|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 10, 2018 23:39:52 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). You just repeated what you were wrong about in the first place. Most religious people are moderate. Even among evangelicals, they aren't going around beating up gay dudes and erecting nativities at schools. There is no particular reason for my faith to be shaken as the norm among Christians is to deal with whatever as long as it doesn't come into our churches. There hasn't been a single law passed without the support of religious people in the first place because , again, we are smart enough to deal with separation. Granted, many have left religion but that isn't really the same thing as losing faith. It's entirely possible they never had it to begin with or they favored any particular sin over the resistance of it. Who knows, but in the end, religion will end by force if it ends at all. Even then, it won;t end, it'll just consist of compliant religions that go along with the the government (Not necessarily the same thing as the secular).
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 10, 2018 23:41:04 GMT
I never predicted anything. Are you about to lie about me again? ![](https://s26.postimg.cc/c2xjcn7h5/none.gif)
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 10, 2018 23:45:01 GMT
I never predicted anything. Are you about to lie about me again? ![](https://s26.postimg.cc/c2xjcn7h5/none.gif) I never said you did.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 11, 2018 0:14:34 GMT
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. I don't know if I am brave enough to read it, it would probably give me nightmares. I'll put it on my reading list for after Trump's presidency ends. I've been dealing with so much anxiety since the election... wait, I do have friends in the UK! I could come over for an extended visit!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2018 0:32:04 GMT
I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 11, 2018 0:33:16 GMT
I never predicted anything. Are you about to lie about me again? ![](https://s26.postimg.cc/c2xjcn7h5/none.gif) I never said you did. He said he did: Misspelling included.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 11, 2018 10:47:57 GMT
He said he did: Misspelling included. I wasn't discussing a apocalypse with that statement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2018 12:32:41 GMT
People of different faiths regularly co-exist peacefully in the US. In the Middle East, not as much.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 11, 2018 12:59:49 GMT
People of different faiths regularly co-exist peacefully in the US. In the Middle East, not as much. Still, turmoil does not equate to absolutes regarding that turmoil which is why the OP's reasoning are flawed from the start.
Religious people's integration with other religious in non-sucky countries has never been greater than it is now and it seems a bit silly to equate not celebrating another person's religion with conflict.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 11, 2018 15:45:01 GMT
Since this poster seems to have some difficulty in understanding the original post:
Let's use another comparison. I am vegetarian, for many reasons, because it is important to me. But I don't try to make other people become vegetarians. If someone notices I'm not eating meat and asks why, I will explain my reasons for being vegetarian. But I do not say, "You should, too", nor do I shun them or contemplate any harm towards them. My decision is purely my own, I am responsible for my own actions and decisions, and the other person is also responsible for theirs.
Can you define, quantitatively, what a "non-sucky country" is?
And I never said that not celebrating another person's religious holiday equated to conflict. That would be inaccurate. But "silly"? You use that word often in posts. Sort of vague; not very specific and inherently dismissive.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 11, 2018 16:14:49 GMT
rachelcarson1953Are you under the impression most Christians do that? To small religious groups are known for public proselytizing while the majority of them are simply either speaking to their own groups about belief or are specifically needing to address something happening in society that their beliefs come to play. In any event, nothing hinders you from speaking to people about the appeal of vegetarianism. Heck, you could be saving people who knew nothing but a meat and potatoes life. Besides, just because you don't do it in no way means that others do not. There are plenty of annoying vegans out there and the internet has millions of sights, plus PETA whining about meat eaters all the live long day. You are not a part of a silent group just because you choose to be silent. Ditto for atheists, ditto for activists, ditto for the religious who have plenty of people that don't say anything to you and never will. Neither you nor I have the right to say speech should not be spoken simply because it is an annoyance for us. Grownups can deal with it. In the context of this discussion, it would be countries that prohibit freedom of speech including religious freedoms. Some that come to mind are the Middle Eastern Countries that mandate Islam (A lot of them don't do this), Russia, China, France, or any other country that hinders speech for the fake benefit of the country. When I say something is silly, it is inherently dismissive. That's the point. There is little value in entertaining the initial statement & poll since it lacks foundation and is oozing in bias. It is also a challenge for the poster to rise to the occasion with something that at least tries to look like something legit. in short, say something that isn't silly. Your poll is automatically dismissive to the religious by shoehorning into a minority position you can't possibly be seeing on a regular basis. You didn't even give the option of an unqualified yes or no and then pretended that proselytizing is not a peaceful activity.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 11, 2018 16:41:08 GMT
Perhaps if someone thinks my poll is "silly", that person could start their own poll, which I am sure would not have any bias.
|
|