God: Benevolent or Malevolent?

Chuck, you seem to be just as vocal and just as passionate about your beliefs. How about getting the ball rolling and stop with the prodding of who's worst at the religious flame wars

There is one element that the thread is getting into which I think is more pertinent. Some are equating secularism to atheism, when they shouldn't. I consider myself secular but mostly Jewish when it comes to religion. I am of the thought that this country was founded on Enlightenment principles, which one of the notable tenants being that people can have their own beliefs. And if you want tolerance, you must also respect other beliefs.

 

Speaking for myself, I have never said that you or other believers should shut up. Nor have I ever said that you or they post too much. (Though you have suggested that I post too much.)

What I do, is argue that your beliefs are mistaken. I have pointed out where arguments for religion are faulty. I have pointed out where religious dogma runs contrary to the scriptures that dogma is supposed to be drawn from. And I argue that religion is a pernicious influence that does far more harm than good. But I've never told you or anyone to shut up.

 

I'm saying this in a calm voice just for clarification


Daniel - I'm not out to get you.

Daniel - I'm not out to get you.

Same for AirportKid or anyone else of similar convictions.

Nor am I expecting to change your mind.

There are both Christian and Secular groups out there (in the real world) very politically involved - that's absolutely true....I would have gone to another forum if that's what I wanted to participate in. I don't know of anyone at PC promoting an activitist Christian agenda ever.

Daniel/AirportKid, if there were Christians stirring up such issues, I could better understand the enormous bandwidth both of you give attacking religion if it went on here....since it does not, it reflects badly and virtually guarantees flamewars. If the ranting was instead of religion, another socio-political hot topic there would also be a lot of fighting - that's why I see this topic should go to Fred's Political House of Pancakes - same outcome.

At whatever forum I join, I tend to stick to whatever their theme is as there is a diverse group of people.....there will be plenty of controversy with ontopic subjects. Long ago, I realized there are some topics best discussed when you know people are generally going to agree....for instance, I might discuss Christian artists like Michael W. Smith, Twila Paris, authors like Rick Warren - but not here since some would respond unfriendly. I get that about my viewpoint, but you don't see that about your viewpoint.

Daniel/AirportKid, the amount and intensity from you is simply emotionally charged - why else would there be so many flamewars? From a number of people like myself, it's inevitable it would be perceived as hostile.

It's been better over the past year, but there is still trouble from time to time.

Imagine if you will allow yourself if PC had a boatload of evangelicals at FHOP putting secularism on trial daily...it's never happened and utterly repulsive to you. Wish I could say the reverse never happened here.

 

Daniel's posts are not emotionally charged. They are calmly worded and well thought out statements of what he considers logical conclusions based on facts.

Some may find Daniel's posts provocative and inflammatory, but this is a reflection on the reader, not the writer. People with strong beliefs often react strongly to statements challenging their beliefs. Any challenge, no matter how civil, is viewed as a personal attack. When one defines one's self by belief, one's belief becomes intertwined with self image. Attack the belief, attack the individual.

Tom

 

Dave,

Couple of things:

1) If everybody tones it down now, that would be very helpful - I'm not "everybody", but again this is a good time.

2) The number of beliefs here is diverse - what is the proper term for non-religious people? Secular? Irreligious? Something else? Part of what feeds the flames is many shades of belief/non-belief.

Hope it's apparent this post was not intended to enflame.

 

And what if your interpretations of the scriptures are incorrect. I know this would be really hard for you to fathom... but what if?

 

Well, you can certainly infer more than what's printed, I'll say that. I meant none of the nasty implications you mentioned, nor was I even thinking of them. I have observed that this subject seems to cause you considerable personal anguish, and I was genuinely concerned for your mental health. I was absolutely not trying to make you shut up and go away so 'my side' would 'win'.

 

^ If you honestly meant to play nice as you said in your last post, then retract the remark on mental health.

You may have a blind eye to a member over a year ago took a leave of absence for several months after the moderators asked him to stop spelling out "BS" in an emotionally-charged post, but took no additional action....why have you failed to also council him?

______________________________

Say something to tone it down that includes your friends not named Chuck - it would be greatly appreciated.

 

Yes, it probably would. But I'm not going to start it. It would likely be interpreted as yet another 'attack on religion' and it'd be just another flamewar, started by yet another atheist, intent on causing trouble and venting their hatred.

At least this way, the controversy tends to be limited to one thread at a time, and that's probably a good thing.

 

I was expressing concern for your well-being. You want me to retract that?

 

That's subtle disrespect directed only at those you disagree with.

The alternative would be for you to express concern when others expressing your viewpoint get carried away, like when Daniel spelled out BS.....sorry you have to pretend that never happened.

 

What happened to Zeus and Jupiter? How about Thor and Amun? Those were much more interesting gods.

 

Chuck,

Well I've never noticed your posts directed towards me as being inflamatory. Since this is an open forum, atheists are open to voice their beliefs just as you can yours. In your previous post you mentioned you wouldn't bring up Christian artists: I would hope that no one would "attack" you just based on that artist being Christian. The only intolerance I have towards certain Christian artists are the ones who show intolerance towards others (Kirk Cameron is a prime example). With your statement that "everybody" should tone it down: yes, exactly. You, me, AK, Daniel, Tom, etc....each one of us is a "one" that makes up "everybody". Lets all agree to stop with arguing who's most at fault with scorning other POVs.

as for 2: the conventional definition of secularism is a seperation between church and state (especially in the context of social secularism). I believe it's a disservice to Christians and Atheists alike to confuse the more general term of secularism with Atheism.

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



When I hear some fundamentalist Christians exclaim that this country has always been a Christian state, and that left wing secularlists want to change things, they don't seem to be having a realistic interpretation of history. Likewise, there are many people of faith who believe in seperation of church and state. Atheists are not the only group that don't want religion in schools. Quakers, Deists, and Puritans predominantly made up Northern colonies, while Protestants made up the Southern colonies. Since America was colonized by people from different religious backgrounds, especially some that had faced persecution in Europe, it was grounds for a secular democracy to be formed: one in which their new government would not have an established religion like that in Europe.

If you want to use a term for non-religious person then it seems like "Atheist" would be the most appropriate: it seems like more of the vocal posters who aren't religious identify themselves as Atheist. That excludes Agnostics, though, so "Atheist/Agnostic", or "non-religious" would be another option.

 

I don't pretend that never happened. I remember it well, and discussed it with Daniel. Daniel was gone for months, and I feared we'd lost someone I consider to be a valuable member of the community. Daniel and I have chatted offline about many things on many occasions. Just because those conversations were not public is no reason to think I'm in any way ignoring the issue.

 

I'm breaking a promise not to post, if only to ask a question ...

Chuck, do you advocate (any) religion's beliefs be taught in a science class ?
As a concrete example, do you oppose or endorse creationism as a topic in biology ?

 

The thrust of your post, as well as that of a number of your other posts seems to be that I and others should drop the subject. With all due respect, it is a subject I consider important to air. As I said in an earlier post, there is a concerted and dangerous attack on science by religious fundamentalists going on right here and now. And so I decline to take your advice that I keep my mouth shut about it.

You have accused me of telling you to shut up, which I've never done, but here you are telling me to shut up. No apologies, but I won't.

Then perhaps you would offer arguments supporting other interpretations. I have given my interpretations, which are obviously my opinions. You are free and welcome to offer your opposing opinions.

What you cannot escape is that among people who assert that the Bible is the literal word of god, there are numerous contradictory interpretations. This being so, I see no reason not to jump into the fray with my own interpretations of what the book says. The advantage I have is that my interpretations are not colored by an obligation to follow the dogma of any particular sect.

 

I have... just in the last fray... err I mean thread about Jesus saying himself to believe in him. Forget already?

Perhaps the contradictions come from misinterpretations and the spreading thereof? I took up one of these "contradictions" with a member here a while back and offered a counter interpretation. Took me a week of reading but I thought my explanation was pretty good (but of course I would). As I suspected, it was summarily dismissed.
I still have my write up if you would like to read it.

 

You could ask the same question about the Sasquatch or unicorns. So I will pretend you are. Sasquatch: Benevolent. Unicorns: Malevolent.

 

It's obvious enough without these quotes - the religion topic has been made political for quite sometime....more on my next post, but here are the quotes