First off, I'm not going to bother copying anything you or I said and directly responding to any point. I was tired and labored down the path of a truely pointless gun/religion analogy. I don't know how to adaquately express my feelings in that arena, I failed there, but there's something I've got... I just can't figure out how to relate it.
I was trying to take two things that I don't have a problem with people having (religion and guns) that can also be used innapropriately and cause harm.
I'm a big beleiver in checks/balances to things in life (that is my slight bit of Libertarian peeking through). For example, I think people should be issued "drive fast" stickers where they are permitted to operate vehicles on certain roads at really high rates of speed (like 100mph). But, they have to pay extremely high insurance rates, and their cars should be equipped with black boxes recording their vehicle information that can be used against them following an accident.
I wish there was a checks/balances way to try to keep religion in line as I think it goes un-checked way too often in our society. It is too easily accepted for what it is. The attitude of "Yeah, you're right, it is flawed, but what are you gonna do, it's been like this for forever and won't change." I cry foul to that. Years of being wrong doesn't now make that the new correct.
That is a truly great line. Freaking awesome! Mind if I use it?
Not at all. I don't have a patent on it. In fact I think I heard it a while ago from someone else, but their use of it was fumbling at best. I polished it up a little. Maybe I'll read it again in a few years with an even better description.
I'm glad to hear from an atheist who isn't just interested in getting everyone to think just like them. I know that's a generalization and I'm sure it doesn't apply to a lot of people, but it does seem to be what I encounter most here on/.
You're more than welcome in my journal where I try to get interesting discussion topics. If you're interested you could write something for it. I never say what I put there is "right" or "wrong" but I try to get a conversation started. But, the journal attracks all kinds of folk: good mannered atheists, militant atheists, and even our resident christian troll makes his posts regularly, too.
..this one is sadly based on not a particularly strong argument, I am afraid.
I'm afraid it was a quote from the popular animated TV show called "The Simpsons" and repeated entirely in jest.
More precisely, the question whether I want to hear about someone thinking of me while praying depands almost entirely on the subject, reason and purpose of said prayer, while with the masturbation it is almost entirely dependent on the person doing it, the reason and purpose is usually the same, the subject notwithstanding.
But I think that prayer is also entirely dependent on the person doing it. Some people pray for their sports team to do well, while others pray for the competing team. It is entirely a personal decision to pray and what to pray for.
If someone just tells me she prays for me because she likes me, I might be very happy with it, like if one would say she thinks a lot about me. It might be a manifestation of feelings and emotions, or even some dependence or submission.
I guess what we're saying is that there are varying degrees of vulgarity with individual levels of acceptance. I think that prayer is like masturbation in that there are levels. As you say there is praying for health and simply prayer due to liking someone. I say there is masturbation simply due to physical attractiveness and there is obsessing, stalking, fantasising about whips/chains/beasteality with a dose of scat fetish thrown in. Clearly there are more offensive actions here. But, simply because a one action is greatly over shadowed by another one that is arguably more offsenive does not make that simplier one entirely acceptable.
For that reason I wonder whether your analogy, while certainly interesting and intellectually entertaining, might indeed need some better introduction and further explanation, for it might seem weak for some people with similar experience as mine.
I think that to labor on with introductions and contorted setups reduces the meaning of an analogy. To equate the two intially, with no other bias or setup, and then continue on a discussion that links the two several times builds a case for something. Pointing out a possible flaw, as you are doing here, furthers the discussion, and perhaps strengthens the analogy. But to be required to list many facets of several things before ever getting to an analogy reduces interest because it makes things needlessly complicated.
I think that the majority of people haven't given this analogy half the thought you and I have. To point out tiny details to them is boring and pointless. But, this does not mean they should be ignored, that is specifically why I am replying to you.
If anything I find my analogy to the bus terminal thing to have more interesting holes that I'd like to fill. For example, I can't equate the truely evil wackos in society that misuse religion to their own evil ways with the hapless crazy people at a bus terminal.
For example, there is talk right now on the news about a priest who molested a child and told the child that "God didn't want him talking about it." This is clearly using religion as a weapon in the furtherence of a personal goal. I can't think of how a person at a bus terminal can do anything even remotely like that.
Maybe I'm taking the bus terminal analogy "too far" with this area, but then again, have I taken it any further than your analysis of masturbation as related to prayer?
To say that there is a perfect direct analogy to anything that entirely encompasses all relative issues is a bold statement, and often impossible to support after long analysis. However, to say that two things, at their base, work in similar ways can be useful to show people that "Hey, you know, that is I guess how others may see it." That is my goal with the masturbation/prayer analogy. Often people who pray feel that what they are doing is entirely good and never offensive to anyone. They often are incapable of seeing how anyon
Agnosticism is the belief that something is out there, but no one knows what.
No, agnosticism is the belief that if there is or is not a god is undecidable. You can beleif there is a god feel that to attempt to prove so is futile. You are content that your beleif is your own. Similarly, one can bleive there is no god and to feel that to attempt to disprove the existance of a god is similarly silly.
It doesn't waste *your* time.
My issue with prayer is not a "time waste" issue. It is an arrogance and insult issue. Individual prayer is quite reasonable if it makes the pray-er happy. Without being too crude, prayer is a lot like masturbation. I'm fine if you do it and if it makes you feel better, just don't tell me about it, ask to include me, tell me you were thinking of me at the time, or insist that I do it, too. Also, don't ask for an officially recognized holiday to do it. Any or all of those are just a little creepy. Furthermore, doing it a lot seems to me to be a little unhealthy, but that's just my take on things.
When I hear, "I'll pray for you!" I want to tell the person that when I get home I'm going to masterbate while thinkiing about them. I wonder if they would find that creepy. I swear, masturbation really will help one of us feel better!
I basically have no problem with the existance of a religion. Similarly, I have no problem with the existance of guns. I do have a problem when they are used as a tool to hurt people. Religion can and does get used as a tool to manipulate people. This manipulation can only happen when there are multiple followers and thus we get organized religion.
But, I don't think we should let religion go unchecked simply because it might be good for some people and maybe be bad sometimes. Religion is like guns, people should be allowed to have one (or more) or not, and I think they should go monitored.
Organized religion is like a bus terminal. For many it provides a needed guidance on the road of life, yet for some reason it attracks all of the weirdos from society.
These people would be weird if they had a bus terminal or a religion or not. But, because these places attrack and sometimes horbor these weirdos perhaps they should be routinely checked by law enforcement. I see cops patrolling bums at the bus terminal, but everyone is shocked that the church covers up some sex abuse scandal. Maybe if the church was more closely monitored this wouldn't have gone as unchecked.
If you're not concerned about criminal issues when buying a gun your religion shouldn't be worried about the occasional shake down. When someone doesn't want to have a background check for a gun doesn't that make you a little suspicious?
No, I am not suggesting a police state whever everyone is always monitored in an Orwellean style. But the church exists tax-free, owns more land than anyone else, and weilds gigantic power. I just think something of that size should perhaps be investigated routinly, religion or not.
Yes, we do need seperate of church and state, but that means endorsement of a religion by the state. Investigating the hirarchy and rules of all religions in the state doesn't promote any of them. But, I'm just rambling here. You and I are probably in a lot of agreement about a lot of things.
These aren't "Christian views" you speak of. They are just your views. If you are a man, does that make what you say "male views" ? How about your ethnic background, does that make what you say an "ethnic view"? You say they are "Christian views" simply because they are about prayer, which is something related to Christianity, but they are entirely your views.
Unless your God himself told you this was what you were to do, if he is speaking to you personally, then these would be the views of your God. Otherwise they are your views about what you think is good/bad/just in relation to your faith. Don't promote your views to be those of an entire group for which I do not think you are a representative.
Now, as to the concept of payer, individual prayer is quite reasonable if it makes the pray-er happy. Without being too crude, prayer is a lot like masturbation. I'm fine if you do it and if it makes you feel better, just don't tell me about it, ask to include me, tell me you were thinking of me at the time, or insist that I do it, too. Also, don't ask for an officially recognized holiday to do it. Any or all of those are just a little creepy. Furthermore, doing it a lot seems to me to be a little unhealthy, but that's just my take on things.
It isn't another way of saying that at all. It means they are going to pray. If they were simply stating their support then state that alone, don't make it out to be something it isn't.
You know, individual prayer is quite reasonable if it makes the pray-er happy. Without being too crude, prayer is a lot like masturbation. I'm fine if you do it and if it makes you feel better, just don't tell me about it, ask to include me, tell me you were thinking of me at the time, or insist that I do it, too. Also, don't ask for an officially recognized holiday to do it. Any or all of those are just a little creepy. Furthermore, doing it a lot seems to me to be a little unhealthy, but that's just my take on things.
virtues of their religion (as perceived by [them]) would never force or encourage conversion
This seems to be a "eye of the beholder" argument. You seem to be claiming that people who interpret the religion on their own would never do certain things. How do you know what anyone makes as a personal decision as to their interpretation of something?
I don't believe it is possible not to have a system of belief. The great philosophers Rush said "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.["] I classify agnosticism as a belief system.
This is the same as saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Hey fundies: maybe Bush is the anti-Christ. Have you thought of that?
From the attitude I get around here apparently athism equates to anti-Christian. From my understanding of anti-Something wouldn't one have to have a basis in anti-Christian to be an/the anti-Christ.
For the record, I'm a Christian and I go to a church that meets in a plain building.
Okay.. I'm with you so far. Especially that some (not all, probably not even a majority over the course of the history of the world) religious establishments have abused their power.
They have built a gym and they have inner-city kids come play in it, they have a food pantry to feed the homeless, they openly ask in church for people to take food to elderly or to mow their grass or fix their roofs.
Why do you say this? What difference does this make? Why do you try to impress people that you are so good? Do you think this un-does years of torment and misuse of the church? Wouldn't living closer to God (an act you propose being good) mean being humble?
While I think that some religions have done some bad things to people over time as whole they aren't bad all the time.
Organized religion is sort of like an inner city bus terminal. For some it provides guidance. Others choose to not use it. Yet it always seems to attract all of the weirdos from society.
In a world without religion people would still be hateful and biggoted, yet they couldn't hide behind religion any more for their reason. People choose to be hateful. Yes, sometimes some of these people use religion as a tool to perhaps inspire fervor from followers, but coersion and other tools work just as well and would probably rise to replace religion for those means.
IE on a 900mhz computer handled it just peachy as well.
Re:That is what is worrying about fundamentalists.
on
SimChurch
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Ah, but I argue that atheism is not a religion.
It is instead, the null set.
Consider this programming analogy:
Religion religion; religion = new Religion("Javaism"); religion = null;// atheism
Still, if one were to consider atheism an instance of religion, then it's one that predates all others and that will remain strong when the current majors are reduced to an obscure entry in Wikipedia.
If we ever encounter alien sentients likewise infected with religion, the only thing we'll have in common will be atheism.
Humans are born atheist and then forced to convert by their legal wards.
Re:That is what is worrying about fundamentalists.
on
SimChurch
·
· Score: 1
Help me out. I can't figure out if you are an atheist or not.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, I'm not going to bother copying anything you or I said and directly responding to any point. I was tired and labored down the path of a truely pointless gun/religion analogy. I don't know how to adaquately express my feelings in that arena, I failed there, but there's something I've got... I just can't figure out how to relate it.
/.
I was trying to take two things that I don't have a problem with people having (religion and guns) that can also be used innapropriately and cause harm.
I'm a big beleiver in checks/balances to things in life (that is my slight bit of Libertarian peeking through). For example, I think people should be issued "drive fast" stickers where they are permitted to operate vehicles on certain roads at really high rates of speed (like 100mph). But, they have to pay extremely high insurance rates, and their cars should be equipped with black boxes recording their vehicle information that can be used against them following an accident.
I wish there was a checks/balances way to try to keep religion in line as I think it goes un-checked way too often in our society. It is too easily accepted for what it is. The attitude of "Yeah, you're right, it is flawed, but what are you gonna do, it's been like this for forever and won't change." I cry foul to that. Years of being wrong doesn't now make that the new correct.
That is a truly great line. Freaking awesome! Mind if I use it?
Not at all. I don't have a patent on it. In fact I think I heard it a while ago from someone else, but their use of it was fumbling at best. I polished it up a little. Maybe I'll read it again in a few years with an even better description.
I'm glad to hear from an atheist who isn't just interested in getting everyone to think just like them. I know that's a generalization and I'm sure it doesn't apply to a lot of people, but it does seem to be what I encounter most here on
You're more than welcome in my journal where I try to get interesting discussion topics. If you're interested you could write something for it. I never say what I put there is "right" or "wrong" but I try to get a conversation started. But, the journal attracks all kinds of folk: good mannered atheists, militant atheists, and even our resident christian troll makes his posts regularly, too.
..this one is sadly based on not a particularly strong argument, I am afraid.
I'm afraid it was a quote from the popular animated TV show called "The Simpsons" and repeated entirely in jest.
More precisely, the question whether I want to hear about someone thinking of me while praying depands almost entirely on the subject, reason and purpose of said prayer, while with the masturbation it is almost entirely dependent on the person doing it, the reason and purpose is usually the same, the subject notwithstanding.
But I think that prayer is also entirely dependent on the person doing it. Some people pray for their sports team to do well, while others pray for the competing team. It is entirely a personal decision to pray and what to pray for.
If someone just tells me she prays for me because she likes me, I might be very happy with it, like if one would say she thinks a lot about me. It might be a manifestation of feelings and emotions, or even some dependence or submission.
I guess what we're saying is that there are varying degrees of vulgarity with individual levels of acceptance. I think that prayer is like masturbation in that there are levels. As you say there is praying for health and simply prayer due to liking someone. I say there is masturbation simply due to physical attractiveness and there is obsessing, stalking, fantasising about whips/chains/beasteality with a dose of scat fetish thrown in. Clearly there are more offensive actions here. But, simply because a one action is greatly over shadowed by another one that is arguably more offsenive does not make that simplier one entirely acceptable.
For that reason I wonder whether your analogy, while certainly interesting and intellectually entertaining, might indeed need some better introduction and further explanation, for it might seem weak for some people with similar experience as mine.
I think that to labor on with introductions and contorted setups reduces the meaning of an analogy. To equate the two intially, with no other bias or setup, and then continue on a discussion that links the two several times builds a case for something. Pointing out a possible flaw, as you are doing here, furthers the discussion, and perhaps strengthens the analogy. But to be required to list many facets of several things before ever getting to an analogy reduces interest because it makes things needlessly complicated.
I think that the majority of people haven't given this analogy half the thought you and I have. To point out tiny details to them is boring and pointless. But, this does not mean they should be ignored, that is specifically why I am replying to you.
If anything I find my analogy to the bus terminal thing to have more interesting holes that I'd like to fill. For example, I can't equate the truely evil wackos in society that misuse religion to their own evil ways with the hapless crazy people at a bus terminal.
For example, there is talk right now on the news about a priest who molested a child and told the child that "God didn't want him talking about it." This is clearly using religion as a weapon in the furtherence of a personal goal. I can't think of how a person at a bus terminal can do anything even remotely like that.
Maybe I'm taking the bus terminal analogy "too far" with this area, but then again, have I taken it any further than your analysis of masturbation as related to prayer?
To say that there is a perfect direct analogy to anything that entirely encompasses all relative issues is a bold statement, and often impossible to support after long analysis. However, to say that two things, at their base, work in similar ways can be useful to show people that "Hey, you know, that is I guess how others may see it." That is my goal with the masturbation/prayer analogy. Often people who pray feel that what they are doing is entirely good and never offensive to anyone. They often are incapable of seeing how anyon
You might not acknowledge the power of belief, but billions of people throughout history disagree with you.
If they are so smart, how come most of them are dead?
Agnosticism is the belief that something is out there, but no one knows what.
No, agnosticism is the belief that if there is or is not a god is undecidable. You can beleif there is a god feel that to attempt to prove so is futile. You are content that your beleif is your own. Similarly, one can bleive there is no god and to feel that to attempt to disprove the existance of a god is similarly silly.
It doesn't waste *your* time.
My issue with prayer is not a "time waste" issue. It is an arrogance and insult issue. Individual prayer is quite reasonable if it makes the pray-er happy. Without being too crude, prayer is a lot like masturbation. I'm fine if you do it and if it makes you feel better, just don't tell me about it, ask to include me, tell me you were thinking of me at the time, or insist that I do it, too. Also, don't ask for an officially recognized holiday to do it. Any or all of those are just a little creepy. Furthermore, doing it a lot seems to me to be a little unhealthy, but that's just my take on things.
When I hear, "I'll pray for you!" I want to tell the person that when I get home I'm going to masterbate while thinkiing about them. I wonder if they would find that creepy. I swear, masturbation really will help one of us feel better!
For the most part I agree with you.
I basically have no problem with the existance of a religion. Similarly, I have no problem with the existance of guns. I do have a problem when they are used as a tool to hurt people. Religion can and does get used as a tool to manipulate people. This manipulation can only happen when there are multiple followers and thus we get organized religion.
But, I don't think we should let religion go unchecked simply because it might be good for some people and maybe be bad sometimes. Religion is like guns, people should be allowed to have one (or more) or not, and I think they should go monitored.
Organized religion is like a bus terminal. For many it provides a needed guidance on the road of life, yet for some reason it attracks all of the weirdos from society.
These people would be weird if they had a bus terminal or a religion or not. But, because these places attrack and sometimes horbor these weirdos perhaps they should be routinely checked by law enforcement. I see cops patrolling bums at the bus terminal, but everyone is shocked that the church covers up some sex abuse scandal. Maybe if the church was more closely monitored this wouldn't have gone as unchecked.
If you're not concerned about criminal issues when buying a gun your religion shouldn't be worried about the occasional shake down. When someone doesn't want to have a background check for a gun doesn't that make you a little suspicious?
No, I am not suggesting a police state whever everyone is always monitored in an Orwellean style. But the church exists tax-free, owns more land than anyone else, and weilds gigantic power. I just think something of that size should perhaps be investigated routinly, religion or not.
Yes, we do need seperate of church and state, but that means endorsement of a religion by the state. Investigating the hirarchy and rules of all religions in the state doesn't promote any of them. But, I'm just rambling here. You and I are probably in a lot of agreement about a lot of things.
Then there's the fine line between not believing in god, and believing there is no god... Topic for another day though, methinks.
That sort of topic is discussed regularly in my journal many days!
These aren't "Christian views" you speak of. They are just your views. If you are a man, does that make what you say "male views" ? How about your ethnic background, does that make what you say an "ethnic view"? You say they are "Christian views" simply because they are about prayer, which is something related to Christianity, but they are entirely your views.
Unless your God himself told you this was what you were to do, if he is speaking to you personally, then these would be the views of your God. Otherwise they are your views about what you think is good/bad/just in relation to your faith. Don't promote your views to be those of an entire group for which I do not think you are a representative.
Now, as to the concept of payer, individual prayer is quite reasonable if it makes the pray-er happy. Without being too crude, prayer is a lot like masturbation. I'm fine if you do it and if it makes you feel better, just don't tell me about it, ask to include me, tell me you were thinking of me at the time, or insist that I do it, too. Also, don't ask for an officially recognized holiday to do it. Any or all of those are just a little creepy. Furthermore, doing it a lot seems to me to be a little unhealthy, but that's just my take on things.
It isn't another way of saying that at all. It means they are going to pray. If they were simply stating their support then state that alone, don't make it out to be something it isn't.
You know, individual prayer is quite reasonable if it makes the pray-er happy. Without being too crude, prayer is a lot like masturbation. I'm fine if you do it and if it makes you feel better, just don't tell me about it, ask to include me, tell me you were thinking of me at the time, or insist that I do it, too. Also, don't ask for an officially recognized holiday to do it. Any or all of those are just a little creepy. Furthermore, doing it a lot seems to me to be a little unhealthy, but that's just my take on things.
I am an atheist
Well, that interests me... but I'm completely confused.
That is a perversion of the religion since nowhere iit[sic] is demanded to gain access to Paradise.
I disagree with you
virtues of their religion (as perceived by [them]) would never force or encourage conversion
This seems to be a "eye of the beholder" argument. You seem to be claiming that people who interpret the religion on their own would never do certain things. How do you know what anyone makes as a personal decision as to their interpretation of something?
I don't believe it is possible not to have a system of belief. The great philosophers Rush said "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.["] I classify agnosticism as a belief system.
This is the same as saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
You can't do that with a sphere no matter how far away you are.
You forget the use of the holy mirror!
You're both wrong. My cat created your cat months ago.
Hey fundies: maybe Bush is the anti-Christ. Have you thought of that?
From the attitude I get around here apparently athism equates to anti-Christian. From my understanding of anti-Something wouldn't one have to have a basis in anti-Christian to be an/the anti-Christ.
Oh no, maybe it's me!
For the record, I'm a Christian and I go to a church that meets in a plain building.
Okay.. I'm with you so far. Especially that some (not all, probably not even a majority over the course of the history of the world) religious establishments have abused their power.
They have built a gym and they have inner-city kids come play in it, they have a food pantry to feed the homeless, they openly ask in church for people to take food to elderly or to mow their grass or fix their roofs.
Why do you say this? What difference does this make? Why do you try to impress people that you are so good? Do you think this un-does years of torment and misuse of the church? Wouldn't living closer to God (an act you propose being good) mean being humble?
While I think that some religions have done some bad things to people over time as whole they aren't bad all the time.
Organized religion is sort of like an inner city bus terminal. For some it provides guidance. Others choose to not use it. Yet it always seems to attract all of the weirdos from society.
In a world without religion people would still be hateful and biggoted, yet they couldn't hide behind religion any more for their reason. People choose to be hateful. Yes, sometimes some of these people use religion as a tool to perhaps inspire fervor from followers, but coersion and other tools work just as well and would probably rise to replace religion for those means.
IE on a 900mhz computer handled it just peachy as well.
Ah, but I argue that atheism is not a religion.
// atheism
It is instead, the null set.
Consider this programming analogy:
Religion religion;
religion = new Religion("Javaism");
religion = null;
Still, if one were to consider atheism an instance of religion, then it's one that predates all others and that will remain strong when the current majors are reduced to an obscure entry in Wikipedia.
If we ever encounter alien sentients likewise infected with religion, the only thing we'll have in common will be atheism.
Humans are born atheist and then forced to convert by their legal wards.
Help me out. I can't figure out if you are an atheist or not.