The following is about how I view the world. You have been warned.
In the course of posting here I have noticed that many republicans define things differently then many other people do. Similarly, I stick to my own opinions with no support from how many others view the world. I figured I would put down my person opinions of how things are just because. People are welcome to question my own personal definitions, or to state how they personally define things.
Republicans: People who put their opinions first and modify their arguments to suite how they feel, with no thought towards how the argument works. Strangely, this opinion would seem to apply to me, despite the fact I consider myself a democrat.
In my opinion, religion started as an explanation of how nature works, then became a collection of “Just So Stories” collected with some moral precepts. That moral precepts exist however are canceled out by virtue of the fact that those young enough to need moral instruction can be confused by such illogical concepts as a triune god, examples of religious role models acting like bloodthirsty barbarians, and sexism. Since then, people have been leaving such concepts behind, while still holding the book in high regard. This holding on to such concepts while the world tries to move forward is a largely ignored danger. The fact that the god that such conceps relies upon does not even exist is almost not worth mentioning.
Just in case anyone misunderstands, as you seemed to post 29, this is the god I see described in the bible, which is not to say I believe in a god, just that if he existed, this is the way I believe he would act, judging from the nature of nature. Whew! I hope the last sentence wins me the obfuscated wording contest.
P.S. As long as you are here, care to explain your signature?
How do you know that God does not exist? This attitude is just as arrogant as those fundmentalists who insist that God does exist just because “it is written”.
The majority of people I know in RL have a book that they claim was written by god. During my childhood, I was forced to read this over and overagain, one section every saturday morning. I discoverd that none of the reasons why god exist described in the book held up, and all extra-torah explinations I was exposed to didn’t didn’t hold water either.
P.S. I know my attitude reaks of arrogance. That is why I titled this thread, " What things are like in my world." I never claimed to be a humble seeker of truth.
Well, I look around me and see a world ruled by religious madness for just about as long as people have been around. On the other hand, people have been able to criticize the idea of there being a “god” for a much, much shorter period of time openly without getting (literally) flamed. I do not see how any amount of religion “bashing” I do can be proportionate to the actual harm done by religion. Now, I know that some may find it tiresome, but it is how I feel.
New entry: The deference between catholic doctrine and it’s teaching. It has happened that when I discussed the sins of the past of the catholic church, tomndebb criticized me for not realizing the deference between the two. Well, I have now researched it on google, and have found the answer:
None.
So the books of the catholic encyclopedia stats thing one way, while the catholic layman sees it another way. I see no practical difference, and further more, I see harm do to the church by this. Case in point, as I understand it, a majority of priests understand and agree with the findings of the jesus seminars, while the majority of laypeople have heard of no such thing. This gap of belief is sure to cause a harmful effect.
I’ve been called arrogant for not believing in god but I don’t understand why. Arrogant means “giving one’s self an undue degree of importance” and I don’t get why there is an perceived sense of self importance for atheists. I am a cog in the universe, no more, no less. I think it’s far more arrogant to believe that a being powerful enough to create the whole universe and even time and space itself would listen to me.
One explination might be that they (make that many of them, not “they”) cite reward or puniishment in an afterlife as a reason for doing things morally. The idea that someone would do such things just because they are the right things to do seems odd, and furthermore, cites the idea that you have the authority to do so, without having an “all-father” to tell you that it is right to do so. Such taking authority seems “arogant.”
No. I criticized you for failing to grasp history on about every level in pretty much every discussion. The fact that you tend to misapprehend religious history is part and parcel of your larger devotion to ignorant (i.e., not knowing) opinion. You seem to be enjoying yourself, however, so as long as you are not spewing falsehoods in the midst of a discussion, you’re welcome to your (self-defined) Republican persona.
You seem to never cast christians who do bad things as being due to the teachings they have learned as children. I propose that it is always due to that. I have the fact that they were christians, and that they did do bad things in my support, while you have…what? I am looking through your past posts, but I can not find any cite, besides your repeatedly criticizing me for " misapprehend-ing religious history." Funny, I would not call it “religious history,” but instead history that had religious people sticking their noses in where it did not belong. I seems you have read books which cast history in a pro-christian light, while I have read books that have been judgment neutral, and connected the dots.
Oh, and I am pretty sure I recall your having said, “you need to understand the differences between catholic teachings and doctrine.”, but maybe that was someone else.
