Know Thyself

MaesterAuron151 · Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:42 pm Post subject: Re: Know Thyself

Quote:

Its still less than 1 percent of the church’s history, and why the sudden unhealthy backwards step?

Um some douch bag who hated women I think.

Quote:
It should, any reasonable person should be horrified by what is written and recommended as behavior in that book.

Your only looking at the possibility of the moderates becoming athiests. There's also a strong possibility of the moderates turning to fundamentalism. Especailly in the case of second hand accounts. You may turn one moderate atheists with a personal discussion, but a dozen more moderates may hear about this and decide the unbelievers are a threat and become fundamentalists.

Quote:
I am also demonstrating the inherent flaws in the bible, showing them that it is not the word of god and that it is no more praiseworthy than the book “101 uses for dead babies”.

The fundamentalists will never be convinced that its not the word of god.

Quote:

Your forgetting about the part where I mention that the bible is complete horse poo.

And you think fundamentalists aren't good at ignoring certain aspects of reality to get what they want?

Quote:

Actually these arguments have shocked and ashamed many moderates into taking a second look at their religion, there is not much that can be done with the fundamentalists.

I was talking about hte fundamentalists. Basically your telling them "Your wrong there's no god, but your interpritation of the bible is 100% correct". And of course they're more then capable of ignoring that first part.

Quote:

How so? Right now their numbers are strengthening the fundamentalists, less numbers equals less power.

Not really because the moderates don't lend any tangible support to the fundamentalists. Like I said basically everyone hats the fundamentalists. When they see themselves as under attack they're lival to join with fundamentalists.

Quote:
Probably not, this tension is decades old. If anything the cultural acceptance of atheists is slightly better now than 10 or 20 years ago.

So why hurt that by attacking a group who's no real threat to you?

Quote:

I don’t have an issue with it; I can cooperate with anyone when necessary. Some of my closest friends are Christians. But being accepted by them has been a serious problem.

Have you tried the "atleast we both agree that fundamentalists suck" approach?

Quote:
Worldliness, well rounded knowledge, insight, empathy, self understanding, discipline, respect, love, awareness, compassion, character, purpose, morality, tolerance and the willingness to fight for your values.

Hmm I guess. I find it a bit hard to define really.

Here's a problem with this whole restricting behavior thing. What if those restrictions are a necessary experiance for that person to become wise. For example what if the Religeous practice of fasting is necessary to understand hunger.

Quote:
Again you are focusing on one rather obscure religion, which still enforces certain limitations over accepted behavior.

Obscure? Its one of the five main religeons.

Every story must come to an end.

Frank 013 · Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: Re: Know Thyself

Quote:
MeasterAuron
Um some douche bag who hated women I think.

You’re probably right there.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
You’re only looking at the possibility of the moderates becoming atheists. There's also a strong possibility of the moderates turning to fundamentalism. Especially in the case of second hand accounts. You may turn one moderate atheists with a personal discussion, but a dozen more moderates may hear about this and decide the unbelievers are a threat and become fundamentalists.

Actually I was focusing on the numbers, since the fundamentalists already have nearly unlimited financial support the only thing that really matters now is how many people they can claim they represent.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
The fundamentalists will never be convinced that it’s not the word of god.

I believe I said that.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
And you think fundamentalists aren't good at ignoring certain aspects of reality to get what they want?

Quite the contrary, I know that they are.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
I was talking about the fundamentalists. Basically you’re telling them "Your wrong there's no god, but your interpretation of the bible is 100% correct". And of course they're more then capable of ignoring that first part.

My message is not directed at the fundamentalists its for the moderates who have only a passing familiarity with the bible.

This tactic has been the most obviously successful in this country so far. Shaming these people and letting them see what their holy book really says seems to be having a very positive effect.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
Not really because the moderates don't lend any tangible support to the fundamentalists. Like I said basically everyone hats the fundamentalists. When they see themselves as under attack they're libel to join with fundamentalists.

The fundamentalists already have all of the tangible support that they need in this country, financially it is nearly unlimited. All they need from the moderates is the numbers which they have.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
So why hurt that by attacking a group who's no real threat to you?

This new respect for atheists seems to be a direct result of this counterattack. Theists are quickly learning that we have a superior knowledge of their religion than most of them do and we will readily show them how foolish their beliefs are.

Americans hate to be made fools and this tactic, so far, has had a profoundly positive influence on atheist’s respectability.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
Have you tried the "at least we both agree that fundamentalists suck" approach?

Yea but the answer is usually something along the lines of “well at least their not immoral sinners”.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
Here's a problem with this whole restricting behavior thing. What if those restrictions are a necessary experience for that person to become wise? For example what if the Religious practice of fasting is necessary to understand hunger.

Fasting is not a restriction, it is denying oneself food, and it is an experience.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
Obscure? Its one of the five main religions.

The point is, its numbers are relatively small in comparison to the other main religions and that it still restricts behavior.

You cant tell me that a monk caught banging away with a prostitute in his little room would not be thrown out on his ear, even if he said he was just trying to experience the allure of the flesh.

Later

irishrosem · Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:35 pm Post subject: Re: Know Thyself

Frank: Some of my closest friends are Christians.

This just struck me as funny. Some of my closest friends are black, gay, Muslim (insert any marginalized group here). Frank, only you could take a statement normally directed at minorities and substitute Christians.

What? ::75

Some of my closest friends are Christians...

Frank 013 · Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: Know Thyself

Quote:
irishrosem
Frank, only you could take a statement normally directed at minorities and substitute Christians.

I have to say it that way because most people at booktalk would not believe it of me. ::04

Frank 013 · Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: Know Thyself

MeasterAuron,
This is an excerpt from NoBeliefs.com since you seem to be so hung up on the way some atheists are vocalizing our opinions about religion I thought you might be able to appreciate a view from our side.

Quote:
Apparently, some believe that any criticism — or at least any very pointed and strong criticism — of deeply-held beliefs is "rude" because people should be left alone with their religious beliefs. It's as if religion and theism should be immune to the same sorts of criticism and critical scrutiny which every other belief and belief system is commonly subjected to.

This leads directly into the second major problem religious theists who complain about atheists being "rude" don't offer similar complaints about other religious theists who are equally "rude." Richard Dawkins, for example, is often singled out for the accusation of rudeness because he traveled around to different religious communities and offered commentary on what he thought was wrong with their religious beliefs. Evangelists who go around to various communities to promote their religious beliefs and also criticize common lifestyles are not, however, called rude or intolerant.

Some religious believers go much further than this — there are a number of groups which go door-to-door promoting their beliefs and telling people that they should change because their current beliefs are wrong or even dangerous. There are "street preachers" who are even more aggressive and direct in their proselytization. I don't see them being criticized for being "rude" and "intolerant," nor do you see atheists doing anything remotely similar.

Then of course there are the little things that atheists have to put up with. Most atheists have received religious spam from relatives who pass around chain emails calling for prayer or attacking church/state separation. Most atheists have received emails from religious friends and relatives that contain religious quotes or Bible verses at the end. Most atheists have been told that they are being prayed for.
How often do atheists do anything similar in return? In fact, atheists rarely if ever do such things and if they did, they'd be accused of rudeness and intolerance. At the same time, religious theists keep up such behavior without a second thought. Why does this double standard exist?

Later


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT