Yerda
Veteran Member
Does Sam Harris go to any length to suuport this statement?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A rise in anti-religious sentiment on the forums?
- Thread starter MoonWater
- Start date
Yerda
Veteran Member
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
Was your question serious?
Yes I am quite serious.
You will find their posts in various forums if you wish to look. Failing that take my word for it.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
Yerda
Veteran Member
Yes. I haven't encountered many people on RF who would fit the characterisations you've created in this thread.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I was wondering to myself whether there is a tendency for the atheists to prevail in argument, which causes some theists to retreat back to their Christian Forums rather than continue to try to compete in a forum that values evidence and logic.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
I think you have misunderstood the point of the thread. Caladan summed it up best.
Yerda
Veteran Member
I'm reading four textbooks, A Tale of Two Cities (Dickens - 4 years and counting I've been at this one), Dubliners (Joyce), Space Time and Spacetime (Lawrence Sklar), The Shock Doctrine (Naomi Klein), Think (Simon Blackburn), Germinal (Emile Zola), The Emperor's New Mind (Roger Penrose), and Docherty (William McIlvanney). Even if I got a copy of the book tomorrow I wouldn't find out the answer for about eight months...I'm just too scatter-brained.Read the book.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
Now with those two side issues disposed of I shall proceed.
The belief in supernatural religion leads almost invariably to the kind of society described above. The reason for this in the logic of the mythology. An almost universal complaint by religious leaders for thousands of years is that the faithful are not faithful. That they do not practice their faith nor encourage others to do so. And this complaint is fully justified. (A fact we should all be deeply grateful for.) So for this discussion the existence of such folk can be ignored. They are little more than flotsam tossed about the cultural landscape by stronger and more focused intellects.
A quick anecdote to illustrate the point. My Uncle was Baptist Minister. I was with him once as we driving thru a small neighborhood and we passed a church. Very well kept, newly painted, landscape cared for, sign working, steeple gleaming, doors beckoning; all very proper. He noticed nodded approvingly but seemed somehow unimpressed. Two blocks later we passed a liquor store. The sign proudly proclaimed it was open on Sunday afternoons. He pointed that out to me and remarked. There is proof that church back there has little impact on the community. A well kept building is no measure of faith.
People like the faithful members of that church are not even engaged in this struggle. They were so uninvolved they could not impose their morals on a local business. I doubt they even tried. Most people of faith are like that. They are little more than dilatants. Religion for them is something discussed over brandy and cigars; an intellectual parlor game with limited real world consequences. They are ineffectual and not even aware of it. Nor do they care. We see this reflected in many posts on this very thread. Many Eastern religions are like this by design. They do not even attempt to mold the culture around them. And their adherents are likewise uninvolved in this struggle. That is why both their existence and their numbers are unimportant and why they should be ignored.
But the true believer? Ah, here we have a horse of a very different color indeed. He studies his holy texts carefully and often. He communes daily with his deity. He rarely takes any action without considering its implications in the light of his faith. And he knows with religious certainty that his mission here is to remold his society in the image of his faith. He knows he is immortal. That eternity awaits and he will be living it. And he knows he can influence the terms of that eternal life by what he does here and now. Religion for him is serious business. Deadly serious.
THIS is faith in action. This faith impacts the culture. This faith WORKS.
If we ignore it and we will be either compelled to honor it or be eliminated.
The belief in supernatural religion leads almost invariably to the kind of society described above. The reason for this in the logic of the mythology. An almost universal complaint by religious leaders for thousands of years is that the faithful are not faithful. That they do not practice their faith nor encourage others to do so. And this complaint is fully justified. (A fact we should all be deeply grateful for.
) So for this discussion the existence of such folk can be ignored. They are little more than flotsam tossed about the cultural landscape by stronger and more focused intellects. A quick anecdote to illustrate the point. My Uncle was Baptist Minister. I was with him once as we driving thru a small neighborhood and we passed a church. Very well kept, newly painted, landscape cared for, sign working, steeple gleaming, doors beckoning; all very proper. He noticed nodded approvingly but seemed somehow unimpressed. Two blocks later we passed a liquor store. The sign proudly proclaimed it was open on Sunday afternoons. He pointed that out to me and remarked. There is proof that church back there has little impact on the community. A well kept building is no measure of faith.
People like the faithful members of that church are not even engaged in this struggle. They were so uninvolved they could not impose their morals on a local business. I doubt they even tried. Most people of faith are like that. They are little more than dilatants. Religion for them is something discussed over brandy and cigars; an intellectual parlor game with limited real world consequences. They are ineffectual and not even aware of it. Nor do they care. We see this reflected in many posts on this very thread. Many Eastern religions are like this by design. They do not even attempt to mold the culture around them. And their adherents are likewise uninvolved in this struggle. That is why both their existence and their numbers are unimportant and why they should be ignored.
But the true believer? Ah, here we have a horse of a very different color indeed. He studies his holy texts carefully and often. He communes daily with his deity. He rarely takes any action without considering its implications in the light of his faith. And he knows with religious certainty that his mission here is to remold his society in the image of his faith. He knows he is immortal. That eternity awaits and he will be living it. And he knows he can influence the terms of that eternal life by what he does here and now. Religion for him is serious business. Deadly serious.
THIS is faith in action. This faith impacts the culture. This faith WORKS.
If we ignore it and we will be either compelled to honor it or be eliminated.
How sad.:sad4: And how revealing.
Madam, YOU are not what you post. YOU are not a pattern of electrons on my monitor. YOU are not even involved in this discussion. Neither am I. Our IDEAS are.
Your arguments are too simple. They lack depth. They reflect a shallow popular analysis that sees only the most obvious and mistakes that vision for a complete understanding. Rather like the poster noted above who has discovered that not all people of faith actually live it your analysis sees only the surface and the obvious. And on that shallow and narrow understanding you rest your conclusions.
I can only draw conclusions based on the information presented me. If my conclusions are "shallow and narrow" it is simply due to the fact that the information presented to me, has either been misinterpreted on my part or was limited to begin with. Perhaps if you took the time to exaplain your views in greater detail and actually debate with other people rather than belittling them most of the time you could provide us with more information and thus we could draw "deeper and less narrow" conclusions.
The thing is Omar much of what you post is filled with over-generalizations and takes on a rather insultingly mocking tone. And I've noticed that when other people, who are religious, tell you that not all religions and religious people fit into the narrow little box your trying to shove them in you say that those that don't fit aren't really religions or aren't "true believers". Now like I said I could be misunderstanding what you have said and I would love for you to prove my conclusions wrong; they aren't static, if I am presented with new information then I will change and adapt my conclusions to fit the new data. But in order to do that it takes more than simply telling me my conclusions are shallow, you have to prove it through your attitude on these forums and the content of your posts. Which means you have to drop the ridicule, the condescending attitude and the overgeneralizations and it also means you have to support your claims rather than resorting to more ridicule, which is something I rarely see in you(unless of course, I'm misunderstanding again
)
Now with those two side issues disposed of I shall proceed.
The belief in supernatural religion leads almost invariably to the kind of society described above. The reason for this in the logic of the mythology. An almost universal complaint by religious leaders for thousands of years is that the faithful are not faithful. That they do not practice their faith nor encourage others to do so. And this complaint is fully justified. (A fact we should all be deeply grateful for.
A quick anecdote to illustrate the point. My Uncle was Baptist Minister. I was with him once as we driving thru a small neighborhood and we passed a church. Very well kept, newly painted, landscape cared for, sign working, steeple gleaming, doors beckoning; all very proper. He noticed nodded approvingly but seemed somehow unimpressed. Two blocks later we passed a liquor store. The sign proudly proclaimed it was open on Sunday afternoons. He pointed that out to me and remarked. There is proof that church back there has little impact on the community. A well kept building is no measure of faith.
People like the faithful members of that church are not even engaged in this struggle. They were so uninvolved they could not impose their morals on a local business. I doubt they even tried. Most people of faith are like that. They are little more than dilatants. Religion for them is something discussed over brandy and cigars; an intellectual parlor game with limited real world consequences. They are ineffectual and not even aware of it. Nor do they care. We see this reflected in many posts on this very thread. Many Eastern religions are like this by design. They do not even attempt to mold the culture around them. And their adherents are likewise uninvolved in this struggle. That is why both their existence and their numbers are unimportant and why they should be ignored.
But the true believer? Ah, here we have a horse of a very different color indeed. He studies his holy texts carefully and often. He communes daily with his deity. He rarely takes any action without considering its implications in the light of his faith. And he knows with religious certainty that his mission here is to remold his society in the image of his faith. He knows he is immortal. That eternity awaits and he will be living it. And he knows he can influence the terms of that eternal life by what he does here and now. Religion for him is serious business. Deadly serious.
THIS is faith in action. This faith impacts the culture. This faith WORKS.
If we ignore it and we will be either compelled to honor it or be eliminated.
See, and here I was actually holding on to the hope that you would prove me wrong but in fact you have done the opposite. You over-generalize yet justify your over-generalization by saying that those who don't fit into your nice neat little box aren't really what they think they are. You have this weird notion that unless someone is trying to shove their beliefs down another persons throat and trying to turn their society into a theocracy run by their religion they aren't a "true believer". At least now I understand where this erroneous notion comes from.
So would I be right in assuming that you believe that religions that follow the same thread as most eastern religions aren't actual religions? You do realize that they are far, far older than the religions you normally think of like Christianity and Islam, right? Tell me Omar, why do you believe that a person must act in the manner you've described in order to be a "true believer"? Why do you say that those who don't go around imposing their beliefs on others aren't true believers? You do realize that most religions actually don't condone that sort of attitude right?(the attitude about imposing one's beliefs on others) in fact most religions have a live and let live attitude, saying that all religions are valid paths. Or do you believe that religions which purport this idea aren't true religions? (even though the idea that there is only one true road to "god" is actually quite young, far younger than religion.)
Have you ever taken a comparative religion or philosophy of religion course? Have you ever studied the religions out their from MANY perspectives, not just from the perspectives of those you agree with? Have you studied the history of religion, sought to understand why people believe these things? Just what research have you done with regards to religion?
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
Both
Satan is the anti-christ, and he is certainly all over the place with his minions, but at the same time, satirical because no individual would fit this bill.
Satan's the anti-christ now? No, we already proved jesus was the anti-christ.
I don't think it's a rise in anti religious sentiment, just the more obvioulsy negative religiouns like the abrahamic faiths, mormonism, fundamentalists of various groups, etc. And that's nothing compared to the anti-athiests rise, which probably precipitated this rise against certain religions.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
"So would I be right in assuming that you believe that religions that follow the same thread as most eastern religions aren't actual religions? You do realize that they are far, far older than the religions you normally think of like Christianity and Islam, right? Tell me Omar, why do you believe that a person must act in the manner you've described in order to be a "true believer"? Why do you say that those who don't go around imposing their beliefs on others aren't true believers? You do realize that most religions actually don't condone that sort of attitude right?(the attitude about imposing one's beliefs on others) in fact most religions have a live and let live attitude, saying that all religions are valid paths. Or do you believe that religions which purport this idea aren't true religions? (even though the idea that there is only one true road to "god" is actually quite young, far younger than religion.)"
I am puzzled by this reference to ancient religions. I fail to see the relevance. The fact that these myths have evolved and continue to do so is significant . . . why? Perhaps you see some strong distinction between the older versions and their more modem offshoots. I do not. I see no meaningful distinction between the belief that lightening is caused by an angry god and the assertion that 9/11 was god’s punishment for tolerating homosexual activity. They spring from the same mental attitude and the same ignorance. I see no meaningful distinction between blanking one’s mind and attempting to stop all thought in hopes of creating some profound experience and handling snakes while chanting praises to god to achieve something similar. Neither are products of rational thought. If you see some profound differences do explain.
As for who is a true believer and who not I would have thought the difference clear. If you wish to make some other distinction then you to explain on what grounds and what difference such distinctions make.
As for my knowledge of religion it comes basically from two sources. What I was taught as a child and my HisWesCiv course as an undergraduate. Other sources include the aforementioned Eric Hoffer, Sam Harris, Pat Robertson, John Bunyan and Billy Graham. I am puzzled as why my bibliography in this area is relevant.
I am puzzled by this reference to ancient religions. I fail to see the relevance. The fact that these myths have evolved and continue to do so is significant . . . why? Perhaps you see some strong distinction between the older versions and their more modem offshoots. I do not. I see no meaningful distinction between the belief that lightening is caused by an angry god and the assertion that 9/11 was god’s punishment for tolerating homosexual activity. They spring from the same mental attitude and the same ignorance. I see no meaningful distinction between blanking one’s mind and attempting to stop all thought in hopes of creating some profound experience and handling snakes while chanting praises to god to achieve something similar. Neither are products of rational thought. If you see some profound differences do explain.
As for who is a true believer and who not I would have thought the difference clear. If you wish to make some other distinction then you to explain on what grounds and what difference such distinctions make.
As for my knowledge of religion it comes basically from two sources. What I was taught as a child and my HisWesCiv course as an undergraduate. Other sources include the aforementioned Eric Hoffer, Sam Harris, Pat Robertson, John Bunyan and Billy Graham. I am puzzled as why my bibliography in this area is relevant.
It's not about the differences between the old religions and their current offshoots its about how many of these religions are still around. Hinduism is a prime example of this and is considered one of if not the oldest religion. But there's also shintoism and buddhism to name a few other examples. I'm wondering whether or not you believe these to be true religions though as they do not have a "my way or hell" philosophy in them which you seem to think is necessary.
I don't think anyone really has the right or authority to make such a distinction because belief, faith, and religion are all so personal and so subjective. The way I see it, if someone says they are a true believer it's not my place to say "no your not" because I am not that person and thus have no idea just what their level of faith really is. That won't stop me from protesting against extremists and letting them know that what they're doing is harmful. But I'm not going to accuse them of not being a true believer.
I can't remember who said it but I remember seeing a quote posted on the walls of my old high school(one of many) that said something along the lines of, "he who knows only his side of the argument knows very little." I can't say I'm too familiar with all the names you've listed. If I remember correctly sam harris was the author of a christian nation which I read some time ago and I've heard the name pat robertson before. Are any of these people themselves theists or theologists? Do they all share your same views that religion is a vile thing? Cause the thing is where your information comes from is very important when drawing up an opinion on something. You certainly have a number of authors under your belt but they may as well all be one author if they all hold the same viewpoint on the topic at hand. If you only read from authors you agree with and those who share your viewpoint then all your doing is playing into willful ignorance as your not allowing yourself to consider other viewpoints, just reinforcing the ones you already have. And that's the sort of thing that leads to willful ignorance and closed-mindedness.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
I am astounded! :cover:Truly.
I am hard pressed to determine which is the more astonishing. That you do not know those writers/speakers or that you would publicly admit you don't.
Goggle works. Look them up. But I will say they range from Harris's "The End of Faith" with which I pretty much agree to the Right Reverend Pat Robertson who would, if he could, have me roasted at dawn. And enjoy every minute of the process.
When you have finished your homework we can continue.
I am hard pressed to determine which is the more astonishing. That you do not know those writers/speakers or that you would publicly admit you don't.
Goggle works. Look them up. But I will say they range from Harris's "The End of Faith" with which I pretty much agree to the Right Reverend Pat Robertson who would, if he could, have me roasted at dawn. And enjoy every minute of the process.
When you have finished your homework we can continue.
I would blame it on a lack of ice cream. No one would be anti-religious if religions were made of ice cream.
Good point!!! We need fudge religion ripple!!!!
