Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 187
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    One of the things I most appreciate about this forum is how it has helped me to "see past my own nose."

    I find that this particular exchange is a microcosm of the dilemma that freedom of religion poses (and, no I am not interested in repealing that freedom of religion). The dilemma, as I see it, is this: religious belief, for that matter, any set of principles by which one views the world, do not end with mere mental consideration, but by their very nature also produce behavior. So, when you try to allow varying, and often, conflicting belief systems to co-exist, there will always be conflict as the behaviors are evaluated by according to each observer's own belief system.

    I offer that the founders felt that the cause of establishing a "more perfect union" would be of high enough import to the citizenry that they would find a way to reconcile their differences so as to achieve the shared goal. This generation, though, has become more enamored with the individual freedoms established in the republic's Consitution, than to the noble cuase toward which the collective freedoms point.
    In my opinion, religions, aka, beliefs, aka faiths can co-exist if we leave it as an individual or group trait. So, as long as

    a) individual and groups believe in something and
    b) their belief doesn't hurt anyone else in any material way and
    c) they don't go about trying to change the world and everyone else to their "non-provable" way of thinking

    .. we'll be OK.

    Live and let-live. It's the hard-core evangelistic types imposing their world view on others, who bother me more.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  2. #42  
    hence....the need for separation of Church and State in a 'perfect union'...another timeless idea from the founding fathers.

    (here we go again...flame on )
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    It's the hard-core evangelistic types imposing their world view on others, who bother me more.
    The way you phrase it, is that you're more bothered by Christians, than say Muslim extremists. Perhaps you meant something different??
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    In my opinion, religions, aka, beliefs, aka faiths can co-exist if we leave it as an individual or group trait. So, as long as

    a) individual and groups believe in something and
    b) their belief doesn't hurt anyone else in any material way and
    c) they don't go about trying to change the world and everyone else to their "non-provable" way of thinking

    .. we'll be OK.

    Live and let-live. It's the hard-core evangelistic types imposing their world view on others, who bother me more.
    Again, the dilemma is that belief systems by nature do not limit to mental consideration. As we think, we behave. That's all of us. Whether your belief system is based on old text, new text, hallucination, deep introspective... it will cause you to behave a certain way.

    In reality, we are all evangelists of our belief system. We each find that we much prefer others to think like we think, if for no other reason than it reduces the amount of personal conflict we encounter.

    But, more to the princple exposed in your 3 criteria of "OK-ness." The underlying assumption is that there is no ultimate right or wrong and consequently there is no better or worse belief system. Without regard for the measure accuracy of that assumption, there is a logical contradiction inherent to it. Namely that there exist belief systems which are so contradictory to one another that they can not both be accurate at the same time.

    The standard of "provable" does have a certain appeal to it. Of course, we would first have to agree on the standards of proof.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    Now if we could just teach everyone else how to effectively 'google'...
    Maybe you should take your own advice. Try researching the ACTUAL origins and basis of the Pagan religion. Find out how they got their modern day description instead of spewing definitions from the dictionary. You say you fear them yet, you know nothing about them. That's not fear, that's ignorance.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    ...That's not fear, that's ignorance.
    She's good!
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    Religious fundamentalists are what scares me. Just look around the world. Most (all?) of the hot zones and wars are now because of religious people who insist that their "god" is better than the other's "gods".
    Huh? I don't think anyone cares about the "gods" in Iraq. Its what he supossedly tells them to do that we cannot tolerate.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Huh? I don't think anyone cares about the "gods" in Iraq. Its what he supossedly tells them to do that we cannot tolerate.
    You're right...we just want their oil.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    Maybe you should take your own advice. Try researching the ACTUAL origins and basis of the Pagan religion. Find out how they got their modern day description instead of spewing definitions from the dictionary. You say you fear them yet, you know nothing about them. That's not fear, that's ignorance.
    Hey I just went by webster's definition.... one of which is a state of no religion.

    Now there are some people who have gone and made a 'religion' out of it.

    Man you guys are jumpy.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    The way you phrase it, is that you're more bothered by Christians, than say Muslim extremists. Perhaps you meant something different??
    I fear such folks from any religion, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, even Buddhists (a la in SriLanka). I am using the word "evangelist" in a more generic sense.

    The ones I fear more are the ones more prone to violence, and also those who try to use their majority (in any society) to undermine the freedoms of the minority.

    All with the explicit understanding: One individual's (or group's) action should not harm another.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  11. #51  
    Well all this tooks pretty interesting, I'll have to come back and read it when the semester ends.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Its what he supossedly tells them to do that we cannot tolerate.
    What do you mean supossedly?? Does he tell them, or not??
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    But, more to the princple exposed in your 3 criteria of "OK-ness." The underlying assumption is that there is no ultimate right or wrong and consequently there is no better or worse belief system. Without regard for the measure accuracy of that assumption, there is a logical contradiction inherent to it. Namely that there exist belief systems which are so contradictory to one another that they can not both be accurate at the same time.
    Unless there is a definite way of defining "better" and conlusively proving it with observable facts (like the basis of science), I think we are better of living in our own frame of beliefs and not trying to convert the world to our way.

    It all comes down to "faith" (O how I dislike that word!!). My "faith" is no better than anyone else's "faith". But I'll live with mine.. and he can live with his.. As long as neither one of us harms other fellow beings.

    On a personal note: I think a little dose of dis-belief and skepticism is always healthy. Question everyone and everything. Science will be able to take the heat by defending itself with demonstratable facts.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  14. #54  
    It's all relative...science has been proven wrong too...the earth isn't flat and it revolves around the sun.

    The more we learn, the less we know.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Take some Pepto. So much for your tolerance of others.
    You have it completely back-***-wards. Ekuzco is perfectly free to practice whatever vile, discriminatory, bigoted religion he feels like. I have no problem with him believing whatever he wants.

    What I have a MAJOR problem with is his apparent desire to prevent other Americans from practicing whatever religion they want to. When someone uses their beliefs to try to prevent others from exercising the same freedom is where the line gets drawn. Regardless of what some bigoted judge thinks.

    If you can't see the difference, then I feel sorry for you.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    It's all relative...science has been proven wrong too...the earth isn't flat and it revolves around the sun.
    Umm, it was primarily religous philosophers, not scientists, who insisted the earth was the center of the universe, with the sun revolving around it.

    The difference between science and religion, in this context, is that science looks for the answer that best fits the observed facts. When new evidence comes in, science revises its theories to fit the new facts. Religion, on the other hand, simply denies any evidence (new or old) that contradicts a pre-determined belief structure.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    If you can't see the difference, then I feel sorry for you.
    Doesn't sound very tolerant!
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  18. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    The difference between science and religion, in this context, is that science looks for the answer that best fits the observed facts. When new evidence comes in, science revises its theories to fit the new facts. Religion, on the other hand, simply denies any evidence (new or old) that contradicts a pre-determined belief structure.
    This is an aspect that pisses me off the most.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    No, it's from the funniest Disney movie I've ever seen... The Emperor's New Groove.
    Uh! My Spinach Puffs!
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    This is an aspect that pisses me off the most.
    Seconded.
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions