(November 3, 2015 at 7:35 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(November 3, 2015 at 1:08 am)MTL Wrote:

---

Oh, I disagree.

I think that if you must believe in God at all,
Deism is the most logical approach when you consider how much harm is done in the name of religion.

Just because Deism scorns the nonsense that most religions thus far CLAIM is the guidance God has sent,

(because they all obviously disagree...amongst having countless other flaws, as well),

does not automatically mean that a Deist would necessarily prohibit the possibility
that God might someday send guidance to mankind;

For example, a Deist might be overjoyed to see God visibly descended on a cloud tomorrow,
and all of humanity...even the deaf and blind and braindead...were simultaneously aware of it,
and all of humanity received His message at once,
with no dispute whatsoever on the meaning of it,
and for once it wasn't complicated or confusing, but utterly, utterly clear, at a glance, even to a child.

But in any event, the Deist isn't counting on such an event
and won't lose any sleep over it.


To you, it seems illogical that God would create us, then not send guidance.

To me, I don't see why not.

I think we could very well just be a petri dish culture,
in a lab full of other petri dish cultures that He is monitoring, that's all.

---

God doesn't think because God doesn't exist.  Do you think Zeus exists?

I agree.  I was just making a point.  I'm Agnostic.

(November 3, 2015 at 7:38 pm)robvalue Wrote: I think that every person who voices the opinion that "faith" is a good means to knowledge is contributing to an overall problem. I don't care what religion they're from, or even if they're just spiritual or something.

I think it's a bad belief to have, and to support. But I would never treat anyone less well because they hold such beliefs, or encourage anyone to take action other than promoting critical thinking in general.

As for Islam... I find it to be a vile religion. But no more so than Christianity. They are both about the worst I could imagine, if you base that view on what their books actually say.

Increasingly what the books say is becoming less important, and people's own cherry picking is becoming more popular. I'm all for that. Cherry pick away if it means leaving out the horrible parts of those books. I want to live in a world with nice people, and the less of that primitive dogma they ingest the better. If they decide their religion is about love to them, and this is how they act, then good for them.

I agree with almost all of this, rob, except with regard to the last paragraph I would add the caveat that I too would be all for cherry-picking...IF, and only if, it only yielded the decent, moderate, common-sense variety of theist.

In other words, as I've said before in other threads, I wouldn't have any problem with religion at all if it wasn't so noxious.

But if you allow the nice people to cherry-pick, then you must also allow the extremists to cherry-pick.

(November 3, 2015 at 7:08 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'd much rather moderation in any belief be encouraged, even if that means the believers are being less-than-honest by cherry-picking.

How else do you expect to defang a faith?

I would prefer that moderate was all that any religion EVER was.

Once again, if religion wasn't so atrocious, I probably wouldn't waste my time opposing it, at all.

But since the Abrahamic religions, at least, are NOT usually moderate, at their core, whatsoever,
it baffles me why decent, ordinary people think its okay to align themselves with it, whatsoever.

There is no need.
None of it has been proven to be true.
They can still believe in God without all the dogmatic garbage, if they want to.
And since it is supposed to be in service of the Divine,
ignoring the flaws in its integrity, to me, is incomprehensible.

(November 3, 2015 at 9:45 pm)MTL Wrote:

(November 3, 2015 at 7:08 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'd much rather moderation in any belief be encouraged, even if that means the believers are being less-than-honest by cherry-picking.

How else do you expect to defang a faith?

I would prefer that moderate was all that any religion EVER was.

Once again, if religion wasn't so atrocious, I probably wouldn't waste my time opposing it, at all.

But since the Abrahamic religions, at least, are NOT usually moderate, at their core, whatsoever,
it baffles me why decent, ordinary people think its okay to align themselves with it, whatsoever.

There is no need.
None of it has been proven to be true.
They can still believe in God without all the dogmatic garbage, if they want to.
And since it is supposed to be in service of the Divine,
ignoring the flaws in its integrity, to me, is incomprehensible.

If you're talking about the flaws in their books, I agree. I also think all three of them are equally atrocious, and singling out Islam on that basis is curious, to put it mildly.

No one here is supporting any of those faiths, so I'm not sure why you replied to that effect, having quoted me.

(November 3, 2015 at 10:06 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 3, 2015 at 9:45 pm)MTL Wrote: I would prefer that moderate was all that any religion EVER was.

Once again, if religion wasn't so atrocious, I probably wouldn't waste my time opposing it, at all.

But since the Abrahamic religions, at least, are NOT usually moderate, at their core, whatsoever,
it baffles me why decent, ordinary people think its okay to align themselves with it, whatsoever.

There is no need.
None of it has been proven to be true.
They can still believe in God without all the dogmatic garbage, if they want to.
And since it is supposed to be in service of the Divine,
ignoring the flaws in its integrity, to me, is incomprehensible.

If you're talking about the flaws in their books, I agree. I also think all three of them are equally atrocious, and singling out Islam on that basis is curious, to put it mildly.

No one here is supporting any of those faiths, so I'm not sure why you replied to that effect, having quoted me.

I don't single out Islam.  I have always said Christianity just as bad.

(The only thing I really like better about Judaism is that they are not on the same mission to recruit,
that Islam and Christianity are on;
...plus the Jewish people are not just a religious group, but an ethno-religious group,
and I don't take issue with ethnicity).

I am merely pointing out that I would agree with you about moderation in all things,
except that if you allow the moderate theists to get away with cherry-picking,
you must allow the extremists to get away with cherry-picking, as well.

If Religion was really a pure service to the Divine,
it wouldn't need cherry picking on either direction.

I will generally treat decent, moderate, ordinary theists
to use an expression of yours, Thumpalumpacus,
in the coin tendered;

however, my original point was that, when it gets down to brass tacks,
all those moderate, decent, ordinary, everyday theists
must ultimately own that they either condone, or wink at, the evils done in the name of their religion,
as long as they consent to continue to be a part of it.

(Especially if it is a religion that seeks to recruit,
and passes off its dogma as "truth" without being able to prove such).

They can't just squirm out from underneath responsibility for consenting to be part of such a group,
by saying that extremists "misinterpret",
as long as the extremists are able to defend their actions clearly using the holy writ of that particular religion,
because one follower's interpretation should be as legitimate as another's,
if you are going to allow for different "interpretations" at all.

Look at Westboro Baptist Church.

They assert that the entirety of Christianity, outside of themselves,
has it backwards when they profess "God is Love".

Westboro asserts that GOD HATES.

And I think most Atheists would have to agree with all the many verses that Fred Phelps & Co.
went to the trouble of mining from the Bible to justify their position.

(Which is why we're Atheists....we refuse to pull the wool over our own eyes and believe that God is Love when the Bible is filled with such appalling ideas).

I am Agnostic because I find religion repulsive, evil, and lacking in integrity and sanity.

I find those moderate, well-meaning Theists might be far more sane, kind, and well-intentioned,
than their extremist counterparts,

but I also think that, when you get down to business,
they are also a bit self-deluded...and, consequently, a bit irresponsible.

Therefore, I don't feel it is right for "religion" to be included in the list of constitutionally-protected aspects of individuality, such as race, age, gender, orientation, etc.

Because religion is so corrupt.

I would have no issue with protecting a person's right to have faith in God.

But protecting their "religion", their right to dogmatize, their right to attempt assimilation,
is, to my mind,
what led to many abuses of power over the centuries,
...the Kim Davis situation is the most recent to leap to mind...
and will continue to do so, in the future.

And therefore, I do not think it is bigotry to ultimately hold the "nice" religious people "accountable"
(albeit in a very thin, theoretical, inconsequential way)
for for their free choice to belong to a group that IS guilty of atrocities,
....simply because they "meant well" or cherry-picked a pretty version for themselves.

Or, at the very least,

It is no more unfair for me to ultimately hold moderate theists responsible for choosing to belong to a hateful religion,
when they are otherwise very decent, kind, reasonable individuals,
who, themselves, object to bigotry and hate;

than it is for you to hold me accountable for "bigotry" because I object to the lack of integrity of theists,
when I am otherwise a very decent, kind, and reasonable individual,
who, myself, objects to bigotry and hate.

Cherry -picking is going to happen, and it isn't a matter of being "allowed".

I'll address the rest of your post when I'm at home on my laptop.

(November 4, 2015 at 12:25 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Cherry -picking is going to happen, and it isn't a matter of being "allowed".

I'll address the rest of your post when I'm at home on my laptop.

"Allowed" might not have been the best term.

"Excused", then.

It cannot even be excused. Very, very few people conform in fullness to any code of behavior, especially codes so fraught with contradictory rules and examples.

Cherry-picking happens no matter what. If believers are going to cherry-pick, and they will, then I'd much rather see them leaning to benign verses or interpretations. I don't care if they do right by their imaginary god. I'd prefer that they do right by their fellow human.

Do you guys despise anyone who disowns their own child once finding out that the child no longer believes in their pet fantasy?
We know religion does this. It has the power to completely distort an otherwise healthy persons mind to the point of destroying/breaking up families.

I hate ALL these types of people whether they be middle America or the Middle East.
It's the illogical way of thinking we hate, nothing else.
Islam, Christianity, etc are all subsets of corrupt thinking, as are thieves, pedophiles, rapists.
It's all about satisfying that deluded ego where if the parent disowns a child who doesn't want to believe, then what does the parent think is going to happen?
The parent thinks that in the next life they will be treated favourably as they chose to not live among heathens. Again, the ultimate form of arrogance and selfishness.

I think this is where MTL is coming from. Call that word whatever you want.

I would never disown my son for such paltry "reasons".