| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#12
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/13, 12:11 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:26:05 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/23/13, 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. I only know one atheist. Among the handful of agnostics I know personally, one was Jewish and the other four or five were Protestants. Your understanding of the difference between atheists and agnostics is...humorous. An atheist denies or disbelieves the existence of a god. An agnostic believes the existence of a god is unknown and unknowable. Perhaps in your mind that means agnostics are "unwilling to commit," but the differences are far more complicated. You'd have to have taken a number of liberal arts courses to know that, of course.  You're also wrong about what you think I believe. My problem is not whether there is or is not a creator. I don't know the answer to that, and I never will. My problem is with "organized" religion, which I think is pretty much a crock...especially the more fundamentalist, right-wing Protestant sects, which are loud, doctrinaire, and judgmental, and want to force their beliefs onto everyone. I agree with you on "brand loyalty" but I do not have the disrespect bordering on outright hatred you have for people who do believe. You represent yourself as agnostic but your statements here are straight out of the atheist handbook. I've not read the "atheist handbook." Which edition do you recommend? -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
|
#13
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in your second paragraph. I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being, "god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial) delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be logically explained, repudiated or attacked. |
|
#14
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/13, 7:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in your second paragraph. I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being, "god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial) delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be logically explained, repudiated or attacked. It seems obvious to me that early man developed a belief in god(s) and religion in an attempt to explain and understand some of what he didn't know or could not understand. Look at all the gods of the ancient Egyptians, especially "Ra," the all-powerful sun god, who was given credit for light, for growth of crops, for warming the earth. When you don't know why something is happening, it is comforting, I suppose, to give credit or blame to an object or idea representing a god. In later beliefs, the concept of god and a better world awaiting after death was used to pacify the poor about their miserable plight and to prevent insurrection. Probably still is used that way. Look at all the hatred spread in the name of religion. Is there a god? I don't know and neither does anyone else. I've not seen any evidence one way or the other. Nothing in "religion" convinces me...in fact, just the opposite. If there is a god, why would that entity tolerate religion? -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
|
#15
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/2013 7:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 7:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in your second paragraph. I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being, "god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial) delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be logically explained, repudiated or attacked. It seems obvious to me that early man developed a belief in god(s) and religion in an attempt to explain and understand some of what he didn't know or could not understand. Look at all the gods of the ancient Egyptians, especially "Ra," the all-powerful sun god, who was given credit for light, for growth of crops, for warming the earth. When you don't know why something is happening, it is comforting, I suppose, to give credit or blame to an object or idea representing a god. In later beliefs, the concept of god and a better world awaiting after death was used to pacify the poor about their miserable plight and to prevent insurrection. Probably still is used that way. Look at all the hatred spread in the name of religion. Is there a god? I don't know and neither does anyone else. I've not seen any evidence one way or the other. Nothing in "religion" convinces me...in fact, just the opposite. If there is a god, why would that entity tolerate religion? I think you are still confusing "faith". A particular religion is just a conduit for faith. |
|
#16
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/13, 7:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 7:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 7:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in your second paragraph. I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being, "god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial) delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be logically explained, repudiated or attacked. It seems obvious to me that early man developed a belief in god(s) and religion in an attempt to explain and understand some of what he didn't know or could not understand. Look at all the gods of the ancient Egyptians, especially "Ra," the all-powerful sun god, who was given credit for light, for growth of crops, for warming the earth. When you don't know why something is happening, it is comforting, I suppose, to give credit or blame to an object or idea representing a god. In later beliefs, the concept of god and a better world awaiting after death was used to pacify the poor about their miserable plight and to prevent insurrection. Probably still is used that way. Look at all the hatred spread in the name of religion. Is there a god? I don't know and neither does anyone else. I've not seen any evidence one way or the other. Nothing in "religion" convinces me...in fact, just the opposite. If there is a god, why would that entity tolerate religion? I think you are still confusing "faith". A particular religion is just a conduit for faith. I know plenty of people who have faith there is a god and who avoid "religion" like the plague. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
|
#17
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On a lighter note ....
|
|
#18
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/2013 8:08 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 8:05 AM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:32:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I've not read the "atheist handbook." Which edition do you recommend? -- I am not an aficionado. It is the real religion of hate Really? Are there tribes of atheists running amok in the middle east, tossing bombs at buses full of school children, or are the atheists too busy flying drones into wedding parties? Oh, I know...it's the atheists shooting abortion doctors. The problem is that you athiests are too disorganized. You need to get together and draw up some guidelines and core values. Perhaps you could even have designated places where you can gather to teach and learn about atheism. -- Americans deserve better. |
|
#19
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/2013 8:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 7:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 7:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 7:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in your second paragraph. I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being, "god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial) delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be logically explained, repudiated or attacked. It seems obvious to me that early man developed a belief in god(s) and religion in an attempt to explain and understand some of what he didn't know or could not understand. Look at all the gods of the ancient Egyptians, especially "Ra," the all-powerful sun god, who was given credit for light, for growth of crops, for warming the earth. When you don't know why something is happening, it is comforting, I suppose, to give credit or blame to an object or idea representing a god. In later beliefs, the concept of god and a better world awaiting after death was used to pacify the poor about their miserable plight and to prevent insurrection. Probably still is used that way. Look at all the hatred spread in the name of religion. Is there a god? I don't know and neither does anyone else. I've not seen any evidence one way or the other. Nothing in "religion" convinces me...in fact, just the opposite. If there is a god, why would that entity tolerate religion? I think you are still confusing "faith". A particular religion is just a conduit for faith. I know plenty of people who have faith there is a god and who avoid "religion" like the plague. True. Like me. But there are also millions who find the conduit of religion to be helpful in the demonstration of their faith. I find nothing wrong with that and would never try to change their minds. |
|
#20
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On a lighter note ....
On 12/24/13, 8:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 8:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 7:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 7:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/24/13, 7:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote: On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you mean? Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed Jewish/Catholic background. Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world. The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics. An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit. You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic. Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an "agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know. Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs and ways developed. In many ways, things haven't changed much. We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign "tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and common "beliefs". Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something. I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in your second paragraph. I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being, "god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial) delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be logically explained, repudiated or attacked. It seems obvious to me that early man developed a belief in god(s) and religion in an attempt to explain and understand some of what he didn't know or could not understand. Look at all the gods of the ancient Egyptians, especially "Ra," the all-powerful sun god, who was given credit for light, for growth of crops, for warming the earth. When you don't know why something is happening, it is comforting, I suppose, to give credit or blame to an object or idea representing a god. In later beliefs, the concept of god and a better world awaiting after death was used to pacify the poor about their miserable plight and to prevent insurrection. Probably still is used that way. Look at all the hatred spread in the name of religion. Is there a god? I don't know and neither does anyone else. I've not seen any evidence one way or the other. Nothing in "religion" convinces me...in fact, just the opposite. If there is a god, why would that entity tolerate religion? I think you are still confusing "faith". A particular religion is just a conduit for faith. I know plenty of people who have faith there is a god and who avoid "religion" like the plague. True. Like me. But there are also millions who find the conduit of religion to be helpful in the demonstration of their faith. I find nothing wrong with that and would never try to change their minds. I don't have a problem with "the religious" so long as they don't try to shovel their beliefs in my path or impose them via governmental fiat. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| On a serious note | ASA | |||
| On another note.... | ASA | |||
| OT : On the lighter side - well worth the look (for guys ) | General | |||
| OT : On the lighter side - well worth the look (for guys ) | General | |||
| Note to Bob | ASA | |||
Linear Mode
