Let's outgrow this notion that believers and non-believers can't co-exist

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

Whatever you believe in is fine with me. If you believe in God. Fine. If you don't believe in God. Fine. It is an area where we will most probably never come to terms and should not have to. That is the crux of religious freedom. I am free to believe. You are free not to . We need not antagonize one another over what I do or you don't.


If you wish to be let be, why not let others be on this issue?

[brokensymmetry]

1. Agree.

The world would be a much better place, if only others were as reasonable as you and I! :-)

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Judson39]

101. Not so

The christian people might be bonkers but they are the only glue holding America together for now ... soon you might get to see your theory put to the test!

[JitterbugPerfume]

2. Good Grief

I couldn't co-exist with 95% of my family if they knew what I really believe

Because I love and respect (most of ) them I don't make an issue of it

just like I don't make an issue of it here

[Cheswick2.0]

3. kick

:shrug:

[Against ME]

4. Are you proposing that we never discuss it?

because If you are, I think you are dead wrong. We need to discuss things like this, ofcourse in a civil manor. It leads to not only better understandings, but also to tolerance to other people.

I incurage people to challenge me beliefs, because it allows me to evaluate what I believe over and over again. It is also a chance for me to show that what I believe is important to me.

[jagguy]

5. discussion is good

but it would be nice to do without the comments that indicate a value judgement.

[Against ME]

37. Ahh, but isn't a value judgment

invetable when discussing values?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. I'm proposing we let others be about their religious beliefs

or lack thereof.
I think one can have discussions inside that paradigm. I just don't notice them occurring in that venue.

[rasputin1952]

23. I concur with your basic premise NSMA...

However, religion is such a powerful entity, people feel compelled to discuss it.

There is the key: Discuss it. I have no intentions of forcing my beliefs on anyone else, and I truly hope that ohters will feel the same. I believe in living the way we tell people we would like to live, as opposed to saying one thing, then doing another.

Hypocrisy is the bane of every religion, and it flourishes.

As for those that state they believe in no higher power/entity; fine, but condecension is an exercise in futility with me.

Have a great weekend!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. Sure. I do think it's a bit humorous that "don't antagonize" is said

and "don't discuss" might have been heard. (not by you and not even by AGAINST ME< I think AGAINST ME's question was in earnest.

You have a great weekend too.

[Against ME]

36. Very true,

do you think it is possible to have such a discussion?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

40. Yes . Very much so.

I have athiest friends and we talk about it all the time. Not a one of them has ever said "you're a delusional fantasyland hypocrite" so it tends to work. I imagine the joy of knowing that we are in person and they would get the fucking shit beat out of them if they had the gall to disrespect me like that is an incentive :evilgrin: (that was a joke, I'm mostly non-violent but for self defense)

[karlschneider]

6. The solution is simple, but unlikely:

Believers can simply embrace whatever kinds of delusions they prefer and not impose them on others, either by evangelization or legal imprimatur.

Not bloody likely as long as some people claim a DSL line to imaginary deities and a 'commission' to badger everyone else to fall in line with their position.

The most destructive force on the planet is belief in imaginary sky-daddies and there will never be any true peace until it's abandoned by supposedly intelligent homo pseudo-sapiens.

[patcox2]

8. You are the reason for the problems, with references to "delusions"

And your condescending and superior, yet at the same time pathetically self-pitying attitude.

Keep your insulting opinions to yourself. Its not a discussion to you, its an exercise in showing the world how wonderful and superior you are.

You are cordially invited, in the presence of my imaginary deity, to kiss my delusional ass.

[bloom]

9. to:karlschneider" never be any true peace" with statements like that..n/t

.

[jagguy]

16. oh, you must be one of the ones who will suffer damnation (satire)

tit for tat Karl.

I tend to think that meglomaniacs ala Hitler and Hussein and Pot (is that Pol ? I can never keep up) tend to be far more troubling than a few people who only want folks to love and respect one another.

But I'm just a pseudo person so who gives a rat's ass what I think right ? Gotta scoot, need to go prostrate myself to the Higer Power again !

[PassingFair]

18. I'm with ya, Karl

Why must we clamp our hands over our mouths when the Emperor struts about naked, when our children must pledge alliegence to one nation, under god or suffer the curse of the non-conformist?

If we treat one supernatural belief as sacred, we must hold all other unverifiable claims to be equally legitimate. If I spout off about the Giant Slug-God, Slimus, you must not poke fun or tell your children that I am dare I say it, NUTS. No, in my jumble opinion, you must respect my belief and not question my faith. One nation, under Slimus.

[bloom]

24. The only religions/non-religions that I have a problem with

are the ones that don't respect the other ones.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. Karl I wish you would have stated that you preferred the separation

of church and state than to deliberately antagonize and shut the barn door before the horse got to the track.

[Terwilliger]

44. like suggesting George Bush is anything other than ethical?

You know, sometimes you have to tell people things they don't like.

Or...you have to sit there while they roll all over you.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

50. I disagree.

[Terwilliger]

53. hmmm

really

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

55. Yeah really I disagree.

Karl's original post basically stated that anyone who believes is delusional and that the "most destructive force on the planet" is religion and that it was the block to peace.

I basically said I wished he had framed it differently.

You said sometimes we need to tell people what they don't want to hear.


Telling people what they don't like to hear works when you a telling a person or even SOME people as regards their religious beliefs and what they do with them.(i.e. Falwell etc)

Karl's post presumes that religion is delusional based on the assumption that we either know everything there is to know or can deduce what's even possible or likely to be true. I say somethings are unknowable or not known yet. Let's leave it at that. No harm. No foul.

The other presumption is that religion and not competition have started wars. All religion is is competition - to other religions. If religions ceased to exist, competition wouldn't cease to exist. Nor would the ability to do evil.

So...I disagree.

[Terwilliger]

43. well!

I'm not alone in my assessment.

You DO say it much better than I :D

[maha]

64. To which delusion do you refer?

The quantum physics guys say that linear time is a kind of delusion. The way we perceive "reality," the world of shapes and space, furniture and people and parking lots, is all just particles of stuff in space. We see furniture and people and parking lots because our brains are wired to see furniture and people and parking lots. If our brains were re-wired, where would the stuff go? And what might be there that our brains can't process? Indeed, self-identity is a kind of delusion; consciousness is a by-product of brain wave and does not abide in any one spot.

It's all smoke and mirrors, son. Ain't it grand?

[starroute]

10. It isn't about belief, it's about fear

All the religion threads here at DU have forced me to recognize something I'm not at all comfortable about acknowledging:

Christianity scares me.

Up until two hundred years ago, Christianity had a really lousy track record when it came to tolerance either of other religions or of its own heretics. That began to change in the 1800's -- but the fundamentalists are still just as intolerant as ever, and are working hard to reinstate their intolerance as the norm.

I'm fully aware that mainstream Christians do not share that intolerance -- but they also don't seem to have the emotional fervor that the fundamentalists do. Fundamentalism is expanding in areas like Russia and Latin America -- the mainstream Protestant churches aren't. When I was a kid, there were still liberal Protestant theologians who grappled with the great issues of the time from a religious point of view. As far as I know, there's no one like that around today. The fundamentalists seem to be the only ones doing theology.

The prospect that haunts me is that the fundamentalists might take over Christianity (or at least Protestantism) the way the neocons have taken over the Republican Party. Certainly, the mainstream churches seem to be as intimidated by them as the mainstream Democrats are by the neocons. That scares me more than I can readily express.

I can't see any good answer to this. Does anyone else have one?

[bloom]

15. I would like to see Christianity evolve more intellectually -

and in some groups it has. But I'm not holding my breath and I don't see it becoming the dominant way - because the intellectual approach does not tend to be evangelical. And I do think it is similar to the Democrat/Republican divide.

It's hard to predict, though. There are hopeful precedents like civil rights, etc....the change from the 50's to the 70's....

[jagguy]

21. how so ?

some of the rules are, um, set in stone. What would you have us become more intellectual about ?

Not a smartass, I really am curious about this.

[bloom]

25. I don't see it set in stone

I look for the good in the Bible and in other texts and inspirational things - and I ignore the rest. I consider science and physics and my own experiences.

Some wouldn't consider me Christian, and that doesn't bother me. But I do attend a Quaker meeting and my way of believing is not esp. unusual for that group - but we don't all think alike and we don't worry about it.

[jagguy]

30. OK thanks

sorta vague but thanks for the reply.

I had been thinking about how the Church was basically the lone source of intellectual thought in the West for about a thousand years and wondering how it could be considered without some fair degree of intellect.

I don't hold to a strictly literalist interpretation of portions of the Bible and this is pretty common across the breadth of Chrisindom. This would tend to acept that science and physics can so-exist in scripture.

thanks again.

[blondeatlast]

17. Yup--people like me are the answer. Liberal, freedom FROM

religion type Christians.

If the fundies come for you, starroute, call on me--I'll piss 'em off so much they'll forget about you!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. Is Halliburton a religious entity?

That religious organizations can be used as pawns in a game that procreates fear is neither here nor there. In order to accept your reasoning, I would have to think my fears would be relieved if these people ceased to exist. I have no evidence that that is what is so.

I think there are creeps across all boundaries.

Finally the distinction I think WOULD be useful but is never met with much objectivity is the distinction CULT.

There are CULTS and there are religious organizations.

Withou naming groups one of the things that distinguishes them is that a CULT makes it difficult for one to leave. I haven't noticed any bound and gagged Methodists.

A CULT pulls one INWARD away from other communities rather than contributing OUTWARDS TOWARDS other communities as the Catholic relief services does.

If people COULD make this distinction then they could also see that not even all fundamentalism fits that bill.

[rasputin1952]

38. Do not let fear halt your search for the truth...

Your truth may be different than mine, but fear should not hamper you.

Fundies have the trait of intolerance, (one of the reasons I avoid them like the plague), and until they open their minds, they are stuck in a dark recess.

I am a Christian, but I will not try to convert others to my personal beliefs, unless queried. If asked, I explain that to me, Christianity is tolerance, love, compassion, forgiveness, mercy and understanding. There are limits to my tolerance though. I will not tolerate hypocrites, rapists, murderers, child molesters and those that seem to derive pleasure from inflicting pain and suffering on others. However, if they seek forgiveness, and are committed to change, I feel compelled to offer that forgiveness.

Fundies, like other aspects of every religion, feel they are the only ones 'saved'. However, their incapacity to look into spiritual matters with both eyes open hampers their ability to seek the truth.

I have several fundy acquaintances, and yes, they hold strict views; but virtually all of those views are flawed. In a recent discussion about abortion, I stated that being a male, and not the father of the fetus, I have no say in what happens on legal grounds. I can speak morally, like the fundies try to do, but they lose the argument when I bring up RU-486. They consider it an 'abortion pill', but there is no viable pregnancy when it is used, so how can it be an abortion pill? I point out that it is not the pregnancy, but rather the SEX, that they oppose so vehemently. Why should they care about anyone else's sex life, it is none of their business, unless they are involved in some way.

Fundies have the disquieting way of picking and choosing what they want to get out of scripture. They have the habit of taking things literally, unless that literal interpretation would affect THEIR lives. It is fine to call others damned for their behavior, but their hypocrisy actually 'damns' them.

They use fear, as do many other sects of religions, to keep their 'flocks' in line. But there should be no fear in accepting any religion. You do not accept a set of beliefs because you are afraid you'll roast in hell; you accept a religion because it offers hope.

Beware of fear, it exists only in those that have not come to grips with truth, understanding and love.

[Sophree]

74. Fear is the mind killer

" but I will not try to convert others to my personal beliefs, unless queried. If asked, I explain that to me, Christianity is tolerance, love, compassion, forgiveness, mercy and understanding. There are limits to my tolerance though. I will not tolerate hypocrites, rapists, murderers, child molesters and those that seem to derive pleasure from inflicting pain and suffering on others. However, if they seek forgiveness, and are committed to change, I feel compelled to offer that forgiveness."

"Beware of fear, it exists only in those that have not come to grips with truth, understanding and love."

I feel the same way, very well said.

[DemBones DemBones]

54. Traditional Christianity is indeed expanding in South America, Africa,

Russia, much of Asia. Only North America and Europe have moved away from traditional Christianity. Not all traditional Christians are fundamentalists in the sense of being inerrantists (I think that's the right word for those who believe every word of the Bible is literally and absolutely true) but their beliefs are much stronger in some areas and probably all respect the Bible as an authority more than liberal Christians do. Traditional Christians tend to believe more in God's grace and miracles and sin and morality. The concepts of sin and shame have gone out of style in our secular society, even among a lot of churchgoers.

This is not only true of Protestants, by the way, it's also true for Catholics -- charismatic Catholicism is very big on other continents (and not unusual here) and of course it's the Pentecostal Protestants who are growing in numbers everywhere. Probably no one at DU attends a charismatic or Pentecostal church but millions do.

People crave structure, people crave answers, people cannot tolerate ambiguity -- I'm referring to the majority of people, of course, not all people. People don't want "do your own thing" religion. People want rules and rituals. People want community and acceptance. And when they don't find it in the mainstream churches, they look elsewhere.

It could get ugly because people feel that they are being denied their right to believe in creation rather than evolution, their right to pray in public, have Biblr readings in school, and so on. They feel that they have been oppressed and are fighting back. Even worse, strict or fundamentalist Islam is also growing and could be on a collision course with fundamentalist Christianity. Armageddon, anyone?

I would guess that liberal theologians started falling out of favor with people when they proclaimed God was dead in 1966 (or thereabouts). Sure, Nietzsche said it a long time before but these were mainstream Protestants saying it. "And the New York Times said God is dead."

I don't think "The Handmaid's Tale" will be our future but you might want to brush up on the words to "Blessed Assurance, Jesus Is Mine." Rather than state-mandated religion, there will just be more social pressure to go to church, and to go to a "Bible-believing" church. Or perhaps not even that.

The only thing I know to do is to work with fundamentalists to help the poor and otherwise fulfill Christian teachings so that they, and we, don't view each other as the enemy.

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. All of the threads

Force me to accept something I've never felt true. That some on DU and in the far reaches of the left are just as bullying and antagonistic to people as they are on the far right.

I am a Democrat. I am religious. If you can't accept that combination, then you are dooming this party to secondary status at best.

[rasputin1952]

62. Ah...a refreshing drink of sweet water...

eloquence at it's best.

Tahnk you.

[maha]

66. And you scare Christians

Fear is at the core of fundamentalism. They are terrified of the Other, which is why they feel compelled to re-create the world in their own image.

[JanMichael]

11. Hell I just married a future Episcopalian Minister!

No problem here:-)



PS~ For those posters that don't know me: I'm an Atheist and very happy with my choices.

[blondeatlast]

14. I was about to say--that's a bit of a switch, JM!

My hubby is agnostic and we are occasionally at odds, but we've been together almost 10 years now.

I hope your life together can be as good as ours.

:toast:

[JanMichael]

20. No malice. That's my plan.

We can disagree from today until the end of time but I refuse to lose my cool.

Fact is we've discussed this issue and basically agreed to not believe the same way. What we have agreed to is uncompromised adoration:-)

That trumps "Belief" and "Non-Belief" in Deities.

[jonnyblitz]

26. uncompromised adoration...

that sounds cool.

[Crewleader]

12. well said NSMA

:hi:

[blondeatlast]

13. Amen! (or whatever)

Thanks!

I've got no problem with anyone's belief or lack thereof, and if you, the reader, do, then the problem is yours.

[DrGonzoLives]

22. Not at DU

No, here, the assholes have to make themselves feel better by showing how superior they are to everyone else. It's one of the reasons I can't fucking stand this place anymore.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. Oh come on DAMMIT...you INDIANANS LOVE

this asshole :evilgrin:

[Clete]

31. Dunno what to say.

I'd like more tolerance. I like rituals because it brings out the artistic part of humanity and bonds them. Last month I went to my neighbor's son's wedding. It was a Jewish ritual that combined Ashkenazi traditions with Sephardic traditions, because the bride was Sephardic and the Groom Ashkenazi. Also, the two idealistic people to be married, were vegetarian, which I am also, so I was sort of pleased, because I didn't know this before.

I don't like anyone or anything to suffer because of ritual, so this was a lovely day for me.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. Exactly!

I so totally agree with you. The freedom to believe does lend itself to the freedom to create as does the freedom to NOT believe.

What gets created when neither side gives freedom is WAR.

[Rowdyboy]

32. Isn't it the damned truth...

I don't give a happy damn what you believe. Spirituality is a personal matter and best left that way.

[Skittles]

33. I CO-EXIST WITH LOTS OF BELIEVERS

I BELIEVE IN TOLERANCE!!! :D

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. And if we don't tolerate you whatcha gonna do?

KICK OUR ASS???? :D

[Forkboy]

39. I dont agree

but I'm far to un-sober to get into now :D

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

41. Thanks ya drunken bum!

[Forkboy]

42. Hey...I resemble that remark!

:evilgrin:

[Wonder]

87. laughing is good too!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Get along? Sure.

Being an agnostic married to a practicing Catholic for 22 years we get along just fine. Good humor and a thick skin helps.

"Man is the only animal to have discovered the one true God...several of them." - Mark Twain

[Blue_Chill]

46. I used to agree with you

But I've since realise the anti-theist population on DU do not simply "wish to be let be".

and I think more and more people are realising the same thing. Judging by how many PM's I get saying exactly that.

[Terwilliger]

47. you haven't removed your cross avatar yet

I find it offensive

[Blue_Chill]

48. So you don't believe in religious freedom?

What other freedoms do you want to take from me? Perhaps throw me in a camp with other religious persons?

[Terwilliger]

52. I do believe it...in fact, I should be free from your religion

unless, of course, you would have no problem with this symbol on every other neck



OH YEAH! Have you made sure the Democrats are making sure that Rastafarians are able to smoke marijuana? That Native Americans who wish to use peyote in their religious practices can do so?

Santeria?

[Blue_Chill]

59. lol you are funny

unless, of course, you would have no problem with this symbol on every other neck

Certainly not on "every other" but on any that wished to wear it so be it. Not my problem, not my concern.

OH YEAH! Have you made sure the Democrats are making sure that Rastafarians are able to smoke marijuana? That Native Americans who wish to use peyote in their religious practices can do so?

Have I made sure? How would you like me to do that?

I have no objection to any of the things you listed.

[Against ME]

49. And you're an anti-anti-theist

And i think more people are realizing the same, based on all the PM's i've gotten.

[Blue_Chill]

51. They would be correct

Yes I am very much anti-anti-theist.

They are to religious beliefs what the KKK is to race relations. Intolerant by nature and thus they must be opposed.

[Festivito]

56. Unfortunately, some "atheists" insist they are above religion.

So, they zealously and pompously insist that no one else can have their beliefs displayed. Again, because they see their beliefs in NO god to be above beliefs in a god. (e.g. one complains the cross avatar offends)

And, since their beliefs do not, for them, constitute a religion, they can attack the religious since the Constitution only protects the religious from the religious. Again, they are above that.

So, unfortunately, your appeal to "religious freedom" doesn't apply to them. They are just too good.

I'd like to see a good definition for religion. Something tells me there will be two groups wanting to politicize the product. In the middle will be atheists and Christians and whatevers who are kind and quiet.

[rasputin1952]

60. A good definition of religion...

hmmm.....

How about: A set of core beliefs that can enhance, or degrade, humanity.

Most religions would prefer to be the former, but many have become the latter.

Tolerant, loving, forgiving, peace and mercy would apply to most of the enhancing religions.

Hatred, animosity, death and destruction would apply to those that would degrade humanity. Nazi's and neo-cons tend to populate this type of religion.

Just a stab in the dark at simplifying a complex issue.

[Festivito]

82. Then Atheism would be a religion.

A set of core beliefs that can enhance, or degrade, humanity.

Atheists have their beliefs, from their core, and they have as I have read wished to enhance humanity (by causing the myths to be replaced by a working reality), albeit enchance humanity, and, subsequently to possibly degrade it.

There are other definitions, and I still think Atheism should qualify as a religion.

That would place them as equals rather than superiors to other religions and subject to the Constitution. But, you might just be one of the nice people of the world anyway. In other words, the problem being discussed here is not with you. And, thanks for responding.

[rasputin1952]

104. But I hold that atheism IS a religion...

I get a lot of flack about this, naturally; but atheism is just a way of saying there is no belief in a god or divine being. However...everyone believes in something.

That 'something' can be anything, but usually, it is the 'self' that the atheist believes in. Hence, if you believe in yourself, as the highest manifestation of life...you have in essence defined a superior being; it just happens to be the mind resideing in the body it occupies.

There are undoubtably people pout there that believe that a rock is the the highest manifestation of intelligence; but the conversation would be a little dull.

[Festivito]

109. Some Atheists are really touchy about calling it a religion.

I think the are really closet anti-organized-relgionists.

But, I'm open minded. I'd still hug 'em. Provided they'd showered recently.

[Cheswick2.0]

127. I don't think atheism is a religion until..........

they start organizing

[Liberator_Rev]

147. That's when atheists become a CHURCH, or "Religious Institution"

Cheswick, when you say "I don't think atheism is a religion until
they start organizing." Aren't you confusing "religion" which is usually used to define personal characteristics, and "church", which is a organization of individuals for the purpose of giving their internal religion public expression"?

[polmaven]

106. I think you are absolutely right.

I think that, in this country, Atheism should be considered as a religion, and subject to the separation of church and state. Actually, I think that is a very big part of what the establishment clause is all about.

Atheism DOES NOT equal amoral (or immoral). Far from it. Athiests and Agnostics are, in general, as moral and compassionate as religious people are. (I use "in general" because there are amoral or immoral people on both ends of the question).

I am a religious woman. I have a deep faith, and I take it very seriously. I enjoy discussing my beliefs and my faith with likeminded people.

Many on this board, however, insist on attacking the beliefs of the religious. (Some of the religious put down the non-belivers too, but not nearly as often, nor as mean-spiritedly, IMO) I think the point of the original post was to try to come to some understanding about that behaviour, and let those of us who wish to discuss our faiths do so, and we will allow the non-believers to discuss their core values, without the interference of personal attacks.

Wow...I sound like Rodney King, eh?

[Festivito]

124. Sounds good. There are a few problemed persons.

And, in other ways they seem to discuss rationally. But, religion seems to drive them bonkers. sigh...

[charlie]

72. Nah

I don't have a belief in "no god" any more than I hunger for "no food." There's an absence of hunger, and for me (note the italicized phrase, I'm trying to be mindful of feelings here) there's an absence of god.

[Festivito]

96. A parenthetical and contraction does not hide the "IS"

Paraphrasing you: ..for me there IS an absence of god.

You really could not get around making a sentence out of your belief. The hunger parallel attempts to say that you have no belief of no god, like you have no hunger of no food, which does not work. No food begets hunger. No god does not beget belief. And you do have your belief in the absence of god even if it is expressed in a contraction.

Believing in an "absence of god" does not differ from believing in "no god." I'd say either of those phrases involves atheism.

Your first statement was that you have no belief in "no god." That would be agnostic, i.e. literally, not knowing (a:not, gnosis:knowing), not atheism (a:not, theos:god, ist:believer).

Unless that Nuh title made a triple negative out of a double negative?

[charlie]

103. No, I don't see it that way

"Absence of god" is the only way I know how to express not a belief, but a reaction to a positive assertion for which I don't see evidence --

"There is a god."

"Huh? Who? Where? I don't see this god thing."

You said it best --

"No god does not beget belief."

I never saw god, nor do I have a belief in "no god." My lack of conviction that there is a god, my... what would be a better word?... indifference to the concept of god is not a religion.

Suppose I posit:

-90898sn987sdjfohuisdhf

and I regale you with a whole cosmology about the qualities of -90898sn987sdjfohuisdhf and its relation to you. If you scratch your head and say "well, I don't get it, understand it, or see it" and then forget about it until the next time someone else comes to you with the same story, have you been inducted into the religion of anti-90898sn987sdjfohuisdhf?

[Festivito]

108. small-n nothing practiced is different from Nothing practiced.

"Absence of god" is the only way I know how to express not a belief, but a reaction to a positive assertion for which I don't see evidence --
"There is a god."
Sorry, that sentence needs better grammar.

Let's skip to the analogy. Religion 908. I'm told it, I don't take to it. Someone else espouses 908. Am I now inducted? Well, I don't believe in 908, probably.

If all I need to do is hear twice about 908 in order to be inducted into 908 by 908's rules, then, yes, I'd be inducted into 908 in accordance with 908's rules.

Look, we are a country that comes with more than just a little baggage, Christian baggage, Jewish baggage, agnostic baggage, and Atheist baggage, so we may be a little "inducted." We are in a sense inducted into the US religion of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is as much a religion to me as is any Christian denomination. Atheism is also a religion, according to me. Agnostism is closer to not being a religion, but, agnostists tend to start employing it as a belief system turning into Agnostism with a capital-A and making it a religion.

What I am saying is that we have trouble with SOME atheists on this board who think they are superior for their belief in a lack of beliefs. It may be that they are superior. But, it makes for bad discussion, and I'm tired of it.

ADDING:
The Constitution does not mandate separation of church and state as it does not mandate pursuit of happiness. It mandates free exercise and freedom of religion. The Declaration of Independence calls for pursuit of happiness in an attempt to ask for it as equal men.

When it comes to the right to practice religion, I want my right. When it comes to atheists right to practice religion, I want them to have that right. When it comes to a problem between us, I don't want them fighting me from a superior position, as in the Declaration of Independence we should argue that as equals.

[TxanGoddess]

146. Secularism?

I just randomly picked a post among the "athiesm: religion or not?" side debate to reply to, but this isn't really limited to any one poster.

I wonder, is there any signifcant difference between being an atheist and a secularist (I think that label covers a few groups who use the word secular to describe themselves)?

Could this be the difference between a belief in non belief and strict non belief in and of itself?

And even if it isn't, I do wonder what "insiders" from either school of thought consider to the differences between the two.

Jsut trying to learn here, not really fire any controversy or anything, philosophy classes are just too far behind me at this point in my schooling to be very confident in my ideas.

[Wonder]

88. George Carlin has a whole routine on believers

while I don't agree with him... the routine is funny, if you catch my drift.

[Festivito]

100. If only everyone were as humorous as George Carlin.

If one poignantly jokes that zealous atheists are all too similar to zealous Robertson/Fallwell supporters, oooooh, the sparks start to fly! Carlin's humor requires a certain civility, a civility lacking around here.

[Wonder]

102. A civility only lacking around here?

Have you noticed the world lately... this is must a microcosmo of that. None of us innocent. None of us completely guilty! The man in the mirror is always a good start and requires many repeated glances... throughout ones life... and... none are perfect...

trend and apathy might be indocrinations all their own... guilt comes by association... and not going back to that mirror often enough... but enough from me on this... what do I know really?

[Festivito]

105. You said "only," I did not.

DU system destroyed my post by accident. I hate that. It was beautiful. This won't be as good. Sorry.

DU is trying to be more civil than the world. My point is that some atheists place themselves above others because they see their No-religion as no religion and thus attempt to argue from their self-made bully pulpit. It stinks. It leads to a lack of civility. It should be addressed.

[Wonder]

112. hmmm

well I have one friend who is atheist .. and if I were to be critical about her it seems this atheism as viewed via this one person i know... can be a bit vain which is a type of vanity that can breed materalism...

but beyond that... I am not sure atheists are any more falable than those that are devotely religious or those more spiritual minded...

religion and a belief in god can also be corrupting depending how entrenched it becomes in dogma and/or how exclusive any one of the god believing religions sometimes are to the demonizing of those groups their religion does not approve of and based on the falsity of their interpretation of scripture... even.

[buddhamama]

57. i'm all for co-existing

[ulysses]

61. kick

[ForrestGump]

63. It'd be nice if some of the 'non-believers' on this thread

manifested some of the ideals that various of the world's organized faiths at least pay lip service to. Sure, many of the religious may be inherently hypocritical, but some really do strive toward improving our societies and many of their lofty stated goals are worthy of all of our aspirations.

I see people pointing out that relgion is a powerful force for ill and I see others pointing out that it can be a powerful force for good, and the bottom line is that everybody is right. Sure, debate relgion and theology all you want - it's begging for it and it is one of the most powerful forces on this planet, human-wise and thus worthy of health debate - but let's not allow it to get in the way of our common humanity.

Please? There's been far too much of that already, through history.

Bill and Ted said it best: be excellent to each other.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

65. People are a powerful force for good or ill

The tools of politics and religion are powerful on both angles but it all boils down to ethics.

[Terwilliger]

70. I agree completely

but let's not allow it to get in the way of our common humanity.

Get those freak sky-fairy believing twits OUT OF MY BODY, OUT OF MY BEDROOM, OUT OF MY CONSTITUTION, OUT OF MY FACE!

If they want to use their belief to do good works, then I'm all for it. Other than that, they need to fix the problems that have been perpetrated on the entire race by their ancestors (and MANY contemporaries).

[ForrestGump]

79. I agree with both of you

:D

Live and let live

AND

it's people that are the real problem. That's why I like animals so much (and cool people, such as yourselves).

[Wonder]

91. and one's choice of WORDS can be

either destructive or affirming. Words have power to destroy or create... language can be a weapon or a magic wand...

(cough) kind of a fun thread. thanks!

[Muddleoftheroad]

129. Not exactly

Acting like the voice of either reason or tolerance are you?

[rucky]

67. So You Admit That You Exist, eh?

:evilgrin:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

69. No dammit

I admitted I co-exist! :D

[goobergunch]

68. As an atheist, I concur.

I don't believe in God, but I'll support anybody's right to believe in any religious figure they want to.

[noiretextatique]

71. as one who is on the fence

between athiesm/agnoticism and something else...i agree wholeheartedly :D if i wanna fight about it, i can just do it with myself :hi:

[Terwilliger]

76. hahaha

true...the atheist/agnostics go through that self-fighting thing

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

77. ROFL!

That's my approach on this one...I move through all the stages every day :D

[Wonder]

85. I believe in another's right to believe in that that enables

evolution of ones mind and thinking...

personally I would define myself as an agnotic not an athiest as I do believe in a higher power that connects to me that if I can just surrender to that wisdom higher than myself true healing and growth will follow... beyond that ... all should be free to feed spirituality if that is what they choose... and (cough) before I conclude I have one more thing to say...

I do believe their is a unity to be found in that that is human... we all share the same needs for sustenance... and focusing on what brings us together rather than what pulls us apart while corny ... also I feel that there comes a time in any civilization where questioning ever icon, symbol, and even ones language can encourage evolution not of body but of modes of thinking...

many of the paradigms we operate within in have become more so a bondage rather than a liberty... another goal of evolution in mind is to question sociatal condition... be it racial... gender... political... or religious who knows...

Perhaps Tracy Chapman has something there... and we might need to start all over redefine the world and start all over...

:hi:

[noiretextatique]

95. supra-religionist

that which is above all religion, some call this spirit. religion is a part of human race consciousness, in both its lowest and its highest manifestations. but the spiritual principles found in most religious teachings have value, perhaps even beyond any particulars of religious tradition, e.g., going somewhere to worship. the spirit universe is bigger than any cathedral, and to access it requires only the willingness to do so.
it took me a long time to acquire faith...until i found a belief system in which my head can coexist with my heart.

[Wonder]

98. Affirmation of Faith and Spirit does require vigilance

and belief in oneself. With this I am presently having my own struggle (belief in myself that is - though I do perservere - listening to my own inner voice and what wisdom I can manage to hear when it whispers).

In addition to those religious tenets that have manifested through spiritual wisdom, the too reflect the meta physical laws of the universe. Relativity. Connectivity. All my Relations!

[starroute]

73. So we sit here in Plato's cave, arguing about the shadows on the wall

As Plato explained, we're chained in place in such a way that we can't look behind us to see what makes the shadows. All we can do is sit and argue.

Some of us refuse to admit there are any shadows and suggest the rest of us should get our eyes examined.

Some of us acknowledge the shadows are there but deny there is anything behind us to cast them and suggest they may be the result of natural properties of the rock face.

Some of us think the shadows are simply own own, caused by some trick of the light to appear far larger than we are and oddly shaped.

Others claim that they know exactly what causes the shadows and may even attempt to use that supposed knowledge to intimidate and control their fellow cave-dwellers.

And still others merely enjoy watching the shadows pass and change, pointing out one particularly striking shape or another, and making up what Plato called "likely stories" about the beings and events which could be causing them.

I'm with the story-tellers, myself. But as beautiful and inspiring as some of the stories are, I'm always aware that I'm still stuck in this damned cave and don't know shit.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

78. Admitting that we don't know shit on this one would be a great

place to start. Thanks :D

[Sophree]

81. A perfect place to start

None of us know. Let's respect each other's BELIEFS. We'll all be much better off and the board would be more civil when it comes to religion topics. Heck, when it comes to any topic.

[Wonder]

80. yes we argue about shadows on the wall while we DENY

so many times the WRITING on the wall... History can be an exercise in falsity... spin... unraveling it many times hard to do...

religion is one of those topics that so often crosses over with politics and believe in god is much more a matter of faith than science...

Live and let live. The matter of force whether it be opinions or positions... is an ugliness based in ones desire to be identified by something or in some case to exhirt power over something or someone.

and then of course there are those subjects that excerises ones intelligences and there is nothing wrong with a little excerising in that department.

much is unknowable... and I believe the most brilliant minds know without a doubt that for all they may know their is much more to learn and fixating on ones opinions can be an obstacle to ones growth and can interfer with ones innate potential to achieve wisdom...

Facts can always be manipulated by propaganda... wisdom is personal to life experience... and few can mar ones learned and acquired wisdom... especially if that wisdom has been earned.

[rasputin1952]

107. Thank you starroute, I am impressed...

I love the Plato's Cave scenario; but the true classic line is, "I'm stuck in this damned cave, and I don't know shit".

That is indeed a great line.

Since we're all in this damned cave together, might I suggest we get out the weiners, marshmallows or whatever one decides to eat; talk, and have a damned good time! We just might figure out how to get the hell out of here sooner or later.

[Suspicious]

130. LOL

I like that analogy. :)

I'm always aware that I'm still stuck in this damned cave and don't know shit.

I feel like that at least once a day!

[Wonder]

75. YES I AM DOWN WITH THAT

I believe believers and non-believers can co-exist AS LONG AS sensitivity to each others opinions and beliefs also exist and I am given space to express my opinions as well and prothetizing is held down to a low roar if not even lower...

as a side for other reasons altogether different I feel the lead post is brilliant for reasons I have no need to discuss.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[charlie]

86. Dude, what you're doing is spamming

You know that, right? This is around the 20th time I've seen this post and there may be some you've dumped in other threads I haven't. Have a bit of courtesy and power down for a while.

[geoforce]

90. I think spamming is automated.

n/t.

[charlie]

92. LOL

No it ain't. In any case, now you've been disabused of that notion, so please give it a rest.

[Wonder]

93. is this some kind of an

altercation here?

[charlie]

94. No

This guy is doing some splattershot spamming in messages all over the board and I'm asking him to stop.

[Wonder]

97. Fair enough.

I was just wondering. It is my signature afterall!

[Aristus]

89. My purpose as a Christian is to love my fellow human beings.

Regardless of their beliefs. I would rather hang around an atheist who accepts me for who I am than another Christian who is constantly getting on me because I don't conform to his or her notion of what it means to be a Christian.

[Wonder]

99. AND WOULDN'T IT BE FUN

not that I want to impose anything on anyone BUT wouldn't it be fun if this thread would out live and outnumber the most recent 500+ threads. Whatever happens happens, whether atheist, religious, or supra religionist or scientific...wishing is allowed!

[Shanty Oilish]

110. Why not let others be.

I'm going to pretend this isn't a rhetorical question, and make a stab at answering it.
IMO, your typical atheist, while believing there is no God, positively prefers this way of things. Ask one. "Are you glad there is no God? Would you be dismayed if there were?" You usually get a yes to both questions, because the atheists are that logical.
So...to burrow under the logical, I arrive at the pre-logical mind of the atheist, who objects to the believer's desire that things should be as the atheist does not desire. The atheist who won't "let others be" is reacting to people who want him or her to be unhappy.

The anti-religious person is another matter (or another mind). They aren't looking at God, they're just looking at other people who are looking for God. To them I recommend a firsthand search, although this is a religious activity. (In fact, it's THE religious activity.)

:)

ed. for prepositional accuracy

[JanMichael]

111. While polite I think you're also mis-taken.

"Ask one. "Are you glad there is no God? Would you be dismayed if there were?" You usually get a yes to both questions, because the atheists are that logical.""

My answer to question #1: Irrelevant.

My answer to #2: No, I wouldn't.

Where does "Logic" play a role in that? Well it's simple. To number one, I simply don't CARE about that subject. I know that's hard to digest but it's true. Number two is so simple it really suggests a total mis-understanding of "most" Atheists. Would I be "dismayed"? No I would not. That's because when it comes to "Belief" I'm a "True" Agnostic! I don't know....And I doubt that you do either:-)

Anything is possible in my Atheistic World, anything, I'm not beholden to any theistic dogma....

[Wonder]

113. agnostic does seem a more human and mankind friendly

viewpoint. Because when one really gets down to it... we really don't know... but for the dogma that can lead those within any congregation... either way works... faith in future good deeds can be a god affirmation in and of itself... faith in the growth of ones potential... etc.

whatever works is what I say... to keep one keeping on.

[Shanty Oilish]

114. Ever read Geo Smith?

Atheism: the Case Against God. Interesting book. However, Smith is among that bunch who hold that "anything" is not possible.
My previous remarks are based on personal experience, like my religion.
But let's say anything is possible. What are you looking for in a universe in which anything is possible?
If you wouldn't be dismayed, if it turned out God exists---would you feel nothing about it? Or what?

[JanMichael]

115. You've read that book?!

Holy crap. I doubted I'd ever talk to anyone outside of the "Atheist v. Christian" boards that had. I've only read parts of it. I would say that there is a distinct difference between the "Weak Atheists" and the "Strong Atheists".

Generally speaking I fall in the "Weak Atheist" position but the rub generally gets revieled when specific beliefs get pointed out.

If, if, a "god" (be specific, which one?) presented itself, in what venue please, I'd probably laugh. I can only handle so much showmanship:-)

[Shanty Oilish]

118. I don't count. I've read everything.

:P
You be specific. (Remember, anything is possible!) One god, many; nice god, naughty god. Immanent or faineant. Jehovah, George Burns or Aphrodite in her nightie.
Any entity that proves its supernatural existence and alters your agnosticism.

[JanMichael]

119. A nice one would be preferable.

Nice is usually better that nasty and spiteful (which is impossible for an Immutable "thing". Ie. How does and Unchangable Thing "Want"?)) one.

But until it happens, which it has not yet, I'll remain a skeptic:-)

[Shanty Oilish]

120. Preferable to none?

Or merely preferable to nasty? (And I meant nice/nasty by human standards, with human interests as the measure; as, say, spiders are nasty, dogs are nice.)

Immutability is a quality, too. Not all gods are immutable, it's not in the definition of "god." Quite a few people consider God to be All That Is, and That certainly is mutable.

But what I was getting at, was simpler. Would you have no feeling whatsoever on the matter, if a deity were to prove its reality?

[JanMichael]

121. I truly do not care if there's a god.

Or an "After Life". I accept the here, and now, anything else is superfluous.

As to the qualities of a god: Either the believers have premises or not. They either defend them or not. Immutability IS a claimed premise of God by MILLIONS of Christians, that's a contradictaory concept, oh well. Many Christians refuse to give easily identifiable premises for their god, that's ok I guess, it matters little to me.

I just want to make what we do know is "Real", this Life, good.

Ultimately it doesn't matter to me.

I simply want to live this life

[Shanty Oilish]

123. I truly don't care if there's a Sasquatch, but...

...but if, one day, I tuned in to WWTF---or its affiliate news station WTFH?---and they were announcing the capture of a genuine Sasquatch, I'd be thrilled. Wouldn't you?
If not...well, you're consistent.

[rasputin1952]

116. While I am not trying to be fanciful...

I cannot take your answer to '#2' seriously.

If you found out there was a God/Supreme Being, you would almost have to be dismayed. It would be proof that you were wrong, and being dismayed at being wrong is a base human emotion.

No one likes to be wrong, in fact, if one is proven wrong, generally, the first reaction is defensive to the point where even if cold proof were placed before an individual, the natural recourse is to try to disprove the proof.

But, for arguments sake, you cannot find that proof, (in this particular instance), until you die, and you stand before said God/Supreme Being, I am willing to bet you would be dismayed.

In any case, keep seeking answers to all of the great 'unknowns' in this life, it keeps one mentally fit.

[JanMichael]

117. I'm a unique individual.

I can accept that my interpretations were/are/may be wrong...

It really, really, doesn't bother me.

Once I realized that everything that I percieved was questionable, in that everything was Subjective, I became rather immune to potentialities or implications of misinterpretations.

I just get by. I get along. I Persevere (Read Camus).

So #2 is serious. It doesn't concern me, it doesn't "amaze" me.

Sorry.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

122. I love that about you.

This was a great string of comments. :D

[rasputin1952]

126. Being unique is a quality we all share...

our very uniqueness is a common bond of sorts.

You are free to follow your own beliefs, and I shall not interfere; but from my own experiences, I have found that just getting by and an acceptance that I have little choice in my my fate, is more fallacy that fact. Every choice I make affects someone, somewhere.

In my case, I have often wondered what I would do differently if I had the ability to turn back time. While I do not dwell on my past, I have allowed my conscience to be my guide and that has proven, for me at least, to have helped me to move beyond a bland existence. It has spurred me to help where I can, when I can. I have become the master of my future, prepared for virtually anything that comes my way.

Enjoy life, you are indeed unique, and the world would be a lesser place without you. John Donne had it right when he said that the death of an individual dimishes mankind.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

125. My answer to number 2...

I would never have to answer that question. Because a god/supreme being does not exist.

You can "if" about anything.

What "if" one day you saw the proof that there was no god?
Would you be dismayed?

TWL

[rasputin1952]

132. Yes, I would be dismayed...

for the obvious reason that I had believed in something that proved wrong.

That has happened to me before, and although I survived the situation, naturally, it left a deep impression on my psyche.

Just as I voluntarily accept Christianity, I had voluntarily accepted that a situation that existed was true, but to my chagrin, it proved false, and cost many lives too boot.

I hold no ownership on reality or truth, I choose to believe because of events that have brought me to this state of mind. I, like everyone else, will make errors in judgement. As far as my religious beliefs however, I have what I consider "proof". I cannot speak for anyone else, but for me, I know the truth of the matter, just as others feel they have found truth.

Live well, and beware of false prophets. Go where your heart and conscience direct you. I would be the last person to foist my beliefs on others, but I do think an open mind is more conducive to human existance that a closed one. I always leave room for options and change.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sexybomber]

133. well now...

It all depends on your definition of who is a "sinner".

Personally, I consider mindless Christian adherents (such as yourself) to be sinners before God. God gave humans free will, and to mindlessly adhere to dogmatic beliefs is, essentially, snubbing God by ignoring His gift.

(edited because the first version didn't make much sense.)

[rasputin1952]

135. But Christians are not the only mindless adherents of religion...

Why not include:

mindless Wiccans, mindless Muslims, mindless Jews, mindless Hindus,
mindless Shintoists, mindless agnostics or mindless atheists, et al.

Certainly, Christians own no corner on mindless devotees.

Actually, EVERY major, and most minor religions, direct those in that faith to seek out truth and condemn hypocrisy.

Most of the points made previously, both pro and con, seem to be devoted to Christians.....we should not forget, that other religions,
(or the lack of a religion), have ranks of mindless drones that allow other to think for them. Intellectual laziness is not confined to Christianity.

[sexybomber]

136. you make a good point.

I guess I was reacting to the disrupter's Christian mindlessness specifically and forgot to include everyone else. I get like that sometimes.

But in regards to your point, I completely agree with you. Mindless adherence to anything isn't right. I say you can't really believe something unless you've investigated it and thought about it for yourself, and that goes for just about anything you want to believe.

[rasputin1952]

137. Not to worry...

we all get like that sometimes.

I enjoy the fact you said to investigate things and make your own decision; if we all did that, we might actually get to a concensus.

I guess the biggest thorn in my side, is how intellectually lazy people can be. Seems to me, so many would just have others dictate to them the good and evil of everything, but they refuse to refute some of the more tender points. There lie the seeds of hypocrisy.

[Sophree]

139. He's not a Christian

If he were, he would not have said that. Christians believe that no person is without sin.

Xtians believe that some sins are worse than others and that THEY get to pick and choose which.

[rasputin1952]

141. Ah...Good point!...

Which reminds me of a conversation with a Rabbi I had once. He said that at the judgement, people would be surprised at what sin really was. There were overt sins, (murder, rape, etc.), but there were covert sins as well, (hypocrisy, failure to help those in need if one had hte resources, etc.).

I guess, when all is said and done, conscience plays a huge role in how we deal with things. We might very well feel bad abouot the hungry and homeless, but have we really done anything to alleviate the situation, even for one individual?

Soapboxes are stacked up for the speechifying, but little is done to alleviate the hunger or pain some feel, (I will freely admit that I am guilty of this infraction as well; far too often, I have spoken, when I should have acted). :(

[Sophree]

144. There's a great line in Hillary's book

About her Minister's strong belief that the first question anyone is asked by God upon judgement is, "What did you do with the talents I gave you?"

I can imagine that He would not be impressed if you sat around and did nothing with those talents, or if you'd used them for nefarious purposes. I think this is a good way to proceed in life and I like thinking about mine on these terms.

[arwalden]

131. As A Non Believer I Don't Proselytize... I Don't Judge... I Don't Hate...

... and therein lies the problem.

I'm happy to live-and-let-live, but too many believers will never be satisfied with such a simple concept. Pity.

Why can't they just keep their god/s to themselves? Why must they force their beliefs on others. Why must they impose their moral standards on others? Why must they try to craft public laws that reflect their religious beliefs? Why, why, why?

For all those who feel this way, I've often wanted to ask "When it comes to my personal happiness, my personal relationship, my sexuality, my atheism, and everything else about my life that's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS---how is it that my life can interfere with YOUR personal happiness? Why does YOUR personal happiness rely so much on whether or not I'm living my life they way you would live yours? Why do you care?"

-- Allen

[rasputin1952]

134. Very well put...

As for the "Why do you Care"? I don't.

As long as you are doing no harm to others, I haven't a care in the world, your life and how you live it is your own business.

One of the problems in religious situations though, is that it is not ONLY the religious person that is vociferous. If someone makes a simple statement of faith, for whatever reason, immediately they become a lightning rod for criticism. Generally speaking, non-deists do not seem to have this problem. an agnostic can make a statement, and for all intents and purposes, it does not create much of a stir.

But if a person of faith makes a statement, all hell breaks loose; even if that statement was inoquous and not meant to change anyones mind.

I have great respect for others beliefs or non-beliefs. It does seem to me that anyone mentioning thier faith in Christianity, regardless of how quietly, they tend to attract napalm.

Live and let live...agreed. Enjoy your life and avoid hatred, bigotry, hypocrisy and neo-cons. The world is a better place because you are here, and for that I am thankful.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

140. I completely understand - with one caveat

Many who argue for equality are doing so out of their religious beliefs, religious ethics and religious moral standards.

As far as keeping their gods to themselves, I guess my comment would be that if they ALL had it would remove some incredible art, poetry and films.

It isn't so much how one keeps their ideas to themselves as how one communicates them in the first place.

I recently had a conversation with two of the other tennants in my San Diego office who admit to being fundamentalists. The manner in which they shared their fundamentalism was not at all invasive nor abusive. I could see why they appreciated their particular brand as they had a pastor that actually inspired them to think for themselves and study for themselves.

The same holds true for the non-believer who studies, arrives at their conclusion and simply shares their perspective sans degrading language.

If I could best boil it down:

The notion of whether god exists and the notion of intellectually discrediting god or underscoring god as a crutch or explanation for behavior can be a HUGE possibility for dialogue, for reconciliation, for peace, for many things......

until one gets hit over the head with one philososphy or the other...then it is ASSAULT.

[rasputin1952]

142. NSMA...There are times I wish I had your eloquence...

but alas, I am but a mere mortal.

:bounce:

Edited for spelling, again...we need spell check on this thing!

[LWolf]

138. What a great thread!

I kept glancing at it and passing it by, but finally I couldn't resist.

It's a simple thing from my perspective.

We don't know everything. While human knowledge continues to advance, we haven't really scratched the surface of all there is to learn and know. So..

The believer of any position; god or no god, could be correct. But even if they are, they don't know all there is to know about it.

A situation ripe for debate, exploration, discovery...

if we could just let go of the need to be "right," and to prove the other "wrong," on this subject, we'd be in a better place.

For me, it's a matter of trust. I have a belief. I don't think I know all there is to know about it, and I don't think there is only one correct "answer" to the question. Or even one question. I just stay open and trust that I'll learn more when I'm ready. As long as I'm open and learning, I'm on the right track. I don't fear dreadful consequences for not having agreed with some particular group, and I don't need anyone to join or agree with me. One of the lessons I've already learned is that lecturing people on anything, or trying to convert or convince them that they're wrong, is not ok. If they ask, I will respond. If I see a need, I might open a door and offer them an opportunity. If they decline, I respect that.

My creed for life.

Live and let live.

Did you ever notice that politics is a mirror of religion? What is a campaign, but proselytizing? Hopefully, politics can back itself with facts/evidence as well as with opinions and personal preference. Thankfully, we're not required to vote on a "one-size-fits-all" "everybody will follow" belief about religion, so no religious proselytizing is required.

[rasputin1952]

143. Welcome to the fray!...

this is indeed a great thread, thanks to all those that have had the gumption to jump in!

BTW...your remarks were very timely and accurate, as far as I'm concerned.

:hi:

[Sophree]

145. You guys really started waxing philosophic

last night/this morning. ;-)

It was nice to come back today and find the thread still extremely civil and very thoughtful, with hardly any negative or hurtful remarks.