Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by universaldistress, Mar 13, 2011.
Could you comment on this, please -
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
As usual LG has lost me. I'm not sure what he's getting at, at all, on this one.
Depends what you mean by "rejection". As in your "parcel on the doorstep" example, isn't "not accepting" a form of rejection? :shrug:
Do you see your "having no belief in God's existence" as a matter of rejection?
I suppose I do in a sense, since belief is more or less assumed from early age (Sunday school, church assemblies, hymn singing at school assembly etc.).
So it's rejection in that, since I realised I didn't actually believe, I'm at least rejecting much of the associated paraphernalia that goes with it.
On the other hand, it may not be. Like I said: belief was assumed, including by me, right up until I asked myself why I was doing what I was doing, and the answer was "Why should I? I actually don't believe this".
It's a rejection of an assumption. On my part.
And a rejection has to be based on something, on some other beliefs and values than one does hold.
So in the case of rejecting belief in God, what were the beliefs and values that guided your rejection?
You say - "'Why should I? I actually don't believe this'. It's a rejection of an assumption."
It seems that what guided your rejection was something like "One should not continue with the practice of something that one does not feel intimately bound to" -?
To be honest it was more a realisation that I didn't in fact subscribe to the belief I'd paid lip-service to and assumed I actually believed until I thought about it.
That's closer. Prior to that realisation I'd "gone along" with things in the belief that I believed (if that makes sense). And then one day... I discovered I didn't.
So - just checking - for you, it wasn't a matter of something like "Science has better explanations about humans and the Universe than religion" or "There is too much harm going on in the name of religion that religion could still be considered true" -?
Something like waking up one morning next to one's spouse and realizing "Who is this person? What am I doing being married to this person? Why did I marry? I don't want to be married to this person."
That's essentially correct.
I do recall being deeply offended upon reading the school magazine where the question "Do you believe in god?" was answered with "Who?" at an early age, because, well you simply can't talk about god like that because he's... hang on. What is god? Why am I offended? And it went from there...
Not quite, since, presumably, there were valid reasons for getting married in the first place - i.e. getting married was a volitional act.
I just realised that my "belief" wasn't in fact there in the first place, it was simply taken for granted by all (including me) that I did believe.
You'll have to find that post.
The word "atheist" entered my vocabulary early on, I must have been about six xears old.
I witnessed a discussion on religious topics and my relative decidely identified himself as an atheist - and I didn't know what the word meant, but I do remember the emotion with which he said it.
Then why do they call themselves atheists?
And I'm trying!
I agree that theists can seem like bullies, and I myself have long tended to experience them as bullies - and as something I wanted to free myself from, thinking "They shouldn't be doing this to me!".
But over time, I am finding that the usual reply people have to bullies, namely feeling and thinking like a victim, 1. does not help, 2. compromises one's integrity.
Which urges me to find a more productive response to the claims and demands put forward by theists.
I think this is so for many people. It can be very embarrassing and disturbing to admit so, even just to oneself.
I am sure that many self-declared atheists who swear by something like "Science has better explanations about humans and the Universe than religion" or "There is too much harm going on in the name of religion that religion could still be considered true" are actually doing so in order to preserve their self-image as rational agents.
It's a matter of distinguishing reality from fiction.
Yes. Do we still do sacrificial rituals of sentient beings? No. Therefore it is primitive.
WTF? Religions (most of them) are based on their books. You're avoiding the topic.
This is just one example of the many out there...
"Yates’s history apparently made her someone prepared to submit to her husband’s wishes on every critical question. It is in this fashion that the fate of the family seems to have become bound up with the fundamentalist Christian ideology of “family values.”
There is certainly every indication that her husband was the driving force in this regard. Andrea’s former acquaintance Kelly Young told the Chronicle, “I would never in a million years have expected her to have five children, much less children with religious names. She never made any indication that she was really interested in having many kids.”
Russell Yates has acknowledged that he was the one in the family with “deep religious feelings.” A neighbor described him as “conservative.” Relatives told the press that the couple was not affiliated with any church, but if the site of the children’s funeral was any indication, Russell Yates has some relationship with the Church of Christ. This is one of many Protestant sects, with some two million members worldwide. According to a Church of Christ web site, “Membership of the church is heaviest in the southern states of the United States, particularly Tennessee and Texas...”
Explain the following:
Osama Bin Laden
Hezbollah (The Party of God)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement (PIJ)
Or maybe you'd enjoy explaining these...
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How blind do you have to be before you start realizing what the hell is going on in the world around you, LG?
Furthmore, I personally witnessed the aftermath of when someone had spraypainted crosses and the words "Die Jews" on the sides of a local Synagogue in 2003 in Houston, TX.
You're not getting it at all.
Combine them and it's still not as much as Christians, Jews and Muslims. You really need to get your facts straight.
Thats rediculous and a far-fetched assumption on your part.
There are religious leaders that are good people and don't endorse violence (and biblical commands of violence). Also, the Dalai Lama comes to mind.
You really aren't making sense here. Can anyone else make sense of this?
Until you start getting a grip on reality, there's not much else I can say. Half of the stuff you spout makes no sense. It's almost as if you attempt to sound well-educated and sophisticated but yet it ends up coming out as vague, yet remotely coherent, jibberish. You avoid far too many questions. You overcomplicate even the most simple post, and your responses tend to detour into nowhere; barely (if at all) relating back to the topic at hand. If this were a live debate in a public forum, I'm sure that people would be getting up and walking out when you speak.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'll try and locate it. I may have you confused with someone else though (hence the (?)).
Because that's what they are called?
I have nothing to say about what atheism should be. I'm just a person that does not believe. If the title doesn't fit, according to you (or anyone for that matter), that's fine with me.
Perhaps you should replace "atheist" with "someone that does not believe".
Can you give an example?
actually screwing up on the issue of details vs principles is a convenient tool in a whole range of political escapades ... in fact you fall victim to it yourself by trying to draw up the faults of a minority as sufficient to discredit a majority (such as citing religious anti-abortion violence ... more details later)
so are laws, and they can also met out pretty hefty sentences to others regardless of familial bonds (no man above the law and all that) .
whats your point?
and this establishes a precedent for parents killing there children on (so-called) religious grounds as a common behaviour?
Typical of most resistance groups/guerrilla forces born out of a threatened national identity at the hands of foreign invaders ... perhaps what is unique is that some of them were previously on the payroll of national business magnates of their to-be invaders
If you want to understand the subject you would be better off looking further afield than atheist hate sites
Why are you so blind to the hefty criticisms from the very persons you are trying to lump in with them?
The Taliban were criticized for their strictness toward those who disobeyed their imposed rules. Many Muslims complained that most Taliban rules had no basis in the Qur'an or sharia.
Do you think that there are no religious minded people in the middle east critical of the above mentioned groups or do you blindly believe the nonsense spouted by atheist hate sites?
You can easily find mainstream criticism of these acts (even within the links you provide) by the same religious groups you are trying to lump in with them.
If the best you can do is cite an incident almost ten years ago, I think you have proven my point.
I think you miss the point.
You were talking about a god that exclusively places the living entity in the role of someone to be punished.
generally the best way to learn is to ask for a clarification as opposed to insulting the speaker
So lets try again, one point at a time
You are extolling the glories of altruism (eg feeding the hungry, relieving the distress of flood victims etc) as the highest platform of action, yes?
I can't find it so I must have been mistaken.
However, I did find some curious posts from someone who claims to be an atheist "for practical intents and purposes".
Here are a few of them:
If you don't mind me asking, what exactly do you consider yourself to be?
I'll attempt to respond to this tomorrow when I have my computer. I'm viewing from my phone now.
Why do they accept the name "atheist" though, if they say they have no beliefs in God?
If someone calls you an "idiot", do you then call yourself an "idiot" as well?
My "How I learned not to fear either the anti-God squad nor the pro-God squad" project is still very much at the beginning.
I am firmly decided not to demonize either side, to begin with.
- this is from a thread that was aimed at agnostics and atheists, but who didn't participate much.
- this simply follows from the definition of God.
- again, a matter of sticking to standard definitions. Anyone can and should do that, otherwise it's pointless to try to engage in communication.
Separate names with a comma.