Because in the thousands of years that religion has existed, not one single shred of verifiable evidence has ever been produced by believers to prove that their beliefs are based on anything real, and since these religions are often the driving force behind holding society back from progress and advancement, they should be opposed and challenged robustly.
That is why it's called Faith and Belief, I am unsure what we would all it if we had verifiable proof
I thought it was atheists that were supposed to be smug, aggressive and arrogant?
Any one on any side of any argument can be bombastic and irritating (not excluding me) so to suggest those characteristics mainly or only belong to one side is just a sectarian dig.
To be fair, only a small number actually believe this rubbish and I think constantly ranting about it to people who don't believe in it does you no favours.
This is so true. The purest definition of "Christian" is someone who follows the example and teachings of Jesus. Some of those people treat the whole of the bible as the literal word of God, but many don't, and to presume everyone does is plainly wrong and irrational. They tend to be the Christians you see on American tv, and some are very extreme. Meanwhile, a great many other people treat it as background reading. Jesus spoke in parables to help people understand, so if you accept those, it's no great leap to accept that some of the stories in the Old Testament were designed to give people the general gist. I say this to those who refuse to accept evolution as much as those who insist evolution means there is no God.
Similarly, many believe that when Jesus said people should "turn the other cheek" he was providing an update/clarification on the old "eye for an eye". It's thought that the original intention was to limit the legal system to only issue proportionate punishment, as was perhaps fitting of the time. However, in the relatively more modern era of Jesus' time, it was being used as an excuse or an expectation to issue punishment that wasn't always necessary or no longer appropriate.
If you believe that, then you can quite reasonably believe that a lot of the more severe stuff from the Old Testament, and any part of the bible, was "of its era". Therefore, while some very orthodox Christians prefer to stick to that way of thinking, it's completely consistent with the teachings and example of Jesus to apply a bit of present day interpretation as to what is appropriate.
The fact is, it suits some of the militant atheists to spread the view that Christianity requires a certain point of view, but that doesn't make it true.
That is why it's called Faith and Belief, I am unsure what we would all it if we had verifiable proof
It's fine to call it faith and belief and admit that it's not based on real evidence
But they shouldn't try for example opposing free consenting adults from getting married to a person of the same sex because of what their never proven god apparently demands.
Social policy shouldn't be influenced by people who believe in the supernatural and unverifiable.
I was raised a catholic and went to a catholic all girls school. My mother thinks it's very ironic that I was named Faith and now have none. Not sure if it was because of the experience of a catholic school/nuns etc or just because I am sceptical anyway but I started to question it from age 12 onwards, rebelling. I now call myself an atheist but I don't refer to sky fairies, make believe gods and all the other quite frankly shitty comments. Theres no need for them, people who use them are being deliberately provocative and insulting, it's like poking something with a stick and a bit ridiculous and pathetic.
ps: if you're going to use those terms its only right you're called smug, arrogant and patronising etc as you are being.
Grow up. Don't know why it bothers you so much who's posts I agree with and what not.
And I don't agree with athiest-bashers. Or perhaps you would like to point out all the posts I've made on DS which are "athiest-bashing" to you.
So when you agree with the OP that there is ''something horribly arrogant and smug and narrow minded about a lot of atheists'' you don't consider that to be rude, offensive and atheist bashing?
Seems the consensus on here is that toleration is a good thing (which is usually but not always true) but that toleration is best demonstrated by not preaching anything to anyone. Am I alone in having no objection to being preached at while probably being 'guilty' of doing it myself?
Give me a society where people engage with ideas even if it offends sometime than one where we have to tip toe around anything that matters to us. May we always 'tolerate' the 'loony' street preacher and the 'angry atheist' the alternative is much worse.
Hell I don't even object to people who throw charges of being narrow/closed minded at others while themselves objecting to how others express their views.
A reasonable view, as always, but how are us believers supposed to spread the good news ?
It's a toss-up between those two, seeing as you're asking I don't really think about God, whether he exists or not, very much. The closest I come is saying 'oh God not again' or 'Jesus f*****g Christ' when the school calls up and says 'you're daughter's had another seizure' ETA: I don't say that over the phone obviously, after I've hung up of course
I sympathise with your situation but can I just suggest some different swearwords.:)
It's fine to call it faith and belief and admit that it's not based on real evidence
But they shouldn't try for example opposing free consenting adults from getting married to a person of the same sex because of what their never proven god apparently demands.
Social policy shouldn't be influenced by people who believe in the supernatural and unverifiable.
Many don't the church I attend already does same sex marriages and did before the change in the law - secular society is slowly catching up with us
Also in the churches where they do say no many in the congregation are happy to live and let live it's the higher clergy who say no. A small group who seem to see their power slipping away from them.
Grow up. Don't know why it bothers you so much who's posts I agree with and what not.
And I don't agree with athiest-bashers. Or perhaps you would like to point out all the posts I've made on DS which are "athiest-bashing" to you.
So when you agree with the OP that there is ''something horribly arrogant and smug and narrow minded about a lot of atheists'' you don't consider that to be rude, offensive and atheist bashing?
points out!
BANG
oops...thats the other foot youve just shot yourself in! PMSL.:D
If batgirl is going to answer, why the need for you to interject. If I had wanted to exchange' niceties' with you, I would have addressed you. But as i have no time for ranting posters, I tend to ignore you.
i was mentioning the fact that your post didnt make sense... you were mixing two different things.
batgirl has explained that but for some reason you dont appear to understand.
I am not religious, however I firmly believe that anyone who utters the phrase `sky fairy` is lacking upstairs and should be put out of their misery with a bolt gun to the head.
Unequivocally stated. Graphic detail of the method you think should be used and not a smiley in sight, so:
You state you're not religious, so it would be unlikely to be used against you. I haven't heard the phrase "should be put out of their misery with a bolt gun to the head" used against atheists before, so congratulations on the first coinage (here at least). You see; that could very well be seen as inciting violence, and we don't see much of that on here.
People should be killed for uttering a remark which you find offensive, is what you said you firmly believe.
Liar? Or just extremely intolerant? Either way, I don't think people like you have any place in moderate discussion.
Unequivocally stated. Graphic detail of the method you think should be used and not a smiley in sight, so:
You state you're not religious, so it would be unlikely to be used against you. I haven't heard the phrase "should be put out of their misery with a bolt gun to the head" used against atheists before, so congratulations on the first coinage (here at least). You see; that could very well be seen as inciting violence, and we don't see much of that on here.
People should be killed for uttering a remark which you find offensive, is what you said you firmly believe.
Liar? Or just extremely intolerant? Either way, I don't think people like you have any place in moderate discussion.
What would you suggest and what do you think is "lacking"?
Or could have just been joking just a little ? That's how I took it not as a statement inciting violence.
Or could have just been joking just a little ? That's how I took it not as a statement inciting violence.
Very likely but then I would suggest that people who joke about using bolt guns on other humans should probably avoid criticising others for using terms like 'sky fairy'.
Personally I would avoid using both the sky fairy term and making jokes about bolt guns but that is probably just me.
Very likely but then I would suggest that people who joke about using bolt guns on other humans should probably avoid criticising others for using terms like 'sky fairy'.
Personally I would avoid using both the sky fairy term and making jokes about bolt guns but that is probably just me.
Happy Easter.
Quite correct but just the same it's OTT to suggest inciting a crime just because someone made a bad joke.
I recently decided the sky fairy remarks should just be ignored they sort of show themselves up as rude and intolerant so don't need to be countered.
And a happy Easter to you too Richard - this will give you a laugh I never as an atheist celebrated Easter and now belong to a religion that does celebrate it either - never seem destined to have an Easter egg !
I don't know where these people live very occasionally a lady knocks my door is told I have my own faith and happily departs, no harm done. Never ever been approached in the street, I am far more likely to be getting stopped by political canvassers than religious people.
It doesn't matter that you don't mind people coming to your door or that you haven't been approached in the street. It's a fact that these things happen. And that plenty of people do mind.
It doesn't matter that you don't mind people coming to your door or that you haven't been approached in the street. It's a fact that these things happen. And that plenty of people do mind.
So it doesn't matter what I think but what you think does matter rather a lot -- OKAAY
This seems to be a bit of a sore point with you. I'm sensing that this is something of a personal, close to home issue. Do you approach strangers in the street to talk about your religion? Do you go door to door to do the same?
Comments
That is why it's called Faith and Belief, I am unsure what we would all it if we had verifiable proof
I thought it was atheists that were supposed to be smug, aggressive and arrogant?
Any one on any side of any argument can be bombastic and irritating (not excluding me) so to suggest those characteristics mainly or only belong to one side is just a sectarian dig.
This is so true. The purest definition of "Christian" is someone who follows the example and teachings of Jesus. Some of those people treat the whole of the bible as the literal word of God, but many don't, and to presume everyone does is plainly wrong and irrational. They tend to be the Christians you see on American tv, and some are very extreme. Meanwhile, a great many other people treat it as background reading. Jesus spoke in parables to help people understand, so if you accept those, it's no great leap to accept that some of the stories in the Old Testament were designed to give people the general gist. I say this to those who refuse to accept evolution as much as those who insist evolution means there is no God.
Similarly, many believe that when Jesus said people should "turn the other cheek" he was providing an update/clarification on the old "eye for an eye". It's thought that the original intention was to limit the legal system to only issue proportionate punishment, as was perhaps fitting of the time. However, in the relatively more modern era of Jesus' time, it was being used as an excuse or an expectation to issue punishment that wasn't always necessary or no longer appropriate.
If you believe that, then you can quite reasonably believe that a lot of the more severe stuff from the Old Testament, and any part of the bible, was "of its era". Therefore, while some very orthodox Christians prefer to stick to that way of thinking, it's completely consistent with the teachings and example of Jesus to apply a bit of present day interpretation as to what is appropriate.
The fact is, it suits some of the militant atheists to spread the view that Christianity requires a certain point of view, but that doesn't make it true.
It's fine to call it faith and belief and admit that it's not based on real evidence
But they shouldn't try for example opposing free consenting adults from getting married to a person of the same sex because of what their never proven god apparently demands.
Social policy shouldn't be influenced by people who believe in the supernatural and unverifiable.
ps: if you're going to use those terms its only right you're called smug, arrogant and patronising etc as you are being.
So when you agree with the OP that there is ''something horribly arrogant and smug and narrow minded about a lot of atheists'' you don't consider that to be rude, offensive and atheist bashing?
A reasonable view, as always, but how are us believers supposed to spread the good news ?
No. If I did, it wouldn't include you.
I sympathise with your situation but can I just suggest some different swearwords.:)
Many don't the church I attend already does same sex marriages and did before the change in the law - secular society is slowly catching up with us
Also in the churches where they do say no many in the congregation are happy to live and let live it's the higher clergy who say no. A small group who seem to see their power slipping away from them.
But tomorrow is Sunday.
Er... you'd call it a fact?
Is that you Rebecca Black? Love your song btw.
I know but that was the point
I certainly don't!
Jung is still alive?
erm...your very first post on this thread? as
points out!
BANG
oops...thats the other foot youve just shot yourself in! PMSL.:D
i was mentioning the fact that your post didnt make sense... you were mixing two different things.
batgirl has explained that but for some reason you dont appear to understand.
*snorts tea out my nose in laughter*
But will they be kickin' in the front seat?
or Sittin' in the back seat?
They've gotta make their mind up, which seat can they take?
You state you're not religious, so it would be unlikely to be used against you. I haven't heard the phrase "should be put out of their misery with a bolt gun to the head" used against atheists before, so congratulations on the first coinage (here at least). You see; that could very well be seen as inciting violence, and we don't see much of that on here.
People should be killed for uttering a remark which you find offensive, is what you said you firmly believe.
Liar? Or just extremely intolerant? Either way, I don't think people like you have any place in moderate discussion.
What would you suggest and what do you think is "lacking"?
Very likely but then I would suggest that people who joke about using bolt guns on other humans should probably avoid criticising others for using terms like 'sky fairy'.
Personally I would avoid using both the sky fairy term and making jokes about bolt guns but that is probably just me.
Happy Easter.
Quite correct but just the same it's OTT to suggest inciting a crime just because someone made a bad joke.
I recently decided the sky fairy remarks should just be ignored they sort of show themselves up as rude and intolerant so don't need to be countered.
And a happy Easter to you too Richard - this will give you a laugh I never as an atheist celebrated Easter and now belong to a religion that does celebrate it either - never seem destined to have an Easter egg !
It doesn't matter that you don't mind people coming to your door or that you haven't been approached in the street. It's a fact that these things happen. And that plenty of people do mind.
So it doesn't matter what I think but what you think does matter rather a lot -- OKAAY
This seems to be a bit of a sore point with you. I'm sensing that this is something of a personal, close to home issue. Do you approach strangers in the street to talk about your religion? Do you go door to door to do the same?