God: Benevolent or Malevolent?

I think I see the problem here. Some people are having a debate, and you're taking it personally. Again. Still. The responses aren't "at you", they're to the points in the debate. Maybe the 'animal' of one side in the argument is wounded, but that's not to say YOU are, or that people are torturing YOU for sport. If you're going to take it upon yourself to conduct a personal crusade against everyone who's 'wrong', I suggest you're going to be a very exhausted and unhappy person. For the sake of your health, Chuck, forgive and forget.

 

^ hyo silver,

There are a number of people on this ongoing topic that would be better off backing off for the reasons you suggested. While I've not taken some attacks in my direction well (like others on the opposing side), I don't have a vendetta on anyone....just put this discussion in the background...the few times it's been tried, it's worked well.

 

My point is that you are one of them, and that's more important than what the number is.

 

If there's a god he would relieve humanity by putting this subject in a closed forum, why, to keep like minded individuals in their own environment, why not, less hits less accessories sales.

 

Enjoy yours.

This was a nice calm discussion about hypothetical attributes of God. Now it is, as you seem to want, a discussion about religion, where you can exercise your persecution complex.

 

^ why don't you just tell a bigger myth?

You will probably feel better. {sigh}

I made a side note on post #52 or 53 last night, and a couple of others chose to make a big deal out of it.

 

Hopefully I'll be on the top, and not the bottom.

 

I agree, If your views do not share those of others, mainly the "established" members then you are scorned.

 

^Good thing your views fall right in line with some "established" members then..

Perhaps we should all calm down with the current *blame others for scorn* this thread is now veering towards. No one in this thread is innocent.

 

It's anything but a debate hyo. An actual debate requires opposing arguments not opposing attacks.

 

...and my point is if you are serious about peace in this matter - your side also needs to calm down, as others have noted.

 

A while back someone asked why I continue to argue against religion. One of the reasons is that there is a very real, and extremely well-funded war being waged against science education by highly-organized religious fundamentalists. Their targets are state legislatures. Their tactics are to pass laws allowing (in some cases) or requiring (in other cases) science teachers to teach that established scientific knowledge is merely speculation, and claiming that religious dogma is just as valid as science as a means of understanding the way the world works.

Their objective is to demean and devalue science and convince students to reject science in favor of religious dogma.

At present their focus is to bring creationism and denial of global climate change into science classes. They draft laws, present them to sympathetic state legislators, and lobby for their passage. Many state legislators are ignorant of scientific principles, and few have the resources to adequate investigate the facts even if they wanted to.

This is a religious war against science, and threatens to degrade the state of science education below its already pathetic level. We could end up moving into another dark age, where priests are in charge and "wrong" belief (i.e. "heresy") is punished with torture and murder, as it was the last time churches had the political power.

Fortunately, such laws as mentioned above are usually overturned by the courts as unconstitutional. But the fundamentalist organizations behind them are become ever more sophisticated in the way they draft such laws, and the way they promote them. So this is not a time to shut up about the irrationality and the pernicious social effects of religion.

 

But are you then picking the right fight?

The question of this thread is one where you can expect personal (and different) answers from every religious person. Notice how many developed countries are on the leading edge of science even though there is a high percentage of religious people and even a state religion or other ties between the ruling bodies and religion. These countries (speaking of the European ones like England, etc.) do not face the problems of USA (at least not to the same extend) because religion is more of a cultural legacy of the people.

Wouldn't a more appropriate debate be in a thread where the subject is the dangers of teaching non-science and myths as truths in the public school?

By making threads like these, where the core of the matter is off-topic, leads to long winded discussions that go nowhere (except sometimes against members personally). To prove my point: Try to recap the on-topic arguments of the past 10 pages of this thread.

 

Exactly the opposite is true. The secularist are doing everything to rid the country of anything having to do with its Christian heritage. Thus my signature a month back:

Karl Marx said, "Take away the heritage of a people and they are easily persuaded."

Many of our (and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_universities_in_continuous_operation"]England's and others[/ame]) esteemed universities were founded by Christians. Feel free to read yourself. Ref 2. Modern science's very foundation "evolved" from these organizations.

Unfortunately it appears that the paths have diverged recently. Which you would undoubtedly say is good and I would say is bad.

 

Perhaps we should be teaching the creation stories of the Navaho, if we REALLY wish to keep to this country's religious heritage.

 

...and my point is if you are serious about peace in this matter - your side also needs to calm down, as others have noted.

 

Here is the problem with your thinking, no one is trying to rid Christians or any other religion out of this country, even the atheists, that is just a made up justification for religion to try to gain a strong foothold in government, WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG. No religion belongs in government, laws are to be made for all, not one group or one religion.

Where have Christians been attacked? No where, Christians can pray anywhere they want, they can celebrate Christmas, Easter and any other holiday all they want, in their yard, in their church, on their house, under their house, in their car, on their clothing, where ever, so where is Christianity being rid from? I bet its the DEMAND that Christians control public parks, public schools, public workplaces, workplaces, public courthouses, public offices, public government, again, WHERE RELIGION DOESN'T BELONG.

 

England is an interesting case. There is a state religion, which officially everyone belongs to by virtue of being a citizen, but relatively few people go to church, participate in religion, or even particularly believe. They may believe in god in a perfunctory manner. But strong religious belief is uncommon there.

I guess we disagree on this. Fundamentalists are working hard and lobbying hard to inject religion into schools and governments. The only thing secularists are trying to do is keep religion out of schools and government. There are ZERO attempts in the U.S. to outlaw religion, or to close down churches.

I am a strong proponent of having classes in comparative religion in schools. I believe religion should be taught in the context of sociology or social studies. Students should learn what are the belief systems of other cultures. Every American student should learn the beliefs of the major world religions, and since we are where we are, should also learn the beliefs of the traditional and present Native American religions. Every student should be required to know the basics, and more in-depth classes should be available, as well as classes in the smaller religions as well as religions of the past.

But religion should not intrude on science classes, passed off as if science were nothing but unfounded speculation and religion were equally valid.

 

I can read between the lines this and hyo silver recent remark:

• Just leave us irreligious people and our sanctuary at PHoP alone
• The religious people are the problem
• They don't post as much or start as many religious threads as the secular people, but it's the problem
• Just shut up and let us secular people continue to needle religion and their adherants in a manner we would NEVER tolerate if they were to frequently post threads questioning secularism, constantly harping on it until flamewars are inevitable.
• Our blind eye entitles us to engage in the objectionable behaviors we accuse the religious members of doing.
• The religious members started it all - we are blameless

 

Diverged recently from going away from secularism towards fundamental teachings in Christianity, you mean. If you look at the list you link, you're linking to the oldest universities in the world. Part of what made the New World unique was that the idea of having religious tolerance was preserving people's own rights for religious belief, and not have a state sponsored religion. Let's look at Harvard University, America's oldest school. Even during its founding, it did not have a formal affiliation with any religion. During the 18th century, it became even more secular.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University"]Harvard University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


For some fundamentalists that believe all the founding fathers were Christian and wanted Christian values being taught in school, which values would those be? Afterall, Thomas Jefferson was a popular founding father who wrote a lot about religious freedom. Those like him, who were either directly deists or subscribed to Enlightenment Philosophy, had many beliefs that were quite different from some of the Evangelical Christians who want to throw science out in favor of their interpretations of the King James Bible. Literally... take a look at some of Don McLeroy's rhetoric: he questions carbon dating, why man didn't live with the dinosaurs, and defines a literal interpretation of Genesis being more "fact" then actual scientific evidence...all while he was chair of Texas state education. No surprise that he later has exclaimed that thousands of professors "have converted our universities into left wing seminaries" during Tea Party conventions. That's an interesting oxymoron since it's he who is proposing more of a seminary situation: that universities should sponsor his particular religious belief instead of scientific evidence. That's also an affront to the secular ideas promoted by the founding fathers to promote religious tolerance.