Muslins WTF.

[Feck]

Well then why don't you band together and promote the opposite of that which you disagree with instead of thinking that you can deny others their right to promote whatever they want. Maybe then people will listen to you rather than see you as a joke. And if the opposing side shouts louder than you and gets their way, then that's life, and you lose.

Because banding together and promoting the opposite would leave non believers with 2 problems:
Firstly it would mean finding a consensus amongst non believers which is difficult to do because 'Atheists' are only bound by one thing (or actually lack of it ) and are generally proud of their freedom of thought .(the term Herding cats is often used )
Secondly we already have to put up with 'new atheism ' (whatever the fuck that is ?) as being labelled as a cult or a religion or faith . Personally I find that as annoying as you would if I called you a theist and said that theists stone women to death ,mutilate young girls and teach their sons to beat their under-age wives .

Telling children (especially ) that they will burn in Hellfire for evermore if they are not obedient to a set of rules interpreted from any particular holy book is not what I would call promotion neither is the state ,supporting those institutions and linking church and state in some cosy tax free alliance promotion.

Someone wise once said - that to be a militant Muslim you have to blow yourself up ,to be a militant Christian you have to kill family planning doctors

But to be a militant Atheist all you have to do is let it be known that you don't believe in a Myth !

[Chuck Jones]

Well then why don't you band together and promote the opposite of that which you disagree with instead of thinking that you can deny others their right to promote whatever they want. Maybe then people will listen to you rather than see you as a joke. And if the opposing side shouts louder than you and gets their way, then that's life, and you lose.

Because banding together and promoting the opposite would leave non believers with 2 problems:
Firstly it would mean finding a consensus amongst non believers which is difficult to do because 'Atheists' are only bound by one thing (or actually lack of it ) and are generally proud of their freedom of thought .(the term Herding cats is often used )
Secondly we already have to put up with 'new atheism ' (whatever the fuck that is ?) as being labelled as a cult or a religion or faith . Personally I find that as annoying as you would if I called you a theist and said that theists stone women to death ,mutilate young girls and teach their sons to beat their under-age wives .

Telling children (especially ) that they will burn in Hellfire for evermore if they are not obedient to a set of rules interpreted from any particular holy book is not what I would call promotion neither is the state ,supporting those institutions and linking church and state in some cosy tax free alliance promotion.

Someone wise once said - that to be a militant Muslim you have to blow yourself up ,to be a militant Christian you have to kill family planning doctors

But to be a militant Atheist all you have to do is let it be known that you don't believe in a Myth !

Then you have a problem. But that problem is yours.Many people have a disadvantage, but they deal with it.

[Thinking Aloud]

Well then why don't you band together and promote the opposite of that which you disagree with instead of thinking that you can deny others their right to promote whatever they want. Maybe then people will listen to you rather than see you as a joke. And if the opposing side shouts louder than you and gets their way, then that's life, and you lose.

Indeed.

But once again, you misconstrue what someone has written, and equate promoting lies to promoting truths. When people promote lies, everyone loses.

In response to what [FBM's] saying, I'm afraid the opening post of this thread is not a good example of someone who is in control of their emotions.

So what? It's an internet forum where people come to chat, have fun, get things off their chest, rant, argue, make friends, sometimes while drunk...

We don't moderate everything we type to fit some arbitrary standard of discourse about religion. That's life. Get used to it.

[FBM]

FBM, have I mentioned the kingdom of god to you? I haven't, have I? Let's talk about it. Send me your email address and I'll send you some really interesting stuff, which I can confidently say will make you think again about your beliefs. It's no pressure, just something for you to consider. And if you're not convinced, we'll try again. And again.

Erm. Yeah. I'll PM it to you. Just watch yer mailbox.

In response to what you're saying, I'm afraid the opening post of this thread is not a good example of someone who is in control of their emotions. What society (the world) has forgotten is the principle of freedom. We live in a mollycoddled world, with everyone suing everyone else because they upset them and people complaining because someone on tv tells a distasteful joke. And if someone wants to preach, let them preach, and if they want to teach others their religion, that's fine too. I just don't understand what has happened to the idea of live and let live. I was joking in the last paragraph, but actually knocking on doors and preaching, if you don't want to hear it don't open your door. If politicians knock on mine, I do'nt complain I just stay put. People need to grow up and just do their own thing and allow others to do theirs. Society has become infantile.

I went to a Buddhist temple and bought a door sticker that reads, "불자의 집": Buddhist's house. They stopped knocking. Fait accompli. But anyway, yeah, those who are 'live and let live' shouldn't be painted with the same brush as the jihadists and Crusaders. Hell, I don't even want to be painted with the same brush as some of my fellow atheists/agnostics/anti-theists, etc. Including some on this forum.

And also, think about this. Here's a scenario. Let's say that the world has gone mad and there's chaos everywhere.

"The world has gone mad and there's chaos everywhere." Done. Sorry. Airplane! fan.

The only people left who still want peace are christians. Ok, you don't believe in god but we'll put that aside. If those christians went around preaching and converting people, and those people did the same, the result would eventually be peace. The fact that god is part of their pitch is irrelevant. And I'm pretty sure that many a drug addict or anyone whose life is messed up and who has been influenced by a christian has had their lives turned around. It's mainly about morality, not necessarily believing i god. And yes I know you don't have to believe in god to be moral, but it's better to be moral whether you believe or not, than to not be moral. If your moral compass was out of sync and I came to you, you'd surely appreciate it, even if you couldn't get your head around the idea of an existent god.

Alright, but replace 'Christians' with 'Muslims' or 'atheists' in that first sentence and you get the same effect. And by the way, I can get my head around the idea of an existent god. I think the majority of unbelievers were once believers who found reason. As for me, I was in undergrad on my way to seminary when I figured it out.

I think religions are founded on something not so distinct from Plato's 'Noble Lie'.

[Chuck Jones]

Well then why don't you band together and promote the opposite of that which you disagree with instead of thinking that you can deny others their right to promote whatever they want. Maybe then people will listen to you rather than see you as a joke. And if the opposing side shouts louder than you and gets their way, then that's life, and you lose.

Indeed.

But once again, you misconstrue what someone has written, and equate promoting lies to promoting truths. When people promote lies, everyone loses.

In response to what [FBM's] saying, I'm afraid the opening post of this thread is not a good example of someone who is in control of their emotions.

So what? It's an internet forum where people come to chat, have fun, get things off their chest, rant, argue, make friends, sometimes while drunk...

We don't moderate everything we type to fit some arbitrary standard of discourse about religion. That's life. Get used to it.

Oh, I didn't know. Are you drunk now?

[normal]

Well then why don't you band together and promote the opposite of that which you disagree with instead of thinking that you can deny others their right to promote whatever they want. Maybe then people will listen to you rather than see you as a joke. And if the opposing side shouts louder than you and gets their way, then that's life, and you lose.

Indeed.

But once again, you misconstrue what someone has written, and equate promoting lies to promoting truths. When people promote lies, everyone loses.

In response to what [FBM's] saying, I'm afraid the opening post of this thread is not a good example of someone who is in control of their emotions.

So what? It's an internet forum where people come to chat, have fun, get things off their chest, rant, argue, make friends, sometimes while drunk...

We don't moderate everything we type to fit some arbitrary standard of discourse about religion. That's life. Get used to it.

Oh, I didn't know. Are you drunk now?

He doesn't drink at all

[normal]

Confusing when people don't organize themselves into their assigned box, isn't it?

[Chuck Jones]

FBM, my point is that you shouldn't criticise those who promote their faith because some day you might need them. You may not agree with the faith, but their faith is linked to morality, and it is that, the morality, which you may need. If the faith is the packaging, and the morality is the product, it is the product that is of importance. Yes, you could replace christian with muslim or atheist or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that chistians could help you.

[normal]

FBM, my point is that you shouldn't criticise those who promote their faith because some day you might need them. You may not agree with the faith, but their faith is linked to morality, and it is that, the morality, which you may need. If the faith is the packaging, and the morality is the product, it is the product that is of importance. Yes, you could replace christian with muslim or atheist or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that chistians could help you.

Shouldn't they help him regardless of any criticism?

[Chuck Jones]

FBM, my point is that you shouldn't criticise those who promote their faith because some day you might need them. You may not agree with the faith, but their faith is linked to morality, and it is that, the morality, which you may need. If the faith is the packaging, and the morality is the product, it is the product that is of importance. Yes, you could replace christian with muslim or atheist or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that chistians could help you.

Shouldn't they help him regardless of any criticism?

Take that up with them, but yes.

[Feck]

Shouldn't criticize WTF ? Only one criticism.... Do you imply that those without a faith are essentially immoral ? ,The smug assertion that Faith leads to ethical behaviour !

[normal]

FBM, my point is that you shouldn't criticise those who promote their faith because some day you might need them. You may not agree with the faith, but their faith is linked to morality, and it is that, the morality, which you may need. If the faith is the packaging, and the morality is the product, it is the product that is of importance. Yes, you could replace christian with muslim or atheist or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that chistians could help you.

Shouldn't they help him regardless of any criticism?

Take that up with them, but yes.

Oh, it seems I misunderstood as well. I meant help in a more physical manner. Because the "morality" religion offers is mostly (in the case of the monotheistic religions) worthless. So I wouldn't want that morality imposed on me no matter what happened. The "morals" of christianity are in most cases outdated, barbaric and lacking compared to the morality we, as a society, have developed outside religious doctrine.

[Chuck Jones]

Shouldn't criticize WTF ? Only one criticism.... Do you imply that those without a faith are essentially immoral ? ,The smug assertion that Faith leads to ethical behaviour !

You have a vivid imagination. You go, champ.

[FBM]

FBM, my point is that you shouldn't criticise those who promote their faith because some day you might need them. You may not agree with the faith, but their faith is linked to morality, and it is that, the morality, which you may need. If the faith is the packaging, and the morality is the product, it is the product that is of importance. Yes, you could replace christian with muslim or atheist or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that chistians could help you.

I'm not criticizing them for the (mistaken) beliefs, I'm criticizing them for either their a) annoying behavior or b) murderous behavior, whichever person or group we're talking about.

If healthy behavior (I'm pretty much amoral, as opposed to immoral, so I'd rather avoid that term) is embedded in the religion, no sweat. But both religions and politics so often embed rationalizations for unhealthy behavior. History teaches us that. I don't know of many people who have been killed in the name of reason, compared to the numbers that have been killed for politics or religion. Buddhism is a rare exception as a major religion that hasn't systematically slaughtered innocents in the name of evangelism. The other religions that haven't done so are minor ones.

Anyway, you and I agree on the 'live and let live' approach. I prefer to emphasize what we agree on rather than bicker over what we disagree on.

[Feck]

Ok ,how do you assert that Faith is linked to Morality without the implication that I questioned ?