Re: OP -
Whether or not you can co-exist as mates depends somewhat on your personalities, how "core" your beliefs are, and how much you can both compromise or agree-to-disagree. Personally, I've don't recommend the agree-to-disagree route, I've seen numerous couples break up/divorce because they couldn't keep that up. Then again, I'm an atheist, and my wife is Mormon, and we're almost to our ten year anniversary.
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw![]()
What do you expect? It's freaking Satan: misrepresentations, word twisting, fallacious reasoning, and outright lying, while including some painful truths, are his MO.
[[quoteblock[[And nobody is going to be happier by engaging in spiritual abstinence than they are from any other form of abstinence. [[/quoteblock]] Most people engage in LSD, heroin, polyamoury and rollerblade abstinence and are generally quite happy about it.
edited 29th Dec '10 11:18:06 PM by RawPower
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?Devil, but No God is a fallacy, dude.
EDIT, not you, Loni. Raw Power up here, Cleric of Atheism.
edited 29th Dec '10 11:12:25 PM by Diamonnes
My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.
x4 Next May will be six years since my parents have been married. My father's a Christian, but my mother is a atheist.
edited 29th Dec '10 11:17:14 PM by rmctagg09
Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.![]()
![]()
Whoever spoke of Devil, but No God? I am more of a If Jesus, Then Aliens guy. And, in case you couldn't tell, I was talking about the fictional character Satan, as represented since Faust came out, rather than the moron it used to be back in the Middle Ages.
edited 29th Dec '10 11:21:19 PM by RawPower
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?You're right, some truths and opinions I should keep to myself, expressing them is counterproductive. Funnily enough, back when I was a theist I thought the same: "those guys are being jerkasses for the sake of being jerkasses". It's not true. Compare and contrast with "Jesus loves you", said to a non-believer.
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?That's not, in my opinion, the same thing. Being blessed by a religion you don't share isn't offensive - if someone were to wish me Happy Hanukkah, or some similar sort of blessing from the pagan religions, I wouldn't mind.
If believers were to go around saying "Oh Jesus, forgive this poor stupid atheist, he doesn't know what he's doing. It's kind of cute, really" that would be offensive.
Be not afraid...I guess it's a matter of tone, really, but most of the time I heard that it felt more like the latter than the former.
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?@Raw Power:
(I snipped the parts which discuss other religious traditions, feel free to correct me if by doing this I twisted your intended meaning somehow)
And as for holding oneself to impossible standards of behaviour, well, that's something I thought a TTGL fan would rather appreciate ;-)
Really, an anecdotal means little in the case. Spirituality, for many people I know, after escaping from many Christians, is fullfilling, in ways I longed for my entire childhood. And one of the great things that I enjoy in life that make me enjoy it and look forward to it continuing on.
This is very true.
(I am an atheist on rational skeptic grounds.)
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.As fictional characters, that is my Alternate Character Interpretation of them. Even if they were benevolent, I would still classify them as fictional and not believe in them. It just happens that I find most of them unworthy of worship, either because they are Jerkass, evil, negligent, but mostly because they are simply useless, and if I was forced to pray to a fictional character, I'd consider Superman to be a better god than the lot of them, in moral terms.
Carfocious: you had already mentioned those points in the other threads, and I think the implications of what you say and the literal words I say are one and the same. In other words, in my mind, what you are doing is just paraphrasing: I really cannot tell the difference.
Also, as for Gurren Lagann, Touché. But it doesn't say that you'll go to hell for not doing the impossible, nor that you automatically require forgiveness for not doing something that can't be done. I'll keep Original!Garterbelt's posture on this.
beginning at 4:00
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?"Ancient cultures did not worship idols. Their god-statues represented ideal states which, when meditated constantly upon, one might aspire to. Science proves there never was a mermaid, blue-skinned Krishna or a virgin birth in physical reality. Yet thought is real, and the domain of thought is the one place where gods inarguably exist, wielding tremendous power. If Aphrodite were a myth and Love only a concept, then would that negate the crimes and kindnesses and songs done in Love's name? If Christ were only ever fiction, a divine Idea, would this invalidate the social change inspired by that idea, make holy wars less terrible, or human betterment less real, less sacred?"
The man who wrote that now worships a snake puppet.
Machines were mice and men were lions once upon a time, but now that it's the opposite it's twice upon a time. - MoondogThey don't need to. For instance Jews don't believe in hell, but the orthodox ones believe the justification for Mosaic Law is itself. In Greek mythology, everyone goes to Hades, but that doesn't mean piousness wasn't vitally important. In fact, Socrates got executed because of it.
![]()
... If you don't want to defend neo-paganism from atheism, then fine. However, if both of you were atheists, or unitarian, you could go along nicely. However, if both of you truly enjoy each of your faiths, are entirely satisfied with them, and would not change them for anything, then by all means please do, you are free to do it, it's your right. I still think it's useless fluff we can do without, and that science does hold the answers on happiness and the rest, because it will tell you the truth about what works and what doesn't, about how pain and pleasure work, about how to optimize one and minimize the other. Science is the tool of the truthseeker. Science gets you results. And the world seen through the prism of Science, if you have the right mindset, is way, waaay more awesome than any gods or supernatural contraptions. Everything is consistent, everything makes sense, everything has its place. Scientism will not reduce your Sense of Wonder at the Real World.
And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the insanity issue. To me, sane = in tune with the material, physical, observable, measurable world we all share. A person who marries a pillow has serious issues. When I say they need help, I mean need they need help in teaching them how to deal with people and be socially successful. But when you are needy and weak and isolated, no-one will help you. Unless you pay them, and even then they are more interested in you still paying them and getting addicted to the sessions than in you getting cured.
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?I am sick of this attitude that either Religion or Science is the One True Way(tm) and you must pick one 'side' or the other. It isn't like that. I consider myself a woman of science, and science is indeed wonderful. But that does not mean that I have to give up my belief in spiritual things.
Science alone does not give you happiness. Things like safety, a purpose in life, a sense of wonder, self-respect, friendship, love - those will give you happiness, and you cannot science your way to those. Not without something else that is far too complicated for us to measure and modify to our heart's content. Some people find religion helpful in achieving these things, so who are you to say that it's useless?
edited 30th Dec '10 3:02:17 AM by LoniJay
Be not afraid...I'm an atheist primarily for philosophical rather than scientific reasons (not cause I'm rubbish at science or anything). Call me a Wide-Eyed Idealist, but I believe in the the human spirit. I think it is because of that I find the concept of Original Sin so insulting and repugnant.
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.A Humanist, eh? Enlightenment 4 evar, gimme five!
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?Considering that religion is not really keen to have itself examined or peer reviewed I can kind of see where the divide is coming from.The problem is that Religion frequently defies attempts to analyse it or even (in some cases) question it, because its "blasphemy" or "unkind" to talk about it.
And humans are different, but in general being nice to them, being willing to listen and helping out can all be precursours to love and friendship, ofc THEN you have to tailor it to the person using the avaliable data. And I don't think self-respect ever comes into a religious discussion, it gives you something to be part of, not a reason to be.

I think you're mistaken; the Catholic version of God (or at least my particular brand of catholicism anyway) isn't like that at all. But I can see how you might think that he is.
Be not afraid...