Stop Shoving Christianity Down My Throat

[Royd 0]

Quote

An atheist can be spiritual. You can believe in the connectness of the human spirit (and beyond) without the aid of organized religion, dieties, and so on.

Please explain that. The atheist refuses to believe that there's a giant spirit in the sky that put his spirit into us [God is love] and draws us to himself, but you can possess a sense of spirituality. Neither one can be proven scientifically.

It's actually quite funny that people who claim this spirituality and do every wierd thing from believing in the healing power of a piece of quartz, communing with nature, or thinking that they are one with the universe, hate the idea of a god because he has a few rules that they don't want to obey.

That is, they go against one's carnal [a word that only has meaning in the spiritual sense] nature.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hey man, I am sorry, but I am so lost in this discussion I do not even know what to ask so.

Where am I wrong? (in your opinion)

If I am being dense tonight I apologize

You mean next to the whole god thing?

Oh dam, nice job

Great way to lighten up the thread!!!! Nice job

But, I was really asking. Even if too broad, please find a single point to discuss. Your perspective interests me

Wow the whole thing seems to be too big to bring down to one point and additionally to that the thread seems to drift away in about 3 different directions. I love to discuss this stuff though since it always gives me new stuff to think about.

To the whole law thing: I think it is undoubtable that religion and culture strongly influences the laws and that's how it's supposed to be and that's how we get cultural differences which is nice. I was just saying that changes as well in culture, law and religion should be appreciated since they help humanity to evolve.

Cool
To your points. For the most part I agree with you. I also have no problem with change. (for part of my career I implimented change at a corp level) Change is hard. More for some than others. Change can be good. I think that change for change sake is dangerous. So, in the context of this thread, while I agree that culture should have an effect, if morality is allowed to (for lack of a better term,) degrade, civilaizations can be destroyed. Liberalizing the morality of a culture can (and has historically) destroy it. Please understand, when I speak to morality in this context I think of it in the realm of personal responsibility. If a cutlures morals (ie, personal responcibility) is allowed to be reduced so that people can do what they want to and blame it on the culture I feel it is the beginning of the end. "Morality" whether defined by law, religion or culture needs to be based in what is right vs wrong. If right and wrong are redefined then the end is getting closer. (that can take decades and it can be changed) So, what do you think?

(Dam, I hope that makes some sense ( I am tired) but I would love to sit across a table and hear you perspective on this.)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It's actually quite funny that people who claim this spirituality and do every wierd thing from believing in the healing power of a piece of quartz, communing with nature, or thinking that they are one with the universe, hate the idea of a god because he has a few rules that they don't want to obey.

That is, they go against one's carnal [a word that only has meaning in the spiritual sense] nature.

Now *THAT* is a very good point!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Hausse 0]

I agree that change should happen to achieve something better and not just to change, but usually change makes everything more interesting (at least to me).

The whole thing gets pretty messy here (visually) so I kind of lost the overview, but I'd love to discuss what ever you want in PM's.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

So, you are admitting that law, in general, is based on religious principle.

What is the origin of rule of law is fascinating question!

Which part of law?
Civil law? Natural law? Common law?

The convention of individual liberty and property rights -- which I'm willing to bet you treasure as much as I -- originate from Enlightement ideals, e.g., John Locke.

The Code of Hammurabi, which we all know, is generally considered the first recorded/oldest remaining example of attempt to create laws came out of ancient Sumerian family laws & attempts to regulate commerce and address property/slave/irrigation/etc disputes as a way to limit warfare & homicide. That's got an ancient Near Eastern tribal origin.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

How can you scientifically prove there is no god?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Interesting twist on the usual conversation. Tempting a scienctist (or scientific thinker) to step into that goo pit.

No scientist worth his weight in salt would claim to be able to do that. Just as no theologian should be using scripture to determine the age of the Universe.

The 2 can live in complete harmony as long as they stick to their realms.

Thank you Don! By twisting it around, I was trying to demonstrate that the existence or non-existence of any god is unprovable and therefore lies in faith. The believer has faith that god does exist. The non-believer has faith that god doesn't exist.

My next question is, how can anyone prove that God has not revealed himself privately to any individual? I'm not referring to an individual who has hallucinations, but a very psychologically healthy individual.

When we speak in definitives, we open ourselves up to all sorts of error; hence science is needed to fully prove a theory. The theory that God does/doesn't exist or has revealed Him/Herself to an individual cannot be proven by science. We are left to believe or not to believe by our own emotions ('emotions' may not be the correct word here. I'm having one of my moments where I am groping for the right word...head injury moment.).

_________________________________________
Chris

[Royd 0]

Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's actually quite funny that people who claim this spirituality and do every wierd thing from believing in the healing power of a piece of quartz, communing with nature, or thinking that they are one with the universe, hate the idea of a god because he has a few rules that they don't want to obey.

That is, they go against one's carnal [a word that only has meaning in the spiritual sense] nature.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Now *THAT* is a very good point!!

My moments of brilliance are only guidance from above.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I can't see how someone can both rationally go where the evidence takes them and simultaneously ignore where the evidence takes them.

Well, to decide that a monogamous relationship is best would be going against the scientific evidence that shows that humans are not designed to be monogamous.

So I think that even scientific-minded people tend to do things (or believe in things) that do not have any scientific basis, or that may even go against scientific findings.

[rehmwa 2]

You know what torques me off about Christians?

Whenever I sneeze, the turn to me and say "Bless you".

I just respond "hey, I'm sneezing here, I don't need some missionary interrupting me with all your GOD TALK just now." then I give them a piece of my mind.

I mean, REALLY, didn't they even see that I might be sick and could use a second of consideration before shoving their beliefs down my throat?

Maybe some inane, but polite and well meaning, gesture or statement of consideration for my health or well being would be nice instead of shoving that christianity right down my throat.

yeah, that would be nice

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Muenkel 0]

Ooh sensitive rehmwa. I'm not used to seeing that side of you.

Anyway, it reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld. They were questioning why people say 'God bless you' when people sneeze. Jerry's theory was that you should say 'You are so good looking'.

_________________________________________
Chris

[SpeedRacer 1]

bla bla bla deedle deedle deedle DEEEE!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[shropshire 0]

Gesundhite (sp?)

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[JackC 0]

Quote

Well, to decide that a monogamous relationship is best would be going against the scientific evidence that shows that humans are not designed to be monogamous.

And wearing Armani suits is going against the evidence that humans wore animal skins. Again, what has this got to do with methodologies for learning about the workings of the universe? Monogamy or polygamy isn't a way of examining the workings of the universe, it's the difference between wanting to shag anything that moves and feeling loyalty and genuine affection for just one person and wanting to stay with that person. I honestly have no idea what your point is.

Quote

So I think that even scientific-minded people tend to do things (or believe in things) that do not have any scientific basis, or that may even go against scientific findings.

Well duh! Of course they do. Science won't decide for you if you should have frosted flakes or cocopops for breakfast or what kind of dining set "defines" you as a person. The problem is not so much doing things that have no scientific basis but more about being willing to change your behaviour if the evidence suggests that you should.

All I'm saying is that if you follow the philosophy that the evidence should lead you in the direction of truth, you cant simultaneously ignore the evidence when it contradicts what is revealed as "truth". If you want to try it, you have to separate those parts of your life. Scientists may well be religious, but it beats me how they can claim to have both methodologies engaged at the same time.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Scientists may well be religious, but it beats me how they can claim to have both methodologies engaged at the same time.

Well duh! I think you answered that for yourself. If you need a hint, is has something to do with Armani suits and cocopops (whatever those are).

(Wow, I sound really stupid by saying "Well duh!")

[JackC 0]

Did we just agree on something? I might have missed it.

Edit: On second thoughts, I still have no idea what you're talking about.

[jpjc2000 0]

The whole thing is funny at best, they are just trying to sell something like every other billboard in the world, this time it just happens to be a belief being sold.

The sad part, these so called saviors spends millions trying to convert people, when the money could be spent helping those who really need it...in my limited atheist opinion, it is and always has been about money, ego, and control.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Well, to decide that a monogamous relationship is best would be going against the scientific evidence that shows that humans are not designed to be monogamous.

Have you ever read Jared Diamond's Why is Sex Fun?: The Evolution of Human Sexuality, which discusses evolutionary biology/physiologically per the title & offers some explanation as to why humans have tended to monogomy whereas our closest evolutionary relatives and other mammals don't. Albeit, the book is more popular science than pure science.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Interesting mention of the link from needs to religion. Anybody here familiar with the studies indicating genetic predisposition to spiritual beliefs? I must have the atheist gene.

Hey yeah i thought it was pretty interesting too when I thought about it. It really explains why people are so desperately clinging to their religion altough it seems pretty obvious that there is no god.

Quote

I'm playing Devils Advocate and poking holes in your outlook.

Ok... so, by your logic, the conversion of matter to energy was a 'pretty shaky theory' until Einstein proved it?

No because conversion of matter has logic in it so it was just a theorie. Nothing shaky there.

What is FSM?

Monogamy has nothing to do with faith but with moral and standards set by society. Everybody can choose to live monogamous or not and it does not contradict any scientific facts so no problem there.

Well not to pick at words, but I'm going to anyway, because I think how people apply language to their thoughts is very telling.

Use of the word obvious leads me to think you are trying to apply logic or some sort of mechanism of proof. It appears firmly established that proof that God (or any all knowing all seeing all powerful diety) exists or not is outside the bounds of logic.

Even that statement is giving too much. (To paraphrase Pauli - It's so far from right, it's not even wrong). It may be obvious to you personally, but that only makes it a belief. To make it obvious to others, via logic or some other tool, you need evidence, observation, repeatable experiments, corroboration, etc. Ain't gonna happen because you are taking scientific thought outside of it's realm.

A great example is from a fellow poster on an astronomy board:

I've got a pack of invisible elves living in my back yard. Prove me wrong.

And of course the FSM. (Check out His Noodlieness at flyingspaghettimonster.com).

Fun stuff.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

No because conversion of matter has logic in it so it was just a theorie. Nothing shaky there.

Since you mentioned it, have you read it?

Just a Theory by Moti Ben-Ari. Great read.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

An atheist can be spiritual. You can believe in the connectness of the human spirit (and beyond) without the aid of organized religion, dieties, and so on.

Please explain that. The atheist refuses to believe that there's a giant spirit in the sky that put his spirit into us [God is love] and draws us to himself, but you can possess a sense of spirituality. Neither one can be proven scientifically.

It's actually quite funny that people who claim this spirituality and do every wierd thing from believing in the healing power of a piece of quartz, communing with nature, or thinking that they are one with the universe, hate the idea of a god because he has a few rules that they don't want to obey.

That is, they go against one's carnal [a word that only has meaning in the spiritual sense] nature.

For that, I; going to point you here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Very good point, and THE critical distinction between spirituality as a whole, and the subset of spirituality known as religion. Religion demands you accept that the spirit was put there by some Diety. It reqiuires ascribing to a higher power.

My spirituality is of the Naturalist style. I believe that life has purpose, not because of physical processes that would lumber along thru time whether we knew about them or not, but because of our minds. Mind being a spiritual but natural manifestation of those physical processes.

So I consider the mind to be spiritual, but grounded in and emanating from purely physical processes within the human anatomy - no diety required.

The up side of this model is that we possess a level of awareness and conscience that sets us free to be wildly creative with almost no bounds for mental growth. The down side is that it allows us to imagine and attach meaning to all kinds of oogie-boogie stuff. (Like pyramids, crystals, astrology, etc).

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

How can you scientifically prove there is no god?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Interesting twist on the usual conversation. Tempting a scienctist (or scientific thinker) to step into that goo pit.

No scientist worth his weight in salt would claim to be able to do that. Just as no theologian should be using scripture to determine the age of the Universe.

The 2 can live in complete harmony as long as they stick to their realms.

Thank you Don! By twisting it around, I was trying to demonstrate that the existence or non-existence of any god is unprovable and therefore lies in faith. The believer has faith that god does exist. The non-believer has faith that god doesn't exist.

My next question is, how can anyone prove that God has not revealed himself privately to any individual?).

Yes indeed. Same answer. Can not be done.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Did we just agree on something?

I don't think so, but that's ok.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Have you ever read Jared Diamond's Why is Sex Fun?: The Evolution of Human Sexuality, which discusses evolutionary biology/physiologically per the title & offers some explanation as to why humans have tended to monogomy whereas our closest evolutionary relatives and other mammals don't. Albeit, the book is more popular science than pure science.

I haven't read it, but it looks interesting. Thanks for the link.

Quote

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.

I like this quote. Though I seem to pay a lot more attention to the second half of it.

[philh 0]

"I was trying to demonstrate that the existence or non-existence of any god is unprovable and therefore lies in faith. The believer has faith that god does exist. The non-believer has faith that god doesn't exist. "

I think this statement is absurd. Replace the word god with the phrase "invisible (to any form of human perception) dragon in my living room" in your statment and hopefully you will see. The beliver in the invisble dragon does have faith,the non believer does not require faith it merely requires lack of evidence. Same with god. I believe in things based upon the evidence for them, no evidence= no belief. Not believing should not then be treated equally as believing.

[Royd 0]

Quote

The sad part, these so called saviors spends millions trying to convert people, when the money could be spent helping those who really need it...in my limited atheist opinion, it is and always has been about money, ego, and control.

You mean like the Salvation Army or any number of downtown missions run by the religious community.

I don't see atheists making great efforts to lift up the downtrodden.