Please note the line: "In most circumstances." We are not discussing societal change, only how we view it. We are not discussing law, only how it affects us.
My point was to the majority of "news" outlets, social/religious groups, politicians, priests/imams, etc.. We as a group have established a different paradigm than that which determines a nations direction or a religions belief. With the exception of a couple people that only seem to view the world through religion coloured glasses, most of us will debate and discuss. This is not true in the broader societal norm. My statement was in regards to 85% of religious people. You claiming evidence of 15% that do not conform does not 'actually' remove the 85% from being true. It just means that there are a few that do not run along the path with the many. On Mar 1, 2:19 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Nope sorry I totaly disagree with that one Fidds. Anybody is free to > discuss anything they like. As is evidanced by this very place, and > many others like it. > > On 26 Feb, 18:10, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 -- 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.
