Christians: Are We Being Pursued?
lolfighter
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
in Discussions
I have heard a few complaints about this now. I'm talking about the NS forums, specifically Discussions. There seems to be a general split among the Discussions regulars: The adamantly religious, and the adamantly non-religious. And then there's us in the middle, who feel like we're between a rock and a hard place.
So I'll speak on behalf of both sides:
Adamantly non-religious, stop challenging our beliefs wherever possible. You cannot demand any proof from us, because we don't have any and because we don't NEED any. A bird can't explain to you the laws of aerodynamics, and it doesn't need to - it flies all the same. We believe because we do. That is all the reason we need, and it is not your duty to challenge us on that. So give it a rest.
Adamantly religious, stop trying to call damnation down on our heads. We don't share your definition of what "God hates" and what he doesn't, and we don't care that you think that we are doomed for what you believe to be our sin. And first and foremost, we don't want to hear about it all the time. We don't care what you think, but when you keep shoving it in our faces, it annoys us. So give it a rest.
And now, on behalf of us who are on neither side of this cleft: We are tired of your constant meaningless back-and-forth. Stop killing every single meaningful debate with "God hates" and "give me logical proof of that."
Guess why we have Discussions Forum Rule Addendum One.
So to answer my original question: Yes, we're being pursued. But we also appear more than willing to lash back with equal fervour rather than turn the other cheek. And both these trends need to stop right now.
So I'll speak on behalf of both sides:
Adamantly non-religious, stop challenging our beliefs wherever possible. You cannot demand any proof from us, because we don't have any and because we don't NEED any. A bird can't explain to you the laws of aerodynamics, and it doesn't need to - it flies all the same. We believe because we do. That is all the reason we need, and it is not your duty to challenge us on that. So give it a rest.
Adamantly religious, stop trying to call damnation down on our heads. We don't share your definition of what "God hates" and what he doesn't, and we don't care that you think that we are doomed for what you believe to be our sin. And first and foremost, we don't want to hear about it all the time. We don't care what you think, but when you keep shoving it in our faces, it annoys us. So give it a rest.
And now, on behalf of us who are on neither side of this cleft: We are tired of your constant meaningless back-and-forth. Stop killing every single meaningful debate with "God hates" and "give me logical proof of that."
Guess why we have Discussions Forum Rule Addendum One.
So to answer my original question: Yes, we're being pursued. But we also appear more than willing to lash back with equal fervour rather than turn the other cheek. And both these trends need to stop right now.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
most people aren't completely one sided either way, its just that religion seems to be the subject of choice humans are usuing to divide themselves nowadays, so naturally it trickles down to small debates as well.
I'm going to go ahead and agree with this comment.
QFT (fixed grammatical error in the post)
Challenge, can you spot the mistakes that were corrected? (No offense to orginal poster of the idea, of course) ;-)
*Edit* I missed one of my own mistakes, lol.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
For the record: give me logical proof of that > God hates, always.
most people aren't completely one sided either way, its just that religion seems to be the subject of choice humans are usuing to divide themselves nowadays, so naturally it trickles down to small debates as well. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's how it is in real life. However, as regulars of this forum know, we have quite a few more than our fair share of extremists, imo.
How are we supposed to discuss anything without logic?
How are we supposed to discuss anything without logic? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe lolfighter simply wants to end the whole "shooting down religion because they can't produce tangible evidence of the veracity of their beliefs" thing.
Considering religion vs. science debates aren't supposed to happen according to the guidelines, it's not exactly an unreasonable wish.
Fascinating. If I am to be consistent, and I am going to, I would say that you are entitled to your beliefs. If, however, you start declaring us all heathens because we don't believe you and/or supporting legislation banning the consumption of chocolate because it is sacred, I'll have a problem.
Especially when they claim to be neutral.
Considering religion vs. science debates aren't supposed to happen according to the guidelines, it's not exactly an unreasonable wish. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just so. Thank you so very much, Sky.
T h e m, speak for yourself then: How do YOU propose we end this most persistent of flamewars? And keep in mind that we have to, the forum rules forbid science vs. religion debates.
Well, it's up to the mods to enforce those rules.
I think I'll go persecute some christians to help keep that going.
*persicutionates*
I cannot propose a viable solution. The world itself is focused around the idea of disagreement. But up until the last hundred years or so, you could just rid the world of people that disagree with you. Such is not the case anymore.
So all I can do is keep my mouth shut and hope the other side dies off doing something equally as foolish as wasting a significant portion of their life <s>on hollow ritual and ceremony</s>.
1: The two sides buck heads until said heads are bloody pulps and their contents scattered all over the forum floor. Then the administration gives the embattled parties a timeout.
2: We end all religion vrs everyone-else discussions this instant, as per the actual forum rules.
I for one am rather torn, here.
1: The two sides buck heads until said heads are bloody pulps and their contents scattered all over the forum floor. Then the administration gives the embattled parties a timeout.
2: We end all religion vrs everyone-else discussions this instant, as per the actual forum rules.
I for one am rather torn, here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Going for number two is by best bet....
Personally, I see nothing wrong with friendly debates between believers and non-believers but I will admit I was a bit rude in the "Legalized Drug Use" thread and I apologize for that.
~ DarkATi
I can't see that much flaming to be honest. I admit I'm one of the more vocal athiests on here right now but I've never once asked for proof. All I've ever asked for is some tolerence and respect for the athiest view, something I have rarely ever received.
It is more the athiests being persecuted than anything else, hence the debate in the 'republicans' thread. I think it has something to do with the fact that if you believe in god then you believe in a set of universal laws and you feel obliged to make every other person around you follow them whether it is true or not. I know I personally don't care what anyone does as long as it doesn't limit other peoples freedom.
Option 3, we stop seeing it as flaming and let it become a test for new people. If they succumb and start attacking irrationally then obviously they aren't made for this forum and they can be restricted. Otherwise gg, it's one more person and one more set of opinions to learn from.
I think that the real meat of the issue is that, for example, the Atheist would say, "I'm not entirely sure what happens when people die, but I bet we don't sing with angels for eternity." To which the Christian would reply, "You pagan, you're going to hell if you believe that! Do you want to?! Join us, and you'll live forever!"
Now, whether or not the Christian is motivated purely by a desire to save the soul of the Atheist is immaterial. As is the question of who started the battle because it can be argued either way. If the Atheist hadn't been so bold as to question the Christian's beliefs, it wouldn't have happened. If the Christian hadn't been arrogant enough to try to force his on the Atheist it likewise wouldn't have happened.
What IS important is that this situation can only escalate. The Athiest would surely (and rightly so) be enraged and say, "How dare you? You're the one who's wrong here!"
Right, I'm not entirely sure what point I was going to make; in fact, I don't believe I really meandered towards one here. Ah well...
Well there we have it; we simply need to stop questioning Christianity.
I can't believe I didn't think of this before. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
For me, I'm in the middle/neutral. I usually try to give a voice to the perspective that isn't getting a fair hearing. I find it amusing when extremist liberals call me a damn conservative, and extremist conservatives call me a damn liberal. If you want to use a D&D style alignment to qualify my character then I'm neutral good. Sometimes I'm too good aligned for my own well being... >< But that's more the story of my life so allow get back on topic so I can give my feedback.
There seems to be a plethora of science vs. religion debates in the discussion forums. Let me get personal here, I'm an rather religious <i>Autheist</i>. Autheism is closely related to Pantheism except that I believe in several good ideas from all religions. I pull my creed, code, and cult from a wide variety of religions and am accepting to all. I like to learn more about all religions and as I do a natural pattern emerges. I could continue a deep and lengthy discussion about Autheism but I don't have the time.
I will simply say that I continually find that all religions have the same objective as science: to understand the world around us. I've also found that science and religion work well with one another. Science continually answers more questions, and religion covers the unknown. This makes some people fear that the domain of science will keep growing as unknown keeps shrinking. It's actually just the opposite, the more science grows, the more we know; the more the unknown exponentially grows and we need religion. The more answers we have, we just get even more questions in return.
For example: We take a person, an organism, which has organ systems, which are made of organs, made of tissues, made of cells, made of organelles, made of molecules, made of atoms, made of protons neutron and electrons, etc. Weird things happen when you get down to the atomic and subatomic level. Matter can phase through one another and when you get really small you get down to the purely theoretical. String theory, stuff like that. Suddenly there are a tremendous amount of unknowns and questions science may never be able to answer, so enter religion.
For example: We learn about DNA and cell processes enough that we have the ability to engineer life. We learn that most life is very similar to us and some apes a self-aware just like we are. Now you are faced with a whole bunch of morality question only religion can answer. Should a clone have the same rights as the original? Is abortion wrong? Is eating meat wrong? Should animals have the same basic rights as humans? Etc... Obviously all of you probably have definite answers to these questions. All of which probably draw on some science and apply your personal beliefs/religion to give you your answer. Again, enter religion to solve the new moral questions raised as we continue to learn more.
So in conclusion I find that making science vs. religion arguments is immature and incorrect. They have the same goal and are not really as odds with one another. What is really happening is we hare having people who are using a metaphorical written text (usu. the Bible) and are arguing details with those who are focusing on facts and their believe. <b>The "science vs. religion" is actually "<i>religion vs. religion</i>"!!!</b> It's a misnomer, but one that people forget. It should be noted that "scientists" don't really have "science" as a religion, that's as impossible and nonsensical as saying my favorite color is tomorrow at $15.92 with cherries. Science is not a religion. Atheism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. <i>those</i> are religions, not science. So really just horrible word usage for a religion vs. religion battle.
OMG, you too! <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well, my opinion is that I am Christian and I do believe in God, but if you aren't you don't have to. I find it ridiculous that we, as a community can't accept differences in opinions. There are somethings that each of us holds sacred and maybe we shouldn't meddle with these topics. I mean it's like saying I like Blue and you like Red. Why does anyone have to question these topics? It seems every Discussion section of forums seems to involve religion. Therefore, do not try to convince people to join your beliefs, nor put other religions down as well. There are people that are Buddhist, Hindu, or Mormon. I don't see why Christianity has to be the one stroked. If you are Atheist, I'll respect that, and I won't try to convert you to my beliefs. Why can't people be like that?
Sorry for any misspells <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->