Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 4,151-4,200 of 12,463

[Tim]

Sorry, that's Ben Dekker, in case anyone googles him.

[Gary]

Vaishnavee wrote: "This is a tough one....I'd have to go with a world without science. I'm not sure I can logically why I choose this, though."

Perhaps that is an answer rather than a question?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "While some wars have been fought over religion, not all wars have been or are fought over faith. Therefore, "all wars" will not end."

True, but Robin wrote that "many" wars were fought over religion and they wanted "all" wars to end. So I think it's right in saying that by reducing the reason for "many" wars would be a step to eliminating "all".

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Speaking for myself, I'd never ask anyone to believe as I do."

Nor do I, I just ask that people think about there beliefs and perhaps be open to the concept that they are wrong.

Personally I strive not to have "beliefs" as that implies that I am not willing to re-examine concepts in the face of new ideas and evidence.

I accept peer reviewed and substantially critiqued scientific concepts, however I realise that the very fact that we cannot yet explain everything means that our current ideas are flawed or incomplete. This does not make them "completely wrong" or an excuse to wedge in "god did it" instead though.

Shannon wrote: "I stand for the rights of believers and the rights of atheists. But, I realize that's just me."

I applaud this.

Shannon wrote: "People have a right to believe or not as they choose."

I am not sure I agree with this however. If you include the line "as long as they do not complain if critiqued".

For example, does a racist have a right to believe that non-Caucasians are inferior or worthy of death? Does a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim have the right to believe that it is OK to kill unbelievers?

It seems to me that in our modern secular society people seem to equate tolerance with the necessity of allowing anyone to believe anything they like without criticism, however this seems to forget that people tend to act according to their beliefs and often those beliefs include the basic concept that anyone who believes different is wrong.

[Gary]

Tim wrote: "Just imagine what stories there would be about Uncle Ben, as we fondly call him, 50 years after he's dead."

I wonder what will happen to Scientology in 1,000 - 2,000 or 10,000 years...

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Atheists are very intolerant."

Hypocrisy doesn't come better defined than this. This is almost as good as "Only the Sith deal in absolutes.""

I don't think Hypocrisy fits here as a reply.

[Hazel]

Tim wrote: "Just imagine what stories there would be about Uncle Ben, as we fondly call him, 50 years after he's dead. ."

he will be mistakenly give nthe attribute of provider, when the information about him and the other Uncle Ben become confused, and will be worshipped as a deity of sustenance who will be invoked in times of famine.

[Old-Barbarossa]

cs wrote: "Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Atheists are very intolerant."

Hypocrisy doesn't come better defined than this. This is almost as good as "Only the Sith deal in absolutes.""

I don't think Hypocrisy fits here as a reply..."

Would irony cover it?

[cHriS]

Gary wrote:So you also believe that if anyone takes offence at your words, it is their own fault, yet you allude to atheists "stalking" and "attacking" and doing various other nefarious activities, all of which are implying that they are committing insults against your faith by daring to speak out against it.

..."

Yes, more or less. After all most atheists here are not to bothered about name calling when they feel that their point is not being acknowledged.

But it seems that when the shoe is on the other foot it sparks a reaction.

'nefarious', I've never used that word, you must have used it for effect.

[cHriS]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "cs wrote: "Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Atheists are very intolerant."

Hypocrisy doesn't come better defined than this. This is almost as good as "Only the Sith deal in absolutes.""

I don't think Hyp..."

Maybe, why do you think Gary is being ironic?

[Hazel]

de javu. Incoming, another contention about the meaning of the word hypocrisy, countdown, in 3... 2...

[Old-Barbarossa]

Anyway...
Here's a question, think this has been asked before, but think different folk have joined the thread since then...

If you have to live in a world without science (for arguements sake no tech post enlightenment, just so we can have shoes and cutlery etc, but no LHCs or antibiotics or atom bombs) and the religion you have to live under isn't the one you subscribe to...which religion would you be able to live with if it wasn't your own current one?

[Gary]

cs wrote: "I don't think Hypocrisy fits here as a reply. "

You said "atheists are intolerant", which is making a general statement about all atheists, not just the ones who you may have spoken of here. That is intolerant of the idea of atheism hence hypocrisy because you were being intolerant by describing an entire group of people as intolerant.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Yes, yes...moving along...nothing to see here...

[Gary]

cs wrote: "Yes, more or less. After all most atheists here are not to bothered about name calling when they feel that their point is not being acknowledged."

So your opinion is that it is OK for you to undergo name calling in retaliation? How un-Christian of you. Perhaps you should be forgiving them and using those apparently superior morals that you believe Christians have?

cs wrote: "But it seems that when the shoe is on the other foot it sparks a reaction."

Being insulting in order to spark a reaction is pretty much the definition of "trolling" you realise, a label you were trying to distance yourself from earlier.

cs wrote: "'nefarious', I've never used that word, you must have used it for effect."

No. It is a description. You were saying that atheists "stalked", "attacked" and "fed on Christian beliefs". I summed up these generalised accusations as "nefarious" for brevity and politeness, not for effect.

[Gary]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "If you have to live in a world without science (for arguements sake no tech post enlightenment, just so we can have shoes and cutlery etc, but no LHCs or antibiotics or atom bombs) and the religion you have to live under isn't the one you subscribe to...which religion would you be able to live with if it wasn't your own current one?"

Buddhism perhaps if everyone subscribed to it, or Celtic pantheism were the gods are object lessons or forces to be respected and negotiated with, but not blindly obeyed.

Native American animism would be a good one too, at least the idealised form that has become a new age reawakening would, I am not that versed in the original traditions.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "I don't think Hypocrisy fits here as a reply. "

You said "atheists are intolerant", which is making a general statement about all atheists, not just the ones who you may have spoken of ..."

Can you prove that not to be the case, then.

[Old-Barbarossa]

And there we go again...the question I raised above was aimed at anyone...
So let me ask cs specifically:

If you have to live in a world without science (for arguements sake no tech post enlightenment, just so we can have shoes and cutlery etc, but no LHCs or antibiotics or atom bombs) and the religion you have to live under isn't the one you subscribe to...which religion would you be able to live with if it wasn't your own current one?

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "One other thing ... and it's likely ridiculous that I'm writing this, but ...

cs ....

When this exchange first happened, days ago, you wrote back and said I had a chip on my shoulder. How did I ..."

Your two posts have covered quite a bit of ground. To reply to your main point…….

You previously said: “But, for some of my people, that type of comment is insulting.
Given the fact that we're sharing experiences and ideas, I thought I'd pass that on“.

You mentioned it so you did not pass on it………. but anyway……..

‘Insulting’ can be considered degrading and offensive, and as I said I think you were playing at being offended.

I watched Shazia Mirza on TV this morning. She is an award winning British Asian Muslim Stand up Comedian. She said that she does not like other people being offended on her behalf, when talking about racist remarks. I can see her point and it fits well here, as we are talking about being offended.

Messages following on from your comment about my message fit into this category; some of them were being offended on your behalf as though they had some sort of right to do so.

Truthfully, why do you take part in this thread, if you're willing to answer? What is your point and your purpose?

Good question. There are very few on here that believe in a god, at least not many that hang around for much longer than to post a few messages. You are a bit like Switzerland you seem to remain neutral whereas I am out numbered. I don’t mind a good debate but I think this one has run it’s course and I will not be hanging around for much longer, which should please you and all the others, who’s cheers will inevitably follow.

[Travis]

Tim wrote: "Humph! Whenever I hear someone say Jesus said this or Jesus said that I always say, "Allegedly."

I know a man who lives in a cave in a remote part of South Africa. His name is Ben Decker, and he's..."


any post that contains the phrase "I know a guy that lives in a cave.." automatically wins my vote for 'favorite post of the day'.
How often do you get to use that phrase in casual conversation?

[Gary]

cs wrote: "Can you prove that not to be the case, then."

Can you prove all atheists, everywhere are intolerant in all things?

You also will notice that I have never accused all Christian's of being bigoted, misogynous or racist. I do find the Christian religion of being unpleasant but I know well that there are many Christians who are not.

[Tim]

Travis wrote: "Tim wrote: "I know a man who lives in a cave in a remote part of South Africa. His name is Ben Deck..."

Hahaha! It's true! He's lived in the cave since the late 70s. I have a photo of him on my phone but I don't know how to post pics on a thread. I saw Hazel did this the other day. Help, Hazel?

[Hazel]

right, go to the picture and right click on it, a menu comes up, click on "inspect element", it will bring a load of HTML code up, but the bit for the picture should be highlighted, copy and paste the highlighted code into your post.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "‘Insulting’ can be considered degrading and offensive, and as I said I think you were playing at being offended.

Personally I can't think of something more insulting than telling someone that you think they are playing at being offensive when you have (unwittingly or not) said something insulting and condescending.

cs wrote: "You mentioned it so you did not pass on it………. but anyway……..

Shannon said "Pass that on" as in pass that information along, not "pass on it" as to omit a reference. You do seem to have trouble with grammar (observation, not meant to be an insult).

cs wrote: "She said that she does not like other people being offended on her behalf, when talking about racist remarks. I can see her point and it fits well here, as we are talking about being offended."

However, the women's movement have appreciated males that support their position, the civil rights movement
appreciated whites who stood by them, and the gay rights movement have appreciated straight people who have supported them.

Personally I hope I will always oppose bigotry, whether levelled in my direction (such as other comments you have made) or at others.

cs wrote: "You are a bit like Switzerland you seem to remain neutral whereas I am out numbered."

Actually Shannon has been taking part in a debate. A debate is where you discuss ideas and answer each other's points. You may not agree with each other, but you should explain why you do not agree. Sometimes you may change a persons mind or have yours changed, other times you may simply give someone something to consider that they haven't considered before, and vice-versa.

You are not necessarily neutral if you debate in a civilised and thoughtful manner.

cs wrote: "I don’t mind a good debate but I think this one has run it’s course and I will not be hanging around for much longer"

It's a shame as you have yet to enter the debate. You have indeed argued, but so far you have made absolute statements, unsupported claims, evaded questions, tried to claim that anyone who disagreed was "arguing wrong" and generally not followed the civilised pattern of debate which comprises of stating a point, providing reasoning and/or evidence and then listening and critiquing any counterpoints.

In the long run I would imagine you have done more harm to your cause than good because your lack of engagement with intellectual discourse has undermined anyone else who may have wanted to support your points.

cs wrote: "which should please you and all the others, who’s cheers will inevitably follow. "

I'm afraid you see this as an argument to "win" rather than a discussion, which is why you think your retreat will be met with joy. Certainly those who have become frustrated with your unwillingness to debate may be relieved, but I find it a shame.

I have said before I am willing to debate you civilly on the question as stated above and using methodology you prefer, whether from a scientific, philosophical or scriptural basis. If you can name an alternative to those three I will see if I engage in that.

However, to debate, you must directly address points raised, provide reasoning for your points and do not demand proof for a refutation of a claim that you have provided no proof for.

[Tim]

Cool. I'll give it a try. I think I may petition the Church of the Lower Albany Luddites here to anoint you Saint Hazel, patron saint of Luddites. Sorry, Uncle Ben is our new God, so that's the best I can do for you.

[Tim]

Mmm. It doesn't work. I have a Mac :-/

[Hazel]

in that case, just find the picture, and put a link to it on your post, I'm afraid I'm completely ignorant of the use of Macs.

[Tim]

Uncle Ben will have to remain faceless to you all. That's way beyond me. May even be impossible as I have no website or anything like that, and my computer is online sporadically.

[cHriS]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "And there we go again...the question I raised above was aimed at anyone...
So let me ask cs specifically:

If you have to live in a world without science (for arguements sake no tech post enlighten..."

Assuming this is not a trick question my answer is none.

My religion says that it is the only true religion so there would be little point with any of the others.

But as I have said previously, and what some atheists way of thinking does not allow them to comprehend is that you can still have god without religion.

The other thing that atheists don't seem to comprehend is that apart from believing in God and the whole Jesus thing, and that atheists are the work of the devil (Joke) we are normal.

We don't have to go to church and we don't read the bible every day, like Gary seems to. We do not go along with anything we disagree with. Like being in a political party, you don't have to agree with every policy.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "While people bring this up as a reason not to believe the stories in the New Testament, I don't hear them saying, "And, when I meet someone and they tell me something that happened ..."

Hey, there. I promise I'm not doing this to be cantankerous. But, I want to clarify. This particular discussion started with ...

Gary stating ... 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

I think Gary used that scripture to ask someone if she was following the teachings of Jesus. All of them? What about ....

I stated ... Careful. Paul reportedly said that, not Jesus. In addition, from information detailed in the Bible, Paul was not a disciple and didn't study under or learn directly from Jesus.

Then, Gary, you mentioned the problems with the Gospels being written years later ....

My original point ....

That wasn't one of the teachings of Jesus. That was Paul. Paul didn't know Jesus, so says the Bible. So ....

Again, I would argue that point until I lost breath. I'm pretty certain, from the stories I've read in the Bible, that Jesus treated women quite well, perhaps closer to equals. (Yes, dog ... I know.)

Regarding the Gospels, .... There are other problems with the Gospels. But, the issue I was addressing dealt with the fact that they were written decades later. That was the only point on the table at the time of my response.

Writing something decades later .... Well, I honor oral traditions. Yes, some are wacky. In the present day, I suppose the ideas spread by conspiracy theorists about never having gone to the moon and Bush taking out the towers would fit into that category ... despite the fact that those theories aren't just spread by word of mouth but have been written.

But here's the thing, some aren't wacky and some have a mix of the fantastical and things that might actually have happened. How about the Trojan War and Homer, which, I believe, started through the oral tradition. Right? Some argue as to the author, if there were several authors, if changes were made to the original. Right? Now, there's the hard to believe stuff in the mix, gods and goddesses (one of whom sprang form his father's forehead or some such thing) and apples. True. And, for many years, people believed it was all make-believe. After all, it came from oral traditions, it was written forever ago, there might have been several authors, and there's some pretty crazy stuff in it. People didn't even believe in a Troy or a Trojan War. Well, guess what? We now know there was a Troy, a Troy that fell, and there was a Trojan War. Do I think it was over an apple and a deal and Helen? Not so much. I could be wrong, but I think it had to do with trade and power. Notice, there's truth in the story.

I, personally, don't read, Mark, let's say, and think ... no way will I believe in any of these stories. He wrote it a couple decades later, and .... I read certain stories and I think ... that could have happened, the woman at the well, for example. Note to self ... treat everyone, regardless of who they are, their background, with respect. I read the teaching on the good Samaritan and think the same thing. I read James, who I believe was the brother of Jesus, and see the parts about life and death being in the tongue, and it occurs to me that Jesus might have held with that ... that might have been one of his main teachings and points ... and, you know, I think it's true. And, I think ... I SO have to keep that in mind. I go to the Gospels that, in my mind, have the best bet at kernels of truth ... of the actual teachings of Jesus.

Regarding contemporary accounts .... First, it's been a LONG time since I've looked into this, but .... I believe Josephus mentioned Jesus, although, I can't remember, was that a few decades later. Further, there's been talk of finding different ossuaries; I've seen shows on the History channel about it, but I don't remember all of the findings. I think one said, James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. Was that determined to be real ... of that time period? I can't remember. Further, while the Romans kept a lot of records of a lot of things, I'm not overly bothered that there's not a Roman record. Not sure that they'd want a record. Not sure that, when they started murdering Christians, they wouldn't have had any and all records destroyed.

Further, I just want to say ... I didn't raise this to try to get people to believe. I'm not saying people need to believe it as Gospel. And, I'm pretty sure I've never brought up the more fantastic aspects of the Gospels.

But, yes, there are problems, in addition to their being written decades later ... heck, yes.

Inconsistencies? Yes.

And, let's take Constantine ... and the books that were chosen and the books that weren't. And, he picked those that had, hmmm, well .... He, they, picked books that would be more palatable to Europeans and his vision. The books that followed more closely with the Jewish traditions were discarded. Some are shocked that James was included, given his stress on works ... that faith without works is dead.

Those are just two ... just two problems. I'm definitely not saying that there aren't problems. I don't and I'm not saying that people should believe it all ... every word. And, I'm not unaware of these issues.

All I'm saying is ... Paul is Paul ... I'm not going to discard it out of hand because it was written decades later ... and, yes, there are serious problems but I still find wisdom and truths within it.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: but so far you have made absolute statements, unsupported claims, evaded questions."

Ok, on the subject of 'evaded questions' one relevant question I asked some messages ago, was this....

Would you support the invasion of Iran before they invade Israel? A Yes or No would do.


you have done more harm to your cause

What cause would that be?

And what is your cause here?

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Can you prove that not to be the case, then."

Can you prove all atheists, everywhere are intolerant in all things?

You also will notice that I have never accused all Christian's of bei..."

It's good that you can seperate the Christian from the religion.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "What I am asking is whether your belief in the gospels comes from your assessment of their veracity, or because the gospels seem to agree with your own cultural and ethical preconceptions?
"

Haven't we gone down this road before, Gary? I could swear we have. I think you asked me about which parts of the Bible I believe and whether or not I believe due to the fact that they fit my morals, etc.... I answered then. ;)

I haven't read all of the holy books of all of the world's religions. So, I can't answer your question regarding the Qu'ran.

[[deleted user]]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Anyway... Here's a question, think this has been asked before, but think different folk have joined the thread since then...

If you have to live in a world without science (for arguements sake no ..."

This is a hard question for me to answer ... in that ... I've not researched all of the religions. I know certain things about some religions, but I just don't have enough information, frankly. It almost makes me want to do some research.

But, from what I know of the religions I am familiar with, I'm largely in agreement with Gary. Though, I'd likely reverse the order. American Indian beliefs first ... then, Buddhism.

[[deleted user]]

cs wrote: "Truthfully, why do you take part in this thread, if you're willing to answer? What is your point and your purpose?

Good question. There are very few on here that believe in a god, at least not many that hang around for much longer than to post a few messages. You are a bit like Switzerland you seem to remain neutral whereas I am out numbered. I don’t mind a good debate but I think this one has run it’s course and I will not be hanging around for much longer, which should please you and all the others, who’s cheers will inevitably follow. "

So, is your point of taking part in this thread to make a stand for God? To try to get people to believe? Or, since there are few believers who stay with this thread and make posts, long-term, do you feel you want to stick it out?

If you choose to stop following this thread, cs, and stop making posts, that's your choice. I'm not going to say I'll be pleased. Yes, you've frustrated me and offended me. However, as I've said more than once, I believe everyone has a voice and should be able, if they wish, to express their views.

Now, regarding the following statement you made earlier ...

"My religion says that it is the only true religion so there would be little point with any of the others.

But as I have said previously, and what some atheists way of thinking does not allow them to comprehend is that you can still have god without religion."

Here's the thing, cs. I believe one can believe in God, a high power, Great Spirit, etc... without being an adherent to a religion.

That's why I might seem like Switzerland. I believe and have always believed, .... As I said months ago, one of my first memories involved my belief in God. I didn't have the words at the time. I'd never heard the word "God" ....

I had this knowing ... that there was a light ... when asked for specifics, I couldn't really find the words ... but came up with ... a light with people in the light ... and the light ... the people in the light ... loved me and would care for me. Now, I'd had no religious indoctrination at that time. Given this statement, one I made to my mother, she started to take me to church ... for the first time. My parents were not religious. When I saw pictures ... of God, of Jesus, and I remember thinking ... that's just wrong. God didn't look like that ... God looked like light. That's what I saw in my head. Light. From that light, I sensed a feeling of pure and true love, amazement, wonder, comfort and care. That's what I always saw when I was little. That's why, when Hazel posted awhile ago about what should be said at a funeral ... what should be said to grieving family members, I felt .... I can't even describe it really. I felt, weird as it sounds, affirmed by hear post ... it so reminded me of what I saw and what I felt ... from when I was four years old. God ... is light ... wonder ... amazement ... love.

Even as a very little girl, as I've said to the point that I'll make people ill by saying it again, I never really felt I fit with the Christian religion. I won't go into all the reasons why.

And, my mother said something to me that really made sense; I adopted it as a belief. She said she believed there was one and only one God. However, interestingly, she believed all of the people in the world, even though they belonged to different religions and worshiped differently, believed in the same God. Her thought was ... there is this essence, this being, this force, this God ... just one ... but different people see God and describe God differently and develop different stories and ideas about God based on their culture. No one truly understands God. God is beyond understanding. But, each and every people and each and every religion had bits of truth ... things that were based on their cultures ... but bits of wisdom and truth, too.

Over the last 10 years, she's become an evangelical, which is another story. And, yes, we've gotten in several heated "debates" over her new views.

So, the thing is ... based on my experiences and the way I was raised, I can say I believe in God without being religious. I can say, for me, God is separate from religion.

I don't accept the Bible whole-cloth, I don't hold with all of the tenants of the Christian faith ... think conversion ... and I believe that just about all religions have kernels of truth ... insights ... wisdom ... into who and what God might be and how we should live.

Switzerland. Yeah. I guess that's true.

But, you, cs, even though you've argued that one can have God without religion, just ....

In your answer to Old-Barbarossa, you said you couldn't have another religion as your religion says there's only one true religion. And, you know what? That's okay. You have faith. I'm absolutely not going to tell you it's a bad thing.

But, the deal is ... that's about religion. Isn't it? Your religion tells you there's only one true religion ... so ... you follow that religion. You're, it seems to me, directly linking God to one specific religion. Other religions believe in God. Those of the Jewish and Muslim faiths truly believe in the same God as the God of the Bible ... creator of Abraham. But, you can't pick another religion. Given that, I would think, for you, there is no God without religion ... in your case, the Christian religion.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "cs wrote: "Truthfully, why do you take part in this thread, if you're willing to answer? What is your point and your purpose?

Good question. There are very few on here that believe in a god, at l..."

See, cs is only one step away from atheism. He disbelieves all religions but one.

[[deleted user]]

One other thing, going to my being Switzerland and the points Gary has made regarding morality ....

I guess I'm also Switzerland, because I believe in people's right not to believe. I believe in God, yes. But, I also believe in other things, like the right of people to make their own decisions.

My moral compass leads me to believe in and stand for the right of others to make their own choices. That extends to a lot of things. Homosexuality, for example. I'm not homosexual, but I'd put myself at risk, and have, to defend their rights. They're human beings. They're adults. They have the right to make their own choices. I know what the Bible says. I know a lot of cultures and many religions take a stand against it. People in my family don't hold with homosexuality. But, my moral compass tells me, regardless, that individual rights and the ability to choose should come first. I act on that.

Yeah, it gets murky .... Should people be able to believe anything they want ... make any choice they want to make? Gary asked about this earlier ... I think he made a connection to people acting on their beliefs.

It's a risk, isn't it?

If people are able to believe as they choose, they might indeed be racist and might indeed murder someone who is deemed the wrong race. That would be horrific. An abomination.

But, if we were to, what, attempt to force people to believe in only certain things ... to believe as "we" want them to believe, ....

Hmmm.... Trying to come up with the right words. It would almost be like playing "God" ... right? Do any of us truly want to do that?

We, as a society, are going to have certain laws ... certain lines that we say should not be crossed. Hate crimes, for example. There will be people who will cross those lines. Horrible things will be done.

But, would it be equally horrible to force people to hold certain beliefs ... to take away their right to exercise their brains and their moral compasses ... to play "God" with other people's lives?

It's a risk. I guess it comes down to what risk one is willing to take.

I guess we could even entertain Old Barbarossa's question with a spin.

If could live in a world without religion, but had to adopt and live under a certain set of beliefs, not our own, which would we choose?

(And, by beliefs, I don't mean religious. Morals. Thoughts.)

Ouch! Imagine that. If you had to live under a belief system not your own, which would you choose? Any takers?

If you believe in equality, would you be willing to live in a world that believed in inequality, for example?

Or ....

Would it be best if we were all "Switzerland" ... allowing people to think what they will, believe what they will, choose as they wish? A risk ... but what is the true risk ...?

[Gary]

cs wrote: "Ok, on the subject of 'evaded questions' one relevant question I asked some messages ago, was this....

Would you support the invasion of Iran before they invade Israel? A Yes or No would do. "

Not evaded, the question is irrelevant and also you are trying to force a limited set of answers. My answer is 'neither' which is not a yes or no. To answer that question properly I would like to know the situation from experts before I make a decision.

In the interests of giving the fullest answer possible to show it is not evaded. I dislike both cultures because both have placed religious dogma above human rights at various points. Some Israelis have (to the best of my knowledge) supplanted others from their homes based on the idea that god promised them the land. Iran meanwhile oppresses its people with a harsh version of Islam, however it is important to note that some Iranians believe in Islam strongly and find nothing wrong with the human rights violations of their country because again religion to their mind trumps human rights.

cs wrote: "What cause would that be?

And what is your cause here? ."

You have stated your cause is "god" as far as I can tell. My cause here is to engage in interesting conversation, perhaps make some people think, perhaps make myself think and also maybe to help those who were once in my position, filled with doubts and unable to articulate them.

[Old-Barbarossa]

cs wrote: "Assuming this is not a trick question my answer is none.

My religion says that it is the only true religion so there would be little point with any of the others..."

It isn't a trick question.
But your answers says a lot. You accuse folk of evading questions yet do just that...also displaying a nice wee bit of intolerance.
Yet you seem to have expressed a dislike of evasion and intolerance.

I didn't ask which you would follow, but which you could tolerate, or live with:
"...which religion would you be able to live with if it wasn't your own current one?"

[Tim]

Shannon wrote: "I had this knowing...there was a light ..."

That's hard to argue with, Shannon. My friend Wayne and his sister had a similar experience as kids when their farm was attacked in the Rhodesian war in the 70s. He thinks organized religion is a load of nonsense, and doesn't believe the bible to be the word of god or anything. But he will always believe in a higher power. And I wouldn't want to try convince him otherwise. But if all believers had a similar live and let live attitude to other faiths and to non-believers, everything would be fine and dandy.

But not all are like you and Wayne. That's where the problems come.

[[deleted user]]

Tim wrote: "But not all are like you and Wayne. That's where the problems come. "

Very true.

I'm glad to hear of someone else having a similar experience. Thanks for sharing that

[Maria]

"We do not go along with anything we disagree with. Like being in a political party, you don't have to agree with every policy."

Sorry, cs, but yes you do, IF as you say it's the "only true religion" why wouldn't you go along with EVERY teaching? Because they aren't convenient to your lifestyle? Because it would forbid you to do certain things or force you to act in a certain way? Maybe not celebrate pagan holidays? Whatever the case may be, if you claim to be a "follower of the one true religion" you most certainly DO have to agree with EVERY last thing they teach - why wouldn't you if you say it's "true"?

[Travis]

Maria wrote: ""We do not go along with anything we disagree with. Like being in a political party, you don't have to agree with every policy."

Sorry, cs, but yes you do, IF as you say it's the "only true relig..."

'It's the one true religion, except for the bits that are tricky to explain or we don't like.' isn't quite as catchy sounding.
Too wordy to fit on a t-shirt.

Unfortunately, 'except' shows up in every religion.
Funny how you never hear that on the science side.

'I believe in the law of gravity, except...'

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Ok, on the subject of 'evaded questions' one relevant question I asked some messages ago, was this....

Would you support the invasion of Iran before they invade Israel? A Yes or No woul..."

Do you see how hard it is to sometime, answer a direct question, which I am being asked to do all the time.


My cause here is to engage in interesting conversation as well, nothing more and nothing less. I am not here to convince anyone that there is a God. I answered the question on page one and my answer seen to spark a bit of a reaction and I got caught up in the debate and went with the flow.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Marlene wrote: "Because Contastine became Christian and what easier way of getting everyone to convert without a fuss over days of the week..."

Still think it's interesting...think that the way folk mark time is difficult to change. Think the last big change was the months in France post revolution.
Also the festivals, being new, have mainly changed names, it's christmas not yule for most folk now, halloween not samhain (again, broad generalisation)...but in English speaking countries Easter has kept the old name, I think most (if not all) non-english speaking countries name this period based on the same root as passion/passover.
Sorry for being tangential.

[cHriS]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "cs wrote: "Assuming this is not a trick question my answer is none.

My religion says that it is the only true religion so there would be little point with any of the others..."

It isn't a trick q..."

I answered the question I thought you asked. But I am happy to answer any direct question.

I would be happy with the Church of England's Protestant religion which I sort of live under now since the Queen is head of the church and I am a royalist as well as a Catholic.

If you are meaning not a Christian religion I don't know enough about other religions pick one. But I would be happy to live under any religion that for the most part can separate their religion from their culture.

I would not like to live under a religion that dominates it's culture.

[Maria]

"Because Contastine became Christian and what easier way of getting everyone to convert without a fuss over days of the week?"

Yes, Marlene, Christians have made all sorts of compromises and concessions to make it "easier" for people to convert. They substituted a cross (pagan phallic symbol for the god Tao)for the actual stake that Jesus died on, they allowed the pagan feast of Saturnalia to be celebrated in the guise of Jesus's birthday "Christmas", they mix in the pagan fertility rites with Jesus's resurrection (Easter), they allow the celebration of Day of the Dead (Halloween), they allow worship of a triune deity (taken from the Druids) and on and on. If you do the research, you will see that what you are calling "being a Christian" is pretty much anything but. All in the name of getting converts (and their money).

[Old-Barbarossa]

cs, thanks.
I think for most people this point is key: "I would not like to live under a religion that dominates it's culture."
I agree, I still find living in Eire with the church dominance of many secular areas troubling.

[cHriS]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "cs, thanks.
I think for most people this point is key: "I would not like to live under a religion that dominates it's culture."
I agree, I still find living in Eire with the church dominance of man..."

Maybe that is the same in most Catholic countries. My mum is from Eire, she had quite a strict upbringing.

[Hazel]

Marlene wrote: "Because Contastine became Christian ."

Constantine converted on his death bed. Only inserting this to ensure people don't think that he was anything but a follower of Sol Invictus until he was dying, many many years after he decided what would be canon for christians.