Author Topic: Why I care about religion (Read 8401 times)

Shuckins · « **Reply #135 on:** October 07, 2006, 11:05:55 AM »

It is simpler than that Lukster. For some atheists, there's an attempt to establish themselves on the intellectual high ground...and to make certain that believers KNOW that they occupy the valleys.

We have a thread like this with sickening regularity and the arguments never vary. No one's mind is changed. No one yields a point. The voices of moderation are roundly ignored.

Chairboy · « **Reply #136 on:** October 07, 2006, 11:14:59 AM »

Shuckins, do you approve of the laws that make it illegal for atheists to serve office? Do you think it's appropriate to discriminate against atheists? Because that's what this thread is about.

Neubob · « **Reply #137 on:** October 07, 2006, 11:26:34 AM »

"I don't believe in a higher power" = No office for you!

"Darwin is Satan, the dinasours never existed, and Santa Clause created the universe" = Hail to the Chief!! Now let's liberate North Korea!!

Yep, sounds about right to me.

hacksaw1 · « **Reply #138 on:** October 07, 2006, 12:16:41 PM »

Injustice is the point of this thread, and I side for Chairboy on several issues.

Looking in much broader terms, in a world full of human injustice, the idea of everlasting annihilation for everyone, the meek and the wicked, doesn't make it for me. That would be like Chairboy never having the possibility of redress for injustice. We have the possibility in this world, however inadequate. But who will redress the murder of the Amish girls who's right to life was unjustly taken from them. It makes a lot more sense to me in the big picture that someday a strict and fair accounting of the actions of all humans will be made, together with an associated everlasting consequence.

Brian Greene, physicist, and author of The Fabric of the Cosmos, writes of physicists who conjecture there must be an Observer for all the existing matter of the universe to have left the state of quantum ambiguity. Now there's a thought!

Having personally struggled with the idea that there is no ultimate purpose to existence I find completely unconvincing the people who must proclaim,

"The ultimate purpose of my life is to proclaim to you that there is no ultimate purpose to life."

Sorry, nihilism and the associated depression no longer appeal to me as a philosophy of life after my experiences.

So to recap, the problems with the worldview of atheism led me to the possibility that there is a Creator. From that point, I have been convinced by the Creator that He truly IS.

Dead said,

-------------
I have a personal, intimate relationship with my creators. It even goes as far as to have just gone on holiday with them. Much like the fabled Xian creator, they too move in mysterious ways, but I just put that down to old age and incontinence. I don't need to communicate with them as a submissive creature, yet I have lots of direct proof of their existence, as well as sightings by other people, singularly and in groups. Despite all this, I won't be trying to get you to worship them.

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

Sounds like either "Space Brothers" or else mere rhetoric. My guess is rhetoric, since there seems to be a lack of conviction to convince others. And if rhetoric, then there is no positive argument from experience, but merely rejoinder in the form of ridicule.

storch · « **Reply #139 on:** October 07, 2006, 12:25:43 PM »

pretty well said cement and any other view is the product of intellectual dishonesty

lukster · « **Reply #140 on:** October 07, 2006, 12:27:13 PM »

Dead was speaking of his parents but was not without ridicule of those believing in something more.

Shuckins · « **Reply #141 on:** October 07, 2006, 12:52:09 PM »

Chair, I fear you are obsessed with this issue.

Such laws as you describe are routinely challeneged by the ACLU and other advocacy groups and just as routinely struck down by the Supreme Court. So what's your beef?

I realize you have an issue with the Boy Scouts because they refuse to accept atheists and gays into their organization. They publicly took this stand just a few years ago, and were castigated for it by every pc, mush brained group in the country. You're an intelligent, well-read guy. You must have known about this before you tried to enroll your son. Or at least I assume you knew about it.

If you knew about it beforehand, and tried to enroll him anyway...then it would seem to indicate that you were trying to make an issue out of it.

The Boy Scouts of America is a private, Christian organization and has been since its inception. Again, what's your beef? Freedom of association is a constitutional right. They didn't seek you out, ala the Jehovah's Witnesses, or rub their beliefs in your face for the heck of it. You approached them.

The stances we...all of us...take on political issues are based on our personal belief systems. Mine is shaped by my religion...as yours are based on your non-belief. Neither of us should be expected to give up our right to participate in the political life of our nation because of the beliefs we have. If one side or the other tries to persuade Congress to pass laws detrimental to the common weal then we should feel free to speak out against it....but not to denigrate an entire belief system for having an opposing view point.

Regards, Shuckins

Chairboy · « **Reply #142 on:** October 07, 2006, 12:57:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
I realize you have an issue with the Boy Scouts because they refuse to accept atheists and gays into their organization. They publicly took this stand just a few years ago, and were castigated for it by every pc, mush brained group in the country. You're an intelligent, well-read guy. You must have known about this before you tried to enroll your son. Or at least I assume you knew about it.

If you knew about it beforehand, and tried to enroll him anyway...then it would seem to indicate that you were trying to make an issue out of it.

The Boy Scouts of America is a private, Christian organization and has been since its inception. Again, what's your beef? Freedom of association is a constitutional right. They didn't seek you out, ala the Jehovah's Witnesses, or rub their beliefs in your face for the heck of it. You approached them.

Actually, you're dramatically mischaracterizing that other thread. All I asked about in the thread was if anyone had any suggestions for alternate groups. I never tried to enroll my kid, I knew about their policies and was trying to find an equivalent that didn't discriminate.

Are you deliberately lying/distorting things? Or was it just an error on your part?

storch · « **Reply #143 on:** October 07, 2006, 01:02:13 PM »

I think chairboy has been sitting far too long. he should become walkaboutboy and excercise his ample hamhocks, you know get around a bit and see what the world is truly like. i'll gladly provide the tape, construction paper and sharpie to confect a nice "kick me I'm a true atheist" placard as he wanders the by-ways of even his slightly off kilter corner of the union. maybe one of you clever types can devise a kickometer with a satellite uplink and we can monitor how many he actually receives in real time.

Chairboy · « **Reply #144 on:** October 07, 2006, 01:06:34 PM »

Storch: Do you think that the laws making it illegal for atheists to hold office are acceptable?

BTW, nice "chairboy is fat" debate technique.

Shuckins · « **Reply #145 on:** October 07, 2006, 01:19:06 PM »

Chair, I freely admit that my memory isn't what it used to be. I turned 53 this morning and it has been a devastating experience.

So, I'll take your word about the other thread.

On t'other hand, I stand by my assertion that you are obsessed with this topic. I reiterate, if you consider laws depriving atheists of their rights to run for elective office to be unjust, then by all means lobby against them....but don't lump all Christians in with the fanatics who sponsor such legislation. That's stereotyping....and it isn't fair to paint with such a broad brush.

Regards, Shuckins

storch · « **Reply #146 on:** October 07, 2006, 01:27:21 PM »

where in that statement do I proclaim you are fat? having typed that, don't go changing to try and please me. I think exclusionary laws have no place in an open society. the surefire way to limit ourselves is to bring government into any equation. less government=more freedom I am anti government and feel that the most effective government is at the grass roots level. the most powerful person in goverment (when it comes to dealing with the individual) should not be some guy in far off washington but that individual's mayor and town commissioner. to a lesser extent there should be a strong state level authority to help out during times of emergencies.

there is a need for federal government but that sould be a very limited type of national authority. they should not have the power to tax citizens directly. they should tax foreign trade, both import and export. that would represent a tax on the citizens but only those who chose to purchase imported goods. a portion of the taxes collected at the local level should go to provide for the common defense and the federal road systems, they should be able to place tolls on the federal roads as well to provide for maintenance. that should be the extent of federal involvement in our lives.

I'm sure that if the founding fathers took one look at what passes for personal liberty today they would all immediately begin arming themselves and prepare for a protracted struggle.

Chairboy · « **Reply #147 on:** October 07, 2006, 01:34:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
but don't lump all Christians in with the fanatics who sponsor such legislation. That's stereotyping....and it isn't fair to paint with such a broad brush.

When did I do that?

Chairboy · « **Reply #148 on:** October 07, 2006, 01:37:21 PM »

Quote

excercise his ample hamhocks

Sounds like fat to me in the context, storch.

BTW, we agree on the size of government, I don't know what the relevance is to this. As a libertarian, I feel that the government that governs best, governs least. Our government is at least 10x as big as it needs to be to meet the vision our founding fathers had for us and the standards of liberty to which we are entitled.

storch · « **Reply #149 on:** October 07, 2006, 01:44:15 PM »

don't be so sensitive ample hamhocks are highly prized, especially in papua/new guinea.