A Few Observations

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by Gordon
11. It is possible to respect others beliefs without agreeing with them.

.... But to say I respect something I disagree with -- that is a travesty of respect.
...... Just because someone doesn't go and openly oppose or even kill people, does not mean he respects them.

Yes it would.

You've got lost in the language.

"Respect", according to ordinary English usage may infer

1. deference or agreement.
2. an avoidance, or fear.
3. a concern or a relationship, usually of a serious kind.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Respect

--- Ron.

[Jenyar]

All in all, it has been my experience that the religionists gave me little or no credit in my search for God. They have not taken it seriously. As if I had not spent sleepless nights, crying, over a time of several years.
When confronted with that, they simply said I should turn to God, not to them. Well, were it not that I have heard about God only from them, and not from God Himself.

I took them and God seriously, but they were apparently not willing or not ready to be taken seriously. Which is a shame, considering they "know their religion is true".

You wanted credit from people for your seach for God? What more credit can people give than acknowledgement and encouragement? If someone has expectations that bother you, it helps to remember you are not them, and not to make their expectations your own. That releases the pressure and avoids the inevitable accumulation of resentment.

Even if faith did come from God, you would not cease to be human, cease to have doubts and frustrations, or cease to search. So there can be no time-constraints on faith, because what would they measure success by? People who take their faith most seriously are usually those who still spend sleepless nights sharing their inmost struggles, believing that God hears them.

To take people seriously you will have to turn to them and acknowledge them for who they are, not for what you expect from them. Who isn't willing or ready for that? Some frustrations require input from people, other frustrations are internal; some are temporary, others last a lifetime. Only you can find out which is which, and who might be the best to turn to in the end.

And you're right about this: If someone doesn't think you should have to turn to them, why do they then give the advice to turn to God? They contradict themselves.

[MarcAC]

Having now read many threads and contributed to a few...

Gordon, I think the problem we all have is stereotyping... I know I do it too... but I try to avoid it as much as is justifiable...

Here, I think, all the percieved negative qualities of Christianity will tend to be amplified by those who aim to raze it to the ground... and they will push a certain stereotypical image of Christianity... pathetic really... kind of living in a world in your head.

Just make sure you don't end up spending your life here... or any significant part of it... and end up thinking that the views on sciforums represent the views of the world... scary...

I will only comment about "not even commenting" on the loud silence regarding atheist nutters on sciforums... that's all personal perception of course, but I think there are a lot of "Tom Cruises" around here...

[Godless]

I will only comment about "not even commenting" on the loud silence regarding atheist nutters on sciforums... that's all personal perception of course, but I think there are a lot of "Tom Cruises" around here..

'Been looking in the mirror now haven't you Mark?'

[MarcAC]

'Been looking in the mirror now haven't you Mark?'

What's a Mark?

What is most interesting is that you end up replying to that particular statement...

How poetic...



-

You should change your avatar... you notice it's a loose screw? Or is it a loose nut?

Hmmmmm...

[KennyJC]

Here, I think, all the percieved negative qualities of Christianity will tend to be amplified by those who aim to raze it to the ground... and they will push a certain stereotypical image of Christianity... pathetic really... kind of living in a world in your head.

Christianity is just but one faith. If there was a popular religion dedicated to a belief in a teapot circling the sun then it would receive similar indescriminate lashings by rational people.

Just make sure you don't end up spending your life here... or any significant part of it...

Yes, if you don't want your fantastical and unsubstantiated claims questioned, go to a forum were everyone shares those views. There are many of them.

and end up thinking that the views on sciforums represent the views of the world... scary...

Yes, because it is not scary at all that many parts of the world still have a political and legal system shaped by a belief in a sky fairy.

Since secularism shows greater attention to freedom, human rights and healthier societies, I can only imagine if the entire world shared the views and education of sciforums then the world would be in pretty good shape compared to how it looks now.

[MarcAC]

Christianity is just but one faith. If there was a popular religion dedicated to a belief in a teapot circling the sun then it would receive similar indescriminate lashings by rational people.

So true...

Yet even further... I think it's just humanity...

Give a monopoly some time and you'll see it start crumbling because people start speaking out against it...

It's a "rebellion against the established system"... religion.

Yes, if you don't want your fantastical and unsubstantiated claims questioned, go to a forum were everyone shares those views. There are many of them.

You see the stereotyping Gordon?

Who do you refer to and what their beliefs?

Please do not be re-interpreting my posts to fit the world in your head.

Yes, because it is not scary at all that many parts of the world still have a political and legal system shaped by a belief in a sky fairy.

What world?? [Rhetorical question - see answer above]

Since secularism shows greater attention to freedom, human rights and healthier societies, I can only imagine if the entire world shared the views and education of sciforums then the world would be in pretty good shape compared to how it looks now.

Wow... ok... well... thanks for sharing.

[(Q)]

Here, I think, all the percieved negative qualities of Christianity will tend to be amplified by those who aim to raze it to the ground... and they will push a certain stereotypical image of Christianity... pathetic really... kind of living in a world in your head.

Would that sterotyping of Christianity be the belief in gods, the afterlife, heaven and hell, angels, etc., and the hypocricy of an organized religion?

Just make sure you don't end up spending your life here... or any significant part of it... and end up thinking that the views on sciforums represent the views of the world... scary...

Why wouldn't it be? Isn't the only real difference in the anonimity of the internet?

I will only comment about "not even commenting" on the loud silence regarding atheist nutters on sciforums...

So, an atheist is a nutter because why? They can't see, smell, hear, feel or taste the same invisible non-entities as you?

That would make you a nutter if you didn't believe the person standing on a street corner wearing a sandwich board that reads, "The End is Nigh!"

[MarcAC]

Would that sterotyping of Christianity be the belief in gods, the afterlife, heaven and hell, angels, etc., and the hypocricy of an organized religion?

No... if you read my original post, it was a general statement applicable to all.

Why wouldn't it be? Isn't the only real difference in the anonimity of the internet?

The internet is not sciforums, Q.

So, an atheist is a nutter because why? They can't see, smell, hear, feel or taste the same invisible non-entities as you?

There we go again... stereotyping... and mis-interpreting...

You know nothing about me... you only believe what you see (see your statement above)...

But interesting view however; it seems you think all atheists are nutters? I stated nothing of the sort...

Can't you people read?

[water]

And you're right about this: If someone doesn't think you should have to turn to them, why do they then give the advice to turn to God? They contradict themselves.

Well, ask yourself this.

[Jenyar]

Well, ask yourself this.

I obviously have, and that was my conclusion.

Is there something you would like to assume about me?

[perplexity]

I obviously have, and that was my conclusion.
Is there something you would like to assume about me?

Try this:

You insist or have insisted that she lacks something crucial, and that you know exactly what that is, and that you have it.

--- Ron.

[(Q)]

No... if you read my original post, it was a general statement applicable to all.The internet is not sciforums, Q.There we go again... stereotyping... and mis-interpreting...

Theists believe, atheists don't. Is that any more applicable and any less stereotyped? Sciforums is part of the internet, isn't it? Are you saying there is no anonimity here?

You know nothing about me... you only believe what you see (see your statement above)...

I've read your posts. You believe in invisible non-entities. What's to misrepresent and not know?

But interesting view however; it seems you think all atheists are nutters? I stated nothing of the sort...

Can't you people read?

Only as well as what's been written. And if we can't read, why have claimed we said 'all' atheists are nutters?

For you, the question would be, 'Where the heck did you read that?'

[Jenyar]

You believe in invisible non-entities.

As opposed to visible non-entities?

[(Q)]

As opposed to visible non-entities?

Such as?

[MarcAC]

It has gotten so pathetic I will reply only to this:

You believe in invisible non-entities.

That is your belief.

As opposed to visible non-entities?

Well, naturally Jenyar... there are invisible non-entities and visible non-entities... DUH!

It's simple really... Q's atheist-logic (a-logic) is perfectly sound... since there are visible entities and invisible entities then it becomes perfectly a-logical that the converse follows...

Such as?

And, of course, there are no atheists nutters on sciforums...

I always have to wonder when Q is serious or having a laugh... After some observation I conclude he's always having a laugh (hopefully)... as would be apparent.

[(Q)]

It has gotten so pathetic I will reply only to this:That is your belief.

A non-response.

It's simple really... Q's atheist-logic (a-logic) is perfectly sound... since there are visible entities and invisible entities then it becomes perfectly a-logical that the converse follows...And, of course, there are no atheists nutters on sciforums...

Yes, the conclusion of invisible non-entities will always follow a theists logic or lack thereof.

I always have to wonder when Q is serious or having a laugh... After some observation I conclude he's always having a laugh (hopefully)... as would be apparent.

At your expense, of course.

[Jenyar]

Such as?

My question exactly. What do you mean by "invisible non-entities"?

[one_raven]

I don't think so.

It is possible to be *neutral* or *indifferent* to that which one disagrees with.

But to say I respect something I disagree with -- that is a travesty of respect.

On the contrary, to say that you can not respect something or someone that you disagree with is a travesty of respect.

I respect people that act with integrity.
I respect people who act in accordance with selfless regard for others.
I respect people who treat others with respect.

I don't necessrily have to agree with their religious, political and social ideals and values, to respect what they believe.
Requiring agreement with one's ideals as a prerequisite for respect, in fact, would be selfish, narrow-minded and disrespectful, in my opinion.

If someone's ideals ARE selfish, self-absorbed and actively work AWAY from what I hold as important, that is another story.
But I can respect someone's views that do not agree with mine as long as their actions that directly affect others around them align with a result I can respect.

Most religions extol leading a virtuos life through God.
While I do not believe in their God, I still respect what their God teaches.

[perplexity]

On the contrary, to say that you can not respect something or someone that you disagree with is a travesty of respect.

That is very well put.

Because sooner or later one disagrees with everybody it is not just a travesty of respect, it is a recipe for total isolation and imbecility, when disagreement in effect engenders ignorance, the nothing I want from you leave me alone if you don't see it like I do option.

--- Ron.