‘Obama was steeped in Islam but knew nothing about Christianity by AURaptor

Quote:
By "mere Christian" do you mean someone who believes nothing from the Old Testament? I've yet to meet anyone fitting that description, who believes in the word of Jesus and throws out literally everything in the O.T.

Anthony appears to be so, which if you ask me is a breath of fresh air.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2012 8:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Quote:
Anthony, for cryin' out loud I never said "Muslims believe in 'habitual beheading.'"

Hello,

Did I claim you made such a statement?

No. I caught my error while you were writing this post. Sorry. Kwicko started his own post with "Anthony got it right" and my brain did a *thing* and suddenly the post was yours.

Quote:
Quote:
Do you think I'm being hysterical?

I think that, in order to have this discussion productively, you will need to unplug your emotions and understand what people are telling you from a clinical distance.

And I think that what you ask is impossible for humans. Oh, sure, we can *think* we're "unplugging" from emotion, but really the emotion just goes to a deeper place and pushes all the harder. Secondly, I believe it is far more instrumental in creating moral, rational discourse for people to integrate their emotional responses fully and be fully present in both emotion and logic. As brain science has indicated, without access to our emotion, our ability to make simple rational decisions is greatly impaired. Anthony, to my mind, it is your tremendous emotional integration and moral clarity that make you such an exceptionally decent person, not any imagined ability of yours to unplug from yourself. Your wife might agree with me. Just sayin'.

Quote:
Quote:
And your list of what "religious" people do is about as convincing as Wulfenstar's rants about what "black" people do. It's pure bigotry, however born out by personal experience. Particularly when "religion" encompasses EVERYTHING other than atheism to the atheist in these arguments.

I think there is a heaping mountain of similarity between the following things:

A) Wulf's beliefs about black people.
B) Atheists beliefs about Religious People.
C) Religious People about other Religious People
D) Wulf's beliefs about himself and Religious people's beliefs about themselves.

So if my 'guide to atheists' seemed like a heap of uninformed bigotry, then you begin to understand the fundamental disconnect between atheists and religious people. I assure you the disconnect travels in both directions. My wife is currently in a class with a dozen Christians who almost universally regard atheists as substandard and potentially dangerous.

Forgive me, but I have to express some frustration here. Why are you talking to me as if we've never spoken before? Anthony, you are one of a handful of people here whom I make a point of reading everything you post (if I miss something, it's 'cause it's buried under a page and a half of flamewar, or in a whozit/PN thread). I know well about your wife's story from when you told it to us last week (or was it the week before--razzin' frazzin' linear time!). My trouble here is that your weariness and irony seem to reflect an acceptance of the bigotry as unavoidable and natural; that atheism is inherently bigoted and religiosity is similarly bigoted. Do ya really think I need to be told there are bigots in the world? So strange.

But Anthony (misattributions aside) I'm talking to YOU. Yes, I know there are plenty bigots in the world, but I didn't think you and Kwicko were among them, or that either of you would conscience same. So I got upset when you started sounding like ya did. Seems a perfectly reasonable reaction to me.

Quote:
If you are truly interested in this conversation, Cavalier, you are going to have to step outside of yourself first, and truly view 'Religious People' the way an alien creature might view 'Humanity' upon visiting the Earth. Then you will understand the opposing viewpoint and be able to make observations that deal with their preconceptions.

I note for the record that an Alien would probably find little discernible difference between 'Religious Humans' and 'Non Religious Humans.' Sincere apologies to my atheist friends.

Anthony, I think you're being too clever for your argument's own good here. I routinely step outside myself and indeed, it's kind of my M.O. (and why I get into as much trouble as I do most of the time) I think I do see "religious humans" as your imagined alien might and indeed I don't see much difference on the whole between the religious folk and the non-religious folk. That's why it hurts to see y'all havin' at. That was my point, oh so long ago. Atheists here, Byte and Kwick, dismiss all religions--and by extention all religious people (not just what you and I might call the zealots) as irretrievably irrational and seem to suggest that they themselves are somehow intrinsically more credible (hard not to when one is so busy judging others). Kwicko says he doesn't care what a person believes but what that person does and then makes crazy blanket statements about a group of people based on their shared beliefs. The disconnect drives me a little nuts is all.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2012 8:29 AM

Quote:
Anthony, to my mind, it is your tremendous emotional integration and moral clarity that make you such an exceptionally decent person, not any imagined ability of yours to unplug from yourself. Your wife might agree with me. Just sayin'.

I seem to recall Anthony mentioning that he had some child abuse that created a lot of anger in him that he had to deal with. And I know that I'm unpleasant as hell when I'm in a dark mood, though I try not to be.

I can't speak for Anthony, but for myself you might want to reconsider.

Quote:
Atheists here, Byte and Kwick, dismiss all religions--and by extention all religious people (not just what you and I might call the zealots) as irretrievably irrational and seem to suggest that they themselves are somehow intrinsically more credible

Whatever. If you're not going to read my posts and instead you just want to put words in my mouth then I'm not going to argue with you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2012 8:35 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

HK, you act as if I'm attacking you, personally. I assure you I am not. I may be attacking your RELIGION, but I'm being no more vicious about your religion than I am any other religion. You seem to be taking it quite personally because it is the one you chose to follow (unlike homosexuality, religion is indeed a choice; nobody is "born Catholic" - they're recruited and indoctrinated into the lifestyle, and have a choice to leave it at any time, and can even give it up for Lent!)

Also, if you feel I'm being harsh, read your own words about Mormonism and try to view them from a Mormon viewpoint. Are you being overly harsh?

I do not care that a majority of people on Earth have religious beliefs, no more than I care that a majority of Americans think "We're Number One!" The notion that large groups of people believing falsehoods makes those falsehoods come true is a quaint one, but not one I subscribe to.

As I have said before, you are free to believe what you choose. And as Patton Oswalt says, I have to acknowledge that you believe that, but I don't have to respect your beliefs. You can believe the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and you have every right to believe it, and I'll support that right, but I won't join you in believing it, because it's still the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Anthony:

I'm damned glad to have met you, and I stand happily corrected.

As you say, if you poll 100 "Christians" about the O.T. or homosexuality, you'll likely find an overwhelming number of them claim Jesus said it was a sin. Only he never said anything about it at all, far as I can tell. But when so-called Christians rail about the evils of homosexuality or gay marriage, what you generally hear (and when I say "generally", I mean about 99.9% of the time) as justification for their views is "the Bible says it's wrong!"

Occasionally, you even get one of them who's a state representative and quotes the O.T. at length about putting such people to death, so I'm pretty sure I didn't just misunderstand the words or react hyperbolically to such direct threats to people's lives.

HK, I'd love to sit down and have a conversation with you. Anthony as well. And Frem, of course, should definitely be there. What you'll find is that I speak directly and I don't pull punches based on someone's religious beliefs. There is a reason I stay well clear of theocracy tourism, after all - I would be imprisoned in about three heartbeats, because I'm going to say something that some zealot finds offensive, simply because I do not edit my behavior to fit someone else's perceived moral code that was spoon-fed to them from the cradle. Many people find this offensive, but I cannot judge it so, because being offended about my religion is an utterly foreign concept to me. I also never understood "sin", but that's a whole different conversation...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2012 8:46 AM

Quote:
Atheists here, Byte and Kwick, dismiss all religions--and by extention all religious people (not just what you and I might call the zealots) as irretrievably irrational and seem to suggest that they themselves are somehow intrinsically more credible.

Not really.

I dismiss religion, but I don't dismiss the actions of the followers of said religions. My grandmother was a lovely woman who spent most of her adult life helping others, volunteering at the mental hospital, volunteering in public schools, helping at the church, etc. She was a Christian, and she walked the walk WITHOUT the lectures and lessons. She didn't care WHO she helped; she cared THAT she helped. I never dismissed that based on her beliefs.

Anthony is not someone I dismiss, but he says he is indeed religious.

Rappy, conversely, claims atheism, and he's somebody who has zero credibility and whom I'd dismiss outright.

I think religious people have some quaint-but-untrue notions, but I don't really care about that. I care WHAT THEY DO BASED ON THOSE NOTIONS. When people start killing in the name of their particular brand of deity, I have an issue, because at that point, they are seeing people who believe differently than they do as not being human beings at all, but as being something it's not even a crime to kill.

I don't have a huge problem with Jesus himself - he was delusional, but most people are, as you've pointed out - it's a bunch of his fucking fan club I can't stand, and the evil they do in his name.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2012 9:55 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Cavalier,

I am flattered that you make an effort to read everything I write. I try to never assume such in my audience. I did not mean to offer offense by re-stating or revisiting past statements.

I also don't want you to think I condone bigotry. Rather, I understand it. It is not the deviant position of humanity but rather our baseline normal. It is something that has to be accepted (as in- 'it exists' NOT as in- 'it is good') so that it can be dealt with.

I think that you and I can agree that no matter what the positions of Christ were, there are a large number of Christians who routinely refer back to unsavory portions of the Old Testament. I myself fall far short of the Christian ideal. Often, Christians in real life or in media say or do things that deviate from Christ's philosophy and can be disturbing.

I think that there are probably Muslims who are dissatisfied with how other Muslims interpret the directives of the Quran. I think that peaceable, loving Muslims do not get a lot of exposure in the media. Rather, we often see Muslims saying or doing things that are disturbing.

Now, most Atheists that I have associated with have no special dislike of Christ. But many of them have a dislike for Christianity. No one alive has ever had anything to do with Christ, but many have had negative exposure to Christianity. Just as many have had negative exposure to Islam.

Should it matter to the Atheist that Jesus was more peaceable than Mohammed? Neither of these people are currently in charge of their respective movements. What matters to them is what the people in those movements do.

Some of the bigotry we have to deal with as Christians is our own. When we describe Mormonism as a bizarre carbuncle infesting the ass of Christianity (my words, not yours) then we reveal ourselves to be every much as bigoted as those who are bigoted against us. It is very good for us to recognize this in ourselves. The fight against bigotry does not begin with correcting the notions of others, but rather with combating our own bad notions and inequities.

It is our example and conduct as Christians that will provide the only worthy counter-example to those who have a broad-spanning dislike for Christianity.

Another act we can perform in order to combat bigotry is to speak out against those who take actions in our name. Whenever someone does something heinous under the title of Christianity we need to make it very clear that those actions do not represent us or our philosophy.

Finally, when someone makes broad statements about Christianity that seem ill conceived, we can speak quietly and politely our disagreement and hope that those statements do not represent us as individual Christians.

When we say things that are similar to, "Surely you see the difference between following a pacifist and following a violent man," we are not addressing the source of the problem. The problem does not lie in our prophets, but in ourselves and our fellow believers.

We could worship Satan, but if we are good people then people will have good things to say about Satanists. We may worship the purest notions of peace, but if we are bad people then people will have bad things to say about pacifists.

I laud the way you practice Christianity, and I have often enjoyed your caring, thoughtful demeanor. It is those things that will always be your best tools to enlighten the hearts and minds of others.

Finally, on the subject of emotional distance... there is an anger reflex that kicks in when we hear certain things about topics important to us. I do not advocate becoming a robot, but I do advocate stepping back and attempting to think about topics dispassionately for a while when engaged in such conversations. I do not always succeed in this, but when I succeed in this, my responses tend to be better.

Byte is quite correct in surmising that I have an anger problem and that I deal with it by *trying* to unplug and re-examine myself and my situation.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2012 10:12 AM

Kwick,

I just wish you'd slow the heck down and breathe and actually discuss what I actually said. I am not remotely a Catholic. I know I never said I was. You have a tendency to make inferences that you believe to be "facts" or "true" but they are only perceptions until you verify them by asking the person you're talking to, "Hey, when you said _x_ did you mean...?" Usually you're talking to Raptor, so you have little hope of getting a trustworthy answer, but I'm perfectly willing to clarify myself if I'm not being clear and will be as painstakingly honest as I can. That you would imagine me to be a bloody Catholic after all these years is truly bizarre to me. Bizarre. I don't get it at all.

It speaks directly to the problem I'm having with you. Because I am not a card carrying atheist like you, you toss me into your religionist box and now you pigeonhole me with the last religion I mentioned, just 'cause I mentioned I've known a lot of Catholics. I'm wishing Kwicko would be a little more Slowo.

And for goodness sake, I have no problem with you being "harsh," only with you being bigoted. My reading of the book of Mormon is an interpretation, albeit a very negative one. I have yet to meet a practicing Mormon who didn't believe that book hook/line/sinker. I've met only ex-Mormons and "Uncle Jack" Mormons who don't follow Mormonism to the letter, and well, any Mormon can tell you those people aren't Mormons.

I have no idea why we're having this disconnect. All I suggested was that not all religions are equally crazy or dangerous. Even you admit that you are more comfortable with Buddhism than any of the Abrahamic religions. That's all I'm saying, only I'm saying that among the Abrahamic sects, some are more troubling than others. Maybe I'm splitting hairs. After all, Nixon was a freakin' Quaker, so the sect itself is no guarantee of how a particular individual is gonna behave. Generalizing is a dangerous practice, but I don't think all generalizations amount to bigotry.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
HK, you act as if I'm attacking you, personally. I assure you I am not. I may be attacking your RELIGION, but I'm being no more vicious about your religion than I am any other religion. You seem to be taking it quite personally because it is the one you chose to follow (unlike homosexuality, religion is indeed a choice; nobody is "born Catholic" - they're recruited and indoctrinated into the lifestyle, and have a choice to leave it at any time, and can even give it up for Lent!)

I know very well you're not attacking me personally. I also know very well you're not attacking my religion. That is not at all what's bothering me.

Why is it necessary for a person to feel personally attacked in order for them to be upset when they perceive bigotry? I'm upset at your apparent blanket bigotry against beliefs different from your own. I'm calling you on it and giving you an opportunity to explain yourself. But you keep doubling down on the prejudice.

I don't understand why you cling to your prejudices in the light of continuing evidence (e.g.: Anthony the Christian) to the contrary. "I'm being no more vicious about your religion than I am any other religion." Apart from the fact that you haven't said a word about my religion, why would that comfort anyone? "I'm not attacking you any more than I would attack anyone like you." Gee, thanks. All I suggested was that among religions--none of which I ascribe to, by the way--some are more tolerable than others. Even you prefer Buddhism (as do I). My discernment just goes a little further than that.

Quote:
Also, if you feel I'm being harsh, read your own words about Mormonism and try to view them from a Mormon viewpoint. Are you being overly harsh?

Again, I got no problem with harsh. Geezer gives me this rap, too. Like I'm Miss Manners runnin' 'round the RWED decrying the deplorable wont of niceness I see. No, I just have a problem with harshness applied without discernment. If you're gonna harsh on something, you should prolly know more about it than you appear to know about the varieties of religious belief. Okay?

Quote:
I do not care that a majority of people on Earth have religious beliefs, no more than I care that a majority of Americans think "We're Number One!" The notion that large groups of people believing falsehoods makes those falsehoods come true is a quaint one, but not one I subscribe to.

More non sequitur. It seems you have a lot of axes over there in need of grinding. And for some reason you think I look like a whetstone.

Quote:
As I have said before, you are free to believe what you choose. And as Patton Oswalt says, I have to acknowledge that you believe that, but I don't have to respect your beliefs. You can believe the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and you have every right to believe it, and I'll support that right, but I won't join you in believing it, because it's still the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Yes, you've said this before. Have I ever proselytized you? And if so, can you characterize the religion I was promoting? I'd never demand that you join me in my beliefs, but it would be nice if you could keep from falsifying them here.

Quote:
HK, I'd love to sit down and have a conversation with you. Anthony as well. And Frem, of course, should definitely be there. What you'll find is that I speak directly and I don't pull punches based on someone's religious beliefs. There is a reason I stay well clear of theocracy tourism, after all - I would be imprisoned in about three heartbeats, because I'm going to say something that some zealot finds offensive, simply because I do not edit my behavior to fit someone else's perceived moral code that was spoon-fed to them from the cradle. Many people find this offensive, but I cannot judge it so, because being offended about my religion is an utterly foreign concept to me. I also never understood "sin", but that's a whole different conversation...

Yeah, if I'm ever in Austin I'll look you up. And if you ever find yourself in Seattle, I'd be overjoyed to have you by. Look, I share your outrage at fundamentalist religion. But I think you throw the baby (not yours or mine, of course, but somebody's baby, nonetheless) out with the bathwater when you suggest there are no practical distinctions between the many religions on earth.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2012 10:16 AM

Anthony: I'm willing to recognize that not all Christians support killing gays and the death penalty, just as not all Muslims like stoning women for adultery. But I almost see the religions themselves and the religious texts as perpetuating these ideas. Even Buddhism seems to have it's homophobia, I heard about some rather uncomfortable comments from the Dalai Lama. There are many other things I question about various religions. No religion is without it's social faults and unfortunate ideas.

And above all, I see a tendency for religions to be a vehicle for religious leaders to exploit their followers.

All of these are reasons why I don't see religions as dissimilar. Including atheists who try to galvanize their followers into militant action.

In any case, it's a good reason for me to dislike dogmatism in general, no matter who it's coming froms. I also also dislike stereotyping intolerance BETWEEN religions. Wars are fought over these disputes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2012 10:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I dismiss religion, but I don't dismiss the actions of the followers of said religions. My grandmother was a lovely woman who spent most of her adult life helping others, volunteering at the mental hospital, volunteering in public schools, helping at the church, etc. She was a Christian, and she walked the walk WITHOUT the lectures and lessons. She didn't care WHO she helped; she cared THAT she helped. I never dismissed that based on her beliefs.

Anthony is not someone I dismiss, but he says he is indeed religious.

Rappy, conversely, claims atheism, and he's somebody who has zero credibility and whom I'd dismiss outright.

I think religious people have some quaint-but-untrue notions, but I don't really care about that. I care WHAT THEY DO BASED ON THOSE NOTIONS. When people start killing in the name of their particular brand of deity, I have an issue, because at that point, they are seeing people who believe differently than they do as not being human beings at all, but as being something it's not even a crime to kill.

I don't have a huge problem with Jesus himself - he was delusional, but most people are, as you've pointed out - it's a bunch of his fucking fan club I can't stand, and the evil they do in his name.

We reach!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2012 12:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Kwick,

I just wish you'd slow the heck down and breathe and actually discuss what I actually said. I am not remotely a Catholic. I know I never said I was. You have a tendency to make inferences that you believe to be "facts" or "true" but they are only perceptions until you verify them by asking the person you're talking to, "Hey, when you said _x_ did you mean...?" Usually you're talking to Raptor, so you have little hope of getting a trustworthy answer, but I'm perfectly willing to clarify myself if I'm not being clear and will be as painstakingly honest as I can. That you would imagine me to be a bloody Catholic after all these years is truly bizarre to me. Bizarre. I don't get it at all.

I don't believe I accused you of Catholicism, HK. I was making a joke AND a point, and Catholics were the butt, but it could have been any branch of any religion. All religion is a choice, even Judaism.

I don't imagine you a Catholic. You mentioned Catholics, so I mentioned them as well, nothing more. Sorry for the miscommunication.

Quote:

It speaks directly to the problem I'm having with you. Because I am not a card carrying atheist like you, you toss me into your religionist box and now you pigeonhole me with the last religion I mentioned, just 'cause I mentioned I've known a lot of Catholics. I'm wishing Kwicko would be a little more Slowo.

Again, I didn't. I see why you're thinking I did, but I didn't. Really. I do believe you've been a bit "kwicko" to take offense your ownself, both in thinking I called you Catholic, and in thinking I would have intended such a moniker as a slur, rather than a descriptor.

Quote:

And for goodness sake, I have no problem with you being "harsh," only with you being bigoted. My reading of the book of Mormon is an interpretation, albeit a very negative one. I have yet to meet a practicing Mormon who didn't believe that book hook/line/sinker. I've met only ex-Mormons and "Uncle Jack" Mormons who don't follow Mormonism to the letter, and well, any Mormon can tell you those people aren't Mormons.

I have no idea why we're having this disconnect. All I suggested was that not all religions are equally crazy or dangerous. Even you admit that you are more comfortable with Buddhism than any of the Abrahamic religions. That's all I'm saying, only I'm saying that among the Abrahamic sects, some are more troubling than others. Maybe I'm splitting hairs. After all, Nixon was a freakin' Quaker, so the sect itself is no guarantee of how a particular individual is gonna behave. Generalizing is a dangerous practice, but I don't think all generalizations amount to bigotry.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
HK, you act as if I'm attacking you, personally. I assure you I am not. I may be attacking your RELIGION, but I'm being no more vicious about your religion than I am any other religion. You seem to be taking it quite personally because it is the one you chose to follow (unlike homosexuality, religion is indeed a choice; nobody is "born Catholic" - they're recruited and indoctrinated into the lifestyle, and have a choice to leave it at any time, and can even give it up for Lent!)
I know very well you're not attacking me personally. I also know very well you're not attacking my religion. That is not at all what's bothering me.

Why is it necessary for a person to feel personally attacked in order for them to be upset when they perceive bigotry? I'm upset at your apparent blanket bigotry against beliefs different from your own. I'm calling you on it and giving you an opportunity to explain yourself. But you keep doubling down on the prejudice.

I don't understand why you cling to your prejudices in the light of continuing evidence (e.g.: Anthony the Christian) to the contrary. "I'm being no more vicious about your religion than I am any other religion." Apart from the fact that you haven't said a word about my religion, why would that comfort anyone? "I'm not attacking you any more than I would attack anyone like you." Gee, thanks. All I suggested was that among religions--none of which I ascribe to, by the way--some are more tolerable than others. Even you prefer Buddhism (as do I). My discernment just goes a little further than that.

Quote:
Also, if you feel I'm being harsh, read your own words about Mormonism and try to view them from a Mormon viewpoint. Are you being overly harsh?
Again, I got no problem with harsh. Geezer gives me this rap, too. Like I'm Miss Manners runnin' 'round the RWED decrying the deplorable wont of niceness I see. No, I just have a problem with harshness applied without discernment. If you're gonna harsh on something, you should prolly know more about it than you appear to know about the varieties of religious belief. Okay?

Quote:
I do not care that a majority of people on Earth have religious beliefs, no more than I care that a majority of Americans think "We're Number One!" The notion that large groups of people believing falsehoods makes those falsehoods come true is a quaint one, but not one I subscribe to.
More non sequitur. It seems you have a lot of axes over there in need of grinding. And for some reason you think I look like a whetstone.

Quote:
As I have said before, you are free to believe what you choose. And as Patton Oswalt says, I have to acknowledge that you believe that, but I don't have to respect your beliefs. You can believe the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and you have every right to believe it, and I'll support that right, but I won't join you in believing it, because it's still the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Yes, you've said this before. Have I ever proselytized you? And if so, can you characterize the religion I was promoting? I'd never demand that you join me in my beliefs, but it would be nice if you could keep from falsifying them here.

Quote:
HK, I'd love to sit down and have a conversation with you. Anthony as well. And Frem, of course, should definitely be there. What you'll find is that I speak directly and I don't pull punches based on someone's religious beliefs. There is a reason I stay well clear of theocracy tourism, after all - I would be imprisoned in about three heartbeats, because I'm going to say something that some zealot finds offensive, simply because I do not edit my behavior to fit someone else's perceived moral code that was spoon-fed to them from the cradle. Many people find this offensive, but I cannot judge it so, because being offended about my religion is an utterly foreign concept to me. I also never understood "sin", but that's a whole different conversation...
Yeah, if I'm ever in Austin I'll look you up. And if you ever find yourself in Seattle, I'd be overjoyed to have you by. Look, I share your outrage at fundamentalist religion. But I think you throw the baby (not yours or mine, of course, but somebody's baby, nonetheless) out with the bathwater when you suggest there are no practical distinctions between the many religions on earth.

I believe there are FEW practical distinctions between many of the religions on Earth.

If my views on religion and Christianity offend you...

Forgive me.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2012 12:26 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
It is our example and conduct as Christians that will provide the only worthy counter-example to those who have a broad-spanning dislike for Christianity.

Another act we can perform in order to combat bigotry is to speak out against those who take actions in our name. Whenever someone does something heinous under the title of Christianity we need to make it very clear that those actions do not represent us or our philosophy.

Finally, when someone makes broad statements about Christianity that seem ill conceived, we can speak quietly and politely our disagreement and hope that those statements do not represent us as individual Christians.

Annnd, that's really all it takes.

I am prejudiced against most religions in general Christianity specifically - I KNOW this, and do try to work around it, but due to the conduct which has been directed at me over the years those of such beliefs kind of have to "prove out" before getting the benefit of the doubt, which is kind of unfortunate, but understandable...
But once I've seen someone fly their "True Colors" and find that they are humane - exactly WHAT they believe means nothing to me anymore, save as occasional humor-fodder to needle them with in a friendly way.

I take your point about prophets, but consider well some of the folks I consider exemplars of behavior, role models of a sort, they're not so perfect either, Yuna is a bit slow on the uptake and sometimes a bit TOO eager to help people...
Shinra says it best.

Quote:
Shinra: Hero. Summoner. Doormat.

But the whole "killer" thing is kind of situational, case in point Nausicaa - a pacifist if there ever was one, felt the need to point a damn machinegun at someone and throw a burst beside them cause the situation was that dire, or at least she felt it was.

For the time, place and culture, ole Mighty Mo wasn't really especially bloodthirsty, but from his subsequent writings his intentions seemed to be an end to the very bloodshed he was a participant in - this is about on par with our founding fathers being against the notion of slavery, yet participant in it themselves, dreaming of a better world and trying to create one even if YOU can't live up to that standard most times is not in vain.

Unlikely that I'd ever meet any of ya unless you found yourself in Michigan since my physical condition no longer permits me to travel, but I'm open to online gaming - some of our SWTOR adventures were tremendously entertaining, especially our Imperial Flashpoint with my complete maniac Sith, although my Trooper had more than his share of moments too - too bad the game stalls out and gets boring as hell around Tatooine, ugh.

There's also World of Tanks, if ya don't mind your philosophical conversation interlaced with me cutting loose my inner darkness against them poor sodders, meh heh heh.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2012 3:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I see why you're thinking I did, but I didn't. Really. I do believe you've been a bit "kwicko" to take offense your ownself, both in thinking I called you Catholic, and in thinking I would have intended such a moniker as a slur, rather than a descriptor.

Hey,

Just a point of clarification: I absolutely reread your post several times as I found it hard to believe that ya see me as a Catholic and yet, syntactically, even contextually, that's what your post seemed to say. I know you to be a pretty precise speaker, so I went with what the text says. Without your clarification here, I don't think I would ever have come to the conclusion that you weren't speaking to me as a Catholic. So thanks.

It all starts with that "I may be attacking your religion, but I'm being no more vicious about your religion than I am any other religion." I just couldn't imagine how someone could be "vicious" about a hypothetical religion. And, sadly, it would not have been the first time that people on this board have made presumptions about my spirituality or lack of same. But, okay, you know I'm not Catholic. That is a great relief.

And no, I would never consider it a slur, just a woefully--oh my gosh, I've known this guy for 10 years and he doesn't know I'm not a Catholic???--mistaken descriptor.

I guess I should prolly out myself (again--it's prolly been years since I've trotted out any of these things on on this board--I know Oonjerah was wondering, so anyway...):

I consider myself a spiritual person, sometimes referring to myself as a Spiritualist. As you may remember, I have had what I can best describe as "psychic" experiences my entire life. As a small child, at the height of the abuse I suffered at the hands of both my mother and father, beings I can best describe as "angels" would come to me nearly every night and tell me I would have to endure, but that one day I would be free. Thankfully, they were right.

Just prior to my 3rd birthday I was dropped on my head by a neighbor girl and was in a coma for three days in the hospital. During that time I had a "dream" in which I walked down "a tunnel" toward "a light" and met what looked something like a "council," the members of which were so powerfully backlit they appeared as shadows. I remember crying and I remember them telling me in their minds to "go back" that it wasn't my "time." I left it at that until I was watching Opra one afternoon as a teenager and her show was all about "NDE's." I didn't even realize that they were talking about what had happened to me for days. I'd never heard of anything like that before, and surely never had heard about near death experiences as a two year old. It was just so disconcerting.

The two times I've ever won a raffle, I knew I would win before my number was called. The second time, moments before my number was called I told my friends, "I'm gonna win" and walked down to the stage, stepping up to receive my prize just as my number was called. Whoohoo! If only I could do that sort of thing at will, I'd be rich.

I was a professional reader for years. One remarkable reading began with me shaking my client's hand and realizing that she'd had an abortion less than a week previously. I'd merely said hello and touched her and knew. When I told her about it she began to cry. It was the most stark and immediate confirmation of my "gift." I have seen "ghosts," communicated with the dead and even successfully exorcized a house. I have been aware of the presence of what I would call "demons" and I saw one actually manifest and physically attack an ex-girlfriend with its "claws" tearing the flesh across her legs, leaving her bleeding and hysterical. I witnessed this thing attack her twice. According to her, it had been attacking her periodically since she was a child but no one had ever seen the thing but her, until now.

There's a lot more where that came from. So. Where does that leave me as far as religion is concerned? Nowhere in particular. The closest I could come to an official religion of the People's Republic of HKCavalieria would be...Animism? I've studied Shamanism for many years, but aside from dealing with stuff y'all would consider "supernatural," Shamanism is even less a religion than Buddhism. It's a practice and a theory of how things work. Aboriginal physics, if you will.

Temperamentally, I'm pretty atheistic, in that I don't find the need for a judging sky father to give my universe meaning. And I have a pretty overactive bullshit meter. I find the concept of "belief" kinda embarrassingly sad--people believing things contrary to evidence and contrary to reason because it gives them a dopamine rush. But because of my myriad woo-woo experiences over the course of a life time, no atheist is ever gonna grant me entrance to that club. So, as the man says, "I yam what I yam." Just another person trying to make sense of it all.

I hope that clarifies, at least, why I tend not to define my religion in these kinds of conversations. Sigh. I feel like I've just shared at some kinda mystical 12 step meeting, so...I'll leave it at: Thanks for listening.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2012 4:06 PM

Quote:
Temperamentally, I'm pretty atheistic, in that I don't find the need for a judging sky father to give my universe meaning. And I have a pretty overactive bullshit meter. I find the concept of "belief" kinda embarrassingly sad--people believing things contrary to evidence and contrary to reason because it gives them a dopamine rush. But because of my myriad woo-woo experiences over the course of a life time, no atheist is ever gonna grant me entrance to that club. So, as the man says, "I yam what I yam." Just another person trying to make sense of it all.

Actually, I find this pretty refreshing. As far as I know, atheism doesn't preclude ghosts or psychic phenomena. That we can't currently explain some stuff doesn't mean it's beyond explanation - only that we haven't figured out that explanation yet.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2012 4:08 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2012 5:27 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I wanted to share this because it is tangentially pertinent to this conversation as well as some other conversations occurring in other threads.

I really believe it ought to be this simple.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2012 6:03 PM

Quote:
I consider myself a spiritual person, sometimes referring to myself as a Spiritualist. As you may remember, I have had what I can best describe as "psychic" experiences my entire life. As a small child, at the height of the abuse I suffered at the hands of both my mother and father, beings I can best describe as "angels" would come to me nearly every night and tell me I would have to endure, but that one day I would be free. Thankfully, they were right.

Just prior to my 3rd birthday I was dropped on my head by a neighbor girl and was in a coma for three days in the hospital. During that time I had a "dream" in which I walked down "a tunnel" toward "a light" and met what looked something like a "council," the members of which were so powerfully backlit they appeared as shadows. I remember crying and I remember them telling me in their minds to "go back" that it wasn't my "time." I left it at that until I was watching Opra one afternoon as a teenager and her show was all about "NDE's." I didn't even realize that they were talking about what had happened to me for days. I'd never heard of anything like that before, and surely never had heard about near death experiences as a two year old. It was just so disconcerting.

I've had some experiences like that. Passed out once and saw a lot of shadows and fire and red and screaming. Turns out I have sleep paralysis.

I've also been able to predict things out of nowhere, like something someone else had done or was doing at the moment, gotten weird looks from people who were in the know and thought they were about to surprise me. Sometimes I have flashes of something about to happen before it does - it manifests as me seeing it twice. For me that's all just logic though.

Quote:
Temperamentally, I'm pretty atheistic, in that I don't find the need for a judging sky father to give my universe meaning. And I have a pretty overactive bullshit meter. I find the concept of "belief" kinda embarrassingly sad--people believing things contrary to evidence and contrary to reason because it gives them a dopamine rush. But because of my myriad woo-woo experiences over the course of a life time, no atheist is ever gonna grant me entrance to that club

Interesting. While I can't agree with your ideas about anything supernatural, I have an aversive reaction to the outlandish myself, unless it's conspiracy theories (that can be substantiated).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:24 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So, anyways, my opinion about religion - I've met a few people that religion seemed to enhance - they became more tolerant, more thoughtful, more humble, more helpful - more - well, all the things I seem to think makes for a good human, and a person I'm grateful to know. So I can't dismiss ALL religious people as nut-cases. But the vast majority of religious people seem to use their religion as a tiara to decorate their self-assessed greatness and a blank check for ignorance. Given that general experience, I'd have to say that for the most part, religion is just one more human exercise in hierarchy building in the in-group and exclusion of the out-group.

Oh, FWIW, I don't think you need to be religious to be a true believer. And true believership to me most often IS an exercise in irrationality. I find the truest of true believers and the most irrational to be Geezer, Wulf and little Rappy.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 21, 2012 7:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

I wanted to share this because it is tangentially pertinent to this conversation as well as some other conversations occurring in other threads.

I really believe it ought to be this simple.

--Anthony

Epic. That's the kind of Jesus I could appreciate!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 21, 2012 7:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
I consider myself a spiritual person, sometimes referring to myself as a Spiritualist. As you may remember, I have had what I can best describe as "psychic" experiences my entire life. As a small child, at the height of the abuse I suffered at the hands of both my mother and father, beings I can best describe as "angels" would come to me nearly every night and tell me I would have to endure, but that one day I would be free. Thankfully, they were right.

Just prior to my 3rd birthday I was dropped on my head by a neighbor girl and was in a coma for three days in the hospital. During that time I had a "dream" in which I walked down "a tunnel" toward "a light" and met what looked something like a "council," the members of which were so powerfully backlit they appeared as shadows. I remember crying and I remember them telling me in their minds to "go back" that it wasn't my "time." I left it at that until I was watching Opra one afternoon as a teenager and her show was all about "NDE's." I didn't even realize that they were talking about what had happened to me for days. I'd never heard of anything like that before, and surely never had heard about near death experiences as a two year old. It was just so disconcerting.

I've had some experiences like that. Passed out once and saw a lot of shadows and fire and red and screaming. Turns out I have sleep paralysis.

I've also been able to predict things out of nowhere, like something someone else had done or was doing at the moment, gotten weird looks from people who were in the know and thought they were about to surprise me. Sometimes I have flashes of something about to happen before it does - it manifests as me seeing it twice. For me that's all just logic though.

Quote:
Temperamentally, I'm pretty atheistic, in that I don't find the need for a judging sky father to give my universe meaning. And I have a pretty overactive bullshit meter. I find the concept of "belief" kinda embarrassingly sad--people believing things contrary to evidence and contrary to reason because it gives them a dopamine rush. But because of my myriad woo-woo experiences over the course of a life time, no atheist is ever gonna grant me entrance to that club

Interesting. While I can't agree with your ideas about anything supernatural, I have an aversive reaction to the outlandish myself, unless it's conspiracy theories (that can be substantiated).

Heck, I don't even have that big a problem with the "supernatural" stuff, to be honest. If energy only changes forms and doesn't dissipate, think of "ghosts" as something like "echoes" of energy, and think of "psychic" events (precognition, for example) as the echo of ripples in space-time - we know space-time can bend, tear, be folded, etc., so why can't it ripple like water in a pond?

I kind of view "demons" and "angels" as something that *could* exist, but is probably beings from another dimension. Ever wonder why people who see and talk to them are said to be suffering "dementia"? Maybe they really ARE seeing into other dimensions!

So while I might not quite *believe* in such things, it doesn't mean I can utterly rule it out of the realm of possibility that such things COULD exist, and still be consistent with science.

Just throwing that out there for mullification. ;)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 21, 2012 7:29 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Strictly thinking, anyone who believes in God, Angels, or Demons is expressing a belief in extra-terrestrial life. None of these entities is reputed to have originated on Earth according to Christian philosophy.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 21, 2012 9:00 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Didn't read the last few long posts, the discussion got too long for me. But I saw something leading up to that which MAY clear things up a bit...maybe. Seems to me the capitalization of Religous People was--and I think it was described as such--people who prosletyze, who wear their religion on their sleeve and feel the need to "save" or else "damn" others who don't think like them. I don't THINK it was mean to describe all people who follow a religion. I could be wrong.

In my life, I've seen three classes of people who follow a religion, and it goes for virtually all religions:

1. People who are fanatics, close-minded in what they believe and act on those beliefs with little logic, and condemn all "other" religions.
2. People who believe in a religion, take it to heart, keep it personal, and let it guide their actions in a positive way.
3. People who don't believe in any god or religion, whose behavior is either good or bad, depending on their own personal beliefs.

Atheists can come under any of those categories, not just the last one. And there is a fourth category, a minority, who I despise more than any of the others: People who do or don't believe in a religion (we'll never know), but who USE a religion to have power over others, get rich, etc. Them I despise wholeheartedly.

I would like to have a faith, as long as it wasn't a dogmatic one but, like Byte, I just can't swallow it. Buddhism works for me because it doesn't ask me to believe in some supernatural being overlooking my life and judging me. If we're honest and work to be self-aware, I believe we can judge ourselves better than anyone else, and at least as well as following some book written by humans.

I also like buddhism because it recognizes fallibility and encourages us to accept it in ourselves as well as others. If buddhism "preaches" anything, it preaches acceptance and self-awareness. ALL religions, as far as I've seen, are based on good things; humans can turn good things into bad things, we have an absolute talent for it, but at their heart, all religions preach love. Unfortunately it doesn't work out that way most of the time.

I do see that this has become a heated topic and gone personal on some levels. Bear in mind the old saw about the two things people get most heated about: Religion and politics.

I don't like what I call "organized religion", because once it's organized, my observations have been that it puts some people above others and gives them the power to judge others and control them. I wonder what all religions would be like if they just had their "sacred texts" to read, and nobody to interpret them or lead them? Would be interesting to contemplate. Yes, there are massive contradictions in the Bible--probably in every religious text. But maybe people would have been better if they didn't ave "churches" for each religion and people interpreting that religion for them. Might make them have to think.

As to the very beginning of this thread; it's titled "Obama was steeped in Islam but knew nothing about Christianity". I find it interesting that this fact, along with Wright supposedly having made it "easier" for him to convert, is perceived as something negative. Isn't it true (without the help of easing) of anyone who's ever changed religions? I was sort of "steeped" in the Protestant sect; mom and dad were both Protestant and that was the church we attended. I knew nothing about Mormonism or buddhism. I tried Mormonism, got "steeped" in it, then rejected it when I learned about their bigotry. Then I had nothing, and knew nothing about buddhism. I discovered it, learned about it and now follow it. I had a friend who was a monk and she helped "ease" me into it. So why, aside from blind bigotry, is that concept a bad one which shows (something) about Obama? Just curious, and probably won't get an answer given, despite the heatedness of this exchange, it's been a fairl rational one, and Raptor putting up this thread doesn't reflect rationality, so he's probably not even reading it anymore. As I said, just curious.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 21, 2012 9:27 AM