The land of religious tolerance

[Stone]

Apparantly it's clarity to me and your interpretation is very different. where you see intolerance, I see idealism.

In a perverse way.....idealism can drive intolerance....not as an absolute, but on a case by case.
The infamous accounts in history of leadership gone bad often started with idealism.

 

[Minor Axis]

If you are referring to the acceptance of atheism on a world scale being a solution for resolving conflict and confrontation.......indeed.

No, I'm referring to the spectrum of religious/spiritual belief, not just atheism. We all choose a position that provides the most personal comfort. What none of has is certainty we are right. And a deity who has dominion over us, might say we are all right, because in the end, it really does not matter.

 

[Stone]

No, I'm referring to the spectrum of religious/spiritual belief, not just atheism. We all choose a position that provides the most personal comfort. What none of has is certainty we are right. And a deity who has dominion over us, might say we are all right, because in the end, it really does not matter.

No, I'm referring to the spectrum of religious/spiritual belief, not just atheism.

Agreed.
There is no reason to believe that a world dominated by one religious belief would erase any of the conflict and confrontation that I've been mentioning.

What none of has is certainty we are right.

Because we are dealing with concepts taken on faith.......but the current line of discussion is about 'betterment'.

And a deity who has dominion over us

Sigh......don't you ever give up on the rhetoric?

might say we are all right, because in the end, it really does not matter.

What's your point?
That religion holds a biased view of it's righteousness? ......indeed it does, I wouldn't argue otherwise........but as seen in this thread, so does atheism.

 

[Minor Axis]

Agreed.
There is no reason to believe that a world dominated by one religious belief would erase any of the conflict and confrontation that I've been mentioning.

Actually it could reduce religious based conflict, but not eliminate it.

Sigh......don't you ever give up on the rhetoric?

Huh? Retoric: (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
Please stop kneejerking. Why don't you just allow me to call God a diety with dominion over us, without getting bent? Isn't that what it is supposed to be?

Because we are dealing with concepts taken on faith.......but the current line of discussion is about 'betterment'.

What's your point?
That religion holds a biased view of it's righteousness? ......indeed it does, I wouldn't argue otherwise........but as seen in this thread, so does atheism.[/

The question is how do we better ourselves based on faith? We view the world and our existence through a human filter. We can latch onto a faith based belief, but ultimately the decision to better ourselves comes from our perspective, from within. We decide. It is not what we are told. It is our choices that make the difference. And it's not a group choice, not given any more authority by the number of followers. Some of us choose to believe there is a God who dictates, even imposes the right choices with the threat of eternal damnation. Then they proceed to tell us what the right choices are and what God expects of us. Humans introduce to much distortion into the equation to worry about picking the right one (religion). Go with what feels good and that includes Atheism.

And choices only matter if they are based on free will. It can also be argued that in all cases, God or no God, there is an ideal all souls (whatever you want to call them) should and will eventually aspire to. Then look at the variation of standards pushed by the different religious beliefs from incredibly strict and intolerant to relaxed and "whatever", and you might realize that all of these philosophies are allowed to exist, some maybe more correct than others, but none, more likely than another to result in eternal damnation.

My point is that if there is a God as most of the human race imagines it to be, most of our religious gyrations are just not that important to God, and pinpointing the one correct view is not important. It is where we arrive at the end of our lives that is important and if such a structure exists it could easily take more than one life time to figure these things out. If it was that important that we get it right in one life time, God would not be hiding in the shadows. For this case I would imagine a more proactive deity.

 

[Stone]

Actually it could reduce religious based conflict, but not eliminate it.



Huh? Retoric: (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
Please stop kneejerking. Why don't you just allow me to call God a diety with dominion over us, without getting bent? Isn't that what it is supposed to be?



The question is how do we better ourselves based on faith? We view the world and our existence through a human filter. We can latch onto a faith based belief, but ultimately the decision to better ourselves comes from our perspective, from within. We decide. It is not what we are told. It is our choices that make the difference. And it's not a group choice, not given any more authority by the number of followers. Some of us choose to believe there is a God who dictates, even imposes the right choices with the threat of eternal damnation. Then they proceed to tell us what the right choices are and what God expects of us. Humans introduce to much distortion into the equation to worry about picking the right one (religion). Go with what feels good and that includes Atheism.

And choices only matter if they are based on free will. It can also be argued that in all cases, God or no God, there is an ideal all souls (whatever you want to call them) should and will eventually aspire to. Then look at the variation of standards pushed by the different religious beliefs from incredibly strict and intolerant to relaxed and "whatever", and you might realize that all of these philosophies are allowed to exist, some maybe more correct than others, but none, more likely than another to result in eternal damnation.

My point is that if there is a God as most of the human race imagines it to be, most of our religious gyrations are just not that important to God, and pinpointing the one correct view is not important. It is where we arrive at the end of our lives that is important and if such a structure exists it could easily take more than one life time to figure these things out. If it was that important that we get it right in one life time, God would not be hiding in the shadows. For this case I would imagine a more proactive deity.

Actually it could reduce religious based conflict, but not eliminate it.

That's not at issue in the current discussion......the issue is betterment of mankind by eliminating religion.
As shown, other factors exist.

Huh? Retoric: (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

Yep, I'm calling it as I see it.
You seem to consider yourself a master of hidden rhetoric......you fail miserably as I keep pointing out.
But go ahead an whine about it

The question is how do we better ourselves based on faith?

That is not the discussion currently going on, although I am aware you are going to constantly steer it that way.
The issue is about the betterment of mankind under specific conditions.
My position, as stated before, is freedom of choice in regards to belief or non-belief being optimal.
Your position is obviously parallel to Tim's.
........An argument focusing of the resultants of only religious activity through history rather than a comprehensive view/consideration of mankind itself.
That's called 'bias'......also called intolerance.
You claim to have a Christian based belief system of your own and yet project intolerance towards Christianity at the same time.
Bullshit!!!!
IMO, you aren't being honest in these debates.

We can latch onto a faith based belief, but ultimately the decision to better ourselves comes from our perspective, from within. We decide. It is not what we are told. It is our choices that make the difference. And it's not a group choice, not given any more authority by the number of followers.

Are you trying to confuse us with brilliance

Go with what feels good and that includes Atheism.

No shit Sherlock.......my position all along is one of personal choice and that a scenario of an absolute ( in the context of this 'betterment' discussion ) world wide belief system/non-belief system does not necessarily create an overall betterment.
There are too many other considerations as mentioned before.

Betterment has to come from mankind collectively and that's a challenge that goes well beyond the acceptance of one religious/non-religious belief system....as I've addressed.

And choices only matter if they are based on free will. It can also be argued that in all cases, God or no God, there is an ideal all souls (whatever you want to call them) should and will eventually aspire to.

I don't know where you're going with this idealism, but I should point out that by accepting a non-belief system on a world scale.......the concept of a soul wouldn't exist and your idealism becomes irrelevant along with your convoluted argument.
And to make matters even more interesting, how are you going to rationalize agnosticism while acknowledging the concept of 'spirits'? If 'spirits' exist, the question of 'why' results with the acceptance of a supreme being coming to play.
A bullshit convoluted argument, MA.
If you are going to argue for atheism, at least have the honesty to be open about it.

My point is that if there is a God as most of the human race imagines it to be, most of our religious gyrations are just not that important to God

I can see an agnostic/atheist arguing in that fashion.
It's rather obvious believers feel differently....and the issue is the belief of the beholder, not the onlooker......as it's a matter of 'faith', not 'fact' which you constantly attempt to transpose in your arguments.
Your 'beliefs' have value to you and like minded people.
Same with believers, too.

If it was that important that we get it right in one life time, God would not be hiding in the shadows.

More rhetoric.
You forgot the 'IMO' and just presented an argument, not only against freewill ( which you claim to support ) an argument for predestination.......which seems to contradict your concept of an 'Earth Simulator'.

Do you understand now why I see your arguments along with denigration of faith and the ridicule of believers as utter bullshit.
It's intellectually dishonest.

 

[Stone]

This is the best you can come up with? I question your book and you question my motives and my character. Being exposed to the modern GOP, I'm familiar with the tactic.

I never left. I took a break from you and it looks like I'll take another break from YOUR bull shit. Your scripture is weak. I don't laugh at it, I question it. Really- spirits have a single creator? Tell me about it. Better yet, quote some scripture to me. If you want to pretend you know all about where they came from, be my guest. I like the ideas of spirits, but I've never acknowledged or said I believed in them. When I tell you I'm Agnostic, you respond with sarcasm. Your a little man locked into the defense of your theism who treats every critique as an attack (at least my critiques). Hey you forgot to use the word "sophistry" this time or did I miss it?

Whine, whine, whine.....

I never left. I took a break from you and it looks like I'll take another break from YOUR bull shit.

Looks like you're taking another 'break', eh?

Really- spirits have a single creator?

Sooooo.......you have been influenced by GIA :eek
This just gets better and better .

Tell me about it. Better yet, quote some scripture to me.

This multiple supreme being is your construction and I know of no scripture suitable for your claim.
Here's a list constructed at http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-one-god.htm
for you to view.
How about showing the forum a list of your new claim that infers more than one God.....it might be interesting.

When I tell you I'm Agnostic, you respond with sarcasm.

Indeed. I have little to none respect for you.
I see no reason to hide it as you hide it of others.

I like the ideas of spirits, but I've never acknowledged or said I believed in them.

Try convincing the forum of that
They've read you posts on your beliefs, too.
Personally, I think you screwed up and didn't think your bullshit would screw up your attack on Christian faith and the denigration of those of faith......by being outed as intellectually dishonest.
An agnostic with faith is an unusual condition, Minor Axis.
It simply didn't buy you the acceptance you thought it would.
Tough shit, eh?

Your a little man locked into the defense of your theism who treats every critique as an attack (at least my critiques).

That's a fallacy called an as hominem attack.
It's not a fallacy when the claims' validities are demonstrated with relevance such as when I go out of my way with you

Hey you forgot to use the word "sophistry" this time or did I miss it?

'Sophistry'...satisfied





BTW.......looks like I should begin checking your posts for late edits.

 

[The Man]

That's the problem. There is no reliable foundation to argue about. It's all wishful thinking.

Which would only hampers your argument...As you have just stated there is no foundation for the argument ..but yet find faults with those that do not share beliefs .

 

[The Man]

For convenience MA I will bring the post back into focus

Ahhh, just imagine a world with no religion.

Someday mankind will outgrow this madness but until then we need to put up with crap like this

This implies one belief {atheism} to be above the rest and insults the remaining

Now if we say" Ahhh just imagine the world with no ________ Someday mankind will outgrow this madness but until then we need to put an end to crap like this ."


For demonstration
"Ahhh, just imagine a world with no Islam, Christianity, Atheists, Baptists, Lutheran, Amish or any other religion

Someday mankind will outgrow this madness but until then we need to put up with crap like this"

IT IS AN INTOLERANCE OF ALL RELIGIOUS BELIEF...plain and simple.

 

[Minor Axis]

This multiple supreme being is your construction

I'll consider wasting more time on you when you can get your accusations straight...

 

[Stone]

I'll consider wasting more time on you when you can get your accusations straight...

This was your quote, word for word:

Really- spirits have a single creator?

Would you like to change that post?

 

[robdawg1]

Stone in response to you, and I am sorry I am not quoting as I am just responding to your posts to me as a whole,
I look at Tims post not as the need for a single unit to come through and demand a unification. I look at his post as feeling that one day religion will fall out of use on it's own. That concept is why I defend it as utopian, and not intolerant. I am specifically arguing the semantics, as much of a pain as that makes me..LOL.

 

[Stone]

Stone in response to you, and I am sorry I am not quoting as I am just responding to your posts to me as a whole,
I look at Tims post not as the need for a single unit to come through and demand a unification. I look at his post as feeling that one day religion will fall out of use on it's own. That concept is why I defend it as utopian, and not intolerant. I am specifically arguing the semantics, as much of a pain as that makes me..LOL.

I just don't see it your way rob and would only wind up mostly repeating myself.
As far as semantics go......Wikipedia has an article you might consider reading that is pertinent.

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

An excerpt

The mere statement on the part of a religion that its own beliefs and practices are correct and any contrary beliefs are incorrect in itself constitutes intolerance (i.e., ideological intolerance ). On the other hand, religious tolerance would mean that each person is free to chose his own faith and no other person would have a right to pass opinions on the faith of an other person.

When the claims went to 'betterment' of humanity by embracing atheism over religion, the argument became an issue of intolerance.....
"no other person would have a right to pass opinions on the faith of an other person." combined with statements comparing religion to madness would not be a reflection of religious tolerance.

So, there are at least two concepts at play........ideological intolerance and religious intolerance.
Perhaps I should have used the term 'ideological' rather than 'philosophical'......but it's still intolerance.

 

[Alien Allen]

I don't see Tims view as stated earlier in this thread as intollerant

But you keep on trucking Stone

 

[The Man]

That concept is why I defend it as utopian, and not intolerant. I am specifically arguing the semantics, as much of a pain as that makes me..LOL.

You are essentially saying that atheism will provide a utopia once religions are gone ...how is this not intolerance?
You are saying Utopia cant be achieved with religion in place and therefore again place atheism as the supreme belief.

So rob is it fair to say

Utopia{goal} can and only be achieved through atheism{belief} with the absence of all other beliefs?

I means that is what is breaks down to.

Now if we say "Utopia can and only be achieved through Islam with the absence of all other beliefs"
Is that not an intolerant statement?

Its a two way street ...Why should it only be intolerant if a Muslim makes such a statement but not those of other beliefs?

 

[The Man]

I don't see Tims view as stated earlier in this thread as intollerant

But you keep on trucking Stone

You missed it

Ahhh, just imagine a world with no religion.

Someday mankind will outgrow this madness but until then we need to put up with crap like this

So tim are you saying the world will be a better place if and when it evolves to atheism as a result of rejecting all other beliefs.

Absolutely

 

[robdawg1]

I am saying that if the world was ALL muslim, and believed the same way there would less religious difference and conflict. same with christian, same with atheist.

I am also saying that what Tim meant was if the world, left to it's own devices, were to evolve out of the need for secularized religion, then all would believe the same way and that would be peacefull....hence utopian.

you can replace it with any religion or phrase you like...

 

[The Man]

I just don't see it your way rob and would only wind up mostly repeating myself.
As far as semantics go......Wikipedia has an article you might consider reading that is pertinent.

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

An excerpt


When the claims went to 'betterment' of humanity by embracing atheism over religion, the argument became an issue of intolerance.....
"no other person would have a right to pass opinions on the faith of an other person." combined with statements comparing religion to madness would not be a reflection of religious tolerance.

So, there are at least two concepts at play........ideological intolerance and religious intolerance.
Perhaps I should have used the term 'ideological' rather than 'philosophical'......but it's still intolerance.

Excellent.....position backed with documentation of standard

 

[The Man]

I am saying that if the world was ALL muslim, and believed the same way there would less religious difference and conflict. same with christian, same with atheist.

..

But that wasnt the argument the argument was atheism rob

is a difficult position to try and back pedal out of isnt it

 

[robdawg1]

But that wasnt the argument the argument was atheism rob

is a difficult position to try and back pedal out of isnt it

So rob is it fair to say

Utopia{goal} can and only be achieved through atheism{belief} with the absence of all other beliefs?

I means that is what is breaks down to.

Now if we say "Utopia can and only be achieved through Islam with the absence of all other beliefs"
Is that not an intolerant statement?

Its a two way street ...Why should it only be intolerant if a Muslim makes such a statement but not those of other beliefs?

what are you talking about...i am responding to you....who's back pedaling?

 

[The Man]

But that wasnt the argument the argument was atheism rob

is a difficult position to try and back pedal out of isnt it

First tim tried and now you are using the same bike

His original statement was clear with its intent....you are trying to offer the back pedal as part of the statement.

Shall I paste it again?