An ancient text states, "<i>For God is no respecter of persons</i>." Yet, what context was this written in? Is this to say that those that follow the commandments of God will be given special preference over those that choose not to follow the dictates of a supreme being? Simple question. Rhetorical at best. Do you respect someone based on whether or not they show you at least equal respect in return? Or, especially if you're religious, do you think it best to show respect before you are respected? For example, take the instance of a belief in God. If you in believe in God and you also believe that He will bless you with something for following his commandments, do find that you are respected by God for doing thus? Or, do you find that God, being <i>no respecter of persons</i> is most likely defaulting blessings on you because you <i>happen</i> to be doing what he commanded you to do in the first place? Does this increase your sense of respect or decrease it? If you have a belief in God that extends to Him respecting you as an individual with that elusive faculty of free will, do you sense that perhaps God is essentially a binary system that either <b>blesses</b> you or <b>punishes</b> you? And, if God is an <b>IF, THEN</b> entity, does that lessen the respect you feel from Him? These questions are intended to show that frequently people show <b>more</b> respect towards an "ideal" than they show to "actual" people. Football stars, rappers, and their ilk manage to brutalize others with their words and actions, while at the same time venerating a being they have never seen nor communicated with. Because of traditional thinking and written texts produced long before their collective lifetimes, they feel a need to respect that which <i>does not</i> show the same respect. The trend, in religion, is to respect the "Other" (God), while denouncing the "Near" (anyone else). Regardless if someone shows you respect, if they do not show respect to the Other, they are <i>somehow</i> disrespecting you, if you are religious. Just because a belief system is personal does not imply that it is universally applicable. And, actually, the converse of that statement is also true: just because something may be considered universally applicable ("a million people can't be wrong") does <i>not</i> imply that it is. So, an attack on God is not an attack on the individual that believes in God. These forums offer a most excellent opportunity for discussion, both scientific and religious (not entirely incompatible); blood will boil, tempers will flare, but it shouldn't be construed that individuals are being singled out. Just individual belief systems. If mine are goofy and someone lets me know, I may take offense intially (hey, I have some pride), but I'll afterwards reconsider and go on. So, let's discuss. There's no discussion like a discussion where there's two known polarities striving to intermingle. Just some rambling thoughts to keep you interested.
I would agree with you that in order to earn respect you must give it first. One should always approach a new person or idea with the assumption that they or it have value, and to learn as much about they or it before deciding what merits it may have for your own life. But the problem with a religious discussion is that the very nature of most religious beliefs is anti-respect. In Catholocism there is a term called animale, which is reserved for those that don't follow Catholic beliefs, and means the beasts, savages, or animalistic ones. In Judaism the term goyam refers to those that are not kosher, or unclean. So the parish of every faith is taught that those who do not follow the tenets of their belief system are lesser beings, not to be respected in what they say or do. I am an athiest. I try to give everybody a fair shake no matter what they believe in. But I will admit that most athiests revere "believers" as being sub-intelligent to them. So even a culture that is apparently "free thinking" as the athiests also shut down the respect factor, because their belief system is one that states that anyone that follows a god is obviously ignorant. I don't know about you, but I have a hard time respecting ignorance. Including within myself. So while I encourage religious debate, I don't think we can ever expect there to be a mutual respect for differing opinions within it.
Re: Respect: a two-way street with one-way signs <blockquote> quote: <hr> <i>Originally posted by <b>spanklin</b></i> So the parish of every faith is taught that those who do not follow the tenets of their belief system are lesser beings, not to be respected in what they say or do. <hr> </blockquote> This is a good point. When someone is considered a less stalwart believer or even an apostate (former believer), the person is denigrated and castigated by the respective members of the religious organisation. What this does, obviously, is mitigate the respect that person is shown by those that once supposedly "embraced" the fellow. Thus, there are even levels of respect amongst church-goers with regards to the flock. And, naturally, most atheists do consider believers to be either duped or ignorant. Likewise, believers consider atheists to be either eternally damned or egocentric. Some believers even go so far as to think (and say) that atheists, deep down, know there is a God, but don't want to explore that thought. Of course, this is not the case, but it's almost completely foreign for a believer to be able to think that God doesn't exist. Even as a hypothesis. Sure, for a few sentences here and there, but not for an extended length of time. I guess the intent of my thread was to encourage more posts and threads from would-be readers. Regardless if they're atheist or Christian, agnostic or apathetic to these issues. Even apathy, when expressed, can be quite enlightening. <blockquote> quote: <hr>I try to give everybody a fair shake no matter what they believe in. <hr> </blockquote> This is also a good point. It's not good socially to shoot before looking under the bed when it comes to differing opinions on matters of science and religion. Respect in a religious debate forum is mighty difficult to come by. But if it's done (and I realize it hardly ever is) in a manner which does not alienate either party, then that's the way to go. Just because I think differently shouldn't be a threat to someone with an opposite perspective. Well, thanks for responding. prag
Just one of those duped believers ;-) "Some believers even go so far as to think (and say) that atheists, deep down, know there is a God, but don't want to explore that thought. Of course, this is not the case, but it's almost completely foreign for a believer to be able to think that God doesn't exist." I believe that deep down atheists know God exists. You would not deny one can supress things for whatever reason would you? Why do I believe this? The Bible teaches it. When you said, "Of course, this is not the case" that appears to be equivalent to saying "The God of the Bible does not exist," or simply, "The Bible is not what most xians think it is and this is common knowledge," or lastly, "I have an alternate interpretation of X verses that teach general revelation." Which were you saying, if any? Peace, Vinnie
Re: Just one of those duped believers ;-) I hope you don't mind my leaping in here. I feel the same way, albeit from the other angle; I find it inconceivable that in this day and age people still believe in a supernatural creator, despite the utter lack of evidence. Even more bemusing for me is the concept of people looking for a religion; they'll look at the practises and attitudes of various religions, and decide on this basis how the universe began.
Re: Re: Just one of those duped believers ;-) There also seems to be an "utter lack of evidence" that there is no Creator. Personally, I don't believe that the Creator is "supernatural" or "magical" -- rather, I believe that the Creator is a being possessed of a higher intelligence and more evolved abilities. To suppose that we humans are the pinnacle of what the universe has to offer seems a bit egotistical (if not ludicrous.) If others do believe that the Creator is supernatural in origin and ability, why not sort through the available belief systems and then pick the one which best fits what we feel is right? Don't scientists do the same when they sort through the multitude of theories about dinosaurs, the earth's beginnings, faster-than-light travel, etc? In the absence of irrefutable proof, we are pretty much left to our own devices as far as these issues are concerned. The "pick and choose" methods of the religious seem about as valid as those employed by the followers of science.
Right... So, three responses: 1) I believe that deep down Christians know God does not exist. You would not deny one can invent imaginary friends for whatever reason would you? (Well, I don't actually believe this about ALL Christians [some are genuine dupes], but that's just me...) I guess this one's not very argumentative; in fact it's rather polemical and toothless -- but no more so than the quote above. 2) You believe because the Bible teaches it, but why believe what the Bible teaches in the first place? Wait, let me guess: because you believe that God exists. So, believe in God because the Bible says so, believe in Bible because God says so. I'll be damned Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 3) And just how do you ever <u>know</u> anything? (Ahm, this one could lead into very heavy philosophy, so before you go objecting away, be warned and preview the last few little posts on the "I'm not afraid of anything" forum under Christianity...) <b>This is for milojohn5:</b> Strange... If the "creator" is a being within the universe, then it certainly didn't create the universe. On the other hand, if the "creator" is outside the universe, then who created the creator's super-universe? etc. In other words, who creates the creator? If the creator always existed, then why is such a belief more reasonable than a belief that the universe always existed? Indeed, the alternative belief is far simpler, while your belief provides no answers but lots of additional questions. Then, of course humans aren't a pinnacle. Our artificially-designed, augmented and transformed descendants a couple thousand years from now will regard us with little more awe than we regard earthworms. Even besides that, there probably are zillions of hyper-intelligent lifeforms out there -- but that wouldn't qualify any of them as a "creator" ... would it (i.e. what exactly do you mean by "creator")? I wouldn't talk about things I clearly do not understand. Unless you are really itching to be grilled, that is.... (hint -- see the last page of the above-mentioned forum under Christianity)
Re: Right... When I say Creator, I mean the creator of this world. I don't believe that God "spun the universe out of moonbeams" or any garbage like that. I believe that he (after doing some real growing and developing as a life form on his own) came to this place in this galaxy with the idea of developing a few skills. He took some stray matter that was most likely on its way to forming our solar system, and gave it a nudge here or there until a habitable planet was formed. As far as "who creates the creator?" -- I believe that his existence is without beginning, just as our universe is without beginning. (Matter is neither created nor destroyed in an experiment, and all that.) I doubt that he started out at his current level of accomplishment, but I also doubt that linear time gets in his way like it does ours (assuming that he is as advanced a being as would be needed to engineer the lab maze we're in right now.) Sorry, I slipped into Star Trek for a moment there. Anyway, if our descendants someday reach the same level of technological advancement as our creator has, where they're out terraforming planets and introducing new life into them, why wouldn't that qualify them as creators? I believe in a God that created this world, though I probably have a different view of him than some. However, I don't mind if you don't believe the idea. No one can know for sure until they see him. But, I have to say, I don't agree that we shouldn't ever discuss things that we don't fully understand. If we didn't venture outside of our realms of expertise on occasion, forums like this wouldn't exist. We'd all be sitting around in the dirt, discussing whether or not fire was a good thing. You're pretty "on top" of this existence and reality stuff. I read some of your posts from that other discussion, and I should tell you, you're welcome to argue with me, but I doubt I could really get into it as deep as you can. Unless someone else jumps in, you'll probably end up disappointed with the outcome.
Re: Re: Re: Just one of those duped believers ;-) I've got to take issue here with your use of the word 'pinnacle'. Just because we're here now doesn't mean that we're any sort of pinnacle; bacteria are here now, too. I apologise to all for going off on a tangent, but this is a case (IMHO) where it's important to use the word evolution in the correct way. Evolution isn't a ladder; we can't say that a million years from now we'll all have six fingers and huge brains. Evolution is merely the survival of the fittest for an environment. If the oxygen in the atmosphere were to suddenly change to cyanide, who would survive? Those who could breathe cyanide (or at least those who didn't breathe oxygen, or eat those who did). As for your superintelligent creator: consider this. Science tells us an awful lot about the evolution of the universe, but nothing whatsoever about its origin. Science also tells us that may be theoretically possible to create a bubble universe within our own, with its own laws of physics. This bubble would likely be impenetrable to us; once it was created, it would exist on its own. Inside this bubble, life may evolve (unlikely, unless the laws of physics were finely tuned). If life evolved, so might intelligence. It may be that this universe could spawn a race of people more intelligent than their Creator (a guy in a lab, struggling to justify his[^Her] grant). They may even have religious wars over what this creator wanted. But they'll never know; the laws under which this universe was created mean that the bubble universe can never interact with its parent.
Umm.... what about us? Hallo....Fellow seekers, I just wanted to aks you guys why your all so bent on proselytizing. I am an Agnostic. I dont believe one way or the other. My reason for this reasoning is this. I have not seen an answer out there in all of my time spent in this "awareness". All I've ever know are debates just like your own, on one way or the other. Now, I "know" that the human species is an extremely intelligent lifeform. I also "know" that although we possess this unprecedented fortitude. Deep down inside of us all, lays the simple statement of "I really dont know what happened to "create" all of which surrounds me, and I really dont know what is going to happen when I "die". In otherwords, fear of the unknown. Could religion be , possibly, human wishful thinking? Hoping and praying that there is something after this life. That we dont just wink away into nothing? I think that I speek for the majority of Agnostics out there when I say that we are the only "group" of intelligent beings on this planet who openly admit this possibility. Now dont get me wrong, cause Im not saying that the theosophistic, nor the theoretical outlook are wrong or right. Im saying that niether one has been proven to this point in human existence. Now, Im sure that that is something that we can all "Believe" in. I think that religion is wonderful. It can help a person through the darkest most traumatic times of their lives. It can take some one from the practice of a degenerative state and help to right them in their ways. It can help to alleve many of societies pressures on everyday people. But, there are many horrible atrocities throughout history that showcase the bigotry,the racism,genocide,millions of human lives lost. To me religion seems more of a partition rather than an coupling. Isnt it intresting, that every single culture that has been studied throughout the history of mankind has had some type of a religion or belief in something or someone. Which are imposing upon forces to create or hindre the human being and all that is around them. Now this could be taken in two ways. One way of looking at it is that If so many different cultures are allways coming up with a general belief of something arcane and superior to themselves, then how could they all be wrong? Well, let me ask of you this, can you think of anything else throughout history that has allways been there,and probably allways will? Now rememember this is in the terms of beliefs. Hmmmmm..... Oh! Ive got one ! WAR! Wait a second...War...Religion... War.....Religion....War......Religion.......One belief imposing on another........Lets see........ If religion is supposed to prevent war, what is war supposed to prevent? Thats a tough question. Maybe religion isnt supposed to prevent anything but sacrelege? And war is not to prevent anything but anothers beliefs from impending on their own. Every war carried out through history has been fought precisely for that reason, be it over the boundaries of a country to religious beliefs. Whoever is reading this could you do me a favor and look in the Dictionary and look the words believe and belief. How contraditing can a definetion be? Then look at the word right above that it's belie, which means to misrepresent; show something to be false. In these three words what do you gather from their meanings? Lets see, in my dictionary I see the words confidence,trust,conviction?,opinion?,persuasion???, accept as true?,suppose? In what I gather from these meanings and when I am bestowed with the ever present quote," You dont "believe" in God?"...Heh...Um... Well yes, I do beleive in the persuasion,the opinion,the conviction,the supposedness of a God. And the next question, "dont you have any faith?" Im sorry ut I'm not going to make my life decisions based on faith. I will make them based on truths. Now, Im probably sounding like an Atheist right about now,right? Well, your partly right beacuse I do swing in favor of atheism over religion. But , that is all,Im not denouncing the existence of a supreme being. I am nearly pointing out the facts about religion. And keep in mind these are not my beliefs, these are facts that I have accumulated over the years. Now for the other side of the coin. Atheism is an extremist way of viewing things. To say outright that there is in no way possible a higher being that could have had something to do with our existence, is as preposterous as saying that there is no possible way that there wasnt. There is allways a possibility until it is a proven fact that there is not a possibility. Well, I want to part by saying that I just dont see the relevance in touting one way or the other when ones mind has allready been made. All that it has ever led to is War.
So, you can explain how the top of Mt. Sinai got burned? Not the one in the Sinai peninsula, the real Mt. Sinai, the one with the burned top. What I find truly amusing is that people will decide on the basis of a few beers' worth of investigation that the universe began as someone else says it did, instead of how its creator said it did. Boris: I've pondered your choice of avatar. Doesn't the song go something like, "One is a genius, the other insane," or something like that? And, isn't the title of the program "Pinky and the Brain?" Oddly, I also noticed that Pinky is first and "genius" is first, and, well, you get the drift. Don't most of the episodes turn out with the utter failure of everyone of the Brain's carefully laid-out plans, while Pinky blindly, almost foolishly, stumbles into success in almost every show? Just pondering. Quasar: Ahh, those warm fuzzies... The obvious solution to the discord that arises from holding an opinion is.... wait, no, yes, YES, to hold no opinion at all.
Half-penny for Tony's lowball I always thought that was the point of it. To use a theist/atheist overlay ... the best-laid plans are wrecked by the lackidaisical goofball who can get very close to the answer, but cares not to devote the attention (e.g.--to the best-laid plans) to achieving that final step. As such, there is a tendency of Pinky theism to achieve nearly "correct" (for lack of better) answers, though its devotion to the questions of the Universe compels it to trample over carefully-designed inquiries after what are, essentially, the same goals. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Half-penny for Tony's lowball Of course, there is a tendency for Brain atheism to completely fail, though its devotion to the questions of the Universe compels it to trample over carefully-designed answers to what are the same questions. Thus, the Brain fails every time with his best-laid plans, with his "superior" knowledge, with his quantities of data.
I think there's some cortex envy happening here... Yeah, here's a new one for the Freudians (on second thought, there's probably already an official name for it). Tony1, I think you should definitely change your avatar to Pinky. It's a perfect match. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not likely. So, you accept that I will come out smelling like roses, and that you and your plans will fail every time? I was planning on slowly working up to this, but you made it so easy. You are aware that Brain fails in every show?
tony1, I think the point is that pinky does not have any ideas of his own, hence the validity of the comparison to you.
Thanx, Cris, but I'm pretty sure I get that. There is that elusive quality about Pinky, though. I can't quite put my finger on it. Something to do with success, fun and floating through life on easy street, to mix metaphors ever so slightly. It may be the serendipitous success which Pinky enjoys in practically every show, while poor Brain suffers, suffers, suffers. My favorite show was the one with Pinky Suavo, where Pinky attains awesome success, fame and fortune, while Brain builds a pathetic cardboard theater and gets stepped on in the end.
Prison rape It's called a writing convention. Very simply, in this one, the hapless hero (Pinky) is portrayed as happy-go-lucky for reasons best related to the audience. In real life, a person with Pinky's disposition would be the village drunk at best, or eventually whispering away in the night with a needle in his arm; the world does not treat Pinky's kind well. Because the audience of the show is apparently children--I might occasionally disagree, but its placement in the afternoons and on weekend mornings seems to establish it as a children's show--one must consider carefully what happens if you put a stupid junkie as the sidekick to an imprisoned genius. I mean, how many prison rapes can you show on kids' TV? I think the FCC limit is two per half hour, and, well, they're mice .... So I think that to abandon this writing convention could create the position of having to show multiple bestial-homosexual prison rapes on children's television. It's why we lie to kids. Now, I admit the above is slightly melodramatic, but I must assure you that Pinky's elusive quality is more a necessity of demographics than anything else. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
