The religious discussion thread

[Archangel]

This thread was created to bring a local new story to light, which can be viewed below:

JACKSON, Ohio (AP) — An Ohio school district decided Tuesday night to keep a portrait of Jesus hanging in the school where it's been 65 years, denying a federal lawsuit's claim the portrait's display unconstitutionally promotes religion in a public school.

The Jackson City Schools board offered a constitutional justification of its own in voting 4-0 to keep the portrait up in its middle school, saying it must protect students' free speech rights. The vote drew cheers and applause from the dozens of people gathered in the elementary school gymnasium.

Read all of it here: http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-school-b...xzBHB0A3N0b3J5cGFnZQR0ZXN0A1Rlc3RfQUZD;_ylv=3

I posted his here @ NP to see what ppl had to say on the issue. As it turns out, this sparked many debates. I've considered closing this thread but after multiple suggestions, I decided to keep it open. Feel free to join in the topics but per forum rules, please refrain from obscene, threatening, rude, or insulting posts.

 

[NameOmnia]

wow....what a gentleman....I wonder why you can't address any of them..no wait...I know why.

You are an embarrassment for Christians and for humanity.
.

 

[RogueWriter]

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias

photo, so, you are against free speech? That's swell.

 

[NameOmnia]

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias

photo, so, you are against free speech? That's swell.

First of all don't you dare putting words in my mouth I have never said.
Manipulating and distorting what others say is the only way you have for trying to defend your indefensible positions. It's pretty low but not surprising.
Second I have never said I am an atheist. You and your friend did, not me.

 

[RogueWriter]

Well, you said that religions are a plague on the world. So, either you are insane, in that you are voluntarily participating in a religion that you believe to be harmful to both you and the rest of the world, or you are an atheist. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[discobull]

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias

Nonsense. Atheism is the absence of belief in deities. You don't need infinite knowledge to not believe in the existence of something for which no evidence exists. If what this guy is saying was true, we'd all be forced to believe in every mythology.

 

[NameOmnia]

Well, you said that religions are a plague on the world. So, either you are insane, in that you are voluntarily participating in a religion that you believe to be harmful to both you and the rest of the world, or you are an atheist. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

You closed minded religious people who think someone has to be religious to believe in god. Like religions patented it or they have the monopoly...

 

[ThemeRevolution]

Please stop wasting your time by talking this sensitive topic! political and religion topic will only sow discord among us and should be banned.

I'm a muslim and I'm proud to be, please don't think that all of muslims are extremists or terrorists, what happening in middle-east is all about politics and OIL.

@Eric_Lyon where are you? this is a domaining forums not religion forums, does it?

 

[verbster]

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias

photo, so, you are against free speech? That's swell.

To sustain the belief that there is only one true God that favors a particular religion, members of each religion have to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "We have infinite knowledge that there is a single omniscient God in existence who favors our religion over all others."

 

[NameOmnia]

 

[discobull]

Show attachment 9134

Thank you for that quote. It's excellent.

 

[Domainace]

If you want to know what the terrorists goals are, and Anglican priest is an odd person to quote. I'm sure Rod Bower is a swell priest, but how does he happen to know what the terrorists' goals are? Why not quote a terrorist, at least?

 

[discobull]

If you want to know what the terrorists goals are, and Anglican priest is an odd person to quote. I'm sure Rod Bower is a swell priest, but how does he happen to know what the terrorists' goals are? Why not quote a terrorist, at least?

I don't think that in this case Rob Bower is terribly concerned about the specific political goals of any terrorist. It seems to me that what he's addressing are the broader goals of terrorism, which, as the word implies, is a tool for effectuating change through fear. What he's pointing out is that when we allow our fear to make us hate, that we've then allowed ourselves to be changed by terrorists and have our lives impacted by them which is in effect a part of every terrorist's goals.

 

[Domainace]

I'm not speaking in favor of hate - I'm very much against it, as any reasonably well adjusted person is. It's not hate to categorize where the threat is coming from.
Marginalizing and silencing anyone who points out what everybody is thinking is what will certainly create extremism. Some people are quick to label anything that upsets the official party line as "hate speech." It's not.

Again, nobody can speak for the terrorists "broader goals." Not even single terrorists. They don'll all have the same motivations - they are not a unit. Radical Islam provides a convenient cover for many of them, but their original motivations are often something more pedestrian - disaffection with society, mother-complexes, personal problems that they need to find a blame for.

If you are worried about terrorists impacting your lives. Well, if you live in the USA, you're already there. Look at all the invasive new laws and tactics the government is using. Talk of "hate" is just sanctimonious pablum. Get back to me when the mobs are out burning down mosques and the worshippers in them. That's hate.

 

[discobull]

I'm not speaking in favor of hate - I'm very much against it, as any reasonably well adjusted person is. It's not hate to categorize where the threat is coming from.
Marginalizing and silencing anyone who points out what everybody is thinking is what will certainly create extremism. Some people are quick to label anything that upsets the official party line as "hate speech." It's not.

Again, nobody can speak for the terrorists "broader goals." Not even single terrorists. They don'll all have the same motivations - they are not a unit. Radical Islam provides a convenient cover for many of them, but their original motivations are often something more pedestrian - disaffection with society, mother-complexes, personal problems that they need to find a blame for.

If you are worried about terrorists impacting your lives. Well, if you live in the USA, you're already there. Look at all the invasive new laws and tactics the government is using. Talk of "hate" is just sanctimonious pablum. Get back to me when the mobs are out burning down mosques and the worshippers in them. That's hate.

The broader goals are implicit in the name. Terrorists terrorize. That's true by definition.

 

[Mohammad]

Nowadays, terrorist groups like ISIS are misrepresenting the Islam and Muslims. Muslims are not terrorist. They are just like others. But we all know radical minds are everywhere. Islam respects to all religions. Christian, Jew, Catholic, etc. Do not trust media. Sometimes, media is big liar.

 

[DomainVP]

Well...

There is a 'God' but we can't perceive it because, as humans, we are nowhere even close to even being able to understand how 'God' works. We can't even explain why anything has mass, let alone how our own consciousness came into being.

So to toss religions around as canon is complete lunacy. We hang onto existential belief like a toddler clings to their security blanket (blankey). It's not that there isn't an all knowing being that created us, it's that the human explanation for it just does not sufficiently explain anything.

It's insane to argue who has the best 'God', and to kill for those beliefs. "Oh your god is a purple elephant? Mine is a white man (from the middle east?) with a beard and sandals! Lets fight!" How nonsensical is that.

In the short of it, I believe that we are all a part of God, and we are here to experience everything we possibly can as a proxy for the consciousness that we refer to as 'God'. I assume there is some kind of quantum memory function that happens with all life and matter; which is why God 'knows' everything at all times.

The quantum world is a weird one, have you ever seen the 'double slit experiment' where electrons only behave as particles if they are being observed. So in the quantum world, if a tree fell in the forrest and nobody was around to hear it would it make a sound; no, because the tree doesn't exist yet because it hasn't been observed.

We can't even explain things like this... it's almost heretical to life and completely unethical for religions to persist.

The sooner we stop to realize that we are all one, the sooner we can stop dividing ourselves and killing our brothers and sisters around the world, and the sooner we can all profit from domaining.

 

[RogueWriter]

You closed minded religious people who think someone has to be religious to believe in god. Like religions patented it or they have the monopoly...

So, just to be clear, you are an athiest, but you believe God ( s ) exist? I am confused.

 

[GILSAN]

JE SUIS CHARLIE... AUSSIE

 

[RogueWriter]

The sooner we stop to realize that we are all one, the sooner we can stop dividing ourselves and killing our brothers and sisters around the world, and the sooner we can all profit from domaining.

That will never happen since religion is not the primary reason people are killing each other, really. It's about fighting over land, or wealth, or power, or resources, and influential people use aspects of religion, just like they use aspects of the media, or political clout, or money, to bend people to their will.

 

[verbster]

That will never happen since religion is not the primary reason people are killing each other, really. It's about fighting over land, or wealth, or power, or resources, and influential people use aspects of religion, just like they use aspects of the media, or political clout, or money, to bend people to their will.

You may be right. it may be a series of coincidence when the religions of warring factions are compared.

 

[farenheit000]

That's simply extremism. Those standards mean that an image or reference to anyone at all would be forbidden. An image of a man would exclude women. A reference to democracy would exclude those who believe in other forms of government.

The founding fathers clearly never imagined the extent of pedantic and bizarre bickering that goes on under the name of civil rights these days. Especially while the most basic civil rights they cherished, such as free speech, are being trampled.

Keeping a neutral public atmosphere is in no way "extreme". Also, the inference that a standard of neutrality would cause any image to be forbidden is a prime example of the Slippery Slope Fallacy. The act of doing something does not always lead to a negative, and in this case unreasonable/unrelated reaction.

In a way you're stating that fighting for the equality of all is bad because then it may lead to opening up doors to needing to accept other people too?

Change is important as societies mature. Social norms change, and with them so do attitudes, beliefs and standards and because some people fear what may result of change does not mean we shouldn't.

The Founding Fathers (particularly Jefferson) also had foresight to suggest that the federal government re-write the Constitution every 20 years knowing, like you said, that things would continue to change within society but it has yet to happen because people continue to believe in the moronic and restricting belief that's once something it's done it'd be a bad idea to change it.

This is what restricts people from progress.

 

[NameOmnia]

So, just to be clear, you are an athiest, but you believe God ( s ) exist? I am confused.

So just to be clear I am me. You and your friend have tried to label me not me.
And I bet you are confused

 

[RogueWriter]

Naw, just trying to understand your self labeling. But I'll stop, and put you on block so I will not be disturbed by your ridiculous comments anymore. Don't bother replying to me; I will not be able to read or see your response.

Oh, and have a swell eternity.

 

[GILSAN]

Oh, and have a swell eternity.

LOL "a swell eternity"

 

[Domainace]

No slippery slope in my argument - your suggestion was already there. You said that images that exclude anyone should be banned. You didn't say some images. That's an absolute. Throwing out a phrase from Critical Thinking 101, or whatever pseudo-philosophy classes are called these days, is not a counter-argument.

What you are suggesting is essentially the elimination of any common culture. That has been tried several times throughout history. Pol Pot, Mao Zedong and Stalin are among the most recent. It's usually quite effective if your goal is to destroy an existing civilization. It is almost always presented as a utopian ideal at first.

Any variation of "If only there were no religion, we could all live in peace and harmony..." completely defies the lessons of human history, and even common sense. The only reason any half-way intelligent person could think that is because they have unresolved personal issues. In my opinion. It's completely unsupportable from a logical standpoint.

Of course, a large state will side with your views. Unless the church cooperates with the state, they are competition to state authority. Same with the family.

Of course, this should all be obvious. But people go first with their emotions in these matters, and then try to justify them with rationality. (Which is why I should stay out if the religion and politics threads!)