The Religion of Peace?

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Thanks Caleb
You should jump in more often!

I aim to!

[anitram]

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.

[PhilsFan]

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.

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by BEAL

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".

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.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

That's never a good idea, is it?

I need to talk to Gaf and Peef to find out how to do that right

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.

[LemonMelon]

If you want to drink and argue, I suggest absinthe.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by Diemen

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.

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.

[Diemen]

Yes, that's exactly what I was suggesting, IH.


Thanks for cutting to the heart of it so deftly.

[the iron horse]

UK sets up task force to target radical preachers after soldier killed on busy street | Fox News

[Pearl]

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.

[Jive Turkey]

Good post, Pearl

[Cactus Annie]

I am so confused and rather upset at he moment.

[Jive Turkey]

Good post, Cactus Annie

[Pearl]

[Cactus Annie]

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.

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?

[deep]

half ape and half heavenly being, that would be Jesus of Nazareth

the rest of us, are all ape.

[Cactus Annie]

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 . I'm definitely not as cultured as he is that's for sure. That's the guy I know, not Harold Pinter.

[Jive Turkey]

Atheists can be spiritual. Sagan talks a great deal about it. As does Harris. Spirituality needn't be supernatural

[iron yuppie]

I thought this article was compelling in that it shows how any religion can spawn extremism under certain influences:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/wo...emc=rss&src=ig

[Cactus Annie]

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 , 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.