| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Why is religion the quintessential forum topic? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 21 2008, 03:27 PM (2,770 Views) | |
| Moonbat | May 22 2008, 04:53 AM Post #26 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I think different reasons. It's a big part of a lot humanity. It has significant affect on what people think is true and what people think is right. It pervades politics and science and people's philosophies on life. In my case I just really want to know about the world, i really really do want to know what's going on and why and how things are and so of course i hit religious ideas and then if you see them for what they are, what they've done and what they do then it's hard to be ambivalent about it. Ok maybe that's just me, i find it hard to be ambivalent about. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | May 22 2008, 05:16 AM Post #27 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The point that you're missing, Moonbat, is that you are at least as religious - maybe even moreso - as anyone else on the forum, myself included. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | May 22 2008, 05:25 AM Post #28 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Semantics. When i said religion i meant ideas of supernatural God(s). |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | May 22 2008, 05:59 AM Post #29 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Maybe you are forgetting that the person who is most articulate about his religious beliefs, in fact, he is making a career out of being articulate about his religious beliefs, Dewey, is pro gay marriage. I think that your belief that you are being ignored because of your religious beliefs is, in some measure, defensiveness on your part, rather than the truth. As far as these "non-religious" arguments against gay marriage (which in this post you say that you oppose), I've yet to hear you make a convincing argument against gay marriage, and it certainly isn't because I'm ignoring you. I think it's just a kind of bigotry, sorry. You're not willing to accept two gay people getting married. And frankly, after reading so many posts about why my relationship with my partner should be compared with polygamy and bestiality, I don't really care as much as I might have in the past how you arrived at your opinion on the issue. There aren't really rational arguments "against" homosexuality. Homosexuality is a fact of life. You might as well be "against" the sun rising tomorrow morning. Gays could get married, like they do in Canada, like they do in Massachusetts, and it wouldn't affect your life in any way, shape, or form. Keep opposing it, but I don't think you've been ignored, or discriminated against because you are a religious person. |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | May 22 2008, 06:17 AM Post #30 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That was exactly the definition I had in mind, too. In your case, it's the idea that there is/are none. It guides everything else you think; it is the very core of your understanding. It is the essential, primary kernel of thought that gives your every other subordinate thought form. It is your religion, in exactly the same sense that my religion is mine. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | May 22 2008, 06:28 AM Post #31 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
But you see it's not. Almost nothing i think about the world like acorns fall towards the Earth at about 9.8 m/s^2 or the idea of common descent depend on the idea of "not God". I don't find meaning out of "not God" i don't say prayers to "not God", etc. etc. I mean i like the universe it's amazing but if add God into the picture it doesn't take away the universe. I don't have faith there is a "not God". I just lack belief because there are no good reasons to have one. Tomorrow good reasons might appear, tomorrow evidence might appear, we might turn our telecopes up at the sky and find a message written in the stars. Can't disprove the notion, and if it happens i'll change my mind. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | May 22 2008, 06:34 AM Post #32 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Moonbat, you are far, far more dogmatic about your disbelief, and prosyletize more, than any religious zealot I've ever seen. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | May 22 2008, 06:36 AM Post #33 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Copterdongs. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | May 22 2008, 06:45 AM Post #34 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I'm quite happy to accept the label of evangelical because blatently i am but dogmatic is supposed to mean something. You can sway me with arguments, you can sway me with evidence. It's just that no one has any. They just have personal anecdotes. I can tell you what it would take to change my mind, my religious opponents never can, if i ask them what it would take to convince they were wrong they have no answer. I'm perfectly happy to accept the possibility that God exists i claim only that it's hugely improbable given the available evidence. Nothing i think is unquestionable, nothing i think is not open challenge. I claim no hidden special access to the truth, i cite no super holy texts that have contain absolute truth. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | May 22 2008, 06:56 AM Post #35 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Ditto. This still doesn't prove that you aren't a zealot, though. It's okay. Don't be upset over it. Perhaps, just recognizing it is enough.
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | May 22 2008, 07:12 AM Post #36 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Oh i'm not upset. As i say i'm quite happy accept that i'm evangelical, i don't just keep quiet about what i think, and i do argue the points. But i am open to reason, indeed my views are based on simply thinking things through. On being skeptical and not accepting something just because people say it. So i don't think that's dogmatic. And i think really is key that my views are falsifiable - the world can change my mind. And i realise you haven't cited holy texts, or claimed unquestionable truth, but you've been the one gunning for me not vice-versa, actually what you think is not that far away from what i think even though we use different words. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | May 22 2008, 07:18 AM Post #37 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Articulate does not always equate to being right, or even being the best messenger for God. I suspect that a certain sheperd boy named David was somewhat less than articulate at times. Truth can be had with very little verbage. With respect to the behaviour you are speaking of, I feel Dewey is quite wrong. And while I am not possessed of the eloquence Dewey has, neither do I feel the need to hold a Bible up and argue with it. Of course, that can certainly stem from the way we view the Bible. I would suspect Dewey does not take the same view on inerrancy that I do. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | May 22 2008, 07:34 AM Post #38 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
1. The fact that Dewey is pro gay marriage is exactly my point. Just because someone is religious doesn't mean that they will therefore believe one single point of view, for the sole reason that that is the religious point of view. "The religious point of view" is a myth; as the saying goes, "two jews, three opinions." 2. Just because a priest (Dewey) is pro gay marriage, doesn't mean that therefore all religious people (like me) should be pro gay marriage. I say that, because I believe all people should think for themselves, and not just believe something because a priest happens to believe it. 3. Yes, my belief that I'm being ignored is a bit of defensiveness; I agree. If I happened to be religious, and I was 100% pro gay marriage, like Dewey, then I wouldn't be ignored, because I'd be supporting your cause. Why ignore me if I support you? But not only am I not 100% in support, I am religious; double-trouble for me. 4. I'm not a bigot. I can't really defend that in writing; if you don't believe me, so be it. I am not a bigot, and remember that I am not 100% opposed to gay marriage. 5. I have never said that gay marriage is the same as bestiality (I don't think I've even used that word here) or polygamy or incest. I have never said that if we allow gay marriage, then we must allow polygamy or incest. I have brought them up, because I am unconvinced by the "equality" argument. If that was the only argument, then yes, we'd have to allow incest and polygamy, too. But it's not the only argument. Marriage is not an issue entirely of "equality", and there are arguments against incest and polygamy just as there are arguments against gay marriage. They are separate issues, and have many arguments in support and against them; what I am opposed to is the notion that the only real argument here is that all marriage is a matter of "equality". It's not. 6. I've made arguments, but of course they aren't convincing to you. That doesn't meant they aren't legitimate concerns, that they wouldn't be convincing or resonate with a lot of other people; they just don't convince you (not least of all because they all imply you couldn't get married). 7. I am not opposed to homosexuality, because I know that it is a fact of life. People are free to feel whatever they feel, and although I don't always think people are free to act on those perfectly natural feelings (like in cases of murder out of natural anger, theft out of natural jealousy, rape out of natural horniness, etc), whatever two gay people want to do in their bedroom is none of my business, as long as they both want to do it. Homosexuality is a different issue than gay marriage. I have never said here that I oppose homosexuality. 8. I think that if gay marriage were allowed in all 50 states, it definitely would affect society as a whole; whether in good ways or bad ways, it depends how you look at it. It would certainly be somewhat common, I think, so everybody would probably know gay couples. In schools, kids would be raised to believe that's a norm. Children's books would probably include gay couples, we'd see them more in movies and on T.V., teachers would be less private about it if they happen to be gay, kids would stop teasing each other for being gay because it would be a normal thing in society, etc. Personally, I think some of those are actually wonderful and would be great support in favor of gay marriage. As I said, I am not 100% either way. But what it means is that society would be very different, and traditional views of marriage (traditional does not = religious) would be very different. I think that is also something of concern; of course not all traditions are worth preserving, and we should never preserve a tradition simply because it is a tradition. While many people define marriage as a love agreement between 2 people, and nothing more, many other people (myself included) view additionally as a unit of society that is created for the purpose of making babies and raising a family, in addition to other functions in society. Of course there are heterosexual couples that get married and don't have kids, and there are heterosexuals who get married and are terrible parents and raise delinquent children. And I know from the bottom of my heart that there are gay couples that would make wonderful parents, if they were allowed to get married and adopt children -- another argument in favor of gay marriage which I heartily agree with. So you see, I really am not a hateful bigot who is 100% opposed to gay marriage simply because I'm a religious nutjob. And being around you and Kenny and Bernard *has* brought me closer to the side of 100% supporting gay marriage, because it's put a lot of weight for me on feelings that I already had in support, but it's also pushed me in the other direction, too, because you have demonized me (by saying if I don't support you, then I must be a hateful bigot; by not supporting you, I'm implying that you are second-class citizens; and other nonsense like that), and that's not a good way to attract support!!! For me it's a mixed bag that has absolutely nothing to do with hate or bigotry or being unable to accept nature. Although I can't deny my religious upbringing, which is certainly an important part of my thinking, not a single concern of mine about gay marriage has anything to do with religious ideas of sin; I would never quote the bible in a discussion about gay marriage, because doing so would be meaningless to me. I also believe it would be meaningless anyway in such a discussion, because we are a country that is founded on freedom of religion, and just because one religion teaches that something is wrong (and it would be a mistake to think that Judaism or Christianity are 100% in agreement within themselves on teaching that homosexuality is a sin), does not mean that the public laws need to be based on that. |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | May 22 2008, 08:02 AM Post #39 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
PJ you are a thoughtful person. I just wanted to say that anyone's views about gays or gay marriage should not be based on how well Bernard or Daniel or I represent our group or how emotionally we present an argument. I don't want the job. I think it is better to ignore personalities when forming your views. That's why I am annoyed charismatic politicians or other influential people. |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | May 22 2008, 08:04 AM Post #40 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Kenny, I agree. It's a natural reaction that I've felt, and one that I need to ignore. |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| sarah_blueparrot | May 22 2008, 08:07 AM Post #41 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Great post, Sam. |
|
Death is simply a shedding of the physical body like the butterfly shedding its cocoon. It is a transition to a higher state of consciousness where you continue to perceive, to understand, to laugh, and to be able to grow. - Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | May 22 2008, 08:09 AM Post #42 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I agree that it is a natural reaction. We all are influenced by the personalities presenting views. I also have to force myself to look beyond the messenger and just focus on the message. |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 22 2008, 08:24 AM Post #43 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Came across this last week regarding an auction of one of Einstein's letters: "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...rticle/ShowFull http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1951333/Ei...ldish'.html |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 22 2008, 11:40 AM Post #44 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Yeah.... too bad Einstein never took enough time away from math problems to study the Bible, huh? |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 22 2008, 11:49 AM Post #45 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
According to the sourced Telegraph article he had at least some schooling in Bible studies: " Educated at a Catholic primary school but given private tuition in Judaism, Einstein later wrote that the "religious paradise of youth" - when he believed what he was told - was quickly crushed when he started questioning religion at the age of 12" |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 22 2008, 11:59 AM Post #46 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
OK, I'll bite: what would it take to make you change your mind that there really is a God? (and I have a lot of fun follow up questions, but one thing at a time )
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 22 2008, 12:12 PM Post #47 |
|
FWIW, I enjoy learning Moonbat's purely atheistic, scientific, and empirical-evidence-driven thoughts. I think he remains surprisingly calm and logical throughout almost all debates he engages in, thoroughly engages might I add.
|
![]() |
|
| Dewey | May 22 2008, 12:24 PM Post #48 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That's correct, but it has nothing to do with my comment. Your statement implies that belief in a God in some way "takes away" anything about the universe, including but not limited to our scientific knowledge about said universe, which it obviously doesn't. My point to you is not that belief in a God changes the raw data or the resulting synthesized knowledge of the universe; rather, that it changes one's understanding of the significance of that data and knowledge. It addresses the "why" of the knowledge. And the "why" is at least as important - in the larger sense, I'd argue it's more important - than the raw knowledge itself. Every person must, by definition, filter all of his or her knowledge, and their understanding of the ultimate significance of that knowledge, through the primary filter of their understanding of the origin of the cosmos, which is just another way of identifying one's core beliefs about the existence of a God and the implications to humanity of that belief. That is the definition of religion at its absolute essence: A person's understanding of the existence or non-existence of a God, and the implications of that belief for the cosmos in general, and humanity in particular.
Actually, you lack belief because for whatever reason, God has not opened your heart or eyes to have the faith that is necessary to believe in God. There's really nothing that you can do, no telescopes that you can aim, that will cause you to believe. it isn't up to you. It isn't anything that another person can ever convince you of. it isn't something that you arrive at because thus-and-such people believe it, so you probably should as well. It is not anything based in reason. But that is a very different thing than saying that there is no evidence for belief. The only catch to such evidence is that only those who God has already graced with belief, may actually see and understand the evidence. You may listen to someone tell of their own personal experience of God, and because you've never had a comparable communication within yourself, your opinion would be that it's simply anecdotal occurrence that can be explained rather simply, and may have some physiological or psychological explanation, but in any case it is not sufficient scientific or reasonable evidence for belief. And in that, you would be correct. However, to another believer who has indeed had a similar intimate, personal experience of God in their own lives, the perception is very different, and the evidence is understood as exactly that - not evidence admissable in a court of law, but that is hardly the only form of evidence, and by definition could not be sufficient evidence of a God who is an infinite, transcendent Being (the very definition of such a God making "evidence," as defined in normal human terms, impossible). If a believer is really honest, he or she should have absolutely no problem with saying something like, "By standards of human reason, I am indeed a fool; my beliefs are unreasonable and must be so. Despite all your objections, which I myself have fully considered in a form far more terrifying than the formulation that you or anyone else is capable of posing to me, I nevertheless choose the improbable, because of the evidence that I see and that you do not." The reason that a believer should have no problem with saying such a thing is that he or she is not "convinced" to become a believer by the fact that many others believe (because obviously, many others do not believe), nor even by the fact that others, including those who walked with Christ himself believed. All of this is interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to own's own faith. Faith is always something that is given directly to an individual, without any regard for who does or has, or who doesn't or hasn't, also believed. It is always something that comes (or fails to come) direct from the source, as equally for you and me as it did for the apostles Peter and Paul. Now, you may - I'll suggest, you do - find so much of what I've just said to be absolute nonsense. But the basis for your rejection of it comes right back to your presupposed rejection of the existence of the kind of God whose actions I've been describing. And that's my point to you. Your beliefs are built upon the presupposition of the annswer to this fundamental underlying issue. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | May 22 2008, 12:29 PM Post #49 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Dewey, why would God choose to allow you to understand, but choose not to allow Moonbat? |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 22 2008, 12:33 PM Post #50 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Does God pick mortal winners and losers out of eternal love or just plain old spite? [edit] I see Sam already picked up on this. |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |











This still doesn't prove that you aren't a zealot, though. It's okay. Don't be upset over it. Perhaps, just recognizing it is enough.





11:27 AM Jul 11