Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
I wont force anyone if they would not listen
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do we "fight" over faith and belief?
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
Then our difference its that I won't even preach at them, or anyone. I don't think they should listen. I accept atheists as is. Another slice of humanity that is demonstrative of our wonderful diversity.I wont force anyone if they would not listen
I've been to 3 weddings in the last 2 weekends. Gujarati, Chinese, Irish, Sri Lankan, South African Hindu, Marathi, Iranian, Swedish, and more. It's been great. At one wedding there were both styles (North and South, generally) of sari as well as some very skimpy cleavage-showing western dresses. Everyone had a great time, an that at least no fights broke out. It was wonderful.
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
But many people like myself do not need a religion to live a full, peaceful and compassionate life. It is a bit insulting when someone who is of any religious belief system to desire everyone else believe in religious thinking. And please do correct if I am wrong, but I could swear I have seen you condemn gay love and marriage. And I believe you gave the reason for the non-approval had something to do with your religious beliefs. Your OP is certainly a lovely idea for religious people to stop arguing over their particular dogmas, but those dogmas are the main reasons for the disagreements to begin with. One man's god and dogma is another man's nightmare. Most likely, there will not ever be peace until dogma is dead or all of us are dead which ever comes first.
I think dogma in and of itself is fine. It's the sharing of it, or insistence that it applies to everyone that's a problem. Course I could be wrong. Perhaps implicit within the definition of dogma is the need to tell everyone.
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
Yes, I should have been more clear. It is when dogma is used to believe one is superior to others or insisting the particular dogma one believes in needs to be "taught" and followed by ohers with different beliefs. That seems to be at the crux of all religious disunity. Thanks for pointing that out.
If people could learn to keep what they think is the ultimate truth to themselves unless asked, and understand every person has a right to believe or not believe whatever they choose without judging them, religious peace might be possible. Unfortunately it seems a long way off by looking around at what happens now.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
You are almost correct in your memory of what i Said. I Said gay act is seen as a sin, or immoral within most religion. To be a Gay person in it self is not a sin or immoral, in my understanding
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
IMHO:
Cause: "Arrogance" expressed in claiming "My way is the Highway"
Meaning: a vast ego and consequently an infinitesimal humbleness
Cure: "Humbleness" expressed in realizing "I don't know the Ultimate Truth"
Meaning: Being Realistic "The vast Universe (Truth) is too big for infinitesimal me to fully comprehend
Last edited:
steveb1
Member
We fight because religion has built-in conflicts with modernism, secularism, science and scientism.
We fight because religions claim to offer respective solutions that contradict each other.
We fight because aggressive religionists and aggressive anti-religionists feel obligated to state their respective truths and feel the need to defend their views.
We fight because it's fun - we like the sting of battle.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Interesting.
IMO:
Dogma (as in thoughts, acts is different) is fine. Them sharing is fine. Me telling them it's "not fine IMO" is fine. Me putting them on ignore is peace.
I go by these for the moment:
1) Do not criticize faith of others
2) If other acts wrong IMO, I correct him
3) If I don't act on it I am also a bit guilty
4) Run away if faith of others is criticized
If all run away from evangelists they can't evangelize (just to each other, as it should be IMO).
I am a great advocate of taking my own responsibility.
It's the one listening to an evangelist and let himself be converted, who keeps evangelist in business.
I don't blame evangelists (rule in economics "every demand creates supply").
I do block them.
Last edited:
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
When I mentioned evolution, it was not to contrast it with religious explanations for "how the world came to be." It was to contrast it with ANY other claims about anything for which there is not such compelling evidence. Note that I also mentioned the theory of gravity in there also. I was not trying to bash any ides of "creationism" when I mentioned evolution (though I do understand the knee-jerk reaction) - I was merely pointing to a thing that is known to be evidenced to a high degree and stating why I feel that contention over un-evidenced claims versus evidenced claims will always be an issue. We will always "fight" over these things as the side WITH evidence attempts to inform the side WITHOUT evidence why their claims are not to be trusted, and the side WITHOUT evidence appeals to their emotional attachment to the ideas, and fails to provide to the side WITH evidence any compelling reasons for their claims or denial of evidenced claims. The side without evidence tends to appeal to emotion, whether they do so consciously with admission that they are emotionally-based arguments and "faith" or subconsciously by going around and around in circles, only asserting that it is not only "emotional" attachment that drives them, but then utterly failing to provide anything else when pressed.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Jesus said ¨ I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me¨. So for Christians the truth is crystal clear, What others believe cannot be the truth.
However, that doesn´t mean that we cannot live in peace with those of other faiths, in fact, we are obligated to.
There should be no religious ´fights´.
In fact, cultures with other religions have traditions that we can learn from.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
So what ? Why does what you allege seem to bother you so much ?
I have been down this road so many times with you folk. First, evidence is interpreted, I cannot tell you the number of times I have seen a piece of legal evidence interpreted one way by some with vested prejudices, and a different way by those with different prejudices.
Second, when you cut to the chase and go directly to the creation of the universe, or the beginning of life, the two most fundamental issues, natural explanations have paltry evidence.
Third, we have every right to believe what you call fairy tales, just as you have every right to believe your fairy tales.
Atheists seem obsessed by us and our belief structure, we are attacked quite regularly by barrages of posts meant to ridicule, or reduce our beliefs by one novel scientific argument or another.
So, what´s your beef ?
Why are the new atheists angered, obsessed, and triggered by theists ? What psychological processes are at work here ?
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Ideas/philosophy for which only emotional attachment is the basis are often harmful, in my estimation, and can lead people into a place where, if/when they are finally disillusioned from their stupor (whatever it is they are believing without good reason), they are left hurt, confused, and many times unproductive for some time afterward.
Good for you. And also, who cares?
Based on your analysis here - that evidence can be interpreted different ways by different people - are you saying that this is something that is acceptable? Meaning - if we had a chance to correct or do away with this, should we not attempt to do so? I would answer that yes, yes we should attempt to do away with this variable interpretation of evidence/facts, and attempt to get at the most pure form of "truth" we can distill from it all. I believe any rational person would.
And related to this, I would argue that variance on interpretation of evidence in the legal realm happens FAR FAR FAR less often than it does in "spiritual" matters, or interpretation of scripture, etc. Which, very simply, makes spiritual matters far less practical than legal matters, and far more ambiguous/unpredictable/untrustworthy. Hence the reason you can't even enter "spiritual" evidence into a court-room. For example "God told me" will never work as a defense or piece of "evidence." It wouldn't even be counted. And this is precisely why I advocate for dispensing with these unpredictable modes of thinking and untrustworthy lines of "evidence."
And why does this matter so much to you? Do you seriously believe that atheists are out to try and prove what created the universe? We aren't. At least not all of us. And any that are are probably looking for their evidence along scientific lines of inquiry. But the one thing they are NOT doing is running around making assertions about things for which they have absolutely no evidence. Things that theists state/assert ALL THE TIME. Like "God is immaterial." or "God exists outside space and time." or "God is the fundamental essence of everything." Those things have no possible evidence that can even be presented. None. And yet they are constantly stated with confidence. I honestly can't believe you can't see the difference.
Yes, you have the right to your own thoughts about all that crap. Just as I am perfectly within my rights to use my thoughts to SCRUTINIZE THE HELL out of yours when you make them public and especially when you try recruiting others to the same thoughts. Which... let's face it... is your charge given your choice of religion, is it not? Which leads me directly to:
It's because you attempt to get others to believe your ideas. You attempt to spread them. Atheists are not making any positive claim about anything. They are not stating, definitively, that "God does not exist" - they are (most likely, as I don't speak for all) asking you to prove your claim that He does before they are willing to commit to any belief. And when you can't, they ask you simply "How can you blame us for not believing you?" And yes - we don't want more people sucked into these modes of thinking that have such poor/weak basis as this, because we have firsthand experience and mounds of evidence that it leads to all sorts of improper behavior from those who believe. Discrimination, attempts to stifle the scientific education of the masses, justifications for slavery (historically) and child/forced marriage (not so far past for some branches of Christianity), stifling sex education, a massive campaign to hide child rape within the Catholic Church - its churches unfortunately a perfect playground for misplaced trust, young people left unaccompanied by an adult that gives a damn about them and ability for things to happen behind closed doors. Plenty of terrible things come along with irrationally held beliefs. And religion isn't alone in that characterization. All those "atheist" leaders you would probably be quick to point as a rebuttal to my points above also had their own poor modes of thinking, unevidenced and poorly reasoned beliefs that they held that are not, in any way, "atheism." Atheism has nothing to do with any of the beliefs that drove those leaders to do what they did. It couldn't have. It only indicates that they didn't believe in God. Everything else is NOT atheism. To claim otherwise would be akin to pointing out something like that they all "ate raw figs" and therefore, it is the mind set of someone who is willing to eat raw figs that causes these things. People who believe in God do just as many terrible things as those who don't. Just look at the rates of religiosity within the prison system for validation of that idea. And therefore a belief in God does not "cure" people of propensity to commit bad deeds, nor does being atheist, obviously. What I am getting at is that it is poor modes of thinking - like thinking you are correct about something for which you have no evidential support - that are the real problem. Not atheism. And religion is a gateway to poor modes of thinking, precisely because it offers up fictions and pressures people to believe in them with no support. In fact, The Bible itself openly tells people to believe despite the fact that there is no evidence, and that those that do will be blessed! It's horrific, is what it is.
The above should be enough to serve as the explanation you were looking for I think. Take it in, remember it, and stop asking this ridiculous question. I'm sure you've been told why before... and yet you keep asking the question as if your butt was just freshly powdered.
Last edited:
I never used the words 'included' or 'excluded'.
There is no 'in' or 'out' in spirituality.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Interesting diatribe, but in fact you said very little.
Everything is based upon the conclusions you and your fellow travelers have drawn, with bias, and in the worst possible light.
Before becoming a Christian, I was an arrogant atheist, and I used the same expresses and drew
the same conclusions as you.
However, there are a number of disciplines that search for the truth. Science, is not the only way to do so.
Philosophy is a prime example. How much of philosophy have you read ? Any modern philosophers ? ! am pretty sure your answers will be little, and no.
there are many universities that have Philosophy Departments as large as the Science departments, whats up with that ?
Evidence, evidence is your cry. You contend that this evidence must be judged by you, and must adhere to the rules of the lab, or it means nothing.
So, to you God creating life is ludicrous, your NATURAL system has no room for the SUPERNATURAL. Yet you have no real evidence of abiogenesis, you believe it occurred, but after a century none of the eight or nine ideas of abiogenesis have anything resembling evidence for the process. You believe it by faith, and nothing more, you believe it because science says it is a de facto fact. This is nonsense, you may not know it, because of your faith in science, but the excuses of just a little more time, or we are almost there, or it is inevitable, on and on, are tiresome.
You admit you are hostile to people of faith, thank you for your honesty.
You admit you want to undercut the commission given to all Christians by Christ, because you have decided it is your necessary role to disabuse anyone of Christian thought.
Good ! It sounds as though you have the right mental makeup for the task.
History has shown that the more adverse the conditions, the more the Church becomes effective. The more pure in purpose the Church becomes. If the Christian Church can withstand having itś members hunted down and murdered, it can certainly withstand the new atheism, with its anger and desire to eliminate Christian thought. You are a true follower of Hitchins, Dawkins, et. al.
Paul tells us to rejoice in adversity, so I am happy that you have decided to be an atheist missionary, just because you love people, right ?
I cannot prove that God exists by the rules of science, anymore than you can prove He does not exist.
What I consider evidence, your court of science will reject. As an example, please tell me how the first precursor organism came equipped with the information required to operate ? Assuming it was DNA based, how did the DNA assemble itself in the very complicated, coded, correct order strands to operate an organism at just the moment the organism popped into existence, or before ? How did that organism have the correct RNA to take instruction from the DNA, and the right proteins, to follow the instructions passed through and decoded by the RNA and operate the mechanisms of the organism ?
Where did the very specific, complicated, information come from ?
That to me is evidence of God, but you will reject it in a cornucopia of ways, may favorite being, it had to have happened because we are here, I don´t know how, but in time science will tell us.
So, you believe what no one has ever seen, heard, tasted, smell or touched.
Paul says faith is ¨the evidence of things hoped for, the reality of things not seen" Science as the only teller of truth people have much faith, just as Paul describes it.
I contend your mission does nothing but harm people. It is selfish, and ultimately nihilistic in itś outcome.
I firmly believe that many of you have anger, and a desire to destroy, because you are unable to believe, and resent that other people, TRUE Christians, have the ability and have peace, the ability to accept changing circumstances, and have the knowledge that all things are working to a final goal, which they know.
Goodman John
Active Member
It's essentially the 'Narcissism of Small Differences'.
We see this in some small religious communities when, for example, Ruby Sue wears a red dress on Sunday but Sally thinks it's disrespectful to God. They go to the same church, sit in the same pew, sing the same hymns, even believe all the same things- except for the issue of the red dress. Others may get involved and weigh in with their opinion and before you know it you have the Red Dress and Plain Dress factions vying for control of the congregation. At some point the Red Dresses walk out and form their own church down the street- same style church, same style pews, same hymn books, and believing in the same things except the Red Dress. And given time they're likely to find other small differences that set them apart and pretty soon you have rival congregations at odds- and all over a woman wearing a red dress to church one day.
Expand that to, say, the Church in the early 1500's when ideas were flying all over the place. Pope or no Pope? Eucharist every time or just sometimes? Plain priest outfits or ostentatious outfits? All of these and more contributed to the Catholic/Protestant split, when at their core they believe in the same God and same religion.
Expand it again to encompass Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: all purporting to believe in the same God and all purporting to be peaceful and all about getting along with one another. It works for a while but then those differences, which are already noticeable to begin with, get wider and more distinct and in time you have all three at each other's throats for control of The Holy Land which, for most intents and purposes at time of the Crusades, a giant sandbox.
But by far the most common thread in all of this is that people just don't want to admit they're wrong, and most of the time- especially with religion- they don't even want to compromise.
We see this in some small religious communities when, for example, Ruby Sue wears a red dress on Sunday but Sally thinks it's disrespectful to God. They go to the same church, sit in the same pew, sing the same hymns, even believe all the same things- except for the issue of the red dress. Others may get involved and weigh in with their opinion and before you know it you have the Red Dress and Plain Dress factions vying for control of the congregation. At some point the Red Dresses walk out and form their own church down the street- same style church, same style pews, same hymn books, and believing in the same things except the Red Dress. And given time they're likely to find other small differences that set them apart and pretty soon you have rival congregations at odds- and all over a woman wearing a red dress to church one day.
Expand that to, say, the Church in the early 1500's when ideas were flying all over the place. Pope or no Pope? Eucharist every time or just sometimes? Plain priest outfits or ostentatious outfits? All of these and more contributed to the Catholic/Protestant split, when at their core they believe in the same God and same religion.
Expand it again to encompass Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: all purporting to believe in the same God and all purporting to be peaceful and all about getting along with one another. It works for a while but then those differences, which are already noticeable to begin with, get wider and more distinct and in time you have all three at each other's throats for control of The Holy Land which, for most intents and purposes at time of the Crusades, a giant sandbox.
But by far the most common thread in all of this is that people just don't want to admit they're wrong, and most of the time- especially with religion- they don't even want to compromise.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
My guess at this point is that you didn't really read it then.
A light cast by reality, as far as I can tell. Within which God does not appear to exist, and certainly doesn't seem necessary. Demonstrating His necessity is a task theists have failed at since the inception of the idea.
And? I never once believed anyone about anything relating to God. I was told various things by various people over the years, mulled over the idea, saw no utility in it, no comport with the reality I was able to experience, and everyone I did see in acts of "belief" looked incredibly foolish and, indeed, arrogant. Arrogant to assume they knew something like that, when for all intents and purposes, them throwing themselves on the floor, or going into convulsive fits, or spouting out gibberish and nonsense was nothing extraordinary or required any unnatural agent to enact, and nothing they said about God (and I meant that when I say NOTHING) could ever, at all, be demonstrated by them. All I got in response to questions was the advice to "pray on it" and "read The Bible" and I would "see the truth." All of it seemed entirely disingenuous to me, and felt 100% like people trying to pull the wool over my eyes. So I went with my gut, and I never once could sincerely believe. What do you think this means? IT MEANS NOTHING. It doesn't matter one bit. It matters just as much as the fact that you were an arrogant atheist. To my mind you only changed out the "atheist" part. Now THAT is an honest assessment.
And what, exactly, do you consider "the truth." Because I go with the more accepted definition that includes that "truth" is in accordance with reality, and is what it is regardless the observer.
The answers are more than a little, and no. And I would admit that I could do to read more. I couldn't stomach the assertion without regard to reality that necessarily spews forth from the minds of theists, mind you, and I have at my disposal any number of distillations of their ideas into the succinct essence at my disposal. And not just from what you'd call "biased" sources either. I read much on sites dedicated to the theistic perspective, but again, distillations of the ideas, not entire books on the subject - which I simply cannot get through. I have tried.
And what is it you think I have against philosophy? I have something against theistic philosophy, certainly. That much I admit. But I have nothing against the search for truth within knowledge, existential matters, or conduct/morality. Nothing at all. Why would I? Those are all noble endeavors. Religion only attempts to hijack all of those for its own purposes. That's what I have witnessed.
Did I say "it has to be evidence come to in a lab?" Did I? There had better be some form of evidence. Sheesh. Buy any bridges lately? The evidence required depends on the thing being claimed. If someone offers me a bridge, I have to see it, have to see their deed to it, need to be able to verify with the city authority, etc. etc. etc. And that's the funniest part about "God" claims... the claims are SO outrageous that I DON'T EVEN KNOW what types of evidence would suffice! I have a hard time even imagining!
Did I say I subscribe to abiogenesis? The scientific community doesn't even have a fleshed out theory. Nothing but hypotheses, and very little in the way of "evidence" so far. It is all very interesting, but no... abiogenesis currently doesn't meet evidential criteria for me. My answer to "how did life start" is "I don't know." You know... the HONEST answer.
Only here online. In life I don't usually make such waves. If people show they are up for the challenge in "real life", then I'll go toe to toe, certainly, but I find that most theists are far too timid and emotional. They get hurt way too easily and do all but run away crying.
Nope... not "Christian thought" - though in my area, Christianity is the most widespread faith and so I tend to know the most about it and get to see the failures in thought processes of people of this particular faith the most often and up-close-and-personal. But no... people of all walks get scrutinized, no matter what it is they are pushing. Don't think yourself special... what a freaking joke.
Here we go with this persecution crap again. Cry me a river. May as well go that route... you certainly don't have the goods to actually convince anyone of your ideas in an honest manner.
I want to see fewer hypocrites in the world, and more people looking at their own ideas with heavy discernment and responsibility. That's what I want. Paul can say whatever he wants to. I mean... he could say it when he was able... not so much out of him for the last 2,000 years, has there been?
Why would I ever need to prove that He doesn't exist? Why? The world already works without His presence - either naturally or "supernaturally" (whatever this means). It's up to the people making the claims about Him to prove that He is there. And if they can't, then why should any of us react to anything as if He is there? It doesn't make any sense.
This is so hilarious, you don't even know. My goodness... please note that the next thing you go on to say is:
THIS is your EVIDENCE??? A bunch of questions that neither you nor I know the answer to? That's "EVIDENCE??!" How? What? This is so inane, so ridiculous. THIS is the kind of thing that most makes me question the future of humanity. We seem so intelligent sometimes, and then completely botched correlations like this. That's not evidence, friend. That's a bunch of questions. That's all that is. Please read back over it and then after reassessing, please let me know what makes any of that evidence for anything. The only thing it is "evidence" of is that you asked some questions. That's it.
Also, I don't need to know the answer to those questions to deny God. Just as others don't need to know the answers to those questions to accept God. The only way "God" comes to your aid to answer any of those questions is if you first assume His existence and apply to Him all the magical powers you Christians always afford Him after assuming He exists. But His existence is what I take issue with first, and we haven't even gotten past that point now, have we?
Again, that wasn't evidence.
Of course Paul would say this. He has a vested interest in getting people to believe His spiel even though he knew he had no valid basis upon which to demonstrate the truth of any of it. This is exactly what a charlatan would tell you.
And I would contend that the only people it hurts are people who aren't thinking in realistic terms, and can't break out of their mystical/spiritual/hyper-emotional misgivings. In other words... if the theists hadn't gotten to them first, there probably wouldn't be a problem.
Believe whatever you want. I only get angry when people misrepresent their level of knowledge or misrepresent my position without even a hint of what they are targeting in the words that triggered them. Kind of like what you're doing in this conversation. Otherwise, I in no way (and let me be crystal clear about this)... IN NO FREAKING WAY envy you or your "ability" to believe. My God (colloquial, blasphemous usage here, mind you), I can't even imagine what would make you think I would want to actually make assumptions and unsupported claims like you do. The very thought just feels dirty and scummy. I mean... even just look at the last sentence above, where you claim to know that there is some "final goal." It's sick is what it is.
"Faith" is equated to "truth" for many people, and "belief" is supposed by billions to be the same thing as knowledge. And since these are manifestly untrue, it becomes pretty easy to see why we fight over them.
If "faith" means "truth," well then different faiths mean that there are different truths, and if those truths contradict one another, then some correction is needed -- which far too often means beating the bejeebers out of the guy with the wrong faith. If belief is the same thing as knowledge, then both evolution and intelligent design are true -- and false. This is untenable, and something has to give.
The only way out, I think, is for us to stop seeking absolute answers to intractable problems, realize that there are things we can't (yet) resolve, things we don't (right now) completely understand, and futures we can't (ever) predict -- and drop religion and pick up philosophy. And whenever you suppose that you have the final answer to life, the universe, and everything (which contrary to popular opinion is NOT 42), to realize that you are certainly incorrect, and need to start again.
If "faith" means "truth," well then different faiths mean that there are different truths, and if those truths contradict one another, then some correction is needed -- which far too often means beating the bejeebers out of the guy with the wrong faith. If belief is the same thing as knowledge, then both evolution and intelligent design are true -- and false. This is untenable, and something has to give.
The only way out, I think, is for us to stop seeking absolute answers to intractable problems, realize that there are things we can't (yet) resolve, things we don't (right now) completely understand, and futures we can't (ever) predict -- and drop religion and pick up philosophy. And whenever you suppose that you have the final answer to life, the universe, and everything (which contrary to popular opinion is NOT 42), to realize that you are certainly incorrect, and need to start again.
Very simple: because belief X might tell me, or even enforce by law, that I should not do Y, because of some imaginary being in the sky.
Ciao
- viole