Religion is for cowards and pedophiles of childrens minds

Yeah, Hegelian if anything.

 

Actually Biblical (Hebrews 11:1)

 

As much as I hate to admit it relaxxx is right and I've probably worn out my welcome. In any case this is rudenoodle’s thread and although I didn’t mean to; it looks like I’ve hi-jacked it, Sorry rudenoodle.

So if anyone wishes to continue the discussion that hi-jacked this thread, I’ve started a new thread to do so at:
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=5181388#post5181388

Once again sorry rudenoodle and I apologize for not doing this sooner.

 

It depends on context. If the sign is located in a guide book for mothers on maternity leave, we might think it's a curious request for mothers to wash their hands, at some point, in some unspecified location only once, before they return from leave. If it's in the staff toilet of a hospital it would have a far more specific meaning, implying sterilisation on which people's lives might depend. If it's in the staff canteen where binmen have their lunch before returning to their rounds we might assume a more lax interpretation.

Even a simple statement like that is quite ambiguous and relies on a whole network of implicit assumptions, contextual, cultural and linguistic. Implying that interpretation of any text, and certainly one as lengthy and equivocal as the bible, is unproblematic, is naive in the extreme.

Sorry, didn't read the whole thread, gave up when OlderWaterBother hijacked it, but saw that and thought it was interesting enough to comment...

 

So what topic are we getting back to? Is religion for cowards and pedophiles? Would religious people kill their firstborn if God told them to? Or was it: Have religious people stopped beating their wives? Would it be within the scope of the thread to consder: are atheists (specifically the OP) fair minded and objective? Does the OP ever consider the possibiliy that his view of religion and its adherents might be a tad extreme? Does bigotry, group stereotyping, and hate-mongering cause violence, wars and injustice? Can people engaging in such practices be compared to mind rapists and pornographers of hate? Are people who rail against Quakers, Episcopalians, Methodists, Buddhists, Jainists, etc., for being "cowards and pedophiles", therefore being somewhat hypocritical? Or is that covered by the slogan "Nothing is true, everything is permitted?" And if that is so, why does the "Minister of Propaganda" pretend to be so horrified at the atrocities committed by religions? The "broken record, Big lie" approach is hauntingly familiar, bringing back memories of jackboots, barbed wire, and Zyklon B. Why is the "Minister of Propaganda" so anxious to dicredit belief systems that preach that some things are true and others not permitted? Or is the answer that obvious?

 

on the contrary......

religion is the broken record

isnt it reasonable to want to stop a broken record?

 

Re: Poll - 'Atheist'.

I thank you.

 

Reasoned arguments might work better. Hate speech kills.

 

hmmm....

reasoned arguments might work better....

that quote is a keeper

 

Thanks (assuming that was a compliment). Another approach might be to elaborate on the positive benefits of atheism, so that religious folks understand that there are some. Or, if you must stay negative, include some varitey. I think I could do a far better job criticizing religion than the simplistic, obvioulsly exaggerated, over-the-top, one-note rants the "Minister of Propaganda" dishes out to us on such a regular basis. If atheists are the super-rational whizbangs they make out to be, they should be able to come up with something better than crude stereotyping. And I do think that what we've seen so far from the Minister of Propaganda is hate speech, pure and simple.

 

Before I make my vote I need to ask what I would be classified as?

I do not believe in a god deity.
I do think we are all connected.
I like the ideas about sacred geometry.
I think that there are higher states of consciousness that can be achieved.
And I think it is possible there are other beings in existence that we are unaware of.

BTW I said I think this, so try not to attack my beliefs but just help me know how I would be labeled. thanks

 

Could you be a Pythagorean? That ancient 6th century B.C. philosophy and cult probably originated sacred geometry and carried it to its greatest heights within a complex mystical secret religious society that preached a belief in reincarnation and prohibitions against eating meat and beans. You don't believe in a God deity. Pythagoras' followers thought he was a god, and he seemed to use the term in a mystical sense:"Know thyself,then thou shalt know the universe and God." If you're not a Pythagorean, you could be a Platonist (usually considered a philosophy rather than a religion) or maybe even a Buddhist. Hinayana Buddhism does not include a god, and the Mandala is an example of Buddhist sacred geometry.

 

You don't seem to believe in a God that would "tell" you to do anything let alone kill, so for the purposes of the poll I would say you should vote atheist. Although from what you say I would not call you an atheist.

 

Uhm, openminded? I don't know.. Why would someone with these thoughts call themself an atheist or pythagorean, haha. Or really, why should you narrow it down to some kind of religious/spiritial definition and bind yourself to some term that never fully match your thoughts?

 

Funny, after reading the first couple responses I was thinking 'maybe I am just open to ideas that have logical thought behind them' then I read your post and lol.

Thanks for all the great input and actually giving me some well thought out answers. Its rare on the net these days. I personally do not like to label myself( I feel it limits my ability to think objectively by limiting myself to any sort of boundaries) I will vote Atheist. I do not believe in a power that is over us, because I feel that the power is us and never was separate. I know that boarders the idea of a god but honestly fuck god.

 

Well man, I don't think God would ask us anything. But that's just my thought. And I don't say fuck God for that, I'd rather thank it. I would be happy to apply a lable on me if it would fit, but in this case it's just a very personal thing and I can only lable my thoughts as mine. I'm open to ideas both logical and illogical . I'll decide if they serve any purpose to me or not.

 

I am sorry that must have came off as negative. I mean fuck the limited idea that the word god stands for.

 

Oh yes, I agree with you on that. We made God too human, and ah well I don't have a problem with people who do just that if they really think that, as long as they don't bother others that their God's word is the bible/koran and it has to be followed or else etc.

 

We made God too human?

What if there actually is a God and this is the way he wants himself depicted?

 

Why would 'he'?

Edit: sorry, it just seem more likely we projected our vision of a caring, judging god on something much more abstract. That's just my 'belief' though.