To Believe or Not To Believe? (SHOW RESPECT, OR RISK A BAN) - Part 2

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]495251[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]494201[/split]

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

There is some debate as to whether the initial experiments with the God helmet were legitimate.

Ya I was familiar with that as well. Still if they can prove that is the case it would seem weird that our brains would be wired for those types of responses

 

[Greens]

Ya I was familiar with that as well. Still if they can prove that is the case it would seem weird that our brains would be wired for those types of responses

Not really. The brain is prone to all kinds of weird hallucinations.

At any rate... THIS THREAD IS A TRILOGY NOW.

Lets go fundamental in all our beliefs.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Is anyone familiar with the study that should older people who were close to death took psychedelics and then became more at peace with their upcoming demise? I think that is an interesting subject. The brain produces DMT naturally yet it is one of the most psychedelic drugs around.

 

[Apollo]

BTW Happy Palm Sunday! t:

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

BTW Happy Palm Sunday! t:

ah, cool. and easter is next sunday?

 

[Greens]

Palm Sunday? How do religious people keep track of all these special days.

 

[Marvolo]

Repetition, calendars, culture etc.

 

[Destructus86]

What is everyone’s opinion on those that are labeled the “New Atheists”? People like Dawkins and others who fall under the label?
Personally…I find them to be the equivalent of Christian fundamentalists in relation to the fact they strongly oppose others believing something other than what they believe. That you are not only wrong but that they feel the need to make sure you know you’re wrong and make you believe as they believe. I think (much like fundamentalism) that it creates an “us vs them” mentality that causes more harm to society than good.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

There are really radical and extreme people on both sides of the coin. Those people on both sides that do and say these really outrageous things about the other group aren't reflective of that entire group of people. Personally, as a Christian I don't think people of faith should have a "Us VS Them" mentally. Apart of being a Christian is reaching out to people who are open. But not in a forceful way.

But with atheism growing U.S , I doubt atheist groups would get as much flack as a Christian group would. Just look at how people/society, media freaks out when Christian person says they believe in the bible in regards to certain issues. They automatically get blasted and labeled as bad person. Not so with atheist folks.

But at the end of that day, I make no apolgies for what I believe. Due to what I experienced in my life, i believe in my heart that I am correct in believing in God and being apart of the Christian faith.

 

[Greens]

What is everyone’s opinion on those that are labeled the “New Atheists”? People like Dawkins and others who fall under the label?
Personally…I find them to be the equivalent of Christian fundamentalists in relation to the fact they strongly oppose others believing something other than what they believe. That you are not only wrong but that they feel the need to make sure you know you’re wrong and make you believe as they believe. I think (much like fundamentalism) that it creates an “us vs them” mentality that causes more harm to society than good.

I personally enjoy the people who would fall under that label.

There's this mentality that all ideas are equally valid, and I think that your view of new atheists springs from that. I obviously disagree with this.

 

[Greens]

But with atheism growing U.S , I doubt atheist groups would get as much flack as a Christian group would. Just look at how people/society, media freaks out when Christian person says they believe in the bible in regards to certain issues. They automatically get blasted and labeled as bad person. Not so with atheist folks.

A claim based on the Bible and a claim based on science are not on the same footing.

Also, the believers you see on the news are often racist or homophobic. You don't see many atheists using their atheism to justify bigoted views.

 

[Destructus86]

I personally enjoy the people who would fall under that label.

There's this mentality that all ideas are equally valid, and I think that your view of new atheists springs from that. I obviously disagree with this.

Under the "new athiest" label? I'm assuming that's not what you meant? Because they certainly don't have the mentality that all ideas are equal. Quite the opposite.

 

[Greens]

Under the "new athiest" label? I'm assuming that's not what you meant? Because they certainly don't have the mentality that all ideas are equal. Quite the opposite.

No I mean generally. Dawkins and religious fundamentalists are equated under the assumption that all ideas are equally valid, which they're not.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

A claim based on the Bible and a claim based on science are not on the same footing.

Also, the believers you see on the news are often racist or homophobic. You don't see many atheists using their atheism to justify bigoted views.

There are some that are like that, I won't disagree there. But that's not the case with all christians who believe in the bible. What I really was refering to people just sharing their beliefs. Not whether there beliefs are based on science or not. Like a atheist can say I hate religion or God himself because it represses people or what ever reason they want to say on TV wouldn't really get any flack. But a Christian who isn't racist or bigot will would still get flack just for saying yes, I agree with the bible on premarital sex, marriage etc. No racist or homophobic remarks are said. But people would still label that person as a bigot or whatever.

For example, Joel Olsen ( a popular and well known preacher) did an interview with Oprah a few years ago. She asked him if he thought homosexuality was a sin. He hesistated before he answered but said yes. Sure enough he got flack for it by the media. The guy isnt racist or a bigot just a guy who believes in the bible.

 

[Greens]

For example, Joel Olsen ( a popular and well known preacher) did an interview with Oprah a few years ago. She asked him if he thought homosexuality was a sin. He hesistated before he answered but said yes. Sure enough he got flack for it by the media. The guy isnt racist or a bigot just a guy who believes in the bible.

He got flack for those statements because they're hopelessly outdated, primitive and offensive to a lot of people. You're free to speak about your beliefs on television, but everyone else is free to call you out.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

People are gonna have strong opinions one way or the other. Christians and other religious people feel that their belief is correct based on things that they exoerienced in life. Atheist feel that they views are correct based on scientific theories or what have you. It is what it is.

 

[Greens]

People are gonna have strong opinions one way or the other. Christians and other religious people feel that their belief is correct based on things that they exoerienced in life. Atheist feel that they views are correct based on scientific theories or what have you. It is what it is.

Scientific theories, logic, reason, compassion. Screw those things. The Bible is where it's at!

Accepting homosexuality is not a strong opinion, just like saying murder is wrong is not a strong opinion. The status quo has changed in most of the western world and it's time people like Joel Olsen caught on.

 

[The End]

What is everyone’s opinion on those that are labeled the “New Atheists”? People like Dawkins and others who fall under the label?
Personally…I find them to be the equivalent of Christian fundamentalists in relation to the fact they strongly oppose others believing something other than what they believe. That you are not only wrong but that they feel the need to make sure you know you’re wrong and make you believe as they believe. I think (much like fundamentalism) that it creates an “us vs them” mentality that causes more harm to society than good.

Haha, I don't agree at all. It's like the term 'militant atheist', what the hell is that even supposed to mean. No, 'new' atheists and christian fundamentalists are not equivalent.

There's a consequence to having false beliefs, and acting out on those beliefs. Whether its trying to murder abortion doctors or trying to pass laws that discriminate against homosexuals. The WORST people can say about Dawkins is that the guy is blunt. WOOOOOOW.

People are VERY sensitive about having religious ideas be scrutinized. People feel that having the bible questioned is a personal attack and can't distinguish between the 2.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

He got flack for those statements because they're hopelessly outdated, primitive and offensive to a lot of people. You're free to speak about your beliefs on television, but everyone else is free to call you out.

He didn't make any statements. It was just a yes or no question. It's no more offensive than society telling someone their religious beliefs are wrong, outdated, or primitive. Then say they should twist their beliefs to go along with society or popular opinion. It's the assumption that if you have those views you hate those people and that's simply not the case.

 

[The End]

I get the point that you can view homosexuality as wrong and not hate homosexuals. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

But I don't think that works in practice. There's inevitably going to be a clash. I don't hate you, I just think that the way you are is gonna send you to hell.

 

[Greens]

He didn't make any statements. It was just a yes or no question. It's no more offensive than society telling someone their religious beliefs are wrong, outdated, or primitive. Then say they should twist their beliefs to go along with society or popular opinion. It's the assumption that if you have those views you hate those people and that's simply not the case.

Honestly, I don't want you to twist your beliefs. If your beliefs tell you that homosexuality is a sin you should abandon those beliefs altogether.

Christian doctrine was written in a time where social norms were less developed than they are now. That is the very definition of outdated. You shouldn't accept homosexuality because I accept it, but because it's the right thing to do. Fortunately, more and more people are agreeing with this.

 

[Greens]

I get the point that you can view homosexuality as wrong and not hate homosexuals. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

But I don't think that works in practice. There's inevitably going to be a clash. I don't hate you, I just think that the way you are is gonna send you to hell.

Exactly. If you view someone's behavior as sinful, there's going to be resentment whether you acknowledge it or not.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Scientific theories, logic, reason, compassion. Screw those things. The Bible is where it's at!

Who says religious people aren't compassionate or that they aren't capable of logic and reason? Even if they have different opinions doesn't mean that don't have those things. But science has the answer for everything right? Okay if that's the case, tell me why some people I enountered who had serious and sometimes life treating medical issues ( rare cancer etc) are still alive and well despite some of the best doctors in the UNITED STATES basically telling them there was no hope for them to live? To this day those doctors don't have the slightest idea, or logical explanation, or theory on how they are still alive. All they have said is its luck. Really? I thought humans and science were to key to the universe, but there is no explanation besides luck? Okay if you say so.