Fanatical religious terrorist incident Colorado Springs.

[Jludo]

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.

I agree I need to do better, I disagree that it's contempt. My family are all believers in what I view as made up stories. I agree I can be more civil about it though.

 

[jamil]

Now that we're all civilized, I'm heading to the "Fanatical religious terrorist incident in San Bernardino" thread.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Now that we're all civilized, I'm heading to the "Fanatical religious terrorist incident in San Bernardino" thread.

Yeah, it just got real boring in this one.

 

[steveh_131]

hey did you guys know that 80% of atheists worship satan?

 

[chezuki]

hey did you guys know that 80% of atheists worship satan?

Fear mongerer!!! It's only 78%.


...but 62% of that 78% are 100% pro-abortion pedophiles.

 

[chezuki]

Allegedly.

 

[PaulF]

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?

Jamil, the best I can relate this is that I draw a distinction between belief and the believer.

I can find all kinds of faults with a set of beliefs without looking down on the person or group that holds those beliefs.

It it makes sense to me, but I am afraid I am doing a very poor job of explaining myself.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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.

I guess that's a good thing, right?

I don't remember that exchange and I'll admit sometimes snark and maybe even contempt will slip out from my keyboard. But you would probably be surprised how many times I've had stuff all typed out and ready to hit Post when I'll decide that's a bit rough, delete it completely, and rephrase. But like I said, sometimes stuff does slip out.

 

[jamil]

Jamil, the best I can relate this is that I draw a distinction between belief and the believer.

I can find all kinds of faults with a set of beliefs without looking down on the person or group that holds those beliefs.

It it makes sense to me, but I am afraid I am doing a very poor job of explaining myself.

I guess I think of it like this. With something as personal as religion, to the person their belief can't so easily be detached. I don't walk on eggshells around religious people; I don't mind pointing out logical inconsistencies with their beliefs. But with religion I don't tend to use the same aggressive language I might use with, say, a socialist. I do think in the end it's all ideology, but religion is a very personal ideology and not just a way to view and interpret the world.

 

[churchmouse]

I need to make more

This is good. Very good.

When religion was re-introduced to the forum there were some fears it would go nuclear on us.
There were a few that flamed in these discussions. They were going to flame regardless.
People of faith are very defensive of their positions because they (we) are coming under heavy fire from Media and those who do not believe.
Faith is nothing more than that, Faith in something that for the most part is non-Tangible. Spirit, Santa, so many things.
In discussing these issues and then mixing in the real hot button topic of "Abortion" the heat goes up.
I generally refrain from diving into these issues as my opinions are based solely on life experiences and others will not see this through my eyes so sharing is difficult. I also know my limitations on the Filters.

This said I applaud those who step up to the podium as it were and share. Paul and others have been very clear in their posts.
I do take issue to some of the references used as stated up thread. There is absolutely no need for this. None at all. It only makes it harder to stay on point.

Now, my freshh is done for any that would like a bowl.......

 

[indiucky]

What impresses me about all of jamil's posts on the subject and most of paulf's post on the subject is how they both take JC's advice to heart when they post...

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..."


Good advice no matter where you stand on the subject....

 

[Jludo]

Would you guys expect everyone to be just as respectful if we had say a genuine scientologist on here advocating their beliefs or would we relegate their beliefs to "the absurd"
Honest question about how we think we'd react to them.

 

[jamil]

Would you guys expect everyone to be just as respectful if we had say a genuine scientologist on here advocating their beliefs or would we relegate their beliefs to "the absurd"
Honest question about how we think we'd react to them.

Depends on their behavior. If they behaved respectfully so would I.

When I first started posting regularly here I made a snide poke at a particular belief of a member here. He took me to task in a PM and he was absolutely right to do so. The remark I made did not add anything helpful to the conversation.

 

[churchmouse]

Would you guys expect everyone to be just as respectful if we had say a genuine scientologist on here advocating their beliefs or would we relegate their beliefs to "the absurd"
Honest question about how we think we'd react to them.

It depends on who was responding as always. You expect things to escalate with some posting members.

There are also those who play devils advocate to make someone support their opinions.

I really do not care what you believe. It is yours to do so. A basic premise of living on this ground. The freedom to believe in or follow any way you choose.

Now, if you get snarky/name calling or badger me about mine I can throw off the gloves. Keep it civil.

 

[indiucky]

Would you guys expect everyone to be just as respectful if we had say a genuine scientologist on here advocating their beliefs or would we relegate their beliefs to "the absurd"
Honest question about how we think we'd react to them.

Are we talking Tom Cruise Scientologist or Richard "Ancient Aliens" Dawkins style belief???? No matter...I would treat them both with respect and I may challenge them but I do not think I would mock either....

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Would you guys expect everyone to be just as respectful if we had say a genuine scientologist on here advocating their beliefs or would we relegate their beliefs to "the absurd"
Honest question about how we think we'd react to them.

Would I expect everyone to be respectful? Nope. Would I be respectful? As others have said it would depend. I think I would be respectful, unless they were not.

Are we talking Tom Cruise Scientologist or Richard "Ancient Aliens" Dawkins style belief???? No matter...I would treat them both with respect and I may challenge them but I do not think I would mock either....

Just a technicality but Dawkins isn't a scientologist. And IMO Cruise is wacked in the head irregardless of his belief in scientology.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Allegedly.

Finally, someone on INGO is making sense again.

 

[indiucky]

Just a technicality but Dawkins isn't a scientologist. And IMO Cruise is wacked in the head irregardless of his belief in scientology.

Both of their belief systems on the origin of life have a basis in ancient astronauts visiting Earth some time in the past...I would say Dawkin's Faith is more Sciencism than Scientology...

And yes I believe that Tom Cruise is a wee bit nutty....

 

[indiucky]

Finally, someone on INGO is making sense again.

Allegedly making sense again...

 

[historian]

Now, if you get snarky/name calling or badger me about mine I can throw off the gloves. Keep it civil.

Cheeseburgers suck!