Brainwashing Christian Children: Scary.

[wthwyt]

...Christians generally don't tolerate homosexual behavior and lifestyles because they are brainwashed by their belief systems. And their attitudes and public displays rub off on the general public causing more acts of hatred and segregation of homosexual people...

An interesting theory, but I have to wonder if it's grounded in fact, or just a generalization based on a highly vocal minority. I would hesitate to brand it as a "strike against Christianity" as intolerance and homophobia are hardly the exclusive realms of Christians. Bigots come from many different walks of life.

So very true fluffy, maybe one day all of us humans will be more accepting of each other.

[Mr. Personality]

I insist nothing.

I realize there is a difference between politics and religion, but what if one comes from a paradigm where there is no difference? A paradigm that says religion is valueless and not worthy of tender touches, respect and reverance?

While there has been some suggestion on this thread that there is a difference between a 'regular' atheist and an 'evangelical' one (that's just got to me an oxymoron),

Should be an oxymoron, but sadly it isn't.

it seems any time someone on here merely suggests that religious people are misguided or even plain wrong that they are immediately slapped with the label intolerant or some such thing.

It also seems any time someone posts about faith in God they are slapped with the 'misguided', 'wrong' and 'just plain stupid' labels.
It all goes both ways.

[fluffy]

it seems any time someone on here merely suggests that religious people are misguided or even plain wrong that they are immediately slapped with the label intolerant or some such thing.

It also seems any time someone posts about faith in God they are slapped with the 'misguided', 'wrong' and 'just plain stupid' labels.
It all goes both ways.

Exactly. And since the whole "God" question has not, or cannot, be answered decisively at this point in time, then debates of this nature can't really be resolved can they? A big part of that is the lack of a level playing surface. There are endless number of ways to envision the God concept, so for the most part we can only weigh the submissions of others according to our own idea of what form God takes, either in our own eyes or those of others. Doesn't this put some serious cracks in the foundation of any argument?

[Mr. Personality]

Since there is no possibility of proper definition, no. Atheism is just another option.

[Nebula]

And since the whole "God" question has not, or cannot, be answered decisively at this point in time

I must comment, your Fluffiness.

To some people the question of 'god' has been answered decisively, as surely as the guestion of Santa or the Easter Bunny has been answered.

Don't get caught in the argument that one cannot prove god does not exist, therefore god could exist. Using the same basis, one cannot prove many things do not exist. Absence of proof that something does not exist does not mean they do exist or even that they could exist.

The onus is on the believer. And they fail.

[fluffy]

To some people the question of 'god' has been answered decisively, as surely as the question of Santa or the Easter Bunny has been answered.

Fair enough, but I suspect you are subscribing to a concept of God that uses the "Supreme Being" template. What of other God concepts that don't share that view? What if my vision of Santa Claus was not that of the right jolly old elf popping down my chimney, but something more ethereal, maybe just a name that embodies charity and warmth and celebration of friends and family? Would it be as easy to not believe in that?

[Nebula]

I do equate god to supreme being.

If you partaking in a belief of god as being the collective goodwill of humans or something like that, with no omniscience, omnipresence, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful characteristics, then you should perhaps call it something other than god and we would have little to challenge each other on.

I 'believe' in the general goodness of people. That belief does not come from a sheer leap of faith, which is required to believe in capital 'g' God. It is a belief based on experience and knowledge.

[fluffy]

I do equate god to supreme being.

If you partaking in a belief of god as being the collective goodwill of humans or something like that, with no omniscience, omnipresence, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful characteristics, then you should perhaps call it something other than god and we would have little to challenge each other on.

I 'believe' in the general goodness of people. That belief does not come from a sheer leap of faith, which is required to believe in capital 'g' God. It is a belief based on experience and knowledge.

If we take the literal translation of the Bible and toss it out the window, and look upon it metaphorically like a Zen Koan of one of Aesop's Fables, then the hurdle of belief in a supreme being is no longer an issue, likewise other points of contention like evolution, but we are still left with the benefit of some pretty decent moral lessons. I can't say for sure, but I suspect that many other religious texts can be approached the same way. I tend to like the name "God" because it's only got one syllable and it's real easy to spell.

[Nebula]

I do equate god to supreme being.

If you partaking in a belief of god as being the collective goodwill of humans or something like that, with no omniscience, omnipresence, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful characteristics, then you should perhaps call it something other than god and we would have little to challenge each other on.

I 'believe' in the general goodness of people. That belief does not come from a sheer leap of faith, which is required to believe in capital 'g' God. It is a belief based on experience and knowledge.

If we take the literal translation of the Bible and toss it out the window, and look upon it metaphorically like a Zen Koan of one of Aesop's Fables, then the hurdle of belief in a supreme being is no longer an issue, likewise other points of contention like evolution, but we are still left with the benefit of some pretty decent moral lessons. I can't say for sure, but I suspect that many other religious texts can be approached the same way. I tend to like the name "God" because it's only got one syllable and it's real easy to spell.

I can write you out some decent moral lessons and I won't require you to worship a nonexistant entity and I won't threaten you will eternal damnation if you don't follow the rules. So why do you need god/dog/bag/art/car/ball (all one syallable words and easy to spell.)

[fluffy]

So why do you need god/dog/bag/art/car/ball (all one syallable words and easy to spell.)

It's a method I use to reconcile my personal spiritual beliefs with writings and teaching that are pervasive in today's society. I don't have to be at odds with religions that have some good to offer, but tend to wrap it up in a lot of stuff that I found hard to believe. I mentioned over in the "There's probably..." thread that this concept I'm using now was a means to make an existing program usable for me. The program is extensive enough in it's literature that the "G" word is used fairly frequently, but always qualified with "...of my understanding", which left it open for me to find a concept that I was at ease with and still reap the benefits of a program with a proven track record.

[Nebula]

As they say, "Whatever floats yer boat."

[Mr. Personality]

And since the whole "God" question has not, or cannot, be answered decisively at this point in time

I must comment, your Fluffiness.

To some people the question of 'god' has been answered decisively, as surely as the guestion of Santa or the Easter Bunny has been answered.

To others the existence of God has been proven as surely as the people around them. It may not be a scientific method, but to them it's proven.
All in how you look at it, I guess.

[Nebula]

To others the existence of God has been proven as surely as the people around them. It may not be a scientific method, but to them it's proven.
All in how you look at it, I guess.

Depends, I guess, on how you define 'proof'. A schizophrenic may have all the proof he needs that there really are voices to talking to him.

[fluffy]

In considering the solution I found to bring God back into the realm of believability I'm led to believe that it was the original intent of the Bible's authors that it be considered metaphorically rather than literally. It would sure clear up a lot of controversy.

[Mr. Personality]

To others the existence of God has been proven as surely as the people around them. It may not be a scientific method, but to them it's proven.
All in how you look at it, I guess.

Depends, I guess, on how you define 'proof'. A schizophrenic may have all the proof he needs that there really are voices to talking to him.

Yup.