The Religion of Peace?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Jive Turkey said:
And all this nonesense about trying to "control" you, telling you who you are, being abusive really don't mean anything. It's a complete overreaction on your part. If you don't want to continue with the thread, that's fine. But ask yourself if you'd do the same had I said "I feel like you're more of a neo conservative"
Click to expand...

Yes, it does mean something.

By trying to convince me that I'm really agnostic and should embrace it, really sounded like you were once again saying anyone who isn't fundamentalist can't really be what they claim to be. If a Christian doesn't believe in creation, then they can't consider themselves Christian. That to me sounds like you are trying to convince someone they aren't what they say they are, and should stop the charades. Why is it so important to you to label people's beliefs?

Politics is more about the country, city, group of people. It is about making society work. Religion, faith, or spirituality, is about the individual. It gives meaning to life, it can explain life, and it offers hope in so many ways. Now, obviously plenty have destroyed that and turned religion into a huge mess. But most people I know who have some sort of faith have it for personal reasons, not to make society work.

I get it you don't believe there is a God and think religion isn't worth it. I'm cool with that. What I don't like is for you go on a rant about something that is personal for a lot of people. If you are upset about religion infiltrating politics, I can get that because I believe in separation of church and state. But to seemingly obsess over what people do on their own time that isn't hurting anyone, baffles me. So, believing in a God is bizarre to you. OK. As I said before, astrology and radical vegetarianism is bizarre to me, too. But I wouldn't say that those people aren't what they claim to be because they don't live up to my definition of those groups.

It also doesn't help that I haven't had many good experiences with atheists, and I have mentioned a few incidents. The results are that I'm wary about them, and I tend to get overly defensive around them. Because what, are they going to try to pour whatever my head? Are they going to say nasty stuff at me for wearing a cross or ashes on my forehead?

I know you've said those people are assholes, and I'm not equating you with them. But honestly, in this thread, you're acting like Penn Teller, Sam Harris and all the others who aren't flexible at all when discussing this kind of topic. It's your view and no other. That really isn't fair and not good FYM debate.

And I honestly don't think you drink too much. Yes, you had a few earlier but I never once thought you have a problem. That was me fuming.

I may overreact, but I think getting overly defensive is what I really do.
 
Caleb8844 said:
I consider myself a Christian, and I've followed this thread from the first page, albeit I haven't had the time to be involved in it. I see less than no problem with what Jive has been saying, or how he's been saying it. People DO treat religion as an untouchable topic. "It sounds like you're more of an agnostic," is controlling an abusive? I can't even grasp the logic someone would have to have to conclude that.

Yes, religion is a touchy, personal subject. But so are some aspects of politics. I can't imagine someone getting outraged if someone told them "it seems like you're more of a pro-choicer than a hard-line pro-lifer." No, if they disagreed with the label, they'd explain how their views differ from pro-choice views.
Click to expand...

Thanks Caleb :)
You should jump in more often!
 
Pearl said:
Yes, it does mean something.

By trying to convince me that I'm really agnostic and should embrace it, really sounded like you were once again saying anyone who isn't fundamentalist can't really be what they claim to be. If a Christian doesn't believe in creation, then they can't consider themselves Christian. That to me sounds like you are trying to convince someone they aren't what they say they are, and should stop the charades. Why is it so important to you to label people's beliefs?

Politics is more about the country, city, group of people. It is about making society work. Religion, faith, or spirituality, is about the individual. It gives meaning to life, it can explain life, and it offers hope in so many ways. Now, obviously plenty have destroyed that and turned religion into a huge mess. But most people I know who have some sort of faith have it for personal reasons, not to make society work.

I get it you don't believe there is a God and think religion isn't worth it. I'm cool with that. What I don't like is for you go on a rant about something that is personal for a lot of people. If you are upset about religion infiltrating politics, I can get that because I believe in separation of church and state. But to seemingly obsess over what people do on their own time that isn't hurting anyone, baffles me. So, believing in a God is bizarre to you. OK. As I said before, astrology and radical vegetarianism is bizarre to me, too. But I wouldn't say that those people aren't what they claim to be because they don't live up to my definition of those groups.

It also doesn't help that I haven't had many good experiences with atheists, and I have mentioned a few incidents. The results are that I'm wary about them, and I tend to get overly defensive around them. Because what, are they going to try to pour whatever my head? Are they going to say nasty stuff at me for wearing a cross or ashes on my forehead?

I know you've said those people are assholes, and I'm not equating you with them. But honestly, in this thread, you're acting like Penn Teller, Sam Harris and all the others who aren't flexible at all when discussing this kind of topic. It's your view and no other. That really isn't fair and not good FYM debate.

And I honestly don't think you drink too much. Yes, you had a few earlier but I never once thought you have a problem. That was me fuming.

I may overreact, but I think getting overly defensive is what I really do.
Click to expand...

I'm happy you're back :)

I think what may be happening is that you're reading my posts in a tone that was never intended (unless they were in response to bvs... I think my tone is fairly clear there ;) )
I'm honestly not trying to convince anyone that doesn't want to be convinced. It's truly about the back and forth that's hopefully constructive more often than it is not.
The labeling thing isn't really important, as Lemel pointed out (iexcept when it comes to music, amirite, lemel?? ;) ). And my post about that was more an aside than anything. I really didn't think it would cause a stir. It wasn't about telling you what you believe as much as it was me sorting out where you stand.

But I rarely 'rant' and am more than happy to point out when I do. I'm just trying to be thoughtful with my posts. The longer ones aren't necessarily rants
 
Caleb8844 said:
I consider myself a Christian, and I've followed this thread from the first page, albeit I haven't had the time to be involved in it. I see less than no problem with what Jive has been saying, or how he's been saying it. People DO treat religion as an untouchable topic. "It sounds like you're more of an agnostic," is controlling an abusive? I can't even grasp the logic someone would have to have to conclude that.

Yes, religion is a touchy, personal subject. But so are some aspects of politics. I can't imagine someone getting outraged if someone told them "it seems like you're more of a pro-choicer than a hard-line pro-lifer." No, if they disagreed with the label, they'd explain how their views differ from pro-choice views.
Click to expand...

It can be controlling and abusive when someone labels another, but it depends on their intentions. Some people shoot their mouths off without thinking, which I think is what Jive did here.

I just detest any hint of someone trying to label me or tell me who I am. Not because I think too highly of myself or I'm too sensitive or whatever, but I just really detest anyone trying to have power over me, which is what I felt Jive unintentionally was doing.
 
Jive Turkey said:
I'm happy you're back :)

I think what may be happening is that you're reading my posts in a tone that was never intended (unless they were in response to bvs... I think my tone is fairly clear there ;) )
I'm honestly not trying to convince anyone that doesn't want to be convinced. It's truly about the back and forth that's hopefully constructive more often than it is not.
The labeling thing isn't really important, as Lemel pointed out (iexcept when it comes to music, amirite, lemel?? ;) ). And my post about that was more an aside than anything. I really didn't think it would cause a stir. It wasn't about telling you what you believe as much as it was me sorting out where you stand.

But I rarely 'rant' and am more than happy to point out when I do. I'm just trying to be thoughtful with my posts. The longer ones aren't necessarily rants
Click to expand...

Thanks.

If it is confusing about what my beliefs are to you, try it from my end. I'm not even sure if I should try a church out or just a simple meditation group without thinking I wouldn't fit in anywhere. Maybe this is how Bono feels when he says, "I'd break bread and wine if there was a church I could receive in".
 
Pearl said:
It can be controlling and abusive when someone labels another, but it depends on their intentions. Some people shoot their mouths off without thinking, which I think is what Jive did here.

I just detest any hint of someone trying to label me or tell me who I am. Not because I think too highly of myself or I'm too sensitive or whatever, but I just really detest anyone trying to have power over me, which is what I felt Jive unintentionally was doing.
Click to expand...

Wasn't shooting my mouth off. Had I said something inappropriate in a drunken stupor, I'd be the first to come crawling back in here to say sorry. There's nothing in that post I wouldn't have said this morning... maybe "word processing software" instead of "typewriter"

I don't eat meat. I don't like to call myself a vegetarian. But it's the definition of what I'm doing, whether I like it or not. It's not up to me. If some says to me "Hey Jive (which would be weird in real life), you don't eat meat? Sounds to me like you're a vegetarian" I have no right to get upset about it
but don't you fucking call me a vegetarian, ya hear? :angry:
 
Politics is more about the country, city, group of people. It is about making society work. Religion, faith, or spirituality, is about the individual. It gives meaning to life, it can explain life, and it offers hope in so many ways.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this. Religion is and always has been a social phenomenon that looks to ritualize a community in specific ways. I understand that people often form their own relationship with divinity, but even that kind of mysticism - using the term in a strictest sense of the term - is almost always informed by some larger communal understanding of what divinity is. It's inaccurate to suggest that a certain type of religious person has corrupted religion by involving it with politics when religious behavior from its very inception has been about defining and ordering society. An ordering force implies power, which then implies politics.
 
Pearl said:
It can be controlling and abusive when someone labels another, but it depends on their intentions. Some people shoot their mouths off without thinking, which I think is what Jive did here.

I just detest any hint of someone trying to label me or tell me who I am. Not because I think too highly of myself or I'm too sensitive or whatever, but I just really detest anyone trying to have power over me, which is what I felt Jive unintentionally was doing.
Click to expand...

No, suggesting a possible name for your views is not controlling or abusive. It's not as if anyone tried to say your views were ignorant or incorrect. It would be no different than someone saying "Hey, I know you call yourself a Republican, but since you're pro-small government, pro-gay, and pro-choice, have you ever considered calling yourself a Libertarian, instead?" Certainly you wouldn't consider this to be someone "shoot[ing] their mouths off without thinking."

And, next time you feel insulted by Jive, take a look at his exchanges with Indy and feel relieved :laugh:
 
I think we generally show far too much deference to religion, religious people and religious views. And that has resulted in certain religious people feeling entitled to their disproportionate sense of outrage anytime that their belief system or group are criticized.
 
I think part of the confusion is coming from the fact that agnostic is generally used for those who don't believe in God but are open to it. Pearl's posts seem to indicate one who is "spiritual" as opposed to religious, not someone who is agnostic.
 
BEAL said:
OK, it is true that violence has been committed by non religious types. But did they commit this crime because of their lack of belief or some other idealogy? The example that always gets thrown out is Stalin. Stalin was an atheist, look how many people he killed!!!! Stalin did what he did because of his political idealogy, there's no proof/evidence that atheism was casual in the oppression of millions of people.

Jive's point stands. A militant atheist argues a lot, maybe is even a bit of a prick in doing so. You may get your feelings hurt, but that's about it. Can you say the same of a militant muslim or ask any abortion doctor if they fear an atheist over a militant christian.

Not THAT long ago non believers (or if you believed in the wrong God) were tortured, killed, etc for speaking out. Not sure I really feel any sympathy if feelings get hurt considering the past history of religion and it's treatment against the "heathens".
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying.

One problem I have here though is that you're assuming that all Christians have committed acts of violence because of their ideology and not due to political motivations. Fact is, religion and politics are very often tied to one another and there can be monetary or personal benefits to violence that extend beyond hate, or empowering a religion. Atheists have no singular ideology so there is no holy book to justify violence in the eyes of the people, but the motivation behind both (the causal aspect) is usually the same: money and power, regardless of what "name" they use to justify it. There are exceptions of course, but the point I'm making is that religious people commit violent acts for a myriad reasons, so the issue isn't as simple as atheists are violent towards Christians for _____, Christians are violent towards atheists for _____.

I'm talking about war/mass genocide/institutionally sanctioned violence here, not the murder of abortion doctors, which really is more vigilante craziness than what I was describing above.
 
Jive Turkey said:
That's never a good idea, is it? :drunk:

I need to talk to Gaf and Peef to find out how to do that right
Click to expand...
I tend to be extremely articulate and thoughtful while drinking. It's when I come home exhausted and tanked and get on the computer at 3 a.m. in not a particularly good mood that things fall apart.
 
Diemen said:
It might help changing your overall style in FYM at least. It wouldn't be dishonest to try to be more patient with people who don't share your viewpoint.

I mean, what incentive is there for someone with a different position than you to engage you in discussion about religion if you're just going to shoot them down, insult their intelligence and call their belief system bullshit?

It's a shitty way to treat others. Probably because you don't have a good set of religious morals.

:wink:
Click to expand...



I have been reading the replies on this thread for the past thirty minutes or so. Your comment stopped me.

You suggest that Jive Turkey changes his style?

What style? Why is he guilty of something by trying to stick to his point?

Does "Change your style" mean he should kiss up to all negative comments and we all just agree that all opinions are equal and valid?

I guess we should all just hold hands and sing "We are the World."




"It's a shitty way to treat others."

To me, it seems he's the one that the crap is being thrown at.
 
I came across this Carl Sagan quote that I think is useful to post. I'm putting it here because we've discussed challenging beliefs, whether religion is more personal than politics, and overall, we had a good debate here:


All of us cherish our beliefs. They are, to a degree, self-defining. When someone comes along who challenges our belief system as insufficiently well-based - or who, like Socrates, merely asks embarrassing questions that we haven't thought of, or demonstrates that we've swept key underlying assumptions under the rug - it becomes much more than a search for knowledge. It feels like a personal assault.

I'm not looking to justify my overreaction earlier by posting this. I know I'm prone to losing it due to being overly suspicious of others because half my brain is elsewhere. But I do think we all should be aware of how others may react when we challenge their beliefs. Yes, some beliefs - political, religious, lifestyle - may seem bizarre, irrational and even dangerous to some. But do we really need to lash out at them? Granted, I feel like strangling some conservatives when I hear their rhetoric, but what good does that do? But if we are to have a debate on what works for society and even the world, perhaps a little emotional/social intelligence may be best if we ever want to get anywhere. I am also not saying we are responsible for everyone else's reactions and behavior. It's a delicate balance, obviously.

Anyway, just a food for thought.
 
A few months ago I found a blog from Google after typing in can atheists believe in spirituality. I came across one good website, which I also found just now, but there's one that I can no longer find the blog where an atheist described themselves as believing in the human spirit and souls, then someone claimed this to be pantheism. I've had to click through various sites until I got fed up and depressed. I am terribly confused by what people's definition of 'spirituality' means. This is what my computer's dictionary says:

spiritual |ˈspiri ch oōəl|
adjective
1 of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things : I'm responsible for his spiritual welfare | the spiritual values of life.
• (of a person) not concerned with material values or pursuits.
2 of or relating to religion or religious belief : Iran's spiritual leader.
Spirituality as a noun.
Click to expand...

So when that man who I was speaking to claims he is an atheist, yet he believes in spirituality as he describes as the 'arts' (I think that means emotional side of things), and then quotes Harold Pinter when he said that human's are half ape half angel, then he could believe in human spirits as well? Or what?
 
I think the quote refers to man being at a state in between ape (their previous incarnation) and angel (their next incarnation). Maybe I got that interpretation wrong.

I had to search for who Harold Pinter was :reject:. I'm definitely not as cultured as he is that's for sure. That's the guy I know, not Harold Pinter.
 
Atheists can be spiritual. Sagan talks a great deal about it. As does Harris. Spirituality needn't be supernatural
 
It doesn't say that in the Dictionary, only on Wikipedia, which in terms of accuracy isn't as reliable.

spiritualism |ˈspiri ch oōəˌlizəm|
noun
1 a system of belief or religious practice based on supposed communication with the spirits of the dead, esp. through mediums.
2 Philosophy the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.

From my computer's dictionary. I don't trust it as much as the heavy Chambers English Dictionary on my bookshelf, but I can't be arsed to get it right now.

According to Wikipedia atheism is compatible with neo-Paganism, Jainism and Buddhism. I don't know what Jainism is :hmm:, it's another thing I need to look up. My friend doesn't believe in Christianity, yet she's into Wicca.

A book I found in our shop: The Violence Of God & The War On Terror, by Jeremy Young, who's an Anglican Priest believe it or not. He argues that the image of God encourages violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pearl
Egypt Heads to the Polls
Replies
22
Views
1K
AchtungBono
A
N
The dark side of Dubai
Replies
4
Views
963
The Sad Punk
The Sad Punk
financeguy
Geert Wilder's speech in Berlin
Replies
6
Views
959
cobl04
cobl04
financeguy
"Inside the violent world of Britain's new far right"
Replies
2
Views
683
Moonlit_Angel
Moonlit_Angel
financeguy
The cyclical character of capitalism-why boom and bust is unavoidable in capitalism
Replies
4
Views
811
financeguy
financeguy

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom