BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

God Is Imaginary

  
  

Page: 1(2)3456

 
 
illmatic
15:47 / 18.08.06
and how a lot of this madness seems to stem from religious or ideological roots.

At the minute, I'm all about Wilhelm Reich (no news there, then). I find his ideas about character structure and armouring a pretty convincing explantion for humanity's dysfunctional side - well, a big part of the explanation anyway. Reich's explanations serve to root our dysfunctions in our psyches and bodies - with the emphasis on the former, which makes his ideas particularly appealing to me. I like this idea because in a sense it predates ideology - it looks at some basic about us instead, and ideology can be seen as a manifestation of this. Religion, being an complex thing can both express our dysfunction and work againsts it also.

'Scuse me, I'm just thinking out loud. I need to get something up on the board about this at some stage, another thread needed I imagine. On holiday from tomorrow so may not be able to get back to this thread.

As you were.
 
 
LVX23
17:10 / 18.08.06
Some fine posts here and kudos to those folks that have wrangled this thread back into a meaningful discussion.

My two bits: People look to myths to give them guidance and meaning in an increasingly materialistic world often devoid of both. Problems arise when people grow dogmatic about their myths, read them literally instead of understanding the metaphor, and use them to justify destroying those with differing beliefs.

As noted upstream, the problem is not religion, it's people. Replacing the dogmatic view that "Jesus is the one Lord" with the dogmatic view that "all religion is evil" simply changes the mask on the face of hatred and intolerance.
 
 
LVX23
17:38 / 18.08.06
I'll add to GH's note about Reich's body/psyche structures that, to my mind, a lot of what we're seeing with dogmatism of all kinds is a reflection of the fundamental human logic structures built up around the rise of the Cartesian/Newtonian models of reality. Until the dawn of the last century with Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, etc... reality was a mechanistic and fundamentally dualistic system. Things were either/or with no room for fuzziness or paradox. You're either like me or different; good or bad; off or on.

As relativism and quantum indeterminancy filters into the human psyche (scientific paradigms typically define the way we view the world, it just takes a little while for it to work it's way into our consciousness) there's more room for the acceptance of alternate perspectives. This social relativism is growing larger and larger as noted by the civil rights movement, equal rights for women, gay rights, and a softening of many religious structures typically hardened around these movements (note openly gay cardinals and environmental Christians). In the evolving zeitgeist of how we perceive and catalog our world human perception is allowing for alternate models of behavior and philosophy that are not mutually exclusive and allow for diversity and even paradox. My way is one way and yours is an equally valid other way.

Dogma is simply maladaptive because it precludes rational information gathering and replaces it with canned prejudice. You make errors in judgement when your judgements are based on ingrained expectations rather than actual honest analysis of the facts presented to you. As in this discussion, the prejudice that all religions are bad and all religious people are morons is now being fleshed out to allow for more data.

What do we mean by religion? What are the different types of religions and sub-genres? Can we really say that all people who engage religion are inherently stupid or gullible? Is it possible that the people who lynch gays or wage holy wars have far deeper problems than the religious texts they cite to justify their atrocities? Do we have examples of people that counter the stereotype? Can we find examples of religious mythology that are positive regardless of context? All of these questions and the information they reveal undermine the stereotype and replace it with data. It was once adaptive to quickly classify others based on a few simple observations: are you food, friend, or foe? In the modern world our social adaptations require that we evaluate everyone and everything independently and precisely.

Oh yeah: Amoun Ra. Isis Apophis Osiris Horus. Unto Nu, bitch.
 
 
Ticker
18:03 / 18.08.06
LVX23, that was lovely. Especially the last part.

:::GRIN:::

I've got Blackmore's Meme Machine to read but here's a relative bit:


Linked Memes or Memeplexes
Many scientists have argued that memes do not always work alone; just like genes group themselves in gene complexes, memes group themselves in so-called meme complexes or memeplexes. Like genes, they work together and influence each other. Memeplexes work together in ways that they will build in protections for each other within the memeplex.

By taking a very open definition of memes as a starting point, it is possible to see every meme as a memeplex because, in some way, our own views have been influenced by our own memes and are thus unavoidably linked to them. This relates closely to the phenomenological problem that all the research is, per definition, not entirely objective, as there is already a frame of reference in which the research is carried out. The German philosopher, Kant, said that our thinking was limited by our perception; because of this, we can never observe the true nature of something (“ding an sich”) but only the nature of the object as it is perceived, shaped by our frame of reference.

Both Dawkins and Blackmore have described how religions can be defined as memeplexes. It is essential to see the importance of a memeplex such as religion. Such memeplexes do not only find shelter in the mind of a new host, but they will change the perceptions and life of their new host.

The purpose of religion may seem awkward or even unintelligible, but to the host the memeplex of religion creates a paradigm through which he or she can solve philosophical questions and feel content in knowing that these questions can be solved. The built-in defense mechanisms against other explanations will furthermore protect the host (and the memeplex) from being subjected to changes of this basic belief system. Aside from protecting the host from hostile meme-intrusions, religions also include a factor of ‘conversion’. All major world-religions have a religious task to spread the religion and convert non-believers. Next to that, they all have their own holy scriptures which hasten spreading and make sure the memes can survive over time (Blackmore, Meme Machine 187-194).
 
 
LVX23
18:15 / 18.08.06
Thanks, xk. I think it's critical to understand memetics in order to understand religion. If I may be so bold as to quote myself:

On this dusty battlefield arms cross and clash and blood spills relentlessly as the insects wage memetic warfare against each other, vying for dominance in the humble noosphere of the human species. The prevailing memetic deities know the power of human belief and know that it’s the only way they can survive and become real. We surround ourselves with great technological extrusions, vast webworks of creations all manifest from within our minds, from within the sea of ideation, imagination. Whatever we believe in most is what will come to pass. The great struggles now pitched and fought rising towards a seeming apocalypse are being waged by thousand year old mythologies still gripping our consciousness and infecting our minds. Priests and politicians cunningly invest in their powers while common folk give their lives in servitude, like capsids bursting to perpetuate the viral progeny. When the scorecard is read, whatever deified memeplex has the most ardent believers, that’ll be the one that writes our story.
 
 
Ticker
18:59 / 18.08.06
the 'capsids bursting' part is particularly effective me thinks....

So if we look at different religions as memeplexes, do you think religious reform works in terms of replacing incapatable aspects with more vigorous meme componants?

Can we engineer 'better' memeplexes?
 
 
Unconditional Love
20:15 / 18.08.06
Can Imagineers, Memengineer B.S 's, Yeah.

The penn and teller bullshit on abstinence, family values and self help are also extremely funny while being informative. They bring alot of questions about the new christianity forward from certain perspectives and within that context pretty much show its adaptation strategy, but also how it carrys a majority of the old dogmas. They are extremely biased programmes, but well needed in my case.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
20:16 / 18.08.06
Sorry to aside from your question for a moment, but I've just got back to a keyboard today. I'll try and drag it on point.

To roadtest a possibly shaky (possibly not) analogy (and its not that original):

We know that sexual diseases are a result of, like, fucking. We know that domestic violence occurs within relationships, typically. We know that rape and sexual violence are a terrible crime in which all the 'signifiers' which are ordinarily associated with love, respect and trust represent violence, hatred and disgust, a twisted perversion of a beautiful act. We are well aware of the term "Crimes of Passion".

So is love, therefore, imaginary?

I mean, love is a pretty insubstantial notion...you can't point to it, own it, smell it, taste it, touch it, hear it, take a photograph of it, see it, demand that it appear, etc...unless....unless you are, as they say, "in" it. You can't describe it in any useful or relevant way scientifically such that you actually explain what it is, or what it means. You have to be in love, then you can try, poetically, artistically, scientifically, musically, constructively, patiently, carefully, respectfully, honestly, humbly, introspectively, consciously, presently and mindfully to express that emotion to everyone and everything that there is. No mean feat, but by Noddy have people tried throughout history. Love is so beautiful, apparently, that it's strange that not everybody is just in love wouldn't you say? I mean, what's to lose. Read, look, listen about it. It's, apparently, the bees knees.

It is very like God(s), in that way, to people who have this God(s) thing going on. God is love, man! Grab a tambourine!!

I jest, I really don't want to pepper yhis post with %'s

Unless you've never felt it (love), or have been so distanced from it by circumstance and happenstance that it may as well be imaginary, from your present appraisal of the situation you find yourself in . Here as a human being in this vast, unfathomable Universe, on this planet teeming with busy apes who just can't get along, where there really ain't that much love on one level, but is so much on another...tricky business, love.

It's a Mystery to most people, myself included, but, I guess, imaginary to others, and a whole host of other things to yet others. I think it's great that way, so many things to so many people. And the best bit is, you don't have to do anything about it.
 
 
LVX23
20:22 / 18.08.06
The main dichotmomy I see at least in the Xtian camp is the struggle between fundy literalists that tend to focus on Revelations & Ezekial on the one hand, and the folks that prefer to focus on the teachings of Christ. Re-engineering the memeplex to shift more emphasis on the latter would probably be a good start. Problem is the fundy types are typically a lot louder and more zealous (and better funded).

Islam is a whole nother issue but again suffers from a similar dichotomy. Fundy clerics seeking Jihad and focusing on the darker interpretations of the Koran (eg Sharia Law) versus the average muslims looking for peace and meaning. Unfortunately, religious zealots are highly effective tools to be wielded by the power elite so typically more energy goes into fomenting hatred and dogma than peace and acceptance. Look to the clerics and the ruling families who use zealots to defend their power base. But I digress.

Re-engineering dogmatic memes I think really boils down to encouraging peaceful language and interpretations whenever possible, regardless of the carrier (religion, science, sociology, etc...). Engineering relativism, perhaps?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
20:36 / 18.08.06
Yeah. Start like the Sutras, just for kicks...NON VIOLENCE. I'm guessing in thought and action, just to be sure. Then proceed.
 
 
electric monk
00:31 / 19.08.06
The main dichotmomy I see at least in the Xtian camp is the struggle between fundy literalists that tend to focus on Revelations & Ezekial on the one hand, and the folks that prefer to focus on the teachings of Christ.

When discussing ardent followers of the faith, I think that's about right. Some folk seem genuinely bettered for finding God. Others seem to relish the concept of Hell and who will or should go there (I stepped into a debate about exactly that earlier today). I know there's a better verse from the Bible to illustrate this, but this one should do. Found on wikipedia so, y'know, add a few grains from that pillar of salt:

Exodus 20:1-6, New Revised Standard Version.

(1) Then God spoke all these words: (2) I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; (3) you shall have no other gods before me. (4) You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (5) You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, (6) but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

That's essentially God handing out the Ten Commandments. But check out verses (5) and (6) especially. The Jealous God and the Loving God. Is there a side to choose there, or is this generally reconcilable to the average Christian?
 
 
Char Aina
00:43 / 19.08.06
what sides?
from that section it seems god only loves you if you worship him unconditionally.
i see the jealousy, but there doesnt seem to be any real love to me.

you're either with YHWH or with the terrorists, yeah?
 
 
Seth
02:55 / 19.08.06
Just a thought before bed. Suppose we were to view the title of this thread not as derogatory, but as a statement of intent. In how many different contexts is the term *imaginary* used? Psychology? Physics? Maths? Are there any interesting and possibly useful metaphors for God that we could use where the term *imaginary* crops up in those fields?

You know, for fun. It's not like it'd be true or anything.
 
 
Mirror
04:01 / 19.08.06
I think religion was created by cave-dwellers to explain certain things occuring at the time in their then science-less world. I believe that Jesus was a charlatan...and not good kind who do psychedelic rock. So any thoughts?

Yeah. I believe JHVH-1 is an alien who STILL THREATENS THIS EARTH!
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
07:56 / 19.08.06
incognito$oid We know that sexual diseases are a result of, like, fucking. We know that domestic violence occurs within relationships, typically. We know that rape and sexual violence are a terrible crime in which all the 'signifiers' which are ordinarily associated with love, respect and trust represent violence, hatred and disgust, a twisted perversion of a beautiful act. We are well aware of the term "Crimes of Passion".

So is love, therefore, imaginary?

Sure, just like 'respect', 'trust', 'hatred' and 'disgust'.

Aren't there any number of measurable responses that happen when someone you truly love walks in the room, increased heartrate, widening eyes or something? And similarly doesn't your body prepare for a fight if it's someone you really hate?

And Khorosho, could you clarify for me who exactly you've got the beef with. Your thread title suggests it's God, but your first post and link suggest that it's actually the Christian God and Mr Jesus, three seperate entities. So which is it?
 
 
Quantum
09:26 / 19.08.06
I think it's actually fundamentalist Christians ze's hating. I don't think you'll get a response anytime soon though.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
23:37 / 19.08.06
Aren't there any number of measurable responses that happen when someone you truly love walks in the room, increased heartrate, widening eyes or something?

Not sure what your point is. From where I'm sitting that's a perfect example of how reducing a concept like 'love' to something so absurdly reductionist, in this context, as physiological responses, fails utterly to convey the meaning of the experience...which is paramount.

I mean, fight, fuck or flight reponses occur in response to many stimuli, a huge number of which have nothing to do with love at all.

Pentecostals and possession-work faiths have equal, if not more extreme, physiological reactions to the presence of their God or Gods or divine beings. Does this prove, or even merely demonstrate anything noteworthy, apart from as above so below? (which is surely enough!!)
 
 
chairmanWOW
08:20 / 21.08.06
The one in which Khorosho responds and is violently rebuked:

I’m afraid my knowledge of the qu'uran and the words of Allah’s prophet Mohammed is pretty scanty.
could you elaborate on the parts that deal with hate most clearly?

Your spelling of Qu’ran is also pretty scanty too. Here ya go. Sura 22:19, which read in translation: "As for the unbelievers, for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skins shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods.". We better not say anything more negative, lest we invoke their rage and have them burn down a KFC.

I’d also be interested to hear how you arrived at the decision that Jesus was a charlatan.

So he's like god, right? And he comes to earth...what's the first thing he does to prove he has limitless power. He turns wine into water. I can turn wine into water. Why not, if you're a god do something that can stand the test of time...um, something maybe like curing all forms of cancer. David Copperfield has preformed more impressive feats then Jesus and he, at least, can fly.

if only they followed the true Jesus, they seem to be saying, you would think just like me!

I've tried to believe that as well...that history has misconstrued Jesus. But like one very angry Christian told me: "You can't change what’s written in the fucking Bible!".

It is entirely possible that the person upon whom the current character of Jesus was based was not as pure and holy as he is commonly presented. I suppose that it is not completely impossible that he was the biblical equivalent of a snake-oil salesman. But the school of thought that has developed from the writings of his followers still have a great capability to educate and do good. As the person went to dust 2000+ years ago surely the message is what is important.

To be honest...I do believe that there was a Jesus and that his teaching are noble BUT I think either the church fathers 're-envisioned' him or those darned disciples made his story grander than it originally was by adding 'miracles' and fantabulous 'resurrections'.

A SCURED ex-Christian at that...er, whatever that means...

SCURED is scared. This is called talkin' copper. Just watch Tyler Perry's Madea series or I'll call the poe poe fo' yo'.

would that be the Leviticus in the Koran then?

Yes, it's the one after the chapter where on the results show it's revealed that the Prophet Mohammed is actually Jesus.

However if I knew someone who was killed by an atheist and I started telling everyone in some atheist gathering that the solution to world peace

Atheists don't have a magical book in which a super god tells them to do horrible things. And before some smart ass asks what kind of horrible things, let me name a few. The Salem Witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, The Holocaust, Apartheid, the genocide in Rwanda and Slavery in America were all directly or indirectly inspired by the Christian god's involvement in human affairs and also happen to be the most despicable atrocities in human history. I may be a stupid bigot, out to bad-mouth all the glorious religions of the world but I'm just thinking that in any scenario where a human is killed because of the instantiated believe in a un-provable god...well, that ain't good.

by the way, to get others' responses in bold don't use the square brackets, use the angler ones.

Now you’re just trying to be mean-spirited.

He's quite taken with Taoism (a religion that doesn't have a God - which I'd imagine would be news to the woefully under informed thread starter)

I am aware of Taoism and of Lao Tzu.

Well then, to go back to my early question which you failed to even acknowledge, let alone answer, why does it still exist?

People like feeling special, they like the idea that there is this amazing force responsible for creating everything and that they are connected in a special way to this force and more importantly people like to belong. It’s always been about Us versus Them, hasn’t it?

why did you choose to use a critique of a certain conception of the Christian god as a tool to 'combat' religion as a whole?

With 2 billion followers…I like to aim high.

So how to counter these other religions? Would you say that their god(s) are imaginary too?

All gods are absent thus automatically imaginary. There would be no need for a god to hide.

What's so bad about an imaginary god anyway?

If it causes the death of innocent life, it is bad.

To put it simply, both books point out that imagination plays a much greater role in our lives than a few hundred years of rationalism would have us believe.

Imagination is the one thing that sets us apart from animals. Well, that and opposable thumbs.

One idea to put forward - is it specifically people who have religious beliefs who cause war, pain, suffering and all that, or is it people who cling unerringly to certain ideas and ideals?

Or is it people who cling to these ideas and use religion to justify their clinginess.

However, some of the most ridiculous genocides, wars and human rights abuses have occurred in communist societies. Can we blame religion for this?

No…I guess not. Religion isn’t all bad…I see that now.

So. Whaddya think?

I like you trampetunia. Your post was 100% effectual and 0% bitchy. You have really made me think about what you had to say.

People look to myths to give them guidance and meaning in an increasingly materialistic world often devoid of both. Problems arise when people grow dogmatic about their myths, read them literally instead of understanding the metaphor, and use them to justify destroying those with differing beliefs.

Yes, this is exactly right. I have abandoned god like a Christmas puppy because it was made abundently clear to me that either you read them literally and become a fanatic or you can just leave it all together. If people practise their religion without imposing it on others either by violent means or by just being bothersome, I can truly see that religion would be a functional aspect of society. This however is not the case.

Can we really say that all people who engage religion are inherently stupid or gullible? Is it possible that the people who lynch gays or wage holy wars have far deeper problems than the religious texts they cite to justify their atrocities? Do we have examples of people that counter the stereotype?

Stupid, no. Gullible, yes. They do have deeper problems and they’re using religion to perpetrate these atrocities. They create gods who will okay their behaviour. And no we don’t have any examples of people countering the stereotype…at least not that I know. There are far too many Jerry Falwells in this world, unfortunately.

So is love, therefore, imaginary?

Atheist or Christian, man will always act in his own self-interest. Unless we can create a race of humans that has no basis to feel superior or inferior to other humans, work toward a common good and understand that love is an action, not a feeling, mankind is doomed. -Tiera Hurlbert.

Re-engineering the memeplex to shift more emphasis on the latter would probably be a good start.

Amen to that, sister. I say burn the old testament.

Fundy clerics seeking Jihad and focusing on the darker interpretations of the Koran (eg Sharia Law) versus the average Muslims looking for peace and meaning. Unfortunately, religious zealots are highly effective tools to be wielded by the power elite so typically more energy goes into fomenting hatred and dogma than peace and acceptance. Look to the clerics and the ruling families who use zealots to defend their power base.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. -Seneca the Younger 4 b.c.- 65 a.d. Sorry about all these atheist quotes but they’re lovely aren’t they?

And Khorosho, could you clarify for me who exactly you've got the beef with. Your thread title suggests it's God, but your first post and link suggest that it's actually the Christian God and Mr Jesus, three separate entities. So which is it?

All gods really. But the Christian god more specifically…since he was my first. Also, even though Jesus was a mountebank I still love his work.

I think it's actually fundamentalist Christians ze's hating. I don't think you'll get a response anytime soon though.

True. But it isn’t hate…I hate nothing really (except maybe bank queues). It’s more a violent sense of frustration.

Oh, you’ll get a response. It’s not as though I’ve run away because of all your sharply witted comments. I’ve just been away for the weekend.

Okay, let’s end this here. Can someone lock this thread? Anyone? I’ve been convinced by all your brilliant arguments and you have won me over. I was wrong to be so blatantly rude and I’ve been a very naughty infidel. Religion is powerful and meaningful and I’ll see you all in the afterlife. That is, if I start behaving.

Go on, let me have the last word.

More atheist quotes for everyone! Yeah! And remember Darwin Loves You!

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. –Marie Curie

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe. -Carl Sagan

I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them. -Galileo Galilei

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. -Albert Einstein

Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one. -Richard Dawkins

Jesus' last words on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" hardly seem like the words of a man who planned it that way. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure there is something wrong here. -Donald Morgan

I would defend the liberty of concenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent. - Arthur C. Clarke

God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. –Voltaire

If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little Electric Chairs around their necks instead of crosses. -Lenny Bruce

Want more cause I’ll keep going?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
08:33 / 21.08.06
Really don't.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
08:43 / 21.08.06
Well, that's that sorted then.

Cup of tea?

I have just the blend for you.

(Humili-tea, if you were wondering.)

(Probably wise to steer clear of the Christiani-tea until you've acclimatised a bit.)
 
 
ghadis
08:48 / 21.08.06
I’m afraid my knowledge of the qu'uran and the words of Allah’s prophet Mohammed is pretty scanty.
could you elaborate on the parts that deal with hate most clearly?

Your spelling of Qu’ran is also pretty scanty too. Here ya go. Sura 22:19, which read in translation: "As for the unbelievers, for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skins shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods.". We better not say anything more negative, lest we invoke their rage and have them burn down a KFC.


You're quoting slightly out of context here Khorosho. In my copy of the Koran (no point being silly about spelling-there are numerous ways to translate from Arabic) the next line reads, 'Whenever, in their anguish, they try to escape from Hell back they will be dragged, and will be told: 'Taste the torment of the Conflagation!'

Your quote is a description of Hell. Not very nice, you're right there, but also not the guidebook of hate for the living that you seem to be implying it is as you say here...

Atheists don't have a magical book in which a super god tells them to do horrible things.
 
 
chairmanWOW
09:02 / 21.08.06
I have just the blend for you.

(Humili-tea, if you were wondering.)

(Probably wise to steer clear of the Christiani-tea until you've acclimatised a bit.)

Oh my gawd! You are so funny. I think I just pee'd in my pants a little there. Wooo! Here's another one! Wait for it. Your post is like really moronic-tea!

You're quoting slightly out of context here Khorosho. In my copy of the Koran (no point being silly about spelling-there are numerous ways to translate from Arabic) the next line reads, 'Whenever, in their anguish, they try to escape from Hell back they will be dragged, and will be told: 'Taste the torment of the Conflagation!'

I think you have the King James version of the Koran. Less violent hatred and suffering, more smiling puppies. My Koran talks about dissolving skin. Also, not to be nitpicky but who are the 'they' your Koran refers to?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:02 / 21.08.06
And no we don’t have any examples of people countering the stereotype…at least not that I know. There are far too many Jerry Falwells in this world, unfortunately.

Dr Martin Luther King? Quite famous, seems to have been a decent sort, had a few ideas which he got out there which didn't seem to be all about GENOCIDE... Probably an atheist, I suppose?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:14 / 21.08.06
Seneca wasn't an atheist.He was a Stoic, following a line of logocentric thinking that had, ironically, a great impact on the development of Christianity.

To be honest...I do believe that there was a Jesus and that his teaching are noble BUT I think either the church fathers 're-envisioned' him or those darned disciples made his story grander than it originally was by adding 'miracles' and fantabulous 'resurrections'.

Forgive me, but it looks as if you are basing this belief on faith. There is precious little evidence of the "historical" Jesus, and what there is is of dubious provenance. So, ultimately, you have decided, based on faith, that your idea of Jesus is more accurate than that of others. You're a doctrinaire Christian who just happens to have a heterodox idea on the presence of God.
 
 
ghadis
09:21 / 21.08.06
My copy of the Koran is very similer to your translation i imagine but I think you're missing my point Khorosho. I wasn't disputing the violence of the quote or to who was having the violence done to them (the unbelievers). I was pointing out that your quote neglegted to mention that it was a description of Hell and not a 'how to mutilate non-believers' guide for practising Muslims. You seemed to imply this with your KFC and magical books comments. Do you see what i'm getting at?
 
 
chairmanWOW
09:37 / 21.08.06
Dr Martin Luther King? Quite famous, seems to have been a decent sort, had a few ideas which he got out there which didn't seem to be all about GENOCIDE... Probably an atheist, I suppose?

Thanks for being obvious. Wow, you name one example and that's supposed to settle the argument. I could also have name-dropped someone like Mother Teressa and run off. Name names. If these champions of Christian values are so plentiful, name ten.

Forgive me, but it looks as if you are basing this belief on faith. There is precious little evidence of the "historical" Jesus, and what there is is of dubious provenance. So, ultimately, you have decided, based on faith, that your idea of Jesus is more accurate than that of others. You're a doctrinaire Christian who just happens to have a heterodox idea on the presence of God.

Yes headcraps, this is true. Except for the fact that I have no idea on the presence of god.

I was pointing out that your quote neglegted to mention that it was a description of Hell and not a 'how to mutilate non-believers' guide for practising Muslims. You seemed to imply this with your KFC and magical books comments. Do you see what i'm getting at?

No, I don't know what you're getting at, sorry. Obviously this is a description of how Allah will treat non-believers and if your god feels the need to foster such attitutes towards non-believers, how do you think his followers will behave to these same non-believers?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:11 / 21.08.06
Except for the fact that I have no idea on the presence of god.

Aside from jumping up and down yelling that God is imaginary?
 
 
chairmanWOW
10:19 / 21.08.06
GEEE-ZUS KEY-RICE-TAH! You just won't let this go will you?

Mordant C says meen fings, are you Ann fucking Coulter?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:23 / 21.08.06
I'm merely asking how you can state that you have no idea on the presence of God when you've already stated that you don't believe in God. And, as I only asked once, I don't see how I can be accused of not letting it go.
 
 
ghadis
10:30 / 21.08.06
I think Mordant has brought up an valid point about your comment Khorosho. Less of the insults.

No, I don't know what you're getting at, sorry. Obviously this is a description of how Allah will treat non-believers and if your god feels the need to foster such attitutes towards non-believers, how do you think his followers will behave to these same non-believers?

I see what you're getting at but you seem to have an unfortunate habit of lumping people of a faith into one big collective no-brain entity. 'Thou shalt not Kill' is also a fundemental aspect of Abrahamic faiths. I'm pretty sure that there are far more religious people who don't kill people (or boil or skin them) in the world than there are that do. Someone made the comment above that there are no religious wars, just wars for social and poiltical reasons that use religion as a tool. That makes more sense to me.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:33 / 21.08.06
Wow, you name one example and that's supposed to settle the argument. I could also have name-dropped someone like Mother Teressa and run off. Name names. If these champions of Christian values are so plentiful, name ten.

In the first place, I wouldn't choose Teresa as an example due to factors which I would have thought would be familiar to any vaguely well-informed critic of Christianity.

Secondly, it is not my responsibility to come up with a lengthy list of names that satisfies you. You said, and I quote: "we don’t have any examples of people countering the stereotype… at least not that I know" [my italics]. In order for this statement to be shown to be risible nonsense, all any of us had to do was pick, off the top of our heads, a well-known Christian figure who counters your proposed stereotype.
 
 
chairmanWOW
10:35 / 21.08.06
Yes, I'm contradicting myself. Must be because I love reading the bible so much.

So Ann Coulter...you her?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
10:49 / 21.08.06
Khorosho...why are you so angry and defensive? If this discussion is to proceed in any useful way likely to benefit you or us, then a calm, centred willingness to listen and carefully consider each others points without getting offended or conflating an opinion with a personality is going to help a lot.

It's OK for you to believe that God is imaginary. That's fine. But by the same token it's OK for others to take a different view. It is not incumbent on you to be a flag bearer for TEH TRUTH. You have your Truth. Live it. It is your seal with the Universe. It is your mandate.

But it's much easier to discuss if you don't jump like an electrocuted ferret everytime somebody questions your stance or asks you to acknowledge some inaccuracy in the facts you are using to back up what you are trying to express.

With the greatest respect, you seem to be approachingthis issue from a very simplistic, either/or take on a very complex and totally subjective issue.

The reason you are encountering so much resistance to your ideas here is because, so far, based on tone and content, you seem to be having a bit of a rant. Which is fine. We all do it sometimes. Trust me, I know.

But levelling the YOU ARE SCURED X-TIAN!!11! at people like, ahem, Giant Haystacks - so far off the mark, it's hilarious - doesn't foment a caring disposition in those who are trying to hear your point of view and respond.

Nobody, believe me, is out to convert you (SINNER!!!;-)) or take away your extremely valid and worthy opinion. Just lets not all get wounded at la difference. We can agree to disagree you know. It doesn't make either of us wrong or stupid or gullible. That's just a way of 'belonging' as you mention upthread - othering of those who disagree. Its fundie and ugly.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
10:55 / 21.08.06
Which is what I meant by humili-tea, actually...I wasn't sniping or being callous, I though it was obvious that it was a gentle joke...but your approach here (not 'ou', your approach here) is full of hubris.

You don't know whether there is a God or not, simple fact. Nobody does. This is why we have 'faith'. Faith may not mean what you think it does. Faith is a lifetime of meditation, which I suspect you have not, thus far, had much time for.

You don't need to have faith to meditate on it. Just consider what it is and how it might - might - affect the relationship between your intention, will and the way the Universe manifests around you. It is a different agreement with the Universe than the one you currently have negotiated, and offers an alternative work to the work you are doing - an analogy might be the difference between choosing self employment and joining the corporate ladder. And which would be which? To you? Each has its benefits and drawbacks and will fundamentally change who and what you are. It's a meditation.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
10:58 / 21.08.06
Sorry, last thing - the 'tea' reference was also a kind of in-joke round these parts that you might not get. A friendly joke, not a cruel joke. Sorry if it came across as 'being at your expense'.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3456

 
  
Add Your Reply