Fanatical religious terrorist incident Colorado Springs.

[IndyDave1776]

I'm talking about the Muslim God of the old testament.

If you could post that, you apparently flunked out of theology 101.

I apologize, I forget if I'm not attacking islam my rhetoric is inflammatory and insulting.

It isn't a matter of attacking or being inflammatory in one case but not the other. There is a difference between insult and acknowledging the fact of the matter that the two religions under consideration advocate, in terms of their official texts and the teaching and example of their respective founders, two diametrically opposed approaches for dealing with one's fellow man.

I am sorry for that one, I shouldn't attack people personally, my only point was that I believed you were fear mongering and vastly over stating a potential threat. The Soviets at least did/do have access to the button.

You still haven't addressed the point that McCarthy was in fact right, and the evidence that he was factually correct existed at the time. Would I similarly be a rabid fearmonger if I were to tell you that the building is on fire when it is in fact on fire? Of course not, so why is McCarthy a rabid fearmonger for declaring that the federal government was heavily infiltrated with Soviet agents when we had wire intercepts at the time proving that the government was in fact heavily infiltrated by Soviet agents?

You highlight a very important distinction. You've often mentioned your lack of belief in any god, just as others have. However, I don't think I can think of a single time where, when discussing religions (at least Christian/Jewish religions), you've ever used any terms that would paint believers in a derogatory light as others do and have.

Jamil's intellectual honesty, expressed in a number of ways including fair treatment of those holding positions with which he disagrees is a very refreshing trait that I wish were more common in our society.

Did you bring enough to share?

 

[churchmouse]

If you could post that, you apparently flunked out of theology 101.



It isn't a matter of attacking or being inflammatory in one case but not the other. There is a difference between insult and acknowledging the fact of the matter that the two religions under consideration advocate, in terms of their official texts and the teaching and example of their respective founders, two diametrically opposed approaches for dealing with one's fellow man.



You still haven't addressed the point that McCarthy was in fact right, and the evidence that he was factually correct existed at the time. Would I similarly be a rabid fearmonger if I were to tell you that the building is on fire when it is in fact on fire? Of course not, so why is McCarthy a rabid fearmonger for declaring that the federal government was heavily infiltrated with Soviet agents when we had wire intercepts at the time proving that the government was in fact heavily infiltrated by Soviet agents?



Jamil's intellectual honesty, expressed in a number of ways including fair treatment of those holding positions with which he disagrees is a very refreshing trait that I wish were more common in our society.



Did you bring enough to share?

Making another batch as i type.
Chairs are set up and drinks in the cooler.
Just setting up to see where this on goes.
I have no dog in this fight and am merely an observer.
Pull up a chair and have some

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If you could post that, you apparently flunked out of theology 101.



It isn't a matter of attacking or being inflammatory in one case but not the other. There is a difference between insult and acknowledging the fact of the matter that the two religions under consideration advocate, in terms of their official texts and the teaching and example of their respective founders, two diametrically opposed approaches for dealing with one's fellow man.



You still haven't addressed the point that McCarthy was in fact right, and the evidence that he was factually correct existed at the time. Would I similarly be a rabid fearmonger if I were to tell you that the building is on fire when it is in fact on fire? Of course not, so why is McCarthy a rabid fearmonger for declaring that the federal government was heavily infiltrated with Soviet agents when we had wire intercepts at the time proving that the government was in fact heavily infiltrated by Soviet agents?



Jamil's intellectual honesty, expressed in a number of ways including fair treatment of those holding positions with which he disagrees is a very refreshing trait that I wish were more common in our society.



Did you bring enough to share?

He is delusional about the traffic-zippering-at-road-construction thing though.

 

[rvb]

I really just want to make sure I don't step on people's toes, while being free to discuss topics that are important to me.

Honest Q: Which part of the thread are you referring to that's important to you? understanding those who kill in the name of religion, or being right that there is no God? If the latter, why is that important to you?

-rvb

 

[IndyDave1776]

Making another batch as i type.
Chairs are set up and drinks in the cooler.
Just setting up to see where this on goes.
I have no dog in this fight and am merely an observer.
Pull up a chair and have some

Cheeseburgers too?

 

[PaulF]

PaulF - your answer lies in GFGT's very thoughtful commentary to Jamil.

Jamil and I disagree on matters of religion - but I have not once felt that he regarded me in less than a good light because I chose to believe , and he didn't. On 95%+ of other matters, he and I would probably agree. I would like to think that I return the favor to him, and I view him as no less of a solid person - even if we may not agree on that issue.

So, do you get the impression that I hold you in a lower esteem because of your religious beliefs?if I have given you that impression I owe you a sincere apology.

I am am sincerely sorry if I have made you feel that I don't respect you. The same goes for anyone else who holds religious beliefs that run counter to mine.

In my mind there is a deference between between "attacking" a persons positions, and "attacking" a person themselves. (That may not be the best choice of words, but it is the best I can come up with.) I guess I look at religious positions in much the same light as political positions.

I really don't mean to offend, I am only trying to offer a different position and defend it.

Please accept my my sincere apology. I will try to adjust my posting style to be less inflammatory going forward.

 

[Jludo]

So, do you get the impression that I hold you in a lower esteem because of your religious beliefs?if I have given you that impression I owe you a sincere apology.

I am am sincerely sorry if I have made you feel that I don't respect you. The same goes for anyone else who holds religious beliefs that run counter to mine.

In my mind there is a deference between between "attacking" a persons positions, and "attacking" a person themselves. (That may not be the best choice of words, but it is the best I can come up with.) I guess I look at religious positions in much the same light as political positions.

I really don't mean to offend, I am only trying to offer a different position and defend it.

Please accept my my sincere apology. I will try to adjust my posting style to be less inflammatory going forward.

You're far more diplomatic than I am, maybe that comes with age but I feel like we have to bend over backwards to avoid offending Christians where other subjects not as much. I wish I was half as articulate/diplomatic as PaulF when it came to these subjects

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

PaulF -
No apology necessary. it's a fine line sometimes - and hard to navigate. Perhaps that's one of the reasons for religion being out of bounds for so long in INGO. I think that perhaps the closer to the "core" an issue is - the more careful we ALL kind of ought to be. And I think that we ALL overstep a bit (myself included) when it's something that matters a lot to us. And religion hits closer to the core than even politics at times. As I hope was clear from what GFGT said, around INGO-land Jamil is probably in the minority in that a) he DOES get into the debate and b) he manages NOT to step on toes in this sensitive area of people's closely held beliefs.

As with Jamil - I suspect that if you and I were to get together, and discuss the issues of life over a beverage, you and I would likely agree about a huge percentage of things. I can tell that you have experiences in your life that have driven you away from religion. I certainly can't blame you for that, anymore than I can blame anyone else for how they view it.

All good here - and I look forward to meeting up with you sometime. As I said, I suspect that we'd agree a heck of a lot more than we disagree!

 

[jamil]

Alright jamil, have you even read what I have written?

[...]

In post 753 I admitted, in concrete terms, that if Steve is correct about his god, then I would be the "delusional" one.

I kinda get the same feeling about my last post, but anyway, I'm sorry. I missed post #753. Sometimes in posting and coming back to the thread I shouldn't rely on "view first unread" as much as I do because I tend to miss a lot of posts.

What are you on about man?

I have no idea what you're asking.

I stated that I put myself at a 6 on Dawkins' scale, not a seven.

There is a difference (in my mind, at least) between "maligning people of faith" and pointing out the absurdities in the tenets of that person's beliefs. Am I wrong?

I have repeatedly stated that I could be wrong, that I am open to discussion, that I am not trying to attack anyone personally, that I respect other people's rights to practice their religions despite what I think about it...what am I doing wrong here? I'm starting to feel like I'm taking crazy pills here...

Religion is a contentious issue...I feel like I have been quite reasonable in my attempts to discuss my positions.

Am I just too close to this to see how much of a dick I'm being?

Paul, I'll be blunt here. Since INGO has allowed religious discussion, you've not just used language like "absurd". You've demonstrated a sort of contempt for "believers". So, I'll just ask straight up, do you have contempt for Christians? If so, I think that it's reasonable to point out some dissonance between thinking you're a 6 and behaving more like I would think a 7 would behave. Again I ask, why would someone who believes they can't know for certain, but assumes there is no god, use rhetoric like delusional, fantasy, fairy tales, unicorns, mythical, absurd, towards people who believe in god?

 

[IndyDave1776]

It seems to me that the first issue that we have among ourselves regarding religion is that it is a subject which we tend to take more personal than most any other. Some people have a gift for dealing with such things, well, more smoothly than others while some of those others. This can be from a lack of having a polarized position, taking great care, or just a matter of personality.

That said, I will once again commend Paul for being honest about what he thinks and believes, even if it isn't congruent with my own thoughts or beliefs. In fact, one of the greater threats I see in our society is that nonacceptance of honesty.

I also have to point out that I do not feel my beliefs threatened in any way by disagreement, and believe that this is one of those times in which mutual understanding will go a long way, particularly in all of us being patient with one another. I would further point out that we are all a product of our cumulative experiences, and I can understand how others (at least the examples of which I am aware) have come to their own conclusions, similar or dissimilar in comparison with my own.

We also have to account for personalities. Some of us are pretty smooth in handling most subjects. Others of us less so. In many cases, it depends on what in particular we are discussing. I have to admit getting a bit frustrated with an individual or two (let me emphasize that I do NOT include Paul in this group) who seem to entertain themselves by kicking others in the shins.

In the end, I consider it a good thing that others lead me to consider beliefs I generally don't question a whole lot from a different perspective. I generally walk away with a stronger belief after resolving the question, but that itself represents an improvement in my own position. I consider it important that we not let the honest disagreement of others become a source of consternation among us as we all have potential to grow from addressing it. Once again, we are a product of our cumulative experience and discussions, including and especially uncomfortable ones, are part of that experience.

OK, it is about time for me to go do something useful today, so I wish you all a great day!

 

[jamil]

You're far more diplomatic than I am, maybe that comes with age but I feel like we have to bend over backwards to avoid offending Christians where other subjects not as much. I wish I was half as articulate/diplomatic as PaulF when it came to these subjects

Dude, I don't believe either. I don't feel compelled to make snide remarks about people who do believe in that stuff. As someone who deals out his fair share of snarky sarcasm, I know full well it requires no effort on my part not to do it. Contempt is why you do it. I generally don't have contempt for people who have religious beliefs. I reserve contempt for people by how they behave. If I've snarked at you, it's probably because of something you said, the way you said it, not because of something you believe.

 

[miguel]

Can I get somma dat with white cheddar, please?

 

[jamil]

It seems to me that the first issue that we have among ourselves regarding religion is that it is a subject which we tend to take more personal than most any other.

This is largely why I don't belittle people's personal beliefs. I'll belittle the ends people pursue that affect me because of their belief, but generally not for having the belief. If you think there are 72 virgins waiting for you when you die, whatevs, but you don't get to kill people to achieve that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You're far more diplomatic than I am, maybe that comes with age but I feel like we have to bend over backwards to avoid offending Christians where other subjects not as much. I wish I was half as articulate/diplomatic as PaulF when it came to these subjects

You don't offend me. I may take exception with what you say but that does not = offended. Use which ever words you choose. They reflect more so on you than they do on anybody else.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Am I just too close to this to see how much of a dick I'm being?

Since nobody else has answered directly, I'll take a shot.
IMO yes it's a possibility. But I think that it may be true on the other side also and that includes myself. We could be too close and therefor overestimating how much of a dick you're being.

I really just want to make sure I don't step on people's toes, while being free to discuss topics that are important to me.

Honest question. If you don't believe, why is it important to you? For myself I do believe, athiesm as a topic isn't important to me. The attacks on people who do believe is though. For instance the recent federal decision which blocked a long standing live nativity scene during their Christmas play performed by a Elkhart IN High School. If you don't believe and don't wish to participate or watch it, don't. Don't **** it up for everyone else. I feel the same about people who don't like guns, if you don't like them don't own them but don't screw with myself and others right to own them.

Judge bans Concord High School from performing live Nativity scene this year - Elkhart Truth

So, do you get the impression that I hold you in a lower esteem because of your religious beliefs?if I have given you that impression I owe you a sincere apology.

I am am sincerely sorry if I have made you feel that I don't respect you. The same goes for anyone else who holds religious beliefs that run counter to mine.

Please accept my my sincere apology. I will try to adjust my posting style to be less inflammatory going forward.

I don't get that impression exactly, I do get the impression that you hold our beliefs in contempt and attempt to deride them.

I don't feel you owe and apology.

Paul, I'll be blunt here. Since INGO has allowed religious discussion, you've not just used language like "absurd". You've demonstrated a sort of contempt for "believers". So, I'll just ask straight up, do you have contempt for Christians? If so, I think that it's reasonable to point out some dissonance between thinking you're a 6 and behaving more like I would think a 7 would behave. Again I ask, why would someone who believes they can't know for certain, but assumes there is no god, use rhetoric like delusional, fantasy, fairy tales, unicorns, mythical, absurd, towards people who believe in god?

Good questions.

 

[steveh_131]

Just to be clear, I've taken no offense from PaulF, personally. This has been an interesting discussion.

I think we got hung up on the word 'delusional', but I do think it's an important word. I think that even from a purely secular perspective you have to acknowledge a difference between a delusion fueled by evil and mental illness and a belief based on thought and reason. Especially when that belief draws you towards selflessness and a love for others, vs. a belief that justifies the violent instincts of an evil person.

On the other hand, maybe if more than a tiny fraction of the 70% of our population that self identifies as Christians actually acted selfless and loving... Paul might see things differently.

 

[Denny347]

It seems to me that the first issue that we have among ourselves regarding religion is that it is a subject which we tend to take more personal than most any other. Some people have a gift for dealing with such things, well, more smoothly than others while some of those others. This can be from a lack of having a polarized position, taking great care, or just a matter of personality.

That said, I will once again commend Paul for being honest about what he thinks and believes, even if it isn't congruent with my own thoughts or beliefs. In fact, one of the greater threats I see in our society is that nonacceptance of honesty.

I also have to point out that I do not feel my beliefs threatened in any way by disagreement, and believe that this is one of those times in which mutual understanding will go a long way, particularly in all of us being patient with one another. I would further point out that we are all a product of our cumulative experiences, and I can understand how others (at least the examples of which I am aware) have come to their own conclusions, similar or dissimilar in comparison with my own.

We also have to account for personalities. Some of us are pretty smooth in handling most subjects. Others of us less so. In many cases, it depends on what in particular we are discussing. I have to admit getting a bit frustrated with an individual or two (let me emphasize that I do NOT include Paul in this group) who seem to entertain themselves by kicking others in the shins.

In the end, I consider it a good thing that others lead me to consider beliefs I generally don't question a whole lot from a different perspective. I generally walk away with a stronger belief after resolving the question, but that itself represents an improvement in my own position. I consider it important that we not let the honest disagreement of others become a source of consternation among us as we all have potential to grow from addressing it. Once again, we are a product of our cumulative experience and discussions, including and especially uncomfortable ones, are part of that experience.

OK, it is about time for me to go do something useful today, so I wish you all a great day!

Well said....well said.

 

[Denny347]

You don't offend me. I may take exception with what you say but that does not = offended. Use which ever words you choose. They reflect more so on you than they do on anybody else.

People use that term too much anyway.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

You don't offend me. I may take exception with what you say but that does not = offended. Use which ever words you choose. They reflect more so on you than they do on anybody else.

I remember making a post, maybe over a year ago, something about wilderness areas that we call "God's Country" and wondering why some of those places aren't thought of the same way after people move in and do their thing.

I didn't really mean it as offensive, but with hindsight, I'm sure I did offend. Then you posted a reply that simply stated your different view of places that you think of as "God's Country" and what that meant to you. That post really made me think of things in a way I hadn't before, and that I still remember.

 

[jamil]

People use that term too much anyway.

That offends me.