RE: Should they Evolve, Stay the same, dissolve?

RE: Should they Evolve, Stay the same, dissolve? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

dcnovice -> RE: Should they Evolve, Stay the same, dissolve? (6/7/2012 5:35:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Again, there is hypocrisy in rejecting part of a religion and simply keeping what suits. While we can call this evolution, there is fundamentally a hypocrisy associated with that. I disagree. Me too. I don't think I know anyone, of any religious stripe, who feels obliged to take every last jot and tittle. For that matter, I don't know any Republicans or Democrats who feel they have to swallow every syllable of their party's platforms.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Should they Evolve, Stay the same, dissolve? (6/9/2012 5:22:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Again, there is hypocrisy in rejecting part of a religion and simply keeping what suits. While we can call this evolution, there is fundamentally a hypocrisy associated with that. I disagree. Me too. I don't think I know anyone, of any religious stripe, who feels obliged to take every last jot and tittle. For that matter, I don't know any Republicans or Democrats who feel they have to swallow every syllable of their party's platforms. dc, no offense, but surely for those of you who are religious, you think of your religion differently from that of a political party?? I fully understand that supporting a political party doesn't mean you have to accept everything in their platform. But religion seems fundamentally different than voting for a preferred party. And if people believe scripture of their religion is the word of god, then how exactly do they decide they can jettison part of what supposedly came from god? I certainly don't think a political's party's platform is the word of god. Therefore, I always feel a political party's platform can, and should, change with the times. Two quite different things, I think, unless you are telling me religion is no different from a man-made political party and what they choose, as an organization, to support. I don't think most believers would buy that comparison. And if the religious feel that they, as individual human beings, have the right to reject certain words of their god(s), but not others, I would like to know why people feel they have this right to reject what supposedly comes directly from god(s)? And if they feel they are entitled to reject some of what is written, what stops them from simply choosing to reject all of it? Why is arbitrarily picking and choosing what one wants to follow acceptable, but what I've chosen to do (reject all of it), somehow not? [&:]

Kirata -> RE: Should they Evolve, Stay the same, dissolve? (6/9/2012 10:26:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess if people believe scripture of their religion is the word of god, then how exactly do they decide they can jettison part of what supposedly came from god? This proposition that scripture is the literal Word of God and must be accepted in its entirety is employed, albeit to different ends, only by two equally ignorant groups of people: Fundamentalists, because they believe not in God but only stories in a book, and anti-theists because they believe there is nothing but stories in a book. Aside from that difference of opinion, there is little to distinguish between them. Garbage in, garbage out. K.

vincentML -> RE: Should they Evolve, Stay the same, dissolve? (6/10/2012 4:51:43 AM)
quote: and anti-theists because they believe there is nothing but stories in a book. Atheists believe there is no evidence of a supernatural world of demons, spirits, and a chief god, and we believe there is no evidence to support afterlife except desperate hope and fear. So, we discount stories in a book as not credible.

Kirata -> RE: Should they Evolve, Stay the same, dissolve? (6/10/2012 9:37:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: and anti-theists because they believe there is nothing but stories in a book. Atheists believe there is no evidence of a supernatural world of demons, spirits, and a chief god... So, we discount stories in a book as not credible. Thanks but... shouldn't somebody call Freud? quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML there is no evidence to support afterlife except desperate hope and fear. I was not aware that atheists considered "desperate hope and fear" to be evidence. I always thought they were just trying to be as insulting as possible without becoming crude. K.

vincentML -> RE: Should they Evolve, Stay the same, dissolve? (6/10/2012 10:18:38 AM)
Seems to be a fine line between atheists and anti-theists. I wonder why you feel the need to draw a distinction. An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god." quote: I was not aware that atheists considered "desperate hope and fear" to be evidence. I always thought they were just trying to be as insulting as possible without becoming crude. Yup, poorly worded sentence by me. But, I never considered "desperate hope and fear" to be insulting. Just remarking on motivation. It seems a natural human response to the possible irrevocable finality of brief life.

Rule -> RE: Should they Evolve, Stay the same, dissolve? (6/10/2012 10:43:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Seems to be a fine line between atheists and anti-theists. I wonder why you feel the need to draw a distinction. Because the distinction is significant? An anti-theist is opposed to God (or rather against whatever he may perceive as God). An atheist is convinced that the Divine (and/or pagan gods) do not exist; hence there is no reason for an atheist to be opposed to something that in his perception does not exist. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I never considered "desperate hope and fear" to be insulting. Just remarking on motivation. It seems a natural human response to the possible irrevocable finality of brief life. Perhaps you can support your wild imaginings by the results of various scientific research into the matter?

vincentML -> RE: Should they Evolve, Stay the same, dissolve? (6/10/2012 11:44:03 AM)
quote: An anti-theist is opposed to God (or rather against whatever he may perceive as God). An atheist is convinced that the Divine (and/or pagan gods) do not exist; hence there is no reason for an atheist to be opposed to something that in his perception does not exist. doesn't quite fit with the Wiki discussion, but okay, I can see there is a difference. Thank you. scientific research on hope and fear as motivators? Pffl. Hardly seems worth the effort.

Kirata -> RE: Should they Evolve, Stay the same, dissolve? (6/10/2012 1:35:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML scientific research on hope and fear as motivators? Pffl. Hardly seems worth the effort. Do we need to call Freud again? The phrase you employed was "desperate hope and fear" -- desperate -- as in reckless, dangerous, despair driven, extreme, excessive. I'm not sure why you would think religious people are so driven. Is it common among atheists? Most people seem to spend little time reflecting on death until it confronts them. K.

vincentML -> RE: Should they Evolve, Stay the same, dissolve? (6/10/2012 2:10:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML scientific research on hope and fear as motivators? Pffl. Hardly seems worth the effort. Do we need to call Freud again? The phrase you employed was "desperate hope and fear" -- desperate -- as in reckless, dangerous, despair driven, extreme, excessive. I'm not sure why you would think religious people are so driven. Is it common among atheists? Most people seem to spend little time reflecting on death until it confronts them. K. Yeh, give him a call. See if he rises from the grave. [:D]

Kirata -> RE: Should they Evolve, Stay the same, dissolve? (6/10/2012 4:41:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Yeh, give him a call. See if he rises from the grave. [:D] Not much chance, I guess. But rumor has it that he'll step out of the grave when you respond to the actual content of a post. Wanna try it and see? [:D] K.

vincentML -> RE: Should they Evolve, Stay the same, dissolve? (6/10/2012 5:40:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Yeh, give him a call. See if he rises from the grave. [:D] Not much chance, I guess. But rumor has it that he'll step out of the grave when you respond to the actual content of a post. Wanna try it and see? [:D] K. Jeez, wouldn't that be a hoot? But it would spoil the joke. [:D] I have already conceded to Rule I have no scientific research [ha!] to support my remarks. Maybe there is some support in the Anthropological Studies of Primatives, but the subject does not much interest me enough to search it out. However, feel free to pursue it. Vincent

Kirata -> RE: Should they Evolve, Stay the same, dissolve? (6/10/2012 6:44:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML But it would spoil the joke. [:D] Fair enough. Heh. I just would like you to realize that characterizing belief in an afterlife as little more than "desperate hope and fear" is both unkind and inaccurate. I don't deny that what passes for religion in the press and on Sunday morning TV provides much low-hanging fruit for its detractors. But frankly, there seems to me less cause for concern if when we're dead that's the end of it. K.

vincentML -> RE: Should they Evolve, Stay the same, dissolve? (6/11/2012 8:43:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML But it would spoil the joke. [:D] Fair enough. Heh. I just would like you to realize that characterizing belief in an afterlife as little more than "desperate hope and fear" is both unkind and inaccurate. I don't deny that what passes for religion in the press and on Sunday morning TV provides much low-hanging fruit for its detractors. But frankly, there seems to me less cause for concern if when we're dead that's the end of it. K. Happily noted and accepted. [:)]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125