I read an article in Newsweek about a ‘god gene,’ which backs up your contention that belief is somewhat innate in some people, though it is unclear what beliefs satisfy the gene.
I’ve alway found the arguement about the positive or negative effects of religion kind of silly. After all, a belief that has a positive effect on society is no more likely to be true than one with a negative effect. I find it doubtful that a person would (or even could) give up a belief that they thought was true, for one that they thought would have a positive effect on them. Were it not the case, we could design a religion to have all the positives and few of the negatives of current religions. Only problem is no one would believe in it.
I think she’s exactly right. The variaton of belief I see within my own religion tells that tale, I think. (Especially considering how specific they are about what its members are supposed to believe.) Even within my own family, it’s obvious that we all have different takes on it, despite all 4 of us being raised pretty much the same way. And not surprisingly, each siblings’ attitude/approach to religion is predictable, based on their attitude/approach to other aspects of life.
I’ve heard about that, but have not read much in detail. I just have observed that belief and non-belief both seem to follow other traits I see in people, leading me to deduce (with really nothing but this anecdotal evidence), that it’s part of a natural personality or temperament.
This goes back to what cosmosdan said…I think that some people have some sort of psychological need for a judgemental, stern god, and some people have one for a loving, kind god. Hence, we sometimes see both sides within one religion, as in Christianity. I don’t think that’s the fault of the religion, and I don’t think you can blame one side for the “misinterpretation” of the other side (or the misinterpretation of their own side, for that matter!)
Are you pissing and moaning about my being annoying or about the disrespect or about my writing style? Because if it’s the annoying thing, I’d venture to say you’re a bigger pain in our collective ass than I could ever aspire to be on my worst day. If you’re talking about disrespect, I’d say a sane person would find you at the turbo-charged end of that spectrum. If it’s about my protest, then you’re a tedious waste of space.
You’re a headcase. Take your insanity trip to someone who can prescribe something to you rather than festering in your basement like a goddamn cyberstalker with no reason to live other than to nitpick the minutiae on a message board. Your psycho-maniacal response to a little ‘j’ and an even smaller ‘c’ is frightening and pathetic. Get help.
Oh indeed. Pissant is a very good word indeed. It’s the bald admission that it’s done with intent to annoy, in the light of it being routinely done in fora where you’re not meant to set out to annoy, that drew my attention; though I see Kalhoun is dancing very prettily on that one, because now, apparently, the one and same behaviour either is or isn’t intended to annoy, depending on whether the local rules allow deliberately annoying behaviour. All very rational.
But hey, “Piss Christ” is a-a-a-a-a-r-t, man!
And you’re cool with me. Obviously I’d prefer it if you didn’t use His name as an expletive while you’re talking to me, but 1) I accept that it’s not of significance to you and from your own standpoint you are not blaspheming, b) it’s none of my darn business whether you used the epithet two dozen times last week out of my hearing, and iii) in either case, you’re not doing it to be annoying while simultaneously admitting and denying it.
Right…but again…if I’m disrespecting a concept, why all the heartburn? I’m not required to respect a concept, am I? I can’t help it that people hold religion in a different light than I do. I don’t like republican politics much, either. If I speak against the republican platform, is that disrespectful?
Oh…and you can go choke on a… (nevermind. I just not up to it today.)
As I figure it, Yeshua is the man, “Jesus Christ” is the myth, written by people decades or centuries after the events and who cherry-picked details that suited them, threw in elements of other extant myths as well as grinding their personal axes. Later on, when the documents were translated (and even more centuries removed from the original events and their context), the translators cherry-picked details that suited them, threw in elements of other extant myths as well as grinding their personal axes. The various flavours of modern Christianity are a hodgepodge of rival factions and warring ideas that are all equally arbitrary.
Am I the only one who finds it extremely amusing that magellan01 is getting so worked up over some capitalization issue when his/her user name is not capitalized? Am I being insulting if I don’t spell it Magellan01?
His username is actually cosmoSdan (emphasis added). I made that mistake, too. Personally, I think “cosmodan” is a much better username, but what can you do?
He he he. Got no more bullshit answers, huh? Your stupidity has placed you in a corner and now you do what? Ah, the “collective ass”. Looking for protection in a group, the sure sign of cowardice and having no leg to stand on. And I’m not going after a group of people—nice try, though—I’m going after YOU, showing that YOU are a brat, a petulant little asswipe, a dishonest debater, and a fraud. You claim to want to have civil debate about religion, but that’s not true, you just want to use it as a platform for you asinine little protest. That is fucking trolling, plain and simple. You just want to tweak theists because, oh, the big bad Christians are soooo mean to you. You’re are an immature little twit. And one profoundly dumb bitch, that is for certain.
Put the cuckoo back in the clock, Igor. Your knuckle-dragging non-participation in anything deeper than your little insult fest speaks volumes about you. Now go back to your rubber room. There’s a nice man with some thorazine waiting for you.
People who want to do bad things are going to do them, religion or no. If they’re religious, they’ll find a Biblical/religious reason; if not, they’ll find some other reason. I agree with Cosmodan that people tend to focus on what they want to find, not on what they don’t want to hear.
Regarding the capitalization issue, my reaction is ‘meh’. It’s sort of a silly affectation, like holding up your pinky finger while you drink a cup of tea. It doesn’t benefit Kalhoun in terms of debate in my view because when I see it, all I can think is that anyone who really believes (or claims to believe) that it is an intelligent form of protest is someone whose views I don’t have to consider seriously on this topic.
I’m glad to see atheists becoming more outspoken because I believe the dialog (erm, shouting) will eventually cause both sides to become less strident over time. I know that I never even heard of atheists whn I was growing up. I hope more people hear about them and choose to become one.
As a non theist type, it’s sometimes hard to stomach the overbearing pressure some religionist types attempt to burden others with. On issues large and small, when the religious are confronted with their “arrogant, pushy, behaviour” (oddly, the most commom complaint I hear them say about atheists!), they immediately cry that they are being discriminated against. When one tries to point out that they have alot of social control- more than any other group, they still plead that they are mistreated. Heck, you can’t even sneeze without someone ‘God blessing you’, and it’s the wrong time of the year to bring up the annual “War on Christmas” crap.
I was out of town this week and didn’t read the news much, but I heard about the proposed construction of two 150+ foot crosses by a local church at two of the main intrances to my large city, and have been following the attempts of ultraconservatives to control my State Board of Education.
I don’t really care if individual people are religious, and often those individuals are nice people, but when they gang up in groups to reduce my acess to things such as books and information, or start acting threatening in any way, then I can’t offer them any support at all.
The problem I have with this argument is that it’s right - but only so far. People who are judgemental, or bitchy, or genuinely uncaring are going to be all those things with or without religion. You could argue that whatever would make a person change could also change them to be better people in turn, but that’s true either way. Evil people are going to be evil if religion didn’t exist; it’s just one less outlet for it for them.
No, the problem isn’t the evil people, it’s the good people. The people who will, religion or not, be nice, caring types who honestly think what they do will help the world. And so they vote against abortion, or they council gay people to try and get over it, or they suggest abstinence over condom use. None of those things are unique to religion, of course, but I suspect people wouldn’t disagree all that much if I said without religion such things would be less common. The problem isn’t the evil people; they’ll be around doing what they do no matter what. The problem is the good people who go about their goodness in (IMHO) the wrong way.
I think the good people are going to feel the way they do and act the way they do regardless of religion also. A person who votes against abortion, counsels gay people to try and get over it, or suggests abstinance over responsible birth control in my view is acting on the way they instinctively feel about these issues, not what their religion tells them. Religion is only used as supporting documentation, so to speak. Or at least that’s been my experience, anyway.
I’m middle-of-the-road on the religion thing; I normally tend to stay out of religion threads because I don’t feel compelled to argue either way. I notice around here the atheists are quite loud, and in some cases rude to those who profess faith. I just figure it’s because there aren’t many places they can argue that view and find themselves in the majority. I can understand that feeling because even my own slightly Christian views are not ordinary in my little town, and I’ve definitely found myself on the outside in terms of issues like the Nativity scene in front of Town Hall, religion in the school, etc. But I’ve found that the people who are overbearing on those issues tend to be overbearing on everything anyway. The people I have known that I would consider to be the ‘actual Christian’ type have been very decent and unassuming people who have been a delight to be with. Would they have been the same people without their religion? Possibly, but it was evidently a comfort and source of strength to them and I don’t feel it’s my place to proselytize or attempt to teach anyone else about religion, so I just enjoyed their company.
I happen to agree with you. I know you’re smart enough to realize that some people will take it personally when you disrespect a concept they hold dear. They won’t want to discuss anything with you. It’s completely up to you and neither right nor wrong to decide whether those consequences are worth the protest you’ve chosen.
As I mentioned before, people who willingly enter a discussion with someone who strongly disagrees with them better not be to thin skinned. Your method of protest may weed some out and if that’s okay with you it’s nobody’s fucking business but your own.
Just between you and me I find someone criticizing you for being a jackass by being a a jackass on a far grander scale a little goofy but hey, it’s the pit.
