So if a theist agrees with you politically they're okay, if they disagree with you politically you hate them. LOL.
Honest opinions about religion
Posts
Total:
85
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
you hate them. LOL.
I do wish you would stop this nonsense , Witch. You just love bandying that word "hate" around where there is none at every chance don't you, Witch. You use it so often its beginning to lose any meaning. Especially when it comes from you, probably the biggest "hater" on the whole of this forum.
I believe the gods are beings who have evolved on their own worlds. #16
That's interesting ,Witch, where about are these worlds?
You appear to have missed this again , Witch.
-->
@Yassine
Atheism is not disbelieve in God, it's rather belief in Nature. Denying God is as a matter of course denying the moral, rational & spiritual belief system contingent on God, in favor of another belief system contingent on Nature.
But one cannot get a moral system from nature, can they?
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Lemming
That is a great post Lemming, very thoughtful and wise. Most people in this world are simply too stupid and short sighted to understand something like prayer,...
I agree, that was a great post. Sweeter because of their short supply on the board.
248 days later
-->
@Bones
What are theists's honest opinion on atheists, vice versa?
Theists opinion: Atheists fill our ranks of scientists and thinkers.
Atheists opinion: Theists pray atheists are wrong about climate change because there wont be any water left for Jesus to walk on.
I am an agnostic atheist and although I may not always
respect people’s beliefs I try to respect their right to believe them. My only real
objection with religion is when it causes harm, is intolerant and tries to use
coercion impose its beliefs on others.
I wouldn’t necessarily want an atheistic world and I feel such a word would be unrealistic as religion in some form has been with us from the dawn of humanity, but I would like a secular one that allows for all religious beliefs or disbelief and the right to practice them.
I will debate religion with those open to debate and are willing to discus it, such as in a forum like this but I wouldn’t want to thrust my views on those who I feel wouldn’t be receptive to them.
I wouldn’t necessarily want an atheistic world and I feel such a word would be unrealistic as religion in some form has been with us from the dawn of humanity, but I would like a secular one that allows for all religious beliefs or disbelief and the right to practice them.
I will debate religion with those open to debate and are willing to discus it, such as in a forum like this but I wouldn’t want to thrust my views on those who I feel wouldn’t be receptive to them.
-->
@Elliott
I am an agnostic atheist and although I may not always respect people’s beliefs I try to respect their right to believe them. My only real objection with religion is when it causes harm, is intolerant and tries to use coercion impose its beliefs on others.I wouldn’t necessarily want an atheistic world and I feel such a word would be unrealistic as religion in some form has been with us from the dawn of humanity, but I would like a secular one that allows for all religious beliefs or disbelief and the right to practice them.I will debate religion with those open to debate and are willing to discus it, such as in a forum like this but I wouldn’t want to thrust my views on those who I feel wouldn’t be receptive to them.
If you believe and have real objection with religion when it causes harm, is intolerant and tries to use coercion impose its beliefs on others, then debating it will only increase animosity in those whom you feel wouldn’t be receptive to them.
-->
@Elliott
I pray (to the simulation creators) that you find Humanism.
-->
@FLRW
Elliott: I would like a secular one that allows for all religious beliefs or disbelief and the right to practice them.FLRW: I pray (to the simulation creators) that you find Humanism.
Allowing for all religious belief or disbelief and the right to practice them will only encourage endless debates and rejection.
Be careful what you wish for.
-->
@FLRW
I pray (to the simulation creators) that you find Humanism.
I had a close friend, sadly deceased, who was a Methodist
lay preacher, he didn’t like the term atheist and so always called me a Humanist.
I don’t think my views are that dissimilar.
-->
@Shila
If you believe and have real objection with religion when it causes harm, is intolerant and tries to use coercion impose its beliefs on others, then debating it will only increase animosity in those whom you feel wouldn’t be receptive to them.
I don’t believe, and my objection with religion when
it causes harm, is intolerant and tries to use coercion impose its beliefs on
others seems reasonable unless one is a member of the Spanish Inquisition. And as
I said, I don’t debate religion with those who would be unreceptive to that debate.
-->
@Elliott
If you believe and have real objection with religion when it causes harm, is intolerant and tries to use coercion impose its beliefs on others, then debating it will only increase animosity in those whom you feel wouldn’t be receptive to them.
I don’t believe, and my objection with religion when it causes harm, is intolerant and tries to use coercion impose its beliefs on others seems reasonable unless one is a member of the Spanish Inquisition. And as I said, I don’t debate religion with those who would be unreceptive to that debate.
Since you never participated in those religious debates suggests they were unreceptive to your debates. What is plan B?
-->
@Shila
Since you never participated in those religious debates suggests they were unreceptive to your debates. What is plan B?
The same as plan A, which to put simply, is
not to try and debate religion with those who may be uninterested, offended or execute
me for blasphemy.
-->
@Elliott
Since you never participated in those religious debates suggests they were unreceptive to your debates.
What is plan B?
The same as plan A, which to put simply, is not to try and debate religion with those who may be uninterested, offended or execute me for blasphemy.
So wanting to stay alive keeps you honest about religion.
-->
@Shila
So wanting to stay alive keeps you honest about religion.
My comment about being executed for blasphemy was intended
to be tongue-in-cheek, but the only thing I would risk my life for would be my
family and certainly not some belief or lack of, or any ideals.
-->
@Elliott
So wanting to stay alive keeps you honest about religion.
My comment about being executed for blasphemy was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but the only thing I would risk my life for would be my family and certainly not some belief or lack of, or any ideals.
That is an odd death wish to be executed for blasphemy with you tongue-in-cheek. Even risking that for your family would hardly be ideal.
That is an odd death wish to be executed for blasphemy with you tongue-in-cheek. Even risking that for your family would hardly be ideal.
A possible misunderstanding, the term “tongue-in-cheek” refers to a humorous or sarcastic statement expressed in a serious manner. I don’t know what nationality you are but I’m British and it may be a British idiom.
-->
@Elliott
My comment about being executed for blasphemy was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but the only thing I would risk my life for would be my family and certainly not some belief or lack of, or any ideals.
That is an odd death wish to be executed for blasphemy with your tongue-in-cheek. Even risking that for your family would hardly be ideal.
A possible misunderstanding, the term “tongue-in-cheek” refers to a humorous or sarcastic statement expressed in a serious manner. I don’t know what nationality you are but I’m British and it may be a British idiom.
Expressing something humorous or sarcastic in a serious manner is a failure in communication.
Expressing a death wish to be executed for blasphemy with your tongue-in-cheek because you are British hardly makes it normal.
Framing your death wish with tongue-in-cheek as a British idiom because you are British reflects the desperation your country and people are experiencing.
-->
@Shila
Expressing something humorous or sarcastic in a serious manner is a failure in communication.Expressing a death wish to be executed for blasphemy with your tongue-in-cheek because you are British hardly makes it normal.Framing your death wish with tongue-in-cheek as a British idiom because you are British reflects the desperation your country and people are experiencing.
There was no death wish but I agree there is a failure in communication.
-->
@Elliott
Expressing something humorous or sarcastic in a serious manner is a failure in communication.
Expressing a death wish to be executed for blasphemy with your tongue-in-cheek because you are British hardly makes it normal.
Framing your death wish with tongue-in-cheek as a British idiom because you are British reflects the desperation your country and people are experiencing.
There was no death wish but I agree there is a failure in communication.
The Tyndale English translation of the Bible exposed the limitations of English when compared to Hebrew and Greek. So the British are more than guilty of a failure in translation. It has exacerbated into a failure of communication.
-->
@Shila
The Tyndale English translation of the Bible exposed the limitations of English when compared to Hebrew and Greek. So the British are more than guilty of a failure in translation. It has exacerbated into a failure of communication.
It has been interesting talking with you but we seem to be communicating
at cross purposes, so I think I am done.
-->
@Elliott
The Tyndale English translation of the Bible exposed the limitations of English when compared to Hebrew and Greek. So the British are more than guilty of a failure in translation. It has exacerbated into a failure of communication.
It has been interesting talking with you but we seem to be communicating at cross purposes, so I think I am done.
“Done” is often associated with how you prefer your steak. So saying “I am done” might be another reference to “I’m British and it may be a British idiom.”
-->
@Bones
What are theists's honest opinion on atheists, vice versa?
Of course the text and title are two different subjects, I'm thinking the real intent is to invite the typical on-line subject matter conflict, so I'll give my honest opinion about that.
Huston Smith was one of our foremost scholars and interpreters of
the world’s religions, he said that “There are really two dogmatic
fundamentalisms in America today. Dogmatic secular modernity came first and
produced conservative religious fundamentalism as a reaction to it.”
I find that more than just interesting as I do in fact see two groups of
extremist posters here that taken by themselves, are inexplicable within the
context of their respective positions and which do in fact represent these two
“polar opposites” categories of one and the same extremism that Huston Smith is
describing here. On one side of this polarity is an excessively dogmatic
secular modernism that doesn’t appear to be true to science, and on the other
side of the coin, it is opposed by a dogmatic religious fundamentalism that
doesn’t appear to be true to Jesus.
Maybe Huston Smith was providing the key to understanding here, to say that
“opposites” are “polar” is to say much more than they are opposed or separated;
it is to say that they constitute a whole. There is a reciprocal, transactional
relationship being described. Polar opposites don’t even exist without each
other, they are contingent upon each other, you just can’t have the one without
the other. Polar opposites are like the two sides of a coin, or the two ends of
a stick; they reference two opposing aspects of one and the same thing. Such
extremists are closer together than either of them is with the reasonable,
middle view.
This would certainly explain why there are more similarities than differences between the online posts of Atheists and Believers, they only appear to be opposites but are in fact inseparable opposites; they constitute a whole. Seen as mirror images of one and the same extremist, they are not mutually exclusive at all; in fact they are mutually sustaining, reciprocal in their true nature.
I think they are a lot like the dog barking at his inverted mirror
image.
-->
@Sidewalker
Atheists are only polar opposites of non-fundamentalist Christians. Atheists have the most in common with fundamentalist Christians. They argue the the Bible is if it's true. They argue the Bible as if it's fact and scientific. And they are as nasty and hate filled as fundamentalist Christians.
Polytheist-Witch: Atheists are only polar opposites of non-fundamentalist Christians. Atheists have the most in common with fundamentalist Christians. They argue the the Bible is if it's true. They argue the Bible as if it's fact and scientific. And they are as nasty and hate filled as fundamentalist Christians.
To claim Atheists have the most in common with fundamentalist Christians is a contradiction.
Atheist definition: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Fundamentalist Christian: The fundamental Christian believes in the experience of the "new birth" which occurs when faith is placed in Christ as Savior and Lord.
The two groups Sidewalker described are: “On one side of this polarity is an excessively dogmatic secular modernism that doesn’t appear to be true to science, and on the other side of the coin, it is opposed by a dogmatic religious fundamentalism that doesn’t appear to be true to Jesus.”
Where one group is not true to science and the other not true to Jesus.