Heads up people - No on Prop 8 people are coming straight into your church to get in your face
- Thread starter WINEX_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Huh? I love my country. Who said anything else? To whom are you replying in thinking the person hates religion? Yes, some other countries are less tolerant. Some are more tolerant. I want my country to be more tolerant than it is. I hope for a day when a person who isn't Christian can be President because that to me would show we have real freedom of/from religion. It would show me that people actually understand that there are good people with different spiritual beliefs. But when "Muslim" is used by Christians as a slur, we have a ways to go. Religion is used as another form of prejudice. You say not all religions are created equal. Why?
I worry about those people who say they have no doubts about God's existence. These must be the "low information" believers. How can you not have at least a little doubt about the existence of a being you can't even see and touch. I mean, Descartes imparts doubts about the existence of everything I can see and touch. Those non-doubters don't even all believe in the same version of God.
I find this argument kind of strange. Because Descartes believed the senses were faulty, then theists should have doubt in the existence of God? It was precisely because the senses are faulty that Descartes developed his ontological argument. He was sure of God’s existence despite the unreliability of the senses.
Why would you quote a staunch theist to prove the premise that theists should have doubts?
Also, putting Descartes aside, why would a belief that senses are faulty ever have any baring on the existence of a nonphysical being?
I guess I wasn't clear, huh? I'll try again. I have no doubt I'll get it right this time. %-P I was just trying to say that I find it amazing people can have no doubt about their belief in pretty much anything at all. There is less proof for God's existence then there is for my keyboard's existence. Yet, I still have at least a little doubt about the existence of my keyboard. Whether my doubts come from my senses or just from thinking, they are still doubts. When I was younger, I was more sure of many things. As I have gotten older, I see more shades of gray, I see more possibilities, and I am more willing to believe that my beliefs may be wrong. Maybe I take the phrase "no doubt" too literally.
Some people seem sure their Christian God exists and is the only God. Some people are sure their Muslim God exists and is the only God. Some people are sure their Jewish God exists and is the only God. Some people are sure that Vishnu and Shiva are just two of hundreds of gods. Some people used to believe Zeus existed and was one of many gods. Some people used to believe in Ra and Isis. They can't all be right, yet they are/were all sure. It is amazing to me that people can be so sure that they are right and the others are wrong. I guess it is no different than people who think their house has gone up in value the past year -- that need to be special.
Yes, I would categorize myself as agnostic. I used to be very much in the non-denominational Protestant Christian camp. However, studying life, the behavior of Christians, and the Bible has brought much doubt to me.
I just posted the unicorn link as a joke in response to WINEX. I didn't mean it as a serious response. I'm happy with people believing in whatever they want. I just want them to stop trying to force their religious beliefs into the laws of our country.
I doubt you have seen me use "Christian" or "religion" as a slur. I don't object to believers. I object to lazy believers. Most people believe in the God they do because they were raised in a culture where that belief is predominant. It doesn't seem based in study and reason.
For those that do use "Christian" or "religion" as a slur, I suspect they really are reacting to those who seem arrogant and aggressive in their beliefs. Christians who focus on the desirability of love, acceptance, compassion, and charity and on guarding against being hypocritical likely do not incur the slurs.
If Jesus was alive today, he would have voted no on 8.
For someone who faults religious folk for lacking doubt, you have some astonishingly strong opinions. Jesus was incredibly apolitical. His followers urged him at every turn to assert himself politically. His response was unquestionably apathetic. My guess is that he wouldn't have voted at all. But that's a guess...
As far as your whole keyboard argument, you are still missing the point. 1) Invoking Descartes' distrust in his senses as a basis for agnosticism makes no sense when Descartes’ unwavering theism was premised on the assertion that the senses couldn’t be trusted. 2) Whether you have doubts about the keyboard in front of you says nothing about the necessity of doubt in terms of metaphysics: the two conclusions are reached from completely different standards. i.e. one doesn't "prove" the existence of God by the senses...
Are you saying the FSM doesn't exist???
BTW, it's "cojones" - saying that it takes boxes makes absolutely no sense.
I think you are likely right, he probably would not have voted. So, I will re-phrase. If Jesus were alive today, he would not be opposed to same-sex marriage. In a world filled with war, mistrust, and abuse of power, a man so filled with love and compassion would not be against two people wanting to feel less alone in the world.
BTW, I don't see what is wrong with simultaneously having doubts and strong opinions.
Man, okay, forget I said anything about Descartes. I wasn't trying to argue that he was right or wrong about anything. I was just using his well-known phrase as a way of referencing doubt. My point is that if you think about anything much, you can imagine a case where your belief is wrong.
I agree. See the chart below for my thoughts on that. Nuance in speech and belief is one of the reasons I like Obama. He has it.
True dat!
Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want to abandon morality in govt. What I don't like is when a person wants to have a law because he thinks it goes along with his religion. There are other reasons for laws. The Bible doesn't say we should have an age limit on getting a driver's license or drinking alcohol. It doesn't list the 7 words you can't say on TV.
Even for things like Prop 8, the Bible doesn't say anything about how Rome should have a law banning same-sex marriages. And, as you and green_cactus have pointed out, Jesus was very apolitical. So it doesn't wash with me that Christians would be against Prop 8 even if they think being gay is a sin. If Jesus didn't try to change the laws, why should you?
Good point. So somewhere between not having religion involved at all and having all the laws stem from religion is where I want us to be. Of course, that is so vague as to be saying almost nothing. Maybe if people of the predominant religion were more willing to have laws that don't agree with their religion, but do agree with a significant chunk of society, then I would be happy. That goes back to the idea of the majority not trampling on the rights of minorities. Maybe we are there for the most part, and just not on this issue.
TimHume_IHB
New member
skek said:
Huh? I love my country. Who said anything else? To whom are you replying in thinking the person hates religion? Yes, some other countries are less tolerant. Some are more tolerant. I want my country to be more tolerant than it is. I hope for a day when a person who isn't Christian can be President because that to me would show we have real freedom of/from religion. It would show me that people actually understand that there are good people with different spiritual beliefs. But when "Muslim" is used by Christians as a slur, we have a ways to go. Religion is used as another form of prejudice. You say not all religions are created equal. Why?
I worry about those people who say they have no doubts about God's existence. These must be the "low information" believers. How can you not have at least a little doubt about the existence of a being you can't even see and touch. I mean, Descartes imparts doubts about the existence of everything I can see and touch. Those non-doubters don't even all believe in the same version of God.
kevin_IHB
New member
T!m said:
I find this argument kind of strange. Because Descartes believed the senses were faulty, then theists should have doubt in the existence of God? It was precisely because the senses are faulty that Descartes developed his ontological argument. He was sure of God’s existence despite the unreliability of the senses.
Why would you quote a staunch theist to prove the premise that theists should have doubts?
Also, putting Descartes aside, why would a belief that senses are faulty ever have any baring on the existence of a nonphysical being?
TimHume_IHB
New member
three sheets said:
I guess I wasn't clear, huh? I'll try again. I have no doubt I'll get it right this time. %-P I was just trying to say that I find it amazing people can have no doubt about their belief in pretty much anything at all. There is less proof for God's existence then there is for my keyboard's existence. Yet, I still have at least a little doubt about the existence of my keyboard. Whether my doubts come from my senses or just from thinking, they are still doubts. When I was younger, I was more sure of many things. As I have gotten older, I see more shades of gray, I see more possibilities, and I am more willing to believe that my beliefs may be wrong. Maybe I take the phrase "no doubt" too literally.
Some people seem sure their Christian God exists and is the only God. Some people are sure their Muslim God exists and is the only God. Some people are sure their Jewish God exists and is the only God. Some people are sure that Vishnu and Shiva are just two of hundreds of gods. Some people used to believe Zeus existed and was one of many gods. Some people used to believe in Ra and Isis. They can't all be right, yet they are/were all sure. It is amazing to me that people can be so sure that they are right and the others are wrong. I guess it is no different than people who think their house has gone up in value the past year -- that need to be special.
TimHume_IHB
New member
skek said:
Yes, I would categorize myself as agnostic. I used to be very much in the non-denominational Protestant Christian camp. However, studying life, the behavior of Christians, and the Bible has brought much doubt to me.
I just posted the unicorn link as a joke in response to WINEX. I didn't mean it as a serious response. I'm happy with people believing in whatever they want. I just want them to stop trying to force their religious beliefs into the laws of our country.
I doubt you have seen me use "Christian" or "religion" as a slur. I don't object to believers. I object to lazy believers. Most people believe in the God they do because they were raised in a culture where that belief is predominant. It doesn't seem based in study and reason.
For those that do use "Christian" or "religion" as a slur, I suspect they really are reacting to those who seem arrogant and aggressive in their beliefs. Christians who focus on the desirability of love, acceptance, compassion, and charity and on guarding against being hypocritical likely do not incur the slurs.
If Jesus was alive today, he would have voted no on 8.
kevin_IHB
New member
T!m said:
For someone who faults religious folk for lacking doubt, you have some astonishingly strong opinions. Jesus was incredibly apolitical. His followers urged him at every turn to assert himself politically. His response was unquestionably apathetic. My guess is that he wouldn't have voted at all. But that's a guess...
As far as your whole keyboard argument, you are still missing the point. 1) Invoking Descartes' distrust in his senses as a basis for agnosticism makes no sense when Descartes’ unwavering theism was premised on the assertion that the senses couldn’t be trusted. 2) Whether you have doubts about the keyboard in front of you says nothing about the necessity of doubt in terms of metaphysics: the two conclusions are reached from completely different standards. i.e. one doesn't "prove" the existence of God by the senses...
green_cactus_IHB
New member
skek said:
Are you saying the FSM doesn't exist???
BTW, it's "cojones" - saying that it takes boxes makes absolutely no sense.
TimHume_IHB
New member
three sheets said:
I think you are likely right, he probably would not have voted. So, I will re-phrase. If Jesus were alive today, he would not be opposed to same-sex marriage. In a world filled with war, mistrust, and abuse of power, a man so filled with love and compassion would not be against two people wanting to feel less alone in the world.
BTW, I don't see what is wrong with simultaneously having doubts and strong opinions.
Man, okay, forget I said anything about Descartes. I wasn't trying to argue that he was right or wrong about anything. I was just using his well-known phrase as a way of referencing doubt. My point is that if you think about anything much, you can imagine a case where your belief is wrong.
TimHume_IHB
New member
skek said:
I agree. See the chart below for my thoughts on that. Nuance in speech and belief is one of the reasons I like Obama. He has it.
True dat!
Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want to abandon morality in govt. What I don't like is when a person wants to have a law because he thinks it goes along with his religion. There are other reasons for laws. The Bible doesn't say we should have an age limit on getting a driver's license or drinking alcohol. It doesn't list the 7 words you can't say on TV.
Even for things like Prop 8, the Bible doesn't say anything about how Rome should have a law banning same-sex marriages. And, as you and green_cactus have pointed out, Jesus was very apolitical. So it doesn't wash with me that Christians would be against Prop 8 even if they think being gay is a sin. If Jesus didn't try to change the laws, why should you?
IrvineRenter_IHB
New member
This thread has gotten interesting. I haven't seen one delving into the psychology and philosophy of religion before. If you all want to get aboard that hayride, I will join in. This subject has been a fascination of mine for most of my life.
I do have a philosophy joke that seems appropriate here:
Rene Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender asks him if he wants a drink. Descartes says, "I think not." Then he ceased to exist...
I do have a philosophy joke that seems appropriate here:
Rene Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender asks him if he wants a drink. Descartes says, "I think not." Then he ceased to exist...
TimHume_IHB
New member
skek said:
Good point. So somewhere between not having religion involved at all and having all the laws stem from religion is where I want us to be. Of course, that is so vague as to be saying almost nothing. Maybe if people of the predominant religion were more willing to have laws that don't agree with their religion, but do agree with a significant chunk of society, then I would be happy. That goes back to the idea of the majority not trampling on the rights of minorities. Maybe we are there for the most part, and just not on this issue.