We make it much more likely that gay couples will be subjected to the life-long oppression of a marriage contract. 
Indeed. A sad casualty in the holy war against religion. The zealous atheists on this board give their cause a bad name.
Don’t forget the [del]Force[/del]Source, Luke.:rolleyes:
I was a Conservative Jew, but on the Reform side of Conservative. It’s the same situation was with Christians. It endorses a set of rules based on unverified and probably unreal history and an unverified and unreal deity. Now we’re slightly better because we don’t care what those not in the club do, but I think the application of logic to show that Christianity wasn’t true also showed what I believed wasn’t true.
My objection, as I said, is with the process. Moderates may believe by faith that all sorts of things you and I agree with are true, but how do they prove it besides arguing that this passage gets more weight than that one? A few religious people get this right. The Dalai Lama said that if science disagreed with Buddhism, Buddhism would have to change. I believe the commentary in the Bible Reform Jews use now admits that there was no Davidic Empire, which is no small thing. But this is still very rare.
There are lots of rituals in our society, things like weddings, graduations, funerals, and even atheists can participate in and enjoy these. There are religious branches of ethics and philosophy, but the difference between them and secular ethics is the items which cannot be challenged. There is a big difference between starting from scratch and starting from a position that the Bible is true (in some sense) and that we must interpret it.
Plus not believing in religion doesn’t mean you can’t appreciate religiously inspired art. The Iliad is still wonderful to read even if I don’t buy divine intervention. Same for music.
Here’s the problem. Say you know a person who is a good worker, polite, law abiding, good to his mother - and then you find out he claims he is all these thing because his dog tells him to be. Wouldn’t this make you nervous? Especially if last year another guy who followed his dog shot up a mall because his dog told him to? Wouldn’t your friend telling you he was sure his dog would never order him to kill anyone not help?
Why do you consider believers in magic moon fairies to be lunatics? I’m serious here. You act as though it’s some sort of self-evident truth. What’s so crazy about believing in fairies?
If I say that believing in God is equivalent to believing in fairies, I’m NOT saying “Those Christians are just as crazy as the fairy worshippers.” What I’m saying is “Those fairy worshippers are just as sane as Christians.”
I don’t think religious people are crazy or stupid. I just think they’re mistaken … just like I think KGS is mistaken. The frustrating thing is that many relgious people seem to think it’s fine to point out how ludicrous other people’s supernatural beliefs are, but they consider their own supernatural beliefs off-limits.
Indeed, because a person who hears his dog talk to him is exactly the same as a religious person. Even the most ignorant, nonthinking religious person ranks above this IMO, and then there are some religious people who do things such as read the Bible critically, differ with their church teachings on parts where science and logic disagree, and otherwise try to reconcile reason and faith.
Are you seriously making such a claim, or am I missing something? If you are, this is exactly the type of argument that makes religious people throw up their hands in disgust and not even bother having a discussion.
This is what I don’t get. Even when I counted myself among the religious, I could see how it looked from the outside.
Why does the most ignorant, nonthinking religious person rank above the person who hears his dog talk?
I asked essentially the same question about fairies in my previous post. We’re told that it’s obviously ludicrous and insulting to compare belief in God to belief in fairies or talking dogs. I don’t get it either, and I’d love to have the difference explained to me.
Now that I reread, I should have asked, too, what “ranks above” means. Ranks above for whom?
Well, I suppose if we count all religious and all ignorant, non-thinking people, then there are lots of things that make a talking dog look positively brilliant, so let’s scratch that statement of mine on account of careless hyperbole.
I still hold it to be true for religious people with half a brain though. I’m Christian, so I’ll use my faith as an example. Here’s the difference between Christianity and somebody who thinks their dog talks to them:
Christianity is a worldview that rests on a few principles. AFAIK, these first principles cannot be proven logically or scientifically. There are arguments that can be made, feelings to appeal to, and numerous anecdote type things, but yes indeedy-doody it boils down to faith, that nasty word.
Here are what I consider the first principles of Christianity.
- There is an omnipotent, omniscient God who loves us
- He created the world in order that we be close to him
- God is perfect love and perfect justice
- God, due to his nature, cannot tolerate imperfection
- We fucked up, we sinned, thus creating an infinitely large rift between us and God
- In order to reconcile love and justice, God sacrifices his Son on the cross. In doing so, he defeats death and sin. How this works is the central mystery of the Christian faith.
- Follow the life and teachings of Jesus, and you will become closer to God, the happy and natural state for humanity.
Now, to an atheist, this all probably sounds as absurd as fuck, but one thing Christianity has is an organized, compact theological worldview. In theory, all Catholic teachings can be dervied from the above 7 things (probably missed a few but you get the point). On top of that, there’s thousands of years of tradition and interpretation of these derived teachings. A person can say that Jesus tells them to burn their family to a crisp, but he will be corrected by his community hopefully. (and let’s not get into the whole Abraham thing ok? That’s a whole other bag of worms)
So, let’s look at the guy who thinks his dog tells him to burn things. What are his first principles? I don’t really see any. Basically, whatever his dog says, goes. He has no real systemized worldview, and certainly no tradition or community.
As for the differences between Christianity, other religions, and other less established beliefs such as Wicca, the social argument does have a lot of merit. Christianity does get a free ride in many places where it shouldn’t. Still, that doesn’t mean that all religions are created equal. While to an atheist they are all obviously untrue, that doesn’t mean that different faith traditions differing first principles are all the same in their degrees of truth or untruth.
It’s the same thing with crazy people. The man who believes his soap is caked with the ebola virus is much less insane than the woman who believes a tiny man lives in her nose. So, with regards to religion, while atheists might indeed think all faith is insane or at the very least highly irrational, I hope this post explained how many people can have differing opinions on the truthiness (;)) of Christians, Buddhists, Wiccans, aura healers, and talking dog worshippers.
Sorry, but I have to pin this on mswas on page 11, and FinnAgain with the Der Trihs bashing throughout.
Besides if it was only da ebil atheists fault, why do da nutball theists keep replying too?
You don’t know what his worldview is. You have just met the (fictional) guy. Would someone be able to divine the worldview of the average Christian after just meeting the person?
Imagine you’re reading a book and a guy, we’ll call him Absalom, is a character. Absalom is introduced by the narrator as someone who is a Dog-ist. He believes his dog is God.
So far, that’s all you know, because that’s all the narrator/author has chosen to reveal. And it may be all that the author has chosen to invent, or more may come out later.
Would it be a fair criticism of the book at that point of Absalom’s introduction, that Absalom is an unrealistic character because he doesn’t have a systemic worldview? Or would it be unreasonable to assume, with limited knowledge, that he doesn’t?
You couldn’t encapsulate your worldview into one line, yet you are assuming that you know everything about our thread’s Dog-ist after one line of description.
And this of course sums up all taht you have to say on any religious subject. Just pure derision. Yet people like you and Der Trihs continue to post in religious threads. That is why you are threadshitting trolls. If you received anything similar in reverse you’d be howling at the moon and the person you are arguing with would likely get banned.
Actually, Jews do care how non-Jews behave: see “Noahide laws”. What Jews don’t care about much is what non-Jews believe.
Moreover, don’t think that the foundation myths are all that religious people “believe” in.
There are some religious people out there who challenge everything. Don’t assume that, just because someone is of enquiring and skeptical mind, they will always come to the same conclusions.
True. And a good person is still a good person if they are religious.
See, this is where we part ways.
To many of you, evidently, this seems a perfectly reasonable question to ask. It is like you have never actually met any real life religious people - your parents, your friends, etc. Are you really and sincerely of the opinion that all of these people are one step away from cracking and smashing your skull like an egg?
But to answer the question - it is obvious to me (though evidently not at large here on the Dope) that people have more than one source of moral compass - what they hear in church, mosque or synagogue; the laws of the land; how their friends and family behave towards each other; tradition; etc.
Generally speaking, these sources all agree on moral or legal issues. The Church etc. tells you killing people is wrong; so do the laws of the land, your family and friends, tradition, etc.
Sometimes they disagree. In those cases, it isn’t obvious that a person will choose what their church (etc.) says on some issue over what they understand to be “right” from other sources. People can, and do, discriminate between these sources, and only the most fanatical accepts without question what their religious leadership tells them. If the church was suddenly to order its members to scoop out each other’s brains and feast on the goo within, most church-goes would not immediately comply.
In contrast, someone who hears orders directly from their dog is far, far more likely to be beyond such discrimination. They are much more likely to be not operating within the usual compass of having different sources of moral authority. They are, in short, more likely to be what is technically known as “nuts”.
Hey, well, you guys threadshit, it’s all you do, because you think that every religious thread is a soap box for you to rail against da ebil belief in God. You have nothing to say on the topic, nothing of value anyway.
I mean you personally I happen to think is a complete idiot, but more benign than Der Trihs.
Because they are idiots. Like I said, I avoid religious discussions on teh dope most of the time because they are fruitless. I can get intelligent religious discussion, with atheists and religious people alike on other boards. So why come here where Junior High morons like you threadshit on every thread?
You bring down the quality of the forum, and take it as a point of pride thinking you won some sort of blow for the cause of atheism. It’s really rather pathetic.
And here’s the first principles of a worshiper of Dog:
- There is an omnipotent, omniscient Dog who loves us
- He created the world in order that we be close to him and pet him and give him treats
- Dog is perfect love and perfect justice
- Dog, due to his nature, cannot tolerate imperfection or cats
- We fucked up, we sinned, thus creating an infinitely large rift between us and Dog
- In order to reconcile love and justice, Dog sacrifices his Son on the highway. In doing so, he defeats death and sin. How this works is the central mystery of the Dogite faith.
- Follow the life and teachings of Spot, and you will become closer to Dog, the happy and natural state for humanity.
Because they have few set principles and an organized compact theological worldview, they are obviously better and less goofy than those wierdos who talk to cats. And since lots of people talk to their Dog, it’s obviously not crazy.
Hey, they have a systemized worldview! And whatever Dog says does not go. It’s walkies at 3 exactly, and not a minute earlier! Num Nums at 5, no matter how much Dog begs! Just because Dog bites people sometimes, and that’s not in the first principles, doesn’t mean anything. That’s just the nature of Dog. Dog is mysterious.
Cat worshipers, even though they have almost the same but slightly different first principles, are obviously crazier than Dog worshipers. I mean they have stuff in there about tuna and catnip. Sheesh, how loony can you get? I mean c’mon, Dog is the way, why can’t people see this?
I don’t really give a fuck who started it. And yes, of course there are plenty of disgraceful wackjob theists on this board too.
Please, you sound like a little child about to cry. There is not just one but two threads in GD right now that are discussing religion and no big bad atheists have huffed or puffed or even blown your little house of cards down. You’re the one who ruined this perfectly good thread of crazy, it had real potential, but no, you had to throw a Der Trihs tantrum and everyone took their toys and went home.
That’s kewl, I consider you just another loon on the internet.
Hey, I’ve been one of the most open-minded posters in this thread. Sure I’ve been poking fun, but I’ve actually asked a bunch of questions to try to help me understand where he is coming from. And it’s incorrect to say we’ve been given just one line of description from KSG about what he believes. Sure he hasn’t made a single creed-esque post, but this whole thread and others have been chock full of details about his belief system.
Trying to get back on track here, it seems to me his worldview is a hodgepodge of feel-good New-agey tripe mixed with a healthy dose of mental imbalance and a smidge of theosophism. Of course, at this point I believe he’s mostly making it up as he goes along to get a rise out of everyone, aka trolling.
KGS isn’t the Dog-ist.
The Dog-ist was invented in this line: