Views beyond Atheism

[Edwardo Piet]

I wouldn't say none do either though. I'd say some do some don't. And to what degree; just like everyone else. Although religion does generally have a negative impact yes, it can also scare people into being more 'reasonable' I'm sure. But then they would be being tolerant on the OUTSIDE while on the inside they might be really pissed off and actually secretly be very intolerant and have a very fucked up attitude, etc. (As Dawkins says, to paraphrase: if you're good simply because you are afraid of God, then isn't that a more IGNOBLE reason for being good than to be good because you care about people, you feel empathy?)

I wouldn't say that they're not Christians if they're 'not following their religion correctly'. Define correctly. And HOW correctly? How specific? And because also: there are many different kinds of Christians. And it's impossible to follow it all COMPLETELY correctly, I mean the amount of sins and the fact you're practically not supposed to do ONE without repenting them all, practically - and the amount of demands in the bible. It would kind of make NO ONE Christian if you had to do that.

No, I'd say that I think since there are different types of Christians (and Christianity) and Christians differ that the only requirement is the true basics (such as God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Satan, Heaven and Hell, etc)...

OR: I think perhaps the only real requirement is belief in God and...: Christ - and follower of Christ. Perhaps they don't even have to be believe in afterlife etc, it's just about Christ (and God). That's why they're a ChristIAN.

Otherwise if it's not just about God and Christ to be CHRISTian - where is the cut-off point for how many 'Christian beliefs' you have to hold firmly in order to be considered truly 'Christian'?

I think if you believe in God and Christ, you're a follower of Christ - then I'd say that makes you Christian.

EvF

EDIT:

Hate superstition (it's anti faith dontchaknow )

Faith=belief in things without evidence.

Superstition is never believed in WITH evidence (there isn't any, it's just superstition) only WITHOUT evidence.

So faith=belief without evidence. Superstition is believed only WITHOUT evidence, hence superstition is only believed in with faith - it is only believed on faith.

You need faith to believe in a superstition because there is no evidence for it, it's superstitious bullshit - so I don't see exactly how superstition is anti-faith if it can only be believed WITH faith, and ON faith?

[fr0d0]

Damn! When did you get time to write all that EvF! Yo fingers is ON FIRE tonight dude!

edit/ Good post too!

[Sponge]

Fair enough, I'd just say I have a problem with the amount of "picking and choosing" that goes on with Christians reading the bible, so personally wouldn't consider anyone who doesn't follow it correctly a true follower of that religion (no matter how impossible it may be), but that's just my silly definition. I do this because the bible speaks out clearly against picking and choosing and states you must follow it all. It's just something I use in debates really.

I'm sure the people are tolerant, but their religion dictates that they must not be tolerant. That's what I was getting at.

I'd say you're right though.

[Edwardo Piet]

Damn! When did you get time to write all that EvF! Yo fingers is ON FIRE tonight dude!

edit/ Good post too!

Why thankyou

I may not be the fastest typer. I can't hear what people tell me to type as fast as I can type and I can't read as fast as I can type. So I'm not sure I'd be much use getting a job that I might want that would involve it

But when it comes to spontaneous typing - it's totally natural to me.

I started typing when I was 6 years old. And learnt to type with all my fingers and both my thumbs in about half an hour. I've never done with less than all my fingers and thumbs and both my hands.

I spent about 29 minutes on the 'home keys' and feeling confused - and then the last 1 minute I remember thinking something like: "Oh....don't you just use the finger/thumb that is nearest to the key you want...is that right? Whatever is comfortable?" and that was that.

14+ years on computers, 7+ years online, pretty much daily.

I'm not the fastest or most accurate typer, but it really is second nature to me - totally natural - as easy as thinking (easier actually I think! Easier getting it all down). Like thinking aloud (only in writing rather than sound, so not exactly 'loud' lol).

Bah enough of that. But thanks anyway; and thanks for the remark that you liked my post

EvF

[Demonaura]

I thought I was coming in late but, the post was just made today XD.

I think my views are close to EvF, I support the spreading of free-thinking, non-censorship and the death of superstitious religion.

However I will never support killing religion with a method like, say killing beleivers, censoring beleivers right to free-speech or supressing believers.

I encourage intelligence by education, it's been proven that the more highly educated a person the less likely they are to be religious through a few studies out there. There's one famous one most people have heard of so, I won't bother linking all over the net right now.

So in general I support education and free, open debate. I disagree with theists but, I will fight to the death for their right to speak their minds. I only ask that the same is afforded to me, I am confident in the scientific process and education to find the truth, whatever it is.

[Sponge]

Do you think there is a difference between presenting a belief to someone and indoctrination?

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree with your post completely, entirely, Aura,

I certainly do not wish to censor any group. I support freedom of speech for BOTH sides, or neither side - it has to be FAIR

And I'd much rather it was both of course! I'm all for freedom of speech!!

EvF

EDIT: @ Sponge: I think you can 'present a belief' to someone without indoctrinating them. You could just display a belief to them in an UNbiased manner. Rather than showing them only one view and practically brainwashing them into that particular belief.

A belief can be presenting without doing that. Especially if the person is also presented with other beliefs for an a comparison, in an unbiased sense.

Also, I think you can even be biased but fail to indoctrinate someone. I think indoctrination is an extreme form of bias (despite the fact it's so common, unfortunately) - it's when someone really is fully instilled and implanted with a certain belief, faith, or 'belief system', practically brain-washed. Cut-off from other forms of thought - simply 'brought up' that way.

[Tiberius]

Damn! When did you get time to write all that EvF! Yo fingers is ON FIRE tonight dude!

You should see him in an IM chat. I've barely said hello and there are 10 new messages from him...

[Sponge]

So, should indoctrination be prevented, or should it be allowed in the name of free speech (no matter how bias)?

[fr0d0]

No EvF I think of superstition as illogical faith. Belief in woo weird daft stuff that is the opposite of what I've been calling 'truth'... ie non refutable statements like 'I am' = god exists outside of time.

Spiritualism falls under the umbrella of superstition. And ouiga boards, seances, ghosts, faces in toast, that kinda stuff.


Yeah Sponge, I have to concede that the Christian practice of many interpretations = one definition is an annoying one. Personally I'm a very nice bloke who likes furry animals ..etc.


I'm agreeing with you demonaura, but the line about atheism = intelligence grates on me like it's something Hitler would be proud of. There's something disgusting about it that I can't quite put my finger on.