• 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!

To be fair: I’m also a God denier, an enemy of God beliefs

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
Well my 2000 question psychology questions ask if I think everyone should follow the Bible, not if they should follow Fascism. Anyone sure what that's measuring anyway? Sort of a Moderate Agree such as there are circumstances. Capitol "God" has only one history. You are making a liberal gods approach, because people can tell you what God says.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Someone pointed out some one-sidedness in a thread that I started, I’m a science denier, an enemy of science, so I decided to try to balance that out with this thread.

What I’m denying is the validity of all proofs of the existence or reality of the God of Abraham. Saying that I’m an enemy of God beliefs doesn’t mean that I want to campaign against them. It means that I’m denouncing the practice of people calling their beliefs “what God says,” and what I’m promoting might undermine that.

Actually, what I’m denouncing is people using their beliefs, religious beliefs and science beliefs, to excuse and camouflage unloving attitudes and behavior, but I think that’s inseparable from the practice of people calling their beliefs “what God says” and “what science says.”

If anyone wants to discuss my views about science beliefs, I would rather do it in the other thread. In this thread I only want to discuss my views about God beliefs, people calling their beliefs “what God says.”
You're an enemy to people that believe God talks? Why wouldn't God talk? Your belief that God is silent makes no sense.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I might have defeated my purpose in this thread and in my “science denier” thread, with their one-sidedness, with the way I titled them and with my denunciations, stirring up factional animosities, which is the opposite of what I want to do.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I didn’t plan it this way, but what I’ve done in this thread and in my “science denier” thread illustrates the kind of behavior that I’ve been denouncing. The purpose I had in mind might have been a good one, but the way I went about it was sure to be misunderstood and to stir up factional animosities, completely nullifying any good it might have done. Worse, I should have seen that from the start.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
I didn’t plan it this way, but what I’ve done in this thread and in my “science denier” thread illustrates the kind of behavior that I’ve been denouncing. The purpose I had in mind might have been a good one, but the way I went about it was sure to be misunderstood and to stir up factional animosities, completely nullifying any good it might have done. Worse, I should have seen that from the start.
Okay, well sorry if I misunderstood you. :)
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I’m not abandoning this thread. I will still be reading it and responding to it.
 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
I personally would think the assertion is ridiculous that God assertions are 'universally harmful'. You just made that assertion. Science assertions can "Also Be" harmful is more misunderstood.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I personally would think the assertion is ridiculous that God assertions are 'universally harmful'. You just made that assertion. Science assertions can "Also Be" harmful is more misunderstood.
Those are not my words. What I’m saying is harmful is people calling their beliefs “what God says,” or calling their views “scientific” and “evidence based,” to validate them in opposition to other beliefs and views.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Jim, how come you are not able to make people understand the purpose of your the various topics that you start, and you end up saying 'this is not the purpose of the topic, may be I did not give the correct heading'?
I took your question to be rhetorical. Was I wrong?
No. It is not rhetorical. We have many differences of views in Hinduism, and we happily live with that. We do not think carbon copy views are necessary. And 'This person said so' or 'That person said so' has no traction with us. We like to think our own way out.
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Jim, how come no one understands the purpose of the topics started by you?
Correction, this topic I understood Jim's purpose perfectly from the very beginning. His OP is very clear to me and I agree with it. Maybe that is the reason I got it:D
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
No. It is not rhetorical. We have many differences of views in Hinduism, and we happily live with that. We do not think carbon copy views are necessary. And 'This person said so' or 'That person said so' has no traction with us. We like to think our own way out.
Yes, that's what I love about Hinduism. You described it wonderfully
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Sound more like you denouncing people and not their belief. People are free to believe what they want. And they have their own understanding of that religion or spiritual teaching. So if you disagree that much you denouncing them, then you denouncing the people who har their own belief.

Question: should everyone belive the same as you do?

I’m denouncing some behavior that I see on all sides. If denouncing behavior is denouncing people, then yes, I’m denouncing people.
NO, That's the key here.

There is a huge difference in saying "This action is wrong/bad" and saying "This person is wrong/bad".

The second is Ad hominem attack, the first not
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Sound more like you denouncing people and not their belief. People are free to believe what they want. And they have their own understanding of that religion or spiritual teaching. So if you disagree that much you denouncing them, then you denouncing the people who har their own belief.
I’m denouncing some behavior that I see on all sides. If denouncing behavior is denouncing people, then yes, I’m denouncing people.
Why should you be denouncing other people or their beliefs?
I’m not.
I see that my responses there might create some confusion. I’m denouncing some behaviors that I’m seeing on all sides. Some people might equate that with denouncing people. I don’t equate it with denouncing people. In my way of thinking, I’m not denouncing people, but I’m not going to argue about it with anyone who says that I am. Also, I’m not denouncing what anyone thinks about any issue. What I think is harmful is people validating their views in opposition to others, by calling them “what God says,” or calling them “scientific” and “evidence based.” I think that those are used as fighting words so much that even if someone isn’t using them that way, they still have the same effect of helping to perpetuate stereotypes and and animosities, and facilitating cruelty and violence.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I see that my responses there might create some confusion. I’m denouncing some behaviors that I’m seeing on all sides. Some people might equate that with denouncing people. I don’t equate it with denouncing people. In my way of thinking, I’m not denouncing people, but I’m not going to argue about it with anyone who says that I am. Also, I’m not denouncing what anyone thinks about any issue. What I think is harmful is people validating their views in opposition to others, by calling them “what God says,” or calling them “scientific” and “evidence based.” I think that those are used as fighting words so much that even if someone isn’t using them that way, they still have the same effect of helping to perpetuate stereotypes and and animosities, and facilitating cruelty and violence.
YES:)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think the topic is about the people who have not heard from God but they say, "God says". Because they did not personally hear from God it may be wrong for them to say, "God says". It might be more logical to say, "God said" but even then, they are just guessing, I think.

There may be two things going on whenever a person says, "God says". First, they are the ones saying it so in essence, they are calling themselves god and secondly if God indeed did say it to someone many years ago it is as though they are saying, God can not treat each generation any differently so what is good for those people three thousand years ago must be just as good for all of us now.
 
Last edited:
Top