Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Discussion/Debate on Religion & Other Closely Related Topics

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    A Discussion/Debate on Religion & Other Closely Related Topics

    As the title states, this topic is for a discussion or debate on religion, and other related topics, such as news. The previous thread to have this discussion was closed due to a lack of civility. While I don't want to set down any laws, I would simply ask that people abide by established forum rules. One may presume that this thread will be monitored closely.

    Thank you.
    If you wish to see more of my rants, diatribes, and general comments, check out my Twitter account SirRyanR!
    Check out Pharaoh Hamenthotep's wicked 3D renders here!
    If you can prove me wrong, go for it. I enjoy being proven wrong.

    sigpic
    Worship the Zefron. Always the Zefron.

    #2
    Atheist group is suing 9/11 Memorial site for Religious Cross.

    Discuss.
    If you wish to see more of my rants, diatribes, and general comments, check out my Twitter account SirRyanR!
    Check out Pharaoh Hamenthotep's wicked 3D renders here!
    If you can prove me wrong, go for it. I enjoy being proven wrong.

    sigpic
    Worship the Zefron. Always the Zefron.

    Comment


      #3
      In both RL and Internet, I have noticed that people say things like God bless you and I'll pray for you. I have been wondering if that is a cultural, not that religious thing to say (like bless you when someone sneezes), or is that, eh, real. Can someone explain this to me?

      Comment


        #4
        Well as long as this place stays an open and honest placce for honest dialogue...I'll be game...from time to time.

        And about our first little topic it boils down to this: What harm does it do? Whether Atheism is a religion or not it has to learn to accept and tolerate other viewpoints as Christians have been asked to do for a while now. A putting up a cross does not establish a religion, it does not force Atheists to believe, it does not put anyone under threat who may feel differently then Christians aboout religion. Its a cross, a symbol, a testement, an idea. A symbol for one of the most positive religions on Earth. When Christians are actively pursuing people and forcing them to convert or die then we'll talk. Until then let them have their piece of pie.

        I think its cultural but since religion is deeplyingrained in the culture people probably mean it.

        Comment


          #5
          this is a good, civilized thread

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by SoulReaver View Post
            this is a good, civilized thread
            And it will stay that way until someone takes an arrow to the knee.

            Comment


              #7
              Very few things in life are certain. Politics and religion threads degrading into bicker fests are one of these thing
              Originally posted by aretood2
              Jelgate is right

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Col.Foley View Post
                Well as long as this place stays an open and honest placce for honest dialogue...I'll be game...from time to time.

                And about our first little topic it boils down to this: What harm does it do? Whether Atheism is a religion or not it has to learn to accept and tolerate other viewpoints as Christians have been asked to do for a while now. A putting up a cross does not establish a religion, it does not force Atheists to believe, it does not put anyone under threat who may feel differently then Christians aboout religion. Its a cross, a symbol, a testement, an idea. A symbol for one of the most positive religions on Earth. When Christians are actively pursuing people and forcing them to convert or die then we'll talk. Until then let them have their piece of pie.
                Not really the point though dude. The "annoyance" is from the fact that it is the *only* icon, not so much that it there, at least, that's what I got from the article. If you have one, should you not have either all or none?
                Suing over it though, thats a bit extreme.
                sigpic
                ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
                A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
                The truth isn't the truth

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post
                  Not really the point though dude. The "annoyance" is from the fact that it is the *only* icon, not so much that it there, at least, that's what I got from the article. If you have one, should you not have either all or none?
                  Suing over it though, thats a bit extreme.
                  Well yeah to the suing part but no to the other. It is up to whoever is owning/ running the place to ultimatley decie which symbols gets put up and which do not. I mean sure it might be 'nice' to represent other religions symbolically on there and to show the collective struggles of all people's against evil, but then again there is evil in this world to be concerned about rather then...this.

                  And unless I miss my guess that is exactly what they are complaining/ suing over. They are not coming out and suggesting that Atheists or Muslims being treated unfairly so this guy should put up those symbols, they are saying that they should use the power of Government to remove this religious symbol and thus have none at all.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Col.Foley View Post
                    And about our first little topic it boils down to this: What harm does it do?
                    None, as long as other religions who wish to be represented are also allowed to do so: a crescent, a star of david, a small statue of buddha, etc.

                    Whether Atheism is a religion or not[...]
                    I'm glad you mention this. I find it a little amusing to see atheists demanding the removal of other religions' symbols (even when I sometimes agree with their demands). Atheism is a belief that cannot be proven, i.e., it must be accepted on faith. Disclosure: I'm an agnostic. Sufficient evidence simply isn't available for the existence of a supernatural god-creator-being. And no amount of evidence can prove a universal negative -- that no god exists.

                    Anyway, it brings a wry smile to my face to see people, who think of themselves as dedicated to reason and rationality, affirmatively declaring that there is no God.

                    it has to learn to accept and tolerate other viewpoints as Christians have been asked to do for a while now. A putting up a cross does not establish a religion, it does not force Atheists to believe, it does not put anyone under threat who may feel differently then Christians aboout religion. Its a cross, a symbol, a testement, an idea. A symbol for one of the most positive religions on Earth. When Christians are actively pursuing people and forcing them to convert or die then we'll talk. Until then let them have their piece of pie.
                    I think there are some debatable statements in there, but I'd rather run away from the debate than become mired in it.

                    I think its cultural but since religion is deeplyingrained in the culture people probably mean it.
                    I think most people mean it but they also don't intend it to be proselytizing. Like you said, it's deeply ingrained, and the speaker is just trying to be polite or supportive. It's hard to generalize, though. Context is key to meaning, with statements like this. Me, I tell people I'll keep them in my thoughts.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post
                      Suing over it though, thats a bit extreme.
                      There's so much injustice in the world -- so much right here in the U.S. -- I would love to see people who have that much time, money, and passion instead focus it on issues that are hurting people in material ways. I do agree that religious symbols in a public memorial should be all-or-nothing. All symbols are welcome, or none at all. Perhaps the atheists can add some symbol of their own instead of removing the cross.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Col.Foley View Post
                        Well yeah to the suing part but no to the other. It is up to whoever is owning/ running the place to ultimatley decie which symbols gets put up and which do not. I mean sure it might be 'nice' to represent other religions symbolically on there and to show the collective struggles of all people's against evil, but then again there is evil in this world to be concerned about rather then...this.
                        From what I see, the argument is "it's public land and it's being paid for with public funds therefore seperation of church and state *should* apply", thats the law in the US is it not?

                        And unless I miss my guess that is exactly what they are complaining/ suing over. They are not coming out and suggesting that Atheists or Muslims being treated unfairly so this guy should put up those symbols, they are saying that they should use the power of Government to remove this religious symbol and thus have none at all.
                        The leader of the American Athiests said that true, however the author of the peice was more talking about "if you have one shouldn't you have all. As for using the power of the government, as I asked earlier, if the law calls for seperation of church and state, then what they are really asking for is for the law to be enforced are they not?
                        sigpic
                        ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
                        A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
                        The truth isn't the truth

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Brother Freyr View Post
                          None, as long as other religions who wish to be represented are also allowed to do so: a crescent, a star of david, a small statue of buddha, etc.


                          I'm glad you mention this. I find it a little amusing to see atheists demanding the removal of other religions' symbols (even when I sometimes agree with their demands). Atheism is a belief that cannot be proven, i.e., it must be accepted on faith. Disclosure: I'm an agnostic. Sufficient evidence simply isn't available for the existence of a supernatural god-creator-being. And no amount of evidence can prove a universal negative -- that no god exists.

                          Anyway, it brings a wry smile to my face to see people, who think of themselves as dedicated to reason and rationality, affirmatively declaring that there is no God.

                          I think there are some debatable statements in there, but I'd rather run away from the debate than become mired in it.

                          I think most people mean it but they also don't intend it to be proselytizing. Like you said, it's deeply ingrained, and the speaker is just trying to be polite or supportive. It's hard to generalize, though. Context is key to meaning, with statements like this. Me, I tell people I'll keep them in my thoughts.
                          If they have the permission of the owners of the place or are on the 'board' of the owners of the place then they can put up whatever symbols they want. As an aside if this is talking about what I think its talking about then this is a unique artifact from the twin towers catastrophe and is not inherently religious...anyways.

                          Thank ya.

                          Of course it is. But as I look at history I see Christianity as being by and large a force for good. Yes they have a lot of problems but well...they have a lot of good moments.



                          Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post
                          From what I see, the argument is "it's public land and it's being paid for with public funds therefore seperation of church and state *should* apply", thats the law in the US is it not?



                          The leader of the American Athiests said that true, however the author of the peice was more talking about "if you have one shouldn't you have all. As for using the power of the government, as I asked earlier, if the law calls for seperation of church and state, then what they are really asking for is for the law to be enforced are they not?
                          Nope. Well to clarify it is not the law in the US. It might be in NY. But if Congress were to make such a law they would be in violation of the first amendment.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Brother Freyr View Post
                            There's so much injustice in the world -- so much right here in the U.S. -- I would love to see people who have that much time, money, and passion instead focus it on issues that are hurting people in material ways. I do agree that religious symbols in a public memorial should be all-or-nothing. All symbols are welcome, or none at all. Perhaps the atheists can add some symbol of their own instead of removing the cross.
                            what material things would these be? material things that fall under the realm of basic necessities are one thing......but ones that do not....superfluous possessions in and of themselves do not engender happiness, health, and vitality

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Col.Foley View Post
                              Nope. Well to clarify it is not the law in the US. It might be in NY. But if Congress were to make such a law they would be in violation of the first amendment.
                              First amendment is a non issue here isn't it? If a private citizen put up a cross or whatever and the AA sued, then I *think* that would qualify as being an infringement on the first ammendment. The point being debated is *should government funds and land be used to promote only one religion" is it not?
                              sigpic
                              ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
                              A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
                              The truth isn't the truth

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X