It is the sort of person you are that counts.

[JJ50]

I suppose many of those were dissed by you because they didn't embrace illicit gay and lesbian debauchery.

I have no time for anti-gay bigots that is true. Being anti-gay is as bad as being racist. Some creeps have also used their sick interpretation of the Bible as an excuse for racism.

 

[Spartan]

I have no time for anti-gay bigots that is true. Being anti-gay is as bad as being racist. Some creeps have also used their sick interpretation of the Bible as an excuse for racism.

It's not a good plan to kick God's morals to the curb.

 

[JJ50]

It's not a good plan to kick God's morals to the curb.

Of course it is if they are WRONG, as anti-gay bigotry is. Not that it has anything to do with any god, it is a sick human construction.

 

[Spartan]

Of course it is if they are WRONG, as anti-gay bigotry is. Not that it has anything to do with any god, it is a sick human construction.

Defending iniquity is no virtue.

 

[JJ50]

Defending iniquity is no virtue.

There is nothing wrong with having a same sex partner.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am firmly of the opinion that it is one's personality, which is important, not one's religion, or lack of one. During my 69 years on this planet I have met many people, some were very good and decent who tried to help others as they went through life. I have also met some very bad people who abused children physically, sexually and emotionally, cheated on their partners, and those whose business dealing left a lot to be desired. The good people were both religious and non believers . Many of the bad people I knew were 'born again' Christians who were oh so holy in church, but evil sewer rats in their every day lives. Obviously I have met some very evil non believers too. Religion doesn't make you a good person, anymore than non belief makes you a bad person and visa versa.

If there is a heaven, good people, whether they are religious or not, should have access to it.

God judges thusly IMHO:

Perfect people: Heaven
Imperfect people: Hell

Are good people perfect?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's an active choice rejecting God

Is it an active choice to have never believed
in any of the plethora of gods proffered?

 

[JJ50]

God judges thusly IMHO:

Perfect people: Heaven
Imperfect people: Hell

Are good people perfect?

No one is perfect whether they are religious or non believers. If only the perfect were destined for heaven no one would get there assuming it exists, which in all probability it doesn't. A heaven filled with extremist Christians would definitely be my idea of hell.

 

[dianaiad]

Why all this talk of reward and punishment? Does it HAVE TO be so dichotomous? Where's the "neutral" option? As in - someone who doesn't care about being rewarded, and lived a neutral to majority-beneficial life. Where's that leave one?

And what is inherently wrong in questioning others beliefs? You say this as if it is automatically just wrong to question. Which is absolutely asinine, because it means that you are perpetrating this "wrong" all the time, from what I have seen. You question those that choose not to believe in God, or those that actively believe there is no God, all the time. If it is wrong to question, then boom... there you are doing it yourself. Or is it only wrong for non-believers to question, is that it?

That depends upon how you define 'question.'

If by that you mean 'demand that other people prove their beliefs to be true to you before you allow them the dignity of their own beliefs,' which is, in my experience, what 'question other beliefs' MEANS to most non-believers I've come up against, then....it is absolutely wrong to question other's beliefs.

However, if by that you mean "tell me what your beliefs are and I will go find out for myself whether there is any validity in them before I change my own mind about them,' then it is imperative that you question the beliefs of others.

Unfortunately, far too many people figure that the first definition is the correct one, and mockery, disdain and arrogance seems to be part and parcel of the whole 'questioning' process.

 

[dianaiad]

Is it an active choice to have never believed
in any of the plethora of gods proffered?

Yes.

Unless of course you have never HEARD of any of them.

Just as it is my choice not to believe in any of the versions of God but, er, the specific one I do believe in.

 

[dianaiad]

I have no time for anti-gay bigots that is true. Being anti-gay is as bad as being racist. Some creeps have also used their sick interpretation of the Bible as an excuse for racism.

You do realize that there is a difference between being anti-gay (anti-homosexual, or 'against' someone simply because of sexual preference) and being anti licentiousness, anti-promiscuity, etc.,?

,Now me, I'm not anti anybody because of who s/he finds attractive. However, I'm not going to approve promiscuity in a gay person any more than I do a 'straight' one.

Being gay is no excuse. Promiscuity is promiscuity. it's his or her choice what is done, and it's a darn good thing they don't need my approval and support, because they won't get it.

I mean, if they settle down and marry their love, I'll be happy to bake the cake and dance at the wedding, but being promiscuous is stupid, dangerous, harmful to all concerned, and ruins lives. Doesn't matter what sex the partners are.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That depends upon how you define 'question.'

If by that you mean 'demand that other people prove their beliefs to be true to you before you allow them the dignity of their own beliefs,' which is, in my experience, what 'question other beliefs' MEANS to most non-believers I've come up against, then....it is absolutely wrong to question other's beliefs.

I would define it as the process of asking questions, even if those questions paint the asker as a skeptic. A person can "dignify" their beliefs to themselves and their buddies all they want, but they can't expect anyone to afford things automatic (i.e. unearned) dignity just because they themselves believe them.

Unfortunately, far too many people figure that the first definition is the correct one, and mockery, disdain and arrogance seems to be part and parcel of the whole 'questioning' process.

And I would say that as soon as your belief can withstand mockery, disdain and arrogance from all sides and come out shining anyway due to the overwhelming and undeniable stink of its evidence, then your belief has been established to require a significant amount of "respect as default". No religion has this for very obvious reasons. But plenty of real-world, established items and categories of knowledge have this implicit/fundamental/intrinsic amount of respect that even theists recognize and would not even think of denying. For example - the germ theory of disease, or the idea that a person must consume food and water to survive, or the knowledge that falling from a certain height is dangerous.

The less fundamentally proven/tried/true an idea, the less respect it gets. Hence the reason people poke so much fun at things like political motivations, and that there is so much debate and animosity over things like abortion or whether herbivorous or omnivorous diets are better for human health - notice there isn't debate about whether intake of water versus soda benefits a person's state of health more. And that's what I mean by differences in amounts of evidence leading to differences in amounts of respect for ideas. Everyone respects that water is key to human health and well-being. It's established, and to "poke fun" or "mock" the "institution of water" would make one appear outstandingly ridiculous. Everyone would turn and poke fun at or mock the "water doubter." Right? And there stands the theist - making the ridiculous statement that "God" is even more fundamental than that! And yet the idea of God so obviously does not meet the standards of evidence that protect something like "water" from scrutiny and disrespect.

So change it. Provide the evidence and establish that base level of required respect, and then your ideas will be entirely immune to the point that deniers will automatically paint themselves as fools in everyone's eyes. Can't do that? Too bad. Seriously. It is not my problem.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes.
Unless of course you have never HEARD of any of them.

I was born not believing in gods.
When I first heard of them, I found the idea bizarre & unrealistic.
I made no decision to reject anyone's gods.
I just continued with unabated disbelief.

Just as it is my choice not to believe in any of the versions of God but, er, the specific one I do believe in.

Analogy time....
I never made a choice to believe that 1 + 1 = 2.
But I'm not able to choose to believe that 1 + 1 = something else.

 

[dianaiad]

I would define it as the process of asking questions, even if those questions paint the asker as a skeptic. A person can "dignify" their beliefs to themselves and their buddies all they want, but they can't expect anyone to afford things automatic (i.e. unearned) dignity just because they themselves believe them.

And I would say that as soon as your belief can withstand mockery, disdain and arrogance from all sides and come out shining anyway due to the overwhelming and undeniable stink of its evidence, then your belief has been established to require a significant amount of "respect as default". No religion has this for very obvious reasons. But plenty of real-world, established items and categories of knowledge have this implicit/fundamental/intrinsic amount of respect that even theists recognize and would not even think of denying. For example - the germ theory of disease, or the idea that a person must consume food and water to survive, or the knowledge that falling from a certain height is dangerous.

The less fundamentally proven/tried/true an idea, the less respect it gets. Hence the reason people poke so much fun at things like political motivations, and that there is so much debate and animosity over things like abortion or whether herbivorous or omnivorous diets are better for human health - notice there isn't debate about whether intake of water versus soda benefits a person's state of health more. And that's what I mean by differences in amounts of evidence leading to differences in amounts of respect for ideas. Everyone respects that water is key to human health and well-being. It's established, and to "poke fun" or "mock" the "institution of water" would make one appear outstandingly ridiculous. Everyone would turn and poke fun at or mock the "water doubter." Right? And there stands the theist - making the ridiculous statement that "God" is even more fundamental than that! And yet the idea of God so obviously does not meet the standards of evidence that protect something like "water" from scrutiny and disrespect.

So change it. Provide the evidence and establish that base level of required respect, and then your ideas will be entirely immune to the point that deniers will automatically paint themselves as fools in everyone's eyes. Can't do that? Too bad. Seriously. It is not my problem.

I see. I have to prove my beliefs to be true, TO YOU, before I am allowed the courtesy of belief myself?

Doesn't that mean that you must prove, TO ME, that your beliefs are true before you are allowed to have your own opinions?

 

[dianaiad]

I was born not believing in gods.
When I first heard of them, I found the idea bizarre & unrealistic.
I made no decision to reject anyone's gods.
I just continued with unabated disbelief.

Analogy time....
I never made a choice to believe that 1 + 1 = 2.
But I'm not able to choose to believe that 1 + 1 = something else.

Of course you did.

As soon as you found something to be 'bizarre and unrealistic,' that was a choice. Your opinion, which you hold to. Every time you learn something, hear something...you choose whether or not to listen or 'put any stock in it." You choose your disbelief, as those who believe choose their beliefs.

Only if there ARE no other options presented is there a lack of choice.

The only beliefs one does NOT choose to believe/disbelieve in are those one does not know about.

 

[JJ50]

You do realize that there is a difference between being anti-gay (anti-homosexual, or 'against' someone simply because of sexual preference) and being anti licentiousness, anti-promiscuity, etc.,?

,Now me, I'm not anti anybody because of who s/he finds attractive. However, I'm not going to approve promiscuity in a gay person any more than I do a 'straight' one.

Being gay is no excuse. Promiscuity is promiscuity. it's his or her choice what is done, and it's a darn good thing they don't need my approval and support, because they won't get it.

I mean, if they settle down and marry their love, I'll be happy to bake the cake and dance at the wedding, but being promiscuous is stupid, dangerous, harmful to all concerned, and ruins lives. Doesn't matter what sex the partners are.

I have no problem with adults, gay or straight , having sex in a committed consensual relationship, married or not. I don't approve of people sleeping around though, as they are more likely to get a sexually transmitted disease.

 

[dianaiad]

I have no problem with adults, gay or straight , having sex in a committed consensual relationship, married or not. I don't approve of people sleeping around though, as they are more likely to get a sexually transmitted disease.

And there you go.

I mean, nobody needs my approval for their lifestyle, but I'm not going to pretend that spreading SDT's and emotional chaos is a good thing.

Because it isn't. Whoever one's partners might be.

 

[JJ50]

And there you go.

I mean, nobody needs my approval for their lifestyle, but I'm not going to pretend that spreading SDT's and emotional chaos is a good thing.

Because it isn't. Whoever one's partners might be.

I never suggested that sleeping around was a good thing.

 

[stvdv]

If god exists and doesn't reward good, decent non believers, but rewards evil believers it is sick in the head.

100% agree

If god exists and doesn't reward good, decent non believers, but rewards evil believers it is sick in the head.

Normally I agree

But I have experienced 1 exception. There was a group of ca. 100 fanatic Russian men in the ashram I was. They behaved horrible, pushing shoving; some coming last and ending up front row seats.

Because they wanted to be close to the Master (which is not wrong of course, only the way they did it was questionable, to say the least). Of course a "nice" challenge for others to stay equalminded.

Of course the Master knew they were troubled men, so first let them get away with it (many interviews). So they really thought they did well getting most of the attention of the Master.

1 good day the Master gave a discourse, and started explaining how he expected a spiritual person to not just pray nicely, but more importantly act dharmic and nicely to other humans

Then the Master said that the Russians were the ones with the best discipline (and repeated it at least 3 times if I remember correctly).

All other were upset, how could the Master say such a thing.

Next day all were even more surprised. The Russians behaved examplary and showed perfect discipline. Even new Russians, entering the ashram, were 'educated' at once.

Indeed the Russians were the best disciplined Spiritual persons there at that time.

I liked that lesson a lot. Nice surprise.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I see. I have to prove my beliefs to be true, TO YOU, before I am allowed the courtesy of belief myself?

As I stated, quite clearly, in my last reply (please pay attention this time):
A person can "dignify" their beliefs to themselves and their buddies all they want, but they can't expect anyone to afford things automatic (i.e. unearned) dignity just because they themselves believe them.
Did you catch that? That's me, admitting that you are allowed your beliefs all you please. Have at it. Go go go. Love your "god", believe that crackers are flesh, that aliens are going to give you a plot of perfect land on another planet when you die here on Earth... whatever. I don't care. Just keep it to yourself, unless you happen to have evidence that can compel others, or you want your belief to be scrutinized and examined down to its bare bones - prepared for any and all criticism that will ensue at that point. In other words, your views ARE GOING TO BE DISRESPECTED when you air them with skeptics. That was my whole point. You're allowed all your wacky beliefs, no problem. Just don't complain when others don't respect them. They don't have to.

Doesn't that mean that you must prove, TO ME, that your beliefs are true before you are allowed to have your own opinions?

Nope. Not at all. What it means is that I must prove to you that any beliefs I have conform to reality/evidence before I can expect you to respect them even one iota. Do you see the difference? I mean... you're a theist, so I don't expect much (see your earlier reply where you tried to paint me as "disallowing" your views even though the evidence that I was not was right in front of your face), but there IS a difference here.