|
[a) I didn't say I agreed with his stance or that it was supported by the Bible as a whole. Just that it's a fairly common fundie take on the Old Testament and fairly well supported by many texts there, though contradicted by others, especially in the New Testament. It's not something he just...
Never said you agreed with the guy. He just makes me do the Jackie Chan face the more I hear about him. Especially because some people look at this and think this is 'What Christians Believe(tm)'
They've already vilified smart phones, talking about how they make us stupider and turn us into zombies.That second one looks pretty accurate to me. People like you and cyz who can actually put a text-y phone in their pocket and stop looking at it for a minute and a half? Those people are getting to be rather a minority.
My group booted a player recently because the guy could not put down his phone during the game. I had a similar problem in the last game I tried to run; I'm hoping this doesn't become a trend.
|
|
The idea that bad things happen because of impeity is not new, nor has it ever gone away.
Today, we have the Westboro Baptist Church celebrating the deaths of soldiers, as they say that those deaths were caused by God because homosexuality is not a capital offence in the US.
Back in the day, when the Israelites were in Babylonian captivity and the Temple in Jerusalem had been pillaged by the Babylonians as punishment for various minor rebellions by the Israelites, those Israelites were wondering how God could have abandoned them! Then someone had an idea that the world has been paying for ever since.
They decided that their tribulations were not the fault of God, nor Babylon, but of themselves! The reason must be that they had not been pious enough, and that's why God was allowing this punishment!
Very rapidly the religion changed. Until then, they had believed (in common with every other culture on the planet) in a plurality of gods. Okay, they had a Covenant with one of them (you scratch my back and I won't curse your family for seven generations), but they believed in the existence of all the others. The events in Babylon triggered a change in the religion itself. They decided that the God with which they have a Covenent was the only god which actually exists, and all the others did not!
They even re-wrote (ret-conned) their own religious texts to support this new idea. This revision wasn't perfect, of course. In Genesis, most English translations would say, 'In the beginning there was God.' Of course, English was not around when Genesis was first written. 'God' is the English translation. The original word was 'Elohim'.
But the word for 'god' (singular) was 'El'. 'Elohim' is plural: 'The gods'. (compare 'Seraph'-singular to 'Seraphim'-plural) 'In the beginning were the gods.' This is what the Israelites believed before the Babylonian captivity, and it was changed as a consequence of believing that the reason they were suffering was because they were somehow not worshipping their Covenented God well enough.
So Pat Robertson's idea that the recent lives lost in the Oklahoma tornado were lost because God is punishing them for 'not being Cristian enough' is not strange. It's the standard monotheist response to any tragedy; exploit it to increase the fear of God, in order to encourage obedience to the church.
I'm convinced Pat Robertson isn't a religious person at all. He's driving up pledges and donations for his business.
The WBC claimed that the asian tsunami was sent by God to punish the swedish tourists in Thailand. A few hundred swedes did die from it. However, compared to the more than 100.000 locals throughout the region who were also killed by said tsunami...
Yeah, I never really got the Harry Potter protest thing. People will protest anything these days.
I went to school with a woman who thought you should not teach the Harry Potter books in school because they taught children religion. But you should teach the Bible in school because kids needed religion and that's what separation of church and state was all about. (Yes, really.)
I immediately asked: "Have you read them?"
"Yes, I have."
"And...?"
"They teach witchcraft!"
I was interrupted before I could ask for a page reference. To judge from other experiences, she was the right combination of dim, paranoid, and superstitious to think that if a kid waved a stick at her and spouted some mangled Latin, she might just burst into flames. Unfortunately, I never thought to test this.
I'm convinced Pat Robertson isn't a religious person at all. He's driving up pledges and donations for his business.
Religious people have been making money off other religious people for as long as religion has been around. I imagine Robertson believes in something like 75-80% of the stuff he says. The other stuff he sees as useful for cultivating proper attitudes.
If all you have is a hammer, all of your problems start to look like nails...Violence in sufficient quantities solves every problem.
Violence not solving your problem? Apply moar violence.
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger hammer! And when all else fails, use explosives.
That's what led to our House Rule #5: For as long as a phone is out, the villains/monsters get a +2 circumstance bonus to all rolls. This bonus stacks with multiple phones.
But... but I keep my character sheet in dropbox and access it from my phone during play. :(
|
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger hammer! And when all else fails, use explosives.If all you have is a hammer, all of your problems start to look like nails...Violence in sufficient quantities solves every problem.
Violence not solving your problem? Apply moar violence.
If you problem isn't solved by violence, you're not using enough violence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"My grandmother says violence never solved anything..."
"I wonder what the city fathers of Hiroshima would say to that?"
That second one looks pretty accurate to me. People like you and cyz who can actually put a text-y phone in their pocket and stop looking at it for a minute and a half? Those people are getting to be rather a minority.
I've noticed the same. Smartphones are actively destroying society by destroying community.
Time out -- no need for end-of-the-world histrionics like "destroying society." They just mean that each person's attention during a conversation is no longer monopolized by the people physically around them, but also by everyone else they know, around the world. This is really, really annoying for those of us who are physically right next to them and expect to have their undivided attention all to ourselves, but it's not going to usher in the apocalypse -- it's just something that, sooner or later, we old farts will have to learn to adjust to.
|
Yeah, I never really got the Harry Potter protest thing. People will protest anything these days.I went to school with a woman who thought you should not teach the Harry Potter books in school because they taught children religion. But you should teach the Bible in school because kids needed religion and that's what separation of church and state was all about. (Yes, really.)
I immediately asked: "Have you read them?"
"Yes, I have."
"And...?"
"They teach witchcraft!"
I was interrupted before I could ask for a page reference. To judge from other experiences, she was the right combination of dim, paranoid, and superstitious to think that if a kid waved a stick at her and spouted some mangled Latin, she might just burst into flames. Unfortunately, I never thought to test this.
I had decided that there must be something to this whole learning witchcraft from Harry Potter. After careful study and contemplaton of her description of the art of flying brooms I decided I was ready. Climbing to the top of my house in my resplendent Ravenclaw robes I held my broom at the ready, while my friend waited on the ground below to chuck a golf ball we spray painted gold at me while I zoomed around.
To my suprise rather than slipping the jealous bonds of gravity and kissing the sky, I plummeted like a rock and broke several bones as well as my poor broom. As I sat in lengthy contemplation (and traction) I decided that while an excellent writer of fiction, Ms. Rowling is lacking in her ability to teach magic and should perhaps brush up on it at a local community college or something along those lines.
"My grandmother says violence never solved anything..."
"I wonder what the city fathers of Hiroshima would say to that?"
"Peal Harbor? Meh. No hard feelings..."
I'm going to post this from a straight-forward, Christian (Roman Catholic) perspective. If you, yourself, have moved beyond religion and faith, then this post will make limited sense to you.
--+--
It's usually a good idea to listen to someone you disagree with. It forces you to examine your own position and see how it addresses his or her opposing claims.
Pat claims that anything with magic or fantasy in it is from the devil. I don't see how that's the case. Jesus himself tells parables of the fantastic (for instance Luke 16 includes the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man).
I do think that there are two things to watch for:
* role-playing game behavior bleeds over into other aspects of our life. You can poo-pooh that all you like, but that's why clinical psychologists have patients role-play situations. I'm not suggesting that role-playing an axe-wielding barbarian will make it more likely that you'll go after somebody with an axe, but I think that if you role-play a barbarian whose first response is to attack and kill anybody he disagrees with, abd that resposne is consistently rewarded, then you're more likely to confront people in real life whom you disagree with, as opposed to trying to seek compromise. And the obverse is true, too, of course.
So I would caution people who like to play games which reward consistenly anti-social or impious behavior.
* any activity has a kernel of goodness in it. In table-top roleplaying games, we find the gifts of social conviviality and fellowship. They're pleasant, engaging, and challenging.
But any activity can grow beyond its rightful place. One term for this is that it can become "disordered". People can get really involved in any activity until it takes up more of his or her life than it should, and starts muscling other things out. And because role-playing games are so engaging, it's easier to become addicted to them than to, say, schoolwork.
So, that's something to watch out for, too.
I agree with everything here.
I do not know Pat Robinson. I've heard the name over the years, but I've never listened to his shows or anything, so I don't know what kind of precedent he's set over the years.
However, it's foolishness to say D&D and other forms of 'RolePlaying' are NOT dangerous.
Nearly ALL things are dangerous to different people. Just skim the forums... listen to the horror stories here.
Like any other activity, gaming can become OBSESSIVE. People spend thousands of dollars on this 'hobby'.
I don't know, I think there's some validity to his claims, I mean, I myself have been on the brink of divorce and financial ruin many times due to my over-infatuation with role playing games. ;)
This was stated as a joke, but there's more then a kernal of truth to it. MANY people can not HANDLE RPGs. Just like drinking, smoking, gambling, sex, or any other activity that may be 'ok' in small controled doses.... can and HAVE literally destroyed lives.
Gaming can teach problem solving, storytelling, teamwork and be a fun time spent with close friends.
Or it can be a nightmare. In college I played a game with some sex-obsessed guys who the DM thought the only point of the game was to have the 'hot npc chicks' basically rape my characters... I never played with them again.
I've heard the stories of women who LARPed in some World of Darkness games, where people insisted that they be 'mind-controlled' and put into situations they felt VERY uncomfortable with.
People on the forums love to debate what is and what is not 'evil' and enjoy playing evil characters. Essentially sitting around the house a couple nights a week and pretending to be evil and plotting evil.
That is a decidely 'unchristian' thing to do. And if the question is should I stay away from such activties, then PR is absolutely correct in suggesting YES... Run don't walk.
Personally, I only play GOOD characters. I've tried shady ones in the past... and frankly I don't like where my mind goes when I 'get into character'. I avoid those type of characters now. I play with a pastor and three other christians in a game of good vs evil. Not every group is like that.
Will D&D spells 'work'. Of course not. that's stupid. However, if you look at the media in the past 30 years, standards have REALLY changed. The occult IS one of the few things that seems to sell anymore. Occult, Police Dramas, and Reality shows is about all that's on there.
We're not talking about the nose-twitching Bewitched anymore... We're talking about the Buffy, Charmed, Beutiful Creatures, the Circle, Vampire Diaries, etc. etc... shows that love taking 'monsters' and making them 'the good guys'
Also very 'unchristian' concepts. Honestly one of my favorite shows right now is Supernatural... and even that show is very very dark.
D&D and video games, and movies, and just about any other hobby out there lately is VERY capable of 'desensitizing' a person to evil. If you pretend to kill enough people, eventually people dying doesn't matter to you as much.
I have seen a LOT of people who utter the phrase 'He deserved it' when they see a news report of a bad person getting shot. That is VERY dangerous...
Rise of the Runelords have some truly disturbing material in it. Just try to imagine what the reactions would have been if had been released in the 80's? Try comparing the violence from Rambo 1 and Rambo 4 and say that exposure hasn't desensitized us... Looka that the old Nightmare on Elm streets... and compare them with the Saw movies.
My dad and my current Multimedia teacher grew up with OD&D, and they're just fine.
Here I think is another problem with society today. Your dad and teacher GREW UP!
When I compare myself to my father, I really am a little ashamed. I'm 35 years old. When my dad was 35 he worked two jobs and had a family of 4.
We had an Atari, but he never played it. He played cards once in a blue moon when the grandparents were over, and collected comics as a kid, but then he GREW UP.
I however, have not. I have a job. No family of my own, I spend entirely too much time on forums talking about games, or Toys, or Comics. Usually with OTHER people who are also in their 30+ range. I spend WAY too much money on toys 'For the nephews to play with' and I have 3 or 4 working video game consoles.
Video games, Comic Books, they are no longer for 'kids' They are more violent, have more sex, more gore, all because 'Adults' are the target audience.
Everything that we loved as children... we STILL love and want to 'mature' with us... but frankly they are NOT mature subjects. Guys dressed as bats, wizards shooting fire, He-man, Spider-man these SHOULD be for children. If adults like them as well... more power to you! But they shouldn't be tailor made FOR Adults.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, it's foolishness to say D&D and other forms of 'RolePlaying' are NOT dangerous.
Nearly ALL things are dangerous to different people. Just skim the forums... listen to the horror stories here.
Like any other activity, gaming can become OBSESSIVE. People spend thousands of dollars on this 'hobby'.
That's not an issue with the game being dangerous, that's an issue with the person.
The game doesn't force anyone to do anything. It doesn't make people become obsessed and waste their lives, nor does it make people listen to the voices in their heads that tell them to kill people and eat them.
Those things are already there in those people and if it were not triggered by this it would be triggered by something else.
However, it's foolishness to say D&D and other forms of 'RolePlaying' are NOT dangerous.
Nearly ALL things are dangerous to different people. Just skim the forums... listen to the horror stories here.
Like any other activity, gaming can become OBSESSIVE. People spend thousands of dollars on this 'hobby'.
That's not an issue with the game being dangerous, that's an issue with the person.
The game doesn't force anyone to do anything. It doesn't make people become obsessed and waste their lives, nor does it make people listen to the voices in their heads that tell them to kill people and eat them.
Those things are already there in those people and if it were not triggered by this it would be triggered by something else.
It's an outlet that most people can handle responsibly. Like alcohol or drugs or gambling.
Some people can not.
To those people the game is dangerous and should be avoided at all cost. For that matter. If you do not KNOW if you can handle it... you should avoid it.
THAT is the advice that Robinson's quote gives. If you have to ask 'is it ok for me to play games glorifying magic and violence... when I don't believe in magic or violence... then no, you probably shouldn't play.
Same way if you have an addictive personality you shouldn't drink. It doesn't make alcohol inherently evil... but it can be dangerous.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything that we loved as children... we STILL love and want to 'mature' with us... but frankly they are NOT mature subjects. Guys dressed as bats, wizards shooting fire, He-man, Spider-man these SHOULD be for children. If adults like them as well... more power to you! But they shouldn't be tailor made FOR Adults.
While I agree with most of that post, I disagree with this part.
We can write and enjoy fantasy and comics as mature, without having to aim these stories at children. There is no reason to believe that these stories must be for children.
However, it's foolishness to say D&D and other forms of 'RolePlaying' are NOT dangerous.
Nearly ALL things are dangerous to different people. Just skim the forums... listen to the horror stories here.
Like any other activity, gaming can become OBSESSIVE. People spend thousands of dollars on this 'hobby'.
That's not an issue with the game being dangerous, that's an issue with the person.
The game doesn't force anyone to do anything. It doesn't make people become obsessed and waste their lives, nor does it make people listen to the voices in their heads that tell them to kill people and eat them.
Those things are already there in those people and if it were not triggered by this it would be triggered by something else.
It's an outlet that most people can handle responsibly. Like alcohol or drugs or gambling.
Some people can not.
To those people the game is dangerous and should be avoided at all cost. For that matter. If you do not KNOW if you can handle it... you should avoid it.
THAT is the advice that Robinson's quote gives. If you have to ask 'is it ok for me to play games glorifying magic and violence... when I don't believe in magic or violence... then no, you probably shouldn't play.
Same way if you have an addictive personality you shouldn't drink. It doesn't make alcohol inherently evil... but it can be dangerous.
Given your reasoning, is there anything in the world that can't be dangerous? I heard about a guy who choked to death on a cotton-ball.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
More to the point, given such reasoning, should anyone be subjected to religious dogma if they are not at least above eighteen and functioning very well mentally? It seems to be a very dangerous worldview that encourages feelings of shame, intolerance and dogmaticism. Quite seriously, not everyone can handle that.
|
|
More to the point, given such reasoning, should anyone be subjected to religious dogma if they are not at least above eighteen and functioning very well mentally? It seems to be a very dangerous worldview that encourages feelings of shame, intolerance and dogmaticism. Quite seriously, not everyone can handle that.
Total agreement, provided we include every dogma there, including atheism of course ;-)
Total agreement, provided we include every dogma there, including atheism of course ;-)
Quite right - also a very dangerous worldview that encourages feelings of shame, intolerance and dogmaticism.
|
|
More to the point, given such reasoning, should anyone be subjected to religious dogma if they are not at least above eighteen and functioning very well mentally? It seems to be a very dangerous worldview that encourages feelings of shame, intolerance and dogmaticism. Quite seriously, not everyone can handle that.Total agreement, provided we include every dogma there, including atheism of course ;-)
Atheism isn't a dogma, but the lack of a dogma.
If you disagree, what would you call the lack of a dogma?
Atheist is not a real thing, in the same way that 'cold' is not a real thing but the lack of heat. 'Dark' is not a real thing but simply a lack of light. 'Atheist' is 'A-Theist', 'not Theist'. It says nothing about what that person is, only about one thing that he isn't.
I think a lot of you who are saying that 'Pat Robertson is mostly about the money' are wrong.
I'm Jewish, but I've seen firsthand, through Christian family members and family friends, just how pervasive the ideology they espouse can be. It's a community, like any other, but it is also threaded through with a doctrine of proselytization. There are people who will cheerfully spend their money, time and resources baking goods to sell to raise money for the church, or head into needy communities to lend a hand, because they really think Jesus wants them to. Then they will turn around and explain how if you come out of the closet, or play DnD, or fall in love with a Muslim woman or have sex outside of marriage, they will be forced to disown you. It's such an odd mix of conflicted personalities, there is no wonder that people leave the church in droves, or that the church frequently discourages critical thinking.
I don't think it's all about the money for Pat, anymore than I think it's all about the money for Billy Graham, Kenneth Copeland, or any of those others. They might be making a lot of money in their field, but to view it through a 'money first' is simply trying to make sense of something that does not make actual sense. People don't shoot up abortion clinics or bomb buildings because it's about the money. Why do you think the sowers of that hatred are about the money?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Atheism isn't a dogma, but the lack of a dogma.
Really?
Much like folks have a problem with religious fundamentalists of any stripe, other folks have a problem with fundamentalist atheists.
If atheism isn't a dogma, then its fundamentalist proponents need to be a bit less dogmatic in their proselytizing of their faith.
I think a lot of you who are saying that 'Pat Robertson is mostly about the money' are wrong.Basic psychology. If you spend all your time trying to separate the suckers from their money, it's probably all about the money for you.
The fact that it isn't all about the money for the marks, doesn't mean it isn't for the con-men.
It may not be for some of them, but it's a good default assumption.
Of course, the perks of adoring fans and minions who hang on your every word don't hurt either.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't apply to any other job either. High paid actors, professional sports stars, doctors, lawyers...all of them might be rich, but it would be premature to presume they are all in their respective professions merely for the money. Or that they are in it for their art, for that matter.
It also ignores the miniature versions. Are all pastors trying to become big and famous conmen like Robertson according to this philosophy? Or are they middle management marks themselves? Once they get a TV show like Joel Osteen (sp?) do they suddenly become money first hucksters?
I'm not saying Robertson isn't a conman, liar or any of that. I've just seen too many dogmatic individuals to assume that he doesn't actually buy into the bile he puts out.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Atheism isn't a dogma, but the lack of a dogma.Really?
Yes, really.
Much like folks have a problem with religious fundamentalists of any stripe, other folks have a problem with fundamentalist atheists.
'Fundamentalist atheist' is a contradiction of terms! Which tenet is a fundamental belief? There is a lack of a belief in any god, but it is pure semantic shenanigans to pretend that this 'lack of belief' is a 'belief in a lack'.
If atheism isn't a dogma, then its fundamentalist proponents need to be a bit less dogmatic in their proselytizing of their faith.
Lack of faith.
We don't want to 'convert' people from one religion to another. Some of us want religion to go away.
Of course, we can't all be painted with the same brush. There is no unity of 'dogma' or anything else. We don't meet every Sunday to discuss how much we don't believe in something. The only 'atheist' groups exist as a defence against persecution and hatred from the religious. Only a tiny percentage of us are members of such groups.
Despite my passion on the subject, I've never been a member of such a group. Why would I? I stopped believing in any gods when I was seven years old. It was an unsurprising development considering I'd already worked out that (spoiler alert!) Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy were just made up.
So, why would anyone who doesn't believe in the supernatural be motivated to debate with a religious person?
If religion was harmless it wouldn't be an issue. I don't go around bothering children with the fact that the Tooth Fairy isn't real. It's harmless!
But imagine belief in the Tooth Fairy was widespread amongst the adult population. So what?
Imagine they were so prevalent that they got laws passed that outlawed modern dentistry on the grounds that 'man is not meant to interfere with teeth! Teeth are the province of the Tooth Fairy alone!
Why should I be bothered what 'Toothians' do? The anti-dentist laws apply to Toothians and non-Toothians alike!
That would bother me.
Far fetched? I wish! We already live in supposedly free democracies where the laws which apply to the religious and non-religious alike are based on just as silly made-up superstition. Why can't I use birth control? Why can't I have sex with a willing adult unless married? Why can't I explore stem-cell research? Why can't I commit suicide? Why can't I ridicule the ridiculous without being accused of religious hatred? Why is religion exempt from criticism?
That's why some of us feel the need to defend our position, and hope that the world will be free from life-affecting superstition sooner rather than later.
I've no doubt that some people reading this will take this as an attack on religion, and therefore 'not okay'. But others are free to support a religion in terms just as strong and don't suffer the same stigma. Religious people making public statements supporting their own religious views, and asserting the 'Truth' of their religion is 'okay', but the contrary position is 'not okay'? 'Religious hatred'?
Injustice of any stripe has always made me passionate in my opposition.
The fundamental belief of atheist is that there is no God. Lack of belief is agnostic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We don't want to 'convert' people from one religion to another. Some of us want religion to go away.
Bwahahah! You don't want to convert people from one religion to another - you want religion to go away.
Which is to say, you want to convert others from their religion to yours.
And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. But denying that what you're practicing and preaching isn't a religion, in an attempt to look down your nose at other religions?
Gimmie a break.
That's why some of us feel the need to defend our position, and hope that the world will be free from life-affecting superstition sooner rather than later.
Proselytizing your faith.
I've no doubt that some people reading this will take this as an attack on religion, and therefore 'not okay'. But others are free to support a religion in terms just as strong and don't suffer the same stigma. Religious people making public statements supporting their own religious views, and asserting the 'Truth' of their religion is 'okay', but the contrary position is 'not okay'? 'Religious hatred'?
Nope. It's totally OK that you have these beliefs, and it's totally OK that you want and try to convert others to your faith. That's perfectly acceptable, and that's one of the big freedoms our Constitution secures and protects.
And as far as your martyr complex of oppression, it's amusing that you don't realize that you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing your so-called oppressors of doing: Trying to shut down those who believe in something different than what you're doing.
Nope. Atheism totally isn't a religion. No sirree Bob.
I use atheist and anti-theist to differentiate between those groups, Brian, but I've definitely seen what you are talking about. All the same jerkish behavior, mockery and derision of 'your false beliefs' set against 'our truth'.
And what you are finding, Silverclaw, is that you are being painted with the same brush that you paint Christians and Pat Robertson with. A bunch of loud jerks became the spokespeople and ambassadors of your associated lack of belief.
"No, it's different because we're based on the truth. That allows us to act like dicks to our fellow man who disagrees with our truth."
Never sat well with me. Doesn't matter if you are trying to convince someone of Hell or global warming, you can do it without being a cock.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, Brian, how are is being an athorist working out for you? After all, not believing in Thor is a religion, right? No? Then why is not believing in God?
You can be a dick about atheism without it being a religion. I mean, people have been dicks about 3.5 vs 4E and neither of those are religions. So why do you say atheism is a religion? I mean, what about "does not believe in God" says relgion to you that "does not believe in Thor" does not?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fundamental belief of atheist is that there is no God. Lack of belief is agnostic.
A-Gnostic=not a Gnostic
Gnostic=learned, one who knowsAgnostic=ignorant, one who doesn't know
A-Theist=not Theist
Theist=one who believes at least one deity exists
Atheist=one who doesn't
You know what a Theist believes in that he believes in at least one god.
You don't know what an Atheist believes, but you know he doesn't believe in any gods.
Trying to mis-represent the lack of belief in a deity as a belief that there is no deity is merely a shameless debating tactic designed to try to take away criticism of Theism by pretending that Atheism is just another kind of Theism.
It is as absurd as it would be to pretend that Christianity (for example) is the lack of a belief theat there is no God.
Even the word 'Atheist' originated as a perjoritive. It is still used that way by many, though some non-believers have embraced it in a similar fashion that some black people have embraced the N-word, or some gay people have embraced the word 'queer'.
The more educated among us realise how strange it would be to self-identify as something we are not!
A Christian might very well say, 'Hi, I'm Tom, and I'm a Christian.' He may very well have said 'I'm a chess player' or 'I'm a Gemini' or 'I'm a gamer' or anything else that he is!
How strange would it be to introduce yourself as what you are not! 'Hi, I'm Jim, and I'm not a Gemini'. Unless the conversation was already about Geminis.
And as a poster mentioned above, this imaginary 'Atheist religion', how would that work? You dont need to teach a child that a particular imaginary being doesn't exist, unless someone else has told them it does! You don't need to sit down with your child every Wednesday (your designated non-holy day) and tell stories about how something they've never heard of isn't real.
If you and a baby were stranded on an island and you educated the child yourself, if you didn't mention any gods there would be no need to teach them that gods aren't real.
'Atheism' is not a religion, but the absence of a religion.
Religious=believes in at least one god
Atheist=has found no reason to believe in any gods
Agnostic=gods might exist, might not, can't decide
Whatever makes you feel better, bud.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also worth noting that you can believe in a god without being religious, i think. I think a religion is the set of rites and practices that are created around a belief in a god.
My guess is that most of the behavior that gets so much flack or creates so much friction with people who don't believe the same is more to be blamed on the religious rites and practices.
Just a random thought.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever makes you feel better, bud.
There is no need to "feel better". He just explained EXACTLY what the two are. He is factually correct.
There is no need to "feel better". He just explained EXACTLY what the two are. He is factually correct.
Yes, he explained the dictionary definition, yet ignored the fact that atheism is being preached like it's own religion, treated as it's own religion, and is just as guilty as shouting down the naysayers as the rest of the whack-job fundamentalists are.
The smug sanctimoniousness of it's fundamentalist practitioners - some in this very thread, no less - is just as bad as the bile being spewed forth by nutcases like Robertson or his ilk.
Not so much the rites and practices as all the cultural stuff that tends to accrue to religion. Generally all the ways we're accused of being evil for not following the rules a particular cult has laid down.
True. Your word choice is probably better. I guess i just meant that its rarely the belief in a god that causes so much friction, but rather what a person does with it. And that's a big ole can of worms.
I think he refers to World of Warcraft addictions and such.
Oh please. Yes, there are atheist jerks. There are not however organized atheist con-job dedicated to separating suckers from their money, unlike some of these TV nutcase preachers.
Nor is the "smug sanctimoniousness", which I will grant of some, anything like the crap Robertson and his ilk are capable of spewing:
No, just claiming that raising your children in your own religion is child abuse.
That's nothing like that. Not at all.
Both are whack-job statements, and both equally ridiculous.
|
|
There is no need to "feel better". He just explained EXACTLY what the two are. He is factually correct.Yes, he explained the dictionary definition, yet ignored the fact that atheism is being preached like it's own religion, treated as it's own religion, and is just as guilty as shouting down the naysayers as the rest of the whack-job fundamentalists are.
The smug sanctimoniousness of it's fundamentalist practitioners - some in this very thread, no less - is just as bad as the bile being spewed forth by nutcases like Robertson or his ilk.
Nice people and bad people, smug and cool, smart and stupid, are spread more or less equally among believers and non-believers alike, so I'm not judging any individual as good or bad, but I reserve the right to criticise any belief I view as absurd.
I must admit I find your use of the word 'fundamentalist' very confusing. Would you like to explain what you mean, because I don't think it means what you think it means (with apologies to Inigo Montoya).