Unfortunately the idea of religion is "protected" from being discussed in most circumstances and people hold tightly to it. Like a drunk to a whisky bottle it is so tightly clutched that they make it part of themselves. One literally can't say anything about the religion without directly insulting the person. All I ever try to do is take on the topic. I may occasionally say something directed at the person, but I feel no enmity or personal dislike that drives it.
On Feb 26, 2:43 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > You have a point there Fidds but only a minor one. If I am enaged in > talk with people whos ideas I do not agree with I'll certianly attack > the idea. Not though the person. > > On 25 Feb, 05:35, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You find no merit in religoin, fine, I really don't mind, it's your > > > life, your choices. Now can you say the same for me? > > > So when you come across flat-earthers you simply applaud their > > devotion to the idea? Or do you instead mention the fact that they > > have absolutely nothing to back up their claim? > > When someone tells you that 2+4=24, do you simply agree out of respect > > for their opinion? > > When people declare bacteria do not exist, do you simply agree out of > > some shared allowance for opinion? Or would you instead be a rational > > adult and try to explain all of the evidence for demons and/or god's > > vengeance not being the cause of disease? > > These are all currently held ideas, nearly exclusively by religious > > people. Hundreds of children are murdered by their parents every year > > because they refuse medical treatments, many of them such simple > > procedures as transfusion or antibiotics. Around the world, millions > > are suffering and dying because of islam refusing to allow > > vaccinations (notably polio), calling such things an attempt to > > sterilise a religion... yes, as if religion would make you more likely > > to react negatively to an inert bio-chemical compound. The catholic > > church -the pope in particular- is personally responsible for hundreds > > of thousands of new aids/hiv cases by proclaiming that condoms cause > > aids. > > These churches are bound by a single concept (no not god). These > > churches are allowed to proclaim their "faith" is something sacred and > > unquestionable. How many more millions will die simply because the > > churches aren't challenged? No, I'm sorry, but you do not have some > > divinely granted right to be "allowed" your faith. If you promote an > > idea or concept, you must defend and justify such. This justification > > is the responsibility of every human, yourself included. > > > On Feb 24, 2:10 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hah food for thought indeed fids. > > > > Note the very first words of the quote you suppied, what do they > > > suggest to you? > > > > Hardly any major religion must imply that at least one major religion > > > has done so. Given that then can we conclude that whichever religion > > > it was must have a ring of at least honesty if not truth about it? > > > > Thanks Fidss, food for thought indeed. > > > > As to mean, we all find that in strange and wonderful places. Criket, > > > not my bag man, which means I don't understand why Neil loves it so. > > > I do understand that he does though, and that is enough for me. I > > > have said it before and I'll carry on mate until it seeps in. People > > > are differant, the whole world over. > > > > On 24 Feb, 02:21, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > But then worshipping such a god would have no meaning or purpose and > > > > every religion thus far would be false. This is the deist attitude > > > > btw, one that holds to god(s) being irrelevant and/or absent. > > > > > Food for thought: > > > > > "How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and > > > > concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The universe is much > > > > bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? > > > > Instead they say,'No, no, no! My god is a little god and I want him to > > > > stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence > > > > of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw > > > > forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional > > > > faiths." > > > > > Carl Sagan > > > > > Pale Blue Dot > > > > > On Feb 23, 9:02 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I am largley unconcered about that one Fidds. > > > > > > I would expect a God who grants free will, and takes no action towards > > > > > the happening on this planet (as is my belife) to let us discover > > > > > these sorts of things in our own time. > > > > > > On 23 Feb, 16:01, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > You have hit on the exact problem of religion in general. It never > > > > > > transcends the culture it is invented in. In these "divine" > > > > > > occurrences there is never any medical knowledge beyond what is > > > > > > already known, no technology, and linguistically identical to the > > > > > > culture and often regarded as the only "true" language that it must > > > > > > be > > > > > > read in, etc.. > > > > > > The values of the god in question are also shockingly similar to the > > > > > > prophets involved. A small band of unhappy Canaanites invented a god > > > > > > that allowed them to conquer their region and put nearly everyone to > > > > > > the sword as well as justifying the kidnap and rape of any women > > > > > > they > > > > > > want. A gold-digging, illiterate teamster invented a god that > > > > > > allowed > > > > > > him power and prestige, as well as pre-pubescent girls. > > > > > > > Sadly, none of these people can invent gods that impart previously > > > > > > unknown ideas. Can you imagine if a god did exist, and told people > > > > > > in > > > > > > a book how to treat an infection? The dark ages might well have been > > > > > > averted in Europe if not for the christians insisting that demons > > > > > > were > > > > > > responsible for sickness (and elves, witches, neighbours, pagans, > > > > > > atheists, cats, trees, etc.). Or the advances that we might have > > > > > > enjoyed technologically if religions didn't burn the books of those > > > > > > that came before them and murder anyone that bucks the servility > > > > > > concept in order to invent or discover? Or how united the world > > > > > > would > > > > > > be if a god's words could be read by anyone and every language and > > > > > > people were accorded equal weight and respect? > > > > > > > Instead, every religion is filled with the ignorant mutterings of > > > > > > whomever invents them. Some even take a step backward when knowledge > > > > > > available elsewhere is unknown to the "prophet" and so dismissed > > > > > > when > > > > > > encountered. > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 3:19 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > So you Atheists can of course get involded in this one, I really > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > know why you should or what the interest for you would be, but do > > > > > > > feel > > > > > > > free. > > > > > > > > I was thinking the other day about religion and culture. I'm > > > > > > > somewhat > > > > > > > worried about how to seperate the message of God from that of man. > > > > > > > > So it suddenly struck me that any message that truely comes from > > > > > > > God > > > > > > > must trancend culture. > > > > > > > > Thoughts?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
