| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/06/2008 11:42:58 AM · #176 |
As I've stated before, I believe there is much we humankind don't know. And that is all we know for sure. There must be a higher power, could be in a form that we can't even imagine with our week sheltered minds. There are many coincidences that are beyond chance that are unexplainable. My son's on the other side of reality as we know it.
We sent him to Catholic private schools. It did not create a religious nut out of him, it really did him good, graduating with honors from St. Eds H.S. It helped him treat all people equally and gave him a kind heart. I still pray and hope some telepathic message is passed on to God and my son.
I do not totally blindly believe in niether. Although I do acknowledge the possible existance of either. Mankind can only teach what mankind can see or imagine.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2008 12:53:04 PM · #177 |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 01:13:25 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Does atheism make you mean? |
[thumb]466206[/thumb]
|
|
|
|
11/07/2008 01:48:05 PM · #179 |
Interesting, but the answer is still no, and no.
Reverse the question and the answers would still be no, and no. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 01:55:02 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Interesting, but the answer is still no, and no.
Reverse the question and the answers would still be no, and no. |
I think that was the point of the article. Yes and yes would also be valid answers (reversed as well). |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 02:01:44 PM · #181 |
Most Americans who describe themselves as atheists, for instance, nonetheless believe that their souls will survive the death of their bodies
?!? |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 02:19:13 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Most Americans who describe themselves as atheists, for instance, nonetheless believe that their souls will survive the death of their bodies
?!? |
Harris hints at this "belief" of his in The End of Faith. He has an interesting theory of consciousness that probably precludes any sense of individuality, which, he seems to say, is merely the brain's view of itself. It's in an end chapter called "Experiments in Consciousness". It's quite mind-bending. He is careful to say that further scientific investigation is paramount, and that nothing conclusive can be said scientifically, but that Eastern mysticism is as close to empirical knowledge as we can get. Needless to say, this is a pretty severe break from Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. |
|
|
|
11/08/2008 10:07:44 PM · #183 |
Religion does not make you nice. Being atheist does not make you mean.
Wanting to please God can lead you to do nice things but often it is the reward of the 'thanks' one gets that truly drives the act. How many religious people would continue to do nice things for a person who was truly not thankful? How many religious people would give reasonably large sums of money to charity if it were not tax deductible? Some may share a $10 reward without thanks and recognition possibly if induced by the right circumstances. How many would give half of $1000 prize to an ungrateful recipient?
Being Atheist you may not worry about being mean to people as you are assured that you will not be judged for it by an almighty being. In the same respect, being atheist, you are just as apt to consider how you treat people of even more paramount importance than a religious person who feels assured of forgiveness for his misdeeds. You believe that people are all that there is and thus the focus of your wanting to improve the world in which you live.
Nice people are nice. Mean people are mean. It has little to do with your belief or lack thereof in God. IMO |
|
|
|
11/09/2008 11:21:27 AM · #184 |
My Jesus is better than your Jesus. With video...
Monks brawl at Jerusalem shrine
|
|
|
|
11/09/2008 11:38:23 AM · #185 |
| Lovely. "Get your monk out of my tomb." That should go down as some kind of pithy aphorism. |
|
|
|
11/09/2008 11:44:19 AM · #186 |
| ....aaaaaaand I just watched the video. It would be comical -- funny hats flying, gold robes fluttering as the punches fly -- if it weren't so deeply hypocritical. Part of the fantasy is that this site is supposed to be the exact spot of Jesus' death and resurrection. This is the holiest of holies for these people. And they share the same beliefs about it. Why the whole ball of wax wasn't laughed out of existence centuries ago remains a mystery to me. |
|
|
|
11/09/2008 12:02:22 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Why the whole ball of wax wasn't laughed out of existence centuries ago remains a mystery to me. |
two words..
CONTROL.. |
|
|
|
11/09/2008 12:39:47 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by Louis:
Why the whole ball of wax wasn't laughed out of existence centuries ago remains a mystery to me. |
two words..
CONTROL.. |
And terror. I just read The Grand Inquisitor's Manual because I knew little about that institution. It isn't a great historical text, nor the most well referenced, but it's a decent skimming of the history of the Inquisition. Once conclusion you might come to after reading a history like this is that it still exists because people were controlled and terrorized, and had their possessions plundered, at the whim of the church; and that the doctrine of fear was sealed in the dogma of the religion for political reasons; and that people to this day are victims of it. |
|
|
|
11/09/2008 02:02:05 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Religion does not make you nice. Being atheist does not make you mean.
Wanting to please God can lead you to do nice things but often it is the reward of the 'thanks' one gets that truly drives the act. How many religious people would continue to do nice things for a person who was truly not thankful? How many religious people would give reasonably large sums of money to charity if it were not tax deductible? Some may share a $10 reward without thanks and recognition possibly if induced by the right circumstances. How many would give half of $1000 prize to an ungrateful recipient?
Being Atheist you may not worry about being mean to people as you are assured that you will not be judged for it by an almighty being. In the same respect, being atheist, you are just as apt to consider how you treat people of even more paramount importance than a religious person who feels assured of forgiveness for his misdeeds. You believe that people are all that there is and thus the focus of your wanting to improve the world in which you live.
Nice people are nice. Mean people are mean. It has little to do with your belief or lack thereof in God. IMO |
The problem I feel with a lot of this argument is that it requires being nice to be just a guilty response to being watched permanently.
Hardly an altruistic definition of charity and generosity. |
|
|
|
11/09/2008 02:39:28 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Lovely. "Get your monk out of my tomb." That should go down as some kind of pithy aphorism. |
The Armenians should setup their own Jesus tomb somewhere nearby. That ought to stop the arguments. The BBC archives would suggest they're trying to turn the brawl into an annual feast day;
From last April - //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7357496.stm
The scuffles broke out at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem on Orthodox Palm Sunday.
Brawls are not uncommon at the church, which is uneasily shared by various Christian denominations.
In this case, witnesses say an Armenian priest forcibly ejected a Greek priest from an area near the tomb of Jesus.
They say the attacker felt the Greek priest had spent too long at the tomb.
ETA: And here's a good one. From 2002 (same church, different factions)
//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2162406.stm
The latest fracas involved monks from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church of Egypt, two groups which for years have been vying for control of the church's roof.
Things came to a head on Sunday when the Ethiopians objected to an Egyptian monk's decision to move his chair into the shade.
The Ethiopians said the move violated an agreement which defines the ownership of every chapel, lamp and flagstone in the church.
Eleven monks - seven of them Ethiopian, four Egyptian - were hurt in the violence which followed as the rivals hurled stones, iron bars and chairs at each other.
Message edited by author 2008-11-09 14:41:58. |
|
|
|
11/09/2008 02:50:46 PM · #191 |
An interesting article indeed. Of course, a discussion like this also makes me want to ask:
"Does MDMA (ecstacy) make you nice & even loving? Does sobriety make you mean?"
OR "Does alcohol make you more social? Does water make you boring?"
OR "Does pot make you funny? Does not being high make you a drag?
All important questions if you're interested in a measurement of your behavior when not in touch with reality. :P
By the way, does tithing to ones church count in their measurement of charitable giving? I ask because I certainly gave more as a Christian if you include tithing, but now I give money directly to charities like the American Red Cross, Doctors without Borders and Amnesty International and I'm confident that a higher percentage of my charitable giving goes towards helping people than it did when I was tithing to my church as the bulk of "charitable" contributions.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2008 10:43:07 PM · #192 |
I am climbing the walls waiting for rollover, and watching my first ever 7+ score slowly sliding downward, so I'm going to answer all these idiotic questions with the truly informed answers that they deserve.
Originally posted by JMart:
"Does MDMA (ecstacy) make you nice & even loving? |
Actually, it makes you FEEL nice and warm and fuzzy and you love everything and everyone around you.
It seems to seriously crank up your body's output of happiness fluid.
It does lose its effectiveness if you take it repeatedly......your body can only generate so much seratonin.
Originally posted by JMart:
Does sobriety make you mean?" |
It can if you're a serious drinker.
Originally posted by JMart:
OR "Does alcohol make you more social? |
Yep! Usually.......there are however exceptions. Some people get downright mean when they drink certain types of alcohol.....tequila seems to have the highest incident of making its imbibers garrulous and unruly.
I knew a woman that would physically attack total strangers in a bar after she would drink a certain amount of scotch....what was her preference? Scotch!
I actually saw her throw a barstool at a woman who she thought looked at her boyfriend "that way".
Originally posted by JMart:
Does water make you boring?" |
Nope! But it won't make you handsome or sexy or funny or famous, either.
It is however, just the ticket when you're REALLY thirsty!
Originally posted by JMart:
OR "Does pot make you funny? |
To you......and it makes life in general hilarious.....to you.
Originally posted by JMart:
Does not being high make you a drag? |
To the people smoking pot? Absolutely!
But you're handy to have around when the people smoking pot need seventeen pizzas and don't have enough attention span to remember that between the party here and the pizza shop three doors down.
Originally posted by JMart:
All important questions if you're interested in a measurement of your behavior when not in touch with reality. :P |
Yes, but you create your own reality with drugs......it just rarely happens to be in synch with the real world.
Originally posted by JMart:
By the way, does tithing to ones church count in their measurement of charitable giving? I ask because I certainly gave more as a Christian if you include tithing, but now I give money directly to charities like the American Red Cross, Doctors without Borders and Amnesty International and I'm confident that a higher percentage of my charitable giving goes towards helping people than it did when I was tithing to my church as the bulk of "charitable" contributions. |
I alternate my giving between whatever project my church is working on and the charities/services I work with.
It's a nice balance.
Believe it or not, time is often a lot more valuable to give than money.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2008 11:45:21 PM · #193 |
Congrats on what sounds like it should be a new PB  NikonJeb! Enjoyed your truly informed answers :P particularly the part about the pizza. Also, I agree about the time being more valuable than money which is why habitat for humanity is among my favorite of charities. Jimmy Carter may not have been the greatest president ever, but with things like Habitat, I think he's been a phenomenal ex-president.
Just a few minutes to go, so I hope the rollover gets you to 7+ and perhaps even on the front page. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 02:16:33 PM · #194 |
There's a big religious case hitting the US supreme court tomorrow. A small religion, the Summum Church, wanted to donate a monument with its "7 Aphorisms" to the city.
The city is refusing to accept it despite the fact that they already have a similar monument to the Ten Commandments in a city park. The Summum Church is arguing that the city either needs to accept and display their monument or get rid of all religious monuments on city property. The Summums won in federal court and it will be very interesting to see what the supreme court does with it. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 02:35:52 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by JMart:
There's a big religious case hitting the US supreme court tomorrow. A small religion, the Summum Church, wanted to donate a monument with its "7 Aphorisms" to the city.
The city is refusing to accept it despite the fact that they already have a similar monument to the Ten Commandments in a city park. The Summum Church is arguing that the city either needs to accept and display their monument or get rid of all religious monuments on city property. The Summums won in federal court and it will be very interesting to see what the supreme court does with it. |
Now, I'm not a supreme court judge, never will be, never should be. But if I was, I'd be fairly ticked off to get this continual stream of petty, small minded and insignificant cases that keep appearing about who gets to put a statue where.
Are there not more important things they could be poking their noses in to, like women's vaginas or who gets to marry who? |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 02:41:31 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by JMart:
There's a big religious case hitting the US supreme court tomorrow. A small religion, the Summum Church, wanted to donate a monument with its "7 Aphorisms" to the city.
The city is refusing to accept it despite the fact that they already have a similar monument to the Ten Commandments in a city park. The Summum Church is arguing that the city either needs to accept and display their monument or get rid of all religious monuments on city property. The Summums won in federal court and it will be very interesting to see what the supreme court does with it. |
Now, I'm not a supreme court judge, never will be, never should be. But if I was, I'd be fairly ticked off to get this continual stream of petty, small minded and insignificant cases that keep appearing about who gets to put a statue where.
Are there not more important things they could be poking their noses in to, like women's vaginas or who gets to marry who? |
LOL! Yes, there certainly seem to be more important issues available for them to tackle. Of course, the justices are the ones who get to decide what they're going to hear, so they must like (or really not like) something about this case. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 02:43:15 PM · #197 |
That case is actually interesting, especially since the appeal court declared it to be a free-speech issue, not a government supported religion issue. It becomes more relevant if you ask the question, "can the government take donations that display some thought or idea while rejecting others?" Would a skinhead statue donation have to be accepted? Is it "all or none" or can some dictum of common sense play a role?
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 14:44:45. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 03:00:34 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That case is actually interesting, especially since the appeal court declared it to be a free-speech issue, not a government supported religion issue. It becomes more relevant if you ask the question, "can the government take donations that display some thought or idea while rejecting others?" Would a skinhead statue donation have to be accepted? Is it "all or none" or can some dictum of common sense play a role? |
Yes, the lower court's decision to analyze this case on free speech grounds makes much less sense to me than calling it an establishment case. As an establishment case it would have less impact on municipalities while the free speech angle opens up the floodgates (as the government is trying to argue). I wonder if it will be sent back the lower court for reconsideration on establishment grounds. (and I wish this stuff was on C-Span) |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 04:40:53 PM · #199 |
I particularly was interested in this particular segment of the article (emphasis added):
Originally posted by NY Times:
The donations, Mr. Daniels went on, are transformed when the city accepts them. âMonuments on government property become government speech,â he said.
Under the First Amendment, the government can generally say what it likes without giving equal time to opposing views; it has much less latitude to choose among private speakers.
Asked what the government is saying when it displays the Ten Commandments, Mr. Daniels talked about law and history. He did not mention religion.
Pressed a little, he retreated.
âThe fact that we own the monument doesnât mean that what is on the monument is something we are espousing, promoting, establishing, embracing,â Mr. Daniels said. |
|
|
|
|
02/25/2009 01:26:23 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by JMart:
There's a big religious case hitting the US supreme court tomorrow. A small religion, the Summum Church, wanted to donate a monument with its "7 Aphorisms" to the city.
The city is refusing to accept it despite the fact that they already have a similar monument to the Ten Commandments in a city park. The Summum Church is arguing that the city either needs to accept and display their monument or get rid of all religious monuments on city property. The Summums won in federal court and it will be very interesting to see what the supreme court does with it. |
Just wanted to post the follow-up. I saw this on Google news today and seemed to remember it had been discussed.
Supreme court lets city refuse religious monument |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/10/2025 07:17:21 PM EDT.
