unbeliever Posted September 7, 2013 Author Share Posted September 7, 2013 If someone told you they believed a women got pregnant on her own with no help whatsoever and was having the son of god most would treat them with ridicule. I think you may be channeling Hitchens here. I see from your sig that you are a "Four Horsemen" fan like myself. I approve. What's more likely: 1) The laws of nature were temporarily suspended to allow a supernatural being to take on human form. 2) A jewish girl did something naughty and then fibbed about it to her OH. Apart from anything else, I would have thought that an all powerful deity would be able to take on human form without going through all that rigmarole. Religion has had it`s time and now has only the stupid who cannot think rationally and for themselves believing in it. That's a bit strong I think. Some of the smartest people I know in my (if I do say so myself) highly challenging and mathematical field are people of faith. I get on with them because they don't impose it on me, nor would I deny it to them or insult them. I do reserve the right to debate it with them and as long as that is permitted we're all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 I smell a slight smell of islamaphobia in this thread Oo Really, I've met Christians who don't like to have their opinions challenged. In answer to the OP, no, there should be no special consideration given for an opinion no matter how it's derived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 I don't approve of people cutting bits of their daughters sex areas "because of their faith"; particularly when in their "holy book" it's not mentioned. "Ah, but people of our faith have always done that" does not mean I can accept it as not being wrong. This determination to cling to the "faith" isquite awe inspiring -- read "Maccabees" and see how the Jews fought to keep male circumcision, even against death penalties. Now, religious freedom. 1/. People who believe in a "God" and have a ritual for worshipping him/her/it should be allowed to do it. 2/. They should allow those who differ from them the same freedom (the Pilgrim Fathers went to America to find "freedom of worship" and enacted draconian legislation against those who weren't of their particular beliefs). 3/. No human sacrifice, or bodily harm except by informed adult consent ( if you wish to become a priest of Cybele and castrate yourself with a flint knife, OK; but don't compel anyone else, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybele ) 4/. Do not unduly annoy your neighbour; nor let what your neighbour does unduly offend you. Absolutely. A work colleague once suggested that religions should be treated just like any other hobby/pastime. I agree. We should accept that hobbies can provide a great deal of pleasure and community spirit, and should allow people to have whatever hobbies they want. However, the state should not give favour to one person's pastimes over those of another, and we should not allow people's hobbies to cause harm to others. When somebody becomes obsessed about their hobby to the extent that other things in life become sidelined, we normally recognise that they have a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Sounds like he doesn't like anyone who believes in god and if he can use their faith as a stick to hit them with to win an argument he probably will. Oh and call them stupid or mentally ill.He states that believers will be disappointed if there is no god after death. They won't be disappointed, they'll just be dead. If we believe in God and there is a life after death we'll be fine, if not too bad. But having believed was better than having no hope to start with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Personally, I think it is disingenuous to compare dislike of a religion to that of a race. A religion is after all an ethical system that a person has chosen to adopt. A persons ethical system surely says a lot about them personally, whereas their race clearly doesn't. The point I was making is that I believe those following Islam/Islamic culture receive 'special consideration' from those on the left of politics because of race. For example, those on the left will happily slate Christians who oppose gay marriages (rightly so) but would shy away from criticising the intollerances of those following Islam and Islamic culture. The difference, I believe, is race and the fear they might be called a racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 He states that believers will be disappointed if there is no god after death. They won't be disappointed, they'll just be dead. If we believe in God and there is a life after death we'll be fine, if not too bad. But having believed was better than having no hope to start with. Unless you're believing in the wrong one, and the real one is grumpy about that and sends your for eternal punishment of some kind... ---------- Post added 07-09-2013 at 18:00 ---------- The point I was making is that I believe those following Islam/Islamic culture receive 'special consideration' from those on the left of politics because of race. For example, those on the left will happily slate Christians who oppose gay marriages (rightly so) but would shy away from criticising the intollerances of those following Islam and Islamic culture. The difference, I believe, is race and the fear they might be called a racist. Not true as far as I've seen. And you know obviously that Islam is a religion and not a race... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted September 7, 2013 Author Share Posted September 7, 2013 He states that believers will be disappointed if there is no god after death. They won't be disappointed, they'll just be dead. If we believe in God and there is a life after death we'll be fine, if not too bad. But having believed was better than having no hope to start with. Ah of course. Pascal's wager. Gods reward worship even if it is not genuine. Most gods historically were so inclined, but the way Yahweh is generally depicted it seems unlikely he'd fall for it. I find myself incapable of believing something unless I think it's true. I struggle with the idea of choosing to believe something based on the idea that it would make me happy. I have to be convinced of the truth of the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 He states that believers will be disappointed if there is no god after death. They won't be disappointed, they'll just be dead. If we believe in God and there is a life after death we'll be fine, if not too bad. But having believed was better than having no hope to start with.Unless you're believing in the wrong one, and the real one is grumpy about that and sends your for eternal punishment of some kind... Indeed. God usually has quite a lot to say about believing in other gods, in fact commonly making it rule number one. If there was a god one has to conclude that believing in the wrong god would be far worse than believing in no god at all. Pascal's wager alone should incline one to atheism, or a none specific theism, rather than actually choosing one of the multitude of religions that claim to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 He states that believers will be disappointed if there is no god after death. They won't be disappointed, they'll just be dead. If we believe in God and there is a life after death we'll be fine, if not too bad. But having believed was better than having no hope to start with. I disagree. Having no hope, is a very good thing. It is being in touch with reality, it is dealing with things as they are, not living a fantasy, dealing with things as you wish they were. Having no hope, is not the same thing as feeling hopeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 That's how I feel. I can't make myself believe a comforting lie in the 'hope' that it's true against all the evidence (or rather in the face of a lack of evidence). Deal with reality as it appears to be, not how we'd like it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.