|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 11, 2017 19:54:51 GMT
Very common in India. Shaivites and Vaishnavites live in mutual respect all the time. First of all, both are Hindu Second, both are Hindu  Those are different sects.  And this was the guy that was questioning my definition of "faith"?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 19:58:56 GMT
First of all, both are Hindu Second, both are Hindu Those are different sects. Read the thread before responding, nit. The majority of the board questioned your definition. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 11, 2017 20:03:16 GMT
Those are different sects. Learn the definition of a word before responding, d. Meh... Barely... And, in all honesty, it was more of a "Do you hate Vegas?" poll then the actual questioning of the "faith"... the one guy (in a 3 person difference) actually agreed with me.. but, still voted "No" because we were locked in a pissing contest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 20:07:42 GMT
Read the thread before responding, nit.The majority of the board questioned your definition. Learn the definition of a word before responding, d. I know the definition, nit... I explained. Maybe the board hates you for your wayward ambiguous definition of 'faith' |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 11, 2017 20:12:39 GMT
Learn the definition of a word before responding, d. Yeah.. And, luckily, it was pointed out - by someone else - that you had it wrong... ...again.  I just roll with the "stupid people think stupid things"... and this here place is silly with 'em.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 11, 2017 21:25:45 GMT
That's fine for atheists and theists, but what about the anti-theist globalist trash? Not to mention the queer sodomite vermin. Don't forget the dull witted, artless, and pedestrian. |
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Apr 11, 2017 21:27:34 GMT
Not to mention the queer sodomite vermin. Don't forget the dull witted, artless, and pedestrian. I never mentioned your blog. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 11, 2017 22:48:46 GMT
What may be the more relevant question... can one sect of theists and another sect of theists live together in any sort of mutual respect? It is already the case that around the world "theists" get along fine more than the few with border disputes who do not. Although there are indeed outbreaks of violence beyond borders, they are limited to extremely small numbers of people who are obviously not representative of the various religions. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 11, 2017 23:52:00 GMT
Don't forget the dull witted, artless, and pedestrian. I never mentioned your blog. Humor ... ha ... ha. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 12, 2017 8:44:00 GMT
Hitchens is a great example of the notion of perception is reality. The truth is that perception is not factual and it's a good possibility that religious people being nice was just that. Is this your perception of things? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 12, 2017 13:34:22 GMT
Hitchens is a great example of the notion of perception is reality. The truth is that perception is not factual and it's a good possibility that religious people being nice was just that. Is this your perception of things? Nope, it's true that if Hitchens thinks that religious people do nice things with strings then he's being an idiot. But you can't convince of that because he's dead. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 12, 2017 13:38:29 GMT
Is this your perception of things? Nope, it's true that if Hitchens thinks that religious people do nice things with strings then he's being an idiot. But you can't convince of that because he's dead. Surely the difference between a religious person and someone else just doing nice things to no scheme of thought is exactly those 'strings' you mention?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 12, 2017 16:52:50 GMT
Nope, it's true that if Hitchens thinks that religious people do nice things with strings then he's being an idiot. But you can't convince of that because he's dead. Surely the difference between a religious person and someone else just doing nice things to no scheme of thought is exactly those 'strings' you mention?
Why is there a difference between those two options? Can't a religious person simply be a person just doing nice things with no scheme of thought?  I love guys like you... A religious person doing evil?... "RELGION IS EVIL!! EEEEEEEVIL!!!" -  A religious person doing good?... "Oh.. He's just out for the reward..... Religion is still evil." -  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 17:19:35 GMT
I don't have any problem with theists as long as they don't advocate for laws based on their religion or inspired by their religion's ethos. The problem that we have is that perhaps the majority of theists cannot help but want to see laws implemented which ensures that society conforms to their religiously-slanted outlook on the world. I don't know if that is something that can be changed, but if it can be, then theists and atheists should be able to live alongside each other without conflict. Even the thinking of many atheists is influenced by the residue of their religious indoctrination in respect to what laws should be on the books, so it would be difficult to expect theists to fully compartmentalise their faith. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 12, 2017 17:29:30 GMT
I don't have any problem with theists as long as they don't advocate for laws based on their religion or inspired by their religion's ethos. The problem that we have is that perhaps the majority of theists cannot help but want to see laws implemented which ensures that society conforms to their religiously-slanted outlook on the world. I don't know if that is something that can be changed, but if it can be, then theists and atheists should be able to live alongside each other without conflict. Even the thinking of many atheists is influenced by the residue of their religious indoctrination in respect to what laws should be on the books, so it would be difficult to expect theists to fully compartmentalise their faith.  - "There'd be no conflict if those stupid God believers just knew their place and understood that the world is ruled by atheists who should have everything that they want." I'm not advocating any religion-based law to be on the books.. but: Conflict goes away when we have toleration of each other's golden calves and make acceptable compromises.... Not shoe-horning any particular group into a secondary class status. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 17:33:58 GMT
I don't have any problem with theists as long as they don't advocate for laws based on their religion or inspired by their religion's ethos. The problem that we have is that perhaps the majority of theists cannot help but want to see laws implemented which ensures that society conforms to their religiously-slanted outlook on the world. I don't know if that is something that can be changed, but if it can be, then theists and atheists should be able to live alongside each other without conflict. Even the thinking of many atheists is influenced by the residue of their religious indoctrination in respect to what laws should be on the books, so it would be difficult to expect theists to fully compartmentalise their faith. - "There'd be no conflict if those stupid God believers just knew their place and understood that the world is ruled by atheists who should have everything that they want." I'm not advocating any religion-based law to be on the books.. but: Conflict goes away when we have toleration of each other's golden calves and make acceptable compromises.... Not shoe-horning any particular group into a secondary class status. Theists should be allowed to have their public nativity displays, their freedom to preach religion in public spaces, and be allowed to say prayers at a restaurant unmolested, but they should not be meddling into things which do not directly affect their lives. There shouldn't be any compromises in cases where someone has to suffer or is at a disadvantage because of laws which are on the books to appease the religious. |
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Apr 12, 2017 17:48:13 GMT
First of all, both are Hindu Second, both are Hindu Those are different sects. And this was the guy that was questioning my definition of "faith"? So what if they're different sects? Are Roman Catholics and Anglicans not part of the same religion? |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 12, 2017 17:49:13 GMT
There shouldn't be any compromises in cases where someone has to suffer or is at a disadvantage because of laws which are on the books to appease the religious. I actually agree... But... I suppose it would really depend on what kind of "suffer"age and "disadvantage" we're talking about... It's not called "compromise" for nothing. I hated "blue laws" with a passion... but... ya had to live with it. Thankfully, those have gone the way of the dodo.
Very reasonable.  Amen to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 12, 2017 17:54:53 GMT
Those are different sects. And this was the guy that was questioning my definition of "faith"? So what if they're different sects? Are Roman Catholics and Anglicans not part of the same religion? Yes... Those are different sects.  Eddy was the one that was nullifying their "sect" status due to being in the same religion.... Question him. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 13, 2017 15:56:53 GMT
Can't a religious person simply be a person just doing nice things with no scheme of thought?
There's no reason why not. But that just makes them like anyone else, doing good. Religious folk are distinguished by their ulterior motives (a seat in heaven, following the Golden Rule, the commands of their saviour etc). That's not to say the line is distinct, and that the religious cannot do good works without thinking or premeditation, of course. But the religious, where they would identify themselves, do so by referencing the beliefs and commands that inform their lives (as well as often asking others to accept and follow the same precepts.) I love guys like you... And we love you too... Since I have not said either of these things, and you placed them in quotation marks, after people "like me", it is a straw man. But thank you for the thought. |
|
