|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 10, 2018 5:02:06 GMT
and follow secular law of the land? Using the USA as an example, can Southern Baptists and Mormons and Atheists and Hindus live in the same neighborhood, each celebrate their own religion but not try to convert others to their faith? Can “religions” embrace that? It depends on how you define religion. Buddhism and humanism in my opinion are not religions (as they are not about worship of deities), they are philosophies. If by religion you mean “theism”, then the answer to your question is no. Because the concept of “to each his own” is completely antithetical to what almost every religion teaches, which is “the one true path” to salvation. The only actual religion that I can think of that might be compatible with “to each his own” would be Unitarian Universalist Christianity. But that is a very small and unique branch of Christianity, most likely viewed as a heretical cult by mainstream Christianity. As for “religious people”, then sure. Most religious people do live by secular law, although they simply try to influence it so that it is compatible with their religious beliefs. The majority of Californians once voted against legalizing gay marriage. It is legal to circumcise your male child just for religious reasons. And now apparently a business can also legally discriminate against LGBT people in accordance with religion. So it’s just a matter of influencing secular law so that it is the same as religion for most people. Then it’s very easy for them to follow it. And that is what frightens me about what is happening in the USA today, the line between church and state is being blurred. A secular ethic must be immune to influence from various sects of religion. And too many evangelicals have overlooked the serious flaws in our current POTUS because he promised to do a few things they wanted; stop abortion, keep Muslims out and blur the line of separation of church and state, to make this a "Christian Nation". So they are giving him a pass on all the other evidence that he is not a true Christian, he is simply about enriching his own lifestyle, breaking commandments right and left, and colluding with a known enemy of this country for financial gain. Buddhism, which I studied in college, is more of a philosophy, though it has kept some of the Hindu deities and become more theistic over time. Secular humanism is something I identify with. And, as science discovers more about how the world really works, the need for a 'god of the gaps' is lessening, especially in younger people, but the old-school diehards of theism need to, well, die off. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 10, 2018 5:15:29 GMT
lowtacks86 I never heard of a believer refer to themselves as a 'agnostic theist'. basically if one believes, they believe. p.s. even for me personally... I pretty much always believed in God even though I may have had some slight doubts back when I was roughly late teens or early 20's (ill be 39 later this year) but overall I never really seriously doubted God's existence and that's further locked after something happened for me a while ago which helps further confirm His existence for me. but to compare God (and general Christianity) to some random made up thing, I think there is a bit of a difference given what we see in the world like... Fatima in 1917 (i.e. miracle of the sun), St. Pio (1887-1968), Eucharistic miracles, Our Lady of Guadalupe image from the year 1531, Our Lady of Las Lajas etc. stuff like these make at least a plausible case for God's existence but for many the following quote sums it up... "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - St. Thomas Aquinas  "I never heard of a believer refer to themselves as a 'agnostic theist'. basically if one believes, they believe."
It doesn't matter, your personal anecdotes doesn't change the meaning of words. Most people wouldn't label themselves "agnostic theist" because they don't actually know what agnostic means.
"to some random made up thing"
How do you know they were "made up"? Maybe they did exist at one point and became extinct. Obviously that's absurd reasoning, but that's really not any different from people believing Nephlims and unicorns once existed.
"Fatima in 1917 (i.e. miracle of the sun), St. Pio (1887-1968), Eucharistic miracles, Our Lady of Guadalupe image from the year 1531, Our Lady of Las Lajas etc. stuff like these make at least a plausible case for God's existence but for many the following quote sums it up..."
No, they really don't, I'm sure all those supposed "miracles" have naturalistic explanations. Or maybe people just made them up. I'm skeptical of those alleged miracles for the same reason I'm sure you write off supposed "Islamic Miracles"..
"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. "
So basically you don't need any actual evidence to defend your position. Apply that to anything else ("I think OJ Simpson was framed even though there's no actual evidence") and maybe you'll come close to understanding that absurdity of that quote.
"To one without faith, no explanation is possible"
If actual, irrefutable evidence of a God was presented, I couldn't really..well, refute it. It hasn't been so no particular reason to believe in God until evidence is presented.
I, too, am skeptical of all those 'miracles', too, seeing as no severed limb ever grew back. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 10, 2018 8:14:56 GMT
Aj_June Your telling me Christianity is worse than Islam today? ; you got to be out of reality if you truly believe that because Islam is violent(take a look at ISIS etc), Christianity is not. I am not telling you any such thing, mslovak. And you can't choose a time period favourable to you to make your case. Islam has had peaceful times too and Christianity has had violent times too. Also, an examination of reasons why Muslims of today are indulging in more violence than other groups may be warranted. Like we cannot deduce Christians are extremely violent based on actions of Christians of Central African Republic. It is sad enough that western countries have been creating so much of trouble in different regions of the world. Let's not generalise a group as being violent while forgetting the context of world politics. |
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Jun 10, 2018 9:12:00 GMT
hell, just look at the earth and sun etc. like how the earth goes around the sun and just general nature with sunsets and birds flying etc etc. does that look like a random accident to you? ; or does it seem more likely a intelligent Being is behind it all?. to me it seems more like someone intelligent. basically God created everything on this side, which is physical existence(i.e. the universe and everything in it), and on the other side, which is the spiritual world, and that's that. basically our purpose here on earth is to find out way back to God as our actions/choices here on earth ultimately determine where we end up when we die which is either Heaven(good) or hell(bad). Good point! Just look at a beach. All those billions of grains of sand all about the same size and all together in the same narrow little space. A hundred feet in one direction? water. A hundred feet in the other? grass. How do all those individual grains of sand know to gather together right in that one little strip? They can't right? And random chance can't account for it either. It's obvious somebody put them there. Probably one-by-one. With tweezers. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 10, 2018 9:56:52 GMT
You have it backwards. "Secular law" coerces people to behave a certain way. Religions persuade others to behave a certain way.
Remember Ronald Reagan, "Government isn't the solution, government is the problem."
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 10, 2018 10:29:18 GMT
You have it backwards. "Secular law" coerces people to behave a certain way. Religions persuade others to behave a certain way. Remember Ronald Reagan, "Government isn't the solution, government is the problem." Reagan once waved to my dad. 😲 He did it in Goose Bay in Canada. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jun 10, 2018 11:44:05 GMT
You have it backwards. "Secular law" coerces people to behave a certain way. Religions persuade others to behave a certain way. Remember Ronald Reagan, "Government isn't the solution, government is the problem." Reagan once waved to my dad. 😲 He did it in Goose Bay in Canada. The Queen once waved to my family. She did it just outside of Buckingham Palace, back in May 1981 (just 2 months before the Royal Wedding of Prince Charles & Princess Diana). She & Prince Philip were in their limo returning to the palace. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jun 10, 2018 12:53:57 GMT
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jun 10, 2018 12:57:15 GMT
Isn't asking this like asking, "Can animals co-exists peacefully?"? If you consider wolves eating sheep co-existing peacefully, then I suppose, yes, they can co-exist peacefully. There are many different kinds of religion. Many different expressions of religion. Some can co-exist peacefully. Others, not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 10, 2018 15:24:30 GMT
Isn't asking this like asking, "Can animals co-exists peacefully?"? If you consider wolves eating sheep co-existing peacefully, then I suppose, yes, they can co-exist peacefully. There are many different kinds of religion. Many different expressions of religion. Some can co-exist peacefully. Others, not so much. With all due respect, that isn't a fair comparison because wolves eat sheep because that's how they survive physically.
With religion, it is all about a mental and emotional need to believe in a higher power, and how that need can pit one group of well-fed humans against another group of well-fed humans over an issue that doesn't have any affect over physical survival. Humans kill other humans over an idea, a concept, a cultural tradition, words that can be interpreted in different ways. Until we evolve past that, religion will continue to be an overall divisive element in how humans relate to one another. Just FYI, I voted no in the poll. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jun 10, 2018 20:58:29 GMT
Isn't asking this like asking, "Can animals co-exists peacefully?"? If you consider wolves eating sheep co-existing peacefully, then I suppose, yes, they can co-exist peacefully. There are many different kinds of religion. Many different expressions of religion. Some can co-exist peacefully. Others, not so much. With all due respect, that isn't a fair comparison because wolves eat sheep because that's how they survive physically.
There are a number of religions that require adherents to try to convert everyone else in the world who is not already a member into one. In some cases, by any means necessary. There are other religions that you can only be a member of if you are born into a family of the faithful. So for them, the idea of trying to convert others makes no sense. And what happens when a religion that is based on pacifism encounters a religion based on forced conversion of all people? Only one of them is still around a few generations later. In fact, the memory of the latter may even be completely erased. |
|
Moviefan
Sophomore
@allaby
Posts: 565
Likes: 284
 
|
Post by Moviefan on Jun 10, 2018 21:55:05 GMT
I believe that yes it is possible for people of different beliefs to co-exist peacefully, if they all decide to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2018 22:14:12 GMT
No, because the moderate religious people will have too much access to information in order to be able to retain their religiosity. It's starting to happen already - those who are open minded and open to learning information that challenges their cherished beliefs just can no longer hold on to their faith. Therefore, the only people at a certain point in the future who will still be religious will be the ones who want to impose it on others. Whether they will still wield the political power to do so when this occurs is a different question. The situation that we have now, where there are a lot of (perhaps majority of) tolerant religious people cannot hold for much longer, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 10, 2018 22:39:30 GMT
No, because the moderate religious people will have too much access to information in order to be able to retain their religiosity. It's starting to happen already - those who are open minded and open to learning information that challenges their cherished beliefs just can no longer hold on to their faith. Therefore, the only people at a certain point in the future who will still be religious will be the ones who want to impose it on others. Whether they will still wield the political power to do so when this occurs is a different question. The situation that we have now, where there are a lot of (perhaps majority of) tolerant religious people cannot hold for much longer, in my opinion. This isn't true. It is a pretty easy thing to separate religious beliefs from the secular until the secular attempts to remove the religious belief., something that hasn't impacted me yet although it's entirely possible it will sooner or later...& make no mistake, a conflict (Hopefully non-violent) wil happen when something occurs that hinders people's faith in favor of something against it....& the theophobiac will be furious about it. The reality is that the godless will become far more intolerant of the religious instead of the other way around. We see it happening now and that's with very little outrage from the moderate to liberal religious out there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2018 22:45:07 GMT
No, because the moderate religious people will have too much access to information in order to be able to retain their religiosity. It's starting to happen already - those who are open minded and open to learning information that challenges their cherished beliefs just can no longer hold on to their faith. Therefore, the only people at a certain point in the future who will still be religious will be the ones who want to impose it on others. Whether they will still wield the political power to do so when this occurs is a different question. The situation that we have now, where there are a lot of (perhaps majority of) tolerant religious people cannot hold for much longer, in my opinion. This isn't true. It is a pretty easy thing to separate religious beliefs from the secular until the secular attempts to remove the religious belief., something that hasn't impacted me yet although it's entirely possible it will sooner or later...& make no mistake, a conflict (Hopefully non-violent) wil happen when something occurs that hinders people's faith in favor of something against it....& the theophobiac will be furious about it. The reality is that the godless will become far more intolerant of the religious instead of the other way around. We see it happening now and that's with very little outrage from the moderate to liberal religious out there. At the moment, for you and many moderate Christians, it may feel that way. But moderate Christians are losing their grip on faith in huge numbers, and the hardline right wingers are watching this incursion of secularism into culture and law and fearing for the future of Christianity, and for the future of their own ability to retain their faith. It's this that is going to provoke a backlash from the religious, instead of secularists trying to use the law to prevent the religious from privately practicing their faith (the gay wedding cake issue is kind of a grey area, admittedly). |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 10, 2018 22:56:05 GMT
No, because the moderate religious people will have too much access to information in order to be able to retain their religiosity. It's starting to happen already - those who are open minded and open to learning information that challenges their cherished beliefs just can no longer hold on to their faith. Therefore, the only people at a certain point in the future who will still be religious will be the ones who want to impose it on others. Whether they will still wield the political power to do so when this occurs is a different question. The situation that we have now, where there are a lot of (perhaps majority of) tolerant religious people cannot hold for much longer, in my opinion. Agreed, and it makes me apprehensive. I am 64, and initially became atheist for reasons of inconsistencies in what I had been taught. But as science discovered and validated increasing numbers of natural processes instead of magical thinking and the supernatural, my doubts in faith were overwhelming. People older than me are more likely to hang on to the 'old ways' because they are so ingrained in their thinking that they can't imagine abandoning a lifetime of faith. So we have perhaps a few decades to wait to see if religions become more moderate, or fade into obscurity. Hopefully there won't be enough intolerants left to cause trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 10, 2018 23:10:43 GMT
This isn't true. It is a pretty easy thing to separate religious beliefs from the secular until the secular attempts to remove the religious belief., something that hasn't impacted me yet although it's entirely possible it will sooner or later...& make no mistake, a conflict (Hopefully non-violent) wil happen when something occurs that hinders people's faith in favor of something against it....& the theophobiac will be furious about it.The reality is that the godless will become far more intolerant of the religious instead of the other way around. We see it happening now and that's with very little outrage from the moderate to liberal religious out there. At the moment, for you and many moderate Christians, it may feel that way. But moderate Christians are losing their grip on faith in huge numbers, and the hardline right wingers are watching this incursion of secularism into culture and law and fearing for the future of Christianity, and for the future of their own ability to retain their faith. It's this that is going to provoke a backlash from the religious, instead of secularists trying to use the law to prevent the religious from privately practicing their faith (the gay wedding cake issue is kind of a grey area, admittedly). CoolJGS just can hardly wait for Armageddon, to show us godless ones that he has been right all along!   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2018 23:24:49 GMT
No, because the moderate religious people will have too much access to information in order to be able to retain their religiosity. It's starting to happen already - those who are open minded and open to learning information that challenges their cherished beliefs just can no longer hold on to their faith. Therefore, the only people at a certain point in the future who will still be religious will be the ones who want to impose it on others. Whether they will still wield the political power to do so when this occurs is a different question. The situation that we have now, where there are a lot of (perhaps majority of) tolerant religious people cannot hold for much longer, in my opinion. Agreed, and it makes me apprehensive. I am 64, and initially became atheist for reasons of inconsistencies in what I had been taught. But as science discovered and validated increasing numbers of natural processes instead of magical thinking and the supernatural, my doubts in faith were overwhelming. People older than me are more likely to hang on to the 'old ways' because they are so ingrained in their thinking that they can't imagine abandoning a lifetime of faith. So we have perhaps a few decades to wait to see if religions become more moderate, or fade into obscurity. Hopefully there won't be enough intolerants left to cause trouble. If we were to assume that everything will remain on the same course as it is now, then that trend would end in organised religion withering away and becoming impotent. But there are also reasons to think that there isn't going to be a linear progression towards more of what we have now; and one of those is denominational, with a strong correlation between religiosity and the number of children borne. I have a hunch that within a few decades, antinatalism will no longer be a fringe and obscure idea within the secular realm, and a lot of atheists will forego having children for a variety of reasons. Childfree (not philosophical antinatalism) is already a cultural movement that has a lot of adherents amongst atheists. We also can't merely take it as a given that future generations will have the same access to information, because there are ways of envisaging that world governments will seek to severely restrict this in the future. A good book that I read which envisages a dystopian near future in which the USA is under rule of a far-right evangelical regime is Christian Nation: A Novel, by Frederic Rich. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 10, 2018 23:34:37 GMT
At the moment, for you and many moderate Christians, it may feel that way. But moderate Christians are losing their grip on faith in huge numbers, and the hardline right wingers are watching this incursion of secularism into culture and law and fearing for the future of Christianity, and for the future of their own ability to retain their faith. It's this that is going to provoke a backlash from the religious, instead of secularists trying to use the law to prevent the religious from privately practicing their faith (the gay wedding cake issue is kind of a grey area, admittedly). CoolJGS just can hardly wait for Armageddon, to show us godless ones that he has been right all along! This sentence makes no sense considering you would be dead....Duh! In any event, that has nothing to do with what I said but I always assumed you had me on ignore so maybe you can;t even read what I said. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 10, 2018 23:37:59 GMT
At the moment, for you and many moderate Christians, it may feel that way. But moderate Christians are losing their grip on faith in huge numbers, and the hardline right wingers are watching this incursion of secularism into culture and law and fearing for the future of Christianity, and for the future of their own ability to retain their faith. It's this that is going to provoke a backlash from the religious, instead of secularists trying to use the law to prevent the religious from privately practicing their faith (the gay wedding cake issue is kind of a grey area, admittedly). CoolJGS just can hardly wait for Armageddon, to show us godless ones that he has been right all along! I looked up prior predictions and my finger got tired of scrolling! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events |
|
