Atheists and Theists are both right

[cuddly_tomato]

http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign If you read up on this campaign you'll see that Dawkins was a supporter but not only was the campaign not his idea, he only gave 5,500 pounds out of a total of 136,000. Notice also that this was a response to a 'Christian' group who stated that unbelievers would burn in hell. Not so good.

"What these Christian groups are doing is wrong, immoral and unethical! We will do exactly the same!"

Lack of empathy? Every major religion, with a very few notable exceptions, states that unbelievers are going to be eternally punished. Where's their empathy?

[CITATION NEEDED]

I think that you are confusing religion with certain extremist religious people. Please, don't anyone go quoting the Bible when they know it is not the commonly held view of Christians that the Bible is to be taken literally. I share your distaste for the notion of a benevolent and loving god who condemns souls to hell for all eternity for not applauding loudly enough, but in all honesty the number of religious people who believe this to be the case is rather small, so doesn't really apply unless we are discussing extremists (which we are not).

A truly wise man knows how much he doesn't know.

When dealing with beliefs you will automatically have to deal with extremists. This thread alone is proof of that. The real question is how will you deal with them.

BTW: What are you attempting to accomplish here? Even non-literalists believe in eternal hell, and when you include Judaism and Islam there are a LOT who fall into this category, literalists and non-literalists alike. There are better approaches than: "Please don't anyone go quoting the bible.." depending on who you're talking to. For example READ THE THREAD before you post and you'll see such an example.

There are of course other approaches. Inviting people to take it to 4chan. Not that I'm mentioning anyone here, of course.

I did READ THE THREAD (in capital letters). Please read my post again (in lower case)....

I never mentioned Hell beyond the application of it in the Bible. Yes, non-literalists believe in Hell, but the notion that anyone who doesn't follow everything that is spoken of in the Bible is destined for Hell is very much a minority belief in the western world among religious people, whether they believe Hell or not. In the view of a Hell believing Christian murderers might be destined for the hot place, people who stay at home on a Sunday but never-the-less don't do terrible things probably wouldn't.

My comment "don't go quoting..." was there to forestall the argument of "but the Bible says this...", which is negated by the fact that even if it does say that that had nothing to do with my actual point. I am trying to separate the religious from the religion here.

 

[Captain Blackout]

It sounds to me like you are saying that it doesn't matter if God exists. The problem with that is, What if God does exist and he will only give you true completion and serenity in death if you explicitly believe in him, or what if he doesn't exist and the only way to achieve completion and serenity is to accept that. Also, The universe may look natural and complete to some people but I look at it and see a faulty, amoral incomplete thing.

First off, let's use a different term than "God" for this post. Why? Because it seems to conjure up the wrong image for the readers. Let's say, I dunno, the Tao. That sounds good.

Here's what I'm saying:

1. The Tao exists, and it exists beyond the world we immediately perceive and beyond logic. It "existence" transcends being and non-being.

2. Because of the nature of the Tao's existence both belief and non-belief work. The theist's approach is as valid as the atheist's.

3. Because of the nature of the Tao, being a spirit of creation and compassion, our morals need not be guided by our theism or atheism but by the three virtues: Compassion, frugality, humility. These apply for all and without them our spirits are doomed to needless suffering.

One last thing: If God is the God of Abraham or any Abrahamic ideal I'm headed to hell. I believe in compassion before blind faith. It would go something like this:

God: You didn't believe, you don't deserve.
Me: Epistemological doubt, and it applies to all.
God: I don't care about your arguments no matter how right.
Me: So you really are an arbitrary prick and all that stuff about love and compassion is bull. You're no different than Azathoth.
God: Enjoy hellfire.
Me: Heaven and hell are no different so here's my middle fingeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr (as I'm falling into the fiery pits)

 

[Baby Tea]

Quite frankly I think Jesus had something like this in mind: Heaven and hell are right here, right now. Our job is to have empathy and compassion and create heaven for each other. Compassion literally means "with suffering." It means to suffer with each other. You're never getting away from suffering as long as you exist according to Buddhism. Jesus answer to that (indirectly, the problem of suffering is an issue for all religions) was if we work together we transcend the suffering and have not only existences but lives worth having, suffering and all.

Uh, not quite.
Jesus specifically talked about heaven and hell as separate places, not the 'here and now'. Though, Jesus did call all followers of him to serve and to love one another (And everyone) as shown in the rather famous 'Love your neighbour as yourself' quote and the parable of the good Samaritan. Christ taught a life ruled by forgiveness and mercy and grace rather then selfish desire, based on the mercy and forgiveness and grace of the Lord, and made possible through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

So yes, Jesus said 'everyone, get along and forgive each other and work together (Paraphrased)!, but He was very clear about heaven, hell, and eternity.

 

[Captain Blackout]

Quite frankly I think Jesus had something like this in mind: Heaven and hell are right here, right now. Our job is to have empathy and compassion and create heaven for each other. Compassion literally means "with suffering." It means to suffer with each other. You're never getting away from suffering as long as you exist according to Buddhism. Jesus answer to that (indirectly, the problem of suffering is an issue for all religions) was if we work together we transcend the suffering and have not only existences but lives worth having, suffering and all.

Uh, not quite.
Jesus specifically talked about heaven and hell as separate places, not the 'here and now'. Though, Jesus did call all followers of him to serve and to love one another (And everyone) as shown in the rather famous 'Love your neighbour as yourself' quote and the parable of the good Samaritan. Christ taught a life ruled by forgiveness and mercy and grace rather then selfish desire, based on the mercy and forgiveness and grace of the Lord, and made possible through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

So yes, Jesus said 'everyone, get along and forgive each other and work together (Paraphrased)!, but He was very clear about heaven, hell, and eternity.

*Buzzer sound* Wrong, but nice try.

Jesus talked about heaven being "at hand". He used the parable of the mustard seed to show the growth of heaven throughout religion in a present sense. Some of his references to hell included a burning pit, references to existing garbage pits. While he talked about life beyond this and talked about heaven and hell in that vein as well, that does not change for one moment his discussion of life in the here and now, including using metaphor and direct comments. Also:
Quite frankly I think...
Uh, not quite...
Are you trying to tell me my interpretation is wrong, or that I'm not presented what I think accurately? I'm going to assume you're going after interpretation.
I don't take the Bible literally. There is obvious murderous political propaganda in it being put forth as the word of God. As such, I don't see the Bible as the only way to truth, nor do I see Jewish tradition as the be-all-end-all as a description of God or the universe. I use Taoism heavily. From that viewpoint, I'm quite possibly right on the money.

 

[Captain Blackout]

Ok, for those actually reading the thread:

What I'm proposing is not what you'd expect and I'm not calling on the god of the Abrahamic spectrum. Yes, Christians have made a bloody mess of religion over the centuries. Yes, militant anti-theists haven't helped any. Do we really think re-hashing those groups will help any? Our view of God is often through a narrow viewpoint, whether we share that viewpoint or not. Consequently our view of ourselves and/or others is often just as narrow. I'm proposing expanding our vision. I expanded mine until I came to a point where belief and non-belief were both completely valid. That isn't to say there is no truth but rather, we focus on the wrong truths. Anyone have a comment about this specific concept?

 

[Baby Tea]

Jesus talked about heaven being "at hand".

Verse, please?

He used the parable of the mustard seed to show the growth of heaven throughout religion in a present sense.

Oh, you mean Matthew 13:31-32?
He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."

Yeah, he's talking about the church (The Kingdom of Heaven = Church), not actually heaven. It's called hermeneutics. Exegesis? Isagesis?

And not the 'church' as in the organized 'church' you see today, but rather the 'church' in reference to the collective of the believers in Christ.

Some of his references to hell included a burning pit, references to existing garbage pits. While he talked about life beyond this and talked about heaven and hell in that vein as well, that does not change for one moment his discussion of life in the here and now, including using metaphor and direct comments.

You're right in that he certainly talked about the here and now. Absolutely. I'm not debating that for a moment. I was just pointing out that Jesus made no mention of Heaven being here now, only the "kingdom of heaven", which is the church (Again: Meaning the collective of believers).

I don't take the Bible literally.

Except the mention of the 'kingdom of Heaven'.

I don't see the Bible as the only way to truth, nor do I see Jewish tradition as the be-all-end-all as a description of God or the universe. I use Taoism heavily. From that viewpoint, I'm quite possibly right on the money.

Well I suppose from the worldview you are right in that you could be right. As I Christian, I would disagree, but I'm very much a proponent of respecting the faith of others, regardless of agreement. That might seem a little hard to belief, since I sort of 'called out' your post there, but as easy as it is to read malice in someone's post, please understand I didn't mean it in a 'cruel' or 'mean' way. I would debate (respectfully) that original languages and hermeneutics would disagree with your interpretation of what Christ said, but seeing as you aren't referencing yourself as a 'Christian', then I'll leave it alone.
I'm just cautious of those who 'interpret' the Bible in a way that seems to suit some new denomination of Christianity (Like we need more of those). Looking at people like Westboro Baptist 'church' (I don't even like calling it that) who completely miss the point, I hope you can understand my cautious nature. Seeing as you aren't doing that, I won't press you in this.

 

[Captain Blackout]

Jesus talked about heaven being "at hand".

Verse, please?

He used the parable of the mustard seed to show the growth of heaven throughout religion in a present sense.

Oh, you mean Matthew 13:31-32?
He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."

Yeah, he's talking about the church (The Kingdom of Heaven = Church), not actually heaven. It's called hermeneutics. Exegesis? Isagesis?

And not the 'church' as in the organized 'church' you see today, but rather the 'church' in reference to the collective of the believers in Christ.

You're right in that he certainly talked about the here and now. Absolutely. I'm not debating that for a moment. I was just pointing out that Jesus made no mention of Heaven being here now, only the "kingdom of heaven", which is the church (Again: Meaning the collective of believers).

I don't take the Bible literally.

Except the mention of the 'kingdom of Heaven'.

I don't see the Bible as the only way to truth, nor do I see Jewish tradition as the be-all-end-all as a description of God or the universe. I use Taoism heavily. From that viewpoint, I'm quite possibly right on the money.

Well I suppose from the worldview you are right in that you could be right. As I Christian, I would disagree, but I'm very much a proponent of respecting the faith of others, regardless of agreement. That might seem a little hard to belief, since I sort of 'called out' your post there, but as easy as it is to read malice in someone's post, please understand I didn't mean it in a 'cruel' or 'mean' way. I would debate (respectfully) that original languages and hermeneutics would disagree with your interpretation of what Christ said, but seeing as you aren't referencing yourself as a 'Christian', then I'll leave it alone.
I'm just cautious of those who 'interpret' the Bible in a way that seems to suit some new denomination of Christianity (Like we need more of those). Looking at people like Westboro Baptist 'church' (I don't even like calling it that) who completely miss the point, I hope you can understand my cautious nature. Seeing as you aren't doing that, I won't press you in this.

I will press. First and foremost I do reference myself as a Christian.
Second, I know what hermeneutics and exegesis are. Isagesis isn't a word, at least according to dictionary.com. Do you mean eisegesis? If so, are you accusing me of using my own bias in interpretation? Interesting, since my "bias" is well-founded based on an extensive religious education that includes more than just Christianity.

You seem to think Kingdom of heaven and heaven are separate non-interchangable terms. Way to split hairs over a document that's been through multiple translations about a guy who's had multiple reporters each with THEIR own bias. Furthermore, you really don't understand my viewpoint of the bible if you think I take Kingdom of heaven literally but nothing else.

Well I suppose from the worldview you are right in that you could be right. What??? I made a precise statement based on a syncretic view that bloody well works well, a view you don't get. What is this statement?????

How the hell do you equate me with Westboro in even the least sense? They call for murder in Gods name which we had ENOUGH of from the bible itself. I'm calling for expansion of vision. Furthermore if I decide to start my own new branch of Christianity I'm well within my God given rights to do so and would have a better philosophical foundation than most given my base perspective.

If I come across as pissed, deal. Despite your talk of respect you came across like every other literalist I've ever talked to who would listen to no one but themselves. The same kind of thinking that helped led to Westboro. If you meant to come across as such good job. If you didn't maybe you should either A) not call out posts you don't understand or b) Ask about my perspective, understand it for what it is, and work to argue from there rather than parsing quotes and splitting hairs to make obscure points about documents whose histories alone are more complicated than either of us understand (And after read Erhman I've got the information to back even this last statement up but do you think any thread on Escapist needs us quoting obscure references to each other in an attempt to prove obscure points?)

 

[Mikey_205]

Some very interesting view points here.

Firstly an answer to something about a flower above, Intelligent Design and Evolution are very different, there is evidence for evolution there is absolutely no evidence of intelligent design. Where science and religion do come into conflict (literalists and creationists) any rational thinker should dispense with that interpretation of their religious texts. Quite frankly I find creationists disturbing and will only discuss issues with moderate followers. Questioning of the presence of evidence for evolution for which there is volumes both for for its historical and ongoing impacts (multi resistant bacteria), mechanisms with genetics and history (fossils and DNA comparisons). Really to dispense with evolution you now have to dispense with DNA and any genetics its hardly the weak theory it was in Darwin's time.

Secondly about respect, no-one is entitled to respect it has to be earned. A lot of people are very sensitive to any critiscm of their ideas (religious or not) but I think freedom of speech is a basic right which needs to allow uncensored viewpoints to be voiced. People cannot be allowed to grow overly sensitive. I think there should be a right to verbal displays of intolerance. What good is free speech if its only applicable as long as your opinion doesnt offend anyone.

Thirdly my views about the arguments revolving around theres no proof either way. We dont really know whether God exists or not we cant prove it one way or the other. But why do we actually need to prove the fact that God doesnt exist. When man first evolved (creationists see above) there were no religions until either God told someone he existed or one man came up with the idea. When this guy went and told his friend, if his friend had been logical he would have demanded evidence. My point is for a novel idea to gain status it should have sufficient weight of evidence, thats why I dont respect religion as an idea. Im sure most rational people wouldnt respect me if I said there are pink elephants floating in space without proof. The problem is that so many are brought up in a religious background before they are able to apply reasoned thinking involving the greater world around them.

Lastly about the placebo comment, if we remove the placebo but dont have a cure to man's savage nature (survial of the fittest death of the least fit)would removing peoples' placebo ruin them, cause them to seek alternatives (more or less detructive), spur them on to greater things (discovering the truth) or divide them further. I dont think the situation is simple even if it is in my mind it is yet I think deceit even if it has positive effects is bad. But the world could be a lot worse off and I dont think we will know for a long time.

I do think that science will continue to encroach on religion where it is assertive on the physical nature of the universe but I do not think the two will come into a fundamental conflict until/if physicists can determine what initiated and came before the Big Bang.

 

[Baby Tea]

I will press. First and foremost I do reference myself as a Christian.
Second, I know what hermeneutics and exegesis are. Isagesis isn't a word, at least according to dictionary.com. Do you mean eisegesis? If so, are you accusing me of using my own bias in interpretation? Interesting, since my "bias" is well-founded based on an extensive religious education that includes more than just Christianity.

Alrighty then, let's talk just about Christianity for a moment!
Christianity is the belief in Christ as the Son of God, His death and resurrection for the salvation of sins, and the only way to God. Jesus made it pretty clear with 'I am the way, the true, and the life' and the whole 'you cannot get to the Father except through me' part of his ministry. Christianity isn't a mash-up of whatever faiths you can find that suits your existentialistic and scholastic education. What's the point of calling your self Christian if you're merely only identifying with parts of Christianity? If Islam says 'don't steal' and I think that's a pretty solid rule, then I'm not suddenly a Muslim!

You seem to think Kingdom of heaven and heaven are separate non-interchangable terms. Way to split hairs over a document that's been through multiple translations about a guy who's had multiple reporters each with THEIR own bias. Furthermore, you really don't understand my viewpoint of the bible if you think I take Kingdom of heaven literally but nothing else.

You yourself said you don't take the Bible literally! I didn't say that, you did! And when someone says something like 'I don't take the Bible literally', then pardon me if I find it odd that you turn around and take part of it literally, since it's so obvious that Kingdom of Heaven couldn't possibly mean anything BUT literal heaven.
And you want to talk 'multiple translations'? Then go look at the original Greek, Latin, and Aramaic! We've got plenty of those! Did you know most versions of the Bible today (Like the NIV, for example) are translated from the oldest texts? It's true! Turns out they don't just take some Bible from the 1600s and put it into modern-day English! Neat, huh?

Well I suppose from the worldview you are right in that you could be right. What??? I made a precise statement based on a syncretic view that bloody well works well, a view you don't get. What is this statement?????

Well your worldview seems to be very universalist. A very new age, 'Let's all believe the same basic thing' philosophy that seems to incorporate part of everything. So, from the perspective of that type of worldview, anything could be right, since everything is. Now if this isn't you, then I guess I just misunderstood your position, and that statement can be disregarded.

How the hell do you equate me with Westboro in even the least sense? They call for murder in Gods name which we had ENOUGH of from the bible itself. I'm calling for expansion of vision. Furthermore if I decide to start my own new branch of Christianity I'm well within my God given rights to do so and would have a better philosophical foundation than most given my base perspective.

Now it seems you're misunderstanding me.
I didn't put you on a parallel with Westboro, I was merely pointing out what can happen when people dive into Christianity with a warped and uneducated interpretation of the scriptures. Westboro is an excellent example of that. The point is that all sorts of people are quick to call themselves 'Christian', when they are either unaware, unbelieving, or totally opposed to the fundamental core beliefs of Christianity! If you are any of those, then why call yourself a Christian? It doesn't make sense.

If I come across as pissed, deal. Despite your talk of respect you came across like every other literalist I've ever talked to who would listen to no one but themselves.

People can believe what they want. My guff comes from those who call themselves Christian to either just use the word rather then actually using or following the faith (Which seems to be the case with you), or use the faith to extremes to push their own hate and bigotry (Westboro).

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Better yet, people need to stop thinking they're better than one another when neither can prove anything at all. We all need a little respect for each others' beliefs.

Well, then let's just respect the hell out of the belief that non-believers need to die. That is what you're proposing. The 19 hijackers on 09.11.01 were nothing if not true believers. What else could make educated middle class men hijack and fly planes into buildings?

If you say we must respect religion and beliefs, then we must respect the worst. We must respect the Jonestowns and the suicide bombers.

I do not respect your religion or your beliefs, much like you don't respect mine. At least I don't believe in a perfect sky fairy who has to impress us by incarnating as his own son and then get crucified just so I could agree with myself not to let you burn in a hell of my own creation for all eternity.

Who said I didn't respect you? It works both ways you know. Religious people need to respect people of other religions and athiests. As for extremists, you hate them for what they do, not what they believe. Not all religious people are gonna go bombing.

What he is trying to say is that respect is not taught by all religions. Problem is that if your a hardcore Islamic believer, your taught to purge the non-believers from this world by any means necessary. If your a Christian, your taught that people who don't believe are below you and you should talk them into believing the same way, etc.... Problem is that respect of other people's belief system is not taught therefore tolerance or "coexistence" as it says on all the funny bumper stickers is not a possibility. here in lies the political issue. Do we propose laws against the religious practices that rob humans of their rights? or do we tolerate them, set up special courts for people that believe this way so that when a Muslim man beats his wife for taking of the head covering its protected by law? The extremists that believe only in the healing of god, should these people be allowed to let their children die from something that is treatable just because they believe in something that cant be proven? is this tolerance or is this overlooking someones rights as a human being?

 

[Baby Tea]

What he is trying to say is that respect is not taught by all religions. If your a Christian, your taught that people who don't believe are below you and you should talk them into believing the same way, etc....

Whoa whoa whoa, what? That is totally false. I'll admit that some Christians do that, but they don't get that from the teachings of Jesus that's for sure. I was never taught that people who aren't Christian are 'below me', and I've read a lot of Christian literature and been to a lot of churches.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

What he is trying to say is that respect is not taught by all religions. If your a Christian, your taught that people who don't believe are below you and you should talk them into believing the same way, etc....

Whoa whoa whoa, what? That is totally false. I'll admit that some Christians do that, but they don't get that from the teachings of Jesus that's for sure. I was never taught that people who aren't Christian are 'below me', and I've read a lot of Christian literature and been to a lot of churches.

OK so your trying to argue that your bible doesn't teach you that your god is the only true god and that people who don't believe the same way are "lost" like "sheep" It's not outright there, but the underlying tones such as non believers go to hell and believers go to heaven and such. It seems to be putting a structured tier on believers and non believers there. Im not saying that christians think in exactly those words. Im saying that Christians feel that they are right in their beliefs and everyone else is wrong. In the universe of right and wrong, wrong is below right. I have never gotten a prize for being wrong. In the case of christian religion your reward for being wrong is living in a lake of fire and being
tortured...

I don't care what other people believe in as long as its not forced upon me. Tolerating behavior that forces one persons beliefs on another is against ones right as a human being. The bible DOESNT teach that. Now the bible isn't as strong on this as say the Koran, but its still there.

 

[Baby Tea]

OK so your trying to argue that your bible doesn't teach you that your god is the only true god and that people who don't believe the same way are "lost" like "sheep" It's not outright there, but the underlying tones such as non believers go to hell and believers go to heaven and such. It seems to be putting a structured tier on believers and non believers there. Im not saying that christians think in exactly those words. Im saying that Christians feel that they are right in their beliefs and everyone else is wrong. In the universe of right and wrong, wrong is below right. I have never gotten a prize for being wrong. In the case of christian religion your reward for being wrong is living in a lake of fire and being tortured...

That is a huge jump to go from 'not believing the same thing' to 'we look down on you'. Especially when Christ specifically states to be kind, merciful, and loving to everyone. Do Christians believe that Christ is the 'one truth'? Sure they do, but that isn't license or reason or cause to 'look down on' or 'mistreat' anyone.
I've never heard that, except from the extremists.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

OK so your trying to argue that your bible doesn't teach you that your god is the only true god and that people who don't believe the same way are "lost" like "sheep" It's not outright there, but the underlying tones such as non believers go to hell and believers go to heaven and such. It seems to be putting a structured tier on believers and non believers there. Im not saying that christians think in exactly those words. Im saying that Christians feel that they are right in their beliefs and everyone else is wrong. In the universe of right and wrong, wrong is below right. I have never gotten a prize for being wrong. In the case of christian religion your reward for being wrong is living in a lake of fire and being tortured...

That is a huge jump to go from 'not believing the same thing' to 'we look down on you'. Especially when Christ specifically states to be kind, merciful, and loving to everyone. Do Christians believe that Christ is the 'one truth'? Sure they do, but that isn't license or reason or cause to 'look down on' or 'mistreat' anyone.
I've never heard that, except from the extremists.

Oh im not saying mistreat at all. Im refering to they way you view yourselves as apposed to someone who doesnt believe. its not a hateful view for the most part when it comes to Christianity, just that since you believe in christ your better off then the person that doesnt. I feel I am being disrespected when a christian approaches me about believing the same as they do and i respectfully decline to discuss it with them and they continue to badger me. If I respectfully decline your invitation to conversation that should be then end of it. Now I dont consider them extremest but I do consider them very annoying and disrespectful. You should keep your beliefs to yourself. There's a church on every street corner now. If I want to believe I'll come to you. Unfortunately Christianity in the US has become somewhat of a bad infomercial. Most people are tired of hearing about it.

 

[Baby Tea]

Oh im not saying mistreat at all. Im refering to they way you view yourselves as apposed to someone who doesnt believe. its not a hateful view for the most part when it comes to Christianity, just that since you believe in christ your better off then the person that doesnt. I feel I am being disrespected when a christian approaches me about believing the same as they do and i respectfully decline to discuss it with them and they continue to badger me. If I respectfully decline your invitation to conversation that should be then end of it. Now I dont consider them extremest but I do consider them very annoying and disrespectful. You should keep your beliefs to yourself. There's a church on every street corner now. If I want to believe I'll come to you. Unfortunately Christianity in the US has become somewhat of a bad infomercial. Most people are tired of hearing about it.

Well I totally agree that they shouldn't be all in your face, especially if you simply, and plainly, say 'go away'. As a Christian, even I can find that annoying. But just like anti-theists think religious people are deluding themselves, and some agnostics might think that anyone part of a 'major' or 'organized' religion is crazy for thinking they are 'sure' of the 'truth', some Christians can be 'in your face' vocal about their faith in Christ.

So while I totally get, and agree, that some of the more 'pushy' Christians need to take a hint and leave some people alone (After all: if God gave the freedom to believe, He also gave the freedom to disbelieve), I've also met people from all sorts of worldviews who do the same thing, Christian or not.
My point is: Annoying, and even sometimes disrespectful? Yes. Unique to Christianity? No.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Oh im not saying mistreat at all. Im refering to they way you view yourselves as apposed to someone who doesnt believe. its not a hateful view for the most part when it comes to Christianity, just that since you believe in christ your better off then the person that doesnt. I feel I am being disrespected when a christian approaches me about believing the same as they do and i respectfully decline to discuss it with them and they continue to badger me. If I respectfully decline your invitation to conversation that should be then end of it. Now I dont consider them extremest but I do consider them very annoying and disrespectful. You should keep your beliefs to yourself. There's a church on every street corner now. If I want to believe I'll come to you. Unfortunately Christianity in the US has become somewhat of a bad infomercial. Most people are tired of hearing about it.

Well I totally agree that they shouldn't be all in your face, especially if you simply, and plainly, say 'go away'. As a Christian, even I can find that annoying. But just like anti-theists think religious people are deluding themselves, and some agnostics might think that anyone part of a 'major' or 'organized' religion is crazy for thinking they are 'sure' of the 'truth', some Christians can be 'in your face' vocal about their faith in Christ.

So while I totally get, and agree, that some of the more 'pushy' Christians need to take a hint and leave some people alone (After all: if God gave the freedom to believe, He also gave the freedom to disbelieve), I've also met people from all sorts of worldviews who do the same thing, Christian or not.
My point is: Annoying, and even sometimes disrespectful? Yes. Unique to Christianity? No.

I completely agree, I only listed the two religions being debated in news now but yes i agree, its something all religions have in common, thats why a comforting level of "coexistence" will probably never be reached. It would take the religious leaders of the worlds saying, alright, we may be right and we may be wrong so we are going to stop persecuting people who believe other things. i.e. the constant battle over the "holy land" will not end until one side or the other is wiped out. Sad really when you think about it. People can not see past a line of text that was written thousands of years ago and just exist. They have to kill other people just like them over a place to live that after all the war will be worthless.

 

[caross73]

My point is: Annoying, and even sometimes disrespectful? Yes. Unique to Christianity? No.

Yeah, I totally had to kick a dozen Buddhists, 3 Taoists, a Confucian, a Hindu, and a Zoroastrian off my porch yesterday.

Yeesh.

(Forget that Buddhism basically says if it doesn't work for you, don't believe it... if only Abrahamic religions could be so mature. Any religion that preaches if you don't believe you are irredeemably going to hell for all eternity is unworthy of respect at this point -- any such god would be a despot and ipso facto, not a god in the first place)

 

[Izakflashman]

Well, it wasn't necessarily a conclusion. It was just a succinct restating of something I had said earlier. Your comment could be considered pointless. Mine was pretty much a followup to what I had been saying.

How about you stop assuming everyone here is spoiling for a fight with you, and take a look back over the thread. What you have been saying is a blanket-statement assumption on all people of faith and the nature of their religion. This Crusade-like mnetality is what you fear from a religion, and yet you posses and espouse it as readily as a born again christian will 'the presence of the lord'.

You want the religious to stop 'murdering non-believers' in a holy war, and yet you only meet religion with offence and balled fists. You need two sides to a brawl, how about you stop bieng one of them? Religion is only ever the excuse, like patriotism or partriachy, not the cause. It is an almost papal ignorance to decry 'religion' as the cause for problems when religion and violence are equal bi-products of human nature.

Now how about we try to have this discussion with some civility?

Wow nice. =D

 

[Uncompetative]

Spoiler: Post

There is no ultimate answer to the meaning of life, grand goal for humanity, or ideal morality. This is because a definitive answer cannot be given to a question without regarding the topic objectively and it is impossible to regard 'life' objectively as we are within it. In other words we are not able to express the question in terms that share a common frame of reference with our normal lives whilst outside of the universe of discourse. There is no loophole to this. You can not say "God knows the answer" on the grounds that a metaphysical super-being could have a privileged objective perspective on life, the universe and everything as this god would be part of the people's spiritual life. Ironically it is the very fact that people believe in some sort of God that makes it impossible for such an entity to take a independent, unbiased, definitive view.

Conversely, if no one in the entire history of the universe believed in God this God would still not be able to ask the question, as this lack of knowledge of metaphysics and spirituality in culture would be such a serious omission from the universe of human discourse that even if the answer to the meaning of life did not depend on such foundational concepts you couldn't be sure that the answer God had arrived at without us having knowledge of God was complete. Everything has to be under consideration in a question for the answer to not be in doubt. You can not exclude a bunch of concepts even if they have no bearing on things, you must include everything that is known and in this case God is in the awkward position of knowing too much.

I can't prove God doesn't exist, but I prefer to believe that there isn't one. I prefer to live in "reality" and a 'God' is definitely intangible for me.

However, I am not a Nihilist. Just because I have proven that the question:

"What is the meaning of life?"

is erroneous (not unanswerable and mysterious, but simply semantically flawed and fundamentally impossible to ask), as I find the whole notion that it doesn't ultimately matter what humanity achieves, or how we should act towards each other, or what we should worship, etc. is incredibly liberating. There is nothing, ultimately, stopping me from attempting anything. I don't feel as if I ought to be doing 'X'.

That said, I have adapted over the years to cope with other people and have found that the application of:

Good Manners,
Tolerance and
Avoidance

in roughly that order, has worked out rather well.

I don't need to follow some Bible or even the Law of the land as the things I tend to do fall well within acceptable behaviour - i.e. I do not feel like murdering anyone, so telling me I will go to prison, or Hell, if I do doesn't have any effect on me (I wasn't going to anyway).

Finally, this ultimate meaning of life is all to do with the 'Eternal' which I am not interested in. I am far more interested in the short-term, those things that you forget, or will be erased by History. I speak of the often overlooked 'Ephemeral'. A nice ice-cream on the first sunny day of the year, or just a decent cup of tea when you really feel the need of one.

Don't forget. We can all make our own meanings within our lives. Things to live for, goals to accomplish. However, as all of these ultimately fall into the class of the Ephemeral (as far as humanity is concerned), none of us should think that their (way of) life is better than others. I will include myself in this and put this alternative viewpoint forward of a life without God, meaning, or karma as a polite recommendation for some of you to consider as it has worked well for me, however, I respect your beliefs and opinions on life if you choose to ignore this.

A good point, I think the main mistake people on both sides of the fence make is that the whole purpose, cause, and ultimate "Why?" is extremely likely not to be a concept that can fit inside someones head or be able to be worked out on paper. Or, alternately, God's reasoning for creation would be impossible to comprehend with our limited understanding.

Errr... My point was that no one, including some sort of God, would be able to properly ask the question "What is the Meaning of Life?" and get a definitive answer to it, so it would seem that you have misinterpreted my post. Oh well, never mind...

 

[Baby Tea]

My point is: Annoying, and even sometimes disrespectful? Yes. Unique to Christianity? No.

Yeah, I totally had to kick a dozen Buddhists, 3 Taoists, a Confucian, a Hindu, and a Zoroastrian off my porch yesterday.

Yeesh.

(Forget that Buddhism basically says if it doesn't work for you, don't believe it... if only Abrahamic religions could be so mature. Any religion that preaches if you don't believe you are irredeemably going to hell for all eternity is unworthy of respect at this point -- any such god would be a despot and ipso facto, not a god in the first place)

Ha! Obvious troll is obvious.
That, and your ignorance of Buddhism amuses me.
Carry on, forum jester, carry on.