Will religion become extinct?

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Sunday, February 9, 2025 18:58
VIEWED: 8016
PAGE 7 of 10

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

THEHAPPYTRADER

Sunday, March 27, 2011 8:28 PM

Quote:
I just wanted to point out that for all the supposed 'aggressive Christians' that are out there, you don't see much of that here in RWED... Seem's like the atheist are more aggressive

Is this the aggressive statement you were referring too? Use of the word seem was intentional, as was the

Then there's

Quote:
The fact that you find it difficult to hear people express their views on religion

Oh really? I wasn't aware. Are Australians psychic too?

Which was a sarcastic remark. I'm sick of people trying to put words in my mouth. Magons statement was not fact and, because I was running a little low on patience, I made the aggressive snark.

I got a mite frustrated and posted

Quote:
But that was my mistake. Clearly I should not be speaking for myself, but as a 'nameless concervative No 2460whatever.'

I'll just stop typing and let everyone not me decide how I really feel about this. That's democratic, right

which wasn't really the best idea, but I still don't see this as aggressive. Defensive perhaps, but wouldn't you be a little defensive if you felt your beliefs were being mocked, misrepresented, and that you were being ganged up on?

Yeah, I could have handled things a little better, but I'm not the only one

'Course, if I am the only one you disagree with I can see how that's a mite more obvious. I don't mean this to be an insult, I really don't think any of us are entirely immune to that condition.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, March 27, 2011 10:13 PM

Quote:
We can blame our Puritan forefathers for a lot of our attitudes toward morality

Not to put too fine a point on it, but nonsense. The puritans were a lot more laid back than us. This is a recent media creation, American neo-prudence is a control mechanism.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

KWICKO

Sunday, March 27, 2011 10:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Quote:
I just wanted to point out that for all the supposed 'aggressive Christians' that are out there, you don't see much of that here in RWED... Seem's like the atheist are more aggressive

Is this the aggressive statement you were referring too? Use of the word seem was intentional, as was the

Funny, when I use that word, you say I must be "psychic"... ;)

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, March 28, 2011 12:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I’d like to see the day we OUTGREW that need, and looked to ourselves rather than some patriarchal figure.

If I may generalize, I think there are two types of believers. The kind that wants external, magical intervention, and the kind that seeks internal, self-empowerment. The first kind sees "God" as a sort of year-round Santa Claus, someone to whom one can ask for favors. The second kind sees "God" more like a coach on the sidelines, giving advice and encouragement, but never playing the game himself. I think both kinds of believers exist in all religions, though some religions lend themselves more easily to one type of believer more than the other.

Quote:
You see, for me, “praying” and “meditation” can be the same thing.

Absolutely. I think they ARE the same thing. Potayto, potahto.

Quote:
they would find they don’t NEED someone else “directing” them.

I think "God" can be conceptualized in different ways. The popular way is to anthropomorphize "God" and make him/her a person, "someone else." But God has also been conceptualized as some sort of "Force" or energy that flows in all living things. Sometimes praying is taking the time to "feel the Force." Anyway, the point is, religion has many faces and presentations. They are not all the same.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, March 28, 2011 1:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Quote:
I just wanted to point out that for all the supposed 'aggressive Christians' that are out there, you don't see much of that here in RWED... Seem's like the atheist are more aggressive

Is this the aggressive statement you were referring too? Use of the word seem was intentional, as was the

Then there's

Quote:
The fact that you find it difficult to hear people express their views on religion

Oh really? I wasn't aware. Are Australians psychic too?

Which was a sarcastic remark. I'm sick of people trying to put words in my mouth. Magons statement was not fact and, because I was running a little low on patience, I made the aggressive snark.

I got a mite frustrated and posted

Quote:
But that was my mistake. Clearly I should not be speaking for myself, but as a 'nameless concervative No 2460whatever.'

I'll just stop typing and let everyone not me decide how I really feel about this. That's democratic, right

which wasn't really the best idea, but I still don't see this as aggressive. Defensive perhaps, but wouldn't you be a little defensive if you felt your beliefs were being mocked, misrepresented, and that you were being ganged up on?

Yeah, I could have handled things a little better, but I'm not the only one 'Course, if I am the only one you disagree with I can see how that's a mite more obvious. I don't mean this to be an insult, I really don't think any of us are entirely immune to that condition.

I understood you to have called out posters on this thread as being aggressive towards Christians. I hadn't seen any evidence of said aggression, discounting the troll. Therefore I wondered whether you considered that any views which stated that religion was unnecessary and or undesirable as aggressive. Not psychic, just extraplotating something to a logical conclusion. That being said, it has been my experience of some religious people that even stating my own beliefs "I don't believe in a god' is considered very threatening, disrespectful, or outrageously blasphemous.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, March 28, 2011 3:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Hell, Europe is less amoral than we are, if you look closely. And at least they're more open about it. As I've said before, in America, titilation is not only acceptable, it sells, it's popular...but to show actual nudity? OMIGAWD NO!

Yeah, but I'm not sure what the perceived immorality of Europe is in the US, what specifically Rioneira was referring to. Not being American, I'm not sure how Europe is seen in the US. Here, it's a place that we all strive to holiday in, and to eat the food and enjoy the culture and history.

I do see that religion has some aspects that defy science and rational thought. I'm not sure how religious people reconcile some of the differences. For example, if you believe that God created the earth 4000 years ago, then you are going to have find some way of explaining the scientific evidence that says otherwise.

I think its important for all people to ask questions of a metaphysical nature, such as 'why am I here, what is my purpose, how was the universe created and for what purpose'. So it's okay to ask the questions, its the answers that cause all the dilemnas, because once you've speculated and decided you are on the right track, the temptation is to ensure that others believe as you do. We've seen the amount of angst on this forum that is caused by one person disagreeing with anothers POV. It can make us dislike that person, shun them even. Many people naturally tend to gravitate towards others with similar beliefs and shun or avoid those with different ones. That road leads to dogma and to the part of religion that some here have stated they dislike.

That being said, I think you can follow a religious path and not get caught up in the dogma, but often that is what happens. I've no issue with people believing what they want, so long as they don't try and force their views on others. I see that they often do, with wanting to ban abortion, religious education in schools and other influence that they try to wield on public policy. This I object to.

I don't believe in any entity out there watching over me, but I do think that some contemplative time, whatever you want to call it, is useful. Actually it is necessary. I also like to give up some decisions to the universe, not that I think the universe is concerned for me, just some are best left to that strange force that binds us all together. Some people like to call that god, but I do not.

Carl Sagan put it best when he said we are all the stuff of stars and to the stars we will return. I like that way of thinking.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Monday, March 28, 2011 5:47 AM

Quote:
I understood you to have called out posters on this thread as being aggressive towards Christians. I hadn't seen any evidence of said aggression, discounting the troll. Therefore I wondered whether you considered that any views which stated that religion was unnecessary and or undesirable as aggressive. Not psychic, just extraplotating something to a logical conclusion. That being said, it has been my experience of some religious people that even stating my own beliefs "I don't believe in a god' is considered very threatening, disrespectful, or outrageously blasphemous.

Then I'm afraid you misunderstand. I made a comment concerning perceived (by me) hostility towards Christianity via the internet.

Quote:
Seem's like the atheist are more aggressive

is an opinion, and one based off of personal experience, not unlike

Quote:
it has been my experience of some religious people that even stating my own beliefs "I don't believe in a god' is considered very threatening, disrespectful, or outrageously blasphemous.

Concerning the 'psychic' remark, what I took issue with was use of the word fact.

Quote:
The fact that you find it difficult to hear people express their views on religion

It may be your opinion but it is not fact. Do you consider every (supposedly) logical conclusion you jump to a solid fact?

Quote:
Therefore I wondered whether you considered that any views which stated that religion was unnecessary and or undesirable as aggressive.

That's a fair enough question (I assume this is kind of a question) and my answer depends a bit on the details of the scenario. Of course, we have free will and in most cases freedom of choice, speech and the like, so anyone has the right to think and state whatever the rut they want to. It does not bother me that some people feel religion is unnecessary, that's their personal choice and they've every right to it.

If someone states religion is undesirable, then I do think we start treading into the offensive. If I said democrats were undesirable or republicans, Australians, African-Americans, Jews or illegal immigrants, someone (I hope) would find that offensive. How about bankers, musicians, teachers, or lawyers? Is it not offensive claim any of those undesirable?

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, March 28, 2011 7:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:

Then I'm afraid you misunderstand. I made a comment concerning perceived (by me) hostility towards Christianity via the internet.

Then I misunderstood you.
Quote:
Quote:
Seem's like the atheist are more aggressive

is an opinion, and one based off of personal experience, not unlike
Quote:
it has been my experience of some religious people that even stating my own beliefs "I don't believe in a god' is considered very threatening, disrespectful, or outrageously blasphemous.

Well duh, really. I hate to be rude, but I get that it's your opinion. If you find atheists more aggressive in real life, then that is your experience. I guess I look around at the religious extremists in the world, who often resort to violence, and struggle to find an atheist group that compares. But your personal experience is certainly your own, even if it doesn't equate to any reality I am aware of.

Quote:
Concerning the 'psychic' remark, what I took issue with was use of the word fact.
Quote:
The fact that you find it difficult to hear people express their views on religion

It may be your opinion but it is not fact. Do you consider every (supposedly) logical conclusion you jump to a solid fact?

As I said earlier, I misunderstood your earlier post and was assuming that you had interpreted peoples remarks as aggressive. That was my opinion. I hope that I don't have to be tedious and preface every remark on this board with, 'in my opinion' although I do note that someone has it in their signature, probably for that very reason. I'm hardly likely to state facts about YOU, given that I don't know you. Next time it might be useful to remember that on this board, people post opinions. That is why we are here.

Quote:

That's a fair enough question (I assume this is kind of a question) and my answer depends a bit on the details of the scenario. Of course, we have free will and in most cases freedom of choice, speech and the like, so anyone has the right to think and state whatever the rut they want to. It does not bother me that some people feel religion is unnecessary, that's their personal choice and they've every right to it.

If someone states religion is undesirable, then I do think we start treading into the offensive. If I said democrats were undesirable or republicans, Australians, African-Americans, Jews or illegal immigrants, someone (I hope) would find that offensive. How about bankers, musicians, teachers, or lawyers? Is it not offensive claim any of those undesirable?

Religion is a belief, not a race or nationality or profession. Not much more to say on that.

I do find some religions undesirable, scientology for example. I'd feel pretty comfortable if it were banned, because I think it is dishonest, abusive, and a tax dodge.

Not many atheists argue that religion is undesirable, although Richard Dawkins is one who does. He is worth a read, even if it would be confronting. He argues that religion should not be tolerated because of the inherent abuse and dishonesty and superstition that they perpetuate. he is particu;larly harsh on children being brought up with religion, prior to their capacity to make decisions on whether they want to join the club or not, so to speak. He believes that in general atheists are too mild in their tolerance of religion.

In my opinion

, I do not really care what people believe as long as they don;t force it on me, either overtly or covertly and there is a lot of covert stuff that happens with religion.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, March 28, 2011 8:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but nonsense. The puritans were a lot more laid back than us. This is a recent media creation, American neo-prudence is a control mechanism.

Oh horse shit.

Our history does indeed mention that the puritans were persecuted, but always dances around just how rightful that persecution was - them asshats wanted to turn back the clock to the damn dark ages, shitcan literacy, science, medicine, get back to the "good ole days"... uh huh, one might even consider them the spiritual forefathers of the modern republican party - AND they had no issue whatever with persecuting anyone who wasn't them, when they got here.

Hell, their asshattery was one of the REASONS our founding fathers were so bloody keen on keeping religion out of government - cause initially it was about keeping THAT one out, and it naturally followed that best to block em all, wholesale.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, March 28, 2011 12:32 PM

Religion is Government for the Spirit. More rules, more "here's a list of what WE have decided you need to do."
Not intending to offend, but... when I think of people who "believe in God" and follow religion on a daily basis I think of people trying to fix a car with a rock. It's just what comes up.

The Golden Rule is pretty solid though.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE