Religulous!

[AggieTool]

Coming to a theater near you!:eek:

Not a big Maher fan, since he's a jerk, but this looks interesting.:rolleyes:

BTW, Who knew he used to bump uglies with Ann Coulter?:(

http://www.lionsgate.com/religulous/

[Jerk]

I'm waiting for American Carol, myself.

Anyone want to make a bet on which movie will do better?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Maher is sort of a pissa*t, like Al Franken and Keith Overbite. I'm looking forward to "American Carol", too.

[AggieTool]

I'm waiting for American Carol, myself.

Anyone want to make a bet on which movie will do better?


Neocons will love American Carol and hate Religulous, and vice-versa for Libs.

Intelligent people will enjoy both.:P

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Neocons will love American Carol and hate Religulous, and vice-versa for Libs.

Intelligent people will enjoy both.:PYeah, those types just can't get enough of that humor based upon lies, which is quite the hilarious!

[AggieTool]

Yeah, those types just can't get enough of that humor based upon lies, which is quite the hilarious!

And what lies would that be?:confused:

[JohnnyMack]

religious people don't like anyone else making fun of their practices. No matter how silly some of the things they do seem. I don't know how well this movie will do, but I'll sure go and see it.

[Okla-homey]

Maher is funny and I watch his show. That said, he thinks people of faith are saps. This film is designed to belittle them. His thesis is rational thought and faith are mutually exclusive. I think he should stick to jokes.

[Boarder]

religious people don't like anyone else making fun of their practices. No matter how silly some of the things they do seem. I don't know how well this movie will do, but I'll sure go and see it.
Much the same as a non-religious person does not like being told they will have to pay whatever punishment that a particular religion prescribes simply for not practicing that religion.

The difference is that some who is religious is being told that basically they are stupid where most of the time the non-religious are being told something will happen to them that they don't believe in the first place. Which is worse?

[JohnnyMack]

Much the same as a non-religious person does not like being told they will have to pay whatever punishment that a particular religion prescribes simply for not practicing that religion.

The difference is that some who is religious is being told that basically they are stupid where most of the time the non-religious are being told something will happen to them that they don't believe in the first place. Which is worse?

So if you follow religion A, do you think anyone who follows religion B, C, D, etc is stupid? Or just misinformed?

[StoopTroup]

So if you follow religion A, do you think anyone who follows religion B, C, D, etc is stupid? Or just misinformed?

E

[JohnnyMack]

E

Why do you hate Xenu?

[AggieTool]

Blind faith rawks!:P

[StoopTroup]

Why do you hate Xenu?

F?

[Boarder]

So if you follow religion A, do you think anyone who follows religion B, C, D, etc is stupid? Or just misinformed?
None of the above. If anything, religion A would have pity on the others. Or, perhaps religion A just thinks the others will have to face the punishment of said religion A for not partaking.

The difference is that non-religion thinks A, B, C, and D are stupid which seems to me to be vastly more offensive.

[Boarder]

Misinformed is a possibility but the more likely feeling is that they (non-religion) just have chosen to not practice for some reason, not necessarily intelligence.

[Rogue]

I think it looks good.

[Penguin]

Oh, he's just looking for proof that there is a God. My favorite argument is one that I heard from my parents a long time ago:

Prove to me that the shortest distance between 2 points is a line. "It just is" or "It's a fact because it's in this book" or "You're just stupid if you don't believe it" are not good arguments. So, if you think about going down the eliminate-the-other-possibilities option, consider this: There are infinite ways to get between two points. You cannot possibly list and disprove each and every possibility. You have faith that a line is the shortest distance between 2 points. There's just no possible way it could be any different.

Same thing when proving or disproving the existence of God. An atheist cannot possibly prove to me that there is no God, just like I can't possibly prove to you that a line is not the shortest distance between two points.

[AggieTool]

Oh, he's just looking for proof that there is a God. My favorite argument is one that I heard from my parents a long time ago:

Prove to me that the shortest distance between 2 points is a line. "It just is" or "It's a fact because it's in this book" or "You're just stupid if you don't believe it" are not good arguments. So, if you think about going down the eliminate-the-other-possibilities option, consider this: There are infinite ways to get between two points. You cannot possibly list and disprove each and every possibility. You have faith that a line is the shortest distance between 2 points. There's just no possible way it could be any different.

Same thing when proving or disproving the existence of God. An atheist cannot possibly prove to me that there is no God, just like I can't possibly prove to you that a line is not the shortest distance between two points.

Difference is, what's put into the gap of knowledge.

Atheists tend to rely on reality as observed directly or through the scientific method.

The "faithful" plug in whatever indoctrination they were raised with, regardless of how improbable or unprovable it is.

That's why we have nuts blowing themselves and others up in truck bombs. (Note I didn't specify a religion since many have done this....even here in the U.S.).

[Vaevictis]

You realize that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line has indeed been proven, right?

[Penguin]

You realize that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line has indeed been proven, right?


I'm happy that you can believe in something. You must have pretty low standards of what you consider "proof."

[BigRedJed]

There is a possibility that the shortest distance between two points involves a wormhole or teleportation, or some sort of dimensional warping, I guess. But I haven't seen it done, therefore I believe in none of it.

[Vaevictis]

I'm happy that you can believe in something. You must have pretty low standards of what you consider "proof."

No, I just know a little something about mathematics.

[BigRedJed]

Wait... ...was that pro-religion or anti-religion?

[BigRedJed]

:les: TIMING RUINER!!!

[Vaevictis]

There is a possibility that the shortest distance between two points involves a wormhole or teleportation, or some sort of dimensional warping, I guess. But I haven't seen it done, therefore I believe in none of it.

In the case of teleportation, you're not traversing space, and hence there is no 'distance' involved.

Wormholes are something else, and don't exist in geometries to which the straight line law applies. According to my understanding, anyway.

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm happy that you can believe in something. You must have pretty low standards of what you consider "proof."

http://www.instant-analysis.com/Principles/straightline.htm

Or perhaps he understands what "proof" actually means.

The axiom that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points is only valid for Euclidean geometry, by the way. Nobody makes that claim for NEG, though it is generally true.

Regardless, this is a silly analogy.

[BigRedJed]

http://www.ugo.com/movies/dont-sweat-it/movies/images/revenge-of-the-nerds.jpg

[Vaevictis]

http://www.instant-analysis.com/Principles/straightline.htm

That guy makes it much harder than it needs to be. The triangle inequality approach -- or the generalized Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for {R^n, n>2} -- is much easier.

[BigRedJed]

http://www.austintown.k12.oh.us/~aust_tr/homework/quickfiles/Cartoons/math%20nerd%20on%20beach.bmp

[Rogue]

Jed, even with your uber-mod powers of posting back-to-back-top-back posts in one minute, your timing is always getting ruined. You're not very good at the innerwebs, are you? ;)

[BigRedJed]

I mostly just suck at quoting. As in, I'm too lazy to do it.

[Penguin]

Regardless, this is a silly analogy.


The point is that at some point in your life, you witnessed an event, or you read a book, or you heard from a person that you admire or respect and it was revealed to you that a line is the shortest distance between two points. Your belief is unshaken from that point on. You can find reason after reason after reason to support your belief. You don't even consider it a "belief" anymore. You consider it a fact and doubters be damned! Nothing I can say or show you will make you change your mind. That is belief. That is faith.


Same with people who believe in God. At some point, a believer was told about God, maybe from witnessing an event, maybe from reading a book, or maybe from talking to a respected person. There is nothing that you or anybody here can say or show that will change anyone's belief.


That's what amazes me the most. We all have faith. Whether it's blind faith in science, or faith in a power greater than all of us combined.

Atheists (I'm assuming Maher is an atheist?) seem to have no grasp of faith. The thing is, we all believe in something. We all have faith.

[Vaevictis]

Except you don't have to take the shortest distance is a straight line axiom on faith. It can be and has been proven.

I'm not saying that your underlying point is invalid, just that your analogy is the pits and is rather compromising in terms of your credibility. Get a better one.

[Rogue]

Maher was raised Catholic.

[BigRedJed]

:les: WHAT ABOUT DIMENSIONAL WARPING??!?

[BigRedJed]

:les: TIMING RUINER!!!

[Vaevictis]

:les: WHAT ABOUT DIMENSIONAL WARPING??!?

Dimensional warping cannot occur in geometries to which the straight line axiom applies.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

YOU GUYS FORGOT THERE'S A ROCK IN THE WAY LOL HAHA OMG WTF

[BigRedJed]

Dimensional warping cannot occur in geometries to which the straight line axiom applies.
You're just falling back on your medieval mathematics and superstitions, now.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Unwashed heathens.

George "Sulu" Takei is a pillowbiter and even HE can work a "wormhole".

[Penguin]

I'm not saying that your underlying point is invalid, just that your analogy is the pits and is rather compromising in terms of your credibility. Get a better one.


OK. Follow this, Mr. Science Guy.


It is a known FACT that I was born 100% deaf in my left ear. It is a known FACT that at the age of 8 at a religious retreat, I experienced an extremely sharp pain in my left ear. It is a known FACT that I have been able to hear in my left ear after that event. It is a known FACT that no doctor has EVER been able to explain it without using the word "MIRACLE."


It is also a known FACT that you have zero credibility when it comes to religion. I seriously feel sorry for you if you do not believe in a higher power. A world where no God and no miracles exist must be extremely depressing. There would be no purpose to life.

[AggieTool]

OK. Follow this, Mr. Science Guy.


It is a known FACT that I was born 100% deaf in my left ear. It is a known FACT that at the age of 8 at a religious retreat, I experienced an extremely sharp pain in my left ear. It is a known FACT that I have been able to hear in my left ear after that event. It is a known FACT that no doctor has EVER been able to explain it without using the word "MIRACLE."


It is also a known FACT that you have zero credibility when it comes to religion. I seriously feel sorry for you if you do not believe in a higher power. A world where no God and no miracles exist must be extremely depressing. There would be no purpose to life.

But what is not a FACT is that an invisible sky God that rode dinosaurs had anything to do with your sudden fortune.;)

[sooneron]

I'm trying to figure out which is more condescending. People that feel smarter because they think they have it all figured out and don't believe in a God or people that pity people because they don't think like they do or are not as spiritually enlightened as them.

I do agree with Homey. Maher can be funny, BUT his seeming vendetta against those that are religious is tiresome and petty. And I am pretty much in the non-believer camp.

[AggieTool]

I'm trying to figure out which is more condescending. People that feel smarter because they think they have it all figured out and don't believe in a God or people that pity people because they don't think like they do or are not as spiritually enlightened as them.

I do agree with Homey. Maher can be funny, BUT his seeming vendetta against those that are religious is tiresome and petty. And I am pretty much in the non-believer camp.

Meh, Can't argue that.:)

:)

[Boarder]

people that pity people because they don't think like they do or are not as spiritually enlightened as them.

How can that possibly be condescending? Take this, for example: The Kaeori tribe of Papa New Guinea believe in a nature God. If they do not make sacrifices weekly they will not get to be in the realm of the nature God when they die. Anyone not from the island, which is said to be sacred and above all others in the world, have no chance of getting to that afterlife. When outsiders die, they are sent to darkness forever. Although the Kaeori tribesmen are grateful for their good fortune in being born on the island, they do feel sorry for the visitors who have no chance of having a good afterlife.

Now, do you think they are condescending for feeling sorry for us, as Americans, because we have no chance of being with the Papa New Guinea nature God? We are damned to darkness because we were not born on that island. Does that bother you?

If it doesn't, and I bet it doesn't because you're not worried about nature God worshiping islanders, then does that not show that the idea of religious exclusivism is not, in itself, condescending or arrogant? It is only when you, as a victim of the wrath, do not like the punishment that you are believed to have coming that it becomes bad and offensive. If you don't believe in the consequences why would the supposed consequences or the feelings of pity because of you being dealt the consequences be a problem?

[Vaevictis]

It is a known FACT that I was born 100% deaf in my left ear. It is a known FACT that at the age of 8 at a religious retreat, I experienced an extremely sharp pain in my left ear. It is a known FACT that I have been able to hear in my left ear after that event. It is a known FACT that no doctor has EVER been able to explain it without using the word "MIRACLE."

Let's deconstruct that, shall we? Your doctors are ignorant of what the cause was. So, naturally, we're going to ascribe it to a higher power.

Following your logic, we conclude ignorance leads to belief in a higher power. AWESOME.

Was that what you were trying to communicate, or did you intend something else?


It is also a known FACT that you have zero credibility when it comes to religion. I seriously feel sorry for you if you do not believe in a higher power. A world where no God and no miracles exist must be extremely depressing. There would be no purpose to life.

It's okay. I feel sorry for you in that you know less about mathematics than an 8th grader who just took geometry, and likewise that you clearly are confused about what a fact actually is.

But, like I don't sweat your opinion of me, I assume you won't sweat my opinion of you.

Chill dude. I wasn't (initially) attacking you, just pointing out that when it comes to your mathematical analogy, you don't know what the **** you're talking about, and maybe you might want to adjust it so you don't look like a ****ing idiot every time you use it.

[AggieTool]

Let's deconstruct that, shall we? Your doctors are ignorant of what the cause was. So, naturally, we're going to ascribe it to a higher power.

Following your logic, we conclude ignorance leads to belief in a higher power. AWESOME.

Was that what you were trying to communicate, or did you intend something else?



It's okay. I feel sorry for you in that you know less about mathematics than an 8th grader who just took geometry, and likewise that you clearly are confused about what a fact actually is.

But, like I don't sweat your opinion of me, I assume you won't sweat my opinion of you.

Chill dude. I wasn't (initially) attacking you, just pointing out that when it comes to your mathematical analogy, you don't know what the **** you're talking about, and maybe you might want to adjust it so you don't look like a ****ing idiot every time you use it.

Now we're getting to the part where we all act like Christians.:D

[Vaevictis]

Now, do you think they are condescending for feeling sorry for us, as Americans, because we have no chance of being with the Papa New Guinea nature God? We are damned to darkness because we were not born on that island. Does that bother you?

There can be condescension in the communication of that pity, however.

See my above post regarding why I pity Penguin for a working example. ;)

[Boarder]

I don't deny that whatsoever. I just contend that pity, or religious exclusivism in itself is not condescending or arrogant. It must be presented in a certain way to be so.

And, if pity was communicated in a way in which it would be condescending, I don't feel it's actual pity at all. It's more of a smug feeling that the pitier has of his own superiority.

[Boarder]

I never addressed the original question...

I think the movie looks funny and I'll probably see it. I may not see it at the movies since I just don't get to go to the movies without kids much and if I did I'd probably see something else first. However, I'm not going to "boycott" it by any means.

[JohnnyMack]

Misinformed is a possibility but the more likely feeling is that they (non-religion) just have chosen to not practice for some reason, not necessarily intelligence.

I was raised in a Christian church. Went to it until I was about 14. Made a personal choice that while many of the actual teachings of a man named Jesus were good ways someone could live a life, I didn't and still don't believe in the whole Bible. Too many similarities between other monotheistic religions that were developed in that region in that period (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam) for it to be anything more than just another road map. I've said it before and I'll say it again; I am the son of God. We all are.

Spirituality is a very personal, very introspective journey in my mind. While I don't begrudge those who choose to believe I have in fact come to a series of conclusions based on the information I've seen and have decided that organized religion of any sort isn't for me. I don't think it's a lack of intelligence or that it was born out of any sort of laziness or apathy on my part. Quite the opposite in fact.

And for those who say they pity the nonbelievers, I have to assure you that I don't want your pity, for I see eternity when I look into my son's eyes.

[Boarder]

I was raised in a Christian church. Went to it until I was about 14. Made a personal choice that while many of the actual teachings of a man named Jesus were good ways someone could live a life, I didn't and still don't believe in the whole Bible. Too many similarities between other monotheistic religions that were developed in that region in that period (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam) for it to be anything more than just another road map. I've said it before and I'll say it again; I am the son of God. We all are.

Spirituality is a very personal, very introspective journey in my mind. While I don't begrudge those who choose to believe I have in fact come to a series of conclusions based on the information I've seen and have decided that organized religion of any sort isn't for me. I don't think it's a lack of intelligence or that it was born out of any sort of laziness or apathy on my part. Quite the opposite in fact.

And for those who say they pity the nonbelievers, I have to assure you that I don't want your pity, for I see eternity when I look into my son's eyes.
See, that's absolutely fine. You've chosen to believe what you want and there's nothing wrong with that. You have a tone by saying "I don't want your pity" that is defensive without even thinking about it.

When I refer to pity, it's more of a sadness that the "pityee" (if that's a word :D) will not only not reap the eternal rewards of the particular religion but will face whatever consequences. It's not a Nelsonian "HA HA" that they'll be punished. And whether or not someone wants or does not want the pity shouldn't even be factored in. If someone thinks you'll be punished in some way you don't believe exists and truly feels sad about it, where's the harm or foul? That harm or foul can only be there if it is relayed in a manner that demands it. Does it bother you that the Kaeori tribe believe that you will spend eternity in darkness?

And, when you say this, "I don't think it's a lack of intelligence or that it was born out of any sort of laziness or apathy on my part. Quite the opposite in fact." of course you wouldn't think your own decision is, for lack of a better word, stupid. But, there are plenty of atheists who do think that. That does sound generalizing and I can see where some atheists would have a pity of theists for their beliefs but I would argue that that's born of a feeling that the theists beliefs are uneducated, unscientific, and again for lack of a better word, stupid.

[JohnnyMack]

Does it bother you that the Kaeori tribe believe that you will spend eternity in darkness?

Naw. So did my 9th grade English teacher.

[sooneron]

I don't deny that whatsoever. I just contend that pity, or religious exclusivism in itself is not condescending or arrogant. It must be presented in a certain way to be so.

And, if pity was communicated in a way in which it would be condescending, I don't feel it's actual pity at all. It's more of a smug feeling that the pitier has of his own superiority.

The second part is mostly what I hear, on this board and elsewhere.

[Boarder]

Which brings me to my point, it's not the game, it's the player. If people on both sides of the argument would have different demeanors there would not be as much contempt. i feel that the problem is more easily remedied on the theist to atheist pity side since the idea is based on compassion. The atheist to theist attitude seems based more upon a feeling of superiority (or to be more precise a mental inferiority of the theist).

Bottom line, the theist must do a better job of relaying any pity especially since they're starting in a hole perceptionwise. Not the game, it's the player.

[Penguin]

Sorry, guys. I broke rule number one. Cue the picture of a Special Olympian with the caption "arguing on the internet is like...." blah blah blah. :D

[soonervegas]

Count me in a fan of Maher and someone who believes there is a God. I think Maher gets off on the ignorance that some people display when it comes to taking what their preacher and/or god fearing republican congressman says over fact. My great grandmother for example....Maher would have a field day with her.

She was telling us yesterday how in Obama's biography he states that if it comes down to choosing Christians or Muslims...he will choose Muslims. I asked her where she heard that and she stated...someone gave me an excerpt from the book. I asked her if she read the book she replied, "No."

This is a woman that will be voting for president largely based on this kind of mis-information because of what she has heard from her friends up at church. Truly Religulous.

[C&CDean]

I was raised in a Christian church. Went to it until I was about 14. Made a personal choice that while many of the actual teachings of a man named Jesus were good ways someone could live a life, I didn't and still don't believe in the whole Bible. Too many similarities between other monotheistic religions that were developed in that region in that period (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam) for it to be anything more than just another road map. I've said it before and I'll say it again; I am the son of God. We all are.

Spirituality is a very personal, very introspective journey in my mind. While I don't begrudge those who choose to believe I have in fact come to a series of conclusions based on the information I've seen and have decided that organized religion of any sort isn't for me. I don't think it's a lack of intelligence or that it was born out of any sort of laziness or apathy on my part. Quite the opposite in fact.

And for those who say they pity the nonbelievers, I have to assure you that I don't want your pity, for I see eternity when I look into my son's eyes.

Very cogent JM. And very close to what I believe. The only difference is I do not denounce God/religion and do not think I've got it all figured out. Hell man, the New Guinea savages may be the only ones who are right here. We simply do not know.

That being said, I do pray daily and attempt to live my life in a "christian" manner. Yes, I fail miserably, but I try. I just don't believe belonging to any organized religion gets a person anywhere closer to God/heaven/whatever is out there.

I've said it a thousand times, sitting a deer stand, or walking through the woods, or scuba diving in the Caribbean, watching a new calf being born, witnessing the birth of you children, or just sitting on the porch watching the world go by makes me feel more "religious" than I've ever felt in a church house. I just don't buy the whole "fellowship with other christians" thing having to take place up at the church. I've simply seen way too much hypocrisy, greed, cheating, etc. from "religious" folks.

All that being said, I won't watch the POS movie, and I won't be party to bashing anyone's religion of choice. It's personal like you said.

[Vaevictis]

Just for laughs.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20080515.gif

[sooneron]

Which brings me to my point, it's not the game, it's the player. If people on both sides of the argument would have different demeanors there would not be as much contempt. i feel that the problem is more easily remedied on the theist to atheist pity side since the idea is based on compassion. The atheist to theist attitude seems based more upon a feeling of superiority (or to be more precise a mental inferiority of the theist).

Bottom line, the theist must do a better job of relaying any pity especially since they're starting in a hole perceptionwise. Not the game, it's the player.

I never claimed it was the game. The game can be picked apart ad nauseum, and it has been here. I was referring to the players, which, especially in the case of christianity and "getting the word out" is a large part of the game.
Holiness is great and fine until you add in the human element.

:cool:

[47straight]

Count me in a fan of Maher and someone who believes there is a God. I think Maher gets off on the ignorance that some people display when it comes to taking what their preacher and/or god fearing republican congressman says over fact. My great grandmother for example....Maher would have a field day with her.

She was telling us yesterday how in Obama's biography he states that if it comes down to choosing Christians or Muslims...he will choose Muslims. I asked her where she heard that and she stated...someone gave me an excerpt from the book. I asked her if she read the book she replied, "No."

This is a woman that will be voting for president largely based on this kind of mis-information because of what she has heard from her friends up at church. Truly Religulous.


Strange that you disdain ignorance in some anonymous schmoe but are a "fan" of it in someone who is college-educated and has a whole staff of researchers and writers.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I hate religion..

Oh, I don't find Maher funny so I won't be watching

[OUMallen]

I don't like Maher, but I think I will like this film.

[soonervegas]

Strange that you disdain ignorance in some anonymous schmoe but are a "fan" of it in someone who is college-educated and has a whole staff of researchers and writers.


His profession is a comedian. I think he is funny.

on the other hand....

My great-grandmother voting based on a rumor = not so funny.

[47straight]

His profession is a comedian. I think he is funny.

on the other hand....

My great-grandmother voting based on a rumor = not so funny.

I get it now. It's ok to be ignorant, spread rumors and hate as long as you're "funny" while you're doing it. But accepting such a rumor is not funny.


I'll have to dream up some jokes of my own then!

[AggieTool]

Count me in a fan of Maher and someone who believes there is a God. I think Maher gets off on the ignorance that some people display when it comes to taking what their preacher and/or god fearing republican congressman says over fact. My great grandmother for example....Maher would have a field day with her.

She was telling us yesterday how in Obama's biography he states that if it comes down to choosing Christians or Muslims...he will choose Muslims. I asked her where she heard that and she stated...someone gave me an excerpt from the book. I asked her if she read the book she replied, "No."

This is a woman that will be voting for president largely based on this kind of mis-information because of what she has heard from her friends up at church. Truly Religulous.

That is a big problem with both camps.

With all the blogs and emails flying around, it's no wonder folks shape their perceptions of candidates based on half-truths and misinformation.

What I think is even more religulous, is how some folks who call themselves "Christians", claim to know so much about their god and what "he" desires just because a preacher told them, or a book that has been reprinted for 2000 years said so.

Some even learn to capitalize on ignorant blind faith and start mega-churches that pour millions into the preacher's pocket. (And then the preacher behaves very un-Christian like in his personal life).:(

[C&CDean]

That is a big problem with both camps.

With all the blogs and emails flying around, it's no wonder folks shape their perceptions of candidates based on half-truths and misinformation.

What I think is even more religulous, is how some folks who call themselves "Christians", claim to know so much about their god and what "he" desires just because a preacher told them, or a book that has been reprinted for 2000 years said so.

Some even learn to capitalize on ignorant blind faith and start mega-churches that pour millions into the preacher's pocket. (And then the preacher behaves very un-Christian like in his personal life).:(

I think you're an aggie tool, but I can't disagree a whole lot with what you've said here. Especially the rock & roll churches sucking in brazillions of $$. If it smells like a fish, it probably is.

[Fraggle145]

Which brings me to my point, it's not the game, it's the player. If people on both sides of the argument would have different demeanors there would not be as much contempt. i feel that the problem is more easily remedied on the theist to atheist pity side since the idea is based on compassion. The atheist to theist attitude seems based more upon a feeling of superiority (or to be more precise a mental inferiority of the theist).

Bottom line, the theist must do a better job of relaying any pity especially since they're starting in a hole perceptionwise. Not the game, it's the player.

IMO the theist would be best served to keep their pity to themselves. What I mean by that is if you want to pity me for being an atheist that is fine, you just dont have to share that fact with me. Because like it or not it always comes off as condescending in that it is basically a statement of I'm right and you are wrong. I know that isnt always what is meant, but it comes across that way... as smug like you said earlier.

I think part of the atheist attitude of superiority is at least in part to always being told how wrong they are and how much pity everyone has for them. Hence, we tend to get defensive and since we feel we are being insulted we can come back with some pretty insulting stuff ourselves. I'm not saying its right at all, but i think it plays a significant role in it. However, I think that if religious beliefs blind someone to the way that things are happening or have happened in the world (i.e., if they are facts) then I dont think it is wrong to say that is incorrect.

I also think mostly we just want to be left alone about the whole thing and since we dont believe in a deity we get tired of being told there is one and that we have to do things as a society because a god wants it that way.

I understand that is part of the whole religious deal, to spread the word, but many of us have heard that word before and have come to our beliefs through careful thought the same way many religious people have.

I think like JM and Dean have said faith is a personal thing.

I will probably watch the movie and laugh. But i think the point of this movie is to bring up some of the things that are found in some religions that at least to me dont make any sense.

[Okla-homey]

IMO the theist would be best served to keep their pity to themselves. What I mean by that is if you want to pity me for being an atheist that is fine, you just dont have to share that fact with me. Because like it or not it always comes off as condescending in that it is basically a statement of I'm right and you are wrong. I know that isnt always what is meant, but it comes across that way... as smug like you said earlier.

I think part of the atheist attitude of superiority is at least in part to always being told how wrong they are and how much pity everyone has for them. Hence, we tend to get defensive and since we feel we are being insulted we can come back with some pretty insulting stuff ourselves. I'm not saying its right at all, but i think it plays a significant role in it. However, I think that if religious beliefs blind someone to the way that things are happening or have happened in the world (i.e., if they are facts) then I dont think it is wrong to say that is incorrect.

I also think mostly we just want to be left alone about the whole thing and since we dont believe in a deity we get tired of being told there is one and that we have to do things as a society because a god wants it that way.

I understand that is part of the whole religious deal, to spread the word, but many of us have heard that word before and have come to our beliefs through careful thought the same way many religious people have.

I think like JM and Dean have said faith is a personal thing.

I will probably watch the movie and laugh. But i think the point of this movie is to bring up some of the things that are found in some religions that at least to me dont make any sense.

I feel ya. srsly. I would only add that you should understand that millions of folks in this country have been raised as evangelical Christians who consider it a sacred duty to lead people to Christ per a fair reading of virtually the entire New Testament.

Of course, you probably don't need me to tell you that.

The thing is though, that desire to lead people to the One who millions of us believe is our Lord and Savior arises also out of genuine concern for folks' immortal souls. Thus, in a very real sense, most folks aren't evangelizing to pester, they are doing so out of love. At least the scripturally motivated ones.

On behalf of the pestering and/or improperly motivated ones, I, a cradle Evangelical Christian apologize. But I must add, I will never apologize on behalf of anyone earnestly, sincerely, peacefully and respectfully going about the Sacred Work.

[Fraggle145]

I feel ya. srsly. I would only add that you should understand that millions of folks in this country have been raised as evangelical Christians who consider it a sacred duty to lead people to Christ per a fair reading of virtually the entire New Testament.

Of course, you probably don't need me to tell you that.

The thing is though, that desire to lead people to the One who millions of us believe is our Lord and Savior arises also out of genuine concern for folks' immortal souls. Thus, in a very real sense, most folks aren't evangelizing to pester, they are doing so out of love. At least the scripturally motivated ones.

On behalf of the pestering and/or improperly motivated ones, I, a cradle Evangelical Christian apologize. But I must add, I will never apologize on behalf of anyone earnestly, sincerely, peacefully and respectfully going about the Sacred Work.

Right, I understand the New Testament, and I dont want to keep anyone from doing what they believe (well unless it is really dumb or hurts people) and I totally get that it is out of love, at least for people who truly understand their faith. And thanks, I do really appreciate the apology for the weird ones.

The thing I have realized about people that actually understand their beliefs and the weird ones is that the knowledgeable ones will respect differences of opinion on faith issues, be able to listen when someone says thanks, but its not for me, and are able to see how one side or the other can feel about the issue.

:D

[LosAngelesSooner]

How can that possibly be condescending? Take this, for example: The Kaeori tribe of Papa New Guinea believe in a nature God. If they do not make sacrifices weekly they will not get to be in the realm of the nature God when they die. Anyone not from the island, which is said to be sacred and above all others in the world, have no chance of getting to that afterlife. When outsiders die, they are sent to darkness forever. Although the Kaeori tribesmen are grateful for their good fortune in being born on the island, they do feel sorry for the visitors who have no chance of having a good afterlife.

Now, do you think they are condescending for feeling sorry for us, as Americans, because we have no chance of being with the Papa New Guinea nature God? We are damned to darkness because we were not born on that island. Does that bother you?

If it doesn't, and I bet it doesn't because you're not worried about nature God worshiping islanders, then does that not show that the idea of religious exclusivism is not, in itself, condescending or arrogant? It is only when you, as a victim of the wrath, do not like the punishment that you are believed to have coming that it becomes bad and offensive. If you don't believe in the consequences why would the supposed consequences or the feelings of pity because of you being dealt the consequences be a problem?How many Kaeorian Tribesmen knock on your door or broadcast via television and radio in an effort to save you? :rolleyes:

;)

[47straight]

IMO the theist would be best served to keep their pity to themselves. What I mean by that is if you want to pity me for being an atheist that is fine, you just dont have to share that fact with me. Because like it or not it always comes off as condescending in that it is basically a statement of I'm right and you are wrong. I know that isnt always what is meant, but it comes across that way... as smug like you said earlier.

I think part of the atheist attitude of superiority is at least in part to always being told how wrong they are and how much pity everyone has for them. Hence, we tend to get defensive and since we feel we are being insulted we can come back with some pretty insulting stuff ourselves. I'm not saying its right at all, but i think it plays a significant role in it. However, I think that if religious beliefs blind someone to the way that things are happening or have happened in the world (i.e., if they are facts) then I dont think it is wrong to say that is incorrect.

I also think mostly we just want to be left alone about the whole thing and since we dont believe in a deity we get tired of being told there is one and that we have to do things as a society because a god wants it that way.



Thanks Fraggle. This is one of those times that I'll just shut up and listen.

[Boarder]

IMO the theist would be best served to keep their pity to themselves. What I mean by that is if you want to pity me for being an atheist that is fine, you just dont have to share that fact with me. Because like it or not it always comes off as condescending in that it is basically a statement of I'm right and you are wrong. I know that isnt always what is meant, but it comes across that way... as smug like you said earlier.



The thing I have realized about people that actually understand their beliefs and the weird ones is that the knowledgeable ones will respect differences of opinion on faith issues, be able to listen when someone says thanks, but its not for me, and are able to see how one side or the other can feel about the issue.


So, which one is it? In your first quote it always comes off as condescending. In the second quote it's ok as long as there is respect for the other person's personal beliefs even if they don't agree. So will you agree it's not the pity, it's the manner in which it is presented? As I argued before, if it's presented smugly I would say it is leaning away from actual pity and more to the superiority.



I think part of the atheist attitude of superiority is at least in part to always being told how wrong they are and how much pity everyone has for them. Hence, we tend to get defensive and since we feel we are being insulted we can come back with some pretty insulting stuff ourselves. I'm not saying its right at all, but i think it plays a significant role in it. However, I think that if religious beliefs blind someone to the way that things are happening or have happened in the world (i.e., if they are facts) then I dont think it is wrong to say that is incorrect.

So what you're saying is that your feeling of superiority is there because you know you're right even though you technically can't prove the other one is wrong? You (or me or anyone else) are not able to disprove the Kaeori tribesman wrong. There's probably a lot of evidence against it, but no proof. If someone presents you with something in an insulting way of course you'd have a reason to respond in the like manner. But, you're on the defensive to start. (by "you" I mean atheists in general). You assume that every theist is a fundamentalist Christian unwilling to even entertain your thoughts. That is doing just what infuriates you about the theist. That sound fair? As you've already mentioned in your previous quote, as long as the theist can respect your thought and more or less agree to disagree in a civil manner it's ok. Is this true?

[AggieTool]

I think you're an aggie tool, but I can't disagree a whole lot with what you've said here. Especially the rock & roll churches sucking in brazillions of $$. If it smells like a fish, it probably is.

'Cuz everyone knows God don't be listnin' to no rock-n-roll.:mad:

[Boarder]

And you do realize that I'm not arguing on one side of the theist/atheist argument, right? I'm merely making these propositions:
Religious exclusivity is not, in itself, a negative or arrogant thing.
It can be, but must be presented in that way by the individuals to be that way.
Of the two, atheists have the more condescending attitude since the basis of the theist attitude is a care for the other side and the basis of the atheist attitude is merely thinking the other side is unintelligent.

[Vaevictis]

Is it even possible to communicate pity like that without it being taken as condescension?

Is it reasonable to communicate pity like that and expect that it won't be taken as condescension?

I say: Don't communicate the pity. Keep it to yourself. Make yourself available, set a good example, and if the person is meant to come to Jesus, s/he will.

Communicating pity like that usually makes unbelievers dig in stronger against the idea of conversion. It's not constructive. Don't do it. If your calling is to convert, you're failing it by communicating that pity. (imo)

[Boarder]

That's a great question. IS it possible to communicate it? What would be an example?

How about if, as you say, you let your life be an example. You get to know someone first and form a relationship. Then, after everyone is comfortable with each other the feelings are made known. Would that matter? I'd say it would still rest upon how it was communicated but would stand a much better chance than if, for example, you stood on a street corner and held a sign that said, "I truly feel sorry for xxxxx" with xxxx being the other side of your argument.


I'm writing a paper on this, btw. That's my ulterior motive.

[Okla-homey]

The thing I have realized about people that actually understand their beliefs and the weird ones is that the knowledgeable ones will respect differences of opinion on faith issues, be able to listen when someone says thanks, but its not for me, and are able to see how one side or the other can feel about the issue.

:D

And that my friend, is the central scriptural truth lost on those who attempt to bludgeon the unconverted. Christ doesn't want people to come to Him out of fear or shame. I believe He wants people to come to Him so He can make their burdens lighter, their lives richer and to free them from a death sentence. If a person only goes through the motions out of fear or because of threats, the purported evangelism hasn't actually accomplished anything. In the end, acceptance of Christ must be a completely voluntary act. On a related note, those who try too hard to evangelize folks run the very real risk of alienating them and making the ground even rockier than it was before.

[MrJimBeam]

I believe in God.

If I'm wrong and there is no God, when I die I won't know or care.

I would rather live my life as a Christian and be wrong in the end than live my life as a non-believer and be wrong. The end result for either mistake is not equal.

[AggieTool]

Of the two, atheists have the more condescending attitude since the basis of the theist attitude is a care for the other side

Really? As long as we're not talking about the theist that fly planes into buildings or molest little boys right?:(



and the basis of the atheist attitude is merely thinking the other side is unintelligent.

Atheists only think theist are unintelligent when they try to teach our kids that science is really a trick of the devil and an invisible sky god is outraged when we eat meat on Friday.:)

[AggieTool]

I believe in God.

If I'm wrong and there is no God, when I die I won't know or care.

I would rather live my life as a Christian and be wrong in the end than live my life as a non-believer and be wrong. The end result for either mistake is not equal.

Too bad most other self-proclaimed Christians don't live their lives as Christians.;)

[Vaevictis]

I believe in God.

If I'm wrong and there is no God, when I die I won't know or care.

I would rather live my life as a Christian and be wrong in the end than live my life as a non-believer and be wrong. The end result for either mistake is not equal.

Ah, Pascal's Wager. Comes up all the time.

What happens if God only hates Christians?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

What if God doesn't hate anybody? What if God just hangs out, drinking a beer and watching the ballgame, just hoping you'll return his call because he made that bitchin' guacamole dip and it needs to be eaten because even with a lil' lemon juice, it'll get funky after a couple of days in the fridge?

He even has DVR, and I bet if you asked nice and humble, he'd rewind the game so you could catch all of it. He's cool like that.

[JohnnyMack]

Ah, Pascal's Wager. Comes up all the time.

What happens if God only hates Christians?

See I think that as long as I live a good life, which I try hard to do, no matter what happens to me when I die it won't be so bad. I mean I work hard, own my own home, am raising two great kids and am faithful to my wife. That way if I'm wrong I can tell Saint Peter, "look man, I was just working as a spy, a covert agent trying to make sure that your operatives were doing their jobs". Of course if I get reincarnated as a piece of monkey turd I'll have to start reworking my theories.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

What if God doesn't hate anybody? What if God just hangs out, drinking a beer and watching the ballgame, just hoping you'll return his call because he made that bitchin' guacamole dip and it needs to be eaten because even with a lil' lemon juice, it'll get funky after a couple of days in the fridge?

He even has DVR, and I bet if you asked nice and humble, he'd rewind the game so you could catch all of it. He's cool like that.

Do you picture your Jesus wearing a tuxedo T shirt?

[Vaevictis]

What if God doesn't hate anybody? What if God just hangs out, drinking a beer and watching the ballgame, just hoping you'll return his call because he made that bitchin' guacamole dip and it needs to be eaten because even with a lil' lemon juice, it'll get funky after a couple of days in the fridge?

He even has DVR, and I bet if you asked nice and humble, he'd rewind the game so you could catch all of it. He's cool like that.

It could be that way. The point is, it could be all kinds of ways.

Maybe the correct way to ring him up is through some other religion. Maybe when you ring up through Christianity, you get connected to the devil instead. Maybe Christians are right and the only way to make that call is through Christ. Who knows? Not me.

I do know that Pascal's Wager is bunk when you look deeper than just the surface though. :D

[MrJimBeam]

What happens if God only hates Christians?

Well, God doesn't.

[Vaevictis]

Well, God doesn't.

That's your belief, and you're welcome to it. Let's not confuse that with verified fact, however.

I mean, I used to be quite certain of the existence of the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

[JohnnyMack]

I mean, I used to be quite certain of the existence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

What? WTF are you saying?

http://www.catwack.com/pics/655.jpg

[Vaevictis]

And note that at this point, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything other than the bogosity of Pascal's Wager.

It works if you assume that Christianity is the only religion that has a chance to yield heaven. All other cases, it fails to varying degrees.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

DUDE.

Don't be doubtin' the Claus.

[MrJimBeam]

That's your belief, and you're welcome to it. Let's not confuse that with verified fact, however.

I mean, I used to be quite certain of the existence of the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

At least you're not condescending about it.

[Vaevictis]

At least you're not condescending about it.

C'est la vie. Most people think I'm a bit of an *******. It's probably because I am, in fact, a bit of an *******. Or quite a bit. That's very possible too.

I can live with that. :D

[MrJimBeam]

C'est la vie. Most people think I'm a bit of an *******. It's probably because I am, in fact, a bit of an *******. Or quite a bit. That's very possible too.

I can live with that. :D

That's cool man, at least you're conscious of it. Some people go through life completely oblivious to the way they treat others.

[Vaevictis]

I'm also conscious of the fact that lots of folks take more offense to what I say than is intended or warranted, hence why I can live with it.

[Okla-homey]

I'm also conscious of the fact that lots of folks take more offense to what I say than is intended or warranted, hence why I can live with it.

I too take comfort in that notion. But you're still a buttface.;)

[Boarder]

Really? As long as we're not talking about the theist that fly planes into buildings or molest little boys right?:(


That's a great question. Would that theist be one of the ones who started out in pity and turned it to contempt the way he communicated it?

[TMcGee86]

Dear 8lb 6oz baby Jesus, lyin' there in your manger, just lookin' at your Baby Einstein developmental videos, learnin' 'bout shapes and colors. I would like to thank you for bringin' me and my mama together, and also that my kids no longer sound like retarded gang-bangers.

[TMcGee86]

I had a dream where Jesus was a dirty old bum, and I was about to sock him in the face because, well he's a dirty old bum, but then I thought, there's something special about him...

[My Opinion Matters]

My two cents on this topic: ridiculing another person's beliefs will never be anything but childish. If you think derision is an effective debate tactic, congratulations, you're a childish prick.

Unfortunately, for me, there's no way around the semantics. I do pity anyone who is a fanatical atheist. It's not because I worry they're going to miss out on the after-life; it's because I worry they're missing out on this life. I've often wanted to ask those who are so passionate in their belief of not believing what's important to them. Is it their family? Their kids? Laughter? Happiness? Love? I'm sure those are the things that almost everyone-Christian, atheist, none of the above- cherishes about life. Then I want them to utilize the scientific method to explain the intense and unconditional love they feel when they look at their children. The joy you feel when you watch a funny movie or watch OU beat Texas by half-a-hundred. Now prove it to me with science. Re-create it in a labratory. The most important, and I dare say, the most real human experiences are very unscientific. I won't categorically dismiss the possibility that all these uniquely human experiences can be explained by science. Maybe they can be. Maybe the intense love I feel for my little girl is really just a mechanism my brain tricks me with to protect my genes. Maybe laughter is just an evolutionary device designed to help us cope with all the terrible things in the world. What do you want to believe? That's the important part. Whether you're religious or atheist, it still all comes down to what you want to believe. Personally, I'm not ready to concede that all things we believe that make us uniquely human are just nature's tricks. I think almost everyone, self-described atheists included, would agree with that.To me God is no more a myth than love is a myth. They're both impossible to explain, but if you've ever felt either one, you know they're real. More real than anything in any science book or The Holy Bible.

[AggieTool]

My two cents on this topic: ridiculing another person's beliefs will never be anything but childish. If you think derision is an effective debate tactic, congratulations, you're a childish prick.

Unfortunately, for me, there's no way around the semantics. I do pity anyone who is a fanatical atheist. It's not because I worry they're going to miss out on the after-life; it's because I worry they're missing out on this life. I've often wanted to ask those who are so passionate in their belief of not believing what's important to them. Is it their family? Their kids? Laughter? Happiness? Love? I'm sure those are the things that almost everyone-Christian, atheist, none of the above- cherishes about life. Then I want them to utilize the scientific method to explain the intense and unconditional love they feel when they look at their children. The joy you feel when you watch a funny movie or watch OU beat Texas by half-a-hundred. Now prove it to me with science. Re-create it in a labratory. The most important, and I dare say, the most real human experiences are very unscientific. I won't categorically dismiss the possibility that all these uniquely human experiences can be explained by science. Maybe they can be. Maybe the intense love I feel for my little girl is really just a mechanism my brain tricks me with to protect my genes. Maybe laughter is just an evolutionary device designed to help us cope with all the terrible things in the world. What do you want to believe? That's the important part. Whether you're religious or atheist, it still all comes down to what you want to believe. Personally, I'm not ready to concede that all things we believe that make us uniquely human are just nature's tricks. I think almost everyone, self-described atheists included, would agree with that.To me God is no more a myth than love is a myth. They're both impossible to explain, but if you've ever felt either one, you know they're real. More real than anything in any science book or The Holy Bible.

Fanatical atheist.:D

Yeah atheists are just blowing themselves up in droves over NO god.:D

Next thing you know, atheists will start dancing with snakes and speaking in tongues.:D

[LosAngelesSooner]

I believe in God.

If I'm wrong and there is no God, when I die I won't know or care.

I would rather live my life as a Christian and be wrong in the end than live my life as a non-believer and be wrong. The end result for either mistake is not equal.
Funny. I believe that God is all forgiving, so if a person DID live as an atheist I don't believe that God would pass up one final chance to stand in front of the guy at the Pearly Gates and go, "So...do you freakin' believe me NOW?!?!" And point at his chest like the Fonz.

God can kinda handle it. He doesn't need our help.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Funny. I believe that God is all forgiving, so if a person DID live as an atheist I don't believe that God would pass up one final chance to stand in front of the guy at the Pearly Gates and go, "So...do you freakin' believe me NOW?!?!" And point at his chest like the Fonz.


I saw an episode of Family Guy about that!

"Praise be to Fonz!"

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Fanatical atheist.:D

Yeah atheists are just blowing themselves up in droves over NO god.:D

Next thing you know, atheists will start dancing with snakes and speaking in tongues.:D

Or start making movies to disprove something they don't believe is there. Makes logical sense.

[AggieTool]

Or start making movies to disprove something they don't believe is there. Makes logical sense.

Well art IS fanatical.....kinda like science.:D

[Fraggle145]

So, which one is it? In your first quote it always comes off as condescending. In the second quote it's ok as long as there is respect for the other person's personal beliefs even if they don't agree. So will you agree it's not the pity, it's the manner in which it is presented? As I argued before, if it's presented smugly I would say it is leaning away from actual pity and more to the superiority.

The two quotes are presenting different things. The first saying that people should keep their pity to themselves, and the second saying that people that understand when you talk to them about religion should respect one another's beliefs enough to not have to say things to them that they find disrespectful. If your respect includes having to convey to me the point that you pity me, that's not very much respect atleast IMO.



So what you're saying is that your feeling of superiority is there because you know you're right even though you technically can't prove the other one is wrong? You (or me or anyone else) are not able to disprove the Kaeori tribesman wrong. There's probably a lot of evidence against it, but no proof. If someone presents you with something in an insulting way of course you'd have a reason to respond in the like manner. But, you're on the defensive to start. (by "you" I mean atheists in general). You assume that every theist is a fundamentalist Christian unwilling to even entertain your thoughts. That is doing just what infuriates you about the theist. That sound fair? As you've already mentioned in your previous quote, as long as the theist can respect your thought and more or less agree to disagree in a civil manner it's ok. Is this true?

The superiority is in the eye of the beholder, it can be seen on both sides. I think that when the defenses go up both sides tend to get a feeling of superiority over the other. Many theists are also on the defensive from the start because they dont understand how someone cannot believe in a god and they take it as an attack. So yes I often do assume that many religious people are unwilling to entertain my thoughts on religion or lack thereof because in my experience that has often been the case. I dont start playing defense from the start, anymore, as i think is evidenced by this thread. If we can disagree in civil manner that is great, but see my point above.

[Fraggle145]

And you do realize that I'm not arguing on one side of the theist/atheist argument, right? I'm merely making these propositions:
Religious exclusivity is not, in itself, a negative or arrogant thing.
It can be, but must be presented in that way by the individuals to be that way.

And I agree that it is based on the individual, although i think that exclusivity can often breed negativity. It can be saying I believe something and you dont, therefore I am better than you. I mean in schools growing up the cool kids are exclusive and the dorks are on the outside and looked down upon. Not saying this is the best example but you the point is still valid. If you dont belong to us then you are against us is an attitude that is often conveyed.


Of the two, atheists have the more condescending attitude since the basis of the theist attitude is a care for the other side and the basis of the atheist attitude is merely thinking the other side is unintelligent.

I disagree with this completely. I dont think the other side is unintelligent at all they just dont believe what I believe. I think the fact that you say this in this way is a great way of illustrating that both sides are biased/defensive in their opinion of the other side.

[Fraggle145]

That's a great question. IS it possible to communicate it? What would be an example?

How about if, as you say, you let your life be an example. You get to know someone first and form a relationship. Then, after everyone is comfortable with each other the feelings are made known. Would that matter? I'd say it would still rest upon how it was communicated but would stand a much better chance than if, for example, you stood on a street corner and held a sign that said, "I truly feel sorry for xxxxx" with xxxx being the other side of your argument.


I'm writing a paper on this, btw. That's my ulterior motive.

No it isnt. Even in those situations when you really know someone for a long time. Just let me believe what I believe, without having to realize that you or anyone else deems me worthy of pity.

My question is: why does the pity have to be conveyed at all? Cant we just disagree on what we believe, understand another persons beliefs and be done with it?

[Frozen Sooner]

I don't think people who believe in a religion or other supernatural system are stupid, merely misinformed.

I would hope that people who believe in religion think the same of me.

I have no particular desire to disabuse people of their religious notions other than when their religious notions negatively impact me-and even then I try to argue on the plane of "That may be good for you, but it doesn't hold water for me" instead of "You're stupid and wrong."

And my apologies if someone takes "disabuse" or "notions" as having a negative connotation towards the religious. They weren't meant that way.

[Boarder]

No it isnt. Even in those situations when you really know someone for a long time. Just let me believe what I believe, without having to realize that you or anyone else deems me worthy of pity.

My question is: why does the pity have to be conveyed at all? Cant we just disagree on what we believe, understand another persons beliefs and be done with it?

I'll respond individually like you did, I think it'll be easier. I'll get to the others later when I have a chance. Thanks for responding.

Do you not think that even in situations where you have known someone for a long time and formed a relationship that there's not a way for there to be a discussion where you (as the atheist) find out from the other that he feels sad that in his thinking you'll have to suffer an eternal punishment for not accepting whatever God he believe in? It doesn't have to be a discussion, just a knowing that he feels that way.

What I'm trying to get at is that the pity feeling that he has is not the problem, it's the conveyance. For instance, do you have any theist friends at all? Does what they think of your beliefs seem arrogant to you? Just the thoughts, not any way they have conveyed it at all.

On your question, I'm not saying it has to be conveyed. I'm saying that the thought of pity in itself is not arrogant, it's when it is conveyed that it is taken as arrogant. Whether it may or may not ever be conveyed in a "nice" manner is secondary. Is the thought itself arrogant? And to answer your question, of course I feel that people with different beliefs can interact and get along even though they know the other feels differently. That's why I'm saying it's not the thought, it's the conveyance.

[Boarder]

I disagree with this completely. I dont think the other side is unintelligent at all they just dont believe what I believe. I think the fact that you say this in this way is a great way of illustrating that both sides are biased/defensive in their opinion of the other side.

Is it your opinion that is the most common way of thinking? What I'm asking is that do you feel that most atheists do not think that theists are having unintelligent beliefs? In my own interaction I have found the overwhelming majority of atheists feel that way instead of just thinking theists believe differently. I do feel that the atheist thinks the theist just believes differently but that the atheist thinks that comes from a lack of intelligence on the scientific reasoning behind natural phenomenon.

Conversely, I do find that most theists do not think the atheist unintelligent at all, just unwilling to put faith in a deity instead of science. This discussion is quite jaded toward Christian/non-Christian because of our location but I'm trying to base it in an atheist/theist realm that could be Buddhist/non-Buddhist, etc.

In that vein, would it make a difference if your friend was, say, Hindu and thought you'd be reincarnated as a lower being next time because you didn't bathe in the Ganges? Would that feeling of pity bother you if you knew it was there but he never conveyed or had a great discussion about it with you?

[Fraggle145]

I'll respond individually like you did, I think it'll be easier. I'll get to the others later when I have a chance. Thanks for responding.

Do you not think that even in situations where you have known someone for a long time and formed a relationship that there's not a way for there to be a discussion where you (as the atheist) find out from the other that he feels sad that in his thinking you'll have to suffer an eternal punishment for not accepting whatever God he believe in? It doesn't have to be a discussion, just a knowing that he feels that way.

I think this is probably understood by the atheist as soon as the other person makes his position as a theist known, as most religions carry some sort of punishment for not believing. Let me tell you as an atheist I hate that discussion, the one where I am going to lose my immortal soul, something I dont believe in in the first place. Followed by the guilt trip that I am not going to be wherever with that person etc... There just isnt an appropriate way to do it IMO.


What I'm trying to get at is that the pity feeling that he has is not the problem, it's the conveyance. For instance, do you have any theist friends at all? Does what they think of your beliefs seem arrogant to you? Just the thoughts, not any way they have conveyed it at all.

I have tons of theist friends, I was brought up Catholic. And what I am saying is that I understand the pity feeling that a theist may have, but that doesnt give them the right to tell me about it so that they feel better in some attempt to make me feel something (oftentimes worse or guilt) about something I dont believe in anyway. I dont think the fact that we disagree about our beliefs is arrogant or the fact that they have those thoughts is arrogant, its the fact that they need to convey those thoughts to me that is arrogant.


On your question, I'm not saying it has to be conveyed. I'm saying that the thought of pity in itself is not arrogant, it's when it is conveyed that it is taken as arrogant. Whether it may or may not ever be conveyed in a "nice" manner is secondary. Is the thought itself arrogant? And to answer your question, of course I feel that people with different beliefs can interact and get along even though they know the other feels differently. That's why I'm saying it's not the thought, it's the conveyance.

Right its the conveyance that is the problem. But I think just about every theist I know has said to me at least once and often continues to say even after countless discussions about it, that parting shot of "I pity you" without realizing how/why it is arrogant.

[Fraggle145]

Is it your opinion that is the most common way of thinking? What I'm asking is that do you feel that most atheists do not think that theists are having unintelligent beliefs? In my own interaction I have found the overwhelming majority of atheists feel that way instead of just thinking theists believe differently. I do feel that the atheist thinks the theist just believes differently but that the atheist thinks that comes from a lack of intelligence on the scientific reasoning behind natural phenomenon.

I think it depends on the atheist and it depends on the theists that they are feeling about. For example I think people that think that dinosaurs and people lived together, but that the devil planted the fossils deep within the earth to trick us as irrational. I think the problem is that theists get a bad wrap as the ones that get the most attention are examples like the one mentioned above. I think what frustrates the atheist is that when it comes to certain theists and certain subjects it is impossible to approach them logically without invoking a deity to explain things.


Conversely, I do find that most theists do not think the atheist unintelligent at all, just unwilling to put faith in a deity instead of science. This discussion is quite jaded toward Christian/non-Christian because of our location but I'm trying to base it in an atheist/theist realm that could be Buddhist/non-Buddhist, etc.

In that vein, would it make a difference if your friend was, say, Hindu and thought you'd be reincarnated as a lower being next time because you didn't bathe in the Ganges? Would that feeling of pity bother you if you knew it was there but he never conveyed or had a great discussion about it with you?

See I have found that most atheist are met with anger and distrust by most theists. I mean if you take a poll of who would be least likely to be voted president among all religions atheism is more distrusted than islam (The Univ. of Minnesota did this in 2006). Then we get called intellectual elitists or whatever else, for simply not believing the same thing and challenging another person's reason for believing in a deity during debates about religion.

But to the other topic it wouldnt bother me that he felt pity for me, it would bother me if he felt the need to tell me about it.

[Boarder]

I am writing this with my phone so bear with...

That was my argument, the pity thought in itself is not arrogant, only the conveyance. In your case, you feel there is no possible conveyance that could not be taken as arrogance, correct? And even then, the thought is not arrogant without that conveyance. Is this an accurate description?

Thanks

[Boarder]

My argument there would be if you were met with anger (by a Christian, since that's really what we're talking about) they sure aren't doing something that Christ would do. Which is a whole other subject! The distrust, I feel, is warranted on both sides. If you go into a situation knowing the other party has opposite beliefs, you'd naturally have a bit of distrust. That is certainly no reason to act in a negative manner toward the other, though. It could be that you've just never had a discussion with the right theist to show you there could be a possible non-arrogant conveyance. Maybe not, but there is that possibility.

[SoonerInKCMO]

A reasonably thoughtful and civil discussion about religion...

:les: WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING TO THIS PLACE?!?!?!11/!!/ [hairGel]

[Boarder]

The uncivil people were frightened by all the big words.

[AggieTool]

The uncivil people were frightened by all the big words.

Funny!:rolleyes:

[Ton Loc]

I'm seeing this movie.

I wish not to join the "other" conversation.:P
Just chalk me up to
"I believe in a stuff, and I'll choose what that stuff is, and if you don't like it then you can
SUCK IT[hairGel]"

[Boarder]

I stand corrected

[Sooner_Havok]

I thought this movie was actually pretty good.

[def_lazer_fc]

if its not starring chris farley's far less talented brother, than i don't know how it could be good.

[Collier11]

Blind faith rawks!:P

you keep trusting science and ill trust my faith...one day we will both face our decisions and I am confident that my "blind faith" will put me in a pretty good place compared to your "science"

I will say this, many people say that Science has proven that this and that about The Bible or personal faith can be disproven...I dont trust Science anymore than some trust Faith or religion

I wouldnt disparage someone for not believing, I feel bad for them and hope that something in their lives might change their mind but that is up to them

[Collier11]

Well art IS fanatical.....kinda like science.:D


I'm trying to figure out which is more condescending. People that feel smarter because they think they have it all figured out and don't believe in a God or people that pity people because they don't think like they do or are not as spiritually enlightened as them.

I do agree with Homey. Maher can be funny, BUT his seeming vendetta against those that are religious is tiresome and petty. And I am pretty much in the non-believer camp.

Maher is a sad POS just like Olberman

[Collier11]

Let's deconstruct that, shall we? Your doctors are ignorant of what the cause was. So, naturally, we're going to ascribe it to a higher power.

Following your logic, we conclude ignorance leads to belief in a higher power. AWESOME.




It's okay. I feel sorry for you in that you know less about mathematics than an 8th grader who just took geometry, and likewise that you clearly are confused about what a fact actually is.

But, like I don't sweat your opinion of me, I assume you won't sweat my opinion of you.

Chill dude. I wasn't (initially) attacking you, just pointing out that when it comes to your mathematical analogy, you don't know what the **** you're talking about, and maybe you might want to adjust it so you don't look like a ****ing idiot every time you use it.
Its really easy to call something ignorance or Blind faith when you dont want to believe...what is ignorance IMO is when salvation is SO easy and people choose to deny it just cus it isnt convenient to their lifestyle...I would much rather give my life to GOD and be wrong than to be a non-believer and be wrong

Again, not coming after anyone but saying that id rather take my chances believing in the Word of God

[Sooner_Havok]

Its really easy to call something ignorance or Blind faith when you dont want to believe...what is ignorance IMO is when salvation is SO easy and people choose to deny it just cus it isnt convenient to their lifestyle...I would much rather give my life to GOD and be wrong than to be a non-believer and be wrong

Again, not coming after anyone but saying that id rather take my chances believing in the Word of God

I will admit that there where times when he openly attacked religion, but for most of the attacks he was going after fundamentalism.

He also asked some good questions to people. Why do you believe this, what about the people who believe that. There were some pretty good spots in there. Like when he talked to the Vatican's Astronomer, who made a damn good point.

The bible was written from about 2,000 B.C. to about 200 A.D. Modern science as we know it has only been around for the last 400 years. How could anyone think that the bible is going to have any scientific answers in it?

I'm not going to sit here and say all he did was go after fundamentalism, he took quite a few jabs at religion as a whole, but I think his main beef is with the fundamentalists.

[SleestakSooner]

YOU GUYS FORGOT THERE'S A ROCK IN THE WAY LOL HAHA OMG WTF

Nope, when God put them dinosaurs on the earth they kicked that rock right out of the way.

[Fraggle145]

Its really easy to call something ignorance or Blind faith when you dont want to believe...what is ignorance IMO is when salvation is SO easy and people choose to deny it just cus it isnt convenient to their lifestyle...I would much rather give my life to GOD and be wrong than to be a non-believer and be wrong

Again, not coming after anyone but saying that id rather take my chances believing in the Word of God

Again Pascal's wager...

But, I dont think it is always about lifestyle. If I dont believe in a god because that answer doesnt make sense to me then it wouldnt make sense for me to be religious.

And if there was a god I think he/she/it would know I was faking.

[Fraggle145]

I am writing this with my phone so bear with...

That was my argument, the pity thought in itself is not arrogant, only the conveyance. In your case, you feel there is no possible conveyance that could not be taken as arrogance, correct? And even then, the thought is not arrogant without that conveyance. Is this an accurate description?

Thanks

Yep. The thought isnt arrogant per se since I would never know about it unless it was acted upon, at least IMO.

Sorry I didnt get back to this sooner.

[Fraggle145]

I thought this movie was actually pretty good.

I still havent been able to see it... Not carried at a lot of theaters in OK, I think the closest is in Tulsa.

[Sooner_Havok]

I still havent been able to see it... Not carried at a lot of theaters in OK, I think the closest is in Tulsa.

Psst, I went to Quail :D

[Vaevictis]

Its really easy to call something ignorance or Blind faith when you dont want to believe...

It's also easy to call something ignorance when it really is just ignorance.

When you have no idea why something happened, that is very plainly ignorance. And that's what happened in this case -- the doctors were ignorant of what caused the 'miraculous' recovery.

Instead of simply admitting that they didn't know what caused the recovery, apparently multiple folks thought they'd fill in the gap with God.

That seems okay right up until you realize that someone could have just as easily filled in that gap with any number of things -- faeries, ghosts, the fact that the dude was running widdershins about a hill at the time, or shouted 'Bloody Mary' three times in the dark in front of a mirror, etc.

Generally speaking, we call that superstition. Apparently, some folks call it religion. Do you see the connection and why I was completely unimpressed by his story?

[Vaevictis]

To clarify:

1. Attributing something to God when you actually have cause to believe God had something to do with it -- I'll call that religion.
2. Attributing something to God simply because you don't understand that something -- I'll call that superstition.

(You can substitute God with any other supernatural entity you please in this case.)

[SoonerKnight]

God exist and he is vengful he gave us George W. Bush didn't he!!!!

See I can play this game too!!!








;)

[Collier11]

To clarify:

1. Attributing something to God when you actually have cause to believe God had something to do with it -- I'll call that religion.
2. Attributing something to God simply because you don't understand that something -- I'll call that superstition.

(You can substitute God with any other supernatural entity you please in this case.)

There lies the issue that some have with religion, they say Faith cant be proven therefore that story has no merit...I say my Faith has been justified over and over and therefore I can believe a story like that

[Vaevictis]

There lies the issue that some have with religion, they say Faith cant be proven therefore that story has no merit...I say my Faith has been justified over and over and therefore I can believe a story like that

It has nothing to do with faith not being provable. It has everything to do with the fact that they chose to attribute the event to divine intervention specifically because they couldn't explain it.

I'm sorry, any way you cut it -- that's superstition and ignorance.

And it's not the facts of the story that I find silly, it's the thought process.
(1) Events happen.
(2) I can't explain it!
(3) Clearly, God did it!

Extreme example of why this is silly:
(1) Extraordinary stench issues from my dog's butt.
(2) I can't explain how on earth it's that awful.
(3) Clearly, God did it!

[Collier11]

It has nothing to do with faith not being provable. It has everything to do with the fact that they chose to attribute the event to divine intervention specifically because they couldn't explain it.

I'm sorry, any way you cut it -- that's superstition and ignorance.

And it's not the facts of the story that I find silly, it's the thought process.
(1) Events happen.
(2) I can't explain it!
(3) Clearly, God did it!

Extreme example of why this is silly:
(1) Extraordinary stench issues from my dog's butt.
(2) I can't explain how on earth it's that awful.
(3) Clearly, God did it!


I see what you are saying and I can understand your point of No Medical Explanation could just mean ignorance on the Docs part but I dont think you give enough merit to the fact that some things just cant be explained

[Collier11]

It has nothing to do with faith not being provable. It has everything to do with the fact that they chose to attribute the event to divine intervention specifically because they couldn't explain it.

I'm sorry, any way you cut it -- that's superstition and ignorance.

And it's not the facts of the story that I find silly, it's the thought process.
(1) Events happen.
(2) I can't explain it!
(3) Clearly, God did it!

Extreme example of why this is silly:
(1) Extraordinary stench issues from my dog's butt.
(2) I can't explain how on earth it's that awful.
(3) Clearly, God did it!


Let me ask you this scenario which as happened before:

Child has incurable cancer, Child fully recovers...are you ready to say that it isnt possible that God might have had a hand in that? Im not saying that you must admit that it is a definite, but can you atleast admit that it might have been God?

[Vaevictis]

I see what you are saying and I can understand your point of No Medical Explanation could just mean ignorance on the Docs part but I dont think you give enough merit to the fact that some things just cant be explained

No, actually, I give full merit to the fact that some things can't be explained.

Keep in mind that I'm criticizing people here for explaining the unexplainable by punting to supernatural forces.


Let me ask you this scenario which as happened before:

Child has incurable cancer, Child fully recovers...are you ready to say that it isnt possible that God might have had a hand in that? Im not saying that you must admit that it is a definite, but can you atleast admit that it might have been God?

I do not particularly object to saying that it is possible. On the other hand, it's also "possible" (in the same sense) that Zeus came down from Olympus in the form of a swan, raped the kid in his sleep, and healed him with his magic sperm.

What I do object to is:
(1) I don't know what caused it
(2) Because I don't know what caused it, I'll attribute it to the supernatural.