john bodega
She didn't fool me. She was a cunt.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
thomasquinn 32989
[QUOTE]
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]
I strongly disagree, Thomas. Just read what "Saint" Mother Teresa did with all the money that was donated to her hospital in Calcutta: She sent almost all of it to the Vatican while she preached the sick people that they are nearer to heaven when they suffer more. No need to provide for food, medication or a clean bed! She was an extremist but by no means an exception: the Catholic church has always made starving people believe that they are lucky because will go to heaven for their suffering. That helped the church to keep control and to get richer and richer.
There are so many different protestants that it's hard to define a common practice there. The right to "pursue one's happiness" is definitely a very protestant concept...[/QUOTE]
I'm not defending Catholicism, which I truly dislike as much as protestantism and every other organized religion, I just think you are giving protestatism too much credit. It is the more old testamental of the two branches of Western Christianity, and as such darker and more pessimistic. The God from the Torah is not a nice guy (disregarding for a moment that at least two different Gods are present, and there are also at least two references to 'elohim' (Hebrew: 'god' [as function, title; not name]) where the use is definitely in the plural). Protestantism introduced the concept of predestination. The pursuit of happiness is a thoroughly Civic Humanist ideal.
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]
I strongly disagree, Thomas. Just read what "Saint" Mother Teresa did with all the money that was donated to her hospital in Calcutta: She sent almost all of it to the Vatican while she preached the sick people that they are nearer to heaven when they suffer more. No need to provide for food, medication or a clean bed! She was an extremist but by no means an exception: the Catholic church has always made starving people believe that they are lucky because will go to heaven for their suffering. That helped the church to keep control and to get richer and richer.
There are so many different protestants that it's hard to define a common practice there. The right to "pursue one's happiness" is definitely a very protestant concept...[/QUOTE]
I'm not defending Catholicism, which I truly dislike as much as protestantism and every other organized religion, I just think you are giving protestatism too much credit. It is the more old testamental of the two branches of Western Christianity, and as such darker and more pessimistic. The God from the Torah is not a nice guy (disregarding for a moment that at least two different Gods are present, and there are also at least two references to 'elohim' (Hebrew: 'god' [as function, title; not name]) where the use is definitely in the plural). Protestantism introduced the concept of predestination. The pursuit of happiness is a thoroughly Civic Humanist ideal.
StoneColdClassicQueen
I'm an atheist, but I don't preach about how God doesn't exist and whatnot..
Those overenthusiastic atheists are just adding to the tension that already exists between believers and non-believers. Both sides need to stop trying to convert people.
*On a personal note, I don't know when to come out to my parents about my atheism o.O
My school counselor suggests I don't, but I know there will come a time when they find out...
Just not soon.
Those overenthusiastic atheists are just adding to the tension that already exists between believers and non-believers. Both sides need to stop trying to convert people.
*On a personal note, I don't know when to come out to my parents about my atheism o.O
My school counselor suggests I don't, but I know there will come a time when they find out...
Just not soon.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
at least two different Gods are present, and there are also at least two references to 'elohim' (Hebrew: 'god' [as function, title; not name]) where the use is definitely in the plural).
[/QUOTE]
Heretic! Burn him at the stake!!!
We pious folk don't need your "scholarship" and "logic".
;)
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
at least two different Gods are present, and there are also at least two references to 'elohim' (Hebrew: 'god' [as function, title; not name]) where the use is definitely in the plural).
[/QUOTE]
Heretic! Burn him at the stake!!!
We pious folk don't need your "scholarship" and "logic".
;)
thomasquinn 32989
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
at least two different Gods are present, and there are also at least two references to 'elohim' (Hebrew: 'god' [as function, title; not name]) where the use is definitely in the plural).
[/QUOTE]
Heretic! Burn him at the stake!!!
We pious folk don't need your "scholarship" and "logic".
;)
[/QUOTE]
I know, I know. But throughout history, there has been a current in Judaism and Christianity that [i]is[/i] willing to look at their religion in this way, as well as other philosophical approaches, as knowledge and wisdom of many different kinds are carefully presented in the Old Testament, just not usually at face value. That is also one of the reasons why Catholics were, until quite recently, forbidden from reading the Old Testament. Not so much that the church wanted to protect them from misinterpretation (in a way, there's either no such thing or nothing else); but God forbid if the masses started thinking about theological questions for themselves, in even the simplest ways!
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
at least two different Gods are present, and there are also at least two references to 'elohim' (Hebrew: 'god' [as function, title; not name]) where the use is definitely in the plural).
[/QUOTE]
Heretic! Burn him at the stake!!!
We pious folk don't need your "scholarship" and "logic".
;)
[/QUOTE]
I know, I know. But throughout history, there has been a current in Judaism and Christianity that [i]is[/i] willing to look at their religion in this way, as well as other philosophical approaches, as knowledge and wisdom of many different kinds are carefully presented in the Old Testament, just not usually at face value. That is also one of the reasons why Catholics were, until quite recently, forbidden from reading the Old Testament. Not so much that the church wanted to protect them from misinterpretation (in a way, there's either no such thing or nothing else); but God forbid if the masses started thinking about theological questions for themselves, in even the simplest ways!
FriedChicken
I think the difference between a fundamental religious believer and a fundamental atheist is that the atheist one would admit that he was wrong if some good evidence for a god would turn up.
A fundamental christian on the other hand discards all the evidence that contradicts his/her believe system. And say that it's a matter of believe, and not a matter of fact.
Like evolution, gravity or a heliocentric solar system is something you have to believe in....
A fundamental christian on the other hand discards all the evidence that contradicts his/her believe system. And say that it's a matter of believe, and not a matter of fact.
Like evolution, gravity or a heliocentric solar system is something you have to believe in....
Yara
Hi, folks!
How are you? I hope you're doing great. I enjoyed reading this thread a lot. Thanks, fatty, for creating it - it's nice to see you around here.
Oh my, I can't look at Mr. Jingle's avatar that I start laughing. lol
----
Topic!
I'm a very religious person and I don't mind atheists speaking their minds more strongly. My feeling is that we've been accostumed to religious authorities or believers doing, let's say, proselitism for so much time, that when - and it's a quite recent phenomenon - atheists start inviting people to debate and trying to convince them, we get kind of shocked, because we've been used to things being the other way around - religious people going after atheists to convert them.
There was time, back in the middle of the 20th Century, when historians even raised the question as to whether it was really possible for someone in the 16th Century, for instance, to be really an atheist, as there are many nowadays, so much has been the power of religion in shaping culture and people's mind over time: a great historian named Lucien Febvre wrote a book a long time ago intitled: [i]"The problem of unbelief in the sixteenth century" - [/i]It addesses the question by focusing in Rabelais' work. It was a legitimate historical issue: "Was it possible for someone in the 16th Century to be an atheist? Did the culture leave space for this?".
So, now that, yes, religion is being contested again, as it had been in the Enlightenment or the works of the libertines, we find it weird because atheists are in some way not supposed to join public debates or invite people to public debates and make their points. Religion is still a very powerful force in our world.
In my humble view, saying that such a guy as Dawkins is "fundamentalist" isn't right. "Fundamentalist" is someone who blows himself up in a bus to kill himself and other people because he thinks he'll go to heaven or whatever; a guy who doesn't act upon his views, but just debates and writes books about science and religion, isn't a fundamentalist, all the more when he himself has changed, and is open to change, his views whenever there's enough evidence available which accounts better, to the scientific community, for certain problems or discredits a resonable statement, by him or any biologist, which admits both logical values: true and false functions. I think it's unfair to label him or other vocal atheists - such as great philosopher Daniel Dennett, a very clever and thought provoking guy - as "fundamentalist": I guess this word, pretty much as the word "terrorist", shouldn't be applied to people who are out there to debate and not to supress other people's right of having their religious beliefs. They're within the democratic framework. Atheists, it's true, have been constantly attacked by religious people: there comes a time when people do answer. And the answer causes a lot of turmoil because, now, the criticism of religion, coming both from atheists or religious people who are scientists, is not on the fringe anymore and not restricted to a particular political outlook - no! It's right in the mainstream and it encompasses people from all sides of the political spectrum.
I'm very, very religious. I saw some Hebrew above and found it amusing - I'm a Hebrew-speaker and have been brought up in a very stern tradition of judaism. I still follow it. Personally, especially as a student of the sciences, I'm well aware that my faith wouldn't stand scrutiny for five minutes without being ridiculed or simply debunked. That's why it is my FAITH: it's grounded on my confusion as to what the world and life is about, my weaknesses, all that - but in the end of the day, I truly believe in it, to the point of having the need to devote part of my time to my religion: it brings me a lot joy, it's a source of wisdom for me and a beacon to someone who's quite insecure and has to make her own way in the world. It makes me happy, it brings me a lot of joy, it's an occasion for me to meet people.
All above doesn't legitimize my religion in a cognitive way: by no means. But it does help pulling myself together and making me happy.
I think that'd be it.
Folks, take care you all. I wish you well and I hope you have a great day. Thanks for the great thread and I've been enjoying it a lot.
Regards!
Yara
How are you? I hope you're doing great. I enjoyed reading this thread a lot. Thanks, fatty, for creating it - it's nice to see you around here.
Oh my, I can't look at Mr. Jingle's avatar that I start laughing. lol
----
Topic!
I'm a very religious person and I don't mind atheists speaking their minds more strongly. My feeling is that we've been accostumed to religious authorities or believers doing, let's say, proselitism for so much time, that when - and it's a quite recent phenomenon - atheists start inviting people to debate and trying to convince them, we get kind of shocked, because we've been used to things being the other way around - religious people going after atheists to convert them.
There was time, back in the middle of the 20th Century, when historians even raised the question as to whether it was really possible for someone in the 16th Century, for instance, to be really an atheist, as there are many nowadays, so much has been the power of religion in shaping culture and people's mind over time: a great historian named Lucien Febvre wrote a book a long time ago intitled: [i]"The problem of unbelief in the sixteenth century" - [/i]It addesses the question by focusing in Rabelais' work. It was a legitimate historical issue: "Was it possible for someone in the 16th Century to be an atheist? Did the culture leave space for this?".
So, now that, yes, religion is being contested again, as it had been in the Enlightenment or the works of the libertines, we find it weird because atheists are in some way not supposed to join public debates or invite people to public debates and make their points. Religion is still a very powerful force in our world.
In my humble view, saying that such a guy as Dawkins is "fundamentalist" isn't right. "Fundamentalist" is someone who blows himself up in a bus to kill himself and other people because he thinks he'll go to heaven or whatever; a guy who doesn't act upon his views, but just debates and writes books about science and religion, isn't a fundamentalist, all the more when he himself has changed, and is open to change, his views whenever there's enough evidence available which accounts better, to the scientific community, for certain problems or discredits a resonable statement, by him or any biologist, which admits both logical values: true and false functions. I think it's unfair to label him or other vocal atheists - such as great philosopher Daniel Dennett, a very clever and thought provoking guy - as "fundamentalist": I guess this word, pretty much as the word "terrorist", shouldn't be applied to people who are out there to debate and not to supress other people's right of having their religious beliefs. They're within the democratic framework. Atheists, it's true, have been constantly attacked by religious people: there comes a time when people do answer. And the answer causes a lot of turmoil because, now, the criticism of religion, coming both from atheists or religious people who are scientists, is not on the fringe anymore and not restricted to a particular political outlook - no! It's right in the mainstream and it encompasses people from all sides of the political spectrum.
I'm very, very religious. I saw some Hebrew above and found it amusing - I'm a Hebrew-speaker and have been brought up in a very stern tradition of judaism. I still follow it. Personally, especially as a student of the sciences, I'm well aware that my faith wouldn't stand scrutiny for five minutes without being ridiculed or simply debunked. That's why it is my FAITH: it's grounded on my confusion as to what the world and life is about, my weaknesses, all that - but in the end of the day, I truly believe in it, to the point of having the need to devote part of my time to my religion: it brings me a lot joy, it's a source of wisdom for me and a beacon to someone who's quite insecure and has to make her own way in the world. It makes me happy, it brings me a lot of joy, it's an occasion for me to meet people.
All above doesn't legitimize my religion in a cognitive way: by no means. But it does help pulling myself together and making me happy.
I think that'd be it.
Folks, take care you all. I wish you well and I hope you have a great day. Thanks for the great thread and I've been enjoying it a lot.
Regards!
Yara
GuitarGod_
I think both sides (athiests and believers) can be guilty of being too forward or hassling - it just depends on your experience of them. Whilst athiests might try to ram their opinions down everyones throat, how many times has a religious man been at your door and near-on refused to go away? I'm a church-goer myself, so I can't really bad-mouth Christians, but peoples opinions of Christians seemed to be based on that one guy with a bible at your door who just won't leave you alone. Of course, Christians and the like would be more pleasant to talk to as being nice seems to be part of our nature, where as athiests seem to get really bothered if you don't agree with them.
Neither side can give you solid proof - no one can prove that God does or doesn't exist - you just have to believe or not believe.
Neither side can give you solid proof - no one can prove that God does or doesn't exist - you just have to believe or not believe.
thomasquinn 32989
[QUOTE]
[b]FriedChicken wrote: [/b]
I think the difference between a fundamental religious believer and a fundamental atheist is that the atheist one would admit that he was wrong if some good evidence for a god would turn up.
[/QUOTE]
I seriously doubt that, really. Throughout scientific history as well as religious history we have seen that fanatical exponents of one theory or another refuse to yield, even if proven wrong. The most likely scenario in the case of a fundamentalist atheist confronted with evidence for a god of some kind would be a postmodernist critique of epistemology in which he/she would argue, very eloquently and very incoherently, that the foundation of the evidence is flawed and that the evidence is thus not beyond reasonable doubt.
[b]FriedChicken wrote: [/b]
I think the difference between a fundamental religious believer and a fundamental atheist is that the atheist one would admit that he was wrong if some good evidence for a god would turn up.
[/QUOTE]
I seriously doubt that, really. Throughout scientific history as well as religious history we have seen that fanatical exponents of one theory or another refuse to yield, even if proven wrong. The most likely scenario in the case of a fundamentalist atheist confronted with evidence for a god of some kind would be a postmodernist critique of epistemology in which he/she would argue, very eloquently and very incoherently, that the foundation of the evidence is flawed and that the evidence is thus not beyond reasonable doubt.
thomasquinn 32989
[QUOTE]
[b]GuitarGod_ wrote: [/b]
Of course, Christians and the like would be more pleasant to talk to as being nice seems to be part of our nature, where as athiests seem to get really bothered if you don't agree with them.
[/QUOTE]
That's a pointless generalization. I know pleasant and unpleasant atheists, and I know pleasant and unpleasant Christians, Muslims and Jews.
[b]GuitarGod_ wrote: [/b]
Of course, Christians and the like would be more pleasant to talk to as being nice seems to be part of our nature, where as athiests seem to get really bothered if you don't agree with them.
[/QUOTE]
That's a pointless generalization. I know pleasant and unpleasant atheists, and I know pleasant and unpleasant Christians, Muslims and Jews.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE]
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
"Fundamentalist" is someone who blows himself up in a bus to kill himself and other people because he thinks he'll go to heaven or whatever
[/QUOTE]
That makes him an extremist, which is actually a loose term based on acts they commit in the name of their faith.
Fundamentalist is a term we came up with about 100 years ago to describe religious folk who think their sacred text is the divine word of their chosen higher being, and live their life as that text suggests (or "commands", as they see it)... and that there cannot be any other alternative. They are the ones who tend to be extremists, but not all fundamentalists are extremists.
But the definition in itself is flawed, because there are parts of any sacred text that contradict one another, since they were written by a number of people over a long period of time.
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
"Fundamentalist" is someone who blows himself up in a bus to kill himself and other people because he thinks he'll go to heaven or whatever
[/QUOTE]
That makes him an extremist, which is actually a loose term based on acts they commit in the name of their faith.
Fundamentalist is a term we came up with about 100 years ago to describe religious folk who think their sacred text is the divine word of their chosen higher being, and live their life as that text suggests (or "commands", as they see it)... and that there cannot be any other alternative. They are the ones who tend to be extremists, but not all fundamentalists are extremists.
But the definition in itself is flawed, because there are parts of any sacred text that contradict one another, since they were written by a number of people over a long period of time.
thomasquinn 32989
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
"Fundamentalist" is someone who blows himself up in a bus to kill himself and other people because he thinks he'll go to heaven or whatever
[/QUOTE]
That makes him an extremist, which is actually a loose term based on acts they commit in the name of their faith.
Fundamentalist is a term we came up with about 100 years ago to describe religious folk who think their sacred text is the divine word of their chosen higher being, and live their life as that text suggests (or "commands", as they see it)... and that there cannot be any other alternative. They are the ones who tend to be extremists, but not all fundamentalists are extremists.
But the definition in itself is flawed, because there are parts of any sacred text that contradict one another, since they were written by a number of people over a long period of time.
[/QUOTE]
Technically, a fundamentalist would be one who lives according to the fundamentals of his religion (which *can* be a holy scripture, as in protestantism, or an authority figure, as in Catholicism, or a judicial orthodocy, as in Islam, depending on the basis of a religion), i.e. who complies with his religion to the strictest extreme, including the outlawing of everything that is not literally covered by their religious beliefs.
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
"Fundamentalist" is someone who blows himself up in a bus to kill himself and other people because he thinks he'll go to heaven or whatever
[/QUOTE]
That makes him an extremist, which is actually a loose term based on acts they commit in the name of their faith.
Fundamentalist is a term we came up with about 100 years ago to describe religious folk who think their sacred text is the divine word of their chosen higher being, and live their life as that text suggests (or "commands", as they see it)... and that there cannot be any other alternative. They are the ones who tend to be extremists, but not all fundamentalists are extremists.
But the definition in itself is flawed, because there are parts of any sacred text that contradict one another, since they were written by a number of people over a long period of time.
[/QUOTE]
Technically, a fundamentalist would be one who lives according to the fundamentals of his religion (which *can* be a holy scripture, as in protestantism, or an authority figure, as in Catholicism, or a judicial orthodocy, as in Islam, depending on the basis of a religion), i.e. who complies with his religion to the strictest extreme, including the outlawing of everything that is not literally covered by their religious beliefs.
catqueen
This is a great thread, I've been reading it with great interest but hesitating to comment so far. I especially enjoyed PMA's and Yara's comments, as well as many others. I've noticed too that (some) athiests are becoming more vocal and united, and was talking to someone last week who was talking about some of the ads going up in parts of England. I'm an evangelical Christian, and I'm finding people's reactions to the more 'in your face' athiesm interesting. Christians are sadly not generally known for the kindness, generosity, patience and love that is taught in the Bible, especially with regard to communicating with people who are different from us. Christians have given athiests (and 'heretics') an extremely hard time, and don't seem overly willing to really listen or engage in genuine discussion with either athiests or any people holding any other ideology that differs greatly from Christianity. Which is a bit strange really, as if someone really believes something, another point of view shouldn't be a threat, and if you don't really believe it, what harm is there in hearing another viewpoint? (Having said that, I haven't read Dawkin's books, as, even though I really do believe in God and Jesus, it's not based on reason - I just 'know' it and feel it, wierd as that sounds. In most other things I'm fairly rational, but I am a bit scared to hold my faith up to the genius of Dawkins, as it's not something I can rationally defend.)
Anyway, I think it's interesting to see Christians getting very worried, almost frightened at times, about athiests being more 'evangelistic'. We have shoved our beliefs down many, many people's throats, and it's probably good for us to know how it feels!
Personally, although I'm not especially happy to have any ideology aggressively pushed at me, it's great to see people thinking and talking about the nature and meaning of life.
Anyway, I think it's interesting to see Christians getting very worried, almost frightened at times, about athiests being more 'evangelistic'. We have shoved our beliefs down many, many people's throats, and it's probably good for us to know how it feels!
Personally, although I'm not especially happy to have any ideology aggressively pushed at me, it's great to see people thinking and talking about the nature and meaning of life.
magicalfreddiemercury
[QUOTE]
[b]catqueen wrote: [/b]
This is a great thread, I've been reading it with great interest but hesitating to comment so far. I especially enjoyed PMA's and Yara's comments, as well as many others. I've noticed too that (some) athiests are becoming more vocal and united, and was talking to someone last week who was talking about some of the ads going up in parts of England. I'm an evangelical Christian, and I'm finding people's reactions to the more 'in your face' athiesm interesting. Christians are sadly not generally known for the kindness, generosity, patience and love that is taught in the Bible, especially with regard to communicating with people who are different from us. Christians have given athiests (and 'heretics') an extremely hard time, and don't seem overly willing to really listen or engage in genuine discussion with either athiests or any people holding any other ideology that differs greatly from Christianity. Which is a bit strange really, as if someone really believes something, another point of view shouldn't be a threat, and if you don't really believe it, what harm is there in hearing another viewpoint? (Having said that, I haven't read Dawkin's books, as, even though I really do believe in God and Jesus, it's not based on reason - I just 'know' it and feel it, wierd as that sounds. In most other things I'm fairly rational, but I am a bit scared to hold my faith up to the genius of Dawkins, as it's not something I can rationally defend.)
Anyway, I think it's interesting to see Christians getting very worried, almost frightened at times, about athiests being more 'evangelistic'. We have shoved our beliefs down many, many people's throats, and it's probably good for us to know how it feels!
Personally, although I'm not especially happy to have any ideology aggressively pushed at me, it's great to see people thinking and talking about the nature and meaning of life.[/QUOTE]
Are you SURE you're an evangelical christian?
[b]catqueen wrote: [/b]
This is a great thread, I've been reading it with great interest but hesitating to comment so far. I especially enjoyed PMA's and Yara's comments, as well as many others. I've noticed too that (some) athiests are becoming more vocal and united, and was talking to someone last week who was talking about some of the ads going up in parts of England. I'm an evangelical Christian, and I'm finding people's reactions to the more 'in your face' athiesm interesting. Christians are sadly not generally known for the kindness, generosity, patience and love that is taught in the Bible, especially with regard to communicating with people who are different from us. Christians have given athiests (and 'heretics') an extremely hard time, and don't seem overly willing to really listen or engage in genuine discussion with either athiests or any people holding any other ideology that differs greatly from Christianity. Which is a bit strange really, as if someone really believes something, another point of view shouldn't be a threat, and if you don't really believe it, what harm is there in hearing another viewpoint? (Having said that, I haven't read Dawkin's books, as, even though I really do believe in God and Jesus, it's not based on reason - I just 'know' it and feel it, wierd as that sounds. In most other things I'm fairly rational, but I am a bit scared to hold my faith up to the genius of Dawkins, as it's not something I can rationally defend.)
Anyway, I think it's interesting to see Christians getting very worried, almost frightened at times, about athiests being more 'evangelistic'. We have shoved our beliefs down many, many people's throats, and it's probably good for us to know how it feels!
Personally, although I'm not especially happy to have any ideology aggressively pushed at me, it's great to see people thinking and talking about the nature and meaning of life.[/QUOTE]
Are you SURE you're an evangelical christian?
thomasquinn 32989
Evangelical Christianity means Christianity with a missionary drive. You don't really seem to match that profile.