypocrisy in both parties.... Would one need to be able to do so in order to show good judgment?Clearly, this book is about Republicans and their hypocrisy. Fine. Does he have a book about Democrats and their hypocrisy? Did he consider writing a book that explores both?
Yeah, ... a bunch of anti-Republican people will buy the book and laugh at the witty jabs of the author who "took the gloves off" in order to save unwitting Americans from falling for Republicans who are packaged in Western virility. Yay!
The same holds true with books written by people like Ann Coulter, shudder. Republicans, somewhere, find her amusing, I suppose.
That sort of glimpse into hypocrisy, in my opinion, doesn't go far enough, if at all, to create change. Looking only at one side or another continues to foster the same polarization and happy horse**** that we've been living with for five shades of forever. Bias? Throw it out and actually look at the problem.
Here's a thought. Maybe people from both sides should get together and write a book. Two people who really care about the country and politics and are willing to take an honest look at and give an honest approach to the problem. A Democrat could have the first third to detail Republican hypocrisy, a Republican could have the second third for Democratic hypocrisy, and they could come together on the last third ... what does it mean and how to move forward. That...? That would be freaking awesome.
Shannon wrote: discrimination isn't acceptable...".....I guess we would all agree on that.
Shannon wrote: Do I have a fundamental human right to an apartment?
I would say not.
You have a right to purchase one if you have the money, yes.
Do you have the right to work to earn money? Yes, if you can find employment.
Do you have the right to employment ?????????
Shannon wrote: Separate and apart from gay unions/marriage, I wonder at some of the things that are now being considered rights..
I think that there is a danger of society going above and beyond what we know as 'rights' and more and more 'stuff' will get added to the list.
Shannon wrote: While prisoners are human beings and should be afforded certain rights
....the word there is 'certain' rights, but not all. That suggest you are willing to withhold some of a prisoners rights? That is like my Universal Benefit example I gave some posts back. Once you restrict something or someone then that leaves things open to more restrictions. Hold back a prisoners rights then who next. Having said that I don't see why a prisoner should have that sort of rights. Also is the right not to be executed a 'right'?
What we must separate is 'basic' human rights from other so called rights.
The Webster says 'freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution'. But countries have different laws, so what we may think is a human rights issue, another country may not see it as we do.
Shannon wrote: How's being a part of the European Union working for you guys?"That is one of the biggest political issues around at the moment and this issue alone may determine which party gets into government next time around. I think the country is split about half and half regarding us leaving the union if we ever get a vote.
cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: How's being a part of the European Union working for you guys?"
That is one of the biggest political issues around at the moment and this issue alone may determine which party gets ..."
I can imagine!
While, on the one had, we have something similar here, it is different. We have fifty states with rights and laws; however, federal law trumps everything. Yes, there has been bad blood between the states, most notably back in the 1800's, but ....
It's also different. We went into this thing, minus the American Indians, agreeing on this form of government, and we are, truly, one country.
Other "countries" making rules and laws for me to obey ....
Wouldn't be my cup of tea.
Not sure if I intend the pun or not. ;)
That is one of the biggest political issues around at the moment and this issue alone may determine which party gets ..."
I can imagine!
While, on the one had, we have something similar here, it is different. We have fifty states with rights and laws; however, federal law trumps everything. Yes, there has been bad blood between the states, most notably back in the 1800's, but ....
It's also different. We went into this thing, minus the American Indians, agreeing on this form of government, and we are, truly, one country.
Other "countries" making rules and laws for me to obey ....
Wouldn't be my cup of tea.
Not sure if I intend the pun or not. ;)
cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: Do I have a fundamental human right to an apartment?
I would say not.
You have a right to purchase one if you have the money, yes. "
Pretty sure we're in agreement on this.
Like I said, I've not done any reading or serious thinking on this topic, so ... who knows .... But, ....
Now that I think about it .... The cousins of the fundamental political human rights, life, liberty, free speech, the freedom to practice religion as one chooses ... the next generations of human rights ....
Here's the question of the day....
How can a "cultural rights" be human rights, unless it's a cultural right found in all cultures?
Perhaps the history/anthropology people could help us out on that one. When I think about human rights, I envision rights that are fundamental ... fundamental to all people. Life, for example. The freedom to speak one's mind and heart.... Of course, yes, there are countries that would disagree.
Imagine the disagreement regarding "cultural" rights.... How can they be considered fundamental human rights? For all? By whose standard?
I would say not.
You have a right to purchase one if you have the money, yes. "
Pretty sure we're in agreement on this.
Like I said, I've not done any reading or serious thinking on this topic, so ... who knows .... But, ....
Now that I think about it .... The cousins of the fundamental political human rights, life, liberty, free speech, the freedom to practice religion as one chooses ... the next generations of human rights ....
Here's the question of the day....
How can a "cultural rights" be human rights, unless it's a cultural right found in all cultures?
Perhaps the history/anthropology people could help us out on that one. When I think about human rights, I envision rights that are fundamental ... fundamental to all people. Life, for example. The freedom to speak one's mind and heart.... Of course, yes, there are countries that would disagree.
Imagine the disagreement regarding "cultural" rights.... How can they be considered fundamental human rights? For all? By whose standard?
cHriS wrote: "The Webster says 'freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution'. But countries have different laws, so what we may think is a human rights issue, another country may not see it as we do. "
Very true.
Very true.
cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: While prisoners are human beings and should be afforded certain rights
....the word there is 'certain' rights, but not all. That suggest you are willing to withhold some of a prisoners rights? That is like my Universal Benefit example I gave some posts back. Once you restrict something or someone then that leaves things open to more restrictions. Hold back a prisoners rights then who next. Having said that I don't see why a prisoner should have that sort of rights. Also is the right not to be executed a 'right'?"
Decided to look up voting, with regard to felons, in the US....
It's a state by state thing. Vermont and Maine, of course, even allow felons to vote while in jail. Some of the other states don't allow convicted felons to vote again, ever.
Human Rights Watch thinks it's an atrocity and a violation of human rights not to allow convicted felons to vote. Etc....
For the other side, the argument seems to hinge on whether or not we should allow people who violated the human rights of others the opportunity to vote and, thereby, take part in lawmaking that will impact all of our rights.
I read through this ....
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.an...
I'd need to read more, including case law, in order to really know how I feel about this particular issue. At this point, I'm thinking they can pound sand. Remember, I've admitted my bias and have a cousin who was abducted and brutally beaten and raped by two men on her way home from school. I'm not crying myself to sleep at night over the fact that one of them (one is dead) and men like them aren't allowed to vote. But, yo, I'm biased on this one.
Certain rights .... Yup. That goes to my bias. Basic human rights. Yes. The right to health care while incarcerated? Yes. The "right" of convicted sex offenders to be given Viagra? Not so much. The right to vote? Having a hard time thinking about Warren Jeffs or my cousin's rapist, men who relish taking away the most fundamental rights of others, being afforded the right to vote. Again, though, I'm ... biased.
....the word there is 'certain' rights, but not all. That suggest you are willing to withhold some of a prisoners rights? That is like my Universal Benefit example I gave some posts back. Once you restrict something or someone then that leaves things open to more restrictions. Hold back a prisoners rights then who next. Having said that I don't see why a prisoner should have that sort of rights. Also is the right not to be executed a 'right'?"
Decided to look up voting, with regard to felons, in the US....
It's a state by state thing. Vermont and Maine, of course, even allow felons to vote while in jail. Some of the other states don't allow convicted felons to vote again, ever.
Human Rights Watch thinks it's an atrocity and a violation of human rights not to allow convicted felons to vote. Etc....
For the other side, the argument seems to hinge on whether or not we should allow people who violated the human rights of others the opportunity to vote and, thereby, take part in lawmaking that will impact all of our rights.
I read through this ....
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.an...
I'd need to read more, including case law, in order to really know how I feel about this particular issue. At this point, I'm thinking they can pound sand. Remember, I've admitted my bias and have a cousin who was abducted and brutally beaten and raped by two men on her way home from school. I'm not crying myself to sleep at night over the fact that one of them (one is dead) and men like them aren't allowed to vote. But, yo, I'm biased on this one.
Certain rights .... Yup. That goes to my bias. Basic human rights. Yes. The right to health care while incarcerated? Yes. The "right" of convicted sex offenders to be given Viagra? Not so much. The right to vote? Having a hard time thinking about Warren Jeffs or my cousin's rapist, men who relish taking away the most fundamental rights of others, being afforded the right to vote. Again, though, I'm ... biased.
Shannon wrote: I'm not crying myself to sleep at night over the fact that one of them (one is dead) and men like them aren't allowed to vote...."My view is, you go through the prison gates and you loose your right to vote, it stays on the outside. The other side of that argument is; once you stop one 'right' then it won't be long before someone wants to stop another right.
I think that if a prisoner is doing 20 plus years, the fact that he can't put a cross on a ballot paper once every four or five is not that much of a concern to him/her. I think it is more of a protest... just because I killed someone and took away their rights, is not a reason to take mine away.
Shannon wrote: How can a "cultural rights" be human rights, unless it's a cultural right found in all cultures? .
I think that could be the question of the day and I will have to think about that.
A quick answer could be that the "cultural right" may loose it's status if way from where it own culture is practiced. I think a lot of "cultural rights" may also be regarded as human rights in some Asian countries, for example.
Shannon wrote: Other "countries" making rules and laws for me to obey .
For us being Europe, this is a double edge sword. Europe make a lot of the rules; but we as individuals can always appeal to the European Court of Human Justice if our courts rule against us. As one woman did last year when she was sacked from her employment for wearing a crucifix around her neck. Our courts found in her employers, British Airways, favour so she took her case to Europe and won.
http://rt.com/news/cross-british-cour...
cHriS wrote: "The other side of that argument is; once you stop one 'right' then it won't be long before someone wants to stop another right. "
Yes, I know. I was thinking about that as I was mulling it over and posting.
Yes, I know. I was thinking about that as I was mulling it over and posting.
a world without science would be meaningless! Although i am a free thinker but i do not wanted to be branded as an atheist. Religion is only as good as the people following it. I can live in a world without religion but a world without science and technology is impossible to imagine.
Don't worry, there's no branding required to be an atheist....
Manav wrote: " Religion is only as good as the people following it. I think that is my new favorite quote of the day.
Definitely a world without religion. Many, if not a large majority, of the divisions among the world's population has come about because of a difference in religious beliefs. Religion largely ignores science and brain washes believers."Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca.
I've written two-thirds of a trilogy, and many reviewers have compared these books to those of Dan Brown. Want to know more? Please check out this new interview and links to learn more about the Imagine Trilogy. Thanks!
http://www.ampersandh.com/interview-w...
Lex wrote: "Many, if not a large majority, of the divisions among the world's population has come about because of a difference in religious beliefs."
Many, yes.
Not even close to the majority.
Many, yes.
Not even close to the majority.
I'll concede... not even close to a majority... ;o)
Lex wrote: "I'll concede... not even close to a majority... ;o)"
;)
Yeah, ... we've also had and continue to have lots of issues with natural resources, etc...
;)
Yeah, ... we've also had and continue to have lots of issues with natural resources, etc...
Lex wrote: "Definitely a world without religion. Many, if not a large majority, of the divisions among the world's population has come about because of a difference in religious beliefs. Religion largely ign...".......nice plug.
Hmmm. Sincerity or sarcasm for breaking a rule, of which I'm not aware? ;o)
I would definitely love to live in a world without religion. Obviously, I'm not that religious, but religion is such a pain in your behind! I mean, come on! It starts wars, arguments, and especially novels like these, it causes a riot! Its completely and utterly unnecessary. It was made originally for the benefit of the people because it explained explainable things, you know?
Elebu wrote: "It starts wars, arguments, and ... it causes a riot! "
If this is one of the primary concerns, perhaps we should also do away with money and look at how we allot land and use natural resources?
If this is one of the primary concerns, perhaps we should also do away with money and look at how we allot land and use natural resources?
Although I would choose science over religion, I have no particular desire to see religion disappear as it seems to give many people solace; however, I would prefer to see a complete separation of religion from government: no swearing oaths on religious books, no requests for blessings on the nation from a god, no laws based on religious texts, etc. Only by doing so can a nation truly state that it has freedom of belief.
Elaine wrote: "Although I would choose science over religion, I have no particular desire to see religion disappear as it seems to give many people solace; however, I would prefer to see a complete separation of ..."No argument on that one.
I'd prefer if people would keep religion the personal thing everyone claims it is.
Anyone who says they'd rather live in a world without science makes me sad.
Religion and Science are interlinked and cannot be separated, you just have to think outside of the "box" of religion
Deborah wrote: "Religion and Science are interlinked and cannot be separated, you just have to think outside of the "box" of religion"I do think outside the religion box. I'm an atheist. Can't get any more outside the box than that.
Danielle wrote: "Anyone who says they'd rather live in a world without science makes me sad."
Being forced to "choose" would make me sad.
Being forced to "choose" would make me sad.
I believe we require both to survive in this world. Science to understand our surroundings and religion to understand ourselves...Now one will think how is religion anyway telling us who we are...but that's the whole point...Religion, the word and concept we follow is way different than what it was set out to be when it all began...The extreme misinterpretation of the word and concept has created so much of distress to everyone around...We rather might be well off without it...But if we truly understand what the origin and need of religion is then we might understand its true potential in our lives...And I don't feel science and religion are any different...Just go through the lives of famous scientists and you will find after years of their scientific research they come to a place where Science leads its way to something much more spiritual, the presence of One something, something divine...I believe we just need to keep our minds open because Earth and Life are two vast entities, the earlier we seem to have conquered but we don't know how it reacts to our development and the latter...the latter is a whole different story...So I believe in keeping my mind open, trying to understand the happenings in the world with a rational mind but yet I leave some very minute part even if it is to believe that impossible or something miraculous can happen because we do not know everything about 'Life'...That's why I sort of liked Dan Brown's Lost Symbol...It sort of answers the question about life and God...Don't read too much into plot, many seem to have been disheartened by his formula, but I liked the context and the background commentary that went on about in the book...especially in the last few chapters...
It should not have to be a choice. There was a time when religion bashed science, now it is science that bashes religion. In particular, credentialled scientists who happen to accept the possibility of an Intelligent Designer are condemned and are sometimes in jeopardy of losing their jobs or funding. The pendulum swings from one extreme to the other, and neither is unassailable.
I was banging around a bookstore today and discovered and picked up Ten Poems to Set You Free. The first might have something for just about everyone. Might. Thought I'd share a bit of poetry on the night of the Supermoon.
Self Portrait
It doesn't interest me if there is one God
or many gods.
I want to know if you belong or feel
abandoned.
If you know despair or can see it in others.
I want to know
if you are prepared to live in the world
with its harsh need
to change you. If you can look back
with firm eyes
saying this is where I stand. I want to know
if you know
how to melt into that fierce heat of living
falling toward
the center of your longing. I want to know
if you are willing
to live, day by day, with the consequence of love
and the bitter
unwanted passion of your sure defeat.
I have heard, in that fierce embrace, even
the gods speak of God.
-- David Whyte
Self Portrait
It doesn't interest me if there is one God
or many gods.
I want to know if you belong or feel
abandoned.
If you know despair or can see it in others.
I want to know
if you are prepared to live in the world
with its harsh need
to change you. If you can look back
with firm eyes
saying this is where I stand. I want to know
if you know
how to melt into that fierce heat of living
falling toward
the center of your longing. I want to know
if you are willing
to live, day by day, with the consequence of love
and the bitter
unwanted passion of your sure defeat.
I have heard, in that fierce embrace, even
the gods speak of God.
-- David Whyte
Hi new here,sorry to interrupt. But Science is more important,because without science we would not be even having this conversation! Brings humans together on a common platform! My best wishes to all!
Ashwini wrote: But Science is more important,because without science we would not be even having this conversation! "
..... but we would not know that we were not having this conversation, so we would not be missing anything.
Ken wrote: "And now for your reading pleasure, an atheist "church."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/us/..."
Yeah....
This and the humanist pastors at colleges who are atheists (the title makes sense in the military, I guess, but not at Ivy League campuses across America) lead to people claiming atheists have their own religion.
I totally get wanting to meet, have a community, a discussion, and doing good works. Why, though, mimic Christian services ... gathering, sitting in rows, and doing it on Sunday?
Expect more believers to think and say non-believers are simply replacing one faith for another. That's an overgeneralization, but, ultimately, the vast majority of humans make gross overgeneralizations every day. Non-believers will have to acknowledge the misconception doesn't just lie with "theists" ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/us/..."
Yeah....
This and the humanist pastors at colleges who are atheists (the title makes sense in the military, I guess, but not at Ivy League campuses across America) lead to people claiming atheists have their own religion.
I totally get wanting to meet, have a community, a discussion, and doing good works. Why, though, mimic Christian services ... gathering, sitting in rows, and doing it on Sunday?
Expect more believers to think and say non-believers are simply replacing one faith for another. That's an overgeneralization, but, ultimately, the vast majority of humans make gross overgeneralizations every day. Non-believers will have to acknowledge the misconception doesn't just lie with "theists" ...
I think believers and non-believers can both be motivated by the same needs, as in Maslow's model, up to socialization and esteem...not so sure how believers fit into the self-actualization level. Aren't believers giving up the 'self' part and replacing it with their belief system, i.e., religion?
Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable (Wiki) ….fair enough.
Religious folks and Atheists, and those that I know exist but atheists will say do not; those who can believe in a god without the religion.
But there are also others who do not fit into any of the above categories. Those that are just not interested. They will walk away from any sort of discussion or debate. Ask them do you believe in a god, they will reply, ‘how would I know‘.
They are similar to the people who do not vote in an election. They just have no interest in politics. They do not know left from right.
They know that they are here and that one day they won’t be and they like football or some other sport and that is their religion. Or pop concerts and music, or video games or gardening or basket weaving. But not religion or politics.
They are not agnostic’s, I wonder who they are? They are lucky.
Ken wrote: "Aren't believers giving up the 'self' part and replacing it with their belief system, i.e., religion? "
I'd say it depends upon the religion and the believer.
I'd say it depends upon the religion and the believer.
Can one believe in god without religion?
Ken wrote: "Can one believe in god without religion?"
Is this separate and apart from your first question ... regarding the self?
Taking this question on its own, personally, yes, I think one can believe in "God" without religion. Of course, when I say that, I'm referring to organized religion. I think that's what most people think of when they think of religion.
What do you think, Ken?
Is this separate and apart from your first question ... regarding the self?
Taking this question on its own, personally, yes, I think one can believe in "God" without religion. Of course, when I say that, I'm referring to organized religion. I think that's what most people think of when they think of religion.
What do you think, Ken?
Ken wrote: "Can one believe in god without religion?"Yes. Most definitely. I do. And I have no love of religion whatsoever. And to answer the original question, I'd definitely rather live in a world without religion, if I had to choose.
The characteristics of the god one believes in is dependent on a religious tradition.
Elaine wrote: "The characteristics of the god one believes in is dependent on a religious tradition."
Mmmm.... Perhaps, but perhaps not. I believed prior to religious training of any kind whatsoever. God had never even been mentioned. While I might be an exception, I should imagine I'm not the only person on the planet, in the history of the world, to believe prior to religious indoctrination. Further, I'm guessing some believe without assigning characteristics to God, acknowledging that, for them, "God" is unknowable.
Mmmm.... Perhaps, but perhaps not. I believed prior to religious training of any kind whatsoever. God had never even been mentioned. While I might be an exception, I should imagine I'm not the only person on the planet, in the history of the world, to believe prior to religious indoctrination. Further, I'm guessing some believe without assigning characteristics to God, acknowledging that, for them, "God" is unknowable.
If God is unknowable it questions his existence. Even without religious training I would guess that most people who believe in God when asked would provide some of these characteristics: creator of the world, all-knowing, invisible, exists somewhere in some form. Just the fact that when people state they believe in God they usually refer to a masculine entity and thus has human characteristics: can think and make things. These are all characteristics of a god from the western religious traditions.
Elaine wrote: "If God is unknowable it questions his existence."
So I'd imagine ... for many. Of course, I imagine that's a question many face at some point in their lives, even if they think they can know God.
So I'd imagine ... for many. Of course, I imagine that's a question many face at some point in their lives, even if they think they can know God.
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...
..."
Shanna, I think Travis point really confirms my thoughts. We don't have to take seriously everything we don't agree with. As he said he feels the same way about religion. And at the risk of offending some religious person here, he is willing to say what he thinks...and I agree with him; about saying it and about the religion.
Once again I will add that I do not see marriage for same sex couples as a right, but I support gay rights and almost everyone else's rights.
'Husband' is thought of and means a woman's partner in marriage, and yes I guess you could find some dictionaries redefining it, but that is up to those publications compilers and what they do.
That's it.
-----------------------
That is a point of view that about 50% of the UK holds, if we eventually allow gay marriage, well that is democracy and I will be happy to acknowledge it, but while it is under discussion.....
I quoted Scott Capurro ( why can I hear cerebus saying appeal to authority in my ear) because as a gay comedian this same sex marriage, husband/wife thing is like 'manor from heaven' as far as material goes for his stand up routine. Is he wrong? Or can only gay comedians make jokes about that sort of thing? Or is it just a matter of different strokes for different folks?
There are a couple of folks here making unfound accusations regarding my comments and I think a few others are maybe confused by them. But in reality it is the other way round, these liberal-left views are the dangerous views. For example, stop referring to Christmas (yes I know atheists may like that) because it may offend Muslims (in the UK), yet the least people to be offended are Muslims, they enjoy the celebrations as much or not as much as any one else. It is the white liberal left councils being offended on behalf of Muslims and so banning any reference to Christmas.
Notice how many people say ’I have a gay friend’. Nothing wrong with that? No? No? well maybe. It is not so much what you say, it is the intent behind it. Someone who says ‘I have a gay friend’ is no doubt sincere, but I would question if they are real friends and not just acquaintances they know. Surly if they were friends one would say ‘I have a friend who is gay’. It is easy when one reads words without emotions to then put a wrong interpretation to those words.
These white liberal left folk who see the world through rose tinted glasses are the real dangerous one in society, and not the ones who may have an opposing opinions and who are willing to debate things. It is always best to have an open society who are able to discuss things rather than a society where issues and not discussed for fear of being branded with names that you are not.
The gay community (at least in my country) have all the rights everyone else has. OK they want more and there is nothing wrong with that; and they should be and are quite capable of expressing their views and getting into discussions and fighting for their own corner, which they do, without the liberal left treating them as though they were different from the rest of us.
As for my previous comment, rights for almost everyone…..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/new...
….the world is going mad.