Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Archaeologists Funeral

  1. #1 Archaeologists Funeral 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    *bows head down* Today we mourn the loss of a dear friend.. Archaeologist has not gone to a better place.. *looks around* hmm, where is everyone? .. Anyway, may his soul rest in piece..s..


    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    good riddance.


    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    He was the one true Christian here amongst the wannabees, diligent to his doctrines and dogma. You can't fault him for that.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    He was the one true Christian here amongst the wannabees, diligent to his doctrines and dogma. You can't fault him for that.
    That's exactly what I'd fault him for. Sticking rigidly to an outdated scripture is not a good thing.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    That's exactly what I'd fault him for. Sticking rigidly to an outdated scripture is not a good thing.
    How can scriptures be outdated? Are they not supposed to be the word of a god according to theists? Who decides when gods word is outdated? You? Me? Don't you think that decision would be left up to the god in question?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    That's exactly what I'd fault him for. Sticking rigidly to an outdated scripture is not a good thing.
    How can scriptures be outdated? Are they not supposed to be the word of a god according to theists? Who decides when gods word is outdated? You? Me? Don't you think that decision would be left up to the god in question?
    As an atheist, I do not.

    I consider the scriptures outdated because nobody (except for archie) follows them.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    I consider the scriptures outdated because nobody (except for archie) follows them.
    On the contrary, there are a great number of people who follow scriptures as they were intended. Those who don't are wannabees or pseudo-Christians. Clearly, the huge number of Christian sects should be a dead giveaway.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    but, is it morally acceptable for even the most fundamental christian to stone gays and kill atheists because their God and King told them to do so? Wouldn't that be a serious problem for any person who had any kind of respect for their fellow man? Labeling them as 'wannabees' really isn't proper, as it just shows that if they can't morally agree with all of the inane rules of the Bible that they can't be Christian? Wow, You sound so much like Archie boy, it's as if we haven't even lost him
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    but, is it morally acceptable for even the most fundamental christian to stone gays and kill atheists because their God and King told them to do so?
    If that's what their doctrines and dogma would have us believe, then it is morally acceptable, for them. They are in no position to question their gods strange and unusual commands, but instead, must follow them.

    Wouldn't that be a serious problem for any person who had any kind of respect for their fellow man?
    Of course, but since when have the Abrahamic cults ever demonstrated respect for their fellow man? It's all about obedience and worship of the god, there is no other purpose in life for theists.

    Labeling them as 'wannabees' really isn't proper, as it just shows that if they can't morally agree with all of the inane rules of the Bible that they can't be Christian?
    Who are they to not agree with their gods commands? Who are they to decide what is morally right or not? They are in no position to do so.

    Wow, You sound so much like Archie boy, it's as if we haven't even lost him
    Are you stating that because you're unable to think for yourself? Do you not find it logically inconsistent for a theist to disagree with the scriptures that were given to them to follow unequivocally?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Who are they to not agree with their gods commands? Who are they to decide what is morally right or not? They are in no position to do so.
    They are human, and are subject to the instinctual biases and predetermined desires of a human to NOT kill other humans for absolutely no reason. That is the moral dilemma and they damn well are in a position to question! Morals are born in an individual, usually through the bits and pieces they are taught, in this instance from the bible, but do not take the commands literally. The commands were meant for the people of 1500 B.C. not the people of today. This is a different group of people, and the rules don't necessarily apply to us anymore. Why is this recognition labeled as pseudo-christian?

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Wow, You sound so much like Archie boy, it's as if we haven't even lost him
    Are you stating that because you're unable to think for yourself? Do you not find it logically inconsistent for a theist to disagree with the scriptures that were given to them to follow unequivocally?
    I am stating this because you appear to be as clear-cut and absolute as him. I do not find it logically inconsistent for a theist to disagree with scripture. I do not find it to be unreasonable for a theist to see the bible as interpretive rather than literal, as it quite possibly could have been written (at least the NT). Believing that the bible is the word of god doesn't mean that God may have been making a point through analogy. It is quite possible that God meant the entirety of The bible to be one big parable. We don't know, so why should we assume we know? Why assume it was literal, all the way through? Why assume that there is a correct interpretation?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    They are human, and are subject to the instinctual biases and predetermined desires of a human to NOT kill other humans for absolutely no reason. That is the moral dilemma and they damn well are in a position to question!
    No, that is your own personal opinion and does not reflect scriptures. No theist is ever in the position to question their gods commands, unless you can produce such a concept from scriptures. Please feel free to do so.

    Morals are born in an individual, usually through the bits and pieces they are taught, in this instance from the bible, but do not take the commands literally. The commands were meant for the people of 1500 B.C. not the people of today.
    Again, that is your own personal opinion that does NOT reflect scriptures. Nowhere do scriptures place a time limit on gods commands, which were meant for the people of then and now. Please feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

    [qutoe]This is a different group of people, and the rules don't necessarily apply to us anymore.[/quote]

    Where does it state in scriptures that the doctrine does not apply to our time?

    I am stating this because you appear to be as clear-cut and absolute as him. I do not find it logically inconsistent for a theist to disagree with scripture. I do not find it to be unreasonable for a theist to see the bible as interpretive rather than literal, as it quite possibly could have been written (at least the NT). Believing that the bible is the word of god doesn't mean that God may have been making a point through analogy. It is quite possible that God meant the entirety of The bible to be one big parable. We don't know, so why should we assume we know? Why assume it was literal, all the way through? Why assume that there is a correct interpretation?
    We can't assume anything other than what is actually written in the bible, which does NOT state theists can question their gods commands, which does NOT state the words in the bible are to be taken interpretively or in parables. The bible states implicitly that it's contents are the word of god and MUST be obeyed as such.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Some people's point of view can only be made palatable and sensible if they argue that some extreme point of view is the only acceptable (honest, rational, non-hypocritical, moral, etc. etc.) alternative. This of course is the typical tactic of the extremist.

    The truth is that most things in life require some degree of balancing and compromise and that is the only way for those who oppose totalitarianism and theocracy in support of tolerance, religious freedom and the diversity of human thought. And please don't compare human life to something like mathematics for such a comparison only begs the question.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Some people's point of view can only be made palatable and sensible if they argue that some extreme point of view is the only acceptable (honest, rational, non-hypocritical, moral, etc. etc.) alternative. This of course is the typical tactic of the extremist.
    There were no such things as extremists or fundamentalists in Christianity when it was introduced. So, what changed?

    The truth is that most things in life require some degree of balancing and compromise and that is the only way for those who oppose totalitarianism and theocracy in support of tolerance, religious freedom and the diversity of human thought.
    I can't argue with you there, for most things. But, in the same vein, you cannot argue against the doctrines of Christianity as this does not fall under the same category as "most things." It is, and always has remained a set of doctrines Christians must follow, whether they like it or not. You simply have no say in the matter, your god has ultimate authority.

    Simple, really.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Nothing has changed. There were ALWAYS extremists even spoken of in the New Testement writings itself. Paul was in a contant battle with such and his difficulty with the extreme legalists of his days called the Judaizers, is quite well known. The book of Revelations begins with the letters to the seven churches where it also speaks of the problems and extremes in the different centers of Christianity. From the beginning and as long as Christianity has existed there have been extremists: the legalists on one side and the do whatever you like because we are forgiven extremists (of which some types of Gnostics were an example) on the other side.

    Those doctrines in the Nicean creed are indeed definitive of Christianity but the Nicean creed is NOT fundamentalism. And thus the questions of interpretive principles, the balance of faith and works, what is the church, and a very large body of issues not covered in the Nicean creed are why there is such an incredible diversity of Christian denominations and church groups.

    Whether you like it or not there is now a rather large consensus between Christianity about how Christianity is defined such despite disagreements about doctrinal details they all still see each other as Christians, and that definition is nothing like fundamentalism. So it is that my church sees all the evanglecals, lutherans, presbyterians, episcopaleans, anglicans, catholics, and many more than can name as all Christian. Some are more fundamentalist and some are more Calvinist and some are more charismatic, but for a very great many it is all about Jesus and not what church you go to.

    You see this is the problem with having as your ultimate authority an invisible God that the press cannot interview - naturally there is considerable disagreement about what this "must follow" and "have no say in the matter" that God has set down.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    There is an inherent presumption in some people that every thesis should have an author and the author defines what the reader should conclude from it. As anyone who has gone to an author reading knows, why an author promotes or believes or introduces or describes, is often very different from what the reader obtains from it. Very few people can pretend to comprehend a thesis as it was intended to be conveyed, even after the authors motivations and conclusions are known. There are debates on how those are interpreted as well.

    This is also true for scriptures. The story is not what the author has written. The story is what you get out of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    What happened to archaeologist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    There is an inherent presumption in some people that every thesis should have an author and the author defines what the reader should conclude from it. As anyone who has gone to an author reading knows, why an author promotes or believes or introduces or describes, is often very different from what the reader obtains from it. Very few people can pretend to comprehend a thesis as it was intended to be conveyed, even after the authors motivations and conclusions are known. There are debates on how those are interpreted as well.

    This is also true for scriptures. The story is not what the author has written. The story is what you get out of it.
    I find that good authors know this and actually intend what they have written to be interpreted by people in many different ways. It is certainly the case that politicians speak this way.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    What happened to Archie?
    Archie a.k.a archaeologist was banned permanently.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    I changed the name to archaeologist in my other post, so if you want to change it to...

    Am I allowed to ask why? or is that against forum rules? just curious to know if I agree with the reasons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Trolling and intentionally trying to preach.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Yes, Sam has the idea perfectly. Since when were you allowed to state your opinion as fact Q? When did you determine that my opinions weren't valid? Why is scripture different? What makes it different from EVERYTHING else? Why are you promoting such an absolutist view Q? I may be atheist, but that doesn't mean I hate Religion. I have no logical reason to conclude that religion is pointless. I'm curious as to why you feel religion is this horrible thing?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I can answer Q on that.. Religion has always had the agenda and goal to keep people in the dark and ignorant of their surroundings.
    Why would you embrace a tyrant? Well, religion does just that. They embrace the mere idea that there is a tyrant out there threatening our existence so they pay homage. That is why religion is a horrible thing.
    They remove logic and reason, try to force their way on you.. all for what? to keep people in the dark and ignorant of what is actually happening.
    Religions as a whole are bigoted, egocentric, deprived... they deserve to be destroyed.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I can answer Q on that.. Religion has always had the agenda and goal to keep people in the dark and ignorant of their surroundings.
    Why would you embrace a tyrant? Well, religion does just that. They embrace the mere idea that there is a tyrant out there threatening our existence so they pay homage. That is why religion is a horrible thing.
    They remove logic and reason, try to force their way on you.. all for what? to keep people in the dark and ignorant of what is actually happening.
    Religions as a whole are bigoted, egocentric, deprived... they deserve to be destroyed.
    And what about those things that people call relgion that are none of those things? What about religions that don't embrace a tyrant or tyrrany in any form? What about those that don't believe in a tyrant out there threatening anything or those refusing to pay homage to such a being? What about religions that don't believe in any sort of god at all?

    If I decide to call some group of you and your friends a religion does that mean that your group ought to be destroyed too? I could argue that your post is evidence that that you remove logic and reason, that you are trying to force your way on people, and that your way of thinking is keeping people in the dark and ignorant of what is really happening. I certainly think that you are bigoted, egocentric and that your philosophy is deprived. Does that mean that you deserve to be destroyed too?

    Those who set themselves up as arbiters of the truth are bad enough. What shall we think of those who set themselves up as arbiters of who should be allowed to exist?

    I suppose that society may have do this to some degree, but usually it requires much better reasons than this. Those people, like serial killers for example, who take it upon themselves to decide who should exist or not, -- well perhaps we do need to deny such people existence.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    And what about those things that people call relgion that are none of those things? What about religions that don't embrace a tyrant or tyrrany in any form? What about those that don't believe in a tyrant out there threatening anything or those refusing to pay homage to such a being? What about religions that don't believe in any sort of god at all?
    Then you're just weird..
    When I speak of religion, I speak of the Gods based on the abrahamic religions and I take their holy book as a literal translation. Why would any God talk in tongues to their followers if the book itself is suppose to be the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    clarify in your posts that what you talk about is Christianity, then, not religion. And besides that, How can you say that there is inherent tyranny in religion, christianity even? All men are imperfect, vulnerable to corruption, and as the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely... it's rather ignorant to say that a religion inherently breeds tyrants, when in all reality, it's the people who wish for power, and lust for control, that FIND religion, who become religious tyrants.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    To go along with the thought, you may as well eliminate politics, economics, and nearly every aspect of civilization and culture since people will use anything to justify cruel and cowardly actions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    When I speak of religion, I speak of the Gods based on the abrahamic religions .
    Bloody narrow minded don't you think?
    Alternatively.
    Bloody narrow minded. Don't you think?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I ask a simple question; What's wrong with Buddhism?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    You see this is the problem with having as your ultimate authority an invisible God that the press cannot interview - naturally there is considerable disagreement about what this "must follow" and "have no say in the matter" that God has set down.
    I thought the bible WAS the "god interview" which describes in great detail what must be followed.

    "Considerable disagreement" in this regard must simply be "advanced interpretive cherry picking" of the bible, naturally.

    What good is the bible, then, if it isn't the ultimate written authority? Seems like pretty useless documentation if we have evanglecals, lutherans, presbyterians, episcopaleans, anglicans, catholics and all other sorts of "Christians" with such varying degrees of beliefs from a single set of scriptures.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    you are trying to force your way on people, and that your way of thinking is keeping people in the dark and ignorant of what is really happening. I certainly think that you are bigoted, egocentric and that your philosophy is deprived.
    You've defined the Abrahamic religions to a tee.

    Those who set themselves up as arbiters of the truth are bad enough. What shall we think of those who set themselves up as arbiters of who should be allowed to exist?
    You mean, like Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad, etc.?

    Those people, like serial killers for example, who take it upon themselves to decide who should exist or not, -- well perhaps we do need to deny such people existence.
    The Abrahamic religions describe in great detail who should and who shouldn't exist.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Q, everything you are talking about in religion is about PEOPLE, not the FAITH itself. you are looking at a group of people who follow Christianity and blanketing them with all kinds of ill defined, preconceived, assaults on character. What is it about Faith that makes it inherently evil, as that is what I'm inferring from your posts is your core belief?

    Specifically, focus on the Abrahamic cults, if you want. You are what you claim them to be. What is it about them that makes them inherently evil? Or, are you just looking at a group of people, because the whole of Christians are NOT as you describe, only select few have this potential, and blaming it all on their belief system?

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    When did you determine that my opinions weren't valid?

    I never said they weren't.
    You implied they weren't, by looking at my opinion, labeling it as such, and dismissing it.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Q, everything you are talking about in religion is about PEOPLE, not the FAITH itself.
    People are people, and cults are cults. Most people have been indoctrinated into their cults and never gained the ability to use critical thinking skills. This is not the fault of people, but the fault of the cult, and faith.
    I would offer that this is technically not really the fault of the cult/religion as such, but rather as a result of an inherent laziness on the part of the adherent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    What is it about Faith that makes it inherently evil, as that is what I'm inferring from your posts is your core belief?
    Of course, the religionist cult hierarchy invariably seems to actively discourage critical thinking of any variety that deviates in the slightest from their standard, which happens to suit the follower’s favouring inclination of laziness. So by my reckoning, on this score card alone; the cult organisation is guilty of so many sins against their own flock, it's hard to know where to begin.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    I would offer that this is technically not really the fault of the cult/religion as such, but rather as a result of an inherent laziness on the part of the adherent.
    The adherent is usually the parents, who have been indoctrinated themselves. They are taught from a very young age to believe in the doctrines of the cult, without question. It is pounded into their heads to believe in the supernatural and accept it as reality. They are taught to believe without question, and not to think. This isn't laziness, this is abuse.
    Admittedly such inter-generational indoctrination through fear certainly makes it extremely difficult to escape beliefs that are so powerfully entrenched, however people can awaken from out of such induced slumber if they choose to open their eyes and ask a couple of scary questions. It has happened before, or we would all still be Catholic.

    In any case, for mine your assessment of abuse seems to be profoundly reasonable.

    The thing is that the power base within all religion is they preach a form (any form) of a detached opaque mystery, particularly if that mythical unknowable is super powerful and therefore scary. So if the adherent's mentality cannot quite comprehend the details of that which their fear objectifies, they have a choice or two, and it seems by far the easiest path is that of forcing their intellect to embrace what their emotions are demanding of them – to adopt the mysterious myth as if it is a well proven concrete fact.

    The results from that point on are never much in doubt, and we see the sad culmination in a determined refusal to recognise anything of reason and clarity. Archy was a prime example and others on this forum should be careful.

    Fear is the key to religious dominance, but the opposite of fear (and therefore the way out) is through - LOVE!
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •