Wingnut emails, sorry poor formatting.... it's from wingnuts

[bannination]

...There is a difference between the so-called bigotry of disagreeing with someone's religious beliefs and racism or homophobia. The latter is based simply on the existence of certain people, not what they specifically believe. Racists dislike a certain race just for being that race, without any regard to what individuals of that race may believe.

Another big difference: The racists and homophobes want their hatefulness enshrined in law or practice whereas the atheists, harsh as they may be sometimes, are not calling for actual discrimination against believers.

I suppose not.
Only indirect, or direct, derisiveness because, long ago, I took Pascal's Wager.

Don't hate me for it, ok?

Pascal's wager against which God?


BTW, I in no way think you're an idiot, and if you've taken anything personal that I've said, disregard, twas not my intent.
Unfortunately in my experience you are the exception rather than the rule.

[mike]

...There is a difference between the so-called bigotry of disagreeing with someone's religious beliefs and racism or homophobia. The latter is based simply on the existence of certain people, not what they specifically believe. Racists dislike a certain race just for being that race, without any regard to what individuals of that race may believe.

Another big difference: The racists and homophobes want their hatefulness enshrined in law or practice whereas the atheists, harsh as they may be sometimes, are not calling for actual discrimination against believers.

I suppose not.
Only indirect, or direct, derisiveness because, long ago, I took Pascal's Wager.

Don't hate me for it, ok?

Pascal's wager against which God?


BTW, I in no way think you're an idiot, and if you've taken anything personal that I've said, disregard, twas not my intent.
Unfortunately in my experience you are the exception rather than the rule.

However, one must know (or should) as they cast aspersions about believers, there are many of us who don't subscribe to the old way of Catholicism (I'm still waiting for Vatican III) or the ways of Westboro, Dove "Church" and all those "churches" which don't give one whit about what Jesus actually said.

I appreciate the clarification, Banni, and, as I mentioned a number of times, I get the humor - I do it myself.
It's the broad brush to which I take offense. Trust me, I'm hardly an .

[mike]

... Rather, I think it's all more akin to addiction - smarts aren't the deciding factor.

Not sure what you're attempting to present with that statement, Vrede.

Do you think a believer is merely a product of addiction to believing?

I mean, that's what I get out of that statement.

I made a measured choice over many years.

[mike]

It's hard for me to use a broad brush when religion has given us 9/11 and the Civil Rights movement, the Srebrenica massacre and Plowshares actions.

I actually have this T-shirt, Vrede:



That's me wearing it ... the Origami I'm holding is a whole 'nother story ...

[mike]

No, my comparison was solely to how we characterize individual believers or non-believers.

Most addicts take years to get there, too.

Most addicts don't make a measured choice.

(I'd rather be making fun of wingnuts than be taking the middle road in this discussion. I'm not a natural moderate.)

Nor am I.

[mike]

Granted some are more susceptible than others, but most addicts have made a long series of poor choices.

Agreed.

And, I don't think most believers have made a measured choice, either.

On that, you'd be wrong. To be fair, I can't speak for the ethereal "most" to whom you refer.

Probably more atheists have, ...

Maybe, maybe not. Knee-jerk rejection of the existence of a God is ever prevalent here.

... but that doesn't make any individual one smarter or better.

Agreed.

[Stinger]

That's me wearing it ... the Origami I'm holding is a whole 'nother story ...

Oh, Lord. From Notourdumbass?

[mike]

I'm almost positive that the vast majority of believers have the faith of their parents, not much measured choosing going on there.

Oddly, the faith remains even when one goes away from the faith. Call it an "addiction" if you like. You'd be wrong yet again.
One often feels compelled to take it up the faith again even after a long life of ignoring and doubting that a God exists.
It's not all about a deathbed person saying "I believe!"
I have made measured choices regarding my faith. My Catholicism is certainly not the be all, end-all.
Some like to think that is what we're about.
It is not that way for the majority of Catholics I know.
I understand we have a long road to correct much of what has happened in the past (and present) and, therefore, why I mentioned how I'm waiting on Vatican III.

If "here" is America, it's against the grain to be an atheist. That takes a choice.

Really? It appears to me, here (as mentioned above), thoughtful believers take the brunt of the abuse.

If "here" is this forum, my estimation is that there's a balance between believers and atheists, with most of us not taking a side in these debates whatever we personally believe. Unfortunately for you, many of the vocal believers here are hateful wingnuts, so you sometimes get caught in the shrapnel meant for them.

Stop the shrapnel, then.
Make it specific rather than general.

[Bungalow Bill]

Just because someone believes in what I still consider nonsense doesn't make them
stupid, because lots of intelligent people believe in what I consider nonsense, but
that doesn't change my mind about it being nonsensical. I think emotion plays a very
large role in religious belief, and the need to believe that there is something beyond
this world. That's rather understandable. Who wouldn't like to be immortal? But I'll
stick with the material world.

[mike]

Just because someone believes in what I still consider nonsense doesn't make them
stupid, because lots of intelligent people believe in what I consider nonsense, but
that doesn't change my mind about it being nonsensical. I think emotion plays a very
large role in religious belief, and the need to believe that there is something beyond
this world. That's rather understandable. Who wouldn't like to be immortal? But I'll
stick with the material world.

It was nonsensical, to many (even Einstein), that matter at the sub-atomic level could exist in two states at the same time.

The favorite sig I ever presented in the past is "My Schrodinger's cat will kick your Pavlov dog's butt any day."

I still love science.

I want to know how all this came about. I want to know God. There is one. Seriously. Whether it's mine or someone else's, I think it's the same God.

I don't care if one doesn't believe in a God (though I do wonder why).
Stop with belittling those of us who do believe in a God, ok?
Or, at least, use a bit more specificity, ok?

It may be that there are true demonstrations; but this is not certain. Thus, this proves nothing else but that it is not certain that all is uncertain, to the glory of scepticism.

[O Really]

IMNVHO, what a person believes isn't of concern to me, but the actions taken on those beliefs - if they affect me - are of concern. In way too many instances, people use an unfounded (from a material standpoint) belief to justify actions taken that include those with differing beliefs. As a frivolous example, if somebody believes they have seen the face of the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich, that's fine. If they then declare grill cheese sandwiches to be holy and no longer can be sold or consumed outside of church, that's not fine. If someone wants to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, I may chuckle but wouldn't attack. If that person gets on the school curriculum selection board (as they did in Texas), then they need to look out for incoming.

[bannination]

It was nonsensical, to many (even Einstein), that matter at the sub-atomic level could exist in two states at the same time.

We now know the underlying nature of reality so well that we can take our reality based on probabilities with superposition and entanglement and we can build quantum computers out of those probabilities.

God really does play dice.


Blows the mind.

[Bungalow Bill]

I've never found any reason to introduce supernaturalism into a natural world that
works just fine and is understandable without it. And when you consider many of
the more absurd parts of the Bible, that's just the frosting on the cake.

[O Really]

I've never found any reason to introduce supernaturalism into a natural world that
works just fine and is understandable without it. And when you consider many of
the more absurd parts of the Bible, that's just the frosting on the cake.

Most of the absurdity results from taking the content literally and from "interpretations" not actually found in the writings. Taken within the culture in which it was written and subsequently translated, it's not all that absurd. Life was pretty cruel in "Bible lands" in 1500 BC. There may be lessons to be learned, but taking that culture and applying it directly to today is, indeed, pretty absurd.

[mike]

I've never found any reason to introduce supernaturalism into a natural world that
works just fine and is understandable without it. And when you consider many of
the more absurd parts of the Bible, that's just the frosting on the cake.

Most of the absurdity results from taking the content literally and from "interpretations" not actually found in the writings. Taken within the culture in which it was written and subsequently translated, it's not all that absurd. Life was pretty cruel in "Bible lands" in 1500 BC. There may be lessons to be learned, but taking that culture and applying it directly to today is, indeed, pretty absurd.

On that, Banni, we, largely, agree.

[mike]

I'd add shaping the "interpretations" to fit the current politics, culture, power structure, prejudices, hates and fears with malicious intent. Not that there isn't good intent, too, but it generally doesn't lead to as many absurdities (and destructiveness), whether or not one finds religion itself to be absurd.

Agreed, too, Vrede.

As I read, once again, through Ecclesiastes I am reminded that nothing is new (in the realm of man's struggle to live and find happiness); all has been done before; we're just chasing the wind.

The conclusion of Ecclesiastes?

Eat, drink and be merry!

[O Really]

I'd add shaping the "interpretations" to fit the current politics, culture, power structure, prejudices, hates and fears with malicious intent. Not that there isn't good intent, too, but it generally doesn't lead to as many absurdities (and destructiveness), whether or not one finds religion itself to be absurd.

Yeah, if you ever read the Billy Graham column in the AC-T you'll find that "he" or whoever actually writes the column, always has a verse to match any situation. Identical to the result reading the I Ching. Question: " my spouse has fleas, what should I do?" Graham: [cite verse] says "beware ye of those who bear false witness" I Ching: (real answer) A Deluge from Heaven:
The Superior Person rains fortune upon those in need, then moves on with no thought of the good he does.

The issue must be raised before an impartial authority.
Be sincere and earnest, despite the danger.
Do not try to force the outcome, but seek support where needed.
Set a clear goal.

SITUATION ANALYSIS:

Your iron will must come to the forefront now.
It will take great personal determination to resolve the situation in question.
Your adversary would love to force you into an angry display.
That would legitimize his opposition to you.
Such a berserker rage would drag you down to his level.
You must resolutely take a public stand against what he represents, but refuse to engage him.
Without compromise, you show others the way to higher ground.

[mike]

All great points, OReally.

I truly think one does not have to believe in a God to be good to, and for, humanity.

Take your road. Be good to others. Be generous, kind and caring.

I'll do the same. Our only difference lies in what I think the outcome might be.

Really, I do respect y'all.
I always will. I don't care if we're on different sides of the fence regarding my belief in my God.

[Bungalow Bill]

Maybe back in those relatively primitive times, the OT didn't seem all that absurd,
but today a lot of it does. The fundis are still sticking to literal interpretation, but
others have seen the light and have gradually allowed the figurative to take the
place of the literal. I always get a kick out of people who write to Graham about
things like witchcraft, numerology, psychic powers, etc. and he more or less says
Wow, how can you believe in anything so irrational. Yeah, right.

[JTA]

I'd add shaping the "interpretations" to fit the current politics, culture, power structure, prejudices, hates and fears with malicious intent. Not that there isn't good intent, too, but it generally doesn't lead to as many absurdities (and destructiveness), whether or not one finds religion itself to be absurd.

Agreed, too, Vrede.

As I read, once again, through Ecclesiastes I am reminded that nothing is new (in the realm of man's struggle to live and find happiness); all has been done before; we're just chasing the wind.

The conclusion of Ecclesiastes?

Eat, drink and be merry!

When I read through the bible a few years ago, I found Ecclesiastes the most interesting. It felt like it didn't really fit with the rest of the bible. Very Existentialist.