Are you too sensitive about your religion?

[mopaul]

do atheists offend you? do other religions offend you? if someone gets into a religious argument, do you get all uptight and screamy?
or are you objective and reasonable and logical about it?

when discussions of the middle east come up, it's impossible not to speak of the religious aspects of that region's history. when discussing bush's fake religiosity, some are offended. some are offended at the term, 'fundie' or 'born again', and some think that atheists hate them and mean them harm.

we must all live with some criticism in our lives, and we must all be able to take it in an adult manner. if someone says something less than flattering about the pope, do you get all indignant? or if someone brings up the rash of pedophile priests he might be accused of catholic bashing. and baptists often take offense when someone suggests that baptists are too influential in politics.

some people vote based on their religious beliefs, or lack of them.
this year, religion has a great part in the elections. many are motivated to vote for or against bush based on religious beliefs.

if your faith is real and solid, it shouldn't be a problem for you if some jerk like me messes with you. which i won't. i believe in freedom of religion, it's the american way, and i fully support it.
but i don't want to have to tippy toe around verbally so as not to offend someone of faith. if jerry falwell makes all southern baptists look bad, that's not my fault, but his.

if certain disgusting priests bring shame to the catholic church, that's not my fault either, but i shouldnt' have to be silenced if talking about it. if michael jackson is accused of pedophelia, and i discuss the news about the case, that does not make me a hater of black celebrities in general.

i have learned here in DU to be more sensitive when discussing religion, but still i run into people who think i'm being insensitive and cruel to the faithful. i just think that the subject of religion in today's society is EXTREMELY important, considering the clash of religions. i live and i learn and i try to keep up. but i think the religious among us should open their minds to the possibility of other belief systems besides the one's they were raised into.

[prodigal_green]

1. your question offends me

as an adherent to theocentric humanism.

I'm right there with you Mopaul! I got a "why I never!" reaction from a Mormon while I was at a conference in Seattle. I merely said "I guess the coffee culture here really doesn't hold much appeal for Mormons." "What's THAT supposed to mean!?" "Mormons don't consume caffeine." "I'M Mormon!" "Yes, I know. That's why I said that."

The mere mention of religion, for some people, triggers a defensiveness that completely obliterates any chance for a real discussion. Same with race in this country unfortunately.

[Misinformed01]

2. A more correct title would have been, "Are you

hyper sensitive about your Spiritual Beliefs, or lack of them?"

Sometimes it's more fun watching the Skeptics on DU freak out in the Meeting room, and the more spiritual types just ignore them quietly.

And to answer your question, I WAS very sensitive...so I married JanMichael--World's Cutest Atheist.

I wanted to make Divinity School more interesting.

Stephanie

[Dookus]

88. Really?

I was just thinking it's fun to watch the "spiritualists" freak out when challenged.

And JanMichael's your husband? That explains the unnecessary tag-team drive-by attacks on me the other day.

[OKNancy]

3. Here is what bothers me MoPaul

Since you brought it up.
As liberals, we SHOULD be tolerant and respectful of people's religious beliefs. Sometimes, however, people just take an "I'm right and you are wrong" approach.

When religion impacts politics, then all is fair. When a poster attacks a personally held belief, then it is unnecessary and unproductive, in my opinion.

[mopaul]

4. I used to be EXTREMELY religious, so i understand your views

and i am trying to be less offensive to religious people. but sometimes it's hard.

[Misinformed01]

5. Again, so you are

having trouble with hypersensitivity regarding your lack of religious faith?

[mopaul]

6. perhaps

i don't try to inflict my beliefs on anyone though, and i am seriously outnumbered.

[Misinformed01]

11. OK, here's what Michael and I have argued about

You wrote "I try not to inflict my beliefs on anyone though..."

What are you trying to do when you are telling astrologers, chiropracter patients, etc. that they are doing the equivalent of buying, using, and believing in snake oil?

Michael's answer (he is in bed, and might get up and write something entirely different, btw-) as I understand it: These people (the astrologers, chiropractors, etc) are SELLING people stuff that doesn't work, and should be punished (only word I could think of...not really what he said) for fraud. IOW, they are knowingly causing some sort of emotional, physical, or economic hardship with their product.

Now, take the "I try not to inflict my beliefs...." and turn that same thinking on your other thread about why Republicans are homophobes...then look at the "inflicting beliefs" statement, and my version of Michael's answer----see that huge assed gray area?

My ultimate answer to this whole thing....If I were made Queen of the US for a day...this is what I would do: 1. Take "God" out of EVERYTHING public. Off the money, out of the pledge (in fact, I would lose that whole fucking pledge altogether..it's archaic) any 10 commandment shit....Gone. Then, before the day was over, I would tell all the churches...every last one of them, that if they even so much as MENTION politics in any way...if a Minister or Priest so much as opens his or her mouth about a politician or a bill... then their tax exempt status is gone permanently.

Stephanie

[silverlib]

19. I agree with you on everything except part of the last sentence...

If I were Queen for a day, I would have a church lose its tax exemption if a political candidate or party was endorsed from the pulpit.

I do feel, however, that churches/religions have a moral obligation to discuss social issues. For instance, in Texas 6 million (+/-) children have been dropped from the CHIPS program (health insurance subsidy) and I believe strongly that churches have a moral obligation to fight this, not by standing against the Republican Party, but by standing against the policy. Same as the Iraqi war - stand against the policy but not the candidate. Right now the Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church and a few others have an organized boycott of Taco Bell for unfair labor practices of tomato pickers for their major supplier, Six L Packing Company (who pays the Imnokalee employees 32 cents per 40 lb. bucket) in Florida. Church ministers are writing open letters to President Bush, complaining about his policy of asking church's for endorsements and church registries.

So, I absolutely agree with taking religion out of government and taking politics out of churches. The Republican Party Platform in Texas states that one of the goals of the Republican Party is to take away the "myth of separation of church and state." This is a bad and lousy policy that may stand without the churches discussing the social implications and standing together against this issue.

[H2O Man]

32. good points.....

I think that the idea of taking "God" off money, out of the pledge, etc, is a great idea. I'm a religious person, and I think that this would help government, religious institutions, and society in general.

But it isn't government's role to dictate -- in any fashion -- what a church can or should do. Certainly there are times this will create problems ..... but to have the government decide what is or isn't proper religious pursuits is far more dangerous.

[Misinformed01]

39. What does removing tax exempt status from churches

have to do with telling them what to do?

I personally don't care if church ministers and their flocks are burning books in parking lots, and handling snakes--so what? I just think they should pay taxes-

Stephanie

[H2O Man]

47. Oh, that's simple!

It's what's known as the separation of church and state. If the state says we're separate under certain conditions, but not others, then there is not a separation.

Your wanting churches to pay taxes is worthy of discussion. But it should be an all or nothing question, not based on if churches are doing what some individuals find acceptable. And luckily, few people are going to support giving the state power over religious institutions.

[ColumbiaCowboy]

98. Churches taxed?

Should the United Way pay taxes on their donations? The Art Museum?

[rogerashton]

109. The constitution

does not forbid the establishment of art museums or of charity. Just of religion.

That has been interpreted as meaning that the government should not tax churches, but that seems to me to be backward. Tax exemption is a form of establishment. (In Feudalism, the aristocracy -- that is, the establishment -- were exempt from taxes, along with the established church.)

So your parallel doesn't work for me.

[OKNancy]

7. I'm not religious MoPaul

for what it's worth. I don't believe in any sort of magical thinking. I am a liberal, however, and like to practice what I preach.

[H2O Man]

25. Three thoughts from Gandhi:

(1) "The need of the moment is not one of religion, but mutual respect and tolerance of the devotees of the different religions."

(2) "I have noticed no definitive progress in any religion. The world would not be in the shambles it has become if the religions of the world were progressive."

(3) "A tree has a million leaves. There are as many religions as there are men and women, but they are all rooted in God."


Mopaul: I have always gotten a kick out of your posts. In the past two weeks, they have been on the cutting edge. I am very impressed!

[vetwife]

66. I have a problem with people like Bush who has hijacked my faith !

We obviously are not serving the same God. I am very tolerant of believers and non believers as was Jesus, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
I think one's faith is to themselves and I am angry at the fundies who preach it on the corners and from the rooftops and don't live it. I hate Religion. I have deep rooted Faith. I respect everyone's right to choose to believe or not believe.
Only the dying will tell. I can't waste my time arguing over the hereafter while I am in the present and among the living. I try to live my faith. So I don't think I am overly sensitive but I am angry over the hijackers of intolerance of all religions or lack there of!

[timtom]

94. yeah, what she said.

While I am a dedicated Christian, there was a time in my "salad days" when I investigated everything from the Baha'i' faith to zen. I found much that is good in all of them.

Jews and Moslems and Christians all worship the same God, but with different names. Jews and Moslems do not equate Jesus with God, but the Moslems, as I understand, give honor and glory to Jesus when they mention His name.

But matters of faith are....well...matters of faith. We each of us make a decision to accept or reject based on what amounts ultimately to inconclusive evidence.

I have contempt for those who wrap themselves in this faith or that faith in order to lend credibility to their evil machinations.

And that goes double for George W. Bush (and all his minions).

[Selwynn]

29. Well said.

[ps1074]

8. well...

Are you too sensitive about your religion?"
MO
do atheists offend you?
MO
do other religions offend you?
MO
if someone gets into a religious argument, do you get all uptight and screamy?
MO
or are you objective and reasonable and logical about it?
MO

(Since you're one of my favorite DUers I answered all Qs MO instead of NO) :)

[mopaul]

9. just say mo

you seem well centered enough, i hope it's contagious

[rogerashton]

10. Should we be tolerant?

Historically, some religions have demanded human sacrifice to bribe their capricious gods. Should we be tolerant of superstition such as that? I don't think so. It is to the credit of the Judeo-Christian tradition that they have historically rejected human sacrifice.

Some religions practiced by small numbers today require that animals be tortured for the same purpose. Should we tolerate beliefs that demand the infliction of pain in the god's name? I am not persuaded that we should.

Some religions, including some that are widely followed today, have demanded that their followers make war on those who follow other religions. As I read history, Christianity has a somewhat worse record on this score than Islam, although, somewhat to their credit, both faiths are now divided about religious war. But should we tolerate religions that historically have demanded war, and cannot altogether reject that shameful heritage even today? I am not persuaded that they should be tolerated. It is true that there is no way consistent with democracy that Christianity and Islam could be suppressed in countries (like the USA) where their followers are numerous, but they deserve no more positive tolerance than do followers of Thuggee.

Some religions, including some that are widely followed today, require their followers to believe things that are offensive to the reason of any informed person, and often cause human suffering, such as the superiority of prayer to modern medicine. Should we tolerate beliefs that distort human life by demanding unreasonable and often life-destroying beliefs?

[sweetheart]

13. Yes, tolerance becomes us

My religious group in the US was attacked by a group of convicted
kidnappers masquerading under the name "cult awareness network".
Like the bush campaign, they planted false stories in the media and
worked up a public relations attack of lies, suggesting all sorts of
things from sexual impropriety to tax evasion. I lost my job due to
this attack, as it made employers very jumpy that my cult might be
causing me to steal their data... and all of this crap was whipped
up by a bunch of irresponsible media.

I finally left the country so i can be a meditating buddhist in peace. Logic like you just put forward was used to rationalize
the attack on our group. People were generally unaware of the lies
and slander that pass as "news" in our media.

As it turned out years later, the kidnappers were busted by a
religious group with deeper pockets than ourselves, and that ring
of attacking non-mainstream-christian religious groups broken.

Perhaps you don't weigh the unintended consequences of lumping
religions together. Religion is private, and authentic for the
person who chooses to attend it. It is none of anyones fucking
business what i do, believe or practice in my private heart.

[rogerashton]

22. I thought the case needed to be made.

As I understand it, these "cult awareness" groups usually have their own religious motivation. I do not know of any instance of Buddhist religous wars or sacrifice, and while there are some Buddhist groups (the Good Land sect, f'rinstance) that have some squirrely beliefs, Buddhism as known here does seem remarkably rationalistic. But that's the point. Respect reason, not irrational belief.

The question was, should religious beliefs be tolerated as a matter of principle -- regardless how offensive to reason and how dangerous to human life their beliefs are. And your point supports mine: religious groups that give aid and comfort to kidnapping should not be tolerated.

[sweetheart]

33. So much depends on the moral frame

you use to make this statement:
"regardless how offensive to reason and how dangerous to human life their beliefs are."

American indians have for centuries taken peyote in religious
ceremony. There is a probability that such practices could be
dangerous to human life., and this is where the nanny state
can go too far.

Methinks it must be shown that it is dangerous to a life not in the
religious group to qualify for such thinking. Many religions deal
with facing death in the many ways... some meditate in the snow and
use breathing to increase the body temperature... another thing that
can be deemed to be "dangerous to human life."

My own life is very intuitive, and i can rationalize anything like
any good debater.... that said, the rational must respect the edges
of its domain. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness it says.
Methinks that freedom to be a nutcase religious loony is part of
that, and maybe even those people grow up over time.

The human right is:
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and
in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

My religious view on this is "to each his own, keep to your own
business and leave others alone." I would hope that behind the
rationality, that those who would legislate against "dangerous
practices" be wary of our human rights. You could have been a
snake wielding pentacostal a year ago, and today, a buddhist. That
is our freedom. Tolerance becomes that.

[jdj]

37. I have a problem with indoctrination of children.

It's a problem.

(From my own personal experience, it's a tragedy.)

What I was taught about myself as a woman and as a gay person would by any definition be considered psychological abuse were it not for the fact that it occurred in a church and the name of God was invoked in the teaching.

The institution of religion's main goal seems to be the demotion of women from the original sex (which we irrefutably are, and may end up being the final sex as the Y chromosome will apparently extinct itself within the next 2000 generations) to some kind of unholy hole and house-maid.


In the beginning, religion and gov't were the same. They established the pecking order within the community. Then when other communities were conquered (and the population not killed or enslaved, territory being the main incentive)somehow humans evolved to realize it was less of a headache to just let people have separate gods/creation myths, as long as the powers that be still owned the land and the power they stole.

I have seen time and time again adults from non-religious backgrounds adopt a specific spiritual beleif system without swallowing the bigotry of that system (not that there aren't many who do). But children have no mental defences, and to teach half the population self-hatred and sexual shame before they have the defenses to screen it out (which of course is the point, with the end goal being control of reproductive behavior) is sick and disgusting, no matter what 'brand' it falls under.

[sweetheart]

58. minors indeed

I've not considered that issue in this chat, and i agree that the
civil rights of minors not to be screwed with before the age of
adulthood, reason and choice should be respected.

That said, most parents would vote against a government that
legislated in any way against them bringing their children up
in their religion.

In that sense, don't we all recover from the damage of our parents
do to us before our age of freedom. Geesh, between child molesters,
school teachers, school bullies, town bullies, parents and siblings,
religion is just another part in a line of potentially destructive
forces pending for children.

In the same breath, it is the potential also as well, for any or all
of those relationships to be incredibly loving, profoundly awakening
and revealing... and should we legislate anything that violates
the latter for the potential for the former.

Given that, we could outlaw sexual relationships and save us all a
lot of pain and headache... ;-) There is some point, where you have
to ask whether your case is worthy of making an entire soceties laws
around... and methinks, that the damage of repressing free religious
association is greater than that of the negative aspects of that
very thing.

Life is not fair. YOU make it fair, on your turf as you see, but to
expect some great and misguided system of far-removed laws to keep
safety in such intimate circumstances is distopian.

[jdj]

71. The only part of your post I'm responding to is this

"In that sense, don't we all recover from the damage of our parents
do to us before our age of freedom"

And the answer to that is no.

[rogerashton]

79. You continue to attribute to me a position I have not taken:

that religious expression ought to be prohibited by law. I never said that and don't believe it. The issue on this thread is not whether government ought to restrain itself somewhat before regulating religion -- it should, prudentially -- but whether individuals ought to accord a special tolerance to the religious expressions of others, regardless of the form those religious expressions take. They should not. Harmless expressions of religion, such as singing "Little Brown Church in the Vale" with a fine base line, might even be applauded. But some, such as chicken-torturing, ought to be disapproved if not actually prohibited.

About minors. I think we might get a majority for the idea that when parents deprive their children of medical care that may save the life of the child, because the parents believe in fate or in the power of prayer, the parents might be legally deprived of coustody and the child treated. Would you oppose that?

By the way, have you even known a child to recover from death? As Albert the Alligator once said, a bad case of dying can put you in bed for weeks.

[jdj]

81. By the way...

denying a pet or domestic animal veterinary care for non-religious reasons (neglect) is grounds for confiscation of the animal and prosecution of the responsible party in most states.

[sweetheart]

89. what's wrong with common law

What you and jdjkkse suggest about child abuse, is a crime already
under the law. Simply enforcing statute against crime is presumed
in my argument here. Killing a child is a crime. What i suggest
one recovers from, are psychological trips laid on kids en-masse
by adults of all sorts under the auspices of "raising" them.

There can, as jdjkkse points out, be abuses within the confines of
"legal" regarding minors in religion. I would rather see such cases
brought to justice on a case by case basis with the common law
understanding that raising children abusively is not a right.

Better a body of law is approached through precedent.

Realistically, beyond the "minor" issue of jdjkkse, the "abuses"
are giving up all your posessions, and then wanting them back, having
sex with church leaders or church members and later calling it
by not-choice, taking drugs for religious experiences, and all sorts
of charges levied at "cults".

It is your free right to give away your property as you see fit, to
shag whomever you want, to live with whomever you want and to take
whatever drugs your religious views require. It is in this regard,
that i engage the old "don't tread on me" maxim.

What is so wrong with that. Methinks alcoholic parents are
statistically much more likely to be destructive to kids. Military
wars kill 1000's of kids as well. Religion is really small fry for the scarring of a generation.

[rogerashton]

91. In fact,

"tolerance of religion" has often been an obstacle to the legal protection of children from abuse.

[ColumbiaCowboy]

100. The problem with that

Yes, that's very wrong...but again that's about PEOPLE, not about God. I think kids need badly to learn about Jesus, and that God loves and accepts us, that we should love and forgive one another, do what's right and not hurt others, ect...

This business about "you'll go to hell if you're gay" "men are more important/smart/holy/whatever than women" "we're the good guys they're the bad guys" is complete claptrap and isn't the basic message of Christianity.

We can, and should, lead our children to a relationship with Christ. It's obvious that by poisoning that with bigotry we've driven way too many people AWAY from the church and from God, which is truly sinful. We need to be more supportive of churches that are "open and affirming" for those who've suffered that sort of abuse in the past and we need to teach our children that while some make the mistake of blaming GOd for thier own homophobia, that it's wrong to do that.

[kimchi]

114. It is wrong to blame God for creating someone---gay?

I believe you need to rethink that statement. God makes a variety of skin colors, mental acuities, and sexual orientations. Homosexuality is rarely a choice; people are born that way. Who else you gonna blame?

[sweetheart]

115. I'm all for reaching out with religion

I remember the texas A&M campus as a smorgasbord of religion salesmen. I met the recruiters for the mooneys, southern baptist,
pretty much all southern sects, and i found the wisest thing told
me by 2 people. The people, as wise as the thing.

THe first, was a man who had opened a floatation sensory isolation
tank shop near the campus. I was in to, at the time taking LSD and
using the tank. Well this guy, was a 60's texas hippy and he
really blieved in something called "metaprogramming" that the mind
could be re-coded at a low level by using psychotropics and profound
silence, to link the hemispheres of the mind, in total awakening.
It was for him, a neurological explanation, biochemical sortof, that
what is enlightened brain.

Well this man told me once, after a long float. "As you progress in
the awakening progress, take as many people with you as possible,
because the longer time goes by, the fewer will remain, and you
might end up alone like me."

Another man, a moonie recruiter who travelled with reverent moon
himself for 15 years, and clearly embodied the cult well, sat with
me on a bench in the middle of campus one day.

"No matter what you hear about religion, look at how much that person
loves. It is all that matters."

I don't care who says wise things to me, i am open to all people
being god. I don't think people should be afraid of alternate
religion. I think they should embrace them all, and sift through
them for what interests them. To just fall in to one, is sorta
random and karmic, but then free will is such a big deal... to break
out of the parocial upbringing, and radically change ones life.

To take the religion, that the person you're making love to right
now is the goddess of the universe, and to totally, and passionately
pray with that goddess for the ending of the bush strife, wars,
wars on drugs, massive poverty, disenfranchisement, racism... to
totally absorb all those things, and to hate totally, to love totally
and passionately be alive. Making total love as the god and primal
woman of the earth... beyond prayer in soul time.

That religion is also very awakening as well. WE shoudl engage all
relgions without partiality. Is that not taking advantage of
"freedom of religion".

Maybe somebody is in love with jesus, and it comes out all the time,
that that person sees everyone they meet as jesus, and through him
sees god. Other people can simply love by directly being an awesome
soul. I find that between the explanations of various religions are
some deep profound truths. These are very substantial. I am all for
exposing people to religious teaching at young years, that they can
choose wisely, realizing that the field is very very rich, and
that life is incredibly magical and profound, despite what CNN says.

[Djinn]

119. why?

"We can, and should, lead our children to a relationship with Christ"

do you think one can't have a moral framework unless one learns about Jesus as a child? Why should they have a relationship with Jesus rather than Mohammad or Buddha or Gaea.

I'm with Bill Hicks - "eternal suffering awaits God's infinite love...belive or die...thank yuo for giving Lord, for all those options"

[rogerashton]

52. Tolerance of what?

As I explicitly said, I don't advocate state suppression of religion. The reason for that is in something GDH Cole said: when the government opposes the will of any substantial minority, (even with the support of the majority) we are in a situation close to civil war. And civil war, social violence, is a greater evil than allowing deluded people to rot their livers with peyote.

On the other hand, the case can be made that most of the civil violence we experience is traceable to religion. It is made by Sam Harris in "The End of Faith," which I have just begun to read. From page 26: "The recent conflicts in Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus <3 lines omitted> are merely a few cases in point. In these places religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last ten years." Do I buy that? well, not entirely -- but even if half-right, surely it must be enough to give one pause.

I take issue with you on two points. First, you are arguing for tolerance of religion per se, without any test for the contents of a particular religion. That's a very hard case to make, and no matter how many specific examples you cite in which religion is an innocent pursuit -- meditation in the privacy of one's home -- they can only establish that there are some instances in which tolerance of religion is less evil than opposing religion. I can make the counterargument that there are other cases in which it is not (and I did) and that is enough to establish that religion should be tolerated only when it is harmless, which is no more tolerance than we would allow to any activity, such as making rockets in one's backyard. Second, what the state may not do, individual opinion can. I would oppose any attempt to suppress traditional religion, except where congregations promote illegal activity such as assassinations and chicken-torture -- and the law would, of course suppress any organization known to do such things -- but I do not feel under any obligation to respect opinions that are wildly at variance with reason and evidence and that promote conflict and harm lives.

"it must be shown that it is dangerous to a life not in the
religious group" Do you really mean to say that the state should not protect minors from the consequences of their parents' superstitions, as when children are denied medical care and prayed over? Or do you mean that the children are "not in the group?" Sometimes children need a Nanny state.

But if stupid adults want to kill themselves, I agree that the state should stand back. However, Harris' case is that "Many religions deal
with facing death in the many ways"
is the root of the problem of violence that threatens human existence, so I guess his view would be that every religion endangers the lives of people not in the group.

Are we QUITE sure that he is wrong?

[sweetheart]

61. But what do we not trade away the enligtenment

I'll use examples of the life of Jesus Christ, as for a mostly
"christian" society (totally recognizing the irony of the most war
mongering mass murdering nation on earth this past year).. as that
totally christian utopia, likely, christ himself would be in a
rationalist's prison, for preaching strongly against money
lenders and some special cases of demon posession.

Methinks it comes down to what is to be deemed "superior" in a
society, and whether that society accepts freedom of religion with
all its caveats, or has moved in to a post-modernist view that this
is a right conceived in a time before the age of reason.

And that, as civilized peoples in the age of reason, that we should
impugn that right of freedom of religion.

Here, you and i could not but respectfully disagree, as i have spent
my life "following" enlightened people, and am but a follower of wise
men and women, whereas, you are very learned, and perhaps
less so in the direct mystical arts of the sort one learns in the
direct company of such individuals.

I see the human spirit as GOD, and that when an individual transcends
their upbringing and culture, their egotism and laziness, that they
might themselves see the world as God, eternity or whatever word
fits ones metaphorical fancy. Translating for God is a tough
business, and prone to innaccuracy, yet there are those, who have
followed through with outstanding lucidity. They have passed beyond
the mortal coil of consiousness and become pure awakening. Like
Jesus Christ once did, such awakening is very powerful to threaten
the foundations of an empire, yet as well, is so very human.

If the society is one of god, then we might say, that all those who
have sought the kingdom, and have failed in their sinning ways, are
still given the cloaque of absolution. That for the remote
possibility that we have legislated against Jesus Christ's own second
coming, is a real danger, as it puts the entire society at risk.

If the socity is one of man, then those who have sought the kingdom
misguided, are but trash who start wars and divide us in to a race
of mindless murderers who would be better off without the
corruption of religion altogether.

These alternative futures all begin with a hidden premise that both
of us have already made before embarking on this discussion, that
mankind is secular, or that rousseau was right, and that mankind is
divine and originally immaculate. Given that our very constitution
was framed by the latter school of thought, it gives me pause any
time ANY law or force seeks to rearrange root and branch the very
path of liberalism that has created the greatest liberal society
yet known in the history of modern man.

I would be loth to err on the side of the romans and would perhaps
be more willing to consider a case-law basis for individual
cases that have gone too far... rather than presume entirely secular
man. Then we become nothing but Phairasees. For the sake of all
that is logos, magical and mysterious in life, to exterminate the
mystery that is root to the soul is debasing.

I would hope that in your research in to religion and its abuses, you
investigate some living enlightened people:
www.adidam.org
www.gangaji.org

I'm sure you won't find any stangled chickens or abused children.
To sell out the first amendment for thought-problems is a sad case
of secular latter-roman-empire thinking, that has reincarnated in our
modern world at a similar historical nuance. Would we today be
any different than to feed a falluja muslim to the lions for his
faith.

Methinks not, and then we are but romans in a christian society.
Speaking in multiple entendre irony, it does not make sense to
repeat the mistakes of the romans. ;-)

[rogerashton]

80. My own mystical experience is some years past,

and stopped short of enlightenment, but it was important to me. I certainly concede that there are human beings who are far beyond me in that subjective mastery.

But what does that have to do with religion? As I see it,

1) Mysticism and religion are quite different things.

2) One major objective of religion, through the ages, has been to get mysticism under control.
a. Mysticism has often been disruptive of religious authority.
b. That's one good reason why religious authority has striven to control mysticism.
c. While mysticism cannot be controlled, it can be and often has been corrupted by religion.

3) Thus, the relation of religion to mysticism is much like the relation of a colonial power to a rebellious colony.

Consider, for example, St. Theresa of Avila. I am confident that her mystical insight was quite real, but I have my doubts about the way it has often been expressed in the service of the Church of Rome. Much of this distortion came from the saint herself, of course -- the corruption went very deep. By contrast, the vision of Rumi seems to have been little distorted by Islam; although its followers today are a mere tourist attraction, nothing more to do with insight than Disneyland has. Hell, maybe less.

Don't assume that because I am learned I am blind to mysticism. You know what they say about assumptions in the army.

[sweetheart]

87. Point well accepted

Mysticism is the cutting edge of religion, IMO. If you trace back
any organized religion far enough, you generally wind up with a cult
based around a mystically powerful, profound individual. Jesus,
Lao Tzu, Bodhidharma, Siddhartha, etc.. etc.

Over hundreds of years, the direct linkage becomes a book of rules
and is increasingly threatened by the very sort of awakening that
originally founded the religion.

I am sorry for implying anything about your mysticsm.
Some religions, like tibetan buddhism are intensely mystical and i
have come to call the whole lot "religion". If you are separating
that element, then i have no argument with your POV at all.

Under the constitution, i would hope that freedom of religion
extends to incorporate mysticism. It strikes me that it weakens
the freedom to separate mysticism from religion. In hinduism
buddhism and american indian origins, it is core.

As long as the police state can leave law abiding adults to their
lonesome to be mystics, i could give a toss, to be frank... it just
when we lumped in with people who starve their children, rape
young women, or deny medical treatment to people... this sort of
defamation, leaves the mystical sect exposed. Mystics in living
practice, do not have an army of religious followers to defend,
and are vulnerable to the sort of charge you make in this thread.

[rogerashton]

96. We do agree

on what matters. Your assumption was natural enough in context, I would concede, but assumptions are often treacherous. Mysticism will recur in pretty much any political climate, however, harsh; but individuals with a mystical turning may suffer, and that is reason enough to carefully limit government intrusion in religion, and to make one's arguments against organized religion cautiously. I hope I did.

[LWolf]

112. A couple of thoughts:

As the daughter of a Buddhist, I was aghast to be presented with a speaker in one of my college classes 12 years ago or so. It was a class on "multicultural education." We were supposed to be learning tolerance for the students who were not the same color, ethnicity, religion, or cultural/socio-economic group as we were. That's pretty essential for a teacher.

For the religious tolerance portion, my prof brought in a speaker; a missionary who'd been working in China. She spoke about loving and tolerating the Chinese even though some of their practices were abhorrent. Of course, her entire presentation was about everything the Buddhists did wrong; she had not one positive thing to say. Basically, we were supposed to love them even though they were going to hell, and try to convince them of the error of their ways. Her bottom line on Buddhism? Buddhism = Ancestor worship. Nothing about the precepts, or any of the very positive aspects. That was not a great model of "tolerance" imo.

Any group that promotes behaviors that are harmful to others should be held accountable. It matters not whether their harmful activities are draped under a banner of religion, politics, etc.; prosecute them for the act, not the belief.

[sweetheart]

116. Its really shocking the ignorance of that missionary

Buddhism, and meditation are absolutely blissful, and as far from
ancester worship as i can possibly conceive. So, using propaganda
to misrepresent religion is part of the missionary zeal... or perhaps
misunderstanding the secular vehicle for the relgion... so say that
one church pastor in mississippi, equates to jesus christ. Perhaps
Jonah is in that church, and it is in a whales belly. Perhaps
the secular religion, exists after many generations of genuine
enlightened people living in an ancient culture, but the modern
generations failing to attain enlightenment and instead acting like
imbeciles (bush irony), just as china.

I am for all buddhists coming out of the woodwork on boards like this
and chatting about their religion, their beliefs and their medtiation, in such a way to remain in accessable, yet genuinely
give people some beef to see how the religion is so powerful.
All people are buddha dharma. Sometimes a bodhisattva, an enlightened
teaching buddha appears in outer form.. (you meet one). For most,
the enlightened buddha awakening (your life force), is inside your
own heart. IF you pray for a satguru, a living person outside your
own heart to show you truth, (sat=light, guru=dispeller of ignorance)
then a teacher *may* appear, and only if that person is sincere,
and ready to surrender their ego... (in christian talk, to be
humble before god, to put down your bullshit, to cut the crap,
not just now, but really really.) Your satguru is always there
now in this moment. It never leaves this moment. You are the
satguru, but this is advanced.

I'm just writing some stuff about buddhism, not to sell, but
because i find few people write about it as something with depth
and substance.... and assholes like that missionary can float
bullcrap like that in a classroom.

Buddhist meditation, is this vigilance of awakening, no matter what
the day, or the weather, bringing the total impeccability of all
the buddhas with you, by surrendering to their adgenda, deep in
your heart... except that is your own inner adgenda... buddhism is
a lot with the film "fight club" in that sense. The duality that
there is a teacher or an outer buddha is an illusion presumed
in the culture from the start. All life is buddha. Buddhamama IS.

[NC_Nurse]

12. Personally

I love a good religious debate!

How else can we evolve if noone's beliefs are ever challenged? My feeling is that a religion should be judged upon it's treatment of NON-believers. The more tolerant a religion of those who do not agree, the more respect I have for that belief. Period. That's why I respect Jesus, but not all of his followers. In fact, it seems to me that very few of them (at least the vocal ones) use him as a role model for their own behavior. Too bad.

:think:

[liberalpress]

15. I truly consider myself fornuate...

... to belong to a church that ENCOURAGES it members to question their beliefs.

[CJCRANE]

14. To me, religions are just different flavours,

and just like in advertising a product, most of them claim to be the best or the only one.

For instance would Coke's advertising have worked better if it advertised itself as "One of a number of real things" instead of "It's the Real Thing"?

People should accept that their own religions are just "brands" that are personally and/or culturally appropriate for them.

The real divide though is not between different religious groups but between tolerant people and intolerant people of whatever faith or lack of faith.

[JNelson6563]

16. No matter how careful you are

in trying not to be offensive there will ALWAYS be somemone to take issue with your disagreement. I don't care if you walk on eggshells in ballerina slippers, while serving up a dissenting point with kid gloves, you can bet that here at DU someone will come and whine.

I have been disappointed many, many times at some of the baseless whining I have seen and been served here at DU. Sadly, it gives credence to the charge that "liberals" are hyper-sensitive whiners.

Julie

[lil-petunia]

17. I don't want to talk about it.

but since you axed, I am a confirmed, dunked, blessed agnostic, through and through.
Atheists too often wear shit on their sleeves.

I am firmly convinced the religion has killed or tortured more people in more places and any other cause, belief, political theme, whatever.

[Darranar]

18. No, not really...

Other religions don't offend me at all, in fact I great enjoy arguing the issue of God's existence with theists, and tend not to "uptight and screamy" during such discussions.

Being one myself, atheists don't offend me, and neither do theists.

As for my objectivity, reason, and logic on the issue, I sure think I possess at least the last two in discussions of reliigion, but you may want to ask some of those I've argued with for a second opinion.

[rogerashton]

23. Are atheists reasonable?

Now, I am also the author of the antireligious rant above, so take this in context. My dad was an atheist. We did not agree.

As a rationalist, I find the First Cause argument (in the modern form given it by A. N. Whitehead) more persuasive than any alternative. Problem is, I never hear an alternative. People who reject the argument do so without bothering with any counterarguments. (I think I understand the argument well enough to state at least two counterarguments, but also to rebut both. Even those counterarguments are never brought up by atheists, however).

On this basis I conclude that atheism, like most (like generic) religion, is an irrational bias. In defnse of atheists, I do not know that they have ever sponsored religous war or human sacrifice. (At most, the League of Militant Atheists may have broken a head or two in the old Soviet Union). But that may just be because they haven't had much power, as a rule.

I await your counterarguments with great interest.

[AZCat]

27. I had a professor make an excellent point about that once

He said that generally, those who believe in a god (or gods) seem to have some sense of the "presence of god", and those who don't have such a belief don't have the same feeling. While this is irrational, I think it is illogical to expect all arguments to be based on rationality. After all, a lot of us have felt irrational things, but that doesn't affect their tangibility. If someone "feels" the presence of god, that person is more likely to create a logical explanation (although it doesn't seem necessary) for the existence of god. The same applies for those without such a feeling.

An example is when someone sees a beautiful natural scene (sunrise or sunset are common in my experience) those who believe in a god seem to feel closer to that god and comment that such experiences reinforce their belief, while I (and other atheists I know) don't get such a feeling from those experiences.

With something like this, how can we ever expect to agree? I think we just need to understand that it is okay for people to believe differently, and that someone else's beliefs have nothing to do with that person's intelligence.

Anyway, that's my $0.02

[Darranar]

48. Some are, some aren't, like everyone else...

As for First Cause, that one has always interested me, I consider it the only rational argument for God that I have heard so far. The problem with it, however, is that it answers a question with another one. If God caused everything, what caused God? The response is that God is self-causing. If so, why can't the universe be self-causing? If God has existed forever and will exist forever, without any cause but itself, why can't the universe do the same?

The only clear thing in the world is that something exists, somewhere. Even if everything I sense, internally and externally, is false, even if one does not buy (as I do not) Descartes' argument that we can be certain of the existence of our own existence as a thinking mind, something must be fooling us, something must be producing something that creates the sensations I feel, the perception of reality that I have. Understanding this, we can infer that not everything needs a cause. If everything did need a cause in order to exist, then the first thing ever could never had existed, because before it nothing existed, and therefore it could not have a cause. Since it is clear that the first thing ever did (or does) exist, because if it did not nothing would exist, and it is evident that something, at least, does, something, some time, must have existed without a cause. Sure, you could consider that God, but anyone could, with just as much credibility, consider it the universe.

I think my beliefs are best described as agnostic atheist. From what my logic tells me in the arguments I have thought up, from my own observations of the lack of evidence for the existence of God, it seems most reasonable for me to think that there is no god. But I could be wrong. I have no faith in atheism, but it seems the most reasonable analysis.

One of the major problems I have with the existence of God, the basic reason I came from essentially "undecided" to athiest, is the incompatibility of absolute power and knowledge. There is of course the famous question: Can God create a rock that even He cannot move? He either can or can't, because that is basic logic, but either way there is a restriction on his power, and therefore it cannot be absolute.

Another problem: If God knows everything, past, present, and future, with certainty, as omniscience seems to imply, then His power shouldn't be capable of changing it. Say God knows that, tommorrow, the sky will fall on my head because Atlas gets a severe back-ache. He is God, and as such He is omniscient; He therefore knows this with certainty. No matter what, Atlas will get that back-ache. It is inevitable, certain, unchangeable. Yet if God is all-powerful, then He SHOULD be capable of changing it. Absolute power means exactly that: absolute power. No barriers can stop Him, no obstacles can block His power. If He is angry at Atlas, and at me as well, perhaps because I am blaspheming against Him right now, He may not CHOOSE to intervene, but since he is God, he is all-powerful, and he would have the ability to intervene. Yet His omniscience seems to indicate that He lacks this ability, because it indicates that it is CERTAIN that those events will happen, regardless of God.

Omniscience is incompatible with free will, and absolute power is dependent upon free will. Again, there are only two possibilities: God is either capable of preventing the sky from falling on my head, or He isn't. If it's the former, his omniscience is limited by his omnipotence. If it's the latter, his omnipotence is limited by his omniscience. Either way, He cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient.

[rogerashton]

50. Good points. But

1) The point of "self-determining" is that we have personal knowledge of something that is self-determining: our own (limited) free will. Thus, if I say, "the universe is self-determining" I am saying "the universe has something like a free will, and not like anything else I can envision," which is close enough to "the universe has a will" for me. That's panentheism (charles Hartshorne) or pantheism -- identifying the universe itself, or a universal spirit (will) with God. However, it is not consistent with atheism, with a qualification to follow. (Perhaps you can conceive of something else that is self-determining besides a will. That would be interesting, but anyway, as of now, I cannot).

2) "not everything needs a cause." The term "cause" is traditional but not quite right. "Determinant" would be better. Take the curative properties of aspirin, for example. What determines them? Well, (in part) something about the shape of the molecule of salicilate. But what determines that? Well, (in part) something about energy levels in molecules. And so it goes to first principles. But what determined them? Either something determined them, other than the universe itself (traditional theism) or the universe is self-determining (pantheism or panentheism). I would suggest that nothing can exist (as a real determinate thing rather than a concept) without being partly determined (caused) by the fundamental properties of the universe. (That is where A. N. Whitehead comes into the picture.)

3) (Qualification) That said, many of the other points you make seem to me to be quite right; anyway I cannot controvert them. So something depends on one's definition of God. If you define God as having all those attributes of omniscience and omnipotence, then I must join you as an atheist. If you will settle for less, for a pantheists' or a panentheist's god, then I will not.

However I concede, with pleasure, that there is at least one living rational atheist.

My real point was that atheists shouldn't be given a pass on supporting their opinions with arguments any more than anyone else should. You have demonstrated that you don't need a pass! And I suspect we agree with me that nobody should get a pass, as well.

[Darranar]

53. Several interesting points...

Your argument seems to be that only one thing (free will) is self-causing, and therefore if I were to say that the universe is self-causing, I therefore must claim that the universe has free will, or at the very least will of some sort. If I am wrong here, please correct me.

If free will does exist, I do not see how it is necessarily self-causing. If it is immaterial, it is certainly possible that another immaterial thing created it, something that Descartes considered to be God but that does not have to be God. If it is material, it still is not necessarily self-causing; it could be a chemical reaction in the brain caused by the brain's structure and contents.

I think we agree that something once was (or is) self-causing. That is necessary for the existence of anything. That thing, however, does not necessarily need to have a will. Lots of things cause other things without any will being involved - gravity attracts the earth to the sun, yet (as far as I know) neither the earth, nor the sun, nor gravity, possess wills. Therefore, in order for the acceptance of pantheism to be necessary for my argument, it must be shown that in order for something to be self-causing, it must have a will. I do not think you have shown that.

I am well aware that my arguments for atheism depend on a concept of God as an omnipotent, omniscient being. If one considers God to be something else, say, the moral force within all of us, or the universe itself, then my arguments against its existence do not work, and that concept of divinity I cannot reject. The thing with many of those concepts, however, is this: if I call my computer "God", its existence is not a refutation of atheism, because it is not a god, I simply call it God. When I say "God", I mean that omnipotent, omniscient, and immortal being espoused in the traditional versions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, not the less traditional concepts of God espoused by, say, Reform Judaism or pantheism, or even the neither omnipotent nor omniscient figures of Greek myth. That is the only concept of God that I think I can refute as this time. When it comes to the others, I am undecided on their existence and nonexistence, as I once was on that all-powerful, all-knowing figure.

I thank you for your concession, and I do agree that opinions should be backed up logically. It is a pleasure to debate rationally with someone intelligent on this topic, debating politics gets somewhat boring after it is done for the thousandth time.

[rogerashton]

55. I'm going to keep this brief, for a change.

1) Our experience of our own will is that it is self-causing. Anyway, mine is; reports from others, within my knowledge, agree, leading me to suspect that yours is, to. Why do you question that experience -- differently than you question other experiences? A vestige of irrational bias, perhaps?

2) The Thomist conception of God is a rather late and refined one, and the traditions incorporate a wide range of conceptions of the divine, without much distinction. Certainly pantheism or panentheism is connected with Hindu conceptions and Hartshorne claims to find it in the Hebrew bible. I believe that most atheists would agree that "there is no god" means "there is no god as envisioned by any of the traditions." To say "Acquinas had it wrong but maybe Krishna had it right" is, I submit, a more nuanced position -- and pretty much mine.

[Darranar]

62. I'm having trouble understanding (1)...

how can anyone "experience" will being self-causing? How can anyone claim to know from what that thing originates, especially considering that the very existence of free will can be questioned?

I chose, when I clicked "reply", to respond to your post. Assuming that determinism is false or that compatibalism is true, I was excersising my free will to do so. That is how one experiences free will. In doing so, I gain no insights on what allows me to make that choice, or even whether it was a choice at all.

Let us assume that Cartesian dualism is true, and that my mind is essentially a soul. That soul is created - caused - by God. It is the vehicle from which free will originates - the soul, caused by God, causes my free will. When I clicked "reply", my mind conciously chose to do so. My experiences of free will don't counter this, though my logical arguments might.

I don't think many athiests would agree that atheism postulates the non-existence of all gods as espoused by all traditions. Since concepts of God vary so much, it is impossible to give a hard and fast definition of God, and therefore, if an atheist believed that, his belief would be easily disprovable. Say I called that void in the universe where God is lacking "God". Since either a different tradition of God or my tradition of God must exist, atheism would be impossible.

Or look at it another way. A variety of modern Jewish thinkers consider "God" to be the moral force in humanity. It is clear that some sort of inclination towards good exists. Most atheists wouldn't deny it. So, if one accepts that concept of God as a legitimate God, the non-existence of all forms of God is impossible.

I think it is that omnipotent, benevolent, omniscient, immortal being that atheists are convinced doesn't exist, and while some my broaden that belief, that goes beyond mainstream atheism. That is why the "Argument From Evil" works to back up atheistic theory.

[sweetheart]

63. Perhaps Descarte was wrong

And the cartesian duality does not exist. Perhaps "I exist, and can
choose to think". You and I did not have a choice to press "reply".

It is all God, and we are all deluded towards thinking our egos
isolated islands when they do not exist at all; and
only the most truthful amongst us might dare press beyond rationalist
expectations of self and will to realize that the husk is empty
imaginings of self.

Theism and Atheism is a thought. Descarte was wrong. It is
removed and unessential to anything real. We ARE truth, thought
is the delusion. There is no argument, rather an embrace of souls
who wish life to expose in her myriad folds the truth that we
understand a passing illusion of self, but at the root, we
are one awakening sharing this precious moment together.

[Darranar]

65. I do not buy Cartesian dualism...

my personal views tend more towards reductionalist physicalism. It was an example and nothing more.

I would certainly agree that personal identity is an illusion, but for different reasons; fundamentally, we are nothing but collections of matter, and conciousness is nothing but a series of chemical reactions in the brain. That certain clumps of matter are called certain things because of their collective qualities is simply a conventionality that makes categorization meaningless.

Your thoughts on the unanimity of all things are interesting, though I think I probably disagree. The following are my personal beliefs: we live in a material world, full of material things; on an absolute level, there is no inherent meaning in existence and life, no inherent unity or division. The meaning is supplied by our own minds, and rather than endlessly searching for the "true", "real", or "absolute" meanings of life, we should be content with that. Meaning comes from within; it is inherently subjective. There is no "root"; there is simply what is, and what we, individually, supply to supplement that. Absolute meaning, like the idea that we are all part of some greater whole, I do not accept for these reasons.

[Darranar]

69. Last word of second paragraph...

should be "simpler", not "meaningless".

[sweetheart]

76. Without thought, words are extra

Complexity and change being the only constants in life, certainly
explanations are nothing but fairy tales.

I like poetic fairy tales, and unity feels good in the heart, so
perhaps given that inner feeling, there is some truth to the
biochemistry, but to say that means anything more is making
an assumption that nature does not make.

My true view is best expressed in silence, where we see words as
things that invoke a self with an artificial sense of future and
history, completely unsubstantiated by the present. Methinks that
is why they say "he who says doesn't know and he who knows doesn't
say". Enlightenment in this moment now when we are only ever alive
is so deep and rich beyond words... and the poetic song is
a romantic reflection of the joy of absence. To put down the
mental burden of self, and its routine for the subtle joy of the
sunshine and a barking dog.

Your views are completely compatible with Zen and buddhism in
general, as there are no beliefs in awakening. Much of this atheism
argument seems based on the judeo-christian model of what religion
is, and methinks given a broader model, even the most ardent
atheist can enjoy a moment without thought.

namaste... i too love chatting about fun stuff, given the tiresome
rehash of already rehashed politics infinitum.

:-)

[Darranar]

78. My atheism is completely in regard to the Judeo-Christian model...

and even there there are less traditional concepts that I can't really deny or accept, in Reform Judaism for instance.

I think I am essentially a secular humanist; ethics are human, they are a justified human insertion into life, not a divine command. One should serve humanity - and everything else in the world - not because one is commanded to, but because it is right. How do I know that it is right? Frankly, I don't, not on an absolute level. Clumps of matter have no innate meaning, only what we, individually, supply to them, and I, personally, believe that humans - and other living creatures, to a lesser extent - do have meaning, and do deserve respect and kindness and almost everything else outlined in conventional ethics. Is there logic behind that? No. Meaning, or even lack of meaning, is extra-logical, neither logical nor illogical. It is something that we should search our hearts for, not our minds.

"Fairy tales" isn't quite the term I'd use. Meaning isn't fake; it simply isn't absolute. I can say: "this computer has meaning for me", and absolutely this is a ridiculous statement, because it is a material object that only effects other material objects and meaning isn't really material (except in the sense that there is a place in my brain where I acknowledge the meaning of various things to me). But subjectively, where I value myself, and the ideas that I debate here at DU and elsewhere, it does make sense that I find meaning in my computer, because it leads to other things that have meaning for me. Is this meaning fake? No, no more than my personal perception is fake. It simply is limited, the same way my perception is limited; just because I cannot see the entire universe at every time from every angle doesn't mean that what I currently see is false. It is, however, a subjective, individual, look at the world.

I do see what you mean about words being restricting. It is like describing beauty; one can give every detail, every last line and curve and color, but even if the thing was described perfectly, it would take actually seeing it to acknowledge and truly enjoy its beauty. For the most part (my atheism is the only major exception), I think what I do not because one day I decided to use logical arguments to find the most logical ethical and religious belief that fit me; rather, the beliefs came first, what I say to justify them second, because we are dealing here with things beyond logic, beyond argument, beyond words. I can describe them - I do describe them - but no words can encompass them.

[jdj]

83. I think Ambrose Bierce got as close to it as any of us can:

"I think I think, therefore I think I am."

[Darranar]

90. Yep. n/t

[rogerashton]

92. Can you give a source for that quote?

http://www.quotationspage.com/search.php3?homesearch=I+think+I+think&startsearch=Search

cannot find it in the Devil's Dictionary, and it sounds to cutesy for Bierce to me.

[rogerashton]

82. I believe you conceded

that your subjective experience of clicking "respond" was that it was an act of will without further determinates. I repeat: why do you question that experience in a way that you would not question the experience of a physicist in a cloud chamber? I say: whatever virtually all human beings report experiencing is real. Physics does not qualify as real by that standard -- physics requires a much lower standard.

There are two doctrines that seem to me to be symmetically confused. 1) Some eastern sages hold that matter is "maya," and our experience of matter is illusion. 2) Western materialists hold that only matter is real, and our experience of spirit is illusion. On the whole, the eastern sages have a better case. Sometimes our experience of matter is illusion.

Nevertheless, both strike me as superstitions. Of course, superstitions are most crippling when the superstitious person has no inkling of any alternative, cannot think beyond the superstition. Sorry if this hurts, but -- that's what I read in your last post.

About the argument from evil. There actually is an answer to it, called optimism. Optimism holds that "this is the best of all possible worlds," not in the silly-ass sense that Voltaire sent up so beautifully, but in a slightly more subtle sense:

We live in a world in which bad things happen, and they often happen to good people, but good things also happen.
If God were to order reality so that bad things could not happen, many of the good things could not happen either. (The usual example is human freedom of will -- if people could not choose to do evil their wills would not be free.)
The good things that would be given up are great enough to more than counterbalance the bad.
Therefore, this is indeed the best of all POSSIBLE worlds.

Now, this argument may itself seem to reject omnipotence, since it rests on the idea that even God cannot violate logic. It has been quite controversial with the orthodox, some of whom have accepted it (the free will part at least) and others of whom have affirmed predestination or tried to construct some halfway house between the horns of the dilemma, under the term "foreordination."

One might, however, interpret "omnipotent" as meaning that God can determine which of all logically possible worlds is realized. That is, I admit, getting close to Deism. Doesn't worry me, since Mother was a Deist and mother always did like me best, but it probably would worry a Thomist.

Frankly, I don't think most atheists are at all aware that there are other concepts of God besides the Thomist one. Bad result of their Jesuit schooling.

[Darranar]

93. There are effective rebuttals of the argument from evil...

that is one reason I did not include it in my original post. My point was simply to illustrate that the debate of atheism v. theism is basically about the Judeo-Christian model.

I now understand what you mean now about free will. You are saying that when I choose to do something, there is no cause for me choosing that choice. Here we disagree. When I hit that reply button, it was not some arcane, self-causing force making me do it, it was my brain weighing the factors that occured to me at the time. I was enjoying this debate (and am), and there were no urgent things I had to do, so I decided to do so. It was not an independent, self-causing decision; it was the direct result of a number of factors. Is there randomness involved in free will? Maybe. I don't know. But even that randomness is the result of laws of nature that make it so.

And even if free will is self-causing, it does not exclude the possibility of other things being self-causing. And a Judeo-Christian God is not free will itself, though it may possess free will, so it being self-causing is on the same level as the universe being self-causing.

There is plenty of evidence for matter. As I press keys on this keyboard, I experience its existence. Perhaps I am being fooled, but the more probable explanation is that it is real. Spirit, on the other hand, cannot be experienced in the same way; one cannot see spirit, or smell it, or touch it, or hear it, or taste it. So until there is some indication of the existence of spirit, like there is of matter, I will doubt its existence.

[rogerashton]

95. Direct experience.

"And even if free will is self-causing, it does not exclude the possibility of other things being self-causing." Conceded, but can you name one?

On the so-called lack of evidence for spirit: You said that you chose something. That is the action of a spirit. (Indeed, there probably are neurophysical correlates of such action, and here just about all materialists make a mistake they probably would not make in another context: they confuse correlation with causation). So, in fact, you have daily experience of just one spirit: yours. But that is direct experience, while your experience of matter is indirect.

It seems that materialists consider ONLY indirect experience as reliable. This creates problems with math, too -- mathematical objects are real objects of which we can have direct experience. God may also be: some mystics report such experience. (I take that with a grain of salt because the reports are so various.) But indeed direct experience is the only experience we have. We have no experience of matter -- we have only direct experience of sensations that, because of their coherence, strongly suggest the existence of matter. Thus, the amaterialistic mystic has a stronger case than the materialist, but, in my estimation, both are wrong.

[Darranar]

99. And how do we know that...

those experiences of spirit aren't simply neurophysical, instead of just correlating with neurophysical things?

There is no direct experience to indicate that it is spirit and not matter. I would even argue that there is no direct experience, period - what we sense within our minds is really no clearer than what we do outside of them. Something could be fooling us in both cases.

And how could spirit - clearly an immaterial thing - interact with material things? Does that not seem an absurdity?

[rogerashton]

102. Direct experience is spirit

After all, before we can talk about direct experience, there has to be something doing the experiencing; and matter, so far as I know, doesn't do that.

Agreed, accounting for interactions between matter and spirit is very problematic, and I see that as a great difficulty for the materialist.

Now, I am using a higher standard of discourse than you are, I think. We would both agree (I believe) that a discourse that is logically inconsistent is unsatisfactory. I would also hold that a discourse that is inconsistent with its presuppositions is unsatisfactory, and materialism fails on that account. Because materialism is grounded in experience (science) and that presupposes an experiencer. And experience is feeling, in the first instance, that is, what some recent philosophers call qualia. Now, the neurophysical correlates of the qualia, however predictable, could occur if the qualia were absent; so they can niether constitute nor cause the qualia. As you yourself observe, there is no satisfactory account of the interaction of matter and spirit (qualia). Since materialism both presupposes and denies the existence of qualia (subjective experience) materialism is inconsistent and should be rejected.

[Darranar]

103. Why does materialism necessarily claim...

the existence of qualia?

If conciousness is seen as a wholly material thing, as it could be, and the sensations and mental states that all of us experience are also material, then there is no problem. That is what is postulated by materialism. Dualism, however, or any other theory involving the interaction of spirit and matter, needs to explain that interaction in a satisfactory way.

[rogerashton]

104. Materialism DENIES the existence of qualia.

As you did. Sorry that was unclear?

But any discourse, including that of the materialist, PRESUPPOSES (could occur only in a world described by) qualia. A presupposition is not a claim, but the failure to make a claim that the discourse presupposes is (in my view, evidently not in yours) a fallacy. So it is precisely the failure of materialism to claim that qualia exist that is its fallacy.

Look -- we are not talking about the same thing. What can it possibly mean to say that consciousness can be entirely material? I take that to mean that the correlation of subjective states with neurophysical states is perfect. I shall be surprised if that is so (perfect correlations being uncommon) but even if it is, correlation is one thing, causation another, and identity quite another yet. So, if that is what you mean, you are committing an elementary fallacy, uncontroversial in other applications, confusing correlation with causation or, indeed, identity. Your tendency to fall into a fallacy in this case that I don't believe you would commit if the topic were (for example) economics suggests to me that you have fallen into religious thinking here.

If that is NOT what you mean, perhaps you can state your meaning more clearly.

By the way, I do not subscribe to dualism. I don't regard either matter or mind as independently real, but as aspects of a reality that is neither. I admit that nobody (me included) can give a complete account of that reality, nor even, I suspect, say what a complete account would be.

[Darranar]

105. I am NOT saying that correlation = causation...

I'm saying something entirely different: mental states = neurological states. They do not simply correlate; they are identical. When I read the stories of atrocities in Iraq, I get angry, meaning that a certain chemical reaction occurs in my brain, activating certain things that make my conciousness feel pangs of anger. How does it work? I have no idea. Neuroscience is not my specialty, and even the most knowledgeable neuroscientist probably isn't capable of explaining it - yet.

Look at it this way. It is clear, as even Descartes admitted, that there is some sort of connection between neurological states and mental states. When hit in the head hard, conciousness can cease. Anti-depressant drugs and the like, designed to treat physical problems with the brain, have mental effects. I reject the absurdity that there can be such a level of interaction between a material thing and an immaterial thing; instead, since one of the things is clearly material, I postulate that the other is too, and as soon as this step occurs, it is pointless to continue considering the two seperate things.

[rogerashton]

106. But correlation is the only thing that can be established on evidence.

You are, therefore, committing to an act of faith: the religion called materialism.

[Darranar]

107. No, that doesn't follow...

everything we experience can be doubted. The existence of my computer is questionable. Yet I think it exists. Why? Because the evidence indicates that is so. That is not an act of faith.

If A were true and A implied B, then I would think that B were true. Why? Because it's logical. That is not an act of faith.

I think it is absurd that there could be such a close connection between a material thing and an immaterial thing as there is between the mind and the brain. I don't see how it is possible that something entirely lacking matter could influence something entirely of matter. It is a relationship that seems highly implausible.

So, the brain and the mind interact at a high level. This high level of interaction could not occur between a material thing and an immaterial thing. The brain is a material thing. Therefore, the mind must be as well. That is not faith. That is logic.

The problem with that argument is with the second sentence, which seems too strong to me. We can't know for sure whether a material thing could interact in such a way with an immaterial thing. But it seems rather implausible and absurd. Any "bridge" between the two would have to be material, immaterial, or both. If it were both, it would have to have certain parts that were material and certain parts that weren't (assuming the law of non-contradiction). So the same problem arises.

[rogerashton]

108. I'll get back to you tomorrow.

n/t

[rogerashton]

110. Hmmm --

I said something about presupposition. You said something about evidence. Let me try to put them together.

I used the term "spirit" for a purpose, and my intent was to challenge your materialism.

The key word in that last sentence was "intent." Any dialog, such as we are having, presupposes (could not exist without) intent. Dialog is an exchange of intentional utterances. But intent is a feeling, and feeling is a state of mind -- or spirit, either word will do whatever subtle differences might be implied.

As Paul and Patricia Churchland point out, a reductive physicalist should avoid "folk psychology" terms like belief and intention, since they cannot refer to anything real other than neurological states, and divert attention from the real phenomena. This is, I believe, a correct statement about reductive physicalism, and also a fatal one. It is fatal because it is counterempirical -- it conflicts with evidence, and some of the evidence is the existence of the Churchlands' writing, the clear intent of which is to dissuade us from talking about intent. I experience feelings of intent every day, and I infer from your participation in this debate that you do too, that there were points you intended to make. Please report: has that been your experience?

Now, I see two possibilities:

1) Neurological states are somewhat correlated with reported subjective experiences, and are somewhat predictible on the basis of data on past neurological states together with past reports of subjective experiences. This would enable us to say, in some cases, that the neurological states cause subjective experiences. For example, when the subject reports that he is angry, and neurological state A occurs, the subject reports that he wants to kick the wall; but when he says that he is angry, and state A does not occur, he does not report wanting to kick the wall. Then (given a theory to connect the two) we would have some grounds for arguing that the neurological state caused the subjective experience; but we may also observe that, when the subject is not angry and state A occurs, the subject does not report wanting to kick the wall. So the causation is contingent, but, then, all causation is contingent. not a problem. The relation between subjective states and neurological states is then a subject for empirical inquiry, a subject for science, but only because we have rejected reductive physicalism and treated subjective states as phenomena

2) Neurological states are perfectly correlated with reported subjective experiences, and are also perfectly predictable (once we have enough knowledge) on the basis of initial conditions and past neurological states. (We need not make explicit reference to reports of subjective states at all in predicting neurological events). I think this is what reductive physicalism envisions, but it runs into an immediate logical impasse. Since the neurological states are determined by prior neurological states, they can occur in the absence of any feeling. The reports of feeling have to be there -- we would program a robot to report feeling -- but the subjective experiences that you and I share as "intentions" and other feelings logically could be absent. To identify neurological states with feelings, despite the fact that the feelings may or may not be there, is incoherent. It is equivalent to X=both(Y and NOT_Y). And, by assumption, observations cannot provide any evidence on the point, since the observations are fully predicted by prior neurological observations. It is impossible to say how the observations would differ if reductive physicalism were not so. Reductive physicalism therefore is not "disconfirmable," not a matter of evidence. To affirm it can only be an act of faith. It is not a subject for science.

There are, of course, postmodernists who would not require disconfirmability, but they regard all knowledge as being based on faith. So, no help.

You know, if we want to continue this, we probably should take it to a new thread in the meeting room.

[Carson]

20. I believe in God and...

I have no problem tolerating other belief systems and have had many wonderful respectful discussions/debates.

But, as a theist, my one complaint is when an atheist adopts the "I'm more intelligent and rational than you because I don't believe in God" attitude. Extremely insulting. :mad:

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Cheswick2.0]

67. bull

you are shoveling a lot of crap there.

[Djinn]

120. Is it any worse than

" But, as a theist, my one complaint is when an atheist adopts the "I'm more intelligent and rational than you because I don't believe in God" attitude. Extremely insulting. "

I'm right, you're wrong you'll suffer in the afterlife?

[BiggJawn]

21. Some sure are.

I love to fly kites. I don't take it personally when somebody says "Oh, that's such a waste of time. Shouldn't you be putting that time to better use?"

At least I can FEEL and SEE my kite....

[jonnyblitz]

24. of course many people are. they can't back up their claims

with any proof therefore they get SUPER defensive. Religion is based on faith, which is belief without proof. That way of thinking is dangerous, in my view, as evidenced by the many horrors inflicted on mankind in the name of religion. that being said I don't give a rats ass what wacko stuff anybody believes in as long as it doesn't affect me. More often then not though, busy body religionists ARE trying to affect me...

[Selwynn]

31. I don't agree with your definition of faith...

..but I must run to mcdonalds and get breakfast before responding. :)

[Cheswick2.0]

41. Faith could never be as dangerous as bigotry and ignorance

[thebigidea]

86. sometimes you get all three rolled into one.

for SAVINGS!

[msmcghee]

51. Living in a democracy . .

. . with people who do not apply their reason to life's problems - can be dangerous to your health.

Even if they are not trying to affect you - they are affecting you. That's why we've spent the last four years in hell - and it's getting hotter by the day.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. Atheists don't offend me in most cases, unless they

stereotype all religious practices and peoples on the basis of their own limited experience or understanding and act as if they're the only truly intelligent people in the world. Such atheists are the mirror image of fundamentalist religious types who sit around and talk about how superior they are because they adhere to a rigid code.

Stereotyping all religious people because of Jerry Falwell and the pedophile priests is like stereotyping all leftists because of Stalin and Pol Pot.

There's a lot of misinformation out there, some of it spread on atheist websites, and when I correct it, I'm not trying to convert anyone (everyone has to find their own path), but just trying to tell people that their impressions of religion are only part of the picture.

[ulysses]

54. your contributions to the discussion

get far too little recognition, Lydia.

[DemBones DemBones]

28. No, I'm not too sensitive about my religion. The reality is that

I heartily dislike people expressing a Manichean view of my religion. Discussing is one thing and implies a recognization of both good and bad aspects of the topic under discussion; posting snide attacks on my religion is another thing and shows no nuance, only an "All A is bad" rote form of bias.

For example, a real discussion of the problem of pedophile priests would involve at least some mention of pedophile rabbis, pedophile Protestant clergy, etc., an analysis of why pedophiles enter professions that bring them into contact with children (and how we can deal with that), and an understanding that the vast majority of Catholic priests are not pedophiles, that all bishops did not attempt to cover up the problem, and that this scandal has been very hurtful to all Catholics. I have no problem with a good discussion. I dislike the mentality that causes people to bring up pedophile priests in every thread that has anything to do with the Catholic Church.

You mention Michael Jackson but you ignore the reality: people do not jump into every thread having anything to do with African-Americans to make snarky remarks about Michael Jackson.

I feel the same way about attacks on other religions and attacks on atheism or agnosticism. I'd have your back if I saw someone attack your lack of religion.

As progressives, we should be tolerant. Attacks on conservatives are the only ones that should appear here.

[Selwynn]

30. Never too sensitive when it comes to fairness and just treatment...

..of individuals who hold different views. If a religious fundamentalist was ever to start a thread making all or nothing sweeping generalizations about atheists, or personally attacking atheist individuals, or representing an aggressive, condescending, arrogant, dismissive, cynical and sarcastic attitude toward the subject of non-belief, I would be right here to rigorously condemn that person, and defend the right of individuals to think differently from each other.

I do the same when a dogmatic atheist makes all or nothing sweeping generalizations about religion, or personally attacks religious individuals or represents an aggressive, condescending, arrogant, dismissive, cynical and sarcastic attitude toward the subject of faith, especially when it has to do with refusing to acknowledge the right and legitimacy of a person who holds a belief that is different from someone else's belief. That I reject whether it is done by a Christian, Hindu, Agnostic or Atheist or anyone else.

I never - ever - mind discussing religion with people who can disagree respectfully and carry on a rational honest and open conversation, avoiding ridiculous dogmatic generalizations on either side. But just like I don't enjoy discussion faith with a radical fundamentalist irrational closed minded fanatical religious zealot, neither do I enjoy discussion faith or the lack thereof with a radical fundamentalist closed minded fanatical atheists, who is so convinced he or she is absolutely right that he/she must look down in scorn and mockery (and usually closed-minded ignorance) at the views of everyone else.

That's not being too sensitive, that's simply being mature enough to look for fair play and intelligent thoughtful discussions, rather than closed-minded hateful dogmatism on either side of the isle.

Sel

[Nikia]

34. Other religions don't offend me, but attacks do

I am not offended by anyone worshipping, praying, making statements of faith, or other positive religious/spiritual expression. I don't find this offensive regardless of the religion even if I disagree.
Saying that I am foolish or irrational for my religious belief or being told that I am going to hell for believing wrongly though is offensive.
I only tend to argue religion with those claiming the same beliefs as me. I am not saying that they are going to hell. I am debating and clarifying what it means to be a Christian. It is as much for my spiritual growth as giving them another angle to look at things from.
I tend to respect all religious/spiritual people embracing the positive aspects of religion: peace, love, moral/ethical living, possitive relationships with God, other people, and oneself. People seeking to crush the infedels and heathens have missed the point and are offensive by nature.

[Citizen Daryl]

35. No religion to be offended by, but thanks for thinking about me!

:)

[tlcandie]

36. I remember being RW fundamentalist, insane zealot.. yup I do!

You are right to distinguish between "religion" and "spiritual". They ARE two different things.

When I was the RWer fundy, you bet I was defensive as hell! Because I had something to loose...my faith, my belief in what I was doing was true, my 'good' standing with God, and everything that meant anything to me because God came before your family, friends, neighbors, and country!

That's no longer me thanks to 10 years in Washington state! I've been set free, hallelujah!!! :bounce:

Although I live in Florida, extreme RW fundy territory, I no longer have anything to loose! I'm no longer defensive because I don't have to convince anyone I'm right; I don't have to worry about my standing with God OR man (I'm okay just the way I am and I needn't worry about the sin nonsense); I don't have to worry about loosing my faith (everyday it is renewed in little ways upon interacting with nature and those around me); now God equals Creator to me and comes first because of my focus and centering, NOT in how I order the priorities in my life!

Talk about freedom!! I thought I had peace when I was a RW fundy, but OMG! now it's like I'm flying and my feet will never touch the ground again!

So, no I'm not sensitive or overly sensitive because I allow that everyone is where they are. Not everyone will be at the same place at the same time. Not everyone will be black, white, Christian, Islamist, whatever. WE ARE EACH FREE TO BE EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE WITHOUT GUILT OR SHAME!!

However, if one is to be spiritual instead of religious their hearts must be open to the love that permeates and surrounds everything within this universe. If their hearts are closed, their eyes and ears are closed as well.

Over sensitivity and/or defensiveness equals walls to protect and keep one from all influence of anything incoming.

Just my two cents worth! Deep subject and very introspective..just the way I like it.. thanks!!

:hug:

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Cheswick2.0]

40. I don't think anyone could be as sensitive as you are about religion

or as obsessed with the topic.

[mopaul]

56. yeah i'm kinda ate up with it alright

if anybody ever needed religion is his life, it's me.

[Cheswick2.0]

68. I didn't say you neede religion

I said you were obsessed with it.

[kimchi]

42. I think it is natural for minority religions to be sensitive.

Fundamentalists think I eat babies and cast hexes while performing nude orgies with minors. They want to outlaw my religion and impose theirs on all of America.

Yeah, I'm a little sensitive about that, so if someone tells me I'm going to hell, they get blasted with both barrels.

On DU, I can see both sides. The sceptics and atheists lump me in with the fundys, and the fundys lump me with the atheists. I'm the first to elucidate the horrors of fundamentalism, but also the first to take up for people who actually try to live the words of Christ. Luckily, most people on this board are rational and caring humans, despite the few religious spats we have.

[Solon]

77. I agree with you Kimchi...

I'm sensitive because of the fact that I'm a member of a Minority religion that is generally misunderstood, and because of that and the insanity displayed by SOME Christians, have to keep it secret. I also blast those who say I'm going to hell as well, as they deserve.

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

43. I have a big problem with fundys

especially those who ruin my day with big lectures on how I'm going to hell. I live in Oklahoma so I run into a lot of those...not the most tolerant part of the country in my opinion! I really don't have a problem with other religions as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me (or anyone else for that matter.)

[Bridget Burke]

44. Why should the religious open their minds....

when the non-religious are free to remain smugly close-minded?

If there are real abuses caused by religion, is bloviating on an anonymous message board the best way to fight those abuses?

I'm not religious myself, but we all have our little quirks. For example: superstitious avoidance of the Shift Key.

[msmcghee]

45. Another good thread providing lots of . .

. . reading material, even for the latecomers like me. Actually, the reading is better when I'm not trying to defend a statement I made early on in the thread.

Looking at this through my favorite window:

There is a big difference between enlightened spirituality and dogmatic religion. And people often get the two confused.

Spirituality is a crucial part of any whole person's life. Dogma, of any kind, is the opposite of enlightenment.

Those who are sensitive about their religion are so usually because they know that defending dogma only makes them look foolish to any enlightened person. So, many true-believer types carry big chips on their shoulders - like the Mormon mentioned in one early post here. And these will be the first to try to defend their dogma by falsely labeling it as spiritual and thereby more deserving of society's respect.

It is entirely possible to have a spiritually rich life and still use your reason to direct your life decisions, your political persuasions and your religious preferences, if you have them. Those are the people who I enjoy the most and who, in life, leave the most behind for others when they pass on. In my experience, these people also tend to be liberal politically and almost always liberal philosophically.

Great thread. Thanks, MoPaul

[indigobusiness]

49. Insincerity, hypocrisy, and dogma are offensive.

I am always impressed by devotion to the sacred in any honest and diligent form. To me, it is all the same. Different paths to, and ways of relinking to, the source.

[J Williams]

57. Religious Bigotry and Political Bigotry Rule ....

After all, partisan politics rules and America is more partisan and more divided than ever before.

We need to face the fact that a partisan is a bigot, because the definition of a bigot is: “one who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, belief, opinion, etc.”

Thus the two biggest problems in the world are political bigotry and religious bigotry, because people hold blindly and intolerantly to a particulare creed, belief, opinion, etc.

What we need is a way to get BEYOND the conflict and division that bigotry causes. What we need is a reformation of government and religion.

I now believe that we will ultimately benefit from such a reformation, because I read a book titled What IS the World Coming To? (ISBN: 059531998X)

[stavka]

59. I am not religious, nor am I anti-religion

Many of my values come from religious texts, though I would argue they are texts that seem to be often just guidebooks to common sense. (Remember many most were written when few could read, our first CD-Roms)

I am not offended when the faithful attack my point of view verbally or in print - that is, as I see it, their right.

I am offended by any State sponsored action that directs religion against me.

Beyond that, I have a pretty thick skin on the issue and take steps to not offend those that are religiously faithful and aren't' blatantly hypocritical.

[Cuban_Liberal]

60. I'm only sensitive when the remarks show true ignorance and/or bigotry.

Then I can become quite prickly about my faith, yes.

[greekspeak]

64. Probably I am too sensitive

Comes from years of being on the defensive.

[Obamarama]

70. Witnessing Christians annoy the hell out of me....(pun intended)

I never make an issue over it unless they refuse to leave me alone after I politely tell them I am Jewish and am quite solid and secure in my own religion.

I understand those who do the whole witnessing thing are only doing what their particular brand of Christianity says they sould do, but it annoys me greatly. Religion isn't something that should be sold door to door. My soul doesn't need saving, thank you very much.

[The Straight Story]

74. Witnessing

I understand those who do the whole witnessing thing are only doing what their particular brand of Christianity says they sould do, but it annoys me greatly. Religion isn't something that should be sold door to door.


Some may well do it because they believe it is part of their duty, but many others may well look at it as some do politics - get your message out because you believe it is for the best for all (ie, tell others about Kerry because spreading that message may help us all by getting rid of the current president).

This is not to trivialize the feelings many have over having someone go door to door passing out a message (or selling something for that matter), but I don't see any difference in a christian promoting their ideas as any different that anyone else promoting theirs.

We have beliefs, ideas, philosophies, political leanings, etc and some work hard to spread their message because they believe it benefits those who hear it and listen. Perhaps too that is what we do here when we try to get people to listen (or read and see) our views (which is obviously different than door to door). We get bumper stickers, go to rallys (not the food chain...), display signs in our yards, send out emails. Overall I think it is a natural thing that people who have a belief they think may help others will take steps to tell others about it.

But I am getting away from the general thread and rambling on as usual :) Have a good night and know too that I share the frustration of people who go overboard in trying to get me to convert to their belief/political system. It can be annoying (I think I take issue with the thread title slightly as I don't see christians solely as doing such, but it was relevant to what the person experienced I suppose, I just wanted to add that the base problem is not christians, it is people who do such things in general).

[The Straight Story]

72. What does it mean to be offended?

Not sure I understand fully the term offended. I am a christian, former atheist, agnostic, buddhist, and several other faiths along the way.

I don't care what people say about my faith in the sense that I get emotionally charged by their comments, I try to grasp the fullness of it and discuss it. Any emotional engagement would be caused by (if any, I tend to be mild mannered) someone discussing my faith (or any other topic) in a heated/angry/emotionally beligerent way.

I think some get angry, or perhaps upset/bothered by what they see as a barrage on an idea/faith/philosophy/political party where they see the person as being focused on criticism of said ideas based on the actions of others or a different interpretation (and using such to paint a whole idea as 'bad' or wrong). One can find fault in any faith/political party and so forth and then focus solely on the bad aspects of things instead of trying to honestly make an evaluation of the whole (kind of like the right spewing only the negative they perceive in regards to Kerry instead of trying to actually analyze and understand - to wit, they have a goal of destruction and winning in mind and are not wanting to seek truth).

When people start blasting a faith based on x,y, or z to show it's negative points, and in general only do so, it is seen more as an agenda than an intelligent dialog - ie, they have a belief which they are not willing to change (a view of something) and only want to find ways to shore that up. Those within a belief/party who criticize and find the negative within their own group are keeping the core ideals while trying to grow and learn, so criticizing and finding things wrong is not the issue, it is the intent. And those whose intent is solely to tear down and help build up within that set of ideals will rankle those within that set as their criticizing is not genuine but focused on a goal of making others believe that the ideals are bad and those that follow them are idiots/bad/etc.

I see a lot of negative in the bible itself, God smacked down the jews on more than one occassion, and the prophets were harsh critics of the (lack of) faith. Such criticisms were needed, warranted, and constructive with a goal of keeping things on the right track - not derailing them all together. Jesus, Paul, Isaiah, and many more found fault in the followers, but used that fault to educate and bring back to the core ideals those who misused them and disfigured them to their own needs. That is far different than the blatant attacks by those outside the faith who may use the very same criticisms as a means to say that the core ideals are bad because some have used them wrongly (or in some cases misunderstood them to ill effects).

At any rate, I am babbling on :) sorry about that.

[LanternWaste]

73. Not really...

Not really. After some years of observation, I've found that there are people, regardless of religious orientation that really *do* want to hear the other side, and ask themselves if there's anything they've missed or any perspectives they may not have had the opportunity to look at yet . These are the people that are genuinely fun to talk to.

On the other hand, someone who's simply trying to make a statement, draw a line in the sand or simply someone who's mind is predetermined to find fault rather than common ground, well... I usually just avoid getting into it with them.

When I come across words or phrases targeting the Christian or Jew like "magical thinking", "well, you can believe myth if want to", "member of a cult", "opiate of the masses", I usually just do a little eye-roll and go on to either the next post or the next thread.

I have a pretty hard time getting upset or offended at the opinions of other people. At best, I'm entertained and at worst I'm simply bemused by the threads that appear to get people in such a huff.

[UdoKier]

75. If a person said to you seriously,"Hi! I show my faith in the almighty..."

"I show my faith in the almighty Weedwacker of the universe by shoving banana peels up my butt and mumbling the word "frappucino" repetititvely for 20 minutes a day as a holy sacrament. By doing so, I know that the great Weedwacker will come on judgement day and bring me back to the planet of the daisies to live in joy forever.", you might pretend to respect his "faith" but you would be condescending to do so since you know that every word he's just said is BONKERS.

Now if Weedwacker boy got together a couple dozen followers, wrote a book and passed down his knowledge over a couple of generations, he'd get the greater respect of being called a "CULT LEADER". Beliefs are no less ludicrous, but given slightly more credence.

Now let that continue for a couple thousand years, eventually getting millions into the group, even killing doubters and heretics on occasion, and suddenly you've got a LEGITIMATE, RESPECTABLE RELIGION. Again, same zany belief system based on no facts or empirical science whatsoever, but an entire NATION can be forced to conform to its looney standards of conduct. So I guess we all better get the banana peels and vaseline ready.


So anyway, I try to respect the "beliefs" of the "religious" by avoiding conversation with them beyond small talk as much as possible. The same way I would avoid eye contact with Weedwacker boy if I saw him pushing a shopping cart in my direction chanting about Starbucks' products.

[0007]

84. Only when they get in my face!

I then can become a jerk, indeed a rude person. Doors will slam shut and the work "FUCK" will become extremely audible.

[jackieforthedems]

85. I Always Like To Think

That God didn't divide us into all these different religions, etc... We (as people) did it to ourselves. There are 2 categories of people in the world: those from Cain's side of the family and those from Abel's.

[ColumbiaCowboy]

97. Yes and no (I'm a flip-flopper!)

I don't get offended by other faiths, or those who choose none at all, and I don't really put a lot of effort into changing people's minds. My faith's important to me, I'd love to tell anyone about it who asks but don't shove it on people or get mad at those who don't share my beliefs.
I do get offended, and angry, at those who make rash assumptions about those who are "religious," who believe in God. I think people who think all Christians are stupid or evil or Falwellian is every bit as close-minded as the Falwellians themselves.

[mopaul]

101. woo woo! number 100 on my own post! woo woo!

or is it 101.........damn!...i'm bested

[Infomaniac]

111. Not offended at all

I'm not offended at all. I'm a recovering Catholic, long-time member of the Church of the Sunday New York Times or reformed Druid, if you will, and a committed Unitarian Universalist. I judge people not by their proclaimed beliefs but what they do. I am astonished at people who proclaim their piety to the rooftops but have no empathy, kindness or charity toward others in different positions. I belive faith grows from within. It's not something you get from accepting a lot of BS from a pulpit or from reading Scripture. Faith tom me is the act of living a different kind of trinity. A trinity of justice, peace and love for all living things.

[LWolf]

113. Not at all.

I don't really have a label for my particular spiritual path; since it doesn't have official books, teachings, rules, laws, or hierarchy, maybe it's not a religion. Maybe it is, I could care less. I don't need anyone's agreement or disagreement about it.

What offends me? No faith, including atheism (faith in science, faith in the non-existence of anything that can't be quantified and measured), offends me. I can find positive pieces of any faith I've ever looked at, whether I agree with the whole picture or not.

I think that's where faiths come from; some universal truth that people recognize, and construct a faith around. The construct is totally human; it's people trying to make sense of the truth they found.

And those truths? They are like the elephant encountered by the blind mice. Each mouse/faith gives a different description based on the piece they encountered, and none see the whole picture.

I don't have any problem at all with unanswered questions or with knowing that there are pieces to "God" I haven't encountered. I think that's part of the problem with religious intolerance. Every religious discussion brings a variety of definitions of "God" to the table. Too few are secure enough in their faith to let go of their particular definition for the purpose of discussion. I do not think of "God" in human terms. More of a great mystery; "the source." The source of the energy, the breath of life, that all that exists is made of. Whether that source is sentient or not is just not worth fighting over, imo.

What offends me? Proselytizing, whether for or against a particular faith. The idea that there is only one "right" way, and that the "right" way is "mine." Demonizing the other ways. The maneuvering by organized religion for political power.

[sangh0]

117. No, but you are

and obsessions are not a sign of mental health

[nini]

118. If people wouldn't attack ALL when discussing a FEW we'd be ok

All Catholics are assholes because there are asshole priests, bishops etc... All Muslims are terrorists. All Christians are freakshow fundies... Atheists questioning my intelligence because I am Catholic.

That's what offends ME.


I have no problem with others beliefs and non beliefs. I fully respect everyone's right to their choices. All I expect in return is the same.

If we can discuss those creep priests without assuming every member of the Church was in on it then we'd be ok. Most Catholics are as pissed off about those guys as the rest of you.

[Astarho]

121. My only problem is

with zealots (of any dogma) telling me I'm wrong, stupid, etc.