Probably not. This is FYM - pretty much every thread turns into something completely different, usually involving the same arguments and the same individuals.
Tell me about it!
Probably not. This is FYM - pretty much every thread turns into something completely different, usually involving the same arguments and the same individuals.
I made a thread that was meant to discuss etiquette and male-female relationships, and now we're talking about religion? I don't get it. I mean, I did read the whole thread, but I still don't know how religion got into this topic.
I made a thread that was meant to discuss etiquette and male-female relationships
The only reason this thread was brought up was just to bring some argument that the teacher is anti-women in some way.
I meant more of an unrelated thread topic. Like jock itch, or something like that. Maybe athlete's foot. Somehow that has to involve religion.
If you pray jock itch will go away.
I wouldn't say you are a religious fundie, but somehow equating ANYTHING in this discussion to religion is something I thought only religious fundies could do up until now, so I'm not really sure.I'm a religious fundie now?
I wouldn't say you are a religious fundie, but somehow equating ANYTHING in this discussion to religion is something I thought only religious fundies could do up until now, so I'm not really sure.
One thing I do know, you are flat out wrong to say that I felt the teacher is anti-woman.
How the hell does rejecting old-fashioned etiquette make me believe women shouldn't be treated with respect?
But is teaching gender-specific etiquette perpetuating what some consider sexist traditions?
I'm not sure I would like to be treated like this. On a date, definitely, but on daily basis? No, because I am not a damsel in distress. Yes, I would like to be treated with respect by the male species, but not to the point where I cannot do things by myself.
I think it goes to show how sucked up into neo-con thinking this poster has become. Here is someone who admittingly wasn't raised religious but has been sucked into a fundamental mindset. The cause has overshadowed any real logic or personal experience.
No conspiracy. This is the type of thinking you've displayed since day one in here, that is that you align yourself with any idea that falls under the umbrella of "conservative" no matter what, even if it goes against your own experience. The cause comes first. A perfect example is gay marriage, you couldn't argue it from a religious standpoint because you weren't religious, so you tried from a secular standpoint and failed, you no longer participate in those debates but the fact is the only reason you argued it in the first place was that it was part of your party's platform. This is the same thing.How did you know? You sound like a conspiracy theorist. All I am is thankful for what Christianity has done for us despite it's flaws. In fact belief in God created a lot of courage for people to fight tyrants precisely because God was above them. Can't you see the practical value of a constitution by God so man can't fiddle with it? That shouldn't make me a fundie to point out practical uses of religion. If I believed the Bible literally then I would be a fundamentalist.
And here is where you contradict yourself oh once again. OF COURSE it's possible for religious and non-religious people to agree on ethics, hence it's not the absence of religion that is to blame. You just destroyed your own argument.It's possible for religious and non-religious to agree on ethics without agreeing on whether it's man-made or God-made ethics. It's also possible for people to be modern and go to Church. There are left-wing people in Churches, just so you know.
No conspiracy. This is the type of thinking you've displayed since day one in here, that is that you align yourself with any idea that falls under the umbrella of "conservative" no matter what, even if it goes against your own experience. The cause comes first. A perfect example is gay marriage, you couldn't argue it from a religious standpoint because you weren't religious, so you tried from a secular standpoint and failed, you no longer participate in those debates but the fact is the only reason you argued it in the first place was that it was part of your party's platform. This is the same thing.
And here is where you contradict yourself oh once again. OF COURSE it's possible for religious and non-religious people to agree on ethics, hence it's not the absence of religion that is to blame. You just destroyed your own argument.
And yes, I am one of those "left wing" people who believe, just so you know.
Christianity has also had its hand in repressing groups of people, and making people toe the line out of fear. Surely you, who is constantly decrying narcissism, can recognize that for what it is? Hardly in line with your Buddhist leanings, I would think. Oh, you're a mass of contradictions.
Yes but I actually agreed I made a mistake with gay marriage. I'm not yet convinced that you know when to admit a mistake.
This doesn't make any sense. So it's ok if only a few go back to church, then society's problems are solved? If the blame is on the absence of religion then shouldn't you be arguing that everyone needs religion?The reason the absence of religion is to blame doesn't mean we need to all go back to Church quickly, but it means the school system and parents are going to have to take on more roles than expected which ties into my original discussion on a teacher taking on an etiquette role.
I'm a religious fundie now?
It's not a reason. It's not a reason. It's not a reason.The reason the absence of religion is to blame doesn't mean we need to all go back to Church quickly, but it means the school system and parents are going to have to take on more roles than expected which ties into my original discussion on a teacher taking on an etiquette role.
You missed my point, I know you admitted your mistake, my point was you put your party's platform first and don't think about the issues until forced to.
I've admitted my mistakes many times, but just like the fact that I'm a believer(and said so many times in here) you failed to remember or ignored it.
This doesn't make any sense. So it's ok if only a few go back to church, then society's problems are solved? If the blame is on the absence of religion then shouldn't you be arguing that everyone needs religion?
And since when does school have to take the role on of teaching morality or manners, concepts that parents and families should be teaching? You can't have this both ways. You can't say schools should leave the sex talk up to parents yet manners and morality are now the school's role.
The way you're talking here, involving religion in EVERY conversation in EVERY thread and the way you're looking down on nonbelievers... yes, you're a fundie in my eyes. You have no respect for people who don't see the same way you do and you'll blame it all on our 'ignorance' of your oh so beautiful religion. Because ofcourse, with religion we would be oh so much better off.
It's not a reason. It's not a reason. It's not a reason.
Wow. I don't know where to begin.In your opinion of course. In my opinion when you remove a large institution there will be some cracks left open that will have to be filled elsewhere.
The way you use the words “EVERY” AND “fundie” looks exaggerated precisely because you just filled my mouth with YOUR words. I can’t find anything in this post that is accurate other than I talked about the subject of religion. I don’t believe you are trying to understand me at all, you just want to use the word “fundie” as a slur because it makes you feel good.
I’m an eclectic. I take good ideas from anywhere. I don’t care if it’s from a religion or a secular philosopher. Hence that's why I say that I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. If I don’t believe in all tenets of a religion I don’t have to throw good things away that a religion supports.
BTW some people have been better off with religion. It's great you or I don't need it but others may. Wisdom is wisdom. I don't care where it comes from or how old it is as long as it's still useful.
OH yeah, I totally want to use the word fundie because it makes me feel good. Or not, as you just put YOUR words in MY mouth.
Hello kettle, meet pot.
You are right in thinking I'm not trying to understand you, I gave up on that after a couple of your posts ages ago. I don't think I will ever understand you, and the same can be said vice versa. The only difference is that you still claim you understand everyone and everything, you even misinterpret people's post(see the original post of this thread) and claim it's like you see it.
Ofcourse some people are better off with religion, that's why religion was created in the first place. To give people hope and to teach people proper values. But that doesn't mean it has to be shoved down everyone's throat. We know so much more know than we did then, and I have a right to choose whether I want religion or not. Just as much as everyone else has the right to choose whether they want it or not. And of course wisdom is good. But it's not good when people are using facts from a 2000 year old book as the absolute truth when in the modern days they've already been proven wrong or outdated. I'm fine with religious people, I even have a lot of religious friends. It's just the point where people start taking it WAY too literally and try to shove it down my throat I have a problem with.
That said, I'm sure you'll find a nice way to respond to this in your own twisted way. I'm quite sure nothing will be solved here because it's a pointless discussion no side is going to 'win' here. I'm out. Have fun with this thread bro.
First of all, the "institution" still exists. Religion is everywhere. The vast majority of Americans associate themselves with a religion. Your phrasing implies that religion has just disappeared. It hasn't at all. Something like, what 15% of Americans are atheist? That's not a huge number.
Second, your entire argument is based around the idea that religion provides something that atheism and agnosticism cannot. This is the idea I disagree with the most. Why? Because it's complete bullshit. There's no proof of this. At all. This is just you making shit up.
Third, you act as if religion could make up for bad parenting. I'd argue that a child's upbringing is much, much more influential on children than religious belief.
You've very convoluted in this discussion... I gotta bail or you'll start doing those page long responses that never answer the questions.