Why do religious believers came here or any blog ?

[Angel]

Because that is a religious belief and no longer acted on, only because of secular humanism.

Just like the harmless eating beef on Friday and working on Sunday. There are books on why all of the violence,

genocide and butchery in the bible, torah and koran...are no longer practiced.

It is specifically because of secular humanism.

The British in Pakistan, found that Islam hung all women once attaining 60 years of age.

They stopped that religious butchery because of secular humanism.

But why are you talking about the Bible WITH ME?

 

[Cephus]

To a degree, yes. It are the non-believers all throughout history...who need a safe place.

Galileo, guilty of heresy, house arrest until his death. The Spanish (catholic) inquisition.

Spinoza developed highly controversial ideas regarding the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible and the nature of the Divine.

Just to name two. Jewish religious authorities issued a herem (חרם‬) against him, causing him to be effectively shunned

by Jewish society at age 23. His books were also later put on the Catholic Church's Index of Forbidden Books.

An official theocratic Islamic govt's. Muslim fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

When was the last time a non-believer issued a contract to kill any religious leader ?

When was the last time non-believers threatened boycotts, killed, destroyed and violently acted...based on a cartoon ?

Never, but non-believers tend to be more rational than the religious.

 

[Cephus]

I stay away from the fantasy world of religious forums. If they come to a belief and scepticism forum then they should know what to expect.

Except they whine about it here too. It would be nice to have a place where intelligent conversations about religion could occur, but apparently, that's just not possible.

 

[Pedestrian]

But why are you talking about the Bible WITH ME?

It isn't just you but I talk about all 3 books of stone age and later fiction. These books are the progenitors of religious belief.

 

[Angel]

It isn't just you but I talk about all 3 books of stone age and later fiction. These books are the progenitors of religious belief.

I have never in over 8000 posts posted on the Bible. Why are you accusing me of stoning gays and adulterers? Do you not pay attention to who it is you're replying to?

 

[Sweden]

What fascinates me is human folly in all its forms.
What matters to me is showing human folly to itself wherever I can, however I can.
What I hope to accomplish is the amusement of myself and others in a biodegradable form of entertainment.

What are you doing here, pilgrim?

Well if you are really that keen to observe human folly there is always the good old-fashioned mirror. Or if you wish to share an image of smug self-importance there is that modern abomination, the 'selfie'.

 

[Angel]

Well if you are really that keen to observe human folly there is always the good old-fashioned mirror. Or if you wish to share an image of smug self-importance there is that modern abomination, the 'selfie'.

Whence the personal animosity, pilgrim? I hardly know you. Have we disagreed? Is that what triggers a post like yours? Or don't you like my style?
What does your mirror show you?

 

[zyzygy]

Well if you are really that keen to observe human folly there is always the good old-fashioned mirror. Or if you wish to share an image of smug self-importance there is that modern abomination, the 'selfie'.

He is not free of folly.

 

[Angel]

He is not free of folly.

What would any exchange at DP be without a cheap shot from the Budinsky Theater and the low-kicking chorus line of the Zyzygy Follies!

 

[it's just me]

Once again...insults, denigration. Stone any gays recently ? Stone any adulterers lately ?

Non sequitur, it does not follow...

 

[Conaeolos]

What is it that so fascinates believers about non-believers ? Non-believers simply do not share the same beliefs.

What is it that still, here and elsewhere that believers come to comment, criticize, create their own theories

on the subject of religion in addition the theories about non-believers ?

Why does it matter to believers ? Why is it you feel you need any theories at all ?

What do you hope to accomplish ?

I think you might be blinded by emotions. Non believers are on the defensive in the sense they often place themselves in the defensive. If you want to be the accuser you simply do what your doing in this thread. You make an affirmative claim. The problem is your own intentions get exposed. You own reasoning goes on trial.

I am here as I am curious in how other people think about their religion or if they lack religious belief how they replace it. I am curious the thoughts, motives and feelings behind posts such as these.

I wouldn’t take it all so personally. You likely are morally lacking. We are all affected by our societies. We are all capable of backing a false claim. We must be humble.

As to the ridiculous broad brush and suggestion secular humanism is some moral saviour. I hope you see that it doesn’t require religion to stone criminals, hang unbelievers or define heretics. We have a lot of moral development to do as a people and unfortunately for the ‘juice of having evolved above’ we must learn to except we are capable of the worst as much as the best.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

What fascinates me is human folly in all its forms.
What matters to me is showing human folly to itself wherever I can, however I can.
What I hope to accomplish is the amusement of myself and others in a biodegradable form of entertainment.

What are you doing here, pilgrim?

At least in the off season when its too cold for golf right?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I am here as I am curious in how other people think about their religion or if they lack religious belief how they replace it. I am curious the thoughts, motives and feelings behind posts such as these.

No one needs to replace religion. You can simply not have a religion which many theists do not have religions either.

 

[Sweden]

Whence the personal animosity, pilgrim? I hardly know you. Have we disagreed? Is that what triggers a post like yours? Or don't you like my style?
What does your mirror show you?

Actually it is your lack of style that repels me.

 

[Angel]

Actually it is your lack of style that repels me.

Ah, a formalist. Godspeed.

 

[Conaeolos]

No one needs to replace religion. You can simply not have a religion which many theists do not have religions either.

I have very little interest in organized religion. I am mostly interested in unorganized religious philosophies. I look at them mostly in terms of the psychological. I am really not sure how in that context you could think there is not a replacement. The reasons people believe in any philosophy and how the apply them does not go away when one concludes some story they were told is false.

I would also note, that when your definition of God is on the same level as a fairy. Your setting yourself up to not develop much secular language to discuss spiritual topics. I happen to think there is a lot more wisdom there worth taking out of historic reference and into more modern vernacular, including ways to communicate to audiences that do not have a belief in God or the supernatural.

 

[Conaeolos]

No one needs to replace religion. You can simply not have a religion which many theists do not have religions either.

I have very little interest in organized religion. I am mostly interested in unorganized religious philosophies. I look at them mostly in terms of the psychological. I am really not sure how in that context you could think there is not a replacement. The reasons people believe in any philosophy and how the apply them does not go away when one concludes some story they were told is false.

I would also note, that when your definition of God is on the same level as a fairy. Your setting yourself up to not develop much secular language to discuss spiritual topics. I happen to think there is a lot more wisdom there worth taking out of historic reference and into more modern vernacular, including ways to communicate to audiences that do not have a belief in God or the supernatural.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I have very little interest in organized religion. I am mostly interested in unorganized religious philosophies. I look at them mostly in terms of the psychological. I am really not sure how in that context you could think there is not a replacement. The reasons people believe in any philosophy and how the apply them does not go away when one concludes some story they were told is false.

Again there is no need to replace religion with anything else. I know that must be hard for you to understand? See if you have no religion you have no religious philosophies. If you are a theist you may have a personal belief system that molded itself through your biases. Or just anyone without a religion might have some type of personal belief system, but the thing is not everyone has a personal belief system. An example would be children. Sure they might be developing one but they do not really have one yet. Another example would be people who just do not care enough about such things.

It seems to me that you assume that everyone has the same needs as yourself.

I would also note, that when your definition of God is on the same level as a fairy. Your setting yourself up to not develop much secular language to discuss spiritual topics. I happen to think there is a lot more wisdom there worth taking out of historic reference and into more modern vernacular, including ways to communicate to audiences that do not have a belief in God or the supernatural.

I have no definition for gods, since there is no coherent definition for gods as a real thing, instead of as the made thing that religions and theists use. And I have no need to discuss anything spiritual since the only place the it arrives from is the imagination.

Religion and everything that it teaches or has taught originated within the human mind/brain. Things like morals and ethics existed before religion and has no problem existing without religious beliefs. I do not kill people because it is wrong. The reason that I think that it is wrong to kill people is called empathy. In other words I have empathy because I have a right supramarginal gyrus and I never needed any philosophy to obtain empathy or compassion since that is the part of the brain that provides it.

 

[tosca1]

What is it that so fascinates believers about non-believers ? Non-believers simply do not share the same beliefs.

I suppose you know nothing about Christianity. Let me explain.
Christians are expected to spread the Gospel. That's the Great Commission.
We're simply doing what we're supposed to do.

Matthew 28

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”


Therefore, it's not surprising to see Christians "fascinated" with non-believers.
If we're to make believers of all nations, non-believers are naturally whom we're supposed
to reach out to, right?

What is it that still, here and elsewhere that believers come to comment, criticize, create their own theories

on the subject of religion in addition the theories about non-believers ?

Why does it matter to believers ? Why is it you feel you need any theories at all ?

Apologetics. They're practicing apologetics.

Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse.[1][2][3]

Early Christian writers (c. 120–220) who defended their beliefs against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called Christian apologists.[4] In 21st-century usage, apologetics is often identified with debates over religion and theology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics



Apologetics usually goes hand-in-hand with spreading the Gospel.
You have to be able to answer tough questions, and defend your faith when it's being criticized or attacked.

What do you hope to accomplish ?

For me, it's hardly the posters I'm debating with that concerns me most.
It's the silent viewers - or anyone who might be seriously seeking spirituality (truth), and, fellow-Christians struggling with their faith.

I'm also trying to give support to other Christians who frequent forums/discussions - involved in
debates - in their quest to spread the Word.

 

[Conaeolos]

Again there is no need to replace religion with anything else. I know that must be hard for you to understand? See if you have no religion you have no religious philosophies.

Yeah I know they would have secular(non-relgious) philosophies. Generally you don't replace something with exactly what you're talking about replacing.

If you are a theist you may have a personal belief system that molded itself through your biases. Or just anyone without a religion might have some type of personal belief system, but the thing is not everyone has a personal belief system. An example would be children. Sure they might be developing one but they do not really have one yet. Another example would be people who just do not care enough about such things.

Both children and people who choose not to identify their philosophies still have fully functioning belief systems and psychodynamics from those beliefs. There is no one who is not in your "developing" phase except by some arbitrary measure. We agree there is a distinction between religious and secular. Let's stick to one thing at a time.

We can also both agree psychologically speaking, there is a reason some choose to embrace religion and others do not. From that commonality it's fair to disagree if the more common religious is replaced by the less common disbelief or as you clearly think natural disbelief is being being replaced with religious thinking.

May I suggest, instead of getting worked up on that disagreement which amounts to what came first the chicken or the egg[obviously the egg]. You simply reverse my cause and effect and read it your way?

If you'd like to argue and dicuss why I think religious is the default. A simplified explanation can be found in the "Atheism" thread by Logician Man Post #10 and we can continue in that thread.

I have no definition for gods, since there is no coherent definition for gods as a real thing, instead of as the made thing that religions and theists use. And I have no need to discuss anything spiritual since the only place the it arrives from is the imagination.

Okay? Historic wisdom is still captured up in those religious references and stories. So by treating gods as intentionally fictious rather than exploring secular natural alternatives you limit yourself in discussions about the philosophical and moral debates that go back countless generations.

Forget the bible etc. Many historic and even some current writing have spiritual references. We can talk emotional "vampires" without believing in vampires. You don't think spiritual conversations that dominated the discussion for years holds a relevant aspects to the human experience?

Religion and everything that it teaches or has taught originated within the human mind/brain. Things like morals and ethics existed before religion and has no problem existing without religious beliefs. I do not kill people because it is wrong. The reason that I think that it is wrong to kill people is called empathy. In other words I have empathy because I have a right supramarginal gyrus and I never needed any philosophy to obtain empathy or compassion since that is the part of the brain that provides it.

empathy? LOL That says more about what you think of 'murders' than what motivates you to not murder. Which is ironic considering the meaning of empathy.

We more likely do not murder since we live in a moral society or maybe we do in fact have the personal code / self image / personality which would prevent us outside that. Doesn't really matter - I doubt it will come up in our lifetime. The reality is even though of course one can be moral without being spiritual. The discussions of morality are often wrapped up in that language and if you want to learn and dicuss it you need to be able to read and understand references within your own secular frame of reference.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Yeah I know they would have secular(non-relgious) philosophies. Generally you don't replace something with exactly what you're talking about replacing.


Both children and people who choose not to identify their philosophies still have fully functioning belief systems and psychodynamics from those beliefs. There is no one who is not in your "developing" phase except by some arbitrary measure. We agree there is a distinction between religious and secular. Let's stick to one thing at a time.

We can also both agree psychologically speaking, there is a reason some choose to embrace religion and others do not. From that commonality it's fair to disagree if the more common religious is replaced by the less common disbelief or as you clearly think natural disbelief is being being replaced with religious thinking.

May I suggest, instead of getting worked up on that disagreement which amounts to what came first the chicken or the egg[obviously the egg]. You simply reverse my cause and effect and read it your way?

If you'd like to argue and dicuss why I think religious is the default. A simplified explanation can be found in the "Atheism" thread by Logician Man Post #10 and we can continue in that thread.


Okay? Historic wisdom is still captured up in those religious references and stories. So by treating gods as intentionally fictious rather than exploring secular natural alternatives you limit yourself in discussions about the philosophical and moral debates that go back countless generations.

Forget the bible etc. Many historic and even some current writing have spiritual references. We can talk emotional "vampires" without believing in vampires. You don't think spiritual conversations that dominated the discussion for years holds a relevant aspects to the human experience?


empathy? LOL That says more about what you think of 'murders' than what motivates you to not murder. Which is ironic considering the meaning of empathy.

We more likely do not murder since we live in a moral society or maybe we do in fact have the personal code / self image / personality which would prevent us outside that. Doesn't really matter - I doubt it will come up in our lifetime. The reality is even though of course one can be moral without being spiritual. The discussions of morality are often wrapped up in that language and if you want to learn and dicuss it you need to be able to read and understand references within your own secular frame of reference.

Personally I view belief systems as nothing more than personal excuses for personal behavior. Add to that the belief in a belief system is really just the lack of understanding about how the human brain works.

I would say more but our conversation is actually derailing this thread, so if you want to discuss this further make a thread.

 

[Pedestrian]

I suppose you know nothing about Christianity. Let me explain.
Christians are expected to spread the Gospel. That's the Great Commission.
We're simply doing what we're supposed to do.

Matthew 28

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”


Therefore, it's not surprising to see Christians "fascinated" with non-believers.
If we're to make believers of all nations, non-believers are naturally whom we're supposed
to reach out to, right?







Apologetics. They're practicing apologetics.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics



Apologetics usually goes hand-in-hand with spreading the Gospel.
You have to be able to answer tough questions, and defend your faith when it's being criticized or attacked.







For me, it's hardly the posters I'm debating with that concerns me most.
It's the silent viewers - or anyone who might be seriously seeking spirituality (truth), and, fellow-Christians struggling with their faith.

I'm also trying to give support to other Christians who frequent forums/discussions - involved in
debates - in their quest to spread the Word.

Sure, I understand. However, that's where I think your faith attempts to overstep my choice in having none.

If one wishes to call [it] this: the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse

That systematic argumentation and discourse still relies only upon your faith, like arguing for others to have the same personality,

based on your faith in it or for others to share all of the same feelings simply because your faith in them and not just your religious faith.

 

[tosca1]

Sure, I understand. However, that's where I think your faith attempts to overstep my choice in having none.

A gun pointed to your head?

You tied down in any way?

Someone twisting your arm to listen? To read?

 

[tosca1]

If one wishes to call [it] this: the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse

That systematic argumentation and discourse still relies only upon your faith, like arguing for others to have the same personality,
based on your faith in it or for others to share all of the same feelings simply because your faith in them and not just your religious faith.

Well, no......Christianity's argumentation in debates does not rely solely on faith.
It relies heavily on critical thinking (logic).



I don't understand this last part of your statement.


".....or for others to share all of the same feelings simply because your faith in them and not just your religious faith."