Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt >>It's like with Jonvn and others a while back. It's one thing to say you're a non-believer, but it's another thing to then take the big leap and say whether directly or indirectly "And I think you're a fool, idiot, person in need of therapy" for believing in God."<< I won't get into my deep personal thoughts on the matter, and I'm not going to go around judging people who think that Moses parted the Red Sea and that Satan exists, but to my mind it is rather silly to put so much emphasis (religious doctrine) on something that no one in 2,000 years has been able to prove exists. "I think a lot of people's moral compass would go haywire without their religion telling them what they should or should not do." >>Well, then they have pretty fragile moral compasses then, in my opinion. I don't mean that to cause offense, but I just don't think people have to find religion to tell them right from wrong.<< And that was exactly my point, which is why religion serves no purpose for me.
Originally Posted By Labuda "it's religion that gets mocked in that film, not Christ." EXCELLENT point, 2oony. My big issue isn't with religious people individually, it's when they band together and start trying to tell others how to live instead of just living their lives and letting other people live how they want without worrying what people they will never meet, know, or be affected by live their lives.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Jesus is spoofed regularly in animated shows, in skits and so forth>> Think of the whole South Park controversy earlier this year. It portrayed Mohamamed as a bear in one episode and then because of death threats, anytime his name was mentioned it was bleeped out the entire time. Meanwhile later that week they announced they were developing a sitcom base on the life of Jesus and apart from the usual chorus, there was nary a peep about it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I guess what I'm getting at is it seems that non-believers, as a minority, are held to a higher standard of respect than believers. > I think that's probably true also. And I think minority religions are often held to a higher standard also, e.g. not just with the so-called "ground zero mosque," but it's getting so that if ANY mosque is getting planned anywhere in the US outside the largest cities, they have to prove they're "good" Muslims. There are countries where Christians are a minority where churches can be erected, but only if they promise to use it just for themselves and not proselytize. The majority religion often has the attitude that it's the "default truth," if you know what I'm saying, often without even realizing it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <it's when they band together and start trying to tell others how to live instead of just living their lives and letting other people live how they want without worrying what people they will never meet, know, or be affected by live their lives.> I always liked this definition of a Puritan: "Someone who lives in deep existential dread that someone, somewhere, is enjoying himself."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Meanwhile later that week they announced they were developing a sitcom base on the life of Jesus<< That's what I was getting at. That sort of thing has been done so much at this point, it's basically lost its shock value.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I wasn't aiming to be offensive. Sorry if you took offense. I was joking around and trying to lighten things up.<< cmpaley said: "First, God was rather strict in the Old Testament (lots of capital crimes), but He was also for the poor. I can give you a long list of requirements that those who have are commanded to help the poor where they live, treat the stranger with kindness, and a whole bunch of other liberal notions. In the New Testament, Jesus also spoke about how God's heart is for the poor and how we all are responsible for their well being. In fact, Jesus identified Himself with the naked, hungry, homeless, a stranger, in prison. Hmm...seems that God is rather strict on a lot of things, but He's also rather liberal when it comes to the poor. End of line." CC replied: "That's a bigger fantasy than Voldemort, Darth Vader, or Lord of the Rings combined!" I'm sorry, but I don't know how to see that as anything other than a put down.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>That's what I was getting at. That sort of thing has been done so much at this point, it's basically lost its shock value.<< No argument from me on the hypocrisy of censoring Mohammed while Jesus is pilloried far and wide for humor's sake. Any time I heard from a public atheist (Penn Jillette comes to mind) they were against this kind of double-standard. >>It's everywhere. On the airwaves, in conversation, everywhere. Jesus is spoofed regularly in animated shows, in skits and so forth. Bill Maher has his own program where he can say pretty much anything he wants.<< I know. And I'm not really getting at whether or not it exists, but how it's treated when it happens. Nor am I focusing on the humor, which is usually not actually done by atheists (save Maher, who's new to the game). I haven't done a good job of explaining it, so let me try it this way. It seems like people are less worried about whether Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins are right or have a valid point of view as they are them ruining the party. It reminds me of the SNL sketch when William Shatner goes to a Star Trek convention and tells everyone to get a life. People don't want to hear that kind of criticism, so instead of looking at the critique, they talk about their feelings. They don't argue the point, they focus on the rudeness or the fact that they're just big old meanies. If you consider someone else's point of view legitimate, you argue the point. If not, you invent stuff or talk about your feelings (kind of like when a tea partier can't tell you why Obama's bad, they just know they're "scared" and "want their country back."
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Maybe I should have added one of these ""<< Yes, that would have helped.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < they just know they're "scared" > I loved Colbert's opening last night: "Everybody's talking about my march to keep fear alive. Especially the clown who lives in your closet."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>People don't want to hear that kind of criticism, so instead of looking at the critique, they talk about their feelings.<< But it comes down to a total stalemate. One side says there is absolutely no proof of God's existence, while the other side says they have all the proof they need. I don't think atheists in general can understand, let alone accept, that to a person with religious faith, they absolutely believe in God. In much the same way, many religious people can't understand why atheists can't "see" all the evidence for there being a God. When you have two polar opposite viewpoints like that, I don't know where you go from there. It becomes a battle of people trying to sway people to their own belief system at a certain point. People have to coexist, so the best hope for that is to keep the conversation tone as calm as possible.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It seems like people are less worried about whether Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins are right or have a valid point of view as they are them ruining the party. << The thing is, we won't know for 100% certain who is right about God -- the faithful or atheists -- until we die (barring some religious miracle witnessed by millions). It's the ultimate one of those "we'll have to agree to disagree" debates.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Speaking of Bill Maher, I saw Religulous. It does exactly what it did not set out to do -- makes one sympathetic towards religious folks. And that's because, I think, Maher is incapable of discussing the topic without being smarmy and condescending. It's a series of gotcha set-ups and basically, an unlevel playing field of his own design. He's a smart guy. He makes valid points all the time on any number of topics. But for some reason, on this topic, the snark undermines what he says and I think turns him into a bit of a bully.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance I understand that religious people absolutely believe in God. That's the only thing that makes sense to me because why else would someone believe in something when all of the evidence points in the opposite direction? When I'm trying to make a decision about something, whether it's which hotel to choose, what new dvd player to buy, or whether or not to believe in God, I look at every thing I can to compare and contrast different options. I read everything I can about it, all of the facts, and evidence, and theories. Once I have all of the information in front of me, I then make my decision based on whatever I find to be the most logical choice to make. Not everyone is like that. Most people are fine with just "Knowing" without needing to look into it further. So yes, there does come to a point when it's pointless to talk about it anymore. I'm not going to change my side because I've already looked at all of the facts and made my decision, and the other side doesn't care about the evidence because they're absolute belief trumps all of that. The only thing that upsets me about religion, and the only reason I can't keep my mouth shut sometimes when getting into debates, is when decisions in this country are made using the Christian God as a reason for making the decisions in the first place. This is suppose to be a country where religion and state are separate, a melting pot of all different types of people can live together, but really that's just bull. Everything is decided with the WWJD mindset. And if you're not male, white, and straight then you're screwed because Jesus was and we're going to do right by Jesus, so help us God!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Once I have all of the information in front of me, I then make my decision based on whatever I find to be the most logical choice to make. << I'll bet you don't, not all the time and not entirely. You are on a Disney board, for starters, a brand that is all about etherial things like emotions and dreams and magic. Like any great brand, they tap into emotions far more than reason.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance I never said I didn't enjoy emotional things or magic or fantasy. I'm talking about decision making, and how I go about making a decision. I can make a choice to spend way more than I should on a hotel room because of the "magic" that we'll experience from it. You may think that's not the logical choice to make, but when you take all factors into consideration sometimes it's the logical choice to go all out because of what you'll gain from the experience trumps the money you had to dish out. So you are correct, I do love Disney because I've always loved fantasy and make-believe. But that doesn't mean I have to make decisions using that side of my brain when it counts.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But that doesn't mean I have to make decisions using that side of my brain when it counts.<< I'm saying that everyone makes decisions on all kinds of factors, and emotion and the "feeling" you have about a brand plays a huge role for most folks. I point this out as a way to help explain why people have faith in things that are not tangible. You mentioned all evidence pointing in the opposite direction, and yet you can understand why someone would pay more to go all out on a vacation, when they could probably have just as much fun spending a little less. Logic dictates that as long as the place is safe and clean, why pay more? Most of the motels along Harbor are closer than the "on property" Disney hotels. And yet.... there's "something" about staying on property that is appealing, right? Even if it's more expensive.
