Religion based intolerance...

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Referring to a non believer, Pajarito wrote: "Good luck with your plan. You'd better be right."

This is called Pascals wager, and it's flawed, too.

For to become a Christian just in case, is neither faith, nor reason.

-Josh

LOL! Homer Simpson rejected god in one episode, and to console Lisa, who worried for his soul, he simply said, "And if I'm wrong, I'll just recant on my deathbed!"

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

A really nice guy who worked in my office was stricken with lung cancer (but had never smoked in his life). He fought it for a while at a clinic out of state, but sadly he died on April 18.

I note that his family appeared to be really devout Christians. His wife, who must be a sweet person from the sound of her emails, wrote frequently to some people here at work, and her emails were printed and posted around the office. She gave frequent updates about Alan's treatment and condition.

Notable in her emails were constant references to god and jesus and prayer and stuff like that (to me, it got cloying).

They kept saying how god would see him through and protect him and cure him, blah blah blah.

I stood there reading these updates and thought to myself, "Why would god give a shit about curing Alan? Isn't this the same god that sickened Alan?!"

I thought, "What's this fuckin' game god is playing, where he can't just leave us healthy, no, he has to make us deathly ill first, and then IF we beat the illness, we will superstitiously make sure to say that god sent his mercy and let us be cured."

I have to say that I have utter contempt for this god. IF he exists, he is putting us through pain and misery for WHAT? What's the point of taking a person who already accepts god, making him deathly ill, and then curing him? It's not to teach him the power of god, 'cause we're already talking about a devout believer. So why not leave a healthy believer healthy? Why give him a horrible disease and then cure him back to how he already was?

Well, anyway, god DIDN'T cure Alan. God let Alan die a painful death with a wife by his side weeping, and a ONE YEAR OLD SON who will grow up without his father. Sure, you may say I'm just human and can't fathom it, but I have to ask, "THIS is 'GOD'S PLAN'?!" This is the god you call loving and merciful?

I noticed that Alan's widow kept at it with the "god will see Alan through" crap for a long while, and I must attribute it to simple panic. She saw how hopeless Alan's condition was, she had doctors who could advise her of his chances, so hey, why not put all your faith in god to work things out? Nothing else was gonna do it.

But families who praise god all the time for petty little things like, "Oh, god allowed Alan to live long enough to meet his son" defend god and his "plan," and they say over and over that they "KNOW" god will cure their Alan...

...and then they're noticeably mum when the guy dies. One moment god's gonna save the guy, and when he doesn't... what? OHHH, that's right, that's when they say, "God wanted Alan in heaven!!!!"

What a load of shit. A thousand years are like a day to god, right? So what the fuck was god's rush to get Alan into heaven?! What, god couldn't handle all the chores like raking and taking out the garbage; he was recruiting extra manpower?! God had a "need" for one more person in heaven? God couldn't spare a few more years so Alan could be with his earth family? God gets Alan for all eternity, y'know. Why couldn't he be a little more patient, since he knows all things?

These stupid, self-deceiving beliefs are a really pathetic crutch that aren't real -- they're just a CRUTCH to get through sadness and fear and uncertainty in life! Religious people should realize this, accept that there are scary realities to life and death, and live in the real world. What good does it do to believe in nonsensical things when deep down you suspect and know that they are just falsehoods designed to provide quaint comfort?

Alan's dead, and I'll bet his wife found herself questioning why god made it happen. But somehow I still suspect that she seamlessly went right from "God is gonna save my Alan," to "God took my Alan for his own reasons," and never questioned the sanity of that kind of "explanation." She probably doesn't realize the fallacy that results in one minute believing god will cure someone and the next minute still loving the god who took everything away.

Because of some sickness in the human mind, god gets credit when things go right, but god gets no blame when things get fucked up. That's pathetic.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

I don’t know what to say to that other than the statement sounds like someone on a raft drifting in the middle of the ocean with no idea where he is or where he’s going. I accept that you don’t agree and respect your opinion.

Actually thats fairly accurate and you know what, I love my life!
Edit: Just to clarify that, I have no doubt about whether or not there are any gods (none) its the living of life without any mandate or obligation that makes the drifty raft thing sound like so much fun.

Quote

Good luck!

Why thank you sir.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[tkhayes 348]

perhaps it is not a 'political agenda' at all, maybe gay people just want to be married. The fact that there are more than one of them, makes it a political agenda?

Also the fact that current governments are standing in the way of that also makes it a political agenda. (them being 'politicians.) Maybe the politics should not be in the way at all.

sorry if I made it sound like a Christian agenda, but it certainly is an item held in high standing amongst the right wing fundamentalist Christians - which sort of makes it a Christian agenda too, perhaps not YOUR Christian agenda.
TK

Courts have time and time again kept government out of our bedrooms, and marriage is tied closely to that. I do not agree that ANYONE's rights or freedoms will be in jeopardy by allowing gay marriage, therefore the government should not be involved at all, except to manage and support it.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

1) There are an awful lot of Catholics out there.
2) Catholic schools tend to be very good overall. I'm willing to bet that, on average, Catholic school students score higher on tests that are not related to religion than their counterparts at other religiously based educational institutions.
So aside from the indoctrination, students still learn basic logic, and critical thinking skills. It's not surprising that more Catholics dare to question the status quo and reject religion.

My kids go to a Christian private school. They teach non-denominational Bible studies as well as incorporate prayer in school. They learn logic and critical thinking as well. They score much higher than the national average and I doubt that Catholic averages are much different. I don’t think that’s because of the religious aspect, however. I think that’s because they set a higher standard, give more personal attention, and expect results. I’m sure Catholic students are very smart and I’m sure some dare to question their faith. You infer that, if smart enough, they’ll usually “dare to question” more often and come to a conclusion of rejection. I disagree. To my knowledge, there are not a high percentage of the kids at the private school my kids go to who eventually reject the faith. Many come to know Christ and accept him as their lord and savior. I dared to question for a very long time and came to a different conclusion. I don’t think you’re smarter than me just because you had a Catholic upbringing. I could be wrong, however. If you are so smart that they have to wheel your brain in on a cart, I apologize and stand corrected.

Quote

Thousands of years before Jesus,
Krishna was referred to as the son of god, and was part of a trinity. He was sent from heaven to earth in human form. At birth he was visited by wisemen that followed a star.

Even more intriguing are the parallels between Horus and Jesus:
Horus was born in human form during the winter solstice (late December), his virgin mother's name?
Meri.

Herut attempted to kill Horus. Herod attempted to kill Jesus.

Horus and Jesus were both baptised at 30 years of age. The baptiser in each story was later beheaded.
Thousands of years before Christ, Horus was said to have walked on water, cured the blind, healed lepers, and had 12 disciples.
To top it all off, Horus was crucified with two thieves, buried in a tomb, and resurected 3 days later.

There's actually quite a bit more, but if the above doesn't get your attention, nothing will.
Details

When examined “in detail”, however, your accusations become extremely unlikely. This is a very detailed study. Long but interesting.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html

Quote

Yes, it's in a class of it's own.
No othe ancient work has so many blatant instances of plagiarism in it.

Next you'll be telling me that Vanilla Ice never listened to David Bowie.
Right....
de dune dune dune de dune dune...

This is another example of your superior Catholic trained logic and intellect, right? (sarcasm)

Quote

No, not at all. I tentatively accept such claims, because there's nothing unbelievable about them.
If the same people were telling me that someone had landed a wingsuit, I'd be pretty skeptical, no matter how emphatic they were.

Hence, the element of faith, I guess. For some, no amount of evidence will be enough. I didn’t actually see Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon and that is one of the most incredible events to me. My Mother set me in front of the TV when I was 3 months old just so I could say I did but I really did not. Some say it didn’t happen. Others were actually there on the moon with him, however, and they say he did. Many more witnessed the events almost live on TV and heard what happened on the radio. I didn’t actually see it happen but there is enough evidence for me to believe that it did.

Quote

There's evidence of some of the mundane things mentioned in the bible, but there is no historical evidence for the remarkable claims in the bible!

Give me one specific claim of a miraculous nature, and a sample of the "evidence".
We'll go from there.

The real proof is with the witnesses. There were actually people there who saw it happen and verified that it did in fact happen with each other. I’d say the resurrection was the most remarkable claim in the Bible on which the entire Christian religion stands. Without the resurrection of Christ, Christianity falls.

Quote

I think you just said that those that don't interpret the bible the way you do aren't really Christians.

That speaks volumes if true. If not, please clarify your last statement, as it leaves me more than a little confused.

I said that those groups which take Biblical quotations out of context to make it say what they want and not what the text was meant to convey are wrong. That’s different from someone interpreting a passage somewhat different from another person.

Jay

[pajarito 0]

Quote

As it is written “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” Romans 3:10-12

Yet another example of biblical errancy.
-Josh

If you "honestly" examine yourself inside, you’ll find it to be true.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

This is called Pascals wager, and it's flawed, too.

For to become a Christian just in case, is neither faith, nor reason.

It’s just as logical as for someone to not become a Christian, just in case there isn’t a God and you want to have as much selfish fulfillment as possible while you’re here. There are two basic choices in this case.

Let’s read up on Pascal’s Wager:

http://www.thewhyman.jesusanswers.com/whats_new.html

[pajarito 0]

Quote

You didn't need to repost it, I got that the first time, and it doesn't make any more sense this time around.
You all but admit that it doesn't make sense when you write:
"I agree. It is beyond my human comprehension also."

And yet you continue to have faith. That my friend, is the blind faith we're talking about.

You are shutting your eyes to that which you don't understand.

In reference to my comment, “I agree. It is beyond my human comprehension also”, God loves you more than you can possibly fathom. That’s different from what you’re inferring from my statement. You just took what I said as blanket proof that everything I’ve presented thus far is a result of “blind faith.” Blind faith would be belief without evidence. In contrast to your last statement, I am “opening” my eyes to that which I don’t understand.”

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

because if you are an atheist, then it is silly to say "how do I know if God is the right one, what if zeus is right, or what if the pink fairy god is the right one.." because you lack belief in all of them, why would you suddenly pretend to believe in the plausability of many just because someone mentions one of them?

Then how could I pretend to believe in god just because someone shows me pascals wager?
And, of course each true believer of any other religion does think that he's benefitting from pascal's wager, when of course they can't all be right. (that is a slightly different argument than the one the quoted paragraph claims to debunk)

Damn my sneaky atheistic subtle intellectual dishonesty!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Better to drift than to expend precious energy paddling westwards only to die of dehydration when if you'd just conserved your energy, you would have drifted ashore!
Sometimes doing nothing is better than arbitrary action.

I guess I’m just more of an “action guy” and am not willing to sit idly by and not seek the truth. My search is also much focused and not arbitrary.

Quote

I like the image you paint though:
Religion as a type of existential panic.

Panic comes mostly from fear of the unknown. Although I don’t understand it all, my God has demonstrated his love for me and has promised my future. I trust him; therefore, I am not afraid.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

The state has an obligation to protect and endorse the family, which is rooted in marriage. It is the foundational institution of our culture and its stability is necessary for our culture to be healthy and flourish.

Quote

Upon what do you base these claims?
I always kind of thought the primary goal of the state was to protect each individuals right to swing his arm as long as it doesn't strike anyone else's nose.
-Josh

This is a fundamental idea which is demonstrated by our laws of marriage for most states and their support for it. The standard has also been demonstrated by every long-standing successful nation in recorded history. It has nothing to do with a person’s right to do whatever he/she wants to do as long as it doesn’t harm someone else.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

The state has an obligation to protect and endorse the family...

I do not want the state having anything to do with my family life. The state can't even balance it's own budget. It has no place interfering in my (or any one else's) family life.

Illogical comparison and has no pertinence.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Illogical comparison and has no pertinence.

Ok, how's this:

The state has no place interfering in my or anyone else's family life.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[pajarito 0]

Quote

An awful lot of heterosexual couples are also illegitimate by the same reasoning.
Maybe we should draft a constitutional amendment requiring couples to breed within 5 years of getting married?

I wish we could all discuss these topics seriously but I’ll play along. So, our standard for success should be based on the failures of some.

Quote

Each of these presents unique problems to society insofar as how best to regulate (or not) and provide equal treatment under the law.
In an ideal world polygamy amongst consentual adults probably ought to be legal, even if you and I can't fathom why someone would want to enter into such a relationship. It'd certainly present some problems relating to division of property in the event of death, divorce, and health insurance.

In an ideal world, most of these abnormalities wouldn’t exist. But, since we don’t live in the town called “perfect”, we have to set standards for best practice.

Quote

As for incest, it's held in disdain for reasons that are broader and deeper than any specific religion. It usually occurs between an adult and children, as such it's wrong for reasons that span every religion and culture I'm familiar with. Show me an adult incestuous couple, and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
As for a man marrying his horse, the day a horse can hold a job, provide an income, insurance and so forth to it's husband or wife, I say go for it!

So, you’re saying that there are no adult US Citizens who believe that they should be allowed to marry into an incestuous relationship? So, your partner must be able to hold a job, provide income, and insurance in order for you to marry them? As for the horse thing….I’m speechless at your response.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Yeah, sure, it fits together perfectly except for all the parts I've heard (and I'm admitting I have not read the bible) contradict each other. I do know about the little, er, problem it has explaining where the rest of the population came from if not as direct descendents of Adam and Eve (which would make a whole lot of people incestuous).

I am so tempted to not respond to this because you haven’t even attempted, by your admission, to have read anything from the text in question. Yet, you fully reject it outright based on opinions that you’ve heard. Now, that’s taking something (or nothing, rather) on faith. I don’t get the impression that you’re approaching these questions with sincerity and, therefore, I’m probably wasting my time with you. For the benefit of others, however, here goes…

Of course, there was incest in the beginning in order for the human race to propagate. Children would have had to marry relatives in order to produce more children. At the time of Adam & Eve, however, the genetic line was pure (i.e. “brand new”). It wasn’t until later, at the time of Moses, when incest was forbidden. It wasn’t a problem then, but it is now.

Quote

Um, so if I wrote a book about life on earth and said that I wrote it with the divine inspiration of god, how do you propose to prove that I am not full of shit? What makes these thousands-of-years-ago, uninterrogatable people who supposedly wrote "god's word" any more credible than any whacko today who claims god talks to him?

Multiple witnesses who all corroborate the story. Fulfilled prophesy. Miracles. Torture, crucifixion, death, and resurrection of the key figure (Jesus). Torture, mostly crucifixion and death of the one’s closest to the key figure (Disciples) who refused to deny him even to the extent of losing their lives. You don’t have those kinds of credentials or backing.

Quote

How will we ever know if a NEW new testament is written? I could write it tomorrow, claim god guided my hand, and NO ONE would believe me except for maybe people whom you would call crackpots! In other words, the time for believing that anything biblical happens anymore is over. There are, at any moment, thousands of insane people who claim to be Jesus Christ. And yet, you believe thatpeople from thousands of years ago, whom you cannot interview or cross-examine for credibility, were somehow different at the time from any lunatic today who claims to be Jesus, or otherwise divinely inspired.

This double standard is part of what destroys the credibility of religion.

Maybe for you…but not for all.
The evidence shows that Jesus was not insane, was trustworthy, and was brutally tortured and killed for what he said and wouldn’t renounce (i.e. The Passion of the Christ).

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm truly sorry you feel that way but I respect your beliefs. It sounds like you've thought it through.

Boy, talk about arrogance! You're "sorry she feels that way?"

Rose, you might as well read that to mean:

"Rose, too bad you're wrong in your beliefs and you're going to hell for not believing in my bible and my religion and my god and my jesus. Oh, the poor misguided nonbelievers."

The ultimate in condescension. Unreal how pajarito does not see it.

-

Wasn’t meant to be. I agreed that we disagree and that I respect her point of view. I have no problem with someone who “sincerely” makes the effort, explores a topic, and comes to a different conclusion.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

LOL! Homer Simpson rejected god in one episode, and to console Lisa, who worried for his soul, he simply said, "And if I'm wrong, I'll just recant on my deathbed!"

You're referencing Homer Simpson to back your statements. That's weak...

[pajarito 0]

Quote

A really nice guy who worked in my office was stricken with lung cancer (but had never smoked in his life). He fought it for a while at a clinic out of state, but sadly he died on April 18.

I note that his family appeared to be really devout Christians. His wife, who must be a sweet person from the sound of her emails, wrote frequently to some people here at work, and her emails were printed and posted around the office. She gave frequent updates about Alan's treatment and condition.

Notable in her emails were constant references to god and jesus and prayer and stuff like that (to me, it got cloying).

They kept saying how god would see him through and protect him and cure him, blah blah blah.

He did see him through, protect, and cure him. God never leaves us alone to deal with the trials of life. If Alan was a true child of God, he’s been made whole again and is happier than he’s ever been.

Quote

I stood there reading these updates and thought to myself, "Why would god give a shit about curing Alan? Isn't this the same god that sickened Alan?!"

Not necessarily but God does use events of this nature to break pride, soften the heart, and, hopefully, bring souls back to Him.

Quote

I thought, "What's this fuckin' game god is playing, where he can't just leave us healthy, no, he has to make us deathly ill first, and then IF we beat the illness, we will superstitiously make sure to say that god sent his mercy and let us be cured."

Our physical self is as unimportant as an old pair of socks. Out eternal soul is what matters.

Quote

I have to say that I have utter contempt for this god. IF he exists, he is putting us through pain and misery for WHAT? What's the point of taking a person who already accepts god, making him deathly ill, and then curing him? It's not to teach him the power of god, 'cause we're already talking about a devout believer. So why not leave a healthy believer healthy? Why give him a horrible disease and then cure him back to how he already was?

Molding the person, created in God’s image, so that he/she is more and more like Christ is sometimes a very painful experience. For some more than others. The reason why perceived “devout” people have to suffer may be to win others to Christ as well. I’m not privy to all the reasons for what God does or let’s happen.

Quote

Well, anyway, god DIDN'T cure Alan. God let Alan die a painful death with a wife by his side weeping, and a ONE YEAR OLD SON who will grow up without his father. Sure, you may say I'm just human and can't fathom it, but I have to ask, "THIS is 'GOD'S PLAN'?!" This is the god you call loving and merciful?

When my Grandfather died it broke me to pieces, began my search, and eventually let me to Christ. How do you know that, by Alan dying, it doesn’t have something to do with his wife or son doing the same? You just don’t know.

Quote

I noticed that Alan's widow kept at it with the "god will see Alan through" crap for a long while, and I must attribute it to simple panic. She saw how hopeless Alan's condition was, she had doctors who could advise her of his chances, so hey, why not put all your faith in god to work things out? Nothing else was gonna do it.

God did work it out and will see it through.

Quote

But families who praise god all the time for petty little things like, "Oh, god allowed Alan to live long enough to meet his son" defend god and his "plan," and they say over and over that they "KNOW" god will cure their Alan...

...and then they're noticeably mum when the guy dies. One moment god's gonna save the guy, and when he doesn't... what? OHHH, that's right, that's when they say, "God wanted Alan in heaven!!!!"

My faith goes beyond dying. This life is just the first step.

Quote

What a load of shit. A thousand years are like a day to god, right? So what the fuck was god's rush to get Alan into heaven?! What, god couldn't handle all the chores like raking and taking out the garbage; he was recruiting extra manpower?! God had a "need" for one more person in heaven? God couldn't spare a few more years so Alan could be with his earth family? God gets Alan for all eternity, y'know. Why couldn't he be a little more patient, since he knows all things?

It was Alan’s time in God’s plan to go. He is much better of than we are.

Quote

These stupid, self-deceiving beliefs are a really pathetic crutch that aren't real -- they're just a CRUTCH to get through sadness and fear and uncertainty in life! Religious people should realize this, accept that there are scary realities to life and death, and live in the real world. What good does it do to believe in nonsensical things when deep down you suspect and know that they are just falsehoods designed to provide quaint comfort?

Deep down, I know it to be true. 7 years ago, I thought exactly like you do. I do accept that there are scary realities to life and death, and I do live in the real world.

Quote

Alan's dead, and I'll bet his wife found herself questioning why god made it happen. But somehow I still suspect that she seamlessly went right from "God is gonna save my Alan," to "God took my Alan for his own reasons," and never questioned the sanity of that kind of "explanation." She probably doesn't realize the fallacy that results in one minute believing god will cure someone and the next minute still loving the god who took everything away.

Because of some sickness in the human mind, god gets credit when things go right, but god gets no blame when things get fucked up. That's pathetic.

Your hostility has blinded you. You can’t see for all the weeds in front of your face. His wife may have indeed questioned her belief as a result of this. This could lead to strengthening her beliefs as well.

• Quote

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Actually thats fairly accurate and you know what, I love my life!
Edit: Just to clarify that, I have no doubt about whether or not there are any gods (none) its the living of life without any mandate or obligation that makes the drifty raft thing sound like so much fun.

Illustrates the point about people being selfish by nature and, therefore, sinners.

Seriously, I’m glad it works for you. I also respect your opinion. No arrogance or condescension intended.

[jakee 1,500]

You really believe the whole Adam and Eve thing?
Just curious.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

perhaps it is not a 'political agenda' at all, maybe gay people just want to be married. The fact that there are more than one of them, makes it a political agenda?

The fact that marriage is “state sanctioned” makes the movement political.

Quote

Also the fact that current governments are standing in the way of that also makes it a political agenda. (them being 'politicians.) Maybe the politics should not be in the way at all.

Marriage is governed by the state. There’s no way around the politics.

Quote

sorry if I made it sound like a Christian agenda, but it certainly is an item held in high standing amongst the right wing fundamentalist Christians - which sort of makes it a Christian agenda too, perhaps not YOUR Christian agenda.

True

Quote

Courts have time and time again kept government out of our bedrooms, and marriage is tied closely to that. I do not agree that ANYONE's rights or freedoms will be in jeopardy by allowing gay marriage, therefore the government should not be involved at all, except to manage and support it.

What you do in your bedroom is not the government’s business. It is the government’s business who can legitimately enter into marriage.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Then how could I pretend to believe in god just because someone shows me pascals wager?

And, of course each true believer of any other religion does think that he's benefitting from pascal's wager, when of course they can't all be right. (that is a slightly different argument than the one the quoted paragraph claims to debunk)

Damn my sneaky atheistic subtle intellectual dishonesty!

You wouldn’t necessarily. However, that’s not the only reason to believe. That’s actually the weakest argument and what I would consider a last resort or last ditch effort.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Illogical comparison and has no pertinence.

Ok, how's this:

The state has no place interfering in my or anyone else's family life.

You’re correct. The state has no business whatsoever interfering in anything you do as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. That does not, however, mean that you are a legitimate candidate for marriage if you are with a member of the same sex, have multiple partners you wish to marry, wish to marry your sister, or have a thing going for your dog.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

You really believe the whole Adam and Eve thing?
Just curious.

Yes. You don't believe in a beginning for the human race?

[pajarito 0]

BRING THE PAIN!!!