[Message Deleted]
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
I think it's about time we stopped being so bloody polite about them, and tell it like it is: There is no God, get over it.
A preacher can stand in the street and tell people they are going to hell unless they believe and it is religious freedom, but if someone stands in the same street and tells people not to believe in a god then it is religious supression. We need to get over that first.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
We need to get over that first.
We need to point at the table, damn it. The facts are all over it!
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
any notion of being expected to incorporate or tolerate competitive philosophical principles is utterly abhorrent to them
And not just to them - be fair, that applies to everyone, from the Spanisdh Inquisition to today's "SP's", as you call them... but I would dare to suggest that most religious groups are worse, in this respect, than most SP's... Trouble is, the majority - almost by definition - of things people feel strongly about aren't open to compromise. You can't half-abort a feotus for axample. Really, there are fewer groups less open to tolerance of compettitive philosophical principles as religious ones. Most SP's have no problem, for example, with Catholics not wanting to abort foetuses, but most Catholics wuld ban all abortions tomorrow given the chance. Fred
Fred_Smith wrote:
but I would dare to suggest that most religious groups are worse, in this respect, than most SP's...
That has not been my experience. Most of the religious people I know consider me to be quite the liberal activist because I argue in favor of evolution, global warming, gun control, even abortion, etc. Yet, I am still friends with all of them. They still accept me as a member of their community, and embrace me. Not so any of my former SP friends upon discovering that I also harbor conservative constitutional princples, or that I do not suffer from 'white guilt' or 'heterosexual guilt' or 'christian guilt' or whatever. They quickly turned their backs on me and became openly hostile. Obviously, any philosophical community will have its standards of conduct and belief system, but I have never encountered a community as willing to embrace non-believers and to use love as a means of conversion than the christian community, in general, is. But all of that is beside the point. The point is the struggle for the political institutions which are empowered to define a civilization. The SP's have, in fact, taken advantage of the notion of 'secularism', ironically, as an end run around the very concept of separation of church and state. It is one thing to say that you don't need religion to be moral, but it is entirely another to live in a society with no moral authority of any kind. If the church does not, or cannot, provide it, that only leaves the state as the exclusive source to arbitrate all issues involving moral conflicts. When the state assumes such responsibilities, the entire notion of separation of church and state is rendered moot - there is no church with any sort of authority to be separated from, and the state has once again assumed the full responsibilities of the church. We become a defacto theocracy even if a secular one. The state becomes the very real earthly embodyment of God. I would contend that as dangerous as belief in an imaginary God might be, being required to serve a very real one is all the more so. That is the essence of the conflict that is now joined within western civilization. Those of us, religious or otherwise, who understand the growing dangers represented by the political might of secular progressives, against those who embrace it.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
So why can't these other souls find anything good to say about the early years of our adolescent race?
Because it's embarrassing.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
but I would dare to suggest that most religious groups are worse, in this respect, than most SP's...
That has not been my experience. Most of the religious people I know consider me to be quite the liberal activist because I argue in favor of evolution, global warming, gun control, even abortion, etc. Yet, I am still friends with all of them. They still accept me as a member of their community, and embrace me. Not so any of my former SP friends upon discovering that I also harbor conservative constitutional princples, or that I do not suffer from 'white guilt' or 'heterosexual guilt' or 'christian guilt' or whatever. They quickly turned their backs on me and became openly hostile. Obviously, any philosophical community will have its standards of conduct and belief system, but I have never encountered a community as willing to embrace non-believers and to use love as a means of conversion than the christian community, in general, is. But all of that is beside the point. The point is the struggle for the political institutions which are empowered to define a civilization. The SP's have, in fact, taken advantage of the notion of 'secularism', ironically, as an end run around the very concept of separation of church and state. It is one thing to say that you don't need religion to be moral, but it is entirely another to live in a society with no moral authority of any kind. If the church does not, or cannot, provide it, that only leaves the state as the exclusive source to arbitrate all issues involving moral conflicts. When the state assumes such responsibilities, the entire notion of separation of church and state is rendered moot - there is no church with any sort of authority to be separated from, and the state has once again assumed the full responsibilities of the church. We become a defacto theocracy even if a secular one. The state becomes the very real earthly embodyment of God. I would contend that as dangerous as belief in an imaginary God might be, being required to serve a very real one is all the more so. That is the essence of the conflict that is now joined within western civilization. Those of us, religious or otherwise, who understand the growing dangers represented by the political might of secular progressives, against those who embrace it.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
Obviously, any philosophical community will have its standards of conduct and belief system, but I have never encountered a community as willing to embrace non-believers and to use love as a means of conversion than the christian community, in general, is.
Yes, because you live in a country where secularism is dominant and the religious groups have had to find a way of co-existing. But try preaching secularist beliefs in, say, Saudi Arabia and see how quickly the thought-police embrace you… Many “SP types” will turn their back on you for your beliefs, because a) you are yesterday’s news, b) there’s actually little point arguing with a brick wall, c) some will see you as a threat, as someone who wants to turn the clock back to the bad old days when religion ruled, and people were literally murdered for not having the “correct” beliefs. Having someone turn their back on you is nothing compared to that.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is the essence of the conflict that is now joined within western civilization. Those of us, religious or otherwise, who understand the growing dangers represented by the political might of secular progressives, against those who embrace it.
No one is going to pretend that the State is perfect, but we can change it (albeit with difficulty!) if we don’t like it - and that is the single most important point about it. The rules the State makes, which (should) reflect the morals and aspirations of it’s people, can and do change with time, as people’s attitudes and knowledge changes. Religious laws don’t – far from it – they pride themselves on the fact that the Word of God is eternal, and cannot be questioned or changed. We, the people, have a voice in what the State is. You, the congregation, just get preached at and have to go on your bended knee in order to be told what to think. I don’t embrace everything the State says. But at least I can argue with it. And at least it's based in reality. Fred
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Obviously, any philosophical community will have its standards of conduct and belief system, but I have never encountered a community as willing to embrace non-believers and to use love as a means of conversion than the christian community, in general, is.
Yes, because you live in a country where secularism is dominant and the religious groups have had to find a way of co-existing. But try preaching secularist beliefs in, say, Saudi Arabia and see how quickly the thought-police embrace you… Many “SP types” will turn their back on you for your beliefs, because a) you are yesterday’s news, b) there’s actually little point arguing with a brick wall, c) some will see you as a threat, as someone who wants to turn the clock back to the bad old days when religion ruled, and people were literally murdered for not having the “correct” beliefs. Having someone turn their back on you is nothing compared to that.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is the essence of the conflict that is now joined within western civilization. Those of us, religious or otherwise, who understand the growing dangers represented by the political might of secular progressives, against those who embrace it.
No one is going to pretend that the State is perfect, but we can change it (albeit with difficulty!) if we don’t like it - and that is the single most important point about it. The rules the State makes, which (should) reflect the morals and aspirations of it’s people, can and do change with time, as people’s attitudes and knowledge changes. Religious laws don’t – far from it – they pride themselves on the fact that the Word of God is eternal, and cannot be questioned or changed. We, the people, have a voice in what the State is. You, the congregation, just get preached at and have to go on your bended knee in order to be told what to think. I don’t embrace everything the State says. But at least I can argue with it. And at least it's based in reality. Fred
Fred_Smith wrote:
Yes, because you live in a country where secularism is dominant and the religious groups have had to find a way of co-existing.
But again, the religious groups acknowledge co-existence. They always have in our society, because secularism traditional was always to everyone's mutual advantage. That is no longer the case. In the context of western society, those who do not wish to coexist become secular progressives so that they can be memebers of the only community empowered to actually dictate moral orthodoxy.
Fred_Smith wrote:
Many “SP types” will turn their back on you for your beliefs, because a) you are yesterday’s news, b) there’s actually little point arguing with a brick wall, c) some will see you as a threat, as someone who wants to turn the clock back to the bad old days when religion ruled, and people were literally murdered for not having the “correct” beliefs. Having someone turn their back on you is nothing compared to that.
Or, because I recognize that there is more than one path leading back to the past. And the one the SPs have put us on is one of those paths.
Fred_Smith wrote:
We, the people, have a voice in what the State is. You, the congregation, just get preached at and have to go on your bended knee in order to be told what to think.
Far more people have been forced to bow to the state than to any religion. Democratic institutions simply do not work once the state is the only social institution left standing. In the US, the federal, secular, courts have already reduced 'freedom of speech' to an impotent joke. You can squeek all you like, but no one will ever listen, they don't need to. Rather, they will tell you what to think when they are damned good and ready. We are increasinly a society where morality flows from the top down, not the bottom up as in the past - quite like Saudi Arabia in fact, except here it is not religion that has caused it, it is secularism itself.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Yes, because you live in a country where secularism is dominant and the religious groups have had to find a way of co-existing.
But again, the religious groups acknowledge co-existence. They always have in our society, because secularism traditional was always to everyone's mutual advantage. That is no longer the case. In the context of western society, those who do not wish to coexist become secular progressives so that they can be memebers of the only community empowered to actually dictate moral orthodoxy.
Fred_Smith wrote:
Many “SP types” will turn their back on you for your beliefs, because a) you are yesterday’s news, b) there’s actually little point arguing with a brick wall, c) some will see you as a threat, as someone who wants to turn the clock back to the bad old days when religion ruled, and people were literally murdered for not having the “correct” beliefs. Having someone turn their back on you is nothing compared to that.
Or, because I recognize that there is more than one path leading back to the past. And the one the SPs have put us on is one of those paths.
Fred_Smith wrote:
We, the people, have a voice in what the State is. You, the congregation, just get preached at and have to go on your bended knee in order to be told what to think.
Far more people have been forced to bow to the state than to any religion. Democratic institutions simply do not work once the state is the only social institution left standing. In the US, the federal, secular, courts have already reduced 'freedom of speech' to an impotent joke. You can squeek all you like, but no one will ever listen, they don't need to. Rather, they will tell you what to think when they are damned good and ready. We are increasinly a society where morality flows from the top down, not the bottom up as in the past - quite like Saudi Arabia in fact, except here it is not religion that has caused it, it is secularism itself.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Well I do agree that on both sides of the Atlantic the State has become too self-important, too preachy, too up it's own backside, basically - not unlike the Chruch when it ruled... and in the extreme, of course, you can have s Stalinist-type State which is as bad as the Spanish Inquisition ever was - but I'd still rather have my argument with a secular state than a religious one, on the simple grounds that religious doctrines are based on a fundamental lie (and I use that word carefully), namely: that there is a God. Once we get over that nonsense, we can start arguing about what's right and what's wrong. Fred
-
I'm agnostic, but I respect religious beliefs. However, I certainly do NOT respect silly superstitions, and the hypocrisy amongst some religious people. I also dislike religious people who look down on adherents of other religions and/or non-religious people ("My God is more powerful than your God"). I believe an atheist who helps an old woman cross the road is closer to a hypothetical super being than a religious man who doesn't stop because he is late for church/mosque/temple.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Déjà moo - The feeling that you've seen this bull before. Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybob -
I'm agnostic, but I respect religious beliefs. However, I certainly do NOT respect silly superstitions, and the hypocrisy amongst some religious people. I also dislike religious people who look down on adherents of other religions and/or non-religious people ("My God is more powerful than your God"). I believe an atheist who helps an old woman cross the road is closer to a hypothetical super being than a religious man who doesn't stop because he is late for church/mosque/temple.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Déjà moo - The feeling that you've seen this bull before. Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybob -
The Grand Negus wrote:
But isn't "hypocritical man" a more appropriate term in this instance than "religious man"?
True, but among my acquaintances I see more hypocrisy among those that are religious than from those that are not. Coincidence?
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
But isn't "hypocritical man" a more appropriate term in this instance than "religious man"?
Given that the religious people in question* are hypocrites, I don't see the difference. :confused: Besides, it is religious folk who go to said places of worship. * I'm talking about the example given above. I certainly don't intend to say all religious people are hypocrites.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Déjà moo - The feeling that you've seen this bull before. Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybob -
Fred_Smith wrote:
I think it's about time we stopped being so bloody polite about them, and tell it like it is: There is no God, get over it.
A preacher can stand in the street and tell people they are going to hell unless they believe and it is religious freedom, but if someone stands in the same street and tells people not to believe in a god then it is religious supression. We need to get over that first.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
but if someone stands in the same street and tells people not to believe in a god then it is religious supression.
Do you actually believe this? Give me a break.
Ian
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
When I became a man, I put away childish things
But not your childish beliefs, that's the point. If religion was just of historic value, I'd probably find it quite interesting. I can study and meditate on the nature of life, the universe and everything too - I just resent your (you know...you lot!), your insistence that without the guiding Word of your God my meditations are meaningless. Personally, I think they are more worthwhile than yours, because I try to base them on the world we live in today, a world that has changed and evolved over the centuries, unlike most if not all religions which base their tenets on an unchanging, constant "Word". I'm sorry, I have nothing, absolutely nothing, good to say about any religious belief. More than that, I think it's about time we stopped being so bloody polite about them, and tell it like it is: There is no God, get over it. Fred
The Grand Negus wrote:
"Take away the supernatural, and what remains is the unnatural." - G K Chesterton
What a load of gibberish...
Fred_Smith wrote:
I just resent your (you know...you lot!), your insistence that without the guiding Word of your God my meditations are meaningless
Fred_Smith wrote:
Personally, I think they are more worthwhile than yours
Interesting. So you are guilty of exactly what you resent Negus for.
Ian
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
What a load of gibberish...
Indeed. To begin with, the supernatural is by definition unnatural. So if you remove the supernatural, and you've got left is the unnatural, you didn't have anything natural to begin with! And if that is the case, then both supernatural and unnatural lose their meaning. But as is the case with anything religious - it's complete gibberish, because it has no solid foundation in reason and logic.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
There are people with much higher IQs than you that believe in God. And of course there are people with much higher IQs than you who don't. So let's stop pretending it's an intelligence test, shall we? If it were, all intelligent people would feel the same way about it. But of course they don't. The idea of God is firmly rooted in logic and reasoning. That's not to say his existence has been (or could be) scientifically proven or that every logical mind must necessarily believe in God. But for many who do believe in God, their conclusions are logically sound. Your position that God absolutely does not exist is not, however, founded in reason and logic. You have adopted and axiom that God does not exist and all of your thinking is colored by your bias.
Ian
-
There are people with much higher IQs than you that believe in God. And of course there are people with much higher IQs than you who don't. So let's stop pretending it's an intelligence test, shall we? If it were, all intelligent people would feel the same way about it. But of course they don't. The idea of God is firmly rooted in logic and reasoning. That's not to say his existence has been (or could be) scientifically proven or that every logical mind must necessarily believe in God. But for many who do believe in God, their conclusions are logically sound. Your position that God absolutely does not exist is not, however, founded in reason and logic. You have adopted and axiom that God does not exist and all of your thinking is colored by your bias.
Ian
ibowler wrote:
You have adopted and axiom that God does not exist and all of your thinking is colored by your bias.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
There are people with much higher IQs than you that believe in God. And of course there are people with much higher IQs than you who don't. So let's stop pretending it's an intelligence test, shall we? If it were, all intelligent people would feel the same way about it. But of course they don't. The idea of God is firmly rooted in logic and reasoning. That's not to say his existence has been (or could be) scientifically proven or that every logical mind must necessarily believe in God. But for many who do believe in God, their conclusions are logically sound. Your position that God absolutely does not exist is not, however, founded in reason and logic. You have adopted and axiom that God does not exist and all of your thinking is colored by your bias.
Ian
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
I just resent your (you know...you lot!), your insistence that without the guiding Word of your God my meditations are meaningless
Fred_Smith wrote:
Personally, I think they are more worthwhile than yours
Interesting. So you are guilty of exactly what you resent Negus for.
Ian
-
I needed to post a question on a forum from work and I couldn't remember my user info so I set up a different account. So when I'm at work, I'm edmundisme and when I'm home I'm ibowler.
Ian
-
I needed to post a question on a forum from work and I couldn't remember my user info so I set up a different account. So when I'm at work, I'm edmundisme and when I'm home I'm ibowler.
Ian
-
So i take it your employer doesn't mind you evangelizing on work hours?
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
My employer expects me to get my work done on schedule and doesn't micro-manage.
Ian
-
http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/883/youarefullofshittoiletpy6.jpg[^]
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
Hmmm... I don't think I'll click on a link that ends in youarefullofshittoiletpy6.jpg but thanks for playing! So, you think I'm full of shit with my comments? Do you care to elaborate? Fred basically said he resented Negus for thinking his meditations were of more value than Fred's. Fred then goes on to say that he (Fred) thinks his meditations are better than Negus'. I merely pointed out that Fred was guilty of the same thing he accused Negus of. Do you have an actual rebuttal?
Ian
