Author Topic: Why I care about religion (Read 8421 times)

Tachus · « **Reply #300 on:** August 20, 2007, 05:02:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 68Hawk

Those with a lack of faith or creed cannot inject that into politics, short of attacking religion itself, which is not what is happening in this country right now. There is nothing to inject. That atheism is a belief to be used as a political tool is a stupid and wrong assertion forwarded by religious pundits, fearful of losing their influence in religion, politics and society. Atheism is not actually anti-religion, but religious ideologues happily say that it is to justify their own purposes.

It should be noted, that this is not always the case. There are those, (on both sides) that desire to "enforce" their views on the other side. (Believing, of course it's for their own good.)

Best regards,
--Tachus

lazs2 · « **Reply #301 on:** August 20, 2007, 08:20:31 AM »

I would like to note that it is chairboy who claims that I am the one who "always" goes on about religion.

In fairness... he hasn't done this in a long time but for a while there... every other thread he started was anti god.

I have nothing against athiests... they are entitled to their religion but...

I can't help but point out the basic dishonesty. Most claim no belief yet.. they are fervent in their belief that there is no god... totally faith based belief..

most claim they have no agenda but their hate for those who have a god is obvious.

lazs

Chairboy · « **Reply #302 on:** August 20, 2007, 08:40:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I have nothing against athiests...

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I can't help but point out the basic dishonesty.

You have nothing against them, but they're all liars.

C'mon, get real. My lack of belief in a god does not make me dishonest, it just means that I'm an adult who doesn't have an imaginary friend.

lazs2 · « **Reply #303 on:** August 20, 2007, 08:59:39 AM »

LOL... not only do you not have an imaginary friend but you claim that you know for certain that no one else does.

My point is that you have an agenda... when someone tells me that their god says this or that or that they believe in ghosts or esp or bigfoot...

I don't go on a campaign to say how silly their belief is... because... truth is... I am not sure if they are right or not.

I am an agnostic on the subjects. to say that you absolutely believe something that can't be proven is a matter of faith.

To say otherwise is dishonest. it is basic logic. sooo.. in that at least...you are dishonest.

anyone reading this thread knows how dishonest you are when you say you have no agenda. perhaps you are the only one who doesn't see it?

lazs

Engine · « **Reply #304 on:** August 20, 2007, 09:08:56 AM »

Lack of belief is rational (Agnostic). Belief in non-existance (Atheist) is, as Lazs says, faith-based. It's unprovable.

Tachus · « **Reply #305 on:** August 20, 2007, 09:24:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Engine
Lack of belief is rational (Agnostic). Belief in non-existance (Atheist) is, as Lazs says, faith-based. It's unprovable.

Are you saying that, being an "Atheist" or a "Believer" is not rational?

--Tachus

Chairboy · « **Reply #306 on:** August 20, 2007, 09:42:14 AM »

I've asked one question repeatedly, but mysteriously, lazs has never bothered to answer it. I'll try again:

Lazs: Is believing that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus don't exist 'intellectually dishonest'? If not, what's the difference?

Tachus · « **Reply #307 on:** August 20, 2007, 10:04:39 AM »

Sometimes the word "Faith" is used like it's dirty word. It's contrasted with words like "Knowledge" or "Science" in such a way that it would imply; you either are "Intelligent" (don't buy into that whole faith thing) or you are "Ignorant" (believe in fairy tales, because you have not learned the truth, or you refuse to believe the facts.)

I happen to believe most of us have come to our conclusions in the same fashion. Although, clearly these conclusions are not the same.

The atheist has examined the evidence and drawn a conclusion. "There is no God" He cannot prove it, but he has reach a point where he is convinced.

The believer does the same thing. He examines the evidence (often the same evidence the atheist has) and draws a conclusion. "There is a God" Again, he cannot prove it, but he is convinced.

The agnostic does the sames. (Again examining the same evidence the atheist and the believer has) and draws a conclusion. "I don't know if there is a God" So in his case he decides the evidence is inconclusive, and cannot prove it either way.

Each group looks at the other two, amazed they could reach the conclusion they have.

It should be noted, drawing a conclusion based on the observation of evidence is not irrational, even though it cannot be proven. It happens all the time in our court systems. A jury decides a case, based on the observation and interpretation of facts, and draws a conclusion. Can they "Prove" it? Many times "No", they weren't there, their not all-knowing, but they still make a decision. After the decision is made, (regardless of what that decision is) they can always be challenged with, "You can't prove it"; but we don't call them irrational. We don't say they operate on blind faith, or they viewed the facts and got it wrong (Unless it's the OJ trial

)

Most of us exercise some level of "Faith" in our lives everyday. We simply don't identify it as such, unless it's tied to a belief in God.

Best regards,
--Tachus

SkyRock · « **Reply #308 on:** August 20, 2007, 10:44:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunthr
fret over a coin in their pocket that says "In God We Trust"

taking thier views to the extreme and be so anxioux to impose thier will on the whole country?

Well I am definitely not an atheist, but I think you just answered your question with a question. Many secular peoples ar just as opposed to christians as they are to atheists. The difference being, we don't see Atheists pushing their beliefs on us near as much as the christians do. I generally see the atheists as takiing up opposition/defensive positions against the christians, where as the christians are seen as the more aggressive of the two! I am all for seperation of church and state, whether it is an atheist church or a Church of God!:aok

Chairboy · « **Reply #309 on:** August 20, 2007, 10:47:48 AM »

Rino · « **Reply #310 on:** August 20, 2007, 11:32:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
No matter how unlikely, if by some miracle I were to get pregnant I'd really ... REALLY ... want an abortion!

I think we could all agree on that

swoose · « **Reply #311 on:** August 20, 2007, 11:35:00 AM »

To all the atheist and agnostics. If there isn't a God then why are you so intent on proving it? You must feel there is something to it or you wouldn't be trying to disprove it.

Hap · « **Reply #312 on:** August 20, 2007, 11:37:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SkyRock pushing their beliefs on us

The above phrase caught my eye. I'm guessing that if a poll were taken asking O'Club frequenters does Truth (with a capital T) exist and is it knowable? The answer would be no. So, I'm going with my "guess" on what follows.

Democracy fosters the production of a contesting of beliefs. Be it gun control, speed limits, etc. Saying, "research shows" is a no no. See the global warming thread. Folks politicize facts to suit themselves. And of course, people argue out of bad faith. The O'Club is an excellent example of insincerity, malice, and what have you winning the day upon more than one occasion.

An interesting exception is when it comes to things like money, health, and if you catch your wife with another man. Things where we really live. Truth triumphs then in spades even for the the most publically rabid relativist or determinist.

If I agree with the "belief" that wins the day, let's say Roe versus Wade, then I'm happy. If I'm disagree, then I might cry someone is "pushing their beliefs on me!" How could it be otherwise?

In the absence of Truth, all becomes a jostle of perception rather than a frank admission of that which is so. Which, of course, is folly.

St. Thomas Aquinas says rightly, reason and revelation abide to show us Truth. Both given to us by God. That 42 zillion cry, "say it ain't so Joe!" "It is not so because we say so," does not make the point at hand, or anything for that matter, false.

To blame religion for "pushing beliefs," that is, all would be better without religion because then there would be no "pushing of beliefs," is absurd. That's all that would remain. Get enough folk to rally around a notion, and that notion becomes so. 45 years pass, and the next new notion gains creedence without truth though.

Quite dismal actually.

Chairboy · « **Reply #313 on:** August 20, 2007, 11:49:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by swoose
To all the atheist and agnostics. If there isn't a God then why are you so intent on proving it? You must feel there is something to it or you wouldn't be trying to disprove it.

We don't have to prove anything, we just try and defend ourselves from new laws and regulations that have religion as their foundation. We're not pushing anti-christian laws, but there are plenty of anti-atheist laws on the books, and recent polling shows that folks have no problem discriminating against atheists for their lack of belief.

Engine · « **Reply #314 on:** August 20, 2007, 11:54:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tachus
Are you saying that, being an "Atheist" or a "Believer" is not rational?

--Tachus

To believe in an unprovable non-existence? Yes. It's unsupportable.

If you have no evidence supporting God's existence, it's best to simply say so, instead of trying to support an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" standpoint.