DarkSun
:eltiT
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.
You're forgetting ChristBlack.
-
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
You're forgetting ChristBlack.
I believe it is hypocritical to demand proof OF something when you cannot prove anything to the contrary.
As far as some theists retreating, you learn very little if you only hang out with like minds.
Which is one reason you're pretty valuable on this liberal forum, Rick. Otherwise, things would be less challenging around here.
Of course, none of that changes the fact you're always wrong.
DarkSun
:eltiT
Which is one reason you're pretty valuable on this liberal forum, Rick. Otherwise, things would be less challenging around here.
Of course, none of that changes the fact you're always wrong.
Define wrong...
Define wrong...
Wrong. synonym: Reverend Rick.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
Which is one reason you're pretty valuable on this liberal forum, Rick. Otherwise, things would be less challenging around here.
Of course, none of that changes the fact you're always wrong.
That is unduly harsh. Just last week (I know for a fact) he got the time of day correct - twice in the same day.
DavyCrocket2003
Well-Known Member
I have to say, I have noticed this phenomenon to a certain extent. I generally try to be respectful and sincere when debating. I don't mind it when people think I'm totally bogus. But I feel much less inclined to converse and debate when someone is flaming and insulting. I really do want to increase my understanding of other people and desire to learn from other beliefs and gain the insight that other perspectives and philosophies have to offer. But I prefer that the dialogue takes place in a civil and respectful manner. And I believe most people are the same way. Given this is a debate forum, we're allowed to be as harsh and condescending as we want. But if we really want to have a useful and engaging experience with more open and diverse opinions, we need to be respectful of even the most wacko among us.
To OmarKhayyam. I think I fall into your category of "True Believer". If you asked me, I would say that I believe 100% that God lives. I strive to make every decision in my life in the context of my beliefs. But I honestly don't see why that should concern you (other than it must really bug you that I'm so seemingly ignorant). Why should you feel threatened by my belief?
To OmarKhayyam. I think I fall into your category of "True Believer". If you asked me, I would say that I believe 100% that God lives. I strive to make every decision in my life in the context of my beliefs. But I honestly don't see why that should concern you (other than it must really bug you that I'm so seemingly ignorant). Why should you feel threatened by my belief?
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
As to you personally I have no comment. I lack sufficent evidence to make a judgment.
Speaking more generally one of the hallmarks of the true believer is his determination to shape the world around him to conform to his beliefs. Since that impacts me - very strongly impacts me - then his beliefs do indeed concern me. And they should.
DarkSun
:eltiT
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
"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."
This is PC gone amok. It IS possible AND appropriate to make judgments based on objective and falsifiable and verifiable criteria. Science does it all the time. The attributes of the true believer are based on observable actions. The actions to be observed can be described and the observed behavior compared to that description. It is possible based on those observations to make valid judgments as whether or not the observed behaviors fit the criteria. To claim otherwise is absurd. To simply refuse to make the judgment is intellectual cowardice. And is an example of the shallow and simplistic understanding I referred to.
If the term “true believer” offends you substitute “class of individuals exhibiting observed behavior 4p7z3462”. Or any other term that you like. The procedure stands unrefuted no matter the label used.
To give an example of the blindingly obvious lets suppose that 3 criteria for the behavior of members of class 4p7z3462 are as follows.
1) The subject is observed to make product and/or service purchasing decisions based the perceived religious beliefs of the maker or merchant.
2) The subject is observed to support or oppose candidates for public office and/or proposals for public policy based solely on his religious beliefs. That is, he supports those he sees as agreeing with his religious views and opposes others and uses no other criteria in reaching his decision.
3) The subject is observed to devote more than 2 hours each day to religious observances.
I am so bold as to assert that it is entirely possible to observe those behaviors in an objective manner and to correctly reach a conclusion as to whether or not the behavior meets the criteria. Further based on that analysis is both possible and justified to pronounce a judgment as to whether or not the subject qualities as a member of the class of 4p7z3462; previously labeled as “a true believer.”
If you wish to dispute this analysis please do. I am genuinely interested in how you might proceed.
This is PC gone amok. It IS possible AND appropriate to make judgments based on objective and falsifiable and verifiable criteria. Science does it all the time. The attributes of the true believer are based on observable actions. The actions to be observed can be described and the observed behavior compared to that description. It is possible based on those observations to make valid judgments as whether or not the observed behaviors fit the criteria. To claim otherwise is absurd. To simply refuse to make the judgment is intellectual cowardice. And is an example of the shallow and simplistic understanding I referred to.
If the term “true believer” offends you substitute “class of individuals exhibiting observed behavior 4p7z3462”. Or any other term that you like. The procedure stands unrefuted no matter the label used.
To give an example of the blindingly obvious lets suppose that 3 criteria for the behavior of members of class 4p7z3462 are as follows.
1) The subject is observed to make product and/or service purchasing decisions based the perceived religious beliefs of the maker or merchant.
2) The subject is observed to support or oppose candidates for public office and/or proposals for public policy based solely on his religious beliefs. That is, he supports those he sees as agreeing with his religious views and opposes others and uses no other criteria in reaching his decision.
3) The subject is observed to devote more than 2 hours each day to religious observances.
I am so bold as to assert that it is entirely possible to observe those behaviors in an objective manner and to correctly reach a conclusion as to whether or not the behavior meets the criteria. Further based on that analysis is both possible and justified to pronounce a judgment as to whether or not the subject qualities as a member of the class of 4p7z3462; previously labeled as “a true believer.”
If you wish to dispute this analysis please do. I am genuinely interested in how you might proceed.
Last edited:
Not all religious people are as you describe Omar. Your trying to use objective means to study something subjective. It's not about being PC it's about "who am I to judge". It also has to do with the simple fact that I don't think one has to be an extremist in order to be a true believer. Most religions and religious people don't have a "my way or hell" attitude and i fail to see why such an attitude is necessary in order for one to be a "true believer". If you truly wish for a definition from me then I would say that a true believer is anyone who practices what they "preach". Anyone actually follows what they claim to believe is a "true believer". The thing is not everyone who is religious believes that it is their duty to mold society to their beliefs. Even within the same religion different people will follow it in different ways because of they way they interpret the information given to them. The way I see it, it's not about making everything fit the mold of a particular religion, it's about molding the religion to fit each individual, which may mean finding a new religion.
I don't have a problem with the term "true believer" Omar, I have a problem with how you use the term to try and pigeon hole everyone who considers themselves religious. You accuse me of having a shallow and simplistic understanding when it is you who overgeneralize religion and try to squeeze it all into your own viewpoint. You try to limit religion and the religious and yet consider my views and understanding absurd shallow and simplistic. And I can only wonder if anyone else here sees the irony in that.
Smoke
Done here.
Actually, I agree with you a good deal more than that, and I'm prepared to join your political party if you ever get it off the ground. Some of our views coincide, and some others diverge so widely that we meet on the other side.That would make me right every now and then?
DavyCrocket2003
Well-Known Member
I suppose I was wrong about your definition of True Believer. I fail on all three accounts. In fact, 1 and 2 contradict my beliefs.
I think it is foolish to judge someone by their espoused religious beliefs. Besides, anyone can say the right things/pander to religious zealots. A valid way to judge someone is by whether or not they live lives of integrity, honesty, and sincerity. I would much rather have an honest and competent atheist as my president than a corrupt or idiotic Mormon (and I can think of plenty
). Behavior is much more important than belief. And as for compelling others to accept my point of view: not only is that illogical (you can't be forced to believe something), it goes completely against my point of view. From the LDS Canon:"No power or influence can or ought to be maintained . . . by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; "By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guilehttp://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/121/42e"
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
I suppose I was wrong about your definition of True Believer. I fail on all three accounts. In fact, 1 and 2 contradict my beliefs.
. I would much rather have an honest and competent atheist as my president than a corrupt or idiotic Mormon (and I can think of plenty
You do indeed fail the test. Congratulations.:clap
And that you would knowingly vote for a non-believer places you firmly in the secular camp. Welcome aboard.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
"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."
Of course they are old. S-o-o-o wh-a-a-t? What possible relevance does that have to anything? And NO they are NOT. Simply because they are NOT interested in me or my beliefs.
"I don't have a problem with the term "true believer" Omar, I have a problem with how you use the term to try and pigeon hole everyone who considers themselves religious."
Fine. Call them Little Sisters of the Poor. The Eight Street Society of the Holy, the Gang of 12. WHATEVER! WHO CARES? Why does it MATTER? Use ANY label you like.
Simple question Yes or No. Is Pat Robertson a religious leader?
Of course they are old. S-o-o-o wh-a-a-t? What possible relevance does that have to anything? And NO they are NOT. Simply because they are NOT interested in me or my beliefs.
Not all religious people are as you describe Omar. AGREED!
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. "I don't have a problem with the term "true believer" Omar, I have a problem with how you use the term to try and pigeon hole everyone who considers themselves religious."
Fine. Call them Little Sisters of the Poor. The Eight Street Society of the Holy, the Gang of 12. WHATEVER! WHO CARES? Why does it MATTER?
Use ANY label you like.Simple question Yes or No. Is Pat Robertson a religious leader?
So in your view a religion is not a religion unless it purports a "my way or hell attitude."? The thing is these religions are very relevant particularly because of their age. You're the first person I've ever known who doesn't consider Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddhism and the like "true religions" and yet these religions are far older than than the grand total of two religions that would fit into the small box you've created(namely evangilical christianity and islam)
So you agree with me and then turn around and contradict your agreement? Omar if you ignore all religious people who don't hold a "my way or hell" attitude then you'll be leaving out most of the religious people of the world. It's nigh impossible to have a meaningful discussion about religious people when you seek to leave most of them out of the discussion.
"I don't have a problem with the term "true believer" Omar, I have a problem with how you use the term to try and pigeon hole everyone who considers themselves religious."
Fine. Call them Little Sisters of the Poor. The Eight Street Society of the Holy, the Gang of 12. WHATEVER! WHO CARES? Why does it MATTER?
I prefer to avoid labels actually.
yes.....why? what difference does that make? There are many different kinds of religious leaders, both good and bad. What's your point?
dragonlady
New Member
... attacking any idea different than their own, without reason, is the age old modus operendi of those living in the dark with there little ideals that they cannot justify...these are the people
who truly worry me....
who truly worry me....
DavyCrocket2003
Well-Known Member
You do indeed fail the test. Congratulations.:clap
And that you would knowingly vote for a non-believer places you firmly in the secular camp. Welcome aboard.
Well, gee thanks!
I think you are misunderstanding something here. I would be perfectly in line with my religion and what my religious leaders teach while at the same time voting for the best possible person for public office, regardless of religious or non-religious affiliation. As a fully faithful and practicing member of my church, I am bound by commandment not to compel anyone against their will (unless they are endangering/infringing upon the rights of others). "We claim the privilege of worshiping all mighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege; let them worship how where or what they may." Those are the words of Joseph Smith. By definition a faithful Latter Day Saint will be someone who allows others to choose to live how they want. Will we try and convert you? Of course! Will we try to influence you? Of course! But this influence can never go beyond that of friendly persuasion and kindness. And there are more important things than whether or not someone is a Mormon. For example: whether or not someone lives a moral life and is a benefit to society. You can even look in our scriptures for examples where it says it is better to be a non-believer that is half decent, or even not so decent, than a believer that is not living what they believe. And by that I mean charity, love, kindness, integrity, loyalty, hardworking, good father/neighbor/friend etc . . . I don't see how any of this could be a problem, believer or not. In my opinion, it is the unfaithful saints you would have to worry about. They are the ones who have a shallow understanding of the Gospel. They are the ones who try to force others to conform to their standards. They are the ones who will think they have to fight with someone simply because they disagree. It is the simplistic, ignorant, and immature beliefs of those who don't actually live what they are taught that you should be worried about. Not the faithful ones. I know this applies to my religion, I expect it may apply to others as well.
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Hi Moonwater, my own observation, limited as it may be, is that the religious debate forums are easily the most active, and the religious non debate forums are not so. As it stands, the atheists because of their apparent numerical strength, tend to be ubiquitous on all debate forum threads and so the threads tend not so much to offer the opportunity for ecumenical nuanced debate and understanding between the various religious members, but often results in polarized religion and anti-religion diatribes that results in many of the humble and sensitive religious members to dis-engage. This occurs due to their (atheists) superior numbers and it subjectivly appears to be more like debating a tag team than a considered and thoughtful exchange with people who have some reasonable sincere interest in religious understanding.
Since you are staff, perhaps you may like to propose to staff that atheists who want to debate the pros and cons of religion do so in just one or more of appropriately designated sub-forums of the Religious Debates Forum (or use "kitchen sink" section), and leave the rest of the Religious Debates section for the more nuanced debate between the religiously inclined members who are not anti-religion.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
I prefer to avoid labels actually.
I shutter to think what your pantry looks like.
But more to the point your entire argument is over the content of the lable "Religious." Apparently some labels are imporant to you.
yes.....why? what difference does that make? There are many different kinds of religious leaders, both good and bad. What's your point?v
Well thank you for that at least.
My point is that HIS religious faith MATTERS. He makes an impact on the larger society. What HE believes affects ME because of his power and influence. No so our friend Mr. Crockett here. If we take him at his word (no reason not to) his faith is HIS. Beyond polite conversation he makes no attempt to alter MY behavior. His faith does NOT control his attitude on public policy. He would even go so far to vote for a non-believer in some circumstances. Now I am sure his faith matters to HIM and likely those closest to him. And in that sense his faith is important. Perhaps quite important. But only to that rather small circle. And most certainly NOT to the larger society. His church an entirely different matter. As we have seen recently in CA.
Religious faith only has significance if and when it enters the public square.
I shutter to think what your pantry looks like.
But more to the point your entire argument is over the content of the lable "Religious." Apparently some labels are imporant to you.
yes.....why? what difference does that make? There are many different kinds of religious leaders, both good and bad. What's your point?v
Well thank you for that at least.
My point is that HIS religious faith MATTERS. He makes an impact on the larger society. What HE believes affects ME because of his power and influence. No so our friend Mr. Crockett here. If we take him at his word (no reason not to) his faith is HIS. Beyond polite conversation he makes no attempt to alter MY behavior. His faith does NOT control his attitude on public policy. He would even go so far to vote for a non-believer in some circumstances. Now I am sure his faith matters to HIM and likely those closest to him. And in that sense his faith is important. Perhaps quite important. But only to that rather small circle. And most certainly NOT to the larger society. His church an entirely different matter. As we have seen recently in CA.
Religious faith only has significance if and when it enters the public square.