Just wondering if anyone has heard a whopper?

Since I started leaning towards believing the earth is closer to 4.67 billion years old rather then 6000 years, I have had a fair few Christians tell me I'm wrong. Not one of them has ever looked into the age of the earth themselves, but somehow they've got this 100% correct idea of how everything is. It really frustrates me that someone who is ignorant of what you are talking about can tell you that you are wrong. I know as a Christian myself that I've done the same in the past, but I'm really starting to think it's best to just keep your mouth shut until you know the person you are talking to, or know what they believe.

I think the main problem is that Christians read Christian books and never actually read the text of the beliefs the actual other people have. Since reading books on science from a non-Christian perspective things have made a heck of a lot more sense, and although I still don't believe everything scientific theory says, I think there is a lot of truth in it that isn't showed in say Christian books that attempt to explain away the age of the earth etc...

Anyway, what experiences have people on this site had?

The most narrow minded ignorant thing you've heard a religious person say?

Would have to be the statement made by a Secular Humanist claiming all of the problems on earth can be attributed to Christianity.

one of the most disappointing christianity-related evenings in my life occurred december 2007, where my friend's parents were christian evangelists in germany. we went to visit them.

my friend's mom said to this group of newly christian guys and girls (probably around 24 yrs old) that... everywhere that christianity has gone, countries have thrived. so basically it went like... first there was england, where there was christianity, and then they thrived... and now we have the united states, which is thriving because of christianity, and now that christianity is going to china, china is beginning to thrive (she is chinese). it's like dude, what about all the other countries that have thrived / failed?! but whatever.

then there was a story about a jewish girl during the holocaust who prayed and prayed to her god (coincidentally, not exactly a christian god) and made it out alive. and she took it to say... well, look! when one believes in god, one always makes it out OK. like... what about all the other people who believed and perished?!!

then my friend's dad talked about how he wants to talk to a muslim guy they know about why he believes in his god because he thinks that the muslim guy doesn’t really know WHY he believes, and that most muslims are like that. i think that’s ignorant. muslims have just as much a right to believe as christians do, the belief is just as rational or irrational.

this was just one extremely disappointing evening. and not to single out christianity, either, as it is not the only religion that has ignorant people. these are just the examples i know off the top of my head.

i've heard so many...but the one that always stands out above and beyond the rest is...

"God hates fags"

*shudder*

God Bless America

as if everyone isn't god's child.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3PyoUPcobA&feature=related

wow, she reminds me of that crazy loon on Trading Spouses.

Because of my wife I agreed to get married in a Catholic church just to please my future inlaws. I don't believe in religion so it didn't bother me to do this because it was just ceremony anyway. For my parents it wouldn't have mattered if I got married on a garbage scow by its captain.

So I had to talk to the priest before the big day. They wanted me to agree to sign a piece of paper promising to raise my kids Catholic to which I agreed because to me the paper meant nothing. Then I had to answer some questions, one of which was to what religion I followed. I knew I wasn't catholic and I had been baptized a protestant according to a paper my mother gave me. But this priest wanted to know my denomination.
I remembered my mother took me to a Presbyterian church once when I was small so I answered the question by declaring I was Presbyterian. The priest said that I couldn't be. I said why not? His answer still bothers me to this day...He told me I couldn't be Presbyterian because they hated Catholics.:shrug: I said to him that he must be kidding and facetiously stated that I hated my wife so much that I wanted to marry her. He had no sense of humor and declined to marry us. Eventually I had to find another priest. The funny thing about this whole thing was that a week before I got hitched, the priest who originally walked away from marrying us was excommunicated for dinking a choirgirl.

oh yeah, sure.

I don't hate homosexuals, I hate homosexuality.

This can also be substituted by:

I don't hate theists, I hate theism, which would make it the stupidest thing said by a religious atheist.

...
I don't hate theists, I hate theism, which would make it the stupidest thing said by a religious atheist.

You have some sort of problem differentiating between these two stances I take it??

You have some sort of problem differentiating between these two stances I take it??

No, I merely look at the expected outcome to see where the differences lie.

No, I merely look at the expected outcome to see where the differences lie.

And based upon this presumptuous stance you discovered what exactly??

And based upon this presumptuous stance you discovered what exactly??

That anyone who says they hate the concept but loves the individual who practices it must believe in Jesus H Christ.

It was on this forum... I think the thread was something about other universes outside of our own, and someone replied saying "I don't think so because it doesn't mention it in the Bible".

I was stunned.

That anyone who says they hate the concept but loves the individual who practices it must believe in Jesus H Christ.

How is it that you come to this position?

Hating an ideology and not hating an adherent is not mutually exclusive.

How is it that you come to this position?

Hating an ideology and not hating an adherent is not mutually exclusive.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. :shrug:

It was on this forum... I think the thread was something about other universes outside of our own, and someone replied saying "I don't think so because it doesn't mention it in the Bible".

I was stunned.

lol

Rather, I would say that it was that person who was stunned.

The Earth is 6000 years old.

Makes me want to cry.:bawl:

www.fstdt.com
a whole list of dumb statements

How is it that you come to this position?

Hating an ideology and not hating an adherent is not mutually exclusive.

It is much rarer that it is claimed. Religious people tend to lie to themselves and the rest of us when they say they hate homosexuality but not homosexuals.

and rationalists fail to notice how much hate they have in smugness and condescension. They think these distancing mechanisms have eradicated the hate, but they tend to feel the hate in others when they are condescended to.

One can hope that a connection will be made over time in both groups.

Religious idiocy:

Well then you are going to burn in hell for all time.

Rationalist idiocy

You only believe that because you are not brave enough to face the truth.

You got it backwards.

Creationism is based upon science, reason and tons of evidence.

Evolution is based on the blind acceptance of superstitions and fairy tales.

This past spring I was expelled from my high school. Why? Because I'm a Christian. There was a girl in my class who was wiccan, and I didn't want demons to possess me or anyone else and save her from satan. So, I told her that her faith was evil and told her to accept Jesus as Savior and she would be saved. Simple as that. Just say the sinners prayer and you can be saved!

Well I got sent to the principal for that. She said I was 'discriminating' against her religion. I was only doing what the Bible, God, Jesus and my pastor said! How is that wrong!?

Well, afterwards I was forced to aplologize, even though it's a sin to, so I never meant what I said. So, instead I put a copy of a Jack Chick tract in her locker about how wicca and a paganism lead to murder, rape and other horrible things because it lets the devil get inside of you. I also left a little note about how she was going to hell. I was hoping she would see the error of her ways and repent from the evil, disgusting 'religion'.

Instead I was called down to the principal again and this time there were two police officers there. And they said I was under arrest for harrasing this girl and threatening her! What did I do? I just wanted her to accept Jesus and be saved! Now her family (all evil, stupid, disgusting god hating wiccans) want to sue me for discrimination and creating a hostile workplace! How is that fair? She's the one who's discriminating against me because I'm one with the LORD!

Jesus is the only way to salvation! It's that simple people! No pope, wicca, or anything stupid like that! JESUS ONLY! Why is is wrong to tell others that? It's all the fault of the ACLU and simlar atheist organizations trying to destroy us Christians. Next they'll want to genocide us for doing our Godly work.

Meg, Myspace [Comments (238)] [2007-Aug-11]

That's a great reason why children shouldn't be indoctrinated. It makes them stupid.

The Earth is 6000 years old.

Makes me want to cry.:bawl:

LOL...

Oh wait on the File Front Forums...this guy keeps getting baned and creates a new account to tell people Dinosaurs were on the Earth 3,500 years ago I guess that's that creationist thing.

just go to fstdt dot com it stands for fundies say the darndest things also have pages for racists and consipercy nuts

The most narrow minded ignorant thing you've heard a religious person say?

Upon warning us of the dangers of not converting -

"On Judgment Day, don't say you haven't been warned."

I don't think Christian proselytizers even remotely realize how manipulative they are, how they actually expect us to believe them blindly, the double binds they pose on us.

I don't mind so much all that about the earth being 6000 years old or "God hates fags" and such. Blatant ignorance and hatred are actually easy to bear and to ignore.

It is the psychological and philosophical manipulation and subversion that I find most upsetting.

Would have to be the statement made by a Secular Humanist claiming all of the problems on earth can be attributed to Christianity.

Which Humanist would that be? :confused:
Certainly wasn't me. I wouldn't blame all the problems on earth on christianity, and if I was blaming SOMETHING on christianity, I'd at least attribute equal blame to islam and judaism as well.

For me, perhaps not the most narrow minded, but the most disturbing thing was realising that a lot of the people who threaten (/warn) individuals they will go to hell, actually ENJOY and SAVOUR this belief and the idea that those that disagree with them will suffer in burning torment forever and ever etc etc *insert horror themed afterlife here*.

I've got two equaly ignorant things people have said...

1) when I was 8/9 years old at Nevill Holt boarding school near corby, England. We had to go to church (C of E) every morning and twice on sunday,
one sunday the reverend Benyon told us that, once all the people were black on earth until some people swam in a lake in africa, when they came out as they dried they turned white, soon all the people who heard about it came to swim in the lake, after a while the lake started drying up so the people who came could only get the soles of their feet and the palms of their hands wet, which is why black people have pink soles on their feet and pink palms?????

I didn't believe it then.........

not realy religious but this is ignorance just the same.............
2) 1995/1996 a trashey newspaper printed the headline "BLAIR NEW WORLD",
the same day Radio 1,(simon mayo show i think, he was sacked or moved to another station soon after) announced that we are officialy a "Brave New World",How someone who gets paid to ramble on about rubbish and push a button to play the latest pop schmooz can be so deluded that he thinks by saying three words will solve all the population,polution,fammine and war problems is beyond me?????and as it follows from the SUN headlines "BLAIR NEW WORLD" there must have been some communication between the Radio,newspaper and government for what reason is beyond me.

I find it amusing that the book was written nearly a hundred years before (so there is nothing futuristic about this concept), Blair has dragged us back to a state of fear resembling that of pre-world war 1/2 expectations, and radio 1 never mentioned it after mayo was sacked (or moved). Whatever stunt they were trying to pull all they've done since then is continue rambling bull and pushing buutons to play kiddies bop.

You got it backwards.

Creationism is based upon science, reason and tons of evidence.

[Comments (238)] [2007-Aug-11]

This would go close for me to the most ignorant thing.

The rest of that post, I assume is for real and not a pisstake.

Why do I assume that?
PJdude is clearly not capable of parody, sarcasm or..umm.. reality!

Actually, Christians would be somewhat ahead if they read ANY books.

Who actually reads books anymore?

Ask your atheist friends how many books they read?

It seems obvious to me that very few people are reading. The vocabulary being used On Line is mostly of the spoken sort. When BOOKISH words are used, there is typically a huge uproar about that the posts are no longer 'clear'.

Clearly, here as most elsewhere, few books are being read.


Just wondering if anyone has heard a whopper?

Since I started leaning towards believing the earth is closer to 4.67 billion years old rather then 6000 years, I have had a fair few Christians tell me I'm wrong. Not one of them has ever looked into the age of the earth themselves, but somehow they've got this 100% correct idea of how everything is. It really frustrates me that someone who is ignorant of what you are talking about can tell you that you are wrong. I know as a Christian myself that I've done the same in the past, but I'm really starting to think it's best to just keep your mouth shut until you know the person you are talking to, or know what they believe.

I think the main problem is that Christians read Christian books and never actually read the text of the beliefs the actual other people have. Since reading books on science from a non-Christian perspective things have made a heck of a lot more sense, and although I still don't believe everything scientific theory says, I think there is a lot of truth in it that isn't showed in say Christian books that attempt to explain away the age of the earth etc...

Anyway, what experiences have people on this site had?

This would go close for me to the most ignorant thing.

The rest of that post, I assume is for real and not a pisstake.

Why do I assume that?
PJdude is clearly not capable of parody, sarcasm or..umm.. reality!

i don't it could be poe's law which states that without a disclaimer of some sort a parody or satire of a christian fundimentalist will be mistaken for the real thing but yeah i think its real the website i posted a link to also has things that make this one seem normal the site is www.fstdt.com it will scare the crap out of you
and in case you wre thinking i am like these people i am not just repeating them for a show of ignorance these 2 things i posted are both real things said by real people.

Hmmm!

You did mean "i don't" yeah? Not, I'm not ( capable). Clarification sought but not expected.

Hmmm!

You did mean "i don't" yeah? Not, I'm not ( capable). Clarification sought but not expected.

i don't know

Yes

Yes

in the original know should follow the i don't

It so often complained that Religious People are the ones who are ignorant.

But how many Atheists have ever pored through the Vatican Libraries reviewing the evidence for the Saints.

There are so many documented miracles, even in modern times, and yet no atheist really answers for any of them, except to rest on the a priori argument that 'things that are not possible do not happen' which is not an argument at all but a tautalogy -- it doesn't happen because we say so because we say so because we say so.

What Science tells us is that God and the Supernatural are dismissed simply from Scientific Doctrine.

When the Sterling Hospital in India released a Paper verifying that a certain Holy Man, Pralad Jnani indeed was living without food, their Paper was dismissed, A PRIORI, and the Hospital's credentials were pulled. You see, they spoke outside of Accepted Doctrine.

People keep asking Religion to PROVE anything, but if one looks at the workings of Science... Science would never lend itself to such a Study... the times that it has been done... the 'scientists' were blackballed.

Oh, the Our Lady of Lourded Shrine in France. Many miracles there. A group of 30 Doctors were assembled on a committee and they went over thousands of submitted cases and forwarded about 30 that were Bullet Proof Miracles. So the Scientific Community instigated proceedings to have all of these 30 Doctors disencredited.

Science is the New Religon and it is as Blindly Prejudiced as any that have ever come before. They already know what they believe and NOTHING that can be shown them could possibly change their mind.

It so often complained that Religious People are the ones who are ignorant.
I wouldn't say that religious people are ignorant, I would say that Religious Liberalism is Ignorance anywhere outside your own faith.
religion is for the home, spirit and family.
not for political podiums,national pshyce.
But how many Atheists have ever pored through the Vatican Libraries reviewing the evidence for the Saints.

Atheism is a direct result of lack of proof, evidence in God causing deityal dis-belief. A very high percentage of Athiest believed in God as children (santa, toothfairy etc), but logicaly came to a different outlook than they had been told. A lot are still spiritual people, if there was actual proof of God there would be a lot less Atheist's.
How many Papal workers have scoured the book's of the world, looking for proof in the non-existence of God????

There are so many documented miracles, even in modern times, and yet no atheist really answers for any of them,.

Just because something is miraculous doesn't make it the work of God, generaly things become trivialities when logical explanatons account for the unknown.
I.E. solar eclipse,lunar eclipse

But miracles are still miracles, out of pure interest (not for fault finding) I would be interested if you had some links of any bizzare ones

How many Papal workers have scoured the book's of the world, looking for proof in the non-existence of God????




What an Idiot. What a Moron!

Atheists are FOREVER insisting that they do not have to prove a negative... that the burden of Proof for God rests with the Religious People to prove God.

And this MORON comes out and suddenly asserts an entire library of Atheist literature that is PROOF OF THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD.

This guy has got to be SO stupid. Wonder why he isn't more Religious...

Anyway, the people who are well informed from the Documentation that proves so many instances of Providential Supernaturalism... well, what can reading a Literature that insists that Religious People must prove Providential Supernaturalism... what could that possibly do for them.

Once people are convinced by the EVIDENCE of Supernatural Providentialism, then of what use is speculative literature of skepticism.

And let there be no mistake on the matter. Atheisim is entirely SPECULATIVE. No Atheist has ever even bothered to prove anything. DENY DENY DENY. That is all an ATheist ever does. They even deny the EVIDENCE.

What an Idiot. What a Moron!

Atheists are FOREVER insisting that they do not have to prove a negative... that the burden of Proof for God rests with the Religious People to prove God.

And this MORON comes out and suddenly asserts an entire library of Atheist literature that is PROOF OF THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD.

This guy has got to be SO stupid. Wonder why he isn't more Religious...

Anyway, the people who are well informed from the Documentation that proves so many instances of Providential Supernaturalism... well, what can reading a Literature that insists that Religious People must prove Providential Supernaturalism... what could that possibly do for them.

Once people are convinced by the EVIDENCE of Supernatural Providentialism, then of what use is speculative literature of skepticism.

And let there be no mistake on the matter. Atheisim is entirely SPECULATIVE. No Atheist has ever even bothered to prove anything. DENY DENY DENY. That is all an ATheist ever does. They even deny the EVIDENCE.
miracles are not proof of god just the supernatrual

That's a great reason why children shouldn't be indoctrinated. It makes them stupid.
What children are not indoctrinated?

The stupidest thing i have ever herd a fundimentilist christan say was that "the bible proves god exists" followed by "the bible is real because god proves it is" AGRRRRRRRR this from someone who should KNOW what circular logic is!!!!!!!!!

What children are not indoctrinated?

No, what makes children STUPID is that parents don't communicate anything at all.

Anything is better than nothing.

Telling a child that there is a Supernatural God that wants them to be good and noble... that hurts them how?

Letting a child get away with anything, in order to reinforce their self esteem... oh, that's way better isn't it?

We only have to look at this most recent Generation of Young Adults, raised on such lazy principles, and we know how well that goes.

A generation of Volontary Retards.

And look at the Philosophies such a Generation advances.

Yeah... being so much more stupid will help even more, won't it?

I get the impression you are making assumptions that are not true about my position. I can't be sure.

In any case, I still have my question. What children are not indoctrinated?

Of course children are indoctrinated, we spend alot of money and effort doing it. Its called the education system. It doesnt nessarly mean its a bad thing in all cases, without some level of indoctrination we would all be scavangers running around trying to find food. Indoctrination and its related culture is what brought around conciousness

Some haven't a clue as to the difference between indoctrination and education. Most likely, those individuals have some issues with education.

Back to the OP, for theists, there is no length or breadth they will go to making the most ignorant, narrow-minded claims.

Their indoctrination into the cults of their parents plays a huge part in their decision making processes in that they lose all sense of reason and rationale in favor of their cults beliefs, usually in terms of biology and cosmology.

Some haven't a clue as to the difference between indoctrination and education. Most likely, those individuals have some issues with education.

And you probably have no idea how condescension indoctrinates, as one example amongst many. Sure I have 'issues' with education. I was told, also as one example amongst many, that Manifest Destiny was a good philosophy. Let alone the myriad ways parents indoctrinate their children - yes, even rational parents like you would be - about how to live, what is right and wrong, what reality is and isn't. It's easy to look at the fundamentalists and see their broad stroke, blunt indoctrination and feel all gooey about ourselves and indoctrination free 'we' are, but this is just fantasy.

in·doc·tri·nate /ɪnˈdɒktrəˌneɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-dok-truh-neyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.

If you think that the parenting by humanists and public education are easily distinguished from indoctrination, I suggest you re-read that definition and then perhaps take some philosophy and pedagogy classes. Toss in a little family psychology and if you are still walking around feel smug and pure in relation to religious people, you were not paying attention.

Never trust those who say they teach and parent without bias.

If you think that the parenting by humanists and public education are easily distinguished from indoctrination, I suggest you re-read that definition and then perhaps take some philosophy and pedagogy classes.

It would appear YOU didn't read the definition. Get a brain.

The entire Culture is indoctrinated.

Parents don't gove a ___. they sit their retarded children in front of the TV set, and then it does the work.

But then we need to worry about the point of the indoctrination.

I watch a lot of movies. I find that EVERY movie is predisposed AGAINST Civilization and takes the side of Revolution or Barbarism.

yes, screenwriters love Rebels and Defiant Bad Boys wearing hats with horns.

But as Progaganda, what purpose does it serve?

Nobody's. It is Corporate Propaganda designed only to make money in the short term. Stupid, Meaningless Propaganda.

But it DOES serve the purpose of Atheism. Atheism is AGAINST Civilization, and Stupid Screenwriters who like Rebel Heroes are against Civilization. So we have an alliance that is working their fingers to the bone in order to arrive at an end where we have another Dark Age.


I get the impression you are making assumptions that are not true about my position. I can't be sure.

In any case, I still have my question. What children are not indoctrinated?

The entire Culture is indoctrinated.

Parents don't gove a ___. they sit their retarded children in front of the TV set, and then it does the work.

But then we nedd to worry about the point of the indoctrination.

I watch a lot of movies. I find that EVERY movie is predisposed AGAINST Civilization and takes the side of Revolution or Barbarism.

yes, screenwriters love Rebels and Defiant Bad Boys wearing hats with horns.

But asd Progaganda, what purpose does it serve?

Nobody's. It is Corporate Propaganda designed only to make money in the short term. Stupid, Meaningless Propaganda.

But it DOES serve the purpose of Atheism. Atheism is AGAINST Civilization, and Stupid Screenwriters who like Rebel Heroes are against Civilization. So we have an alliance that is working their fingers to the bone in order to arrive at an end where we have another Dark Age.

The defiant bad boys tend to be willing to commit unlawful violence in defense of civilization. The films are an excuse for the Oliver Norths and the police who shoot innocent black people. But they are not against civilization. I would also argue that what they provide is a catharsis, a simulated freedom. We go in the box adn feel free vicariously for 90 minutes and then we are not so concerned about our lack of freedom the rest of the time.

YOu are also assuming that to rebel against current civilization is to rebel against civilization.

Movies are defining civilization and tend to have a very conservative agenda. They let us know who the bad ones are and they promote the bad apple theory of things. These few loathsome men are the problem.

And yes, they do indoctrinate.

It would appear YOU didn't read the definition. Get a brain.

Whoever taught you that an insult is a substitute for an argument indoctrinated you.

Whoever taught you that an insult is a substitute for an argument indoctrinated you.

So, did you read the definition of indoctrination? Do you understand it yet?

What an Idiot. What a Moron!

Atheists are FOREVER insisting that they do not have to prove a negative... that the burden of Proof for God rests with the Religious People to prove God.

I am an Atheist (or probably classed as an Atheist).
I beleive in the existence of God as a concept of belief which has no meta-physical existence apart from actions by the hand of man on man, in the name of God, or existence in the form of faith.
I do not believe in any deity,only man who has used the one God concept as savagely as hitler would be proud.
There is no burden unless you are trying to relieve some>
as to your insults, I pity your ignorance
And this MORON comes out and suddenly asserts an entire library of Atheist literature that is PROOF OF THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD.
You have no assertion of me FOOL and i will give you some food for thought.
THE DRAMA OF ATHEIST HUMANISM, HENRI DE LUBAC (a Jesuit)
THE END OF SCIENCE, JOHN MORGAN
NEW DIASPORAS, NICHOLAS VAN HEAR
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, GEOFFRY ROBERTSON QC
lOOK AT PROSPECT OF MANKINDS FUTURE OTHER THAN, GOD WILL SAVE YS, ALIENS WILL SAVE US, MY HAIRY BUSH WILL SAVE US.
the bible belongs next to Aesops fables, Gepetto's son's escapades, and harry potter as nothing more than a moralesque based introduction to life for the basis of raising children with an ideal of social ettiquette (thou shalt not kill etc),good in its ideals wrong in its interpretation and enforcement.

You my friend are in my top ten of ignorance.........do you even know the difference between religious people and religious liberals?????????

This guy has got to be SO stupid. Wonder why he isn't more Religious...
You know nothing of what I believe?????
And if you want me to explain Liberalism to you and its place in the history of a One God Concept, I will

Q, indoctrination is how we form culture. Wether its concidered bad or not is debatable but the fact that it happens IS true.

Our education system IS one means sociaty uses to indoctrinate its youth, but it is one of many forms. Admitedly this maybe less so at a university level where critical thinking is taught but it does still happen even there

But watch the movies. You can make up as many contrary scenarios as you please, but when you actually watch the movies, they support rebels who are against Law and Order, and they villify Villians who represent the Collective Good.

Yes, they do their ground work. They ALWAYS arrange the FACTS so that the GOVERNMENT is doing something intolerably EVIL. But remember, they are making it up. Its FICTION. They are ARRANGING the Story so that people will HATE CIVILIZATION.

Think about the room full of screenwriters. "Oh, let's have the Government Officials oppress woman and blacks, then surely we will be able to gain sympathy for our bomb throwing rebels who will leave a mile wide swath of death and destruction in their paths".

You need to consider whether you are being manipulated.

Why is it that you THINK that CIVILATION and its INSTITUTIONS are the problem? If you were to read the newspaper and pay attention to the actual occurances in the World, then you would find that GOVERNMENTS and CIVILIZATION are only trying to HELP, but that Private Parties are out to overthrow everything.

Its Barbarism. The idea is that one can destroy a Civilization but if one comes out with one Golden Candlestick the more, than one has PROFITED. The people who are behind this Propaganda to destroy Civilization only care about coming out with the one silly stupid golden candlestick. They don't care what they destroy as long as they get some little bit more in the end for themselves.

Watch the propaganda. Think about it. You will see what it is REALLY saying. It wants you to take your eys off the REAL THREAT and to treat your only FRIENDS like they are the enemy.

Yes, its tricky. If it was not, then they would not need PROPAGANDA.


The defiant bad boys tend to be willing to commit unlawful violence in defense of civilization. The films are an excuse for the Oliver Norths and the police who shoot innocent black people. But they are not against civilization. I would also argue that what they provide is a catharsis, a simulated freedom. We go in the box adn feel free vicariously for 90 minutes and then we are not so concerned about our lack of freedom the rest of the time.

YOu are also assuming that to rebel against current civilization is to rebel against civilization.

Movies are defining civilization and tend to have a very conservative agenda. They let us know who the bad ones are and they promote the bad apple theory of things. These few loathsome men are the problem.

And yes, they do indoctrinate.

Q, indoctrination is how we form culture. Wether its concidered bad or not is debatable but the fact that it happens IS true.

Our education system IS one means sociaty uses to indoctrinate its youth, but it is one of many forms. Admitedly this maybe less so at a university level where critical thinking is taught but it does still happen even there

Didn't read or understand the definition either, Asguard?

Q you just proved YOU dont understand what indoctrination means.

You dont think our political, cultural views are indoctrination?

How about marching through the streets in "patriotsium"

What about ALL millatry training?

You dont think our political, cultural views are indoctrination?

How about marching through the streets in "patriotsium"

What about ALL millatry training?

So, what does that have to do with the education system you claimed was indoctrination, not that your comments are actually valid?

Q you just proved YOU dont understand what indoctrination means.

Funny, it's always other people who continuously claim I prove things. hehe

I've been through military training. No... there is absolutely no formal indoctrincation. No informal indoctrination either. They smoke cigerettes, get drunk, they gamble and they chase whores.

Politically, they are smart enough to know that they are the NAZIS. they don't need to be told.


Q you just proved YOU dont understand what indoctrination means.What about ALL millatry training?

:deal: found what liberalism means yet and why as you claim is moronic, the fact thats it is ignorance with religious groups has no place in the national pshyce or are you an idiot just calling me a moron????????/

hang on pinocchio

are we talking about liberalisum or libertarianisum?

They are just about oposites and if that was a responce to me i dont dislike liberalisum (well unless its the Liberal PARTY because they are a conservitive party)

hang on pinocchio

are we talking about liberalisum or libertarianisum?

They are just about oposites and if that was a responce to me i dont dislike liberalisum (well unless its the Liberal PARTY because they are a conservitive party)

No talking liberalism.

in retrospect that Lv insulted my post 38 in his 39, with absolutly no grounds apart from the fact that he didn't understand it.

then has ignored my response to his tosh in 53

So, did you read the definition of indoctrination? Do you understand it yet?

I am going to assume you are simply lazy rather than meanspirited. That perhaps you could actually make a reasoned argument rather than insulting someone and then assuming that the onus is on them to do your work for you, but you have found it easier and perhaps safer to avoid actually engaging in rational debate. I would like to point out that even in that case, you have another reason to question your own sense of superiority to religious people who simply have other excuses for avoiding such things.

Yes, they do their ground work. They ALWAYS arrange the FACTS so that the GOVERNMENT is doing something intolerably EVIL. .

You and I are not seeing the same movies. I have seen many, many movies where the representatives of the government are the heroes. Sure there are other movies. There is plurality, but your generalizing does not fit for me at all. Given our very different experiences of movies I cant really see where we can debate.

What children are not indoctrinated?

With religion?

With religion?
in·doc·tri·nate /ɪnˈdɒktrəˌneɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-dok-truh-neyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.

Not limited to that. Who are the children who are not instructed in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc. or imbued with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

If you have a knee jerk reaction that this does not take place in liberal, rational, humanistic homes, I think this is naive. And I do not mean as an exception but as the rule. Perhaps you did not think your parents had a view of the world, of what was important, real, of value, good, in good taste, unreal, bad, of no value, in bad taste and so on, but most people find that these things are in fact imposed directly and indirectly. And the opinions and information passed off as facts in schools definitely had bias and point of view and assumptions, some of them laughable.

Remember too that the content of ideas is not the only area of indoctrination. Indoctrination can be implicit and indirect. It teaches us who we are, what is proper behavior, etc. It teaches us about epistemology, politics, what boys are that girls are not, as one example amongst thousands.

We were all bombarded by an ideology (or several), however flexible or rational or culturally relative it may have seemed to have been.

It's not just the fundamentalists who have to deal with adolescent rebellion or adult fundamentalists who find, even in middle age, that they must wean themselves from the ideas, biases, ideologies of parents and teachers they respected or were afraid to challenge in certain ways.

To believe otherwise is to be like the American in another country who thinks 'they' have a culture while 'we' are free and simply acting with common sense. Oh, sure, says the American, we have our traditions, but our culture is neutral, it has no bias.

Yeah, right.

I am going to assume you are simply lazy rather than meanspirited. That perhaps you could actually make a reasoned argument rather than insulting someone and then assuming that the onus is on them to do your work for you, but you have found it easier and perhaps safer to avoid actually engaging in rational debate. I would like to point out that even in that case, you have another reason to question your own sense of superiority to religious people who simply have other excuses for avoiding such things.

I take it you aren't interested in understanding the definition and are sticking with your own definition. Oh well. :shrug:

I take it you aren't interested in understanding the definition and are sticking with your own definition. Oh well. :shrug:
Feel free to actually make a point about your problems with my use of the word. You know, to actually make an argument and back it up. To exhibit some critical thinking skills. Or you can continue to state, essentially, that I am wrong. Perhaps there are people here who are curious about your opinion, rather than your reasoning, and find that fascinating in and of itself. Ah, the guru did not approve of that other post and has hinted about what is wrong. I assume you are posting to them.

Let me give you a little hint...

Perhaps a response on you part could start....

Your use of the word 'indoctrination' is not correct. You are using it to include......

or...

Some of what you are calling indoctrination cannot be classified as that. Here's why.....

or

As it clearly states in the definition ' indoctrination' is ________________. What you have described as 'indoctrination' does not fit this definition. For example....'

But perhaps this is all stressful for you. I have given three opportunities to actually make some sort of case. I'll leave you the thread so you don't have to repeat yourself a fourth time.

And by the way: emoticons may not be a good short cut for you. One can, in fact, convey emotion through tone in writing.

Feel free to actually make a point about your problems with my use of the word.

The term indoctrinate has been used loosely to describe education. The distinction between the two is whether or not the teachings are applied critically. To indoctrinate means to apply knowledge 'uncritically.'

Religion follows the path of indoctrination as it relies entirely on unquestionable faith, while education can provide the means to demonstrate critically the results of what is being taught.

Who are the children who are not instructed in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc. or imbued with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

Why would you not think parents might help their children to think critically when trying to understand those 'doctrines, principles, ideologies, etc.?

Thank you.

The term indoctrinate has been used loosely to describe education. The distinction between the two is whether or not the teachings are applied critically. '

I am not sure exactly what you mean by 'teachings are applied critically'. But the students or the teachers?

In any case, my experience going to what were considered the best public schools in a large east coast city was that we were simply told a lot of facts. There was very little time for us being critical or exhibiting critical thinking skills, except, for example in reading comprehension when picking out the correct multiple choice answers. I have spoken to a lot of people about education, in fact I made my living as a teacher for many years, and I don't think my experiences were out of the ordinary. History was doled out as a series of facts, some of them rather pernicious. There was one social studies teacher who did give us a rather complex textbook that taught history via issues and we were asked to take stands. But this is the only time in that subject. By far and away the pedagogy was based on us as something like tape recorders.

And this is if I just focus on the content of the education. You teach people also by how they are taught, what is not said, how, for example, girls are treated rather than boys, and so on. In this indoctrination ran rampant.

And people who were critical of both implicit indoctrination or challenged ideas or even wanted to speculate or find out the reasons for certain assertions were often not treated well by the teachers.

To indoctrinate means to apply knowledge 'uncritically

I find this confusing also. I assume you mean that one must take in the information/doctrines etc uncritically. But I am not sure.

Religion follows the path of indoctrination as it relies entirely on unquestionable faith, while education can provide the means to demonstrate critically the results of what is being taught.

Yes, it can, but I found it rarely did. I want to stress here how much we were taught that we did not need to be active in our educations. How we needed to take in information that was chosen for us. That our own interests were not important and also, perhaps most important, that critical thinking in relation to the incoming ideas was discouraged. Ideally, you are right. I just think it is much more rare than it ought to be. Education could be like this, but where it is like this it is the exception. It often happens at the college level - but not always even there - but by this time we have already learned how to learn. We have already been trained how to take in information. Our brains have gone through their most remarkable learning periods and our characters have solidified in many ways. It is late in the game.



Why would you not think parents might help their children to think critically when trying to understand those 'doctrines, principles, ideologies, etc.?

They might, some do. And some of the problem is inevitable, given the relationships between parents and children. But my experiences with well educated atheists, my parents amongst them, scientists, journalists, what have you, is that there are sacred cows and issues in these households also. Even in those instances where critical thinking and debate are allowed on certain topics I have seen children reduced to tears by sarcasm, condescension and other 'form' rather than 'content' facets of the parent's education of the children.

If I were killed and my child had to be raised by one of these families or a group of fundamentalists, yes, I would choose one of these families. I am to a certain extent being provocative. But I do think that we overestimate ideas like 'being open minded' 'rational discussions' and do not notice the real dynamics, that, yes, I do believe end up indoctrinating the children. Not to speak of those topics that all families have where no discussion and dissent are allowed. Or those areas of education, for example again that of what it is to be a boy rather than a girl, where the teaching is rarely laid out in black and white. It is not a topic of discussion: today we will tell you what we expect a boy to act like in the world and you may question us critically about this. But rather something that is taught through thousands of cues, subtle rewards and punishments and not so subtle ones, even by the families that consider themselves so enlightened and secular.

I think it is just peachy to take the religious to task for the ways that they indoctrinate their children, but I feel this is often used as a distraction from the ways in which these patterns are endemic in parenting and schooling. I think there is a beam in everyone's eye and no time or room for smugness or at least we are not like them thinking.

Also somehow 'religious' families seems to mean the most blunt of the fundamentalists, when in fact there are many religious families that encourage critical thinking and an exchange course I took under some Jesuits damn well put my CI skills to the task.

So my reaction in this thread is that a reaction to what seems to me to be a habitual implicit self-congratulation on the part of rationalists/atheists for something they really haven't achieved yet. This self-congratulation takes its form often in pointing out that what they do is indoctrination.

Thats an excellent post, sowhatifit'sdark.

well the most narrow minded thing i have herd a theist say recently is that athiasts dont have a conciouse

Conscience is a religious concept. :confused:

Conscience is a religious concept. :confused:

Conscience is a Human trait

Conscience is a religious concept. :confused:

I can testify to the fact that atheists have consciences. I am not an atheist but I have some in my family and I know others. They have nagging concerns about what they have or might have done wrong. They feel regret and remorse about acts they realize they wish they had not committed. They face, despite hardship, facets of their personalities, attitudes and psychology that may not be pleasant for others. And so on.

I went up to a preacher on a street corner once who was preaching out loud, I asked him an honest question and he barked back at me go away you're sapping my energy!!

OP "whats the most narrow minded ignorant thing you've heard a religious person say?"

this thread "Torture and Atheist Morality"
and this "Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon"
and this "People Don't Know ... Anything" to date; theres bound to be more. lol.

I can go one better

how about "god bless you"?:p

Or "can i tell you about god" (from a JW while im in my PJ's trying to hold the dogs back from atacking them)

I can go one better

how about "god bless you"?:p

Or "can i tell you about god" (from a JW while im in my PJ's trying to hold the dogs back from atacking them)

my dad taught me how to deal with them when they ask if you believe in god you how many and which ones

i was thinking about responding "no thank you, i already have my lover satan, thats her there" *pointing to the dog*

A christian preaching though shalt not worship any ICON/IDOL.
Whilst standing in front of a man on a cross.:splat:
I'm sure moses never heard of christ.:tempted:

being an atheist I hear "I'll pray for you" a lot. I hate that!

Miles:Evolutionist do not claim that the eye appeared where there was none before. An animal without what we would call an eye, but with an ability to recognize the difference between light and dark, would have an an advantage. Over a few million years, by natural selection, the eye would develop in stages.

That is high up there on the list.:cool:

being an atheist I hear "I'll pray for you" a lot. I hate that!

lol, cuz you're an athiest? but today it's nice that people would take time out to think of you at all. Btw, I hear hell is nice this time of year.

lol, cuz you're an athiest? but today it's nice that people would take time out to think of you at all. Btw, I hear hell is nice this time of year.

"i'll pray for you" is nice except in the cases when it's like, "i'll pray for you [so that you will convert to christianity because you are dead wrong]!"

I've heard it said with revulsion and a sneer on their face.

How often we all confuse our thoughts for what we feel and believe and give off as vibe.

being an atheist I hear "I'll pray for you" a lot. I hate that!
*************
M*W: I know what you mean. I hear that a lot, especially if it is someone who knows someone I know! I try to look at the sentiment rather than the words. Even as an atheist, and I believe that all or most atheists believe in thinking positively.

I just thank them, all the while I believe they're thinking they just saved my soul. Maybe it made them feel good. At least they were thinking positively by their own concept of positivity.

Usually these people are so long-winded, and I don't like to be trapped in that situation. It's really hard for me to say "get lost" when I feel that they are trying their hardest to be sincere.

I once asked my pastor when I was younger if a kid in india dies and has never known about christ so he doesnt get a chance to accept him as his savior if he would go to hell. his response: yes

Leo Volont

I do actually read a lot, some days 5+ hours. I don't write elegantly with literary prowess because firstly I'm an Aussie, and secondly because its not the 18th century Elizabethan era.

Hi

I Know as a new christian i used to get fired up. And guilted into answeringh all kinds of things that I haven't read in the Bible. I should have been reading first than debating. I'm not excusing the people you met. I don't know how heated it got talking to them, but they probably didn't mean to get you angry.
Regardless you brought up agood point i'm not offended by the idea that the 4.67 billion years the earth was here. I was taught that in Genesis ch.1 in the first to verses nobody knows what the Earth was like before God started creating. So why not 4 billion or more.
There is alot of people in Christendom that have discouraged me too, I think my brain needs to be dusted off sometimes too.
There are issues we face that the bible doesn't speak to for me when christians speak ppresumtuosly we look uninformed. Like mental illness or abortion for instance these are things that are contovercial here.
Anyway have a good day

Some lady once told me that since I am "living in sin" my children would not have souls and just be empty shells that demons could posses, so that they could escape from hell. Then she said why do you think the world is so evil these days? Its because there are so many empty headed women like me. I didn't even know how to respond to that so I didn't, you shouldn't yell at the elderly and senile.

being an atheist I hear "I'll pray for you" a lot. I hate that!

There's one even worse than that: May I pray for you?

How often we all confuse our thoughts for what we feel and believe and give off as vibe.

I think some things (or perhaps even all) cannot be said or thought without there being particular feelings or vibes present.

For example, I cannot call someone a liar or a hypocrite or think of them as such, unless there is anger and meanness present in my mind.
Nor can I think of someone as beautiful or lovely without there being a desire for their company present in my mind.

I think some things (or perhaps even all) cannot be said or thought without there being particular feelings or vibes present.

For example, I cannot call someone a liar or a hypocrite or think of them as such, unless there is anger and meanness present in my mind.
Nor can I think of someone as beautiful or lovely without there being a desire for their company present in my mind.

I agree with you, but I think you misunderstood what I meant. Let me come up with an example. OK. You are 'antiwar', you think violence should be a last resort. These are your beliefs. And yet, after 9/11 or whatever, you have this tremendous anger at random foreign peoples and, if you had the courage, you would notice that you are secretly pleased whenever some of them are blown up by the military you think you are (simply) against.

Or you are anti-racist. You are open to people who are not like you. Your afroamerican coworker, however, notices that you tighten up whenever you are around him, and disagree with his suggestions at meetings, only to agree to the same ones suggested by a white person.

In neither case am I making the claim that the person is actually the opposite of what they think they are. I would assume it is complicated. But in each case they are confusing what they think with what they are and feel (and think). They have a restricted experience of themselves.

Noticing your thread on Christians I think this is something one finds a lot with some religious people. They often use the word 'love' and they are being honest but the vibe is not right.

Bible says love my neighbor. I believe in the Bible. I now think 'I love him' even though he is very annoying and doesn't mow his lawn enough. I love him.

As if the little fluffs of dandelion seeds in the air were the whole lawn and front yard. (metaphor)

You are 'antiwar', you think violence should be a last resort. These are your beliefs. And yet, after 9/11 or whatever, you have this tremendous anger at random foreign peoples and, if you had the courage, you would notice that you are secretly pleased whenever some of them are blown up by the military you think you are (simply) against.

Or you are anti-racist. You are open to people who are not like you. Your afroamerican coworker, however, notices that you tighten up whenever you are around him, and disagree with his suggestions at meetings, only to agree to the same ones suggested by a white person.

In neither case am I making the claim that the person is actually the opposite of what they think they are. I would assume it is complicated. But in each case they are confusing what they think with what they are and feel (and think). They have a restricted experience of themselves.

I, too, think the act of presenting oneself as a particular person is often complicated.
So for a number of reasons: there might be an inconsistent hierarchy of values, a clash of internal interests, a guilt-complex, a hidden agenda, influences that one is not aware of ...

But I think one is justified to make assessements about such things only when it comes to oneself.

Because -
Noticing your thread on Christians I think this is something one finds a lot with some religious people. They often use the word 'love' and they are being honest but the vibe is not right.

It could be argued that this is just their specific idea of love.

"I'm beating you because I love you" - who's to say it isn't so?

Key here might be to be decidely selfish and not apriori assume that others have the same definitions of love (and of everything else) as oneself, and also not assume that others can unilaterally obligate one in any way.
A radical approach like that can be extremely alienating, though.

If we look at Bateson he considered the verbal only one of various channels of communication. I can't see a reason to ignore the other channels, even if that opens up a can of worms. As far as I can tell that can of worms is open. In the case with the Christians it is not simply that I see what they call love and think it is not love. It is that I see other things that do not fit, for example, the way they love their families or their dogs. I get conflicting messages from them. And, I believe, at least some Christians, for example, acknowledge layers and 'feeling it in your heart' as opposed to just your head and so on.

I understand or guess that you want to be more 'careful' than me. But I think that 'careful' in 'interpreting' is dangerous. Almost a kind of pretending, at least it would be for me. 'I did not see that'.

To answer the OP..

You'll find many if you go through all of Leo's posts.

If we look at Bateson he considered the verbal only one of various channels of communication. I can't see a reason to ignore the other channels, even if that opens up a can of worms. As far as I can tell that can of worms is open.

Ideally, I agree, even though my life experience has been one of being trained to focus on the verbal. - Not that I like that, mind you.
However, I also notice how the verbal is usually the weakest spot in communication and experience, it is the spot where I am most vulnerable. There could be many reasons for that.


In the case with the Christians it is not simply that I see what they call love and think it is not love. It is that I see other things that do not fit, for example, the way they love their families or their dogs. I get conflicting messages from them.

Point taken.
It has actually been my exprience that some of my Christian friends would claim we are "very good friends" and will be "friends forever" - and then I found that "forever" means 2 weeks, or that I am not on their gift list, while other friends of theirs were.

I think to many Christians, non-Christians are second-class people. And those Christians are convinced they are doing the non-Christians a great favor just by talking to them at all, and that the non-Christians should be eternally happy and obliged for that.

And if the non-Christian is someone easy to succomb to guilting, they will fall prey to those Christians, believing that the Christians are justified in treating them so poorly, and that thus, it is okay if the Christian says "we're good friends" yet gives one nothing for one's birthday or New Year's, while to other friends they do.


I understand or guess that you want to be more 'careful' than me. But I think that 'careful' in 'interpreting' is dangerous. Almost a kind of pretending, at least it would be for me. 'I did not see that'.

You're right.

P.S.
Here's a good post that I've been reminded of:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1641588#post1641588

Ideally, I agree, even though my life experience has been one of being trained to focus on the verbal. - Not that I like that, mind you.
However, I also notice how the verbal is usually the weakest spot in communication and experience, it is the spot where I am most vulnerable. There could be many reasons for that.

Weakest in what sense? My guess would be: to attack, for example. But I'm not sure.
Point taken.
It has actually been my exprience that some of my Christian friends would claim we are "very good friends" and will be "friends forever" - and then I found that "forever" means 2 weeks, or that I am not on their gift list, while other friends of theirs were.
I think one could hold a mirror up to their attitudes - or vibe, tone of voice, role in relating - and ask if it they are treating others as they would like to be treated. Of course it is easy for them to be slippery. I am not suggesting this as a way to change Christians' habits, but to reiterate that there is something 'on the surface' that does not fit and not simply something in the 'depths' that one is guessing about. A contrast could be made between their relating to you and their relating to other believers while in both cases using the word love to describe their attitude. But maybe I made this clear already. Just clearing it up for me.

I think to many Christians, non-Christians are second-class people. And those Christians are convinced they are doing the non-Christians a great favor just by talking to them at all, and that the non-Christians should be eternally happy and obliged for that.
Yes, it can get rather smarmy. And the surprise when, for example, they meet anger, when they were simply spreading God's word or being loving is.....I don't know, part of the problem. The lack of awareness.

Of course I think this is true of many intellectual non-religious who see the Christians, especially fundamentalists as second class citizens.

And if the non-Christian is someone easy to succomb to guilting, they will fall prey to those Christians, believing that the Christians are justified in treating them so poorly, and that thus, it is okay if the Christian says "we're good friends" yet gives one nothing for one's birthday or New Year's, while to other friends they do.

This sounds like a pattern you see in many families and romantic relationships.
How unpleasant. Because to bring it up, well, it feels shameful somehow. Like a victim to link to the other thread. And greedy or needy or materialistic. And then the response back is likely not to be satisfying. Like, Oh, gosh, I can see how you feel about that. It's a different kind of friendship, but here's what I really appreciate about you....with real feeling. I would expect something indirect, not quite getting it, at best. Worse a direct guilt trip.

Weakest in what sense? My guess would be: to attack, for example. But I'm not sure.

Yes, weakest in that it is the most vulnerable, easy to manipulate.
Or, to use another metaphor: The verbal is for me like a velcro net: everything catches on to it, and then I'm left with a load of junk.


I think one could hold a mirror up to their attitudes - or vibe, tone of voice, role in relating - and ask if it they are treating others as they would like to be treated. Of course it is easy for them to be slippery. I am not suggesting this as a way to change Christians' habits, but to reiterate that there is something 'on the surface' that does not fit and not simply something in the 'depths' that one is guessing about.

Being more judicious and taking differences seriously (instead of blaming them on oneself) seems like a necessary step if one's goal is happiness and quality of life ...
And yes, the "surface" is often clear, expressive enough - "These are the sorts of people I do not wish to spend my time with". Sometimes too terrifying to accept that one has found oneself in close relationships with people whom one doesn't really want to be with at all.


Yes, it can get rather smarmy. And the surprise when, for example, they meet anger, when they were simply spreading God's word or being loving is.....I don't know, part of the problem. The lack of awareness.

Christianity strikes me as extremely solipsistic. It's as if for Christians, the rest of the world does not really exist, or exists only as they say it does.

This is very noticeable in the way many Christians impute motivations on others, and insist in them, regardless what the other person might say or do.
"If you don't believe in God, it's because you don't want to believe in God" - and this is it for them.


Of course I think this is true of many intellectual non-religious who see the Christians, especially fundamentalists as second class citizens.


There's this notion of superiority around, often. I'm afraid that usually, it really is just a superiority complex, not superiority.


This sounds like a pattern you see in many families and romantic relationships.
How unpleasant. Because to bring it up, well, it feels shameful somehow. Like a victim to link to the other thread. And greedy or needy or materialistic. And then the response back is likely not to be satisfying. Like, Oh, gosh, I can see how you feel about that. It's a different kind of friendship, but here's what I really appreciate about you....with real feeling. I would expect something indirect, not quite getting it, at best. Worse a direct guilt trip.

It's basically that they want to set the terms of the relationship and the other person should conform. It is the same structure of relationship as with God: God unilaterally sets the terms and obligations; there is no mutual agreement; if you don't get along, you're bad and should be ashamed of yourself.

'But don't you think it would be a help to you to believe?'

Stupid asswipe.

It's basically that they want to set the terms of the relationship and the other person should conform. It is the same structure of relationship as with God: God unilaterally sets the terms and obligations; there is no mutual agreement; if you don't get along, you're bad and should be ashamed of yourself.

Well said. I mean one should have the integrity to believe in a good God and one that truly would be good to relate to. Or at least yearn for one and grieve that you have the one you have. (given you believe) It is the same as a government leader or a workplace manager. One should hope for someone who uses power fairly and with love when possible and does not expect radical submission. Especially a leader who wants to be called Father.
What father would send his kids to be tortured for all time. Ah, well, there are some, but these are not role models.

Yes, weakest in that it is the most vulnerable, easy to manipulate.
Or, to use another metaphor: The verbal is for me like a velcro net: everything catches on to it, and then I'm left with a load of junk.

That's clear. I get that. I had that with vibe. People's vibe, especially those portions that were aimed at me. I simply took it in. No boundary. I remember telling this to a therapist, sometime like: I mean you just have to take that shit in. And the way he looked at me helped me. He couldn't even find the words, but I got it in his reaction. 'Oh, but you don't have to take it in' his body language said, along with concern. From that second forward I took tiny steps not taking it in, experimenting with a boundary. On some level, you could say I thought having a boundary was a sin.

That's clear. I get that. I had that with vibe. People's vibe, especially those portions that were aimed at me. I simply took it in. No boundary. I remember telling this to a therapist, sometime like: I mean you just have to take that shit in. And the way he looked at me helped me. He couldn't even find the words, but I got it in his reaction. 'Oh, but you don't have to take it in' his body language said, along with concern.

I had almost the same situation. Except that my counselor actually put it in words - "You don't have to take it in".
But she also said that what other people say and do is their business - and this is where I am torn because:
1. Other people might be superior to me, so what they say and do could be my business. When it comes to spiritual superiority, this might be tricky.
2. If what other people say and do is their business, then how is one supposed to engage in relationships with them, on the grounds of what?


On some level, you could say I thought having a boundary was a sin.

I can relate to this.

The BIBLE does'nt say the earth is 6000 years old thats a lie.Evolution is taught in the BIBLE. Once the BIBLE is taught correctly all will see its parralel coarse with science

Well, you certainly held true to the thread title. Congratulations!

The BIBLE does'nt say the earth is 6000 years old thats a lie.Evolution is taught in the BIBLE. Once the BIBLE is taught correctly all will see its parralel coarse with science

All true science is based on the firm foundation of the bible, that infallible guide to the universe and everything beyond.

The BIBLE does'nt say the earth is 6000 years old thats a lie.Evolution is taught in the BIBLE. Once the BIBLE is taught correctly all will see its parralel coarse with science

True. Genesis is a story of gradual development over time. However, with all the other stuff about Noah, which is at least a partial fabrication, the bible is a less than trustworthy scientific reference. If it were a peer reviewed paper, it would not get publication.

The BIBLE does'nt say the earth is 6000 years old thats a lie. Evolution is taught in the BIBLE. Once the BIBLE is taught correctly all will see its parralel coarse with science**************
M*W: Cough... cough!

True. Genesis is a story of gradual development over time. However, with all the other stuff about Noah, which is at least a partial fabrication, the bible is a less than trustworthy scientific reference. If it were a peer reviewed paper, it would not get publication.

It certainly would be published. How about the Christian Science Monitor. the Pastor Phelps exigesis , to name but two ?

No, everyone is born Christian. Only later in life do people choose to stray from Jesus and worship satan instead. Atheists have the greatest "cover" of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims.

from: http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=571357&postcount=16

Holy Moly :huh:

Oh wow stretched, that's a winner. That is the stupidest thing.

Hmm soooooo! atheists are just athiests to Christianity, secretly they are all practising Islam.

Welcome to the jihad, brothers! :D

er, and sisters (some misogyny is essential here, to keep up appearances)

I don't hate homosexuals, I hate homosexuality.

This can also be substituted by:

I don't hate theists, I hate theism, which would make it the stupidest thing said by a religious atheist.

There is a term used in Christianity which goes like "Hate the sin, love the sinner"


It's quaint that Islam has concluded this also.

To answer the OP:

I had a Jehovah Witness knock on me door:

I pointed out a bit of scripture that Paul said, about one body having many members.

She asked me what my religion was.

I said Protestant (which I don't hold now)

She walked up my path (she was about 80) waving her finger calling me a prostitute.

Jiiiiiha! :D

"OMGWTF you believe in evolution!?!"

"Hi, my name is Greenbeg."

ha ha ha....................

atheists are just athiests to Christianity

This is probably true to a large extent.
The Western usual atheist is an atheist specifically in relation to Christian theism, but not necessarily to all other theisms.

The Western atheism phenomenon seems to have developed mostly in reply to Christianity, in reply to issues specifically brought up by fire and brimstone Christianese, hence Western atheism's focus on fear, guilt and blind faith.

I think the Western usual atheist is hardly an atheist to, for example, Krishna. The usual Western atheism's arguments against theism hardly apply to Hinduism.

"Hi, my name is Greenbeg."

ha ha ha....................

What?

This is probably true to a large extent.
The Western usual atheist is an atheist specifically in relation to Christian theism, but not necessarily to all other theisms.

The Western atheism phenomenon seems to have developed mostly in reply to Christianity, in reply to issues specifically brought up by fire and brimstone Christianese, hence Western atheism's focus on fear, guilt and blind faith.

I think the Western usual atheist is hardly an atheist to, for example, Krishna. The usual Western atheism's arguments against theism hardly apply to Hinduism.

Thats not all, what is most amusing is they pick a subject that has been debated ad nauseum for thousands of years and after skimming a few books and websites, decide that they have resolved it.

Bull.. Atheists are atheist to any deity.

Thats not all, what is most amusing is they pick a subject that has been debated ad nauseum for thousands of years and after skimming a few books and websites, decide that they have resolved it.

It's not amusing. The time spent -gone forever- and the ulcers aggravated are real.

Bull.. Atheists are atheist to any deity.

This means an atheist would have to know all deities.

A common mistake that people, theist and atheist alike, make is to assume that all religions are basically the same and only somewhat differ in content, but that the content is always structured the same way, and with the same goal.

This is not so.

However, one actually needs to study the various religions to see this.

Number Three


But how many Atheists have ever pored through the Vatican Libraries reviewing the evidence for the Saints.


I know this was since page two of the thread, but I had to add it to my contribution because...

1. I was unaware that the libraries in the Vatican were available to the public.
2. I'd love to know if this poster, or the majority of christian theists for that matter (even if he did), ever pored through the Vatican Libraries reviewing this so called evidence for the "Saints"...or rather did they accept on faith that the evidence was there...or even that such a Vatican Library exists...

Number Two

"Atheism is a religion"

Much touted mantra of the typical theist. I call it "misery loves company". I fail to understand how a lack of a belief could be a religion.

Number One

"Elton John will encourage his audience into his homosexual lifestyle". Unfortunately I live in the country where a very loud and ignorant anglican priest made this statement on national TV. He was of course the general laughing stock...but my country has not yet moved to the place where the Government would speak out against such propaganda. At least did not side with the priest.

This means an atheist would have to know all deities.

A common mistake that people, theist and atheist alike, make is to assume that all religions are basically the same and only somewhat differ in content, but that the content is always structured the same way, and with the same goal.

This is not so.

However, one actually needs to study the various religions to see this.

I'm pretty sure all deities share a certain quality..

This means an atheist would have to know all deities.
*************
M*W: Not true. An atheist doesn't need to know who all the deities are to not have belief in any of them. It's not the vast numbers of those deities, it's the logical and reasonable fact that there are none except in myth.

A common mistake that people, theist and atheist alike, make is to assume that all religions are basically the same and only somewhat differ in content, but that the content is always structured the same way, and with the same goal.
*************
M*W: Again, not so. Most atheists are knowledgeable of the many religions out there, and we probably see the differences more than a theist would. You might ask, "Why do atheists spend so much time studying various religions?" I think it is because we want to know what other people believe and how their belief systems work. If I were asked to give a lecture on this subject, I wouldn't talk about atheism, I'd talk about theists' belief systems.

However, one actually needs to study the various religions to see this.
*************
M*W: I agree.
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote (FAQ) of the Day:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." ~ Thomas Jefferson
*************
M*W's Anti-Bitterness Comments (ABCs) of the Day:

"Learning makes a man fit company for himself." ~ Thomas Fuller, 1608-1661, English Divine and Historian