Will religion become extinct? by Niki2

So when others do it it's snarking, but but in my case is aggressive/defensive? Can I not just be snarking back?

Assault was a poor choice of words, I think I was playing off of Byte's warfare comment. I guess there's really nothing to argue about unless you tell me I can't have science and my religion or that my religion is wrong.

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

Friday, March 25, 2011 3:28 PM

KWICKO

"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)

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
People work as jobs have "faith" in what their employer is doing.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Well, I have *faith* that I'll get a paycheck, anyway. Not sure that translates to "faith" in what the employer is doing.

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

Friday, March 25, 2011 3:31 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
So when others do it it's snarking, but but in my case is aggressive/defensive? Can I not just be snarking back?

Assault was a poor choice of words, I think I was playing off of Byte's warfare comment. I guess there's really nothing to argue about unless you tell me I can't have science and my religion or that my religion is wrong.

Hey, by your own account, when you do it it's snarking, but when others do it, it's an unprovoked verbal assault!

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

Friday, March 25, 2011 6:15 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
People work as jobs have "faith" in what their employer is doing.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Well, I have *faith* that I'll get a paycheck, anyway. Not sure that translates to "faith" in what the employer is doing.

Mike. Pathetic but honest. It's a pathetic state. But those who work intentionally towards the goal of their job believe in that job, org, or mission statement.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Friday, March 25, 2011 6:24 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Sadly, not in my life time.

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

Friday, March 25, 2011 7:22 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Hqappy, I agree with a lot of what you say most of the time, with a few notable exceptions, but mostly we are in agreement in life, you're not alone.

I suppose you have a point about Europe and the dark ages, that was pretty screwed up too. I just hear all these unsavory things about Europe from a personal morality stand point, but it is possible that what I hear gets exaggerated on Oprah etc. I mean I think Oprah's sort of a pain anyway, except when she talks about stuff I care about, then she's okay, to a degree ...

I find great solace in the outdoors too Byte and I see that as part of how I experience God, by being in his creations, the earth and the sky and the woods and the waters.

Rose, I'm glad you're doing and feeling better, it hurts a lot to be in pain, physical or emotional, I'm glad things are going better for you and I'm glad we have science so we can invent medicines and treatments and all of those things.

I view science as something put in place by God for us to learn and enjoy and benefit from.

I don't really think its God's job to solve all our problems. He could if he chose and I ask him daily to fix things, but its his choice whether to do it or not. I think He wants us to figure stuff out for ourselves, be active in seeking what we are looking for, do what we need to do to stay healthy, whether that means taking herbs or taking medicines, or inventing new medicines etc.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

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

Saturday, March 26, 2011 6:52 PM

CANTTAKESKY

The following story is my motto.
----
I cried to God in anger. Look at all these suffering people. Why don't you do something?

God said, "I DID do something. I made YOU."

-----

1. I don't think prayer is the same as doing nothing, anymore than sleep is a waste of time. There is a time and place for restoration of both body and spirit. I get direction and wisdom when I pray. It is like stopping to look at the map--it doesn't mean you've stopped moving or working.

2. I believe science and religion are complementary, not competitive. Science deals with material and natural questions. Religion deals with spiritual and inspirational ones. Dogmatism is the cause of aggression in both camps. But one can easily be both scientific and religious and not at all dogmatic.

3. I believe all humans have a need, a hunger, for philosophical and spiritual investigation. What is the meaning of life? Why am I here? Is it all random? Where can I find strength and inspiration? etc. You can feed this hunger with philosophy, religion, art, poetry, music, and science. But the hunger itself is undeniable. As long as we have the hunger as a species, religion will always exist as one of the options for feeding it.

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

Saturday, March 26, 2011 10:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Hqappy, I agree with a lot of what you say most of the time, with a few notable exceptions, but mostly we are in agreement in life, you're not alone.

I suppose you have a point about Europe and the dark ages, that was pretty screwed up too. I just hear all these unsavory things about Europe from a personal morality stand point, but it is possible that what I hear gets exaggerated on Oprah etc. I mean I think Oprah's sort of a pain anyway, except when she talks about stuff I care about, then she's okay, to a degree ...

I'm still confused about this moral blackspot that Europe is supposed to be? Can you elaborate? This hasn't come across my radar.

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

Sunday, March 27, 2011 8:42 AM

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

Hell, Europe is less amoral than we are, if you look closely. And at least they're more open about it. As I've said before, in America, titilation is not only acceptable, it sells, it's popular...but to show actual nudity? OMIGAWD NO!

Men have affairs all over the place in America, yet we view the French attitude about having it in the open as immoral.

We can blame our Puritan forefathers for a lot of our attitudes toward morality, as well as our willingness to decry others and feel morally superior.

As to religion and science:

Quote:
Dogmatism is the cause of aggression in both camps

That about covers it for me. Anyone see "Dogma"? Gawd, I ADORE that movie, it was so right on and so funny...and had my hero Alan Rickman in it, with the genius of giving him EXACTLY the right part. Yes, it represents the worst stereotype of religion, but stereotypes become such because they HAPPEN...often enough to become a joke.

Happy, my response was to point out that your choice of wording became far more aggressive than anyone else’s right after you pointed out that it was unbelievers who were more aggressive. I don’t think any of what you said was intended as “snarking”...snarking generally involves a joke or teasing put-down---here, unfortunately, it includes nasty personal verbiage, but no matter which of those you try to call a snark, I don’t buy that your words were intended that way, I think you were quite serious. It was your choice of wording that I found interesting, given your claim.

I would never dream of telling anyone they haven’t the right to believe in science or follow whatever faith they choose. It’s ACTIONS and THEIR chosen words which offend me.

I think an awful lot of people have no faith whatsoever in what their employers are doing; they’re working to survive, to get ahead, to buy a car, a house, keep their family, etc. But faith in what their employers’ aims are? I doubt it. I worked for lawyers most of my working life...neither I nor any of the people who worked with me (the “lower echelon”, if you will) liked or believed in what the lawyers we worked for did. My last real job was for an insurance company...I knew some of what they did and didn’t approve of it, and nobody I worked with felt any actual loyalty to the company.

Quote:
those who work intentionally towards the goal of their job believe in that job, org, or mission statement

Yup. But what percentage of employees represent that?

I knew a lot of those in the “upper echelon” of everywhere I worked who got ahead by kissing ass, fraud, lies, and other means...and they didn’t do it because they believed in what the business was doing, they did it for personal reasons.

You better lose that faith in a paycheck, Mike; who today has faith in the paycheck after next? Not many, I’m sure.

CTS, your quote is right on. What’s the joke about the guy who asked God for help in a flood? The response was he was given warning, he was given opportunity to save himself, but he wanted God to do it for him. Maybe someone remembers the details; it struck me at the time as terribly apropos. Yes, I think that hunger has always and will always exist. I wish it didn’t cause so many to seek a god to answer their individual prayers, keep watch over their lives, and “save” them—-or answer prayers about small, unimportant things. I’d like to see the day we OUTGREW that need, and looked to ourselves rather than some patriarchal figure. That’s just my own private wish because I think, over history, organized religion has done far more harm than good.

Quote:
I get direction and wisdom when I pray. It is like stopping to look at the map--it doesn't mean you've stopped moving or working.

You see, for me, “praying” and “meditation” can be the same thing. By praying, many people THINK about the issue and to me, it’s our own brains that give us the direction and wisdom, not some outside force. If people did, yes, stop and look at the map (i.e., actually look at the problem), they would find they don’t NEED someone else “directing” them.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Sunday, March 27, 2011 10:28 AM

Quote:
I just wanted to point out that for all the supposed 'aggressive Christians' that are out there, you don't see much of that here in RWED... Seem's like the atheist are more aggressive

Is this the aggressive statement you were referring too? Use of the word seem was intentional, as was the

Then there's

Quote:
The fact that you find it difficult to hear people express their views on religion

Oh really? I wasn't aware. Are Australians psychic too?

Which was a sarcastic remark. I'm sick of people trying to put words in my mouth. Magons statement was not fact and, because I was running a little low on patience, I made the aggressive snark.

I got a mite frustrated and posted

Quote:
But that was my mistake. Clearly I should not be speaking for myself, but as a 'nameless concervative No 2460whatever.'

I'll just stop typing and let everyone not me decide how I really feel about this. That's democratic, right

which wasn't really the best idea, but I still don't see this as aggressive. Defensive perhaps, but wouldn't you be a little defensive if you felt your beliefs were being mocked, misrepresented, and that you were being ganged up on?

Yeah, I could have handled things a little better, but I'm not the only one

'Course, if I am the only one you disagree with I can see how that's a mite more obvious. I don't mean this to be an insult, I really don't think any of us are entirely immune to that condition.

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

Sunday, March 27, 2011 12:13 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
We can blame our Puritan forefathers for a lot of our attitudes toward morality

Not to put too fine a point on it, but nonsense. The puritans were a lot more laid back than us. This is a recent media creation, American neo-prudence is a control mechanism.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Sunday, March 27, 2011 12:41 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Quote:
I just wanted to point out that for all the supposed 'aggressive Christians' that are out there, you don't see much of that here in RWED... Seem's like the atheist are more aggressive

Is this the aggressive statement you were referring too? Use of the word seem was intentional, as was the

Funny, when I use that word, you say I must be "psychic"... ;)

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

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

Sunday, March 27, 2011 2:38 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I’d like to see the day we OUTGREW that need, and looked to ourselves rather than some patriarchal figure.

If I may generalize, I think there are two types of believers. The kind that wants external, magical intervention, and the kind that seeks internal, self-empowerment. The first kind sees "God" as a sort of year-round Santa Claus, someone to whom one can ask for favors. The second kind sees "God" more like a coach on the sidelines, giving advice and encouragement, but never playing the game himself. I think both kinds of believers exist in all religions, though some religions lend themselves more easily to one type of believer more than the other.

Quote:
You see, for me, “praying” and “meditation” can be the same thing.

Absolutely. I think they ARE the same thing. Potayto, potahto.

Quote:
they would find they don’t NEED someone else “directing” them.

I think "God" can be conceptualized in different ways. The popular way is to anthropomorphize "God" and make him/her a person, "someone else." But God has also been conceptualized as some sort of "Force" or energy that flows in all living things. Sometimes praying is taking the time to "feel the Force." Anyway, the point is, religion has many faces and presentations. They are not all the same.

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

Sunday, March 27, 2011 3:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Quote:
I just wanted to point out that for all the supposed 'aggressive Christians' that are out there, you don't see much of that here in RWED... Seem's like the atheist are more aggressive

Is this the aggressive statement you were referring too? Use of the word seem was intentional, as was the

Then there's

Quote:
The fact that you find it difficult to hear people express their views on religion

Oh really? I wasn't aware. Are Australians psychic too?

Which was a sarcastic remark. I'm sick of people trying to put words in my mouth. Magons statement was not fact and, because I was running a little low on patience, I made the aggressive snark.

I got a mite frustrated and posted

Quote:
But that was my mistake. Clearly I should not be speaking for myself, but as a 'nameless concervative No 2460whatever.'

I'll just stop typing and let everyone not me decide how I really feel about this. That's democratic, right

which wasn't really the best idea, but I still don't see this as aggressive. Defensive perhaps, but wouldn't you be a little defensive if you felt your beliefs were being mocked, misrepresented, and that you were being ganged up on?

Yeah, I could have handled things a little better, but I'm not the only one 'Course, if I am the only one you disagree with I can see how that's a mite more obvious. I don't mean this to be an insult, I really don't think any of us are entirely immune to that condition.

I understood you to have called out posters on this thread as being aggressive towards Christians. I hadn't seen any evidence of said aggression, discounting the troll. Therefore I wondered whether you considered that any views which stated that religion was unnecessary and or undesirable as aggressive. Not psychic, just extraplotating something to a logical conclusion. That being said, it has been my experience of some religious people that even stating my own beliefs "I don't believe in a god' is considered very threatening, disrespectful, or outrageously blasphemous.

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

Sunday, March 27, 2011 5:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Hell, Europe is less amoral than we are, if you look closely. And at least they're more open about it. As I've said before, in America, titilation is not only acceptable, it sells, it's popular...but to show actual nudity? OMIGAWD NO!

Yeah, but I'm not sure what the perceived immorality of Europe is in the US, what specifically Rioneira was referring to. Not being American, I'm not sure how Europe is seen in the US. Here, it's a place that we all strive to holiday in, and to eat the food and enjoy the culture and history.

I do see that religion has some aspects that defy science and rational thought. I'm not sure how religious people reconcile some of the differences. For example, if you believe that God created the earth 4000 years ago, then you are going to have find some way of explaining the scientific evidence that says otherwise.

I think its important for all people to ask questions of a metaphysical nature, such as 'why am I here, what is my purpose, how was the universe created and for what purpose'. So it's okay to ask the questions, its the answers that cause all the dilemnas, because once you've speculated and decided you are on the right track, the temptation is to ensure that others believe as you do. We've seen the amount of angst on this forum that is caused by one person disagreeing with anothers POV. It can make us dislike that person, shun them even. Many people naturally tend to gravitate towards others with similar beliefs and shun or avoid those with different ones. That road leads to dogma and to the part of religion that some here have stated they dislike.

That being said, I think you can follow a religious path and not get caught up in the dogma, but often that is what happens. I've no issue with people believing what they want, so long as they don't try and force their views on others. I see that they often do, with wanting to ban abortion, religious education in schools and other influence that they try to wield on public policy. This I object to.

I don't believe in any entity out there watching over me, but I do think that some contemplative time, whatever you want to call it, is useful. Actually it is necessary. I also like to give up some decisions to the universe, not that I think the universe is concerned for me, just some are best left to that strange force that binds us all together. Some people like to call that god, but I do not.

Carl Sagan put it best when he said we are all the stuff of stars and to the stars we will return. I like that way of thinking.

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

Sunday, March 27, 2011 7:47 PM

Quote:
I understood you to have called out posters on this thread as being aggressive towards Christians. I hadn't seen any evidence of said aggression, discounting the troll. Therefore I wondered whether you considered that any views which stated that religion was unnecessary and or undesirable as aggressive. Not psychic, just extraplotating something to a logical conclusion. That being said, it has been my experience of some religious people that even stating my own beliefs "I don't believe in a god' is considered very threatening, disrespectful, or outrageously blasphemous.

Then I'm afraid you misunderstand. I made a comment concerning perceived (by me) hostility towards Christianity via the internet.

Quote:
Seem's like the atheist are more aggressive

is an opinion, and one based off of personal experience, not unlike

Quote:
it has been my experience of some religious people that even stating my own beliefs "I don't believe in a god' is considered very threatening, disrespectful, or outrageously blasphemous.

Concerning the 'psychic' remark, what I took issue with was use of the word fact.

Quote:
The fact that you find it difficult to hear people express their views on religion

It may be your opinion but it is not fact. Do you consider every (supposedly) logical conclusion you jump to a solid fact?

Quote:
Therefore I wondered whether you considered that any views which stated that religion was unnecessary and or undesirable as aggressive.

That's a fair enough question (I assume this is kind of a question) and my answer depends a bit on the details of the scenario. Of course, we have free will and in most cases freedom of choice, speech and the like, so anyone has the right to think and state whatever the rut they want to. It does not bother me that some people feel religion is unnecessary, that's their personal choice and they've every right to it.

If someone states religion is undesirable, then I do think we start treading into the offensive. If I said democrats were undesirable or republicans, Australians, African-Americans, Jews or illegal immigrants, someone (I hope) would find that offensive. How about bankers, musicians, teachers, or lawyers? Is it not offensive claim any of those undesirable?

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

Sunday, March 27, 2011 9:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:

Then I'm afraid you misunderstand. I made a comment concerning perceived (by me) hostility towards Christianity via the internet.

Then I misunderstood you.
Quote:
Quote:
Seem's like the atheist are more aggressive

is an opinion, and one based off of personal experience, not unlike
Quote:
it has been my experience of some religious people that even stating my own beliefs "I don't believe in a god' is considered very threatening, disrespectful, or outrageously blasphemous.

Well duh, really. I hate to be rude, but I get that it's your opinion. If you find atheists more aggressive in real life, then that is your experience. I guess I look around at the religious extremists in the world, who often resort to violence, and struggle to find an atheist group that compares. But your personal experience is certainly your own, even if it doesn't equate to any reality I am aware of.

Quote:
Concerning the 'psychic' remark, what I took issue with was use of the word fact.
Quote:
The fact that you find it difficult to hear people express their views on religion

It may be your opinion but it is not fact. Do you consider every (supposedly) logical conclusion you jump to a solid fact?

As I said earlier, I misunderstood your earlier post and was assuming that you had interpreted peoples remarks as aggressive. That was my opinion. I hope that I don't have to be tedious and preface every remark on this board with, 'in my opinion' although I do note that someone has it in their signature, probably for that very reason. I'm hardly likely to state facts about YOU, given that I don't know you. Next time it might be useful to remember that on this board, people post opinions. That is why we are here.

Quote:

That's a fair enough question (I assume this is kind of a question) and my answer depends a bit on the details of the scenario. Of course, we have free will and in most cases freedom of choice, speech and the like, so anyone has the right to think and state whatever the rut they want to. It does not bother me that some people feel religion is unnecessary, that's their personal choice and they've every right to it.

If someone states religion is undesirable, then I do think we start treading into the offensive. If I said democrats were undesirable or republicans, Australians, African-Americans, Jews or illegal immigrants, someone (I hope) would find that offensive. How about bankers, musicians, teachers, or lawyers? Is it not offensive claim any of those undesirable?

Religion is a belief, not a race or nationality or profession. Not much more to say on that.

I do find some religions undesirable, scientology for example. I'd feel pretty comfortable if it were banned, because I think it is dishonest, abusive, and a tax dodge.

Not many atheists argue that religion is undesirable, although Richard Dawkins is one who does. He is worth a read, even if it would be confronting. He argues that religion should not be tolerated because of the inherent abuse and dishonesty and superstition that they perpetuate. he is particu;larly harsh on children being brought up with religion, prior to their capacity to make decisions on whether they want to join the club or not, so to speak. He believes that in general atheists are too mild in their tolerance of religion.

In my opinion

, I do not really care what people believe as long as they don;t force it on me, either overtly or covertly and there is a lot of covert stuff that happens with religion.

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

Sunday, March 27, 2011 10:48 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but nonsense. The puritans were a lot more laid back than us. This is a recent media creation, American neo-prudence is a control mechanism.

Oh horse shit.

Our history does indeed mention that the puritans were persecuted, but always dances around just how rightful that persecution was - them asshats wanted to turn back the clock to the damn dark ages, shitcan literacy, science, medicine, get back to the "good ole days"... uh huh, one might even consider them the spiritual forefathers of the modern republican party - AND they had no issue whatever with persecuting anyone who wasn't them, when they got here.

Hell, their asshattery was one of the REASONS our founding fathers were so bloody keen on keeping religion out of government - cause initially it was about keeping THAT one out, and it naturally followed that best to block em all, wholesale.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 2:32 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Religion is Government for the Spirit. More rules, more "here's a list of what WE have decided you need to do."
Not intending to offend, but... when I think of people who "believe in God" and follow religion on a daily basis I think of people trying to fix a car with a rock. It's just what comes up.

The Golden Rule is pretty solid though.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 3:58 AM

I'd really kinda like to know where DT gets the whole "they were bumping like bunnies" thing from. I could maybe see their spouses, but not much more than that.

And that doesn't necessarily make them laid back or save them from asshattery, which they were guilty of. Oliver Cromwell wasn't such a swell guy when he had power over parliament (genocide is an apt term, he killed off a bunch of catholics, particularly Irish and Scottish), and we know what they did to the Indians when they got here.

The neo-prudence thing is fairly true, that came around with the Hayes Code. There's always been people perfectly fine with producing smut and obscenity (and I don't say that in a bad way) in all eras, and the stick-up-backside people who opposed them yelling fire and brimstone.

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 6:10 AM

Quote:
That was my opinion. I hope that I don't have to be tedious and preface every remark on this board with, 'in my opinion' although I do note that someone has it in their signature, probably for that very reason.

I wouldn't worry about going that far, just don't say fact when it's not a fact and there shouldn't be confusion.

Quote:
I do find some religions undesirable, scientology for example. I'd feel pretty comfortable if it were banned, because I think it is dishonest, abusive, and a tax dodge.

To be honest, I kinda feel that same way... but I'd hesitate to call them undesirable. Even if I don't understand them and think it's complete BS, they've every right to their beliefs and I wouldn't argue against that (not that I think you are).

Quote:
Religion is a belief, not a race or nationality or profession. Not much more to say on that.

In that case, what if someone said Buddhism was undesirable? Would you consider that offensive?

Quote:
In my opinion , I do not really care what people believe as long as they don;t force it on me, either overtly or covertly and there is a lot of covert stuff that happens with religion.

Also happens with politics, business, and near abouts every part of our lives. I'm not arguing with you here, just saying it's often just a fact of life. Fortunately, we're intelligent enough to do our own research, soul searching or whatever and make our own decisions. Not everyone does this, but we all have the capacity.

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 7:03 AM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but nonsense. The puritans were a lot more laid back than us. This is a recent media creation, American neo-prudence is a control mechanism.

Oh horse shit.

Our history does indeed mention that the puritans were persecuted, but always dances around just how rightful that persecution was - them asshats wanted to turn back the clock to the damn dark ages, shitcan literacy, science, medicine, get back to the "good ole days"... uh huh, one might even consider them the spiritual forefathers of the modern republican party - AND they had no issue whatever with persecuting anyone who wasn't them, when they got here.

Hell, their asshattery was one of the REASONS our founding fathers were so bloody keen on keeping religion out of government - cause initially it was about keeping THAT one out, and it naturally followed that best to block em all, wholesale.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

Except if you read the writings of the founding fathers you can see, sometimes explicitly, that while they wished to exclude religion from American government they actually envisioned it having a place in American society. Laws can only define right from wrong and set a punishment for violating that law. Religion can help create a set of morals that prevent those laws from being broken in the first place. I'm not saying every religion does that. But, I am saying that every religion has the potential to teach it's adherents those lessons.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 7:08 AM

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

Quote:
Not many atheists argue that religion is undesirable.

...but some stand-up comedians do mock it, which I guess is a sideways way of saying it’s undesirable?

Quote:
Religion is Government for the Spirit. More rules, more "here's a list of what WE have decided you need to do."

That and the tendency to harm others not of one’s own religion are the main reasons I don’t like organized religion...that and looking to a patriarchal figure to tell one what to believe/do, and to a human who supposedly interprets the words of that figure.

As to the Puritans being more laid back than us; I gotta laugh. We don’t do the things they did to adulterers, at ALL, and the persecution of perceived “forbidden” sex was huge. I wonder how many were burned at the stake because they didn’t go along with how one was supposed to dress, act, talk, think, etc. I found a “Yahoo answer” that says it perfectly:

Quote:
Most of the early settlers were puritans and ultra religious and conservative. Their values have permeated our society. And since nudity is so "forbidden" the darker side of society has used it to make money, power, fame. In Europe, nudity is more openly accepted and hence not as much profit was to be had for such a vice. Why spend money buying penthouse magazine when one can just go to the beach and view for free?

Comment on another site:

Quote:
American's seem to have a bottomless lust and tolerance for violence and war, but when it comes to nudity, suddenly we're Puritans.

I agree with that, as well. Also:

Quote:
We live in a puritan society. I mean that in the literal sense that we are in a society founded by puritans and that still, at its core, has some pretty strange puritan sensibilities. Some might object that our culture has gone "bad" apparently because of the visible flesh of women shown at an earlier and earlier age.

I think it has its roots in our puritanism. Our society has, perversly, always found legal, adult, consensual sex to be something far worse than the worst crime, murder. Witness our movie rating system. Loving, consensual sex between adults is rated X. Brutal murder, with blood and torture is rated R or even PG-13, shown in prime-time on shows like 24. Only in a puritan society is sex considered far worse than brutal murder and torture.

The fact is, we ARE much more tolerant of violence than of sexuality on TV and movies. “Bumping like bunnies” is a bit extreme and I’d like to see some historical facts on that, as well, but the concept that they were more tolerant is, to me, ridiculous.

Happy,

Quote:
just don't say fact when it's not a fact and there shouldn't be confusion.

I’ve long since accepted that people don’t say “in my opinion”, etc., when stating stuff. It’s offensive to me when it’s some of those who produce truly ridiculous things as fact, and I’ve said so in the past. But it’s not gonna change, and I think expecting it is a waste of time. I try hard to put the caveat in what I write, but even I fail a lot. It needs one to REMEMBER to do it, aside from those who put forth their opinions AS fact.

Quote:
In that case, what if someone said Buddhism was undesirable? Would you consider that offensive?

As a buddhist, I wouldn’t be offended. It’s an expression of an opinion, which everyone’s entitled to. If they went after someone’s religion VIRULENTLY, that’s different (been there/had that done to me), but just to say it’s undesirable? No. Whereas saying a race is undesirable, that offends me...can’t say why I differ between those two (and no doubt others), but I do.

Ironically, just as spelling and grammar mistakes cause my eyes to note them, it bothers me (only slightly) that everyone calls buddhism a religion and capitalizes it. It's not truly a religion (no god), and it's not supposed to be capitalized except for the Buddha's own name. Picky, picky, picky. Not to say I'm offended, I know how the world works...just that I notice it and wish the thing of calling it a "religion" wasn't so.

Just caught the original topic of this thread popping up on CNN...boy, are THEY behind, given I saw the article and posted about it yesterday, and saw it several places. Or maybe just a slow news day... But they went further, interviewed one of the guys who did the study, and he said in the Netherlands and other places, 40% of the people said they were unaffiliated. I found that interesting.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 7:11 AM

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

Quote:
Religion can help create a set of morals that prevent those laws from being broken in the first place.

Ideally, yes, Hardware, but my problem with it is that either the religion itself or those who interpret it decide what's "moral" and what's not, and all too often what they decide is "immoral" pisses me off and feels akin to the kind of persecution the Purintans indulged in (extra-marital sex, homosexuality, etc.).

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 7:20 AM

OMG for the last time I have no problem with your opinions. The sentence applied to me and said fact. It was not a fact and I objected to the word fact. You have every right to have the opinion I'm stupid, racist, prudish, lustful, sexist, intelligent, open-minded or the opposite. You tell me it's a fact that I (insert negative descriptor here) and you are lying. Simple as that. On this board, I am the authority on all things myself. I'm not perfect, but I do know what my facts are and I will correct misinterpretations. I hope no one was a problem with that.

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 7:24 AM

Quote:
As a buddhist, I wouldn’t be offended. It’s an expression of an opinion, which everyone’s entitled to. If they went after someone’s religion VIRULENTLY, that’s different (been there/had that done to me), but just to say it’s undesirable? No. Whereas saying a race is undesirable, that offends me...can’t say why I differ between those two (and no doubt others), but I do.

The problem is you're not seeing these two as the exact same thing in the end. Which they are.

"Undesirable" suggests they are not wanted, unseen, unheard. Generally there are often more specific complaints about practices of said race/religion/culture that people would like to see "stopped."

With an entire race, that's genetics, people are calling the genetics undesireable, which leads to genocide.

Yet with a religion, often aren't people just as born with that religion and somewhat unlikely to change? Change in religion is more possible than race, but should they HAVE to change that religion?

So what happens when a religion is undesireable for whatever reason? Maybe it's because they allow money lending (Jews) and it offended the aristocracy because it allowed the practicioners to become independently wealthy. Maybe they're a religion that's seen as violent (Muslims to Christians, or Christians to Muslims), or they're just a different religion than the majority.

So what's happened to the Jews and Muslims? Or what happens to Buddhists/Christians/Jews/other Muslim sects in Muslim countries with extremist elements?

Same end result, you see.

While of course you weren't calling for a genocide (creedocide?) of scientologists, and it was just an opinion, and opinions should not be silenced for political correctness or any other reason, it's also dangerous ground to stand on.

Say Scientology is banned. There's going to be some people who will continue to practice it, in secret, because some of them may theoretically believe. In fact, as with early Christianity, sometimes perceived persecution makes a religion even MORE popular. What do you do to enforce the ban? Lock them up? Take their children away because you believe the religion is abusive? If they resist arrest, what if the cops kill them? What then has your opinion that they are undesireable and they should be banned resulted in?

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 7:56 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Hardware, the problem comes when those religions wind up using law to enforce THEIR moral code upon folk who do not share it.

Prohibition, some degree of the "War on (some) Drugs", Blue Laws, Dry Counties, Faith Based Initiatives, Tax Funded Religious Hellcamps...

Not to mention that most of this "Pro-Life" bullshit is just a fig leaf over attempts to strip women of their civil rights and stuff the genie of female sufferage back in the bottle, cause how dare they consider themselves equals, yadda-fuckin-yadda.

While I consider my own values superior (and honestly, who doesn't ?) the very notion of trying to force my values on others via the force of law fills me with abject horror.

Beyond which, I consider all the pissing and moaning about "Sharia Law" to be pretty offensive coming from a pack of hypocrites who unofficially, or even in some cases (usually backwater towns, and not all in the south) officially, enforce their own "Christian" version of the same bloody thing within their petty little dominions...

Of course, I consider those assholes no more the whole of Christianity than I consider nutters like Khalid Shiek Mohammed to be the whole of Islam - but the moment someone uses force or threat of force to shove their values down the throat of the unwilling, at that moment they not only lose any respect I might have for em, I actually cease to regard them even as a human being, because I feel at that point they've no right to that consideration.

Does it never occur to folk that some peoples morality might be radically DIFFERENT, than their own ?

Freedom From Religion Foundation
http://www.ffrf.org/

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 7:58 AM

OPPYH

Some religions are just weird. Remember The 'Shakers'? Here was a religious sect not too far from the Amish, that believed sex was wrongful, and sustained their numbers for a few hundred years by adopting orphans, and recruiting new members.
They actually went AGAINST the will of god to reproduce, and be fruitful.
I haven't done any research on them since high school, but last I knew they went extinct in the early 80's.

A fine line between a religion, and a cult.

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 9:31 AM

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

Quote:
Or what happens to Buddhists/Christians/Jews/other Muslim sects in Muslim countries with extremist elements?

Doesn't take extremist elements, just fear. As to what happens, just look around you, read the papers/internet, watch TV. Look what's happening to Muslims in America. THEIR religion has certainly been decreed "undesirable" in many places...which sickens me and makes me want to scream "What about religious freedom, you assholes!" The have all kinds of rationalized responses, of course, but the fact remains; Islam in America has been decreed "bad" and Muslims are being persecuted for following their faith.

Other than that, I see your point, but bear in mind I wasn't talking about banning a religion, I was talking about one person's opinion that something was "undesirable". Big difference.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 9:43 AM

No problem. Just keepin' it real.

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 10:04 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'd really kinda like to know where DT gets the whole "they were bumping like bunnies" thing from. I could maybe see their spouses, but not much more than that.

And that doesn't necessarily make them laid back or save them from asshattery, which they were guilty of. Oliver Cromwell wasn't such a swell guy when he had power over parliament (genocide is an apt term, he killed off a bunch of catholics, particularly Irish and Scottish), and we know what they did to the Indians when they got here.

The neo-prudence thing is fairly true, that came around with the Hayes Code. There's always been people perfectly fine with producing smut and obscenity (and I don't say that in a bad way) in all eras, and the stick-up-backside people who opposed them yelling fire and brimstone.

I'll have to dig it up, but my sister is much more of a historian than I, and a lot of the early writings were basically tot he point that orgasms brought you closer to god, and if your womenfolk weren't having them, it meant god wasn't happy with you, etc. It was pretty funny to read given the image they have.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 10:20 AM

Hmm, that's interesting. That's actually a fairly pagan perspective. A hieros gamos thing. Deists also kinda believed that sort of thing, with the idea that man could become god (apotheosis), as well as the Free Masons with their alchemy and geometry research.

For Christianity in general, as far as I'm aware, the bible actually discourages the idea of hieros gamos, warning against the hierodules of enemy cultures and such. But there's a lot of contradiction in the bible, and I can see how belief in a "benevolent" God, combined with the passages about apotheosis, might lead to this development.

I suppose eventually sanity will appear in any belief system by simple virtue of cause and effect.

But yeah, that still suggests to me that was only with the spouses, and that the rest of the culture was pretty strict.

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

Monday, March 28, 2011 10:58 AM