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.

 

[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!)

 

[verbster]

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!)

yes, this is exactly the behavior religion provokes. People embrace religion because of emotion. Faith is an emotion . . . an opinion, but it is touted as though it were an ultimate truth, an inescapable resolution of eternal reward or punishment depending on behavior and adherence to a belief structure that cannot be proven, yet religious folks attempt to justify their leap of faith with rationality, which can never happen.

 

[verbster]

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.

This is laughable coming from someone who first tries to accuse a person as being against freedom of speech, and then turns around and censors that person . . . which in its own way does more to expose the hypocrisy of religion and the do-as-I-say- and believe, not what-I-do.

A swell eternity? you may honestly believe in eternal life, but don't your think that whole scenario is just a bit too simplistic and convenient?

Perhaps fear is the true cause of a belief in the afterlife. The thought of not going on is too much for most people to handle.

 

[Domainace]

yes, this is exactly the behavior religion provokes. People embrace religion because of emotion.

Not just religion. Political opinions, shopping decisions, dietary decisions. Even science, though greater efforts are usually made to remain objective.

The choice to not believe in a religion is just as emotionally based as the choice to believe in religion.
We are emotional creatures. Sometimes that's a good thing. Sometimes not.

I am not a religious person - I can't accept the myths as reality. And yet I can't help but notice that religious people tend to be happier and better functioning people than atheists. That's one reason I think it's foolish to mock them. (The other reasons including basic decency and humility.)

 

[NameOmnia]

http://bcove.me/w98gljzh

 

[verbster]

The choice to not believe in a religion is just as emotionally based as the choice to believe in religion..)

Not so sure "choice" is the right description of the decision process in either case.

I am not a religious person - I can't accept the myths as reality.

Interesting that you chose to describe religious beliefs as "myths."

And yet I can't help but notice that religious people tend to be happier and better functioning people than atheists.

Hmmm . . . that's a pretty all-encompassing opinion. What is a "better functioning" person?

 

[Domainace]

Interesting that you chose to describe religious beliefs as "myths."

Why? They are myths to me. Like I said, I'm not a religious person. However, it's not a negative thing. Myths can be a very powerful and supportive force. Think "image training." The world is build on myths, religious and otherwise. Sometimes for bad, sometimes for good.

Hmmm . . . that's a pretty all-encompassing opinion. What is a "better functioning" person?

Like I said, it's an opinion based on personal observations. I'm not trying to argue the point, just explaining why I have a favorable view of religion though I'm not religious myself.

 

[verbster]

Why? They are myths to me. Like I said, I'm not a religious person. However, it's not a negative thing. Myths can be a very powerful and supportive force. Think "image training." The world is build on myths, religious and otherwise. Sometimes for bad, sometimes for good.

I guess it depends on your definition/application of "myth." Can't speak for others, but if someone called my religion a myth, it would be hard for me to construe that application as being supportive rather than thinking it meant a false belief built on folklore and such.

Like I said, it's an opinion based on personal observations. I'm not trying to argue the point, just explaining why I have a favorable view of religion though I'm not religious myself.

Simply curious what you meant by "better functioning people."

 

[GILSAN]

Liberalism with the precious help of the cowardly Liberal media, with it's culture of Political Correctness, has silenced the cowardly Liberal Politicians into submission, when it comes to telling the truth about Islam, Unfortunately a high % of the population have been brainwashed by the above mentioned idiots in the past 30-40 years

Look at the spineless, toothless British MSM as an example. They didn't have the balls to publish the Mohammad cartoons, as did most of European Newspapers and TV's, after the Paris massacre.

Here's a well written article where Political Correctness has been kicked out of the front door and says it as it is... for a change.

This is how freedom is killed off. Little by little, piece by piece: LITTLEJOHN on how the State will cede yet more ground to terrorists in the wake of the Paris massacre

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orists-wake-Paris-massacre.html#ixzz3OKvAS0vL

 

[RogueWriter]

This is laughable coming from someone who first tries to accuse a person as being against freedom of speech, and then turns around and censors that person . . . which in its own way does more to expose the hypocrisy of religion and the do-as-I-say- and believe, not what-I-do..

I did not censor anyone, I chose to stop listening to drivel. What's her name is free to explain her philosophical atheism-but-Gods-exist theory to everyone else who wants to listen.

 

[RogueWriter]

Look at the spineless, toothless British MSM as an example. They didn't have the balls to publish the Mohammad cartoons, as did most of European Newspapers and TV's, after the Paris massacre.

Look, I understand where you are coming from, but imo, just because you CAN publish insulting images of a religion, it doesn't mean it is a nice thing to do. Publishing those images certainly was a strike back at extremists, but I am sure it was also insulting to several million Muslims that had nothing to do with the horrendous act. I do not believe that there are no moderates in the Muslim world.

I think a more appropriate act would be to strike back in some way at those who promote terrorism, as well as finding, capturing and killing the idiots who did this.

I do also believe that the police forces in Europe need to start carrying weapons. At some point they are going to be asked to stand in between innocent people and certain death; they need to be armed.