America's True History of Religious Tolerance

[Wind Song]

From the earliest arrival of Europeans on America’s shores, religion has often been a cudgel, used to discriminate, suppress and even kill the foreign, the “heretic” and the “unbeliever”—including the “heathen” natives already here. Moreover, while it is true that the vast majority of early-generation Americans were Christian, the pitched battles between various Protestant sects and, more explosively, between Protestants and Catholics, present an unavoidable contradiction to the widely held notion that America is a “Christian nation.”


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-True-History-of-Religious-Tolerance.html#ixzz1t4Y6Pe79

[darin]

absolutely right. For eons evil people - however noble their intent - have used Religion to enslave and control. See: Witch Trials, Blue Laws, Atheism, Evolution, Liberalism, Global Warming, etc.

[Noir]

absolutely right. For eons evil people - however noble their intent - have used Religion to enslave and control. See: Witch Trials, Blue Laws, Atheism, Evolution, Liberalism, Global Warming, etc.

You've (intentionally of not idk) confused the words religion and dogmatism.

[darin]

You've (intentionally or not idk) confused the words religion and dogmatism.

I didn't. You have faith in your religion of atheism. You are dogmatic about your beliefs.

[Wind Song]

I didn't. You have faith in your religion of atheism. You are dogmatic about your beliefs.

Are you saying you're not dogmatic about your beliefs?

[Noir]

I didn't. You have faith in your religion of atheism. You are dogmatic about your beliefs.

No. The word religion means the worship of a god. There is a Christian religion, and a Jewish one, and a Hindu one etc, however there is no Athiest religion, or climate change religion. However someone can be dogmatic about atheism or climate change etc, as well as a religion.

As I said, you've mixed up the words religion and dogmatism because religion can not be used as an adjective to non-religious terms, whereas dogmatism can.

[darin]

No. The word religion means the worship of a god. There is a Christian religion, and a Jewish one, and a Hindu one etc, however there is no Athiest religion, or climate change religion. However someone can be dogmatic about atheism or climate change etc, as well as a religion.

As I said, you've mixed up the words religion and dogmatism because religion can not be used as an adjective to non-religious terms, whereas dogmatism can.

You mis-define 'Religion'. Is Science your God? God doesn't have to be a noun.



re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn]
noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects...




Climate Change is ABSOLUTELY a religion - this guy sums it up nicely.


Global Warming has become the core belief in a new eco-theology. The term is used as shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the vanguard in the assault on scientific man.
The activists now prefer to call it “climate change”. This gives them two advantages:


It allows them to seize as “evidence” the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones.
The climate is always changing, so they must be right.

Only the relatively elderly can remember the cynical haste with which the scaremongers dropped the “coming ice age” and embraced exactly the opposite prediction, but aimed at the same culprit – industry. This was in Britain, which was the cradle of the new belief and was a response to the derision resulting from the searing summer of 1976. The father of the new religion was Sir Crispin Tickell, and because he had the ear of Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who was engaged in a battle with the coal miners and the oil sheiks, it was introduced into international politics with the authority of the only major political leader holding a qualification in science. The introduction was timely yet ironic since, in the wake of the world’s political upheavals, a powerful new grouping of left-wing interests was coalescing around environmental issues. The result was a new form of godless religion. The global warming cult has the characteristics of religion and not science for the following reasons.
Faith and scepticism
Faith is a belief held without evidence. The scientific method, a loose collection of procedures of great variety, is based on precisely the opposite concept, as famously declared by Thomas Henry Huxley:
The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.
Huxley was one of a long tradition of British sceptical philosophers. From the Bacons, through the likes of Locke, Hume and Russell, to the magnificent climax of Popper’s statement of the principle of falsifiability, the scientific method was painfully established, only to be abandoned in a few short decades. It is one of the great ironies of modern history that the nation that was the cradle of the scientific method came to lead the process of its abandonment. The great difference, then, is that religion demands belief, while science requires disbelief. There is a great variety of faiths. Atheism is just as much a faith as theism. There is no evidence either way. There is no fundamental clash between faith and science – they do not intersect. The difficulties arise, however, when one pretends to be the other.
The Royal Society, as a major part of the flowering of the tradition, was founded on the basis of scepticism. Its motto “On the word of no one” was a stout affirmation. Now suddenly, following their successful coup, the Greens have changed this motto of centuries to one that manages to be both banal and sinister – “Respect the facts.” When people start talking about “the facts” it is time to start looking for the fictions. Real science does not talk about facts; it talks about observations, which might turn out to be inaccurate or even irrelevant.
The global warmers like to use the name of science, but they do not like its methods. They promote slogans such a “The science is settled” when real scientists know that science is never settled. They were not, however, always so wise. In 1900, for example, the great Lord Kelvin famously stated, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Within a few years classical physics was shattered by Einstein and his contemporaries. Since then, in science, the debate is never closed.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

Based on the same definition, Atheism CLEARLY fits.

[Noir]

"set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"

Erm, I don't know the answer to any of those questions, nor does science give any answers, so unless you count 'I don't know' as a belief then I don't see where this 'god science' notion is coming from.

[ConHog]

You mis-define 'Religion'. Is Science your God? God doesn't have to be a noun.

[/COLOR]



Climate Change is ABSOLUTELY a religion - this guy sums it up nicely.



Based on the same definition, Atheism CLEARLY fits.

Absolutely right. Just because the most widely accepted definition of the word includes the belief in a god of some sort, does not mean that is the ONLY definition. Clearly many atheists are religious zealots.

[Wind Song]

Religion by definition is faith in God. Atheists don't believe in God. You cannot call a non-belief a religion.

[darin]

"set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"

Erm, I don't know the answer to any of those questions, nor does science give any answers, so unless you count 'I don't know' as a belief then I don't see where this 'god science' notion is coming from.


2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons...

My use of the "Religion" tag to Atheism is grammatically accurate. Accept the truth, brother.




Religion by definition is faith in God. Atheists don't believe in God. You cannot call a non-belief a religion.

What you mean to say:



Religion by MY definition is faith in God. Atheists don't believe in God. I do not call a non-belief a religion.

Your opinion is your opinion.

[Noir]

My use of the "Religion" tag to Atheism is grammatically accurate. Accept the truth, brother.


Beliefs and practices, what exactly are the religious practices of being an atheist?

[darin]

Beliefs and practices, what exactly are the religious practices of being an atheist?

What are your beliefs? You belief God doesn't exist. You practice your life/conduct your life as if your belief is truth. (shrug).

btw - any Gaelic connections to you? I think we're going Gaelic with our puppy's name.

[Noir]

What are your beliefs? You belief God doesn't exist. You practice your life/conduct your life as if your belief is truth. (shrug).

btw - any Gaelic connections to you? I think we're going Gaelic with our puppy's name.

Okay, well, that makes everything a religion, i.e. I believe blueberries are delicious, and I practice my life, and eating habits, as if my belief is truth. I guess that makes me part of the blueberrie religion.

And I have Scottish Gaelic blood in my ancestry somewhere, but I know little to nothing about it.

[DragonStryk72]

Actually, I think pretty much every -ism on the planet pretty much has a death toll attached to it.

[Noir]

Actually, I think pretty much every -ism on the planet pretty much has a death toll attached to it.

Blueberrism is free from such vulgarity!

[SassyLady]

Beliefs and practices, what exactly are the religious practices of being an atheist?

Isn't it a religious thing to proselytize? Aren't atheists aggressive about proselytizing about their beliefs?

[darin]

Okay, well, that makes everything a religion, i.e. I believe blueberries are delicious, and I practice my life, and eating habits, as if my belief is truth. I guess that makes me part of the blueberrie religion.


I suppose we in the colonies use something called 'context'. If you don't like the definition of a word; well...never mind. Liberal-minded folk change definitions all the time to suit their point of view. :)

[Noir]

Isn't it a religious thing to proselytize? Aren't atheists aggressive about proselytizing about their beliefs?

How exactly do you define aggressive?

[Noir]

I suppose we in the colonies use something called 'context'. If you don't like the definition of a word; well...never mind. Liberal-minded folk change definitions all the time to suit their point of view. :)

Indeed, but you need not change the word at all when provided with a word that describes exatcty the terms needed (dogmatism). But I guess you're more liberal-minded than I thought.

[Missileman]

What are your beliefs? You belief God doesn't exist. You practice your life/conduct your life as if your belief is truth. (shrug).

btw - any Gaelic connections to you? I think we're going Gaelic with our puppy's name.

Twisting the wording from a negative belief in the positive to the positive belief in the negative so you can claim "belief" is horseshit. If what you say is true, then all belief is religion, including the belief in the non-existence of Santa, Easter Bunny, unicorns, leprechauns, tooth fairy, ad infinitum.

You're apparently so ashamed of the fact you practice a religion that you try to peg atheists with one as a defense mechanism. It's really LAME.

[PostmodernProphet]

Beliefs and practices, what exactly are the religious practices of being an atheist?

well, once in their lifetime they strive to make pilgrimage to the US Supreme Court challenging someone's right to do something......

[darin]

Indeed, but you need not change the word at all when provided with a word that describes exatcty the terms needed (dogmatism). But I guess you're more liberal-minded than I thought.

You just said "No, YOU are!" to my comment. C'mon..you can do better.

Your religion is Atheism. Religion is a verb. You practice atheism; you try to advance your faith. There's really no difference; I'm sorry you don't like what words mean.


Twisting the wording from a negative belief in the positive to the positive belief in the negative so you can claim "belief" is horseshit. If what you say is true, then all belief is religion, including the belief in the non-existence of Santa, Easter Bunny, unicorns, leprechauns, tooth fairy, ad infinitum.


Its not what I say...read the dictionary. Simple. Atheism is a faith-based decision or conclusion or practice; by a group of people, regarding the nature of existence.



You're apparently so ashamed of the fact you practice a religion that you try to peg atheists with one as a defense mechanism. It's really LAME.

That doesn't even make sense.


My Religion is a Noun and Verb. Christianity is the noun. That's the title. Christianity, however is solely the verb though. Nobody can 'be' a christian without doing Christianity.

[PostmodernProphet]

Blueberrism is free from such vulgarity!

sounds like you're already defining your catechism.....

[Missileman]

You just said "No, YOU are!" to my comment. C'mon..you can do better.

Your religion is Atheism. Religion is a verb. You practice atheism; you try to advance your faith. There's really no difference; I'm sorry you don't like what words mean.


I don't "practice" anything. I don't take counsel from a preacher, I don't read and adhere to an atheistic text, I don't attend services where the plate is passed around to pay tribute to "nothing", and I could give a shit what you or anyone else believes as long as you're content to apply those beliefs to yourselves. And FYI, religion is a NOUN.


Its not what I say...read the dictionary. Simple. Atheism is a faith-based decision or conclusion or practice; by a group of people, regarding the nature of existence.

Conveniently left out a great deal of the definition...didn't you just harp about changing definitions?

religion:
a set (http://www.debatepolicy.com/browse/set) of beliefs concerning the cause, nature (http://www.debatepolicy.com/browse/nature), and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

atheism:
a disbelief in the existence of deity

See the difference? Perhaps YOU should be consulting a dictionary.





That doesn't even make sense.

Read it again a couple times...it makes perfect sense.

[darin]

I don't "practice" anything. I don't take counsel from a preacher, I don't read and adhere to an atheistic text, I don't attend services where the plate is passed around to pay tribute to "nothing", and I could give a shit what you or anyone else believes as long as you're content to apply those beliefs to yourselves. And FYI, religion is a NOUN.

Conveniently left out a great deal of the definition...didn't you just harp about changing definitions?

religion:
a set (http://www.debatepolicy.com/browse/set) of beliefs concerning the cause, nature (http://www.debatepolicy.com/browse/nature), and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

atheism:
a disbelief in the existence of deity

See the difference? Perhaps YOU should be consulting a dictionary.

Read it again a couple times...it makes perfect sense.



religion:
a set (http://www.debatepolicy.com/browse/set) of beliefs concerning the cause, nature (http://www.debatepolicy.com/browse/nature), and purpose of the universe.


Do you know what 'especially' means? Google that. 'Especially' does not DEFINE anything. 'Especially' does not change the first part about "Beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. When we factor in the part after "especially" the case of 'religion' accurately reflecting atheism gets stronger.

Because religion is faith/belief based, it is absolutely a VERB - just like homosexuality, evolution, walking, breathing, typing. None of those can be without actually doing them. Christians as a title could be a noun. Christianity, however, unless being DONE/PRACTICED, etc., is NOT christianity. One can't be a BREATHER without BREATHING. Evolution CANNOT exist in an organism without EVOLVING happening. My car cannot be driving, without being Driven. Calling somebody a noun - a "Christian" is wrong unless that person is DOING christianity.


Atheism: An action of BELIEF that deities do not exist. A BELIEF in the absence of the supernatural. A belief devotional or rituals are useless; without merit. You BELIEVE no God / Higher Being exists, and you 'witness' to that belief using whatever evidence you decide favors your point of view. You conduct your life and form your opinions according to that belief. You place your faith in SOMETHING other than the Spiritual. You are NO different than the bible-thumpers who shout hell-fire on the street corner - at least no different in zeal for your faith.

Atheists have 'denominations' of sorts - much like Christianity has Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc.

Not every atheist, I suspect, buys into the religion of macro evolution for instance. I BELIEVE some atheists are objective-enough to accept at-times-overhwelming evidence against life 'suddenly happening' for some 'magic' or 'unknown' reason. Perhaps there are Atheists who differ from you; some who understand Intelligent Design as the most-logical conclusion of the formation of life on the planet.

Every belief or conclusion we make has its roots in faith. Faith in Science. Faith in the goodness or depravity of mankind. Faith in God.

The difference is, I don't get butt-hurt when somebody rightly calls my faith 'religion'.

[Noir]

The difference is, I don't get butt-hurt when somebody rightly calls my faith 'religion'.

Now this is just silly, why would you think I, or others are 'butt-hurt' over your error?

In the same sense, should i assume that someone who corrects someone else's spelling mistake (which happens to me, a lot) is 'butt-hurt' by the misspelling?

[darin]

Now this is just silly, why would you think I, or others are 'butt-hurt' over your error?

In the same sense, should i assume that someone who corrects someone else's spelling mistake (which happens to me, a lot) is 'butt-hurt' by the misspelling?

So yes, I'll take that as your lightbulb moment when you realize I used the label of Religion properly to describe your Faith/Beliefs.

You're arguing semantics here.

You want to say "I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD!" and get in a tizzy when I say "YOU BELIEVE GOD DOESNT EXIST!" You wont be happy until you read: "You do not believe" because "You believe..." bothers you.

[Wind Song]

How about the term, "confidence" instead of "faith"?

[DragonStryk72]

Blueberrism is free from such vulgarity!

Not once the Rasberrists get their hands on them

[darin]

How about the term, "confidence" instead of "faith"?

Really, eh? So - two words which mean essentially the same thing, yet one makes some ppl uncomfortable.

That sounds EXACTLY like "The Church" - the "religion of my father" - teaching people "It's okay to say HECK with you...but HELL with you" is SINFUL!!"

You're a pharisee.

[Dilloduck]

Look--everyone has their story line about life. It describes what is good and bad. What has value and what doesn't. What has meaning and what is the purpose of humans. Without these little dramas of ours we would drowning in the absurdity of human life. In order to maintain our own sanity we at times challenge the life stories of others. It will go on as long as there are humans. Religions try to describe what is. Atheists try to debunk them. I wish atheist had a storyline to debunk.

[Wind Song]

Really, eh? So - two words which mean essentially the same thing, yet one makes some ppl uncomfortable.

That sounds EXACTLY like "The Church" - the "religion of my father" - teaching people "It's okay to say HECK with you...but HELL with you" is SINFUL!!"

You're a pharisee.


Try using each word and see which has less of a charge for you.

[Missileman]

Do you know what 'especially' means? Google that. 'Especially' does not DEFINE anything. 'Especially' does not change the first part about "Beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. When we factor in the part after "especially" the case of 'religion' accurately reflecting atheism gets stronger.

Only to someone desperately twisting the definitions of words.


Because religion is faith/belief based, it is absolutely a VERB - just like homosexuality, evolution, walking, breathing, typing. None of those can be without actually doing them. Christians as a title could be a noun. Christianity, however, unless being DONE/PRACTICED, etc., is NOT christianity. One can't be a BREATHER without BREATHING. Evolution CANNOT exist in an organism without EVOLVING happening. My car cannot be driving, without being Driven. Calling somebody a noun - a "Christian" is wrong unless that person is DOING christianity.

I've no idea what school system you attended, but your parents are entitled to a huge refund. Religion is a noun, as is homosexuality and evolution. Walking, breathing, and typing can be either adjectives or nouns, but they are not verbs. Apparently your unfamiliarity with dictionaries extends beyond the mis-definition of words and includes the mis-identification of parts of speech.



Atheism: An action of BELIEF that deities do not exist. A BELIEF in the absence of the supernatural. A belief devotional or rituals are useless; without merit. You BELIEVE no God / Higher Being exists, and you 'witness' to that belief using whatever evidence you decide favors your point of view. You conduct your life and form your opinions according to that belief. You place your faith in SOMETHING other than the Spiritual. You are NO different than the bible-thumpers who shout hell-fire on the street corner - at least no different in zeal for your faith.

Atheists have 'denominations' of sorts - much like Christianity has Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc.

Not every atheist, I suspect, buys into the religion of macro evolution for instance. I BELIEVE some atheists are objective-enough to accept at-times-overhwelming evidence against life 'suddenly happening' for some 'magic' or 'unknown' reason. Perhaps there are Atheists who differ from you; some who understand Intelligent Design as the most-logical conclusion of the formation of life on the planet.

Every belief or conclusion we make has its roots in faith. Faith in Science. Faith in the goodness or depravity of mankind. Faith in God.

The difference is, I don't get butt-hurt when somebody rightly calls my faith 'religion'.


[/COLOR]

What a pile of nonsense. I witness to no one. Asking someone for a shred of evidence that their deity exists because they want to include their dogma in classrooms under the guise of science isn't conducting my life in an atheistic manner or placing my faith in anything. Asking someone for a shred of evidence that their deity exists because they want to create laws based on their dogme that might impact the manner in which I choose to conduct my life isn't being atheistic or placing my faith in anything.

So disbelief in Santa, leprechauns, etc are all matters of faith in your eyes? Do you even realize how trifling that makes your faith in a deity?

[DragonStryk72]

How about the term, "confidence" instead of "faith"?

Because words mean things. I have faith in God, not confidence in God. Faith speaks to something different than confidence.

[darin]

Only to someone desperately twisting the definitions of words.


Take it up with dictionary.com :)


I've no idea what school system you attended, but your parents are entitled to a huge refund. Religion is a noun, as is homosexuality and evolution. Walking, breathing, and typing can be either adjectives or nouns, but they are not verbs. Apparently your unfamiliarity with dictionaries extends beyond the mis-definition of words and includes the mis-identification of parts of speech.

We are defined - things are defined by what they are based on evidence. Homosexuals are only that if they, based on the definition of what words mean - DO homosexuality. (shrug). VERY VERY VERY simple concepts. NOBODY is a christian unless they practice Christianity. Doesn't matter if the label is hurled at them - first comes 'what you do' or 'what happens' - THEN its proper to apply a label.

What makes a river, a River? The fact that it's MOVING. Same with this stuff. Your FAITH in your choices about what you believe about the nature of the universe is your religion. Your FAITH in your conclusions about God is your religion.





What a pile of nonsense. I witness to no one. Asking someone for a shred of evidence that their deity exists because they want to include their dogma in classrooms under the guise of science isn't conducting my life in an atheistic manner or placing my faith in anything. Asking someone for a shred of evidence that their deity exists because they want to create laws based on their dogme that might impact the manner in which I choose to conduct my life isn't being atheistic or placing my faith in anything.

Red herring! :)


So disbelief in Santa, leprechauns, etc are all matters of faith in your eyes? Do you even realize how trifling that makes your faith in a deity?

You have FAITH God doesn't exist. You have FAITH life magically 'evolved' or 'snapped into existence' from non-life. That's your faith. You BELIEVE deities don't exist.

Do we have to 'follow the bouncing ball' with this?

I think you're afraid of acknowledging the amounts of FAITH required to believe God doesn't exist, and/or our universe wasn't designed.

[Wind Song]

Because words mean things. I have faith in God, not confidence in God. Faith speaks to something different than confidence.

OK, it's the opposite here. Confidence works better for me.

[DragonStryk72]

OK, it's the opposite here. Confidence works better for me.

Okay, so words don't mean things to you, that's fine. At least you're finally honest about it.

It's like with renaming assassinations "targeted killings". It's the exact same thing, it means exactly the same thing, and everyone sees right through it, but we're still gonna try to use this word anyway. For another example, "Freedom Fries".

[Wind Song]

Okay, so words don't mean things to you, that's fine. At least you're finally honest about it.

It's like with renaming assassinations "targeted killings". It's the exact same thing, it means exactly the same thing, and everyone sees right through it, but we're still gonna try to use this word anyway. For another example, "Freedom Fries".


Quite the opposite. Words matter. We don't all agree on the use of the word "faith" and "confidence". You favor the term, "faith".

[fj1200]

From the earliest arrival of Europeans on America’s shores, religion has often been a cudgel, used to discriminate, suppress and even kill the foreign, the “heretic” and the “unbeliever”—including the “heathen” natives already here. Moreover, while it is true that the vast majority of early-generation Americans were Christian, the pitched battles between various Protestant sects and, more explosively, between Protestants and Catholics, present an unavoidable contradiction to the widely held notion that America is a “Christian nation.”


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-True-History-of-Religious-Tolerance.html#ixzz1t4Y6Pe79



More examples of unfortunate history to incriminate the people of today?

[SassyLady]

How exactly do you define aggressive?
By suing to have all symbols of religion removed from public locations. By forcing hotels/motels to remove Bibles from bedside stands...including military. Pretty aggressive.

[Missileman]

You have FAITH God doesn't exist. You have FAITH life magically 'evolved' or 'snapped into existence' from non-life. That's your faith. You BELIEVE deities don't exist.

Do we have to 'follow the bouncing ball' with this?

I think you're afraid of acknowledging the amounts of FAITH required to believe God doesn't exist, and/or our universe wasn't designed.

Faith is belief where no proof exists to substantiate said belief. You can offer no proof that your deity exists. You can't even offer any verifiable evidence that your deity exists, hence, your belief in your deity is faith.

My disbelief in your deity is not a matter of faith because disbelief in the absence of proof is the rational position to take. I noticed you didn't answer if disbelief in Santa, etc was a matter of faith.

My belief in evolution is based on the mountains of evidence that point to the veracity of the theory. That's why it's NOT faith.

[Dilloduck]

Faith is belief where no proof exists to substantiate said belief. You can offer no proof that your deity exists. You can't even offer any verifiable evidence that your deity exists, hence, your belief in your deity is faith.

My disbelief in your deity is not a matter of faith because disbelief in the absence of proof is the rational position to take. I noticed you didn't answer if disbelief in Santa, etc was a matter of faith.

My belief in evolution is based on the mountains of evidence that point to the veracity of the theory. That's why it's NOT faith.


You have faith in the evidence science provided. Do you realize how many times science has been wrong in the last 2000 years or so ?

[Missileman]

You have faith in the evidence science provided. Do you realize how many times science has been wrong in the last 2000 years or so ?

Science didn't provide the evidence, but built on the evidence obtained. As far as science being wrong, do tell. Then, post how many times religion's been right.

[DragonStryk72]

Faith is belief where no proof exists to substantiate said belief. You can offer no proof that your deity exists. You can't even offer any verifiable evidence that your deity exists, hence, your belief in your deity is faith.

My disbelief in your deity is not a matter of faith because disbelief in the absence of proof is the rational position to take. I noticed you didn't answer if disbelief in Santa, etc was a matter of faith.

My belief in evolution is based on the mountains of evidence that point to the veracity of the theory. That's why it's NOT faith.

Alright, Missile, prove that no deity exists. Then your position is based on reality, and not faith. Otherwise, Atheism is just as much a faith as any other.

According to you, Rainbows don't exist, since dog's are colorblind and thus cannot see them.

[Dilloduck]

Science didn't provide the evidence, but built on the evidence obtained. As far as science being wrong, do tell. Then, post how many times religion's been right.

Are you kidding me? Scientists created the very basis by which evidence is accepted or rejected. Science was wrong a lot weren't they ?

[Missileman]

Alright, Missile, prove that no deity exists. Then your position is based on reality, and not faith. Otherwise, Atheism is just as much a faith as any other.

You don't prove a negative.


According to you, Rainbows don't exist, since dog's are colorblind and thus cannot see them.

That's a top-ten stupidest-argument-ever candidate. I never implied anything remotely like that.

Do you beileve in Santa, leprechauns, unicorns, invisible rabbits, etc? When you truthfully answer no, ask yourself if you consider those disbeliefs a matter of faith or rational thought.


Are you kidding me? Scientists created the very basis by which evidence is accepted or rejected. Science was wrong a lot weren't they ?

Scientists didn't go back in time and put dinosaur fossils in the ground. Scientists didn't make the Earth revolve around the sun. Scientists make observations and then attempt to explain them.

Just to be clear, you put your money against a system that's maybe been wrong a few times and bet on one that's NEVER been right?

[Wind Song]

More examples of unfortunate history to incriminate the people of today?

Rather inspiration for religion to be different today, don't you think?

[Dilloduck]

Rather inspiration for religion to be different today, don't you think?

Whoa--you sure went the long way around the block to say religion should be better than it used to be.


Scientists didn't go back in time and put dinosaur fossils in the ground. Scientists didn't make the Earth revolve around the sun. Scientists make observations and then attempt to explain them.

Just to be clear, you put your money against a system that's maybe been wrong a few times and bet on one that's NEVER been right?

and they have made the incorrect observations and incorrect explanations.

Religion has been right a lot about the human condition.

[Missileman]

and they have made the incorrect observations and incorrect explanations.

Religion has been right a lot about the human condition.

And when a hypothesis or theory is proven incorrect, it's discarded. Same can't be said of religion.

[DragonStryk72]

You don't prove a negative.

Ah, the "I have no defense, and your point is devestating to my point, so I'll just discard it.

That's a top-ten stupidest-argument-ever candidate. I never implied anything remotely like that.

Do you beileve in Santa, leprechauns, unicorns, invisible rabbits, etc? When you truthfully answer no, ask yourself if you consider those disbeliefs a matter of faith or rational thought.

We're not talking about any of those things, you're simply trying to avoid a question you don't want to answer.

[Missileman]

We're not talking about any of those things, you're simply trying to avoid a question you don't want to answer.

You haven't asked me a question, however I did ask you one. The answer above is a clear cut case of projection.

[fj1200]

Rather inspiration for religion to be different today, don't you think?

It already is different. Do you have an actual point to make about religion today?


And when a hypothesis or theory is proven incorrect, it's discarded. Same can't be said of religion.

I'm not sure there are too many Zeus worshipers around.

[Missileman]

I'm not sure there are too many Zeus worshipers around.

Thousands (millions?) of "young earthers" though. And your point about Zeus bolsters my argument rather than refutes it. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Norse...all believed in deities and it's now almost unanimously held their beliefs weren't based in reality. Why any rational person could conclude the beliefs of the ancient Jews is a different situation is baffling.

[fj1200]

Thousands (millions?) of "young earthers" though. And your point about Zeus bolsters my argument rather than refutes it. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Norse...all believed in deities and it's now almost unanimously held their beliefs weren't based in reality. Why any rational person could conclude the beliefs of the ancient Jews is a different situation is baffling.

The lack of Zeus doesn't bolster your argument, it shows that people don't always follow traditional beliefs blindly. Beliefs aren't about reality that can be proven scientifically, unless you were there 2000 years ago then there is no connection to reality.

Besides, if you want to throw out the "young earthers" then you need to accept that Atheism IS religion to some.

[Dilloduck]

Thousands (millions?) of "young earthers" though. And your point about Zeus bolsters my argument rather than refutes it. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Norse...all believed in deities and it's now almost unanimously held their beliefs weren't based in reality. Why any rational person could conclude the beliefs of the ancient Jews is a different situation is baffling.

White guilt and Christianity being based on Judaism.

[Missileman]

The lack of Zeus doesn't bolster your argument, it shows that people don't always follow traditional beliefs blindly. Beliefs aren't about reality that can be proven scientifically, unless you were there 2000 years ago then there is no connection to reality.

Besides, if you want to throw out the "young earthers" then you need to accept that Atheism IS religion to some.

I think you missed the point. Zeus didn't exist. Anubis didn't exist. Jupiter didn't exist. Odin didn't exist. Can you see the pattern that's forming?

[fj1200]

I think you missed the point. Zeus didn't exist. Anubis didn't exist. Jupiter didn't exist. Odin didn't exist. Can you see the pattern that's forming?

Yes, proselytizing.

[Wind Song]

It already is different. Do you have an actual point to make about religion today?


Religion is a huge topic. We could talk a lonnng time about religion.

[fj1200]

I think you missed the point. Zeus didn't exist. Anubis didn't exist. Jupiter didn't exist. Odin didn't exist. Can you see the pattern that's forming?

OK, snarky comment aside. You're stating facts not in evidence. Just because those deities aren't worshiped any more doesn't mean that they don't exist, it may be just that the perceptions of who they were is no longer accurate.

[DragonStryk72]

You haven't asked me a question, however I did ask you one. The answer above is a clear cut case of projection.

Ah, good more semantic quibbling. This really means "I have absolutely no proof to claim that my faith is the one true faith, so I'm going to continue ignoring you, and hope it all goes away."

Welcome to being like every other religion on the planet, because you are officially using cop out arguments you would slap catholics for. Way to go.


Scientists didn't go back in time and put dinosaur fossils in the ground. Scientists didn't make the Earth revolve around the sun. Scientists make observations and then attempt to explain them.

Just to be clear, you put your money against a system that's maybe been wrong a few times and bet on one that's NEVER been right?

The bible has nothing to say on the subject of Dinosaurs. Remarkably, it actually also has nothing to say on the subject of the sun's rotation, save that it was created before the Earth, which does sort of support the idea that the Earth would rotate around the sun. In fact, you'll find yourself hard pressed to find a religion that did have it in their holy book that either of those states existed.

Prove religion has never been right, not just Catholicism, I mean all of them, every single one, since you now claim to know the entirety of the universe in all things. I'll save you some time, as many scientists were employed by the church for scientific research, so either all their science has to be thrown out, because as you stated, religion has never been right, or you admit you're talking out of your ass like a zealot.

[Missileman]

OK, snarky comment aside. You're stating facts not in evidence. Just because those deities aren't worshiped any more doesn't mean that they don't exist, it may be just that the perceptions of who they were is no longer accurate.

So you believe that it's possible Apollo got in his chariot every morning and drove the sun across the sky?

[PostmodernProphet]

You don't prove a negative.

I believe you mean you CAN'T prove a negative.....however, that doesn't keep the atheist from stepping forward in faith and asserting the negative.......


So you believe that it's possible Apollo got in his chariot every morning and drove the sun across the sky?

you see, this is where you ignore the meaning of "believe".......it is logical for someone who has chosen to believe in one thing to also choose not to believe in another.....it doesn't mean there's actually any evidence around that proves a negative or something.....once evidence is found we don't "believe" something, we "know" something......atheists like to claim "you're just an atheist about one less deity than I am".......no, we simply choose to believe something different than what you choose to believe......we are no more or less "religious" than you are.....we simply have made different choices.....

[darin]

Great to see other reasonable ppl here carrying-on common sense.

[fj1200]

So you believe that it's possible Apollo got in his chariot every morning and drove the sun across the sky?

Ask me that question while I sing praise and worship to Zeus. :rolleyes:

[Wind Song]

This if off topic, but the last post made me think of it. Do Christians recognize the influence of Hellenistic and Roman theology on Christianity?

[Dilloduck]

This if off topic, but the last post made me think of it. Do Christians recognize the influence of Hellenistic and Roman theology on Christianity?

yes

[Wind Song]

Should religious tolerance extend to American Muslims?

[Dilloduck]

Should religious tolerance extend to American Muslims?


Only the nice ones.

[Wind Song]

Only the nice ones.

Shall we extend religious freedom to only the "nice" Christians or "nice" Buddhists?

[Dilloduck]

Shall we extend religious freedom to only the "nice" Christians or "nice" Buddhists?

yes

[darin]

Shall we extend religious freedom to only the "nice" Christians or "nice" Buddhists?

Christians are nice. That's their faith. If folks are NOT nice, they are not followers of Christ. Not to be confused with anger or frustration; Christ teaches love and respect - which is why so many Conservatives are Christians; we love the poor TOO much to see the poor ensnared in appeasing, drowning hand-outs and the laziness those breed. We love our fellow-man enough to stand up to the evil in our world. We love people enough to NOT promote validation of destructive behaviors (generational welfare, stealing from the hard-workers, 'giving' a man a fish, etc.).

:)

[Wind Song]

yes

Tell me where it states in the Constitution that religious freedom is only granted to the "nice".

[Wind Song]

Christians are nice. That's their faith. If folks are NOT nice, they are not followers of Christ. Not to be confused with anger or frustration; Christ teaches love and respect - which is why so many Conservatives are Christians; we love the poor TOO much to see the poor ensnared in appeasing, drowning hand-outs and the laziness those breed. We love our fellow-man enough to stand up to the evil in our world. We love people enough to NOT promote validation of destructive behaviors (generational welfare, stealing from the hard-workers, 'giving' a man a fish, etc.).

:)

Some Christians are "nice", some aren't. Are you and dillo, "nice", all the time? Nice is a judgment, it's not descriptive of behavior.

You love the poor so much that you'd cut the programs that feed them?

[Dilloduck]

Some Christians are "nice", some aren't.

As with all religions--even the Amish have been duking it out recently. If religious people aren't nice they should have their religion taken away from them as they obviously can't be trusted with it. Maybe they could have it back after a year or so.

[Dilloduck]

Tell me where it states in the Constitution that religious freedom is only granted to the "nice".


I wasn't talking about the COTUS and made no claims about it. Why are you dragging the COTUS into a personal discussion ?

[Wind Song]

As with all religions--even the Amish have been duking it out recently. If religious people aren't nice they should have their religion taken away from them as they obviously can't be trusted with it. Maybe they could have it back after a year or so.


OK, let's take Christianity away from the Christians who aren't nice but make ALL Christians pay. No Christianity in America for a year. Maybe they can have it back in a year, if they really emulate Christ.

[Dilloduck]

OK, let's take Christianity away from the Christians who aren't nice but make ALL Christians pay. No Christianity in America for a year.


Great idea--give it a shot.

[ConHog]

Tell me where it states in the Constitution that religious freedom is only granted to the "nice".

He chose the wrong adjective. He should have said only the non criminal.

The first amendment does NOT extend to criminal activity, and that includes Christians as well as Muslims and any and all in between.

[Wind Song]

Great idea--give it a shot.

It's your suggestion. You're the Christian. You're the one who wants to outlaw the entire religion as long as it has some adherents that you judge "aren't nice".

That's not what I'd do at all. I favor religious freedom.

[Dilloduck]

It's your suggestion. You're the Christian. You're the one who wants to outlaw the entire religion as long as it has some adherents that you judge "aren't nice".

That's not what I'd do at all. I favor religious freedom.

Then do you own thing and ignore me.

[Wind Song]

He chose the wrong adjective. He should have said only the non criminal.

The first amendment does NOT extend to criminal activity, and that includes Christians as well as Muslims and any and all in between.

Aren't you guys the ones AGAINST bias crime legislation?

We already have laws for criminals. Why do we need laws that target specific religions?


Then do you own thing and ignore me.

What are you talking about dillo? I suspect you took some leap in assumption about my position that I haven't stated.

YOU are the one who wants to outlaw religion because some people aren't "nice".

[darin]

Some Christians are "nice", some aren't. Are you and dillo, "nice", all the time? Nice is a judgment, it's not descriptive of behavior.

You love the poor so much that you'd cut the programs that feed them?

Is dillo a christian?

Nice is a temperament. Just like you to think so short-sighted and shallow, however. Nice people can do things from time to time; but by their nature they are Nice. :) Nice isn't an ACTION. You don't DO a nice thing...You ARE nice, so the things you do are natural extensions.

I love the poor so much I'd cut the programs that enable them; I love them so much I'd stop taxing people to pay for those programs - to allow the people go give MORE of THEIR money to private charities to help them. I love them so much I'd remove the obscene taxes on income and transactions so I could cut the enabling, inefficient programs that do nothing but pay people to administrate them. If I had, say, even HALF the $600? the feds take from every paycheck, I could give half of THAT to, say, my Church's foodbank. Or a stranger on the street. I could go on and on.

[ConHog]

Aren't you guys the ones AGAINST bias crime legislation?

We already have laws for criminals. Why do we need laws that target specific religions?

Who's suggesting laws that target specific religions Dorothy? Give me some solid examples of this.

[Dilloduck]

Wrong again, oh protector of the weak and abused. Re read what I posted.

[Wind Song]

Is dillo a christian?

Nice is a temperament. Just like you to think so short-sighted and shallow, however. Nice people can do things from time to time; but by their nature they are Nice. :) Nice isn't an ACTION. You don't DO a nice thing...You ARE nice, so the things you do are natural extensions.

I love the poor so much I'd cut the programs that enable them; I love them so much I'd stop taxing people to pay for those programs - to allow the people go give MORE of THEIR money to private charities to help them. I love them so much I'd remove the obscene taxes on income and transactions so I could cut the enabling, inefficient programs that do nothing but pay people to administrate them. If I had, say, even HALF the $600? the feds take from every paycheck, I could give half of THAT to, say, my Church's foodbank. Or a stranger on the street. I could go on and on.


dillo has stated previously that he is a Christian.

Your post is full of judgments of me: "short sighted, shallow". I'm neither of those, but it is your judgment of me. You own it. I don't.

"Nice" is a description that says next to nothing. Plenty of people know how to grin fuck others and appear "nice". Lot's of people who hate others can smile at the people they like.

Nice isn't what people are. Compassionate, kind, honest, trustworthy are still judgments. When you spell out actions, such as giving to charity, not complaining about taxes that go to help the poor, these are specific expressions of kindness.

None of us are perfect. You can be kind to a stranger on the street one moment and swear at the guy who cut you off in traffic in the next.

It's a question of values, isn't it? I don't want my taxes funding more and more prisons, wars that are unnecessary, pork barrel projects. I'd rather see my taxes go the the elderly, to the disabled, to poor families and schools to libraries, museums, roads and bridges, law enforcement.

I get the idea you don't want to pay any taxes at all.

What are you as a citizen willing to collectively fund?

[ConHog]

dillo has stated previously that he is a Christian.

Your post is full of judgments of me: "short sighted, shallow". I'm neither of those, but it is your judgment of me. You own it. I don't.

"Nice" is a description that says next to nothing. Plenty of people know how to grin fuck others and appear "nice". Lot's of people who hate others can smile at the people they like.

Nice isn't what people are. Compassionate, kind, honest, trustworthy are still judgments. When you spell out actions, such as giving to charity, not complaining about taxes that go to help the poor, these are specific expressions of kindness.

None of us are perfect. You can be kind to a stranger on the street one moment and swear at the guy who cut you off in traffic in the next.

It's a question of values, isn't it? I don't want my taxes funding more and more prisons, wars that are unnecessary, pork barrel projects. I'd rather see my taxes go the the elderly, to the disabled, to poor families and schools to libraries, museums, roads and bridges, law enforcement.

I get the idea you don't want to pay any taxes at all.

What are you as a citizen willing to collectively fund?


wait, you want to fund law enforcement but not prisons? I want to discuss that further, new thread upcoming

[Dilloduck]

Bullshit---I know some real nice people. And as far as my Christianity goes, it depends on how it is defined.

[Wind Song]

Who's suggesting laws that target specific religions Dorothy? Give me some solid examples of this.


Go back and read some more posts. Dillo is suggesting that if a religion has some adherents who aren't "nice" that the whole religon be banned for a year.


Bullshit---I know some real nice people. And as far as my Christianity goes, it depends on how it is defined.


I've never found the term, "nice" to be a compliment.


wait, you want to fund law enforcement but not prisons? I want to discuss that further, new thread upcoming

I don't want to fund MORE and MORE prisons.

[Dilloduck]

I've never found the term, "nice" to be a compliment.


I didn't intend it to be complimentary.

[ConHog]

Go back and read some more posts. Dillo is suggesting that if a religion has some adherents who aren't "nice" that the whole religon be banned for a year.

So ? Some people are idiots. That doesn't mean that we are going to do what they want.

[Wind Song]

I didn't intend it to be complimentary.

Dillo,

"Nice" is a stupid word. It means so many different things to different people.

To me, "nice" means obedient, compliant, passive, victim, phony, shallow.

When I met my wife, one of the first things I told her is "I am not a "nice" person."

[Dilloduck]

Dillo,

"Nice" is a stupid word. It means so many different things to different people.

To me, "nice" means obedient, compliant, passive, victim, phony, shallow.

When I met my wife, one of the first things I told her is "I am not a "nice" person."

I'm glad you were honest with her.

[ConHog]

Go back and read some more posts. Dillo is suggesting that if a religion has some adherents who aren't "nice" that the whole religon be banned for a year.




I've never found the term, "nice" to be a compliment.



I don't want to fund MORE and MORE prisons.

There is a thread in the politics forum, go there and post . Keep it out of THIS thread.

[PostmodernProphet]

Tell me where it states in the Constitution that religious freedom is only granted to the "nice".

well, there have always been restrictions on "not nice" religions.....human sacrifice is not permitted.....actually, animal sacrifice as well.....I don't think you can even use the blood of virgins indiscriminately any more....

[darin]

dillo has stated previously that he is a Christian.

Dillo, or me, or the Pope; we can claim anything. I'm not disagreeing with Dillo's claim - I'm trying to prove a bigger point: Our heart defines us. Perhaps you stop judging people based on their claims - but the content of their character. I do that, which is why....



Your post is full of judgments of me: "short sighted, shallow". I'm neither of those, but it is your judgment of me. You own it. I don't.


YOU assign the moral judgement of "nice' or 'not-nice'. In fact, by pointing out where you are wrong I'm trying to get you to be a better person.



"Nice" is a description that says next to nothing. Plenty of people know how to grin fuck others and appear "nice". Lot's of people who hate others can smile at the people they like.

Only their heart matters.


Nice isn't what people are. Compassionate, kind, honest, trustworthy are still judgments. When you spell out actions, such as giving to charity, not complaining about taxes that go to help the poor, these are specific expressions of kindness.

Forced or Coerced charity is NOT charity. By and large our taxes do NOT "Help" the poor. Expressing desires to steal MORE honest-earned money form hard working people to "give the poor" is evil and hateful and mean on two fronts. First, it's morally wrong to steal money. Secondly, GIVING people shit HURTS them more than helps them.



None of us are perfect. You can be kind to a stranger on the street one moment and swear at the guy who cut you off in traffic in the next.

Doesn't change anything. I'm the sweetest, most-thoughtful man I know. Sometimes I get pissed off by the self-centered and rude people who refuse to get out of the left lane in traffic.


It's a question of values, isn't it? I don't want my taxes funding more and more prisons, wars that are unnecessary, pork barrel projects. I'd rather see my taxes go the the elderly, to the disabled, to poor families and schools to libraries, museums, roads and bridges, law enforcement.

I'm EXACTLY like that too!!

Problem is, the government cannot effectively or honestly manage the money they FORCE from my hands. BECAUSE i want to help those people, I'd rather let my conscious dictate how much and to whom.




I get the idea you don't want to pay any taxes at all.

What are you as a citizen willing to collectively fund?

Infrastructure. Defense. Uh...hrm...will get back to you.

I need to say - BBQ Potato Chips placed on a ham-and-cheese sandwich make the sandwich GREAT.

[Dilloduck]

well, there have always been restrictions on "not nice" religions.....human sacrifice is not permitted.....actually, animal sacrifice as well.....I don't think you can even use the blood of virgins indiscriminately any more....

Hell, just look how they persecuted the Mormons.

[Wind Song]

Dillo, or me, or the Pope; we can claim anything. I'm not disagreeing with Dillo's claim - I'm trying to prove a bigger point: Our heart defines us. Perhaps you stop judging people based on their claims - but the content of their character. I do that, which is why....

I agree. Heart is what matters.


YOU assign the moral judgement of "nice' or 'not-nice'. In fact, by pointing out where you are wrong I'm trying to get you to be a better person.

Right and wrong are judgments. Offering unsolicted advice is shoving your moralistic judgments on to someone else.


Only their heart matters.

Agreed

Forced or Coerced charity is NOT charity. By and large our taxes do NOT "Help" the poor. Expressing desires to steal MORE honest-earned money form hard working people to "give the poor" is evil and hateful and mean on two fronts. First, it's morally wrong to steal money. Secondly, GIVING people shit HURTS them more than helps them.

Is the military "forced charity"? It is for me.



Doesn't change anything. I'm the sweetest, most-thoughtful man I know. Sometimes I get pissed off by the self-centered and rude people who refuse to get out of the left lane in traffic.

I'm the sweetest and most thoughtful and loving woman I know. You don't see me that way, but most people in my real life do.

I'm EXACTLY like that too!!

Problem is, the government cannot effectively or honestly manage the money they FORCE from my hands. BECAUSE i want to help those people, I'd rather let my conscious dictate how much and to whom.

The government forces me to pay for wars I don't support. I'd rather pay to help the poor, the aged, the disabled, education, libraries etc.

Infrastructure. Defense. Uh...hrm...will get back to you.

I need to say - BBQ Potato Chips placed on a ham-and-cheese sandwich make the sandwich GREAT.

See bold for my answers.

[Wind Song]

well, there have always been restrictions on "not nice" religions.....human sacrifice is not permitted.....actually, animal sacrifice as well.....I don't think you can even use the blood of virgins indiscriminately any more....

No one in America is practicing human sacrifice, except the military. No one is practicing animal sacrifice, unless you count all of us who eat meat.

No one is using the blood of virgins, except pedophiles and rapists, (and perhaps Jews and Christians who cut the foreskins of male babies).

None of these religious practices are legal in the US.

[Wind Song]

There is a thread in the politics forum, go there and post . Keep it out of THIS thread.

Who are you to demand that I do anything?

[Wind Song]

I'm glad you were honest with her.


Always. She loves me just as I am.

[Missileman]

Ask me that question while I sing praise and worship to Zeus. :rolleyes:

You're the one who's arguing these Greek gods may have actually existed. Why would you then turn around and deny them their divine abilities? You can't have it both ways.

[Missileman]

Ah, good more semantic quibbling. This really means "I have absolutely no proof to claim that my faith is the one true faith, so I'm going to continue ignoring you, and hope it all goes away."

Welcome to being like every other religion on the planet, because you are officially using cop out arguments you would slap catholics for. Way to go.

Don't demand I prove a negative and then accuse me of not answering a question...especially when I DID ask you a question which you DID run away from.





The bible has nothing to say on the subject of Dinosaurs. Remarkably, it actually also has nothing to say on the subject of the sun's rotation, save that it was created before the Earth, which does sort of support the idea that the Earth would rotate around the sun. In fact, you'll find yourself hard pressed to find a religion that did have it in their holy book that either of those states existed.

Prove religion has never been right, not just Catholicism, I mean all of them, every single one, since you now claim to know the entirety of the universe in all things. I'll save you some time, as many scientists were employed by the church for scientific research, so either all their science has to be thrown out, because as you stated, religion has never been right, or you admit you're talking out of your ass like a zealot.

Scientific research performed by a religious person is still science, not religion. Religions have made numerous claims over the course of human history. Lightning bolts thrown by Zeus, Apollo driving the sun across the sky are just a couple of examples. Not one single claim of divine existence, powers, attributes, etc has ever been proven true.

[Peach]

Dillo,

"Nice" is a stupid word. It means so many different things to different people.

To me, "nice" means obedient, compliant, passive, victim, phony, shallow.

When I met my wife, one of the first things I told her is "I am not a "nice" person."

Well I WANT to be, but my mother told me, at an early age: "You just love to be contradictory, honey".

[fj1200]

You're the one who's arguing these Greek gods may have actually existed. Why would you then turn around and deny them their divine abilities? You can't have it both ways.

I argued that God exists and stated that perceptions of reality change. When the Greeks had no understanding of how the earth rotates around the sun and they see the sun cross the sky they give a job to their god. That's not both ways it's understanding that the science of today was completely nonexistent to the ancients.

[Missileman]

I argued that God exists and stated that perceptions of reality change. When the Greeks had no understanding of how the earth rotates around the sun and they see the sun cross the sky they give a job to their god. That's not both ways it's understanding that the science of today was completely nonexistent to the ancients.

Actually, you wrote:
Just because those deities aren't worshiped any more doesn't mean that they don't exist, it may be just that the perceptions of who they were is no longer accurate.

To me that reads you think it's possible the Greek gods really existed. If they "really" existed, then Apollo "really" drove the sun across the sky...otherwise, what kind of useless gods were they?

[fj1200]

Actually, you wrote:

To me that reads you think it's possible the Greek gods really existed. If they "really" existed, then Apollo "really" drove the sun across the sky...otherwise, what kind of useless gods were they?

I know what I wrote. Emphasize what you must if it helps you.

[Missileman]

I know what I wrote. Emphasize what you must if it helps you.

The only one here in need of help is you...to make up your mind. Did Apollo, the Greek sun god, exist or not? If he did exist, but as you implied, wasn't really the sun god, what was he the god of? If he really existed, but wasn't the sun god, why do you suppose the Greeks would give a real god a make-believe role? Wouldn't it be more likely a real god would tell humans what his role was and why he should be worshipped for it?

[fj1200]

^Man's perception of God is the relevant part you're ignoring.

[Missileman]

^Man's perception of God is the relevant part you're ignoring.

Man's perception is irrelevant to whether or not Apollo really existed, it's a yes or no proposition.

[fj1200]

No it's not. You're going down a rabbit hole to avoid the issue.

[Missileman]

No it's not. You're going down a rabbit hole to avoid the issue.

YOU'RE the one avoiding answering the questions I ask, because I believe you're intelligent enough to realize their implications. I'll ask you again, did Apollo really exist or not? A simple yes or no is all that's required.

[SassyLady]

YOU'RE the one avoiding answering the questions I ask, because I believe you're intelligent enough to realize their implications. I'll ask you again, did Apollo really exist or not? A simple yes or no is all that's required.

I believe Apollo existed.

Wasn't he a speed skater?

[PostmodernProphet]

None of these religious practices are legal in the US.


yes....because we don't think they're "nice".....

[Shadow]

I believe Apollo existed.

Wasn't he a speed skater?

And a Dancing With The Stars Champion ;)

[SassyLady]

And a Dancing With The Stars Champion ;)
I knew I had seen that god somewhere.

[Dilloduck]

America named our missions to the moon after him. He's gotta be pretty damned important.

[Wind Song]

yes....because we don't think they're "nice".....

The practices are illegal, but the religions aren't.

[fj1200]

YOU'RE the one avoiding answering the questions I ask, because I believe you're intelligent enough to realize their implications. I'll ask you again, did Apollo really exist or not? A simple yes or no is all that's required.

You're presumption is one side (there is no god) and mine is another (there is a God). You're asking a question based on the assumption that there is no god and if I agree that there was no Apollo to the Greeks then there is no God to the Jews/Christians/etc. Just because I don't believe in Apollo and know that Helios doesn't chase the sun has no bearing on the other. My point is that people perceive God in different ways, the Greeks didn't know the nature of the universe so their mythology is that gods have control of the things that they see. That's not my view.

[Missileman]

You're presumption is one side (there is no god) and mine is another (there is a God). You're asking a question based on the assumption that there is no god and if I agree that there was no Apollo to the Greeks then there is no God to the Jews/Christians/etc. Just because I don't believe in Apollo and know that Helios doesn't chase the sun has no bearing on the other. My point is that people perceive God in different ways, the Greeks didn't know the nature of the universe so their mythology is that gods have control of the things that they see. That's not my view.

So the Greeks were worshipping YOUR god...they just didn't realize it?

[fj1200]

So the Greeks were worshipping YOUR god...they just didn't realize it?

Please point out where I proclaimed MY God.

[Wind Song]

Please point out where I proclaimed MY God.

You said there is A God. That means YOU believe in God. He's talking about the God that YOU refer to, aka YOUR God.

[fj1200]

You said there is A God. That means YOU believe in God. He's talking about the God that YOU refer to, aka YOUR God.

Again, where did I proclaim MY God?

[Missileman]

Please point out where I proclaimed MY God.

Do you believe there's more than one?

[fj1200]

Do you believe there's more than one?

Where did I proclaim MY God?

[Missileman]

Where did I proclaim MY God?

The god you believe in isn't your god?

[fj1200]

The god you believe in isn't your god?

Silly question is silly.

/noir

[Wind Song]

Again, where did I proclaim MY God?

YOur belief in God is YOUR God belief.

[fj1200]

YOur belief in God is YOUR God belief.

Thank YOU for offering ZERO additional CLArity to the subJECT.

[Missileman]

Where did I proclaim MY God?

We can call it "a" god if you prefer, though you haven't so far offered any reason that I should think you believe in more than one. Since we're on the subject, do you believe that more than one god exists?

BTW, it would be kind of silly to argue the Greeks weren't really worshipping Apollo and imply they were worshipping another god if you didn't have a specific different god in mind.

[fj1200]

We can call it "a" god if you prefer, though you haven't so far offered any reason that I should think you believe in more than one. Since we're on the subject, do you believe that more than one god exists?

BTW, it would be kind of silly to argue the Greeks weren't really worshipping Apollo and imply they were worshipping another god if you didn't have a specific different god in mind.

:facepalm99: You have completely lost the gist of the argument and are not even accurately relaying the points of the discussion. Different people have different perceptions of God. You made a false assertion:


And when a hypothesis or theory is proven incorrect, it's discarded. Same can't be said of religion.

Religion's change (evolve?), some die out, some even spring up. And then you bring up a non-sequitur:


...all believed in deities and it's now almost unanimously held their beliefs weren't based in reality.

Religion is not about proven reality which I stated earlier as:


Beliefs aren't about reality that can be proven scientifically...

And:


... it may be just that the perceptions of who they were is no longer accurate.

[Missileman]

:facepalm99: You have completely lost the gist of the argument and are not even accurately relaying the points of the discussion. Different people have different perceptions of God. You made a false assertion:


More obfuscation on your part. I've asked you several plain questions that you keep dodging. We both know exactly why.



Religion's change (evolve?)

Have any noteworthy examples? Some fundamental tenet that was altered or abandoned? Something not trivial like allowing female clergy.


Re-answering older posts to avoid answering new ones? Best you can offer?

[fj1200]

More obfuscation on your part. I've asked you several plain questions that you keep dodging. We both know exactly why.

You know that they're silly and a distraction too?


Have any noteworthy examples? Some fundamental tenet that was altered or abandoned? Something not trivial like allowing female clergy.

I see the pattern here, you ignore two of the three possibilities I mentioned and then eliminate something that is not trivial in the slightest to those passionate about the subject (I'm not BTW).

So, evolution; Martin Luther. Die out; can't think of any recent besides those Zeus worshipers and Greeks that Paul began to convert. Spring up; Mormonism.


Re-answering older posts to avoid answering new ones? Best you can offer?

When the core issue was ignored the first time it's rather valid IMO. Shall I not go back to prior posts and identify your faulty premises?

[revelarts]

Religion by definition is faith in God. Atheists don't believe in God. You cannot call a non-belief a religion.

Is Buddism a "religion"? to most Buddist God is not relevant, many are atheist.


Missle

I'd love to talk to you at lentgh but I don't have the time.
however in one sense you are correct if there is a God he is Real in the scienticfic sense. as in he actually exist like you. Zues is not real, many religions are patently false. However many do have bits that are completly factual.

you keep saying science rejects theories and hypothesis that it finds are untrue. well that a lie. at least it'snot a cut and dry as you make it sound. read the history of science. you'll find that MOST of the paradigm shaking discoveries of science were rejected for years by the scientific establishment.
it's a story that plays over and over.

I pointed out you you a while back the assumptions of evolution and some of the scientific problems and you never moved your faith in that science one inch. what's up with that?

Concerning proof for God's existence I've posted a few items a week or so ago that talked about the scientific "proof" for God, pointing to the reality of a god like the one described in the Bible. a God that created the universe at a point in the past, a God that planed and designed it, and is by scientific and reasonable necessity outside of the creation and you never replied, whats up with that?

Are you really looking for evidence for a god? Are you really open to it?
if your really looking for facts i gave you some but it looks like you only show up to do what you say can't be done. DISPROVE God's existence.

[Missileman]

You know that they're silly and a distraction too?

They're neither, they just make you uncomfortable.




I see the pattern here, you ignore two of the three possibilities I mentioned and then eliminate something that is not trivial in the slightest to those passionate about the subject (I'm not BTW).

Mundane may have been a better word than trivial.

Extinction was a result of their INABILITY to CHANGE (evolve). New religions and dead religions are not examples of change, it's why I ignored the two "possibilities" in my previous post. Female clergy violates no biblical prohibition that I'm aware of. Changes in the way a church conducts business is more than likely NOT an evolution of the religion itself...I'm more interested in changes to the fundamentals...Christ, God, heaven, hell, resurrection, sin, etc. Have any examples like that?



So, evolution; Martin Luther. Die out; can't think of any recent besides those Zeus worshipers and Greeks that Paul began to convert. Spring up; Mormonism.

Martin Luther is another example, like female clergy, of a change in the way a church conducts business.




When the core issue was ignored the first time it's rather valid IMO. Shall I not go back to prior posts and identify your faulty premises?

The core issue is whether the Greek gods, Egyptian gods, Norse gods, etc actually existed. You've proven yourself a master contortionist while twisting and bending over backwards to avoid answering specific questions on the core issue.

Along with that is the question of whether the disbelief in the obviously "unreal" (leprechauns, unicorns, a moon made of green cheese) is a matter of faith or rational thought...this question also is being avoided like the plague.

[Missileman]

Is Buddism a "religion"? to most Buddist God is not relevant, many are atheist.


Missle

I'd love to talk to you at lentgh but I don't have the time.
however in one sense you are correct if there is a God he is Real in the scienticfic sense. as in he actually exist like you. Zues is not real, many religions are patently false. However many do have bits that are completly factual.

Please post an example of a completely factual supernatural bit. Steven King sets most of his books in New England and mentions real places and some real events. That isn't evidence vampires, ghosts, demons, etc really exist.


you keep saying science rejects theories and hypothesis that it finds are untrue. well that a lie. at least it'snot a cut and dry as you make it sound. read the history of science. you'll find that MOST of the paradigm shaking discoveries of science were rejected for years by the scientific establishment.
it's a story that plays over and over.

How about some examples from modern science?



I pointed out you you a while back the assumptions of evolution and some of the scientific problems and you never moved your faith in that science one inch. what's up with that?

Firstly, I don't have "faith" in science. I base my beliefs on the evidence that exists. I don't recall the assumptions and problems you are referring to, can you post a link and I'll review or re-review, depending on whether I've actually seen them before, and will address them in that other thread, if I haven't already.


Concerning proof for God's existence I've posted a few items a week or so ago that talked about the scientific "proof" for God, pointing to the reality of a god like the one described in the Bible. a God that created the universe at a point in the past, a God that planed and designed it, and is by scientific and reasonable necessity outside of the creation and you never replied, whats up with that?

I just went back and gave it another look. Here's my problem with calling it "proof" of anything. They found "code" which looks like a "man-made" code in the calculations(man-made) trying to explain string theory(also man-made). It's a bit like saying I found sausage while working on recipes for a sausage pizza.


Are you really looking for evidence for a god? Are you really open to it?
if your really looking for facts i gave you some but it looks like you only show up to do what you say can't be done. DISPROVE God's existence.

Looking for it, no. Open to it, sure. Why isn't anyone arguing that we maybe duplicated a naturally occurring "code" when we wrote a computer program? That possibility is at the very least as plausible as "god" without further evidence.

[Wind Song]

I'd love to answer your question Revelart, but I've been told not to talk about Buddhism.

[SassyLady]

I'd love to answer your question Revelart, but I've been told not to talk about Buddhism.

:link:

[Wind Song]

Jim told me he was sick of me being a Buddhist in every thread and he wished I would talk less about Buddhism. I won't discuss Buddhism on this forum.

[fj1200]

They're neither, they just make you uncomfortable.

Not really. You're still chasing rabbits even though because you don't like the answer.


Mundane may have been a better word than trivial.

Extinction was a result of their INABILITY to CHANGE (evolve). New religions and dead religions are not examples of change, it's why I ignored the two "possibilities" in my previous post. Female clergy violates no biblical prohibition that I'm aware of. Changes in the way a church conducts business is more than likely NOT an evolution of the religion itself...I'm more interested in changes to the fundamentals...Christ, God, heaven, hell, resurrection, sin, etc. Have any examples like that?

Martin Luther is another example, like female clergy, of a change in the way a church conducts business.

So you get to ask the question and judge the results? Pretty easy to ignore what doesn't fit eh?


The core issue is whether the Greek gods, Egyptian gods, Norse gods, etc actually existed. You've proven yourself a master contortionist while twisting and bending over backwards to avoid answering specific questions on the core issue.

Along with that is the question of whether the disbelief in the obviously "unreal" (leprechauns, unicorns, a moon made of green cheese) is a matter of faith or rational thought...this question also is being avoided like the plague.

Asked and answered.

[Missileman]

Not really. You're still chasing rabbits even though because you don't like the answer.

I'm sorry...did you actually give one?



So you get to ask the question and judge the results? Pretty easy to ignore what doesn't fit eh?

If you ask someone to name three verbs and they reply, "run, religion, and homosexuality" do you congratulate them on naming three verbs and then accept religion and homosexuality as verbs?



Asked and answered.

No, asked and avoided, over and over and over, along with several other questions.

[Wind Song]

Revelarts asks "Is Buddhism a religion"?

Buddhists debate this very question. It depends on how you look at it. Most people commonly think of religion in a theistic way, as organized around a god. Buddhism is non-theistic. There is no God. The goal isn't heaven, or "salvation", the aim is "enlightenment".

If you look at Tibetan Buddhism, it shares alot of the same "stuff". Thangkas, (holy pictures), statues of meditational deities, (instead of saints), incense, candles, vestments and sacred clothing, chants in a foreign language, a structure to the community practice, (sadhana), prayer beads, (mala) ritual etc.

Some of us think of Buddhism as an orientation to life.

[fj1200]

I'm sorry...

A rabbit? No.

Non-responsive.

Answered.