News2 mins ago
Who In The Religious World....
95 Answers
Speaks the most sense about religious matters and why, in todays world?
You can opt for any faith in your answer.
You can opt for any faith in your answer.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by agchristie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Would be a waste of time Naomi because as you yourself said on this thread
"I am not about to change my opinions or my methods of conveying them for you".
You cannot debate e.g. On your "Another mad convert" thread I (and others) suggested that this may not be a religious issue and you (ridiculously) said I was "defending Islam". I have never known anyone to be able to turn the written word into something completely different quite the way you do it.
"I am not about to change my opinions or my methods of conveying them for you".
You cannot debate e.g. On your "Another mad convert" thread I (and others) suggested that this may not be a religious issue and you (ridiculously) said I was "defending Islam". I have never known anyone to be able to turn the written word into something completely different quite the way you do it.
Grasscarp - I think a rewind is in order here. I asked Naomi a question which was answered. Whether I agree with some or all of her opinions is up to me or others to challenge in a civil way. Whether Naomi's answer is interpreted as fact is not really relevant. Naomi does not control the post and whether she contributes is not a reason to back off.
Other people have contributed to the question with a range of views without it degenerating into farce and insult. It never ceases to amaze me why it is not possible to have a discussion that despite differences in views, it has to develop into needless anarchy.
I am grateful for all posts whether I agree with all the comments or not.
It would be a shame if you feel as though you cannot contribute to Naomi's post. Your silence may be taken by some to mean that you are unable to adequately deconstruct her reasoning which undermines what this is really meant to be about?
Open discussion, challenge and just agree to disagree. There is no mileage in protracted discussion about character. Let's stick to opinions and respect them and counter them civilly.
Naomi - I will come back to your post later.
Other people have contributed to the question with a range of views without it degenerating into farce and insult. It never ceases to amaze me why it is not possible to have a discussion that despite differences in views, it has to develop into needless anarchy.
I am grateful for all posts whether I agree with all the comments or not.
It would be a shame if you feel as though you cannot contribute to Naomi's post. Your silence may be taken by some to mean that you are unable to adequately deconstruct her reasoning which undermines what this is really meant to be about?
Open discussion, challenge and just agree to disagree. There is no mileage in protracted discussion about character. Let's stick to opinions and respect them and counter them civilly.
Naomi - I will come back to your post later.
Agchristie I can only apologise that my post this morning went a bit off track. I only looked into the latest posts and started to read Naomi's post which quickly turned into her oft repeated description of what, in her opinion, is wrong with people who are religious - Whilst resolute irrationality is the foundation stone of enduring and steadfast faith
Sycophantic subservience
Cheating death
I just thought I wanted to say she keeps on with the same statements which are so untrue.
Maybe I should have just ignored her.
Sycophantic subservience
Cheating death
I just thought I wanted to say she keeps on with the same statements which are so untrue.
Maybe I should have just ignored her.
Take "cheating death" quote. All religions believe in life after death. It is not a case of "cheating" anything and the words seem chosen to be as scathing as possible. It is faith so cannot be explained. We have faith, hope and belief that the spirit goes on. Death of the human body occurs so there is nothing to discuss there. Each of us will find what does happen eventually (or not as the case may be).
Sycophantic subservience. Why sycophantic? Again inaccurate and rude. How do you explain that your behaviour is not and never had been sycophantic?
Resolute irrationality. I am rational and resolve to be rational in my thought processes. So this turns into a back and forth - you are - I am not - rubbish repartee.
Only said all this because you want me to explain lucidly and I have tried.
To me R&S is a unique section on AB because rather than actually being able to actually discuss religion and spirituality it is invariably people who don't believe in it (or even possess a soul according to some) looking to dissect and deride those that do.
Amen
Sycophantic subservience. Why sycophantic? Again inaccurate and rude. How do you explain that your behaviour is not and never had been sycophantic?
Resolute irrationality. I am rational and resolve to be rational in my thought processes. So this turns into a back and forth - you are - I am not - rubbish repartee.
Only said all this because you want me to explain lucidly and I have tried.
To me R&S is a unique section on AB because rather than actually being able to actually discuss religion and spirituality it is invariably people who don't believe in it (or even possess a soul according to some) looking to dissect and deride those that do.
Amen
Grasscarp, I'm pleased that you have replied as I was keen to see how others interpreted Naomi's views. I don't want to be seen as a mediator, more a case of trying to avoid a mass deviation.
Naomi - some emotive language you used and although I understood that conversion can simply be a case of an 'experience' or that another ideology can take hold, I was curious to know exactly what you meant about 'cheating death' being the main reason.
Has there been any studies to determine why people do switch their allegiances? What is your assertion based on?
Naomi - some emotive language you used and although I understood that conversion can simply be a case of an 'experience' or that another ideology can take hold, I was curious to know exactly what you meant about 'cheating death' being the main reason.
Has there been any studies to determine why people do switch their allegiances? What is your assertion based on?
agchristie, since so many people are so negatively affected by religion, in my opinion such an emotive subject warrants emotive language. I have no idea whether or not studies have been conducted to determine reasons for conversion, but logically there is no motivation to worship a god if the end result is not beneficial to the worshipper. According to the Christian/Islamic philosophies the faithful survive death, and the non-believer is either doomed to oblivion or to an unthinkable method of eternal punishment; hence human beings choose to worship a god solely in the hope that they will not be counted among those who are condemned. My opinions are based upon rational analysis.
Naomi, when you state so many people are 'negatively affected' are you referring to both theists and atheists and if so, which category do you consider is most affected and why?
I'm guessing it's the former as atheists are more 'comfortable' since not to believe that they will be doomed after death is a preferable position to those who feel less secure somehow?
Regarding Grasscarp's claim that the R&S section merely exposes believers to constant ridicule do you believe that there is little rationality whatsoever in religion and so it is unavoidable for believers to receive constant criticism?
I never considered that worship was based on a 'sole belief' that condemnation would follow if you didn't believe.
I noted with interest the thread asking about the worth of a soul which really comes down to whether you actually believe in an afterlife.
I'm guessing it's the former as atheists are more 'comfortable' since not to believe that they will be doomed after death is a preferable position to those who feel less secure somehow?
Regarding Grasscarp's claim that the R&S section merely exposes believers to constant ridicule do you believe that there is little rationality whatsoever in religion and so it is unavoidable for believers to receive constant criticism?
I never considered that worship was based on a 'sole belief' that condemnation would follow if you didn't believe.
I noted with interest the thread asking about the worth of a soul which really comes down to whether you actually believe in an afterlife.
agchristie, the negative effects of religion are accepted by the believer, but are often forcibly imposed upon the non-believer.
Children taught from birth that they are sinners grow up with adverse perceptions of self-worth, assuaged only by the parallel teaching that the horrors of hell or the perpetual oblivion of the grave may be avoided if they submit themselves, both physically and intellectually, to the will of a severely judgemental god. In the case of Christianity, that imposition of negative self-worth is further endorsed by a story of a man who voluntarily suffered a most brutal death in order to save humanity, so together with the entirely unnecessary burden of a notion of guilt and self-reproach, pathos is introduced thereby effecting an unavoidable obligation for eternal gratitude too.
Conversely, in areas of the world where religion strictly dictates the rules, non-believers, homosexuals, or women seeking abortions, for example, along with many others, are purposefully denied control over their own lives, so considering all the foregoing, it’s difficult to assess which group is most negatively affected. Religion affects and restricts us all in one way or another – some more so than others.
I can’t speak for other critics of religion, but Grasscarp’s consistent accusation that my analysis equates to denigration of the religious here on a personal level is inaccurate. It doesn’t. I criticise religious dogma and the detrimental effect that it inflicts upon human beings and upon our planet. Curiously though, Grasscarp, like one or two others here, doesn’t seem to realise that persistent efforts to silence people suggest that, once again, religion is attempting to impose its will upon the rest of us, as can be seen in the charge that my assessment is ‘rude’, which amounts to nothing more than a demand that I respect something in which I see no rationality whatsoever. I don’t respect religion, and the rights of the religious to speak freely do not take precedence over the rights of everyone else to do likewise.
As for the soul, without that concept, the notion that a supernatural god, that has ultimate power over life and death, exists, would be relegated to extinction – but self-preservation is paramount, and so it persists.
ag, it strikes me that you ask a lot of questions, but rarely offer an opinion. Do you have one?
Children taught from birth that they are sinners grow up with adverse perceptions of self-worth, assuaged only by the parallel teaching that the horrors of hell or the perpetual oblivion of the grave may be avoided if they submit themselves, both physically and intellectually, to the will of a severely judgemental god. In the case of Christianity, that imposition of negative self-worth is further endorsed by a story of a man who voluntarily suffered a most brutal death in order to save humanity, so together with the entirely unnecessary burden of a notion of guilt and self-reproach, pathos is introduced thereby effecting an unavoidable obligation for eternal gratitude too.
Conversely, in areas of the world where religion strictly dictates the rules, non-believers, homosexuals, or women seeking abortions, for example, along with many others, are purposefully denied control over their own lives, so considering all the foregoing, it’s difficult to assess which group is most negatively affected. Religion affects and restricts us all in one way or another – some more so than others.
I can’t speak for other critics of religion, but Grasscarp’s consistent accusation that my analysis equates to denigration of the religious here on a personal level is inaccurate. It doesn’t. I criticise religious dogma and the detrimental effect that it inflicts upon human beings and upon our planet. Curiously though, Grasscarp, like one or two others here, doesn’t seem to realise that persistent efforts to silence people suggest that, once again, religion is attempting to impose its will upon the rest of us, as can be seen in the charge that my assessment is ‘rude’, which amounts to nothing more than a demand that I respect something in which I see no rationality whatsoever. I don’t respect religion, and the rights of the religious to speak freely do not take precedence over the rights of everyone else to do likewise.
As for the soul, without that concept, the notion that a supernatural god, that has ultimate power over life and death, exists, would be relegated to extinction – but self-preservation is paramount, and so it persists.
ag, it strikes me that you ask a lot of questions, but rarely offer an opinion. Do you have one?
I see Naomi that you admit your post yesterday, which ag asked you about, was based on nothing except your own opinion (though had been presented as facts, which was why she asked for supporting research which you could not provide).
But you go on now "hence human beings choose to worship a god solely in the hope that they will not be counted among those who are condemned. My opinions are based upon rational analysis."
What kind of analysis goes on in your head that allows you to come up with such a sweeping and inaccurate statement? and include rubbish like "solely in the hope that......"
Where did you get that from? How do you know what a each and every one of a whole section of society is thinking and what motivates them.
You also mention me and say that any attempt to counter your negative posts is "religion attempting to impose its will upon the rest of us".
Gradiose statement and completely untrue.
But you go on now "hence human beings choose to worship a god solely in the hope that they will not be counted among those who are condemned. My opinions are based upon rational analysis."
What kind of analysis goes on in your head that allows you to come up with such a sweeping and inaccurate statement? and include rubbish like "solely in the hope that......"
Where did you get that from? How do you know what a each and every one of a whole section of society is thinking and what motivates them.
You also mention me and say that any attempt to counter your negative posts is "religion attempting to impose its will upon the rest of us".
Gradiose statement and completely untrue.
-- answer removed --
Good afternoon Grasscarp. Happy again I see.
I didn't present my post as anything other than opinion. You accused me of presenting it as fact.
//say that any attempt to counter your negative posts is "religion attempting to impose its will upon the rest of us".
Gradiose statement and completely untrue. //
It is true. You are, once again, trying to stop me saying what I think because you object to me criticising religion. Now for goodness sake stop complaining about everything I post. It's not going to change anything. This is ridiculous.
I didn't present my post as anything other than opinion. You accused me of presenting it as fact.
//say that any attempt to counter your negative posts is "religion attempting to impose its will upon the rest of us".
Gradiose statement and completely untrue. //
It is true. You are, once again, trying to stop me saying what I think because you object to me criticising religion. Now for goodness sake stop complaining about everything I post. It's not going to change anything. This is ridiculous.
You cannot see me - I am very happy.
You tell me that I am trying to stop you saying what you think - on the contrary I am actually asking you what you are thinking when you come up with a statement like -
"hence human beings choose to worship a god solely in the hope that they will not be counted among those who are condemned."
Please let us know how you came up with this ...........
You tell me that I am trying to stop you saying what you think - on the contrary I am actually asking you what you are thinking when you come up with a statement like -
"hence human beings choose to worship a god solely in the hope that they will not be counted among those who are condemned."
Please let us know how you came up with this ...........
Grasscarp, My pleasure. What am I thinking when I come up with a statement like that? I’m thinking how the worship of an unknown, unproven, supernatural entity can be rationalised unless its worshippers believe it to offer a very substantial reward in exchange for the adoration and obedience it allegedly demands. The reward allegedly offered by your god in exchange for your unswerving loyalty is eternal life - and by your own admission at 19:40 yesterday, that is what you're hoping ultimately to achieve.
Latest Posts
Starmer Continues With "Grossly...
News4 mins ago
Good Morning Late Wednesday Birds.
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Starmer In Jobs Push.....right Oh!
News12 mins ago
News17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
