ChatterBank1 min ago
Agree to disagree?
75 Answers
You can criticize me all you want for this post, I'm not really bothered and I am not suggesting any one in particular this is general but I would like to say that these discussions on this site are interesting, demanding and very enlightening. Although alot of them are religious based and I get the impression that many users are very knowledgeable in religion, it does not mean that other opinions can be treated disrepectfully. I appreciate that some opinions may frustrate the knowledgeable user by their lack of education in that area. I, myself will say that my opinions in this area may be naive, pathetic, unsophisticated and poor but nevertheless I have an opinion and I have every right as any other user to voice my opinion.
I would not participate in this site if I was not open to being educated in this area.This in itself should suggest a positive step for those who want to influence others by their knowledge. As adults we should appreciate the different lifesyles and backgrounds that we all come from and we should respect different views within reason, without being insulting. Instead a response post should be educational and is it too much to ask that it be understanding? Instead of critical or scarcastic? I did actually end up watching a 2 hour doc 'The BIble Unearthed' today which I would never have done. Finally I ask again that whatever someone's belief, however pathetic and naive it comes across, it is nevertheless someone's held belief and no-one appreciates or deserves disrespect of that. If it's not agreeable that's fine but at least be reasonable in expressing your disagreement of it.
I would not participate in this site if I was not open to being educated in this area.This in itself should suggest a positive step for those who want to influence others by their knowledge. As adults we should appreciate the different lifesyles and backgrounds that we all come from and we should respect different views within reason, without being insulting. Instead a response post should be educational and is it too much to ask that it be understanding? Instead of critical or scarcastic? I did actually end up watching a 2 hour doc 'The BIble Unearthed' today which I would never have done. Finally I ask again that whatever someone's belief, however pathetic and naive it comes across, it is nevertheless someone's held belief and no-one appreciates or deserves disrespect of that. If it's not agreeable that's fine but at least be reasonable in expressing your disagreement of it.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Seadragon. 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.
-- answer removed --
I agree that it can be difficult to be reasonable with a religious person when discussing religion. But if that individual is not harming anyone or committing a criminal offence does it really matter whether they are a Christian, Muslim, Jew etc. Does that person have to answer for their history? Should they be insulted because of their religious history?
Yeh I agree Sara, it's actually more sad.
Yeh I agree Sara, it's actually more sad.
-- answer removed --
I don't have a problem with the history. Joshua's massacres are simply the first recorded. Rape pillage and murder have been part of human behaviour since before our ancestors were human. Part of maturing as a speciaes and as societies is the replacement of these primitive instincts with a genuine morality. Religion stifles that development by freezing morality in a primite state.
But I do object to those who would glorify it as proof of their special status and teach the stories of glorious violence to their children. We have a right to speak up.
The religious take offence because they are affronted by their inability to integrate the reality of what is written int ehir holy texts with widely accepted modern concepts of morality. They claim we are intefereing with their religious freedem to criticise their faith. They would have fair reason to complain if those criticisms were simple malicious untruths.But they are taken directly in context from the texts themselves. The genocides commited by the Isrealites are unambiguous atrocities.
The believers have no more right to supress criticism than the neoNazis have to promote their faith without having to endure criticism. Neither desreves our respect. The supposedly enlightend modern concept of religious beliefs deserving automatic respect is a construction by the churches to fend off objective analysis of their greusome belief.
Meanwhile the churches presume to direct the morality of broader society and freely criticise anything that does not conform to their narrow bigotted view of the world. Expecting for tolerence of their disgusting philosophy is a case of extreme hypocracy.
But I do object to those who would glorify it as proof of their special status and teach the stories of glorious violence to their children. We have a right to speak up.
The religious take offence because they are affronted by their inability to integrate the reality of what is written int ehir holy texts with widely accepted modern concepts of morality. They claim we are intefereing with their religious freedem to criticise their faith. They would have fair reason to complain if those criticisms were simple malicious untruths.But they are taken directly in context from the texts themselves. The genocides commited by the Isrealites are unambiguous atrocities.
The believers have no more right to supress criticism than the neoNazis have to promote their faith without having to endure criticism. Neither desreves our respect. The supposedly enlightend modern concept of religious beliefs deserving automatic respect is a construction by the churches to fend off objective analysis of their greusome belief.
Meanwhile the churches presume to direct the morality of broader society and freely criticise anything that does not conform to their narrow bigotted view of the world. Expecting for tolerence of their disgusting philosophy is a case of extreme hypocracy.
Careful with those "documentaries". The are invaribly deeply biassed and ofen use unreliable evidence. Interesting, Jewish archaeologists are obsessed with finding hard evidence to support the Biblical account of Hebrew history proving the massacres really did happen.
Even if the massacres are a myth, what is important is their glorification. It has to stop and we have a right to demand this from religion. Holocaust denial is a crime in many places. Exalting Joshua's genocides should be too. There is a growing movement against the freedom of the church to promote violence. You had better get used to it.
Even if the massacres are a myth, what is important is their glorification. It has to stop and we have a right to demand this from religion. Holocaust denial is a crime in many places. Exalting Joshua's genocides should be too. There is a growing movement against the freedom of the church to promote violence. You had better get used to it.
The problems with religious beliefs is that they are locked minds - blind belief instigated by leaders 'of the faith'.
These leaders are usually old men who are aware of their mortality, in their dementia and overlook the destruction they cause by the power they hold - simply due to their age.
Women age likewise but rarely are sabre rattling.
These leaders are usually old men who are aware of their mortality, in their dementia and overlook the destruction they cause by the power they hold - simply due to their age.
Women age likewise but rarely are sabre rattling.
Further to tamborines point about persistence of religion due to old men holding all the power.
These old men got to their positions by maintaining the status quo of their church's doctrine. Nobody is more conceited about their infallible rightous then those old who wear the biggest hats and administer the faithful from the room with the most gold. An oligarchy controls those allowed to climb the ladder of power and influence in the church.
None at that level is ever likey to take an objective look at tehri faith, stand up one day and say, "This is all bovine excrement." It would make their whole existence a pointless marionette show.And while there is a vastly rich and power elite at the top the chuches will remain ultra conservative. Unfortuantely this conservavism harks back more than 2000 years.
The only way to change the world is to get on with life and educate people to see through the bizarre pantomine that is the church. Then the elite will become increasingly irrelevant until the idea of religion becomes repugnent to everyone.. We can let the old men get on with their little game until they die away.
These old men got to their positions by maintaining the status quo of their church's doctrine. Nobody is more conceited about their infallible rightous then those old who wear the biggest hats and administer the faithful from the room with the most gold. An oligarchy controls those allowed to climb the ladder of power and influence in the church.
None at that level is ever likey to take an objective look at tehri faith, stand up one day and say, "This is all bovine excrement." It would make their whole existence a pointless marionette show.And while there is a vastly rich and power elite at the top the chuches will remain ultra conservative. Unfortuantely this conservavism harks back more than 2000 years.
The only way to change the world is to get on with life and educate people to see through the bizarre pantomine that is the church. Then the elite will become increasingly irrelevant until the idea of religion becomes repugnent to everyone.. We can let the old men get on with their little game until they die away.
Seadragon, yes, you can voice your opinion as well as anyone else - that's what R&S is all about - but just consider for a moment the influence, and the effect, that religion is having on this world. Beso is right when he implores people to cast off their primitive faiths - and despite your objections, the fact is these faiths are primitive. If those who profess faith continue to believe as they do, then Armageddon will happen, religion will bring it about, and so the future of humanity does depend upon the religious relinquishing their beliefs. People who think like Beso and me, and all those who attempt to introduce a little reason into the minds of the faithful, are the real peace-lovers in this world - not the religious. They are only concerned with saving their own souls, and in winning a futile battle against others who, oddly enough, believe in precisely the same God. In their unrelenting efforts, they are proceeding to, and will eventually succeed in, dragging the rest of the world into oblivion with them. Utter madness! (And if you think me calling this utter madness is an insult, then I can only suggest you examine your own philosophy).
As for the effect that Beso's post had on you, I have Jewish friends, Christian friends, and a Muslim friend, but whilst I abhor their religious beliefs, I don't dislike them as people. I just wish they would think a little more deeply, and a little more seriously, about what they are actually promoting and subscribing to.
As for the effect that Beso's post had on you, I have Jewish friends, Christian friends, and a Muslim friend, but whilst I abhor their religious beliefs, I don't dislike them as people. I just wish they would think a little more deeply, and a little more seriously, about what they are actually promoting and subscribing to.
Ok, I'm going to put afew long posts on so bear with me and then I'm off. Wizard we've been through this and really how do you know that other AB users are not any worse? However could you refrain from your attack on my thread? If you are still so affected then please by all means start a new thread addressed to Keyplus and you guys can *** it out there. (To use my own vocabulary)
The only long winded polemics you'll find on R & S and S & C are from the atheists.
Does anyone believe that we should trade names and and addresses to protect our kith and kin from other users and their kind?
Such sentiments are wholly out of order, completely unjustified and belong in the gutter, do they not?
Does anyone believe that we should trade names and and addresses to protect our kith and kin from other users and their kind?
Such sentiments are wholly out of order, completely unjustified and belong in the gutter, do they not?
Beso I clearly don't have as much experience in life as you probably do. Maybe I do live in a narrow, blindsighted world but clearly I'm not the only naive one if you and Naomi think that religion will ever be dissolved, abolished or wiped out through education. The only way this will happen is through the destruction of Mankind by the natural world. And considering that probably 98% of the world is religious (I would guess) even if one survived, he/she may well start religion again. And should that happen it is only 'primitive' for Man to place himself in a position of power over another. It happens in the animal world. And he will use whatever means to do that.
One point that came across from the documentary was the incompatibility of textual and archeological evidence. There was alot of evidence suggesting Biblical events did not happen in the way described by the Bible or even at those times. So there is no religious basis for historical events. However it only takes one event from many for believers to catch a thread and there was archeological evidence in relation to the New Testament which was written about a thousand years after the Old one. But as I've said, even without evidence or contradictory evidence, if I choose to believe what suits me then what you makes you think that others will not do so?
One more post then I'm wrapping up. I got to go, have demands.
One point that came across from the documentary was the incompatibility of textual and archeological evidence. There was alot of evidence suggesting Biblical events did not happen in the way described by the Bible or even at those times. So there is no religious basis for historical events. However it only takes one event from many for believers to catch a thread and there was archeological evidence in relation to the New Testament which was written about a thousand years after the Old one. But as I've said, even without evidence or contradictory evidence, if I choose to believe what suits me then what you makes you think that others will not do so?
One more post then I'm wrapping up. I got to go, have demands.
Everton, you say it's only atheists who go in for long-winded polemics, but that isn't true. Most of us, including you, have been guilty on occasions - and Keyplus has been the most long-winded of all with his penchant for posting text taken directly from the Koran! Additionally, I think you'll find that he is the only person here who has suggested meeting his opponents face to face - somewhat persistently with one particular contributor. His current post very clearly relates to his views on that, and whilst Wizard's reasons for offering his identity are his own, his response would indicate he is aware of Keyplus' curiosity in relation to other ABers identities.
-- answer removed --
A quick one - What exactly are you Beso and Naomi professing? That we all become Athetists? -
'..but just consider for a moment the influence, and the effect, that religion is having on this world. Beso is right when he implores people to cast off their primitive faiths and despite your objections, the fact is these faiths are primitive..........Future of religion depends upon the religious relinquishing their beliefs.' It is the 2nd para of Beso's Sunday 02;24 post that is really important and no-one would object to. That is fanatical teaching. Even many muslims oppose the suicide bombings even though they are carried out in the name of Islam to take an example.
Ok, I'm busy, my thoughts are all over the place and I have to get ready and leave and the computer is slow. We will carry this on tomorrow.
'..but just consider for a moment the influence, and the effect, that religion is having on this world. Beso is right when he implores people to cast off their primitive faiths and despite your objections, the fact is these faiths are primitive..........Future of religion depends upon the religious relinquishing their beliefs.' It is the 2nd para of Beso's Sunday 02;24 post that is really important and no-one would object to. That is fanatical teaching. Even many muslims oppose the suicide bombings even though they are carried out in the name of Islam to take an example.
Ok, I'm busy, my thoughts are all over the place and I have to get ready and leave and the computer is slow. We will carry this on tomorrow.
Everton, That's a matter of opinion. It depends upon what you, personally, find the most deplorable. Considering it perfectly justifiable to marry children to grown men, or feeling incensed by it and speaking out against it.
Seadragon, I can't speak for Beso, but speaking for myself, why shouldn't we all become atheists? What's wrong with that? A couple of days ago, I asked you if the God you believe in is the one the Bible and the Koran talk about, and you said 'no', so what are you actually defending here? Clearly not the God you believe in.
Incidentally, I've never seen Muslims coming out in force to protest against suicide bombings. Have you?
Seadragon, I can't speak for Beso, but speaking for myself, why shouldn't we all become atheists? What's wrong with that? A couple of days ago, I asked you if the God you believe in is the one the Bible and the Koran talk about, and you said 'no', so what are you actually defending here? Clearly not the God you believe in.
Incidentally, I've never seen Muslims coming out in force to protest against suicide bombings. Have you?
