Something I think bares reading.

[Andara Bledin]

I didn't know you were a furry! :O

I'd have thought the anthro alicorn avatar would be something of a giveaway.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

I'd have thought the anthro alicorn avatar would be something of a giveaway.

^-.-^

I can't tell what your avatar is. :P You got a larger picture?

But I was doing some more thoughts on this.

Part of the reason it sounds like the Christians who aren't like that never speak up is that the Christians who aren't like that (for the most part) don't use the Bible as their REASON for it. They don't say (for the most part) I'm a Christian, therefore, I think homosexuals should have the same rights I do."

They don't make Christianity part of the argument, so it sounds like they're not speaking up about it.

That's just my rambling thoughts.

[Ghel]

My point was simply people don't deserve to be ridiculed just for having beliefs. Everyone deserves a basic amount of respect just for being another living being. Respect doesn't start at 0 and they have to work their way up. It should start at 50, then they can work their way up, or do shit that makes me whittle them down to 0. But I will always give them a 50 to start with till they prove they're worth more or less.

For me, that scale works slightly differently. Everybody starts at 0 (neutral) before I meet them, since I haven't formed an opinion about them. Once I meet someone and get to know them, they can go down that scale (into disrespect) or up (into respect). That person's religious beliefs is only one of many things that can move them up or down that scale. Please keep in mind that this scale only exists in my mind, and I'm not even consciously aware of it all the time.

And sure, some beliefs are pretty damn silly, but my problem is your definition of what ones are silly is too broad for the tactics you employ ( Which is to say ridicule ). Belief in a god doesn't deserve ridicule.

Depending on that person's definition of "god," it may. Still, that doesn't mean I'll laugh in that person's face when they tell me their loving god saved their loved one in a car crash when everybody else died (which I consider a ridiculous belief). I generally still behave courteously towards people even when I find their beliefs ridiculous. I still have empathy, even when they don't (for example, towards the families of the people who died in the hypothetical car crash, who their god didn't save).

Believing your god watches you masturbate and wants you to yell at homosexuals deserves ridicule. But someone that far gone isn't going to listen to reason or ridicule anyway. Though I would still use reason *before* ridicule, because I am a better person than the asshole with the sign. -.-

I realize that not every tactic will work in every situation. Also, there may be some situations where no tactic will sway the subject. But I still think that ridicule is a valid tactic in some situations. If it seems that no tactic is going to work in a particular situation, we might as well entertain ourselves by making fun of the subject's ridiculous beliefs.

Basically, I don't care what someone believes unless they're forcing that belief on others or are causing suffering to others through their beliefs. And yes, evangelicals are doing the whole belief forcing/suffering thing, but I don't hold that against every Christian I meet. Because not every Christian is like that.

Generally, I agree. I, also, don't hold evangelicals' or fundamentalists' behavior against every Christian I meet. Lots of Christians go through life without the beliefs they were brought up with having much impact on their day-to-day lives. But I'm probably not going to be able to be friends with someone who is strongly religious, no matter which religion they subscribe to.

See that's the fun part. Absolutely nothing is special! ... the whole philosophy is to keep seeking and learning.

So you consider Buddhism more of a philosophy than a religion? That's cool. Do you follow the bits about rebirth and enlightenment breaking the cycle of rebirth?

[Gravekeeper]

For me, that scale works slightly differently. Everybody starts at 0 (neutral) before I meet them, since I haven't formed an opinion about them. Once I meet someone and get to know them, they can go down that scale (into disrespect) or up (into respect). That person's religious beliefs is only one of many things that can move them up or down that scale. Please keep in mind that this scale only exists in my mind, and I'm not even consciously aware of it all the time.

Fair enough.

I still have empathy, even when they don't (for example, towards the families of the people who died in the hypothetical car crash, who their god didn't save).

Really thats all I'm talking about to get right down too it. If someone's faith helps them lead a better or happier life, then that should be fine. They don't deserve ridicule ( Unless unicorns are involved maybe ). Its when they start with all the other stuff. ;p

I realize that not every tactic will work in every situation. Also, there may be some situations where no tactic will sway the subject. But I still think that ridicule is a valid tactic in some situations. If it seems that no tactic is going to work in a particular situation, we might as well entertain ourselves by making fun of the subject's ridiculous beliefs.

Also fair enough ( Unicorns! )

But I'm probably not going to be able to be friends with someone who is strongly religious, no matter which religion they subscribe to.

Neither am I, honestly. Strongly religious people make me uncomfortable and I don't really want to talk to anyone whose going to try and cram their religion into the conversation constantly.

So you consider Buddhism more of a philosophy than a religion? That's cool. Do you follow the bits about rebirth and enlightenment breaking the cycle of rebirth?

Yes, I consider it a philosophy ( and when you get right down to it I've glued bits of several other philosophies too it from Shintoism to Native America philosophies to just plan old stuff wiser people than me have said in recent years ). I'm not a religious person. I don't think anything out there cares if I'm not performing a mindless ritual daily in its reverence. Or if I'm showing up at the official Place of Worship(tm) at the appropriately scheduled times. If there is any intelligence out there above our own, I can't imagine it would be that shallow or judgemental. Otherwise its not much of a"god" or what have you and in no way more evolved than we are.

I follow some of them. If only because they make sense when I consider the complexity of the universe. Specifically, the universe is one massively complex, intricate and frankly amazing machine. It is logical to assume that if there are any other planes or dimensions of existence too it, they too must have similar systems and complexities. Likely woven into the existing universe on levels we haven't fully uncovered yet. The soul could just be a quantum simulation running on the Omega Point for all I know.

If we assume, as I do, that this is all basically a learning experience. Then I can reason reincarnation would be a good mechanism within this system, because we sure as fark aren't learning everything in one lifetime. While there is scant evidence for reincarnation, at least there *is* scant evidence. Which is more than you can say for Heaven/Hell.

It's funny though, isn't it? The one thing the human conciousness cannot comprehend is it no longer existing. We can comprehend our bodies no longer existing, but not our conciousness.

[Hyena Dandy]

The thing that bothers me, Ghel, is that you say you just want religious people out of your life, but you also say they should be mocked, and that disagreeing with you on this makes you disrespect them. If they should respect you, why shouldn't you respect them?

[Mytical]

Smiley, some of us spiritual people realize our beliefs are a personal thing. We have no desire to force others to believe as we believe. We speak up when we feel we need to. I am very live and let live, and am very vocal about that. Because those of us who respect others lives, however, it is somewhat a two way street.

While I personally am against a lot of the things the vocal minority want (banning gay-marriage, etc)..as long as they don't go out killing/etc I also support their right to think however they wish. When they start bombing abortion clinics or killing people, that is when, yes , I will speak out.

Everybody should be free to express an opinion, even if it is one I personally hate. For if we silence everybody we don't like, then nobody would be able to speak. I might debate with them (and somewhat very vocally), but as long as they don't try to stuff their ideas down my throat, I won't force mine on them either.

A lot of the Christians at the local soup kitchen scratch their heads when they hear about things that WBC does. They can not understand it anymore then I can. They are against it as much as I am.

People like to hate anything different then themselves, and will use any excuse to justify it. I myself am guilty of prejudice, of weakness. I am a major pacifist..not sticking up for those who can't or won't stick up for themselves.

[Ghel]

While there is scant evidence for reincarnation, at least there *is* scant evidence. Which is more than you can say for Heaven/Hell.

Since we've come to agree on so much, I'm not going to dismiss this out of hand. But I haven't seen any better evidence for reincarnation than I've seen for Heaven and Hell, which usually falls into the categories of either personal revelation or appeals to authority, neither of which actually count as evidence. Still, I'd be interested in looking at the evidence you have for reincarnation, if you can provide a link.

It's funny though, isn't it? The one thing the human conciousness cannot comprehend is it no longer existing. We can comprehend our bodies no longer existing, but not our conciousness.

While I wouldn't say that I can comprehend my consciousness no longer existing, I can at least contemplate it. I had no consciousness for all of time before I was born, why should it be any different after I die?

The thing that bothers me, Ghel, is that [1]you say you just want religious people out of your life, but [2]you also say they should be mocked, and that [3]disagreeing with you on this makes you disrespect them. [4]If they should respect you, why shouldn't you respect them?

Instead of breaking up the quote, I've marked the four points made.

[1]I don't recall saying that. I did say that I don't want other people's religious beliefs to interfere with my life, and that I am unlikely to be friends with someone who is deeply religious, but that's not the same thing. I also said that I would like to see people give up their unfounded, harmful, or ridiculous beliefs, but that's still not the same thing.

[2]Not all religious people, necessarily. Nor do I think the mocking should focus on the people, but rather their beliefs. Instead of treating something ridiculous like it should be revered, I think we should treat it like it is - ridiculous.

[3]Only slightly. And again, someone's religious beliefs is only one of many things that will alter how much I respect them. I don't think I'm alone in that point of view.

[4]If they should respect me... Well, I hope that people will determine whether they respect me or not based on what I say and how I behave. Based on that, I think most people will respect me. And if they respect me, it will go a long way towards me respecting them. But I don't expect them to automatically respect me the first time we meet - instead, I would expect them to be neutral towards me, as I am to them.

[Gravekeeper]

Still, I'd be interested in looking at the evidence you have for reincarnation, if you can provide a link.

This guy wrote several books on it after years of research. Though take it with a grain of salt ( some of his theories, like biological links, sound a little bit too out there. Though I guess I haven't seen all his case study evidence for or against it ). He didn't prove reincarnation so much as prove that we should be trying to actually do some more research on it to prove or disprove it once and for all. Or find what mechanism is causing the illusion of it.

Note that he makes absolutely no religious judgements or suggestions, and examines it only as a mechanism. Though, like I said, it was enough to get Carl Sagan to raise an eyebrow. Which is pretty good. Still, its hard to get a serious scientific study on anything like reincarnation because it gets dismissed out of hand.

Actually, now that I look, it looks like Jim Tucker took over his research a few years ago. Interesting. Haven't read any of his books. This may require a trip to Chapters. -.-

While I wouldn't say that I can comprehend my consciousness no longer existing, I can at least contemplate it. I had no consciousness for all of time before I was born, why should it be any different after I die?

I can contemplate it. But the idea of no longer, well, thinking is ironically hard to wrap my mind around.

[Andara Bledin]

I can conceive of an contemplate the idea that after my death, there will be nothing left of what made me, specifically, but for the decomposing physical remains.

It doesn't bother me any more than the idea of being dead, which is not much, although the actual dying is a minor concern.

It does seem a waste, somehow, that we would go through and learn so much over the course of a lifetime for everything we know to disappear like an extinguished flame, never to benefit anyone ever again.

You could say that it offends my sensibilities; it seems so inefficient, somehow.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

This guy wrote several books on it after years of research.

Hmm. I thought that Wikipedia page looked familiar. Somebody linked it on a previous thread.

He didn't prove reincarnation so much as prove that we should be trying to actually do some more research on it to prove or disprove it once and for all. Or find what mechanism is causing the illusion of it.

Note that he makes absolutely no religious judgements or suggestions, and examines it only as a mechanism. Though, like I said, it was enough to get Carl Sagan to raise an eyebrow.

I still hold the same view as I did on that previous thread (though, at first, I was talking about ghosts).

"Warrants further investigation" is not the same thing as agreeing with the claim. It's not even the same thing as saying that there's enough supporting evidence to think the claim might be true. The "something there" could be anything - it doesn't mean that it's necessarily ghosts. The same goes for the claims of reincarnation.

Still, if there were research done that found evidence of reincarnation, I could be persuaded to change my viewpoint.

It does seem a waste, somehow, that we would go through and learn so much over the course of a lifetime for everything we know to disappear like an extinguished flame, never to benefit anyone ever again.

Never? Do you think your actions and words have never had an influence on anyone? We each can have an effect on the world in so many different ways: raise a child, write a book, write or record some music, save a life, help out a friend, etc.

Even if you're only talking about knowledge, I still think you're mistaken. Our knowledge isn't just stored in our minds. We teach others (sometimes without realizing it). We can write our knowledge down and continue to pass it on to others long after we're gone. Because we can store our knowledge, it is cumulative and exponential in nature. We don't have to worry about our knowledge being lost when we die, as long as we have stored it or shared it in some way.

[Gravekeeper]

I still hold the same view as I did on that previous thread (though, at first, I was talking about ghosts).

"Warrants further investigation" is not the same thing as agreeing with the claim. It's not even the same thing as saying that there's enough supporting evidence to think the claim might be true. The "something there" could be anything - it doesn't mean that it's necessarily ghosts. The same goes for the claims of reincarnation.

Never said it was, I said it raised an eyebrow and merits further investigation as there's possibly something there we don't understand yet. Scientific investigation. Ghosts is another matter entirely. I'm not sure anyone has done a some odd 8 year research study on ghosts and actually bothered to use a scientific method. ( Night vision cameras and EM meters don't count. ).

I'd like to see more research into it ( and actually there does seem to be a guy that picked the research up, so good on that anyway. ) It *is* something that can be studied and proven or disproven ( not reincarnation specifically, but that a mechanism of transference of some sort may exist ) by using similar controls as you would when performing a study on say psychic powers.

It is something we can scientifically test. Unlike Heaven/Hell.

We can write our knowledge down and continue to pass it on to others long after we're gone. Because we can store our knowledge, it is cumulative and exponential in nature. We don't have to worry about our knowledge being lost when we die, as long as we have stored it or shared it in some way.

The problem is people write things down the way they want to see it or they way the want others to believe it. Thus skewing it for those that follow. Because people suck. -.-

Man, if we could get everything down 100% accurate without the bullshit, we wouldn't have most of the problems with religious infighting, historical whitewashing, common misconceptions, etc.

[Hyena Dandy]

Perhaps I should rephrase my earlier statement. I do not start out respecting people. But I do start out treating them WITH respect. I do my best to avoid offending people. Do you think you can you mock someone's beliefs without offending them?

[Hyena Dandy]

Beliefs are something very personal. Something very dear to the people who hold them.

Also, you did say earlier in the thread that you didn't mind if people had their religious beliefs, as long as they didn't try to ban gay marriage and put the ten commandments on courthouse lawns. And yet, you seem to feel it is every rational person's duty to try to convert people to your viewpoint, but you seem to get upset about people trying to convert you to theirs.

[Andara Bledin]

Also, you did say earlier in the thread that you didn't mind if people had their religious beliefs, as long as they didn't try to ban gay marriage and put the ten commandments on courthouse lawns. And yet, you seem to feel it is every rational person's duty to try to convert people to your viewpoint, but you seem to get upset about people trying to convert you to theirs.

I pointed this out in another thread, but the reply was a deflection about terminology and some other trivial matter.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

The problem is people write things down the way they want to see it or they way the want others to believe it. Thus skewing it for those that follow.

It seems to me that knowledge, like science, is self-correcting. If someone is willing to take the time to do some research, they can (usually pretty easily) see what is correct and what isn't.

Perhaps I should rephrase my earlier statement. I do not start out respecting people. But I do start out treating them WITH respect.

That is similar to what I said earlier that respect and courtesy are two different things, and that I will continue to treat people courteously even if I don't respect them.

Do you think you can you mock someone's beliefs without offending them?

That depends on the person and the belief. People with closely-held beliefs tend to view any criticism of their beliefs as a personal attack against themselves. In such a case, I suppose the person would be offended when I point out how funny their beliefs are.

Beliefs are something very personal. Something very dear to the people who hold them.

I don't think that's true in all cases. Some people have vague beliefs or don't think about them very much. Of course, in those cases, there's less to make fun of, too.

Also, you did say earlier in the thread that you didn't mind if people had their religious beliefs, as long as they didn't try to ban gay marriage and put the ten commandments on courthouse lawns.

That's part of my point of view, but it's not complete. There's more things that should go under "as long as", including trying to convert me or people I care about.

And yet, you seem to feel it is every rational person's duty to try to convert people to your viewpoint...

I think I covered this in my last response to you. I have said that I would like people to give up their unfounded, harmful, or ridiculous beliefs. That's not conversion; that's education. As a person comes to understand how the universe really works, they're likely to give up their superstitions, their unfounded faith, or their comfortable delusions. Reality is far more awe-inspiring than anything a religion could dream up.

...but you seem to get upset about people trying to convert you to theirs.

This is frequently true, especially when they can't give me any reason that I should think their claims are true. On the other hand, they're usually the ones who get upset when I start picking apart their claims - or even just questioning them, since they almost always think their claims are above reproach.