Which religion(s) do you have a problem with?

[This_person]

sunmoonstars is much worse than This_person. I've had it on iggy since day one. Of course, if you're just dangling a hook....have fun.

I take that as a compliment

 

[mAlice]

My moral choice is mine, and you called it arrogant. That was insulting. To me. As a person. I am insulted by you calling something about me arrogant. You called my moral choice arrogant. That insulted me.

How do I have to say it? Am I lesser to you for not having a religion?

It gets frustrating to explain the same thing in different ways over and over gain because someone doesn't understand.





This gets old really fast.

Looks like it needs to take it's own advice.

 

[mAlice]

I take that as a compliment

Don't. You're just a click away.

 

[luckystar]

Don't. You're just a click away.

I doubt he cares. Neither do I, about being insulted, really. It's just someone online. I'm just bored at work.

Edit: but it has been fun seeing how much of a jerk he can really be.

 

[mAlice]

I doubt he cares. Neither do I, about being insulted, really. It's just someone online. I'm just bored at work.

Of course he cares.

 

[This_person]

My moral choice is mine, and you called it arrogant. That was insulting. To me. As a person. I am insulted by you calling something about me arrogant. You called my moral choice arrogant. That insulted me.

How do I have to say it? Am I lesser to you for not having a religion?

I didn't call YOU arrogant.

If you fall into one of the two categories I stated above (meaning, you either ignore the vast majority of the people around you and their belief structure because it has a religious background to it, or, you refuse to accept that their moral codes helped establish yours, and their moral code comes from a religious background, thus meaning your moral code has a huge component that is religious based and refuse to accept that - if you fall into one of those categories) then I find that choice arrogant.

If that offends you, you falling into one of those categories and my finding that arrogant, I sincerely apologize. I don't change my opinion on it, but I apologize for having offended you with having my own opinion on something.

As far as lesser, of course not, and I never suggested any such thing.

 

[kwillia]

That's quite a circle you drew around yourself, but not what I said at all.No, not really - YOU just argued your version of my point as theirs, which is very different than me arguing what you said.



What I said, argued, believe, whatever, is that there is one true religion. Which one it is is completely unimportant for this discussion, however.

When asked about morals, I suggested that it's arrogant for an atheist to suggest that they either don't get their morals from religion, or, to not get their morals from religion and therefore get them from their own devising.

What that means is that the vast majority of people in this nation (the ones who I have a logical chance to be referring to) are surrounded by the vast majority of people who claim one religion or another - I believe it's around 90+% that say they belong to and believe in one religion or another (however, anything over 50% makes my argument true). So, since these people get at least some part of their moral compass from their religion, an atheist must either ignore the actions of a majority of people around them, or, accept that at least some part of their moral code are from the experiences they have with people's religious moral codes.

Now, different religions have different moral codes. If you grew up in the mid-east, stoning a teenage girl for being raped (because she was morally bankrupt enough to put herself in a position where she could be raped) would be perfectly normal - and a religious based moral code. Here in the US, that is outrageously wrong to us - based in no small part on our religious based moral code.

So, I neither claimed that any religion gets its code from an Almighty Being (because, at least some don't even claim to) nor that the Being in question exists or doesn't exist. You put quite a bit of words into my mouth, and virtually none of them were right.

In a nutshell, you are saying religion was created by man for man as a form of law and explanation for the unexplainable. Without it as guidance, some would be lost as to how to act, react and proceed. I agree.

 

[This_person]

Don't. You're just a click away.

You've put me on iggy before, and I survived...... But, I appreciate that you don't have me there yet, and find others worse. That tells me you think there's hope for me.

 

[mAlice]

You've put me on iggy before, and I survived...... But, I appreciate that you don't have me there yet, and find others worse. That tells me you think there's hope for me.

Now who's putting words in somebody's mouth? You really do have a high opinion of yourself, don't you?

 

[This_person]

Of course he cares.

You are right, of course I care (nice to see I graduated from "it").

I want to offend no one, and I can have my feelings hurt. I haven't yet, but I can.

 

[This_person]

Now who's putting words in somebody's mouth? You really do have a high opinion of yourself, don't you?

Touche


My opinion of myself is that I'm willing to talk, discuss, and learn from others - and I may have a thing or two to teach, as well. If that's "high", so be it. I've changed my view on things based upon conversations here, and I think that puts me in a small group.

 

[This_person]

In a nutshell, you are saying religion was created by man for man as a form of law and explanation for the unexplainable. Without it as guidance, some would be lost as to how to act, react and proceed. I agree.

Much closer.

I don't think they'd be "lost", and I think one religion was not created by man (the church associated was, but not the religious concepts).

I think the ones you refer to as "lost" would simply create their own moral standard without the guidance of thousands of years and trillions of people's thoughts and views before them. They'd be, effectively (since they'd be witout religion) atheists. I don't think atheists are "lost" unless they think they are.

Established religions give people shared culture and experience, and a shared moral code such that the bulk can agree on the majority of things that are "right" and "wrong" within their code (there are always outliers).

 

[kwillia]

I don't think atheists are "lost" unless they think they are.

Agreed. Most atheist I know don't rely on religion to set their moral compass and they accept the unknown without need for philisophical explanations.

Established religions give people shared culture and experience, and a shared moral code such that the bulk can agree on the majority of things that are "right" and "wrong" within their code (there are always outliers).

I agree with this as well. It explains why there is such contention in places that attempt to govern over multi-factioned societies such as Iraq and even the U.S.
Though I see religion as a necessity for those who feel they need it to define their intent and purpose, I also see it as the bane of society because of so many variations. The world will NEVER agree and therefore we'll never know world peace. Such is the nature of man.

 

[luckystar]

This_person,

I understand why whatever religion you may believe in would consider me arrogant. However, I have refrained from insulting yours, and kept to voicing my own personal beliefs; that there was a time before religion and that morals arose out of survival (play nice, and don't get hurt or eaten). I would appreciate if you refrained from voicing that my beliefs in particular are arrogant.

 

[This_person]

Agreed. Most atheist I know don't rely on religion to set their moral compass and they accept the unknown without need for philisophical explanations.

OR, they use it and believe they've chosen something different without realizing where their moral compass's "north" points to.

I agree with this as well. It explains why there is such contention in places that attempt to govern over multi-factioned societies such as Iraq and even the U.S.
Though I see religion as a necessity for those who feel they need it to define their intent and purpose, I also see it as the bane of society because of so many variations. The world will NEVER agree and therefore we'll never know world peace. Such is the nature of man.

If God came down and did parlor trick miracles for weeks on end, there would always be those that doubted - we agree on this it seems.

 

[itsbob]

God is a spirit.
Jesus was his son, (God manifest in the flesh.)
God was not a human (he was/is spirit) until he became flesh as Jesus.
Understanding the oneness of God can be confusing.

It's not counfusing to understand that you believe what you were told. You believe your churches interpretation of the Bible. Others believe their churches interpretation as told to them by their church. Chrisitans can't even agree as to what to believe in, and they all read the same book!!

There is no "oneness" of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.. but niether is there oneness between Hermione and Harry.

Jesus was his son, (God manifest in the flesh.)

Show me in the scruiptures where it says this.

 

[This_person]

This_person,

I understand why whatever religion you may believe in would consider me arrogant.

I don't believe my religion considers you arrogant, and I know that I don't automatically consider you arrogant (I don't know you well enough).

However, I have refrained from insulting yours, and kept to voicing my own personal beliefs; that there was a time before religion and that morals arose out of survival (play nice, and don't get hurt or eaten). I would appreciate if you refrained from voicing that my beliefs in particular are arrogant.

I don't find this belief, that you've worded here arrogant.

I clearly delineated that choice which I considered arrogant. Do you fall into one of those two categories? If you do, I will honor your wishes and refrain from telling you that I find that choice arrogant. However, I believe you to be smarter than that, from what I've learned of you today and previously.

 

[luckystar]

I don't believe my religion considers you arrogant, and I know that I don't automatically consider you arrogant (I don't know you well enough).I don't find this belief, that you've worded here arrogant.

I clearly delineated that choice which I considered arrogant. Do you fall into one of those two categories? If you do, I will honor your wishes and refrain from telling you that I find that choice arrogant. However, I believe you to be smarter than that, from what I've learned of you today and previously.

*headdesk* I give up.

 

[This_person]

*headdesk* I give up.

Do you fall into one of the two categories I described?

 

[luckystar]

Do you fall into one of the two categories I described?

Yes. Because my belief is that before religion, there was natural selection and that whole play nice thing, therefore my beliefs could be considered your religion-denouncing category. I do denounce religion, because before that was something else that influenced religion. I skip religion and go back to science.

Edit: personally denounce. If you believe it, awesome. I'm still looking.