This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I have mentioned it, wait did I? Yes, I did.
I mentioned that theists and atheists alike share their opinions and sometimes force them, and sharing is fine, but forcing isnt.
Flat earthers force other people to have the same belief as them.
Thats why they are wrong in the given situation.

In Philosophy, we must ask and argue about anything in doubt and unclear. When we keep silence, Philosophy ceased to be Philosophy. — Corvus

I am far from being religious in fact I am probably the worst Christian around. What I am advocating is civil liberty. And how philosophy can be warped to justify oppression and excuse intolerant thinking.

My fear is not about my faith but warning you all about extremism ideology in any shape and form. And we should be preaching about open mindedness and not this arrogant thinking of I’m right your wrong or vice versa.

Is this sentiment that we need to expelle so we can all evolve as a civilization. If you reduce your self by calling faith as a fairytale than your just throwing out disrespectful babble and no one will take you serious as an intellectual.

Flat earthers are wrong because the earth isn't flat, forcing a belief on someone has no bearing on whether or not that belief is true.

Same could be said for religion as well, if we only talk about it from the 'existence of God' point of view.
If we also look at social welfare and happiness, of course its not as bad as flat earthers.

What if the person actually is wrong, and their wrong belief causes harm?
Isnt it important to correct peoples incorrect beliefs? Of course it is. The question is why should we make an exception for incorrect beliefs being held to account just in the case of religious or spiritual thinking? They should be held to the same standard as everyone else.

Is this sentiment that we need to expelle so we can all evolve as a civilization. If you reduce your self by calling faith as a fairytale than your just throwing out disrespectful babble and no one will take you serious as an intellectual — SteveMinjares

My motto in philosophy is - "All I know is that, I know nothing." Does it sound intellectual?

What I am advocating is civil liberty. And how philosophy can be warped to justify oppression and excuse intolerant thinking.

My fear is not about my faith but warning you all about extremism ideology in any shape and form. And we should be preaching about open mindedness and not this arrogant thinking of I’m right your wrong or vice versa. — SteveMinjares

By the way, bringing in the phrases like "civil liberty ... intolerant thinking and warnings", etc sound like power hungry political threats. No thank you.

What is the point? — SteveMinjares

Good question. I guess if it's an atheist forum then there would be a natural tendency to keep reinforcing the atheist position?

I think philosophical discussions on belief vs atheism should be conducted from a neutral position but that isn't going to happen as people tend to get worked up over things and it tends to descend into mud-slinging and insult-trading.

Personally, I think this is a shame because it is a topic that seems to be of interest to many people (obviously, in some parts of the world more than in others) and both sides can learn from one another.

Finding another forum is probably the best option, depending on what exactly it is that you want to discuss, etc.

Ya, it depends on what the specific religious claim is being made,
My point was that forcing someone to face the truth isnt always a bad thing and though we should have an open mind it shouldn't be so open it falls out. If someone isnt making sense or believes nonsense we should correct them, and if the nonsense is religious then that should offer no special protection from correction. Bad ideas are bad ideas.

I don't think that's the obsession I think the obsession is trying to get people to prove that God does exist because you can't proven nothing to be nothing but you can try to prove nothing to be something which has yet to be done .

What is the point? — SteveMinjares

Because religion keeps trying to change politics, social policy, legislation and morals in its own interests and against the freedoms of others. For instance, 80 % of Evangelicals supported Trump. The High Court has been stacked with Christian conservatives. The role of women and the status of gay people and other minorities all around the world is made worse by harmful God beliefs. This idea of a magic man who created the world and who commands us is very dangerous. It leads to fundamentalism in almost every country where there is God belief. People who think they know what God wants are amongst the most dangerous people on earth. That's the point.

Since nearly every Christian alive has a guilt complex and uses the religion for childish tingling sensations that make they feel as if they are actually good people, I would say they have nothing to teach anyone about ethics or religion

This idea of a magic man who created the world and who commands us is very dangerous. It leads to fundamentalism in almost every country where there is God belief. People who think they know what God wants are amongst the most dangerous people on earth. That's the point. — Tom Storm

:up:

The High Court has been staked with Christian conservatives. — Tom Storm

I figure you meant "stocked" but your version gives a Kafka flavor to the milkshake.

Kafka might help. I meant stacked.

This idea of a magic man who created the world and who commands us is very dangerous. — Tom Storm

I next encountered all the individual Ones,
The specialized ‘Gods’ of all the Religions.

They didn’t get along at all, not even for an instant,
For all they had in common was their intolerance
Of the others’ greatly erroneous and unjustifiable beliefs
That clashed with their own, for tolerance as a relief
Was truly Not an attitude the jealous ‘Gods’ endorsed.

The followers of each ‘God’ thought that their own
Irrational embrace of myth trumped the others’ known,
And so this led to many of the religious groans.

I watched the ‘Gods’ battling for a while, steadfast,
In the present, as well as in the distant past,
Their followers’ beliefs scripting the actions,
Conflicts leading to dying for untestable propositions
About where everyone came from and was going to:

Metaphysical Martyrdoms
Conflicted with the Divine Book of Revelations.

Deuteronomy 13:7-11
Stoned those disbelieving in Yahweh,
Killing them, while the Koran eliminated some infidels.

India and Pakistan, different countries domiciled,
Because the beliefs of Islam could not be reconciled
With those of Hinduism, were poised at the brink
Of nuclear war merely because they disagreed, rife,
Over some supernatural ‘facts’ concerning the afterlife.

Karmas ran over Dogmas.

Musharraf suspended Pakistan’s constitution,
To stamp out the growing Islamic militant coalition.

Palestine’s Jews and Muslims scuffled on;
Balkan Orthodox Serbians dueled
With the Catholic Croatians,
As well as with the Bosnian
Albanian Muslims;

Northern Ireland Protestants
Warred with Catholics;

Sudan Muslims discorded
With the Christians;
Sri Lankas’s Sinhalese Buddhists
Went against the Tamil Hindus;

Caucasus Orthodox Russians
And Chechen Muslims
Exterminated each other and their kin;

Iraq’s Sunnis and Shites massacred each other
For some very slight dogmatic differences.

I interrupted their skirmishing and said in haste,
“What about tolerance and respect for other faiths?”

They all answered at once and said, in unison’s beef,

“That’s just political talk. If we tolerated other beliefs,
That would be akin to recognizing them readily
As having some credibility, which they certainly do not.
We are saved and they are all doomed, in peril;
We can’t have them exerting influence in the world.”

“So,” I said, trying to make some small talk,
“I’ve heard that You’ve each written a book
That makes an exclusive claim as to its infallibility.

“Congratulations to each of You on being published.
All have made the bestseller list;
However, I have respectfully shelved all of them
Next to the ‘Egyptian Book of the Dead’
And Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’,
In the contradictory book and bible section.

“Hey, how about getting modern and making a film?
I know that a book was a great thing way back,
But a moving picture is worth 10,000 still pictures
Which are in turn each worth a thousand words.”

“Indeed, we will each be divinely inspiring a movie
That will soon be playing in a theater near you.”

“Wait, Guys, I take it back,” I said with alarm,
“Are not all your children doing enough harm
By fighting over your books and morality plays?

“Will people now die for another media—the movies?”

They ignored me and fought on, with their kind,
Unable to see but through their own ‘right’ minds,
Doing the opposite of their teachings of love,
Which they were especially and paradoxically out of.

Unfortunately, they now represented the largest threat
That human kind has ever imposed against itself—
All due to differences regarding some very improbable
And differing notions about the nature of the universe.

Have a look at this: Folk think that they are enacting god's will. And the results are irrational and immoral.

Sewing a little doubt is a moral obligation.

I think guilt is something that all people experience in some form or other. As for "tingling sensations", I somehow find it difficult to see what could be harmful about them.

Stacking the deck. Now that is more Hunter S Thompson territory.

Yes, but not umm...me. :yikes:

I guess many political parties will say that they are doing Gods work. Although believing in “The laws of nature and nature’s God” sounds rather peculiar. I wonder what kind of debate has gotten a result like that.

When the mystic is more logical and rational than the realist you know humanity is screwed.

I am not even preaching about God or faith. I am talking about open mindedness, human decency and respecting your fell peers to think for themselves.

There is this I don’t know, this over analytical weirdness like your trying to find a loop hole in some contract.

I know I am the The only believer here but even I know this is not atheistic thinking but some warp ego trip of desiring to be right.

I haven't seen you in a while - enjoy your stuff. :smile:

I am talking about open mindedness, human decency and respecting your fell peers to think for themselves. — SteveMinjares

Belief in god is used to excuse immorality.

Hence disrupting that believe is a moral act.

though we should have an open mind it shouldn't be so open it falls out — DingoJones

God forbid anyone should open their mind completely up, and thereby have full capacity to use it.

I am far less concerned with the question of a god's existence than with appeals to the authority of a god and abdication of responsibility in the name of a god.

Not everybody has guilt problems because you can clean up your karma if you desire. Christianity is all about religious tingles designed by their art and writings to (temporarily) ease guilt. The guilt comes back worse because Christian "joy" is a type of sinful wallowing in one's own perceived specialness

God forbid anyone should open their mind completely up, and thereby have full capacity to use it. — Yohan

Absolutely right.

And what shall we say of those whose mind is so small that it can easily "fall out" and, God forbid, become lost without trace? :wink:

My point was that you shouodnt be so open minded that you believe anything. Skepticism is just as valuable as an open mind, finding a balance between them is key to not believing in nonsense and/or incorrect things.

Atheists think rationally while Christians juice up their minds with their emotional minds so that they can't see when they have no argument which could defend their faith and their behavior in matters of religion and philosophy. Their narcissistic beliefs get them so drunk that they don't know a good argument from a bad one and common sense becomes impossible ("Jesus is coming out of the sky on a white horse. I KNOW this is true")

"Jesus is coming out of the sky on a white horse. I KNOW this is true") — Gregory

Sure. But there are some who might think "Marx or Stalin is coming out of the sky on a white horse. I KNOW this is true". Same difference, no?

Incidentally, on the occasion of the 1945 victory parade in Moscow, Stalin had intended to ride through the parade himself, but he fell from the horse during the rehearsal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Victory_Parade_of_1945

He nearly almost made it only that he didn't quite make it. Apparently, he couldn't even ride.

But I'm sure someday soon he will come down in a tank or something. And a tinfoil hat. Providing he is sober enough, that is.

But definitely something to look forward to, I figure :grin: