Random thought

[starsevol]

I wasn't intending to be confrontational. You asked questions, and I love this guy's "for the classroom, science made easy" series. I re-watch it regularly. He has ones that are are... not classroom friendly, so I even made sure to link the one *without* the anti-religion mockery.

So... since you asked... I provided a video with some possible answers. ;_;

Yes, some possible answers...but life coming from non life..,,from nothing at all.....ok maybe I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, but I still don't quite get that...
And I still think that the fact that there is life at all is a wonderful amazing thing.

I am not religious, but I can't help but think that there is a benevolent force somewhere that allowed creation to occur over time. I don't know how to explain it.....

 

[kathylove]

I have been lurking, and thinking about this thread for a while. I have stayed away as long as I can, lol! As most of you know, I do like these debates - as long as they stay civil. So I guess I will jump in with a big post to make up for lost time!


" Originally Posted by The_Thunderer
Then, in a very real sense, Lauren, you are displaying actions no better than those you are "fighting against". They "hate and attack" you... and you "hate and attack" them. They want to take away your "rights" and then you want to take away their "rights" as well."

I have to agree with Shiari / Megan. I don't see the analogy here. From what I read, the only "rights" that Lauren wants to remove from Christians is the "right" to legislate her status into a second class citizen. I didn't read that she wants to stop Christians from doing anything they want to do, EXCEPT spread intolerance of those with different lifestyles that may clash with SOME Christian moral values, and ESPECIALLY to stop them from getting their religious values legislated into law.

I can certainly understand various groups adhering to deeply held beliefs, and trying to spread them. Whether you are talking about PETA members deeply opposed to eating animals and keeping pets, or religious people deeply offended by gays, it boils down to how much authority we will give those moral beliefs over the rest of us who may not share them.

MOST of us will agree that we don't want to allow the more radical beliefs to become (or remain) the law - at least, not at this time. But are the extremists still allowed to spew rhetoric at the rest of us in order to influence us? I guess they are allowed free speech. But - they shouldn't be surprised when the objects of their hatred push back. I certainly feel no love towards humaniac groups who have tried to legislate my passion out of existence. And if I were the target of some particular religious group for my whole life, I probably wouldn't feel kindly towards them, to put it gently.

I also have to agree that it is at least somewhat the responsibility of the more responsible members of any group to at least condemn the radicals of their group, even if there isn't much else they can do.

I do see a parallel between responsible herp keepers trying to keep in line the irresponsible ones who cause problems by allowing escapes or other incidents that garner unfavorable publicity for us, and some of the religious examples. There isn't a LOT we can do about it. But we can condemn irresponsibility, and try to influence (or even turn in to the authorities, in some cases), keepers who may harm themselves, others, or their animals, with their stupidity or ignorance.

In a similar vein, if there is an Islamic terror incident, and I see news images of lots of average looking people dancing in the streets and cheering in a Muslim country, it is going to give me a very bad view of that religion. What I would WANT to see is a huge number of Muslims standing up and condemning the act, and giving whatever assistance they can to the victims. The VAST majority of adherents who say they are peaceful, SHOULD be demonstrating in the streets AGAINST the perpetrators. That is how they would show what their religion is really about.

And when extremist Christian leaders spew hatred towards a group (whether gays or any other target), then an even larger number of Christians should proclaim that those leaders are acting in a very unChristian-like manner, and that it is NOT acceptable to most Christians. The voice of reason has to be louder than the voice of hatred.

I know it is difficult. The press LOVES sensationalism. It doesn't matter whether it is an escaped python or somebody screaming hatred. It makes much better news than the voice of reason. But those of us who spent years and years doing free reptile programs at schools to educate still malleable children helped to do our part to fight against the old stereotype of herpers as ONLY a tattooed motorcycle dude with a giant python around his neck. The battle is far from won! I think any member of any group with extremists in it has to take at least a little responsibility to try to counter those extremists views, and to prove that the voice of reason is more central to your group than the radical views that scare away those from outside your group.

As always, that is just my own opinion, of course.

 

[The_Thunderer]

See, there's a difference. Your rights end where mine begin. There are people who want to take away, or outright deny *real* rights.

I cannot make anyone stop believing in their chosen deity. But there are people who ARE making it so that people can't get access to abortions even to save the woman's life, or so that people who love each other cannot get married.

When crazy lady across the street came over to scream at me when I first got my dog, was I to go "You're right. It was inconsiderate of me to get a dog without telling you as you don't believe I will prevent him from barking all day nor clean up after him. I'll just go give him back right now." Or was I to "attack" her back for attacking me without just provocation?

THAT is the sort of attack many people are fighting right now. "I don't like you because you are YOU, so I'm going to deny you rights!" Are they really supposed to sit there and not fight? To accept that, to not challenge that abysmal attitude is to condone it.

That's why I fight when people tell me I'm going to hell. Or that I'm just a woman, so what do I know. I will not sit by and let someone tell me that I am so horrible that I deserve eternal torment. It's bigoted. It's dismissive. It's dehumanising.


Try to imagine it like this. You come face to face with someone, and they say the following:

You're stupid.
You're evil.
You deserve pain.
No one loves you.
You don't deserve happiness.

Okay, fine, you can walk away. But when you go to walk away, there's another person behind you who takes up the litany. You keep walking. Every half-mile or so, you encounter another one. They follow you for a ways. Much of your day is spent listening to comments that are belittling you.

Are you truly trying to say that you would *never* lose patience with this and eventually tell them to shut up and leave you alone? Not that they listen...

I was well and truly NOT joking that I got chased across my college campus by proselytizers after I politely told them that I had been christian, but was now pagan and much happier, and I would like to now continue reading my book thankyou. They wouldn't leave, and wouldn't stop telling me that immortal soul was in peril so I got up and walked away. And they followed, still nattering. I started jogging. So did they. I only escaped them once I got to my dorm as they knew they were not allowed in the building.

My usual online conversation goes something like this:

"I'm Christian and God is the One."
"I'm agnostic, but don't really see any proof for any deities." -- This is sharing a belief set, since a belief set was shared.
"Here's proof of God!"
"Anecdotal, and explainable by science."
"You are going to rot in hell, the bible says so!"


It gets old and I am no saint.

I see... so the cycle continues... and continues... and continues. Neither side wanting to give the (and I can't believe I'm using this word) MODERATES that DO exist in either camp a chance. We might as well nuke ourselves out of existence then cause it does get old.

Here's how it has been going... (and I'm just using these sentences as an EXAMPLE).
"If you don't believe in God, you're going to hell!"
"Oh, yeah? Well, the Christian God is a 'wanker'!"
"Really, well, you and your abortion loving selves are going to BURN in hell!"
"YOU are a stupid ignorant fool for believing in a god who is going to send me to hell!"
AD NAUSEUM!

Isn't this all rather 3rd grade material? I'm raising 14 kids who don't argue like this... (well, honestly they do... but they're kids!). LOL.

Present the case without attacking the person or their beliefs. When some Christians see what has been spouted off here, there is the possibility of them responding in kind. Then someone of a different belief sees the Christian's response and responds in similar fashion. What's going to change? WHO is going to change the "mood" of the argument? If no one does, then we get nowhere...

So you've been attacked for your beliefs... I've also been attacked for mine. Shouldn't we be on the same side then?

 

[The_Thunderer]

Kathy, you posted while I was writing and at breakfast. Lol. So I didn't get a chance to see your post first.

At any rate, Megan. I'll agree that this whole thing does get old. Soooooo very old which is why I again - in my first post - said that no good can come of this. It is very easy to predict who and which belief system will get thrown under the bus here.

 

[kathylove]

"Present the case without attacking the person or their beliefs..."

EXACTLY! Be that "voice of reason". You are MUCH more likely to convince people of the validity of your argument that way!

 

[Nanci]

I don't like the automatic stereotype of Christian = anti-gay. I bet there are just as many non-Christians of other religions or no religion at all who are anti-gay as there are Christians.

I was raised in a Christian family, whose ancestors going back to the Mayflower, and further, were extremely active in the church. My grandfather was an Episcopal minister. I attended our famly church, St. Christopher's, as well as my grandfather's church as well as the church up at our cabin (Grandfather was the minister there) as well as the churches of my friends' families of various Christian denominations.

I never EVER heard anyone in my family or church or friends' families or their churches say anything negative about homosexuality. In fact I don't believe I heard hateful statements about anything, in a religious context, until I was an adult and exposed to the rest of the world.

I don't appreciate being lumped into some gay-hating category just because I'm a Christian.

 

[grankin01]

As I said in an earlier post to Lavender, EVERYONE needs to step back, seperate themselves from their beliefs AND themselves for an instant, and take an OBJECTIVE/UNBIASED look at their posts AND the responses to said posts.

Then, AND ONLY THEN, can we begin to have these discussions without the constant attacks towards one another and their belief system. I see people who have been on here forever and who would otherwise be doing the exact opposite, fighting amongst themselves.

Do the above, take the position of "we agree to disagree", accept that there are good and bad points on both sides, and live and let live. Friends and colleagues should not be divided by something like this.

Understand, I am taking NO SIDE with these statements. I am looking at this thread from the outside in and it gives you a much clearer view from both sides of the fence.

 

[kathylove]

"I don't like the automatic stereotype of Christian = anti-gay. I bet there are just as many non-Christians of other religions or no religion at all who are anti-gay as there are Christians."

I agree that might be true. I know I have read that in some Muslim countries (I can't remember which ones), they just state that they have no gays, so it is a non-issue. (Yeah, right!)

But when you DO hear or read somebody on the news who is strongly anti-gay, they are virtually ALWAYS saying it is because it is against their Christian morals. Since they are the ones getting the headlines, it is not surprising that is the stereotype. And that is why other Christians have to speak out. Judging by the news, how would any non-Christian guess that the stereotype is not true, unless other Christians DO speak out?

 

[Nanci]

A coworker of mine vacuumed up a snake in her house yesterday, what I am guessing is a pine woods snake. She then removed the bag from the vacuum and threw it in the garbage. I offered to come remove it for her, but she said she would. This morning, when I checked on the status of the snake, it was still in the garbage. I told my friend all she had to do was take the bag out, set it under some bushes and leave it alone. I offered to come over and rescue the snake. I asked her, "Do you think God wants you to kill the little snake?" She said "No, that's what's bothering me." She says she will get him out after work...I will check again tomorrow. If not, I'm going to make her let me come get him.

 

[Nanci]

When you hear on the news about people hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings it's always Muslims, right? So does that mean that all Muslims believe crashing planes into buildings is okay? And what about the guy in Tampa who was pissed at IRS so he flew his plane into a building- he wasn't Muslim at all.

 

[kathylove]

"When you hear on the news about people hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings it's always Muslims, right? So does that mean that all Muslims believe crashing planes into buildings is okay?..."

That was exactly my point in my earlier post. If you see lots of news items of lots of Muslims cheering and dancing in the streets, and few or no news items of Muslims demonstrating against it, or at least condemning it, then yes, you will start to feel that the majority (not all, of course) Muslims agree with it. It may or may not be true, but it is a reasonable conclusion based on observation. And that is why it would be a good idea for moderate Muslims to do what they can to counter it.

 

[Tavia]

I was not going to comment in this thread but there is a general underlaying assumption that a lot of believers in evolution make, that really irks me and I've seen glimmers of it here. And that is that you must be illogical, uneducated and unscientific to believe in a creator. I will grant the benefit of the doubt that anyone replying in this thread was trying to be insulting to the intelligence of others. But I wanted to post a section of a book I have, which has a bunch of quotes from scientists themselves which shows that believing in a creator is not an illogical thing. The book I have on hand is fairly old but I can find similar quotes from scientists still saying basically the same thing today. This one is on hand so I'm using it. Sorry for an uber long post but here goes.

"Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without supernatural intervention of a Creator.

Is evolution really scientific?
The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says "To their chagrin (scientists) have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened." The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981) p. 19

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: "After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of it's own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." The Immense Journey (New York, 1957) p. 199

According to New Scientist: "An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists ... argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all ... Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials." June 25, 1981, p. 828

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: "The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (Italics added.) Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138."

There are 20 or 30 more quotes in this vein that I won't list, my typing fingers are numb, and I can find a billion more quotes from respected, learned scientists that are probably brighter than most of us here, saying the same sort of thing just last week. I'm sure I can find just as many respected, learned scientists firmly convinced of evolution as well, but that isn't my point. Believe whichever ones you want but since even the people who study these things don't agree on the "proven" nature of evolution, it is not illogical and stupid for anyone else to have their doubts about it or believe something else entirely. Okay, end rant from me. ;~) Hope y'all have a wonderful Tuesday!

 

[Nanci]

You know, I believe in evolution, accept it as an incontrovertible fact, but also believe in a creator. I don't really feel the need to stress out about the details. It happened in the past. Evolution is still happening. Okay.

 

[starsevol]

You know, I believe in evolution, accept it as an incontrovertible fact, but also believe in a creator. I don't really feel the need to stress out about the details. It happened in the past. Evolution is still happening. Okay.

I completely agree with this. I try not to think too much about it, life is too short to ponder something like this. I would prefer to enjoy what is there for as long as I can, and try to be a decent person along the way.

 

[tsst]

I am puzzled... I have read much (not all) of this thread. My muddledness stems from the apparent acceptance of mass stereotyping. Many, whom I am sure would jump to the defense of most groups being stereotyped, seem so ok with it when it comes to Christianity!? If it were a race or sex or age group being prejudiced would it be as seemingly acceptable?

I missed reading the part where Fred condemned any members to hell. I was absent when Carol berated non-believers. I definitely overlooked the thread where Outcast proselytized anyone whilst chasing them across a campus. I guess I fail to comprehend. There are outstanding examples right here of Christians that are NOT extremists yet the condemnation continues with such broad inclusiveness.

It seems many times that when this type of debate begins Christians, that would probably otherwise denounce the extremist instead, are relinquished to defending themselves from the all-encompassing stereotypical platitude.

For the record I would stand by Lauren everyday of the week in defending her rights against anyone wishing to legislate them away.(and have literally done this for my friend Dan) I would also stand lockstep with Fred and Carol and Outcast against an anti-Christian inquisition.

Sorry for interrupting the necromancer pursuance. Back to the regularly scheduled stoning.

 

[kathylove]

"For the record I would stand by Lauren everyday of the week in defending her rights against anyone wishing to legislate them away.(and have literally done this for my friend Dan) I would also stand lockstep with Fred and Carol and Outcast against an anti-Christian inquisition."

I agree completely. And I consider myself more agnostic than anything else, although open minded to possibly changing (one way or another) as more info becomes available to me in the future. But MOST important to me is individual choice. And I am in agreement with anyone who promotes that.

 

[carol]

I just don't have time today to read whatelse has been written here but wanted to share some addtional point of view for this one.

Exactly.

Ah, but Carol, I DO denounce them. I DO argue against them and their work when they are brought up, even if it means losing a friend. When people try to put PETA into my camp, I educate them. And really, a better comparison would be to point out the difference between responsible snake keepers like most of us here, and people who keep snakes for less noble reasons-- to impress friends, etc. The people who aren't feeding our housing correctly... who keep illegal animals. When those people come here, do we say something to them, or do we duck our heads and say "It's not my problem-- I don't believe what they do, and I don't act like they do, so I am seperate from them." No-- we say something! Because we realize that what THEY do reflects on us all. Likewise, what extremist Christians do reflects on you all.

Some of you have spoken out against this persons beliefs on this thread, amongst friends... but how many would chose to denounce their pastor if he spoke words of hatred against gays or any other minority class? Not so many.

Too many times I see Christian's taking up for other Christians who spew hate. Too many times I see people voting to deny civil rights because some Christian minister spouting hate on the TV says it ought to be so. It gets old, quick. The religious right says jump, and all its followers say "How high, sir?"

I do to. I speak against it and I can quote many a scripture that most organized religions do NOT follow what they claim to. Some very basic Christian teachings are to love your enemy and that judgement is not ours. When I speak up against extremists and hypocrites you know what I get? I get how dare I wave my religion in public and how dare I preach to people. So darned if I do, darned if I don't. The religios right is PETA as far as I am concerned and I work just as hard as you do to speak against it and I can tell you I get a lot more opposition than when I speak out against PETA.

I DO denounce many of the OP's ideas, but from what I had seen that has already been well covered by everyone else here and just wanted people to see how sterotypical and hypocritical they were being.

It's not something you can really understand unless you've lived through it, experienced it, and felt thatanguish and anger when you realize that this person you are talking to thinks that you are, and should be, a second class citizen because of who you are and how you were born. To know that it is religion that continues to encourage these injustices makes it nearly intolerable.

Well I have not experienced being a second class citizen because of how I was born, but I have because of how I believe. I live through it every day... Because I am a Christian I am uneducated, brain washed stupid, I want everyone to burn in hell, I am on the same level as extremists.

I don't trouble myself with semantics when debating with a person who feels the way the OP does. If it offends or hurts the sensibilities of others... well, welcome to my life.

That's just what I don't get. As someone who as experienced it and fights hate and sterotypes, why would you not also try to break the cycle? I realize that terrible things are done in the name of religion everyday just as groups like PETA do terrible things in the name of animal lovers. So when I make arguements against PITA should I link them with animal lovers because I can't trouble myself with semantics? After all, I've had to live through being grouped into a sterotype so why should I care if I do the same thing to anyone else?

Why as someone who would seem to stand up for equality make so many excuses as to why I deserve less respect than you?

I am not religious, but I can't help but think that there is a benevolent force somewhere that allowed creation to occur over time. I don't know how to explain it.....

That is a great point, no one can really prove to others how it REALLY all began, as in the universe and life in general. Either way, God or no God it is something very hard to wrap our heads around. To me, I have enough proof to be confident in my beliefs. And for all those smarter than thou peeps... I am very studied in science. I don't deny science but science isn't always right either. Things that were scientific fact in the past have been proved wrong at a later date. Science itself is an evolving thing and is still just man's interpretation of facts at hand.

 

[carol]

I am puzzled... I have read much (not all) of this thread. My muddledness stems from the apparent acceptance of mass stereotyping. Many, whom I am sure would jump to the defense of most groups being stereotyped, seem so ok with it when it comes to Christianity!? If it were a race or sex or age group being prejudiced would it be as seemingly acceptable?

Exactly. "It happens to me and it is terrible and I want everyone to fight against it happening to me, but I don't care if I do it to someone else".

:headbang:

 

[Hypancistrus]

Carol, when was the last time you started a thread in which you quoted scripture passages relating to non-Christians burning in Hell for eternity and devaluing women?

For the record, again, Fred, I have zero issues with the majority of Christians. I also have no issue with having "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill, or the 10 Commandments posted in a court building, so long as I and other non-Christians are not forced to acknowlege them... put a photo of Harry Potter on my dollar bill, if you want, it still won't change the fact that I don't have enough of them! I think swearing to tell the truth on a Bible is bogus and somewhat ironic, given the lies that are perpetrated in it, but again, I don't take that personally, and I don't care if a Muslim chooses to swear on the Quran. I think there are far bigger things to worry about than that crap. (I don't particularly like the "One nation under God" part of the pledge, only because it's not original and was added later.... but I also am not going to weep over it, gnash my teeth and demand that it change, because again, it's relatively minor compared to a lot of the problems our nation faces today....) I would be the first person to stand up against laws or procedures that discriminate against religious groups, and have done so in the past when the administration at our school sought to remove a Christian students group because they felt it "violated" the policy seperating church and state. That prayer group remains to this day... and the leader of said group routinely dismisses me as a lesbian because my "lifestyle" offends his religious beliefs....

I do draw the line at religion interfering with "law of the land," and when I read this fellows original posts, I got the sense that he is the type of guy who supports the use of religion and religious beliefs in law making. And that is something that is not tolerable. His posts bring to mind the posts of other religious zealots I have dealt with, and I respond in kind. It was not I, nor Josh, nor Megan or anyone else who brought you and Carol into this discussion-- you all did that.

This is, again, an issue of semantics and if you are choosing to invite yourself into the same camp as the OP and be offended by my statements, then that is unfortunate, and regretable, for it was not my intent.

 

[carol]

I do draw the line at religion interfering with "law of the land," and when I read this fellows original posts, I got the sense that he is the type of guy who supports the use of religion and religious beliefs in law making. And that is something that is not tolerable. His posts bring to mind the posts of other religious zealots I have dealt with, and I respond in kind. It was not I, nor Josh, nor Megan or anyone else who brought you and Carol into this discussion-- you all did that.

This is, again, an issue of semantics and if you are choosing to invite yourself into the same camp as the OP and be offended by my statements, then that is unfortunate, and regretable, for it was not my intent.

I do appreciate that. Hopefully you also appreciate the danger of blanket statements that can include some people you didn't mean to include. Later tonight when I have time I will make a post that will attempt to say one thing in two different ways as an example.

Despite some of the things I've read here I respect you all as intellegent people. I don't think the "hoops of semantics" are as hard as everyone is acting. I am sure you would expect those in the non-gay community to not make blanket statements about gays when they are really only disagreeing with the beliefs of one gay person. I don't think you would buy the "well you choose to put yourself in the equation" arguement.

Is it REALLY that hard to address the OP and his specific views instead of mass bashing religion? Currently I believe most of you are intellegent enough to do this, and choose not to because either you don't care enought to put an extra 5 mintues thought into your wording, or believe I deserve less respect.

I quote again....

I fully realize that 99% of Christians (and probably the same number of Islamics) are decent, hard-working people who just want to live their lives by their own faith. But it's long past time for them to "put a leash" on their out of control brethren--

Tell me how I, as a Christian, am not sapposed to see this statement as directed to myself? I am either one of the 99% that sits by and does nothing about extremists or I am the 1% who is not a decent hard working person that just wants to live my life by my own faith.

How do you make a statement like that and then say I am "choosing to invite yourself into the same camp as the OP and be offended by my statements"?