Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Prof., Oct 13, 2012.
This is excellent news!
I'm unaffiliated, agnostic in fact, but to say this might lead to a more "progressive nation", in my opinion is a bit ignorant and arrogant. To imply that religious people are regressive is too broad a descriptor. You are confusing Christian fundamentalists / extreme evangelicals with religious people in general. Not everyone who is religious denies science or wants to impose their beliefs on our secular laws or shove their beliefs down anyone's throat.
You're right, and I apologize. I guess it's just the bubble I live in. People are very close minded in my town. Can't wait to get out.
Ugh. I'm sorry you have to deal with that. Hopefully you will have some good experiences in the future with religious people who actually follow tenants of love.
I might argue that non-affiliation is a newer social phenomena than affiliation, so it could be considered progressive for that reason and that reason alone. But no, religion shouldn't be implied as regressive. It helps a lot of people keep living on to the next day and is responsible for respectable moral codes.
Imo, the problem is not religion per se it is adherence to the status quo and conservatism.
Religion always and only becomes the major problem when it coincides with these two factors: supporting the established order (or becoming it) and conservatism.
That's why eastern religions such as Buddhism are seen as liberal and 'good' or alternative when imported into the West - they never meet these conditions. But sometimes in the East they do - the Dalai Lamas oppression of Dorje and the oppressive nature of his former rule in Tibet for example.
Also why Islamists are a problem: they are conservative and support the status quo of oppressive regimes like Saudi.
Spirituality should always be an alternative to the established order and NEVER the established order itself....then there is not a problem.
Less people believing in fictional books written by people who wouldn't pass as a 5th grade science class in today's society. Bravo.
More claims without proof, argument or evidence. More statements of belief.
Remember though: if you believe fictional statements like these above; it's all ok - they don't count...
Completely agree. Religion can facilitate the expression of our finest qualities: compassion, charity, temperance, patience and peace. The problem isn't religion. The problem is reactionism, which is antithetical to religious experience.
Yes, exactly. Which is also why Atheists are so virulent these days...they have moved from being real and sincere thinkers like in the past and are now merely reactors.
They are pretty much always defenders of the status quo too: Dawkins actually goes to Church at Christmas and sings carols about God being born on earth to save people. He defends it by saying it is tradition...which is the same thing as saying he is supporting society's expression of the normative and worse, putting it over his beliefs about religion per se.
Sam Harris was actually a neocon who endorsed torture and even claimed that some beliefs were worthy of having the believer put to death (I think he meant Muslims! Haha). Can't get more Conservative than that.
Just like some extreme religion is all about politics and supporting the establishment then so is extreme atheism all about politics and supporting the establishment.
Christmas was a pagan holiday co-opted by christians. The christmas tree a nod to the pagan Germans. Do atheists need to reject everything that has been brushed by christianity?
You see what I did there?
Just like my correction was not needed or called for, neither was that hateful comment of yours.
It's a shame that this sort of thing occurs really. It definitely is behaviour that falls foul of the infamous 'Logical Fallacy' tablets that was recently sent down from Mount Improbable.
Seems that two things are off limits: Engaging in debate re one's position and violating these new Dictats though - to be fair - the last one seems to have an exemption pass. They seem in short supply though and I think only atheists can have them.
Spoken like someone who thinks their **** doesn't stink.
Why is it hateful, in a thread about how fewer people are now following organized religion, to say you are glad that this is happening? Because he added the fact that he thinks holy books arent scientifically accurate?
I find it to be. If you find hateful to be so abhorrent, substitute it with 'condescending'.
It does give the impression of being written with a certain animus. Not sure about hateful personally but certainly not objective.
It's irrational too - which is more worrying.
"fictional books" - which books? All of them? All the contents of all of them? At the very least this is a poorly-structured argument and one which would definitely place the writer in the remedial class along with the Scripturalists should he attempt in 5th Grade. Which is ironic.
So if he means only SOME of them why not say which ones? ANd then congratulate the ones which are NOT fiction? Some Biblical books contain data we know is true historically and some we know is false...so it can't really be a fiction. But as I say, we don't know if he means the Bible, perhaps he does not know it contains 66 different books written over 2500 years. Or perhaps he just means the Qur'an? Or Rig Veda? Or Dhamapada or the Tibetan Book of the Dead or or or or ?
We just don't know. We are left to guess.
A very poor effort. Must try harder.
written by people who wouldn't pass as a 5th grade science class in today's society.
Do we know this? Evidence? Structured argument? Every single person - probably thousands of people - who wrote these books (scrolls mostly actually) would flunk 5th Grade Science? Extraordinary claim...and we know what they require don't we?
But even if so then so what? That's irrational - they lived nearly 2500 years ago!! And you want them to take Science 5th Grade 2012 ?????????
The poster would no doubt flunk FIRST GRADE ENGLISH, SCIENCE and Getting Dressed in the Morning if he could take the curriculum of 2500 years hence.
Does it make sense to anyone at all here? Wait....don't answer that....
Did you not read what you posted?
Who do you mean?
Ive become quite familiar to your mindless mouth flapping without substance. You should make your posts more concise and to the point, because the filler is really annoying to read through.
First you are arguing my claim that they couldn't pass a 5th graders understanding of science, but then you shield yourself into a corner by saying its not surprising that they couldn't since they lived 2500 years ago. Which is it?
Meanwhile you are still following a book that was developed during that time when our understanding of the world is exponentially greater than it was then. So what exactly makes this book or scroll so special? Was it merely that it was written 2500 years ago? Why would I believe the writings just because they are old? Why would new writers not be given the same consideration? Harry Potter is a good series, perhaps we should believe it? Maybe I can write my own sequel to the bible?
Or perhaps we bury Harry Potter in the ground for 2500 years and when people dig it up they can claim that we used to have magic, but it vanished somehow. You can't prove it never happened, right?
That (collective) you are still far from the 'rosy' agnostic/ atheistic society you envision.
They are stuck between a rock and a hard spot, on one side its not socially acceptable to be atheist/agnostic yet, and on the other side, you have to believe in irrational things to consider yourself a believer.
They've been trained their entire life to believe in god or go to hell, its going to take a few years for them to get out from underneath that.
If one it going to tell some one their beliefs are wrong, one ought to at least educate themselves on those beliefs.
What this indicates to me is the failure of organized religion to be relevant to more and more people.
Religion is a business like any other and its failure to capture the minds and souls of a younger generation means religion will play less and less of a role in Americans' lives. To me it seems as though the voices of the extremists are gaining supremacy and the moderates are being kicked out.
hmmm.....so going by your idea, religion would have to be considered a major problem almost all of the time
no, the problem isn't really reactionism. The problem is the substitution of belief in lieu of empirical proof.......all you have to do is believe that something is true and .....poof.....it's now "the truth"