Christianity is a religion of tolerance and other assorted myths

[Rogue Warrior]

You all seem to be under the impression that I am Nancy. Why is that?

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

Well. Depends. When you define East Germany as 'under a rock', then yes. But I am afraid no. ;~

Sorry, I don't get it

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``

You all seem to be under the impression that I am Nancy. Why is that?

Call it a hunch.
1) We have the amazing coincidence that "Rogue Warrior" creates an account and starts posting right about the same time that Nancy Allen`` gets put on final warning.
2) We have the amazing coincidence that Nancy Allen`` tells us that the brains behind the scenes, "Rogue Warrior", has taken a sudden interest in LF just as her interest is waning.
3) We have the amazing coincidence that "Rogue Warrior's" posts sound exactly like Nancy Allen``'s posts...aside from occasionally remembering that she's supposed to be pretending to be an atheist now.

That's a lot of coincidences.

[Rogue Warrior]

Well hey, you are just too smart for me then.

Joking aside, I can try and counteract those claims, such as joining to carry on the RP characters, Nancy being pro war, pro American and me not, her using religion to get at atheists and me being one myself, ect. But really it does not bother me what you think. If you want to think I am George Bush who am I to stop you?

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``

Well hey, you are just too smart for me then.

Well, it's not like you've been subtle. Back on topic now?

[Rogue Warrior]

I will if you use my proper name.

[Ray Jones]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Well, unless one is raised under a rock, enculturation is a more than adequate explanation for such a "religious base".

Originally Posted by Rye Janos

Well. Depends. When you define East Germany as 'under a rock', then yes. But I am afraid no.

Originally Posted by Achilles

Sorry, I don't get it

I grew up in former East Germany. Plus, *my* enculturation would not deliver a more than adequate explanation for such a religious base, to the opposite it would explain the lack of a religious base in my mind.

So (a) you consider being raised in the GDR as "raised under a rock" or (b) your statement is not quite correct.

[Achilles]

So the general public has no basic knowledge of any of the three abrahamic religions that refer to "god", and no references to said "god" ever occur in commonly used language in the public forum? If this answer to this is yes, then I would say that this pretty closely resembles "under a rock" however I will have to concede that my language was extreme. If the answer is no, then we would seem to have enculturation, which was my point.

People that have religious experiences in muslim countries see allah. People that have religious experiences in christian countries see god. People that had religious experiences in india 6,000 years ago saw krishna. The god (gods, goddess, goddesses, etc) you "see" when you have a "religious experience" depends largely on what society you were raised in. Or simply enculturation for short. Even if you aren't a believer yourself, the social mores of the tribe will provide easy to find reference points for the programming you have received since birth.

[Ray Jones]

Originally Posted by Achilles

So the general public has no basic knowledge of any of the three abrahamic religions that refer to "god", and no references to said "god" ever occur in commonly used language in the public forum? If this answer to this is yes, then I would say that this pretty closely resembles "under a rock" however I will have to concede that my language was extreme. If the answer is no, then we would seem to have enculturation, which was my point.

The answer is not "yes", yet not "no". Of course, knowledge about the religions was there, but religion itself, or faith, or the question "do you believe" played no role at all. Any questions were simply not answered with religious terms. Not necessarily "a rock", but more of a gift, in my eyes.

[Achilles]

So you were enculturated to have knowledge of god, but not a belief. If something happened that caused you to want to believe, then you would have all the framework you needed to know *what* to believe (i.e. basic tenets, etc). That's all I was trying to say.

All these people needed was a nudge or a momentary lapse of skepticism. Their social programming did the rest. Make sense now or do you still think I'm off my rocker?

[Ray Jones]

Hey hey, I got where you're coming from from the begin with.. ^^

See, of course I got knowledge of different ideas to explain things, yes. But without exceptions, no one around me believed in religion. So the basic tenor I know is to not explain whatever with god or religion, that's what I am trying to say. And seriously present me some proof for god or spiritual experiences all you want, no religion would be an option for me, even if god was my neighbour. ;]

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

See, of course I got knowledge of different ideas to explain things, yes. But without exceptions, no one around me believed in religion.

"Indoctrinated" and "enculturated" are two entirely different things.

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

And seriously present me some proof for god or spiritual experiences all you want, no religion would be an option for me, even if god was my neighbour. ;]

Well then, with all due respect, your beliefs are no less dogmatic than the theists you appear to consider yourself at odds with.

[Ray Jones]

Originally Posted by Achilles

"Indoctrinated" and "enculturated" are two entirely different things.

I know. And?

Well then, with all due respect, your beliefs are no less dogmatic than the theists you appear to consider yourself at odds with.

Why? Because I think theistic religions are "wrong", and that the existence of god does not mean I must follow one? Or that 'theists' got the concept of god totally wrong?

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

I know. And?

Your arguments would make it appear that you do not. Your orgininal statement was:

What I am having trouble with is the fact that one can accept something to be divine intervention or whatever when he actually doesn't believe in the existence of a god.

Furthermore, why chose a specific religion just because you met god? It all sounds pretty much made up to me.

But all you have done is a lot of hand waving at my attempts to explain. Therefore, if you "know", and therefore agree, then why are you going to such lengths to be contrary?

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

Why? Because I think theistic religions are "wrong", and that the existence of god does not mean I must follow one? Or that 'theists' got the concept of god totally wrong?

Because you stated that you would refuse to change your position even if presented evidence which invalidated it. Aka "dogmatism".

I agree that theistic religions are based on wishful thinking and have no evidence to support any of the claims found within them. What I will not do is say that I refuse to consider any evidence that contradicts what I consider to be "the truth". If I did, I'd be one flaming hypocrite.

[Ray Jones]

Originally Posted by Achilles

But all you have done is a lot of hand waving at my attempts to explain. Therefore, if you "know", and therefore agree, then why are you going to such lengths to be contrary?

Mm. I think I did express myself unclear in that "first statement". I know the reasons why people jump on conclusions or turn to religion, whatever. I just cannot follow that logic. That is all.

Because you stated that you would refuse to change your position even if presented evidence which invalidated it. Aka "dogmatism".

Nah. I would not refuse to change position and I did not say so.

I agree that theistic religions are based on wishful thinking and have no evidence to support any of the claims found within them. What I will not do is say that I refuse to consider any evidence that contradicts what I consider to be "the truth". If I did, I'd be one flaming hypocrite.

Of course I would consider any evidence that might contradict my views. Especially then. I did not say otherwise! The more "opposite views" my views "survive", the better. If not, hell yeah, I've learned something (hopefully). And I said any valid proof for any god must not mean that at least one of the religions is right with what it says. I also said I would not feel like following any religion even if my neighbour happen to be (proven) god.

I mean, would you?

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

Mm. I think I did express myself unclear in that "first statement". I know the reasons why people jump on conclusions or turn to religion, whatever. I just cannot follow that logic. That is all.

If that's what you intended to convey, then fair enough.

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

Nah. I would not refuse to change position and I did not say so.

Well then I'm not sure what we were supposed to walk away with from this:

And seriously present me some proof for god or spiritual experiences all you want, no religion would be an option for me, even if god was my neighbour.

It sounds very much like that's exactly what you were saying.

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

Of course I would consider any evidence that might contradict my views. Especially then. I did not say otherwise! The more "opposite views" my views "survive", the better. If not, hell yeah, I've learned something (hopefully). And I said any valid proof for any god must not mean that at least one of the religions is right with what it says. I also said I would not feel like following any religion even if my neighbour happen to be (proven) god.

I mean, would you?

Since I'm not sure what you're arguing, I don't know if I would agree.

[Ray Jones]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Well then I'm not sure what we were supposed to walk away with from this:

Originally Posted by Me

And seriously present me some proof for god or spiritual experiences all you want, no religion would be an option for me, even if god was my neighbour.

I'm not sure how you are reading "I'll refuse to change position/consider evidence" into this? Where is it written that if I am given proof for the existence of a entity commonly know as "god", and accept it, I will also have to accept religion? That's what we are supposed to walk away with from this.

Since I'm not sure what you're arguing, I don't know if I would agree.

See above.

[Rogue Warrior]

If we can go back to what I was saying, I have a mate in the church community. His grandfather was a baptist minister, as much of a Christian as you can be, he left because of their attitude. A girl he knew left because of their attitude as well, and he wonders himself about remaining in the church. Yeah, okay, they might be weak minded fools who believe in god. My point is that I would hate people to turn away from atheism or be put off it to begin with because of their attitude, especially if I were to be the one responsible for it.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

I'm not sure how you are reading "I'll refuse to change position/consider evidence" into this? Where is it written that if I am given proof for the existence of a entity commonly know as "god", and accept it, I will also have to accept religion?

Ray Jones said:

And I said any valid proof for any god must not mean that at least one of the religions is right with what it says.

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

Perhaps we simply have an instance where you said something other than what you meant to convey. It happens.

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``

If we can go back to what I was saying, I have a mate in the church community. His grandfather was a baptist minister, as much of a Christian as you can be, he left because of their attitude.

Still a christian? If so, then I'm not sure how this applies.

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``

My point is that I would hate people to turn away from atheism or be put off it to begin with because of their attitude, especially if I were to be the one responsible for it.

Best of luck with that.

AbE: Hey, and in the interest of getting this thread back on topic, here's a clip on "christian tolerance" by one of my favorite vloggers:

Link

[Ray Jones]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Ray Jones said:

So "any valid proof for any god must not mean that at least one of the religions is right with what it says" equals "who accepts evidence for god to be existing has to accept religion?

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

And? Did you read me say worship, devotion, or faith anytime? Wouldn't evidence for god to be an existing entity kill god's supernatural status?

Perhaps we simply have an instance where you said something other than what you meant to convey.

Naaaah. You may misconceive my meaning, and thus I maintained a small graphic:

[Rogue Warrior]

Are you still on about me being Nancy? Okay, anyone buy a birth certificate?

Removed copy of document for safety/security reasons. --Jae

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

So "any valid proof for any god must not mean that at least one of the religions is right with what it says" equals "who accepts evidence for god to be existing has to accept religion?

I'm asking you to clarify your argument. You can do so however you would like

This is the one I'm still stuck on:
"And seriously present me some proof for god or spiritual experiences all you want, no religion would be an option for me, even if god was my neighbour."

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

And? Did you read me say worship, devotion, or faith anytime? Wouldn't evidence for god to be an existing entity kill god's supernatural status?

Indeed it would, but this wasn't about natural vs. supernatural status, rather existence vs. non-existence. Your argument seemed to be that you would continue do deny god's existence even if you had evidence. If this is not what you meant to convey or if you feel that I somehow misconstrued your argument, please just say so.

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

Naaaah. You may misconceive my meaning, and thus I maintained a small graphic:

Entirely possible

Like the cartoon! Hope god doesn't end up with back problems later in life. Oh wait...

[Ray Jones]

Originally Posted by Achilles

I'm asking you to clarify your argument. You can do so however you would like

This is the one I'm still stuck on:
"And seriously present me some proof for god or spiritual experiences all you want, no religion would be an option for me, even if god was my neighbour."

The figure has it all: proof of existence, neighbourhood, and no religion.

The 'spiritual experience' is on it too, but later. XD

Your argument seemed to be that you would continue do deny god's existence even if you had evidence.

Well, I'm not the type of guy who ignores evidence. Even less if it's evidence of boobs. :P

[Rogue Warrior]

Looking at the Ethical Atheist site again I see some posts that suggest people get off on upsetting others. There is even a thread that specifically states this. I turned to atheism because I consider it more moral than religion. How can we claim to be moral in light of this?

[Achilles]

How can we claim to be moral in light of the behavior of others? Not sure I understand the concern.

[Rogue Warrior]

I fear their actions may reflect poorly on atheism as a whole.

[Samuel Dravis]

Rogue, what other people do does not really matter for your actions to be moral (or not). You can't say that since some atheists are immoral, then all of them are - just as you can't say the same of religion. Similarly, no one could claim that since some atheists are moral, all atheists are moral. The conclusion just doesn't follow from the premises.

Does the actions of the few reflect poorly on the rest? Sure. That doesn't mean that it should be this way, however. Actions should not based on what some other atheist (or anyone else!) does or doesn't do - and if they aren't, then that "poor reflection" simply prejudice talking.

I think that atheists are perhaps more capable of being moral than someone dogmatically religious, due to their not being entirely free to act on their own volition. This being said, atheists are just as fallible as the next person, so I wouldn't count on them for an example unless you've examined and understand the reasons for their actions. Whether that example is good or bad depends on the person, not on their religious status.

[Rogue Warrior]

Hmmm, that is quite wise. It makes me wonder about pointing out religious acts and going 'see, see, religion is evil.'

[tk102]

Originally Posted by Rogue Warrior

Hmmm, that is quite wise. It makes me wonder about pointing out religious acts and going 'see, see, religion is evil.'

So would you say post #114 in this thread was one you made in your younger, naive days?

[Rogue Warrior]

By that should I be acting like we are at war against religion.

[tk102]

I don't think you should be acting like anyone other than who you are.

Do you or do you not feel that religion is evil and should be wiped from the earth? Were you joking when you wrote that or serious? If you say something one post and then reverse it another, you should provide explanation as to why so that you do not come across as nonsensical.

[Rogue Warrior]

I stand by my comment, and am content to simply state my stance on religion. I, this is just be by the way, do not feel the need to archive and pick faults.

[Rogue Nine]

You know, your 'friend' Nancy used to do the same exact thing. When confronted by a pointed statement or question, she would sidestep it by saying something nonsensical and/or ignoring it completely and starting down the road to a new topic.

This charade is getting really old, Nancy.

[Rogue Warrior]

How did I not answer the question? For that matter, if you are still on about me being Nancy then what would it take for me to prove I am not?

[Ray Jones]

What do you know about this thing called "Internet Protocol address"?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Check. If they match, she's a sock puppet. Otherwise, drop the subject.

The staff is evaluating the situation. Back on topic everyone, please. --Jae

[Ray Jones]

Call me whiny weener winnie, but is that always my posts gettin' deleted??? ;_;


XDDD

to the ontopic:

[Rogue Warrior]

Christianity is a religion of tolerance is it? If so then why is a girl tormented in the church community and when she leaves the members go on a character assassination?

[Ray Jones]

Wouldn't it make more sense to ask this particular question to the church community in question?

[Rogue Warrior]

A mate saw this and asked about it. The answer was there were a lot of new Christians finding their way. I dunno, does that excuse their actions or give atheists a big stick to beat them over the head with?

[Ray Jones]

Err, what? Would you mind to rephrase?