RE: Yes, even Atheists...

RE: Yes, even Atheists... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DaddySatyr -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 10:36:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady As for your "five day work week." That would completely close places down on the weekends. Or we would face discrimination suits from retail workers, restaurant/bar employees, grocery store employees, etc. Not quite so easy to fix is it? Except that a five day work week doesn't mean a business can't be open 24/7. It means their workers don't have to work more than 5 days per week, if they choose not to. Before you talk about labor laws, the ones in place (for hourly employees) in NJ state that you can't be forced to work more than 12 hours per day or more than 6 days per week. Of course, no businesses would break the law but, I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts (and I'm not a gambling man) that nine times out of ten, if a boss comes to an employee and says: "I know you've got 60 hours in already this week but, I really need you to come in on Saturday, too" and the employee declines more than a few times a year, the company would find some other "cause" to let that employee go. I've seen it happen, all too many times to friends and family. Peace and comfort, Michael

GotSteel -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 10:46:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar My reasoning if fallacious, because it's not based on logical patterns at all. It's based on a total lack of any evidence whatsoever, and in lieu of that evidence, I put a label on it that implies a certain concept that is at all not proven by the lack of evidence. However... I'm not trying to proof the existence of God, to you, to me, or to anybody else. What I'm doing is labeling an experience I had. In order to label something, without claiming that the label is factually accurate because I so labeled it, I don't need a logical argument to back it up. Claiming I do would be like claiming I need a logical argument to name a painting I made the name I feel it deserves. There is no logic, because the subject I'm dealing with (the labeling of a feeling) isn't a logical argument. It sure looks like you're doing more then coming up with a funny sounding pronunciation of I don't know. For instance this one "label" has effected at least one other concept in your worldview i.e. that you've changed from a atheist to a pantheist. Doesn't that make your "label" some sort of truth claim about the nature of reality? quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Now, if I would pose that my experience proved to myself that God exists as a definitive fact, then absolutely, I would follow your reasoning that because of the fallacious logic that statement would be problematic. But I don't do that. I don't consider my experience proof of anything at all. I just observe that I felt a certain way, and that feeling like that changed me in such a way that I afterwards gained the completely irrational, illogical, unprovable feeling of "faith". I then label that experience, without being too concerned about the accuracy of the label, because all my attempts at defining an accurate label for it have failed, and I therefore labeled it merely the most appropriate label at my disposal. You have an accurate label at your disposal "I don't know". When you talk about God literally speaking to you, unless you can describe his accent you aren't using accurate labels. I think you get that, I think we're on the same page there, where I expect we part company is that I'm of the opinion that answering one unknown with another unknown doesn't actually explain anything. There just isn't any explanatory power there.

thishereboi -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 10:54:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: Religious theists in America, and especially Christians, are simply going to have to come to terms with the fact that their religion may use "peace" and "love" a lot in its theological rhetoric, but this rhetoric doesn't always translate into real behavior. Some people are simply too different to love and treat as full equals. Atheists fall into this category for a large number of religious believers and Christians in America." Lets just take this and other religious threads on collarme... Who receives the hate and the contempt... the religious or the atheists. When I walk down the street and pass strangers, which are always the majority, I have no idea their religious affiliation or lack of one... On top of that I don't care. The only people who have problems over their religion or lack of it are those that open their dumb asses mouths to tell everyone. On these boards I see few people who go around preaching a religion ...do you see anyone doing that ? But I sure as hell see many who just cannot help themselves to proclaim their atheism and their contempt for those that believe in God and they attack on every thread... So bottom line you have things backwards. Butch Well errmmm . . . it is a Politics and *RELIGION* board after all, isn't it? So, now we are to stfu even on here? That is carrying oppression a step too far doncha think, Butch? Unbelievable. Imagine! People open their dumb asses mouth about their religion or lack of it on a Board dedicated to Religion. Who woulda thunk it? [8\|] If you can't discuss a subject without the hate and contempt then maybe you should. Please point out instances of hate and contempt I have shown towards religion or religious people. Otherwise, please refrain from poster character assassination. Butch was talking about posters who just cannot help themselves to proclaim their atheism and their contempt for those that believe in God and they attack on every thread. You suggested that it is a Politics and *RELIGION* board after all, isn't it? So, now we are to stfu even on here? That is carrying oppression a step too far doncha think, How terrible of me to suggest they be civil regardless of the forum name. If you think you fall into that group that's your perception.

Kirata -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 10:58:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar When you pray for somebody, you are not wishing somebody TO a person. Instead, you're invoking a deity to interfere with that person's life on your behalf. You are MEDDLING. You're not just merely offering your best. You are stating that you are going to request your God to fix what YOU think needs fixing. I think you're pushing this one too far. Your argument depends upon the God to whom the person is praying (1) actually existing, (2) being otherwise content to leave you alone were it not for that pesky petitionary prayer, (3) being bound now to act according to the prayer's specifics, and (4) a mind-reading claim to knowledge of said specifics. K.

thishereboi -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 11:02:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady I don't think that particular reporter's comment or others like it make it a civil rights issue, but that is simply my opinion. If I recall, there were many who didn't want to vote for Kennedy because he was Catholic. Many wouldn't vote for Romney because he was a Mormon. There have also been issues with voting for an unmarried president, Regan for being divorced, Clinton because he didn't serve in the military (not to mention the infamous "I didn't inhale" incident) People were pretty vocal about all of those things. Still, none of them were civil rights issues. Kennedy and Romney were civil rights issues. That a signifcant percentage of Americans would not vote for someone due to their faith denies that faith group their right to fully participate in the political process. Just try thinking about whether it is a civil rights issue that some people wouldn't vote for Obama because he is black. what would you suggest? Asking people the reasoning behind their votes and if it isn't good enough we tear up the ballet?

DomKen -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 11:14:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady I don't think that particular reporter's comment or others like it make it a civil rights issue, but that is simply my opinion. If I recall, there were many who didn't want to vote for Kennedy because he was Catholic. Many wouldn't vote for Romney because he was a Mormon. There have also been issues with voting for an unmarried president, Regan for being divorced, Clinton because he didn't serve in the military (not to mention the infamous "I didn't inhale" incident) People were pretty vocal about all of those things. Still, none of them were civil rights issues. Kennedy and Romney were civil rights issues. That a signifcant percentage of Americans would not vote for someone due to their faith denies that faith group their right to fully participate in the political process. Just try thinking about whether it is a civil rights issue that some people wouldn't vote for Obama because he is black. what would you suggest? Asking people the reasoning behind their votes and if it isn't good enough we tear up the ballet? No. We work to change hearts and minds. All civil rights issues cannot be legislated.

Kirata -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 11:14:30 AM)
Being a missionary is a tough job. But somebody has to lead the benighted toward the light, eh? K.

thishereboi -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 11:17:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Being a missionary is a tough job. But somebody has to lead the benighted toward the light, eh? K. I wonder how long before they start knocking on doors and handing out pamphlet on buses. [8D]

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 11:24:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady No they aren't meddling or praying for what they believe needs fixing. They are indeed "invoking their deity," but the prayers are asking their deity to provide you with the strength you need to get through the rough patch, or that you find the answers you seek/need. They are meddling with what they believe needs fixing, because they're invoking a deity getting in the middle of the situations when that may not be appreciated at all. Especially when praying after specifically being requested not to do so, they're presuming that aid from a deity is what is needed, regardless of the person's own preferences. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar You had an out of the blue spiritual experience. From what I gather, it has provided you with clarity and strength to do what you needed to do. What if you were to find out that perhaps you received that experience because people had prayed for you? I seriously doubt it, considering that this happened nearly 15 years ago, and there is not a single person I can think of in Belgium who would have prayed for me. The ones that where religious where never rude enough to ignore my wishes when asking them not to pray for me. And Europeans don't tend to boldly presume that the claim "I'll pray for you" from a total stranger would be appreciated, so I have never encountered anybody doing that before coming to the US.

Kirata -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 11:26:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi I wonder how long before they start knocking on doors and handing out pamphlet on buses. [8D] [image]http://i.imgur.com/V4yi5.jpg[/image] K.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 11:33:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel It sure looks like you're doing more then coming up with a funny sounding pronunciation of I don't know. For instance this one "label" has effected at least one other concept in your worldview i.e. that you've changed from a atheist to a pantheist. Doesn't that make your "label" some sort of truth claim about the nature of reality? Panentheist. Not Pantheist. And I've already said that I don't know what reality is. I don't presume the grok the entirety of existence, do you? What I know is that I had an experience that, with the vocabulary available to me, fits the "God" label better than a "I don't know", because it feels that way. If I feel anger, I don't know if that feeling is exactly the same was when you feel anger, but we still both label it the same because we've both learned that "x set of emotions and circumstances" get's commonly labeled "anger". However, the idea of feeling anger is not something that I can factually proof to you. I can't proof that when I say I'm angry I actually am, and that what I'm feeling is comparable to what you're feeling when you claim to feel angry. Yet the concept and label still apply. I label this experience "spiritual contact with God" because that's what it feels like. What it does not feel like is "I don't have a fucking clue what that was". quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel You have an accurate label at your disposal "I don't know". When you talk about God literally speaking to you, unless you can describe his accent you aren't using accurate labels. I think you get that, I think we're on the same page there, where I expect we part company is that I'm of the opinion that answering one unknown with another unknown doesn't actually explain anything. There just isn't any explanatory power there. My conversation with God was in written form, so no, I can't describe his accent. I can tell you literally what he wrote though. And we are on the same page. When talking about what I know to be facts, I will readily and gladly admit that I don't know. That's an accurate statement in that context. However, when talking about the feeling of how the experience was perceived by me, "I don't know" is NOT accurate description. Because I do know what it felt like. It felt like I was talking to God. Where that feeling came from, or what factually caused it, I don't know. But what it felt like I do know.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 11:35:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar When you pray for somebody, you are not wishing somebody TO a person. Instead, you're invoking a deity to interfere with that person's life on your behalf. You are MEDDLING. You're not just merely offering your best. You are stating that you are going to request your God to fix what YOU think needs fixing. I think you're pushing this one too far. Your argument depends upon the God to whom the person is praying (1) actually existing, (2) being otherwise content to leave you alone were it not for that pesky petitionary prayer, (3) being bound now to act according to the prayer's specifics, and (4) a mind-reading claim to knowledge of said specifics. K. If it's no big deal, then why am I being rude when I ask somebody "please don't pray for me"? Why am I being rude when asking a person not to do something on my behalf, but they are not being rude when they state that they will on my behalf against my expressed wishes? If it's not big deal to be prayed for, it shouldn't be a big deal to ask not to be prayed for.

crazyml -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 11:53:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar When you pray for somebody, you are not wishing somebody TO a person. Instead, you're invoking a deity to interfere with that person's life on your behalf. You are MEDDLING. You're not just merely offering your best. You are stating that you are going to request your God to fix what YOU think needs fixing. I think you're pushing this one too far. Your argument depends upon the God to whom the person is praying (1) actually existing, (2) being otherwise content to leave you alone were it not for that pesky petitionary prayer, (3) being bound now to act according to the prayer's specifics, and (4) a mind-reading claim to knowledge of said specifics. K. If it's no big deal, then why am I being rude when I ask somebody "please don't pray for me"? Why am I being rude when asking a person not to do something on my behalf, but they are not being rude when they state that they will on my behalf against my expressed wishes? If it's not big deal to be prayed for, it shouldn't be a big deal to ask not to be prayed for. I think you do have a point, I think a person should be entitled to ask not to be prayed for, and provided that they do it in a sensitive way entitled not to be called rude for doing so. That said, I would find it hard to regard someone going ahead and praying for me to be rude, even if I've asked them not to. It would seem a little churlish to be irritated by someone's genuine desire to see good happen to me. It does, rather, depend on what it is they're praying for. If they're praying to god to enlighten me to the "truth" that homosexuality is evil and women are property then - they can fuck right off, but on the whole if I ever become aware that someone of faith is praying for me, it gives me quite a boost. Which is interesting of course, because that boost might be the one thing that gets me over whatever it is. So, much as my atheist teeth might grind, prayer can work...

Kirata -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 12:01:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar If it's no big deal.... Although you quoted me, your response fails to touch upon any of the points in my post. K.

Missdressed -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 12:01:49 PM)
If the people doing the praying are doing it from a kindness of their heart perspective, then I'd feel not in the least offended. Like if I was ill and someone prayed for me. If, however, they are praying for me to see the error of my ways and convert then they can get themselves a taxi. To the far side of fuck. One way.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 12:07:06 PM)
If I know for a fact that someone is an atheist, forget *offering* to pray for them, I wouldn't even bother to do so, of my own volition; not out of mean-spiritedness but out of a respect that they obviously don't believe and I wouldn't want to step on their toes. By the same token, I'd prefer that people didn't pray for me almost essentially for the same reasons that UllrsIshtar gives. I don't want someone trying to invoke a deity to change me to theirs or the deity's way of thinking. However, I don't find it rude. I find it presumptuous, holier-than-thou, and non-Christian but, it's their right to be all of those things. Peace and comfort, Michael

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 12:07:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml I think you do have a point, I think a person should be entitled to ask not to be prayed for, and provided that they do it in a sensitive way entitled not to be called rude for doing so. That said, I would find it hard to regard someone going ahead and praying for me to be rude, even if I've asked them not to. It would seem a little churlish to be irritated by someone's genuine desire to see good happen to me. It does, rather, depend on what it is they're praying for. If they're praying to god to enlighten me to the "truth" that homosexuality is evil and women are property then - they can fuck right off, but on the whole if I ever become aware that someone of faith is praying for me, it gives me quite a boost. Which is interesting of course, because that boost might be the one thing that gets me over whatever it is. So, much as my atheist teeth might grind, prayer can work... My issue is mainly with the lack of presumed choice and privacy. What they do in private, and in their own head, is their own business. If they want to ignore my request and pray anyways, there nothing I can really do about that, and I don't really care. The fact that they do it against my wishes is for them to deal with, not me. However, when I ask not to be shoved in the face with somebody else's religion, and they persist and continue to do it anyways, they're being rude. A one time offer of "I will pray for you" with afterwards me pointing out that I rather they not, I don't really find offensive, any more than I find a guy trying to hand me an advertisement paper on the street offensive. However, when my request to not be prayed for is met by a "Oh you haven't found Christ yet, I'll redouble my efforts in prayer for you so that you may find the light" or a "you're rude to tell me not to force my believes on you by asking me not to pray for you!" I do take offense (and I've had both reactions and a bunch of others only happen in the US, nowhere else in the world that I've been do people take it for granted that I need to accept people continued references to their religion in relation to something that involves me in a very personal way). It's not so much the praying itself that I find offensive. It's the inconsideration shown to my own views by presuming that you can just include me in the expression of your own religion without my consent that I find rude. Because, at that point, it goes from a well meaning statement that is perhaps just a tad inconsiderate, to a full blown "I will force my views on you whether you want it or not!". Insisting you will pray for somebody who has asked you not to do so is the religious equivalent of the guy handing out adds on the street chasing you down and forcing you to take one after you politely declined. I'm entitled to say I don't want to be slapped around the head with somebody else's religious views, and if they can't deal with that, by from then on keeping their views private, I do very much consider them to be completely rude and inconsiderate people.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 12:21:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata I think you're pushing this one too far. Your argument depends upon the God to whom the person is praying (1) actually existing, (2) being otherwise content to leave you alone were it not for that pesky petitionary prayer, (3) being bound now to act according to the prayer's specifics, and (4) a mind-reading claim to knowledge of said specifics. It doesn't depend on any of those things, because I don't care whether or not the praying actually results in anything. What is offensive is the presumption that they can force their views on my by including my in a religious ceremony that I explicitly have asked them not to include me in. Whether it involves a religion, or any other type of event, I don't care. If a person holding a petition for something includes me against my wishes by putting my name on the request, it's as offensive, as telling me that I will be included in a prayer I've requested not to be a part of. That's got nothing to do with whether or not the petition, or the pray, has any actual effect, and everything with them making the presumption that it's not my right to ask not to be included in rituals they believe in an I don't. I don't wish to not be included in prayer I ask to not be included on because I worry God may take notice. I wish to not be included in prayer I've asked to not be included on because I don't want to be forced to partake in other people's religious ceremonies. If that request is silently ignored, then so be it, but if it's met with a "nah I'll pray for you anyways because X", they're being rude. Period.

DomKen -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 12:30:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Since Civil Rights are set forth in a legal document, yes I do. But why don't you provide me with YOUR definition of what it is, so I can know what you are actually trying to say? My mind reading skills don't work over the internet, and frankly, I have never liked guessing games. Civil rights are that set of things without which you cannot fully participate in the society in which you live. It is a civil right for a woman not to be subject to the "glass ceiling" and it is a civil right that an atheist not have to hide his lack of faith to get and keep a job or to run for political office. Those two things are vastly different. Why? Because atheists aren't prevented from running and they sure aren't losing their jobs for being atheist. If they run and lose an election, while some may not have voted for them because they had a problem with their beliefs, that could have happened whatever their belief system. For the third and final time, if they were not permitted to run, that would be a civil rights issue. Because they can't garner the votes to win is not. So you declare. Others have a very different opinion. I wonder how you'd feel if it was Christians that could be fired for being Christian. http://www.alternet.org/story/151241/10_scariest_states_to_be_an_atheist

DomKen -> RE: Yes, even Atheists... (5/31/2013 12:33:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Bergen County is the only county in NJ that still has restrictive Blue Laws. In the rest of the country, it is basically limited to alcohol and car sales, and some stores not being able to open before noon. How are any blue laws acceptable? Why should my economic activity be legally restricted to protect the religious sensibilities of others? Consider this observant Jews close there businesses from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday (actually earlier than that on Friday so they can get home before sundown but you get the idea). Chik-fil-a closes on Sunday because the owner of the company is a devout Christian. That is fine. But some store legally not being allowed to open at all or until a certain time or being restricted on how many employees they can have in the business is a violation of the First Amendment and should be done away with.

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.21875