cuchulain

This is the specific post I responded to initially. And you took offense at my response? Look at what you said about Catholics. YOU said they(Catholics) was to believe the words of many conceited, power hungry sin filled popes, which is opinion by the way, not fact. All because Rabbi O(and how did you miss from his name that he is NOT Catholic?????) asked a question of your comment... But no, by all means, you are not being combative or defensive in any manner...right?

Those two other posts you mentioned? Simply put, I couldn't figure out what that guy was trying to say. How do you respond to someone's message if you can't decipher it? I am not saying it was his fault, my eyes kept skipping around with all those ...'s thrown in the middle of everything, and it seemed to be very disjointed to me. It's probably my failing for not taking the time to interpret it. But either way, I am allowed to choose what I wish to respond to on this forum, yes? Do you honestly take offense that I don't respond to EVERYTHING? That seems a little hypercritical to me. The other post? The one you said Fred was referencing? That's the one I was primarily referencing as well. And you even have a moderator on that page telling you the exact same thing I advised. And on that post, where I suggested it would be better in the pulpit section? You took offense, obviously, that I suggested such a thing. But hey, I'll let it go. Knock yourself out with your posts, have fun. I will do the same.

I don't believe faith to be a choice. If it were, there would be many people who would have a lot of work to do researching all the claims made of a religious nature or requiring faith, in an effort to determine for themselves if those claims were worth having faith in. And how would they differentiate? How does somebody choose to believe in Apollo the sun god but not Ra? Not Bel? Not Ishtar, or Shiva, or...well, the list goes on and on and ON with religion. There are so many deities to CHOOSE, if it were a choice. I think that perhaps, to choose an example just for example, the pope had been born in ancient Greece, he most likely wouldn't have been a Christian. A lot of people born in the United States are Christian, and most studies I have seen indicate it's primarily a family upbringing issue. They have been raised as Christians, they have been around other Christians, they have heard others make fun of people who choose differently...in other countries that are less religious, it's somewhat different. It isn't that they haven't heard about the bible, don't know about Christianity, or anything like that. It's that they see it as fairy tales, and can't understand how grown people believe that sort of thing(I can't remember the country in question or I would cite it, but I saw lots of interviews with the people there, and it was primarily an Atheist country in Europe). So to answer the last two questions: I do not think people of faith choose their path to find peace, initially. I think they CAN choose to think critically about their path, and I think that many of them do find ways to justify their faith and stick it out. Lots of people are afraid of looking foolish or having others think they were wrong about anything and will fight tooth and nail to prove they were right, even if they might be wrong. Accepting that people of no faith arrive at peace as well seems relatively easy for me. But maybe that's because I have studied various religions and encountered Buddhism. They don't believe in a deity that I am aware of, and they certainly seem pretty peaceful. Does faith or the lack of it matter to humanity in practical terms of survival? I don't know. I can see arguments for both sides, arguments from the faithful that sticking together as a society is important(of course, ignoring that they could choose to side with us instead of us with them ), and the argument from the non faithful, who can often point to the religious as deliberately sabotaging progress in the scientific arena(remember when stem cell research was such a major issue)? I guess that question comes to an "I don't know" from my side of things, but I am open to arguments from both sides.

I didn't intend to bicker. You may believe that or not, that's your choice... This is how simple it is for me. This is a forum. I am here to learn about other people's beliefs and ideas, as well as to share my own. In order to do that, I encounter new members like Dave here, who has ideas that are clearly different than mine. I certainly don't disparage your ideas, Dave. Maybe we got off on the wrong foot, and maybe I didn't communicate myself very well. Honestly, I don't think the former is the case, but maybe I didn't. I was simply trying to point out that in the spirit of getting along, it might not be wise to disparage an entire religion(in this case, you were saying negatives about Catholics as a whole). You took that as an attack... So maybe at this point it would behoove me to say that I view disagreement as a simple disagreement, not as an attack. Maybe you, Dave, view it differently? I am not attacking you, I am merely discussing your ideas. But if you go back, you became very defensive very fast, for...well, nothing really. You were preaching. Even Fred, who agrees with you, states that you were giving a good sermon...SERMON. All I did initially was point out that maybe it would be better situated there. That's all, and you took simple advice, advice which you certainly weren't obliged to take, as a direct attack. This is all the advice I will give about this particular branch of conversation. I simply thought it was a sermon, as Fred clearly stated he did as well. I thought it would be better situated in the Preachin' section. That's it. If you take that as an attack, you have very soft feelings and cannot accept criticism very well at all. As well, this is a forum where people disagree regularly. Disagreement is NOT attack. It's simply a difference in opinion. In this case, I had the opinion that your sermon belonged elsewhere, and stated it. I didn't flag your post, I didn't attack you as a person, all I did was suggest that maybe you shouldn't blanket statement negatively about Catholics. And I still hold that opinion. I'm not even Catholic...but I don't like to see others attacked broadly in such a manner. You believe it to be truth, and you think that's a shield for your attack? Reread those Terms of Service, friend, that you agreed to when signing up for this website. You are not allowed to disparage other people's faith. That's my little rant. Take it or don't, doesn't bother me. I think you may be reading more emotion in my posts than is present

we have only responded to you, care to show otherwise?

i think he'll be back...combative as ever. just a hunch, though.

so...it comes. peace and tolerance but only for those who agree with you. von said NOTHING disrespectful. you wouldn't last if you continued preaching your intolerance, friend.

I don't believe the bible is a good source for new parents on how to treat their children. And faith is certainly not a choice. I don't choose to disbelieve Zeus, Taranus the Thunderer, or Marduk Kurios of the double bladed axe...I simply don't see enough supporting evidence. It's much the same with Christianity. I don't see enough supporting evidence. Many have thought over the years that I specifically target Christians, that I pick on them, that I have some grudge against Christianity. In reality, as I have explained before, I often test the waters so to speak with new Christian members in the hopes of hearing something original or new, some little tid bit of information that will make me reexamine things, something that will shed some light on why people actually believe in this stuff. I read it, and I think it reads a lot like things in the National Inquirer, which also claims to be true. Burning bushes that talk, talking animals, world wide floods where only one specific family was spared...and yet we reproduced SO MUCH FASTER THAN IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE afterward. I just don't grasp how anyone can claim they have a line on the truth and I am wrong, when it appears to me that they are chasing fairy tales. I still hope for some shred, some piece of information I don't currently have. Yeah, people tell me I gotta have faith. But I am not built that way, and if God made everything including me, he made me a doubter...which in turn of course means he made me specifically as an example for those with faith so they can watch me burn for all eternity...which doesn't seem all that loving to me. Ah well...the quest goes on.

agreed. in the manual it states not to disparage others...like catholics.

i am not trying to provoke you. i honestly express my opinion that the topic sounds more suited to a different section, the same as you express your opinion. it just seems to me like you are holding some hostility for my honest opinion, so i asked. its sometimes easy to misinterpret online communications. i didnt say your opinion offended me, merely that claiming an entire branch of Christianity...you know what? not bothering.

i thought it was history you were interested in...this sounds more like preaching and teaching TO ME. do you find my suggestion annoying because I'm an atheist or do you seriously not see this as preaching? keep in mind i hold no hostility and was merely expressing an opinion.

RabbiO is Jewish, to my understanding...please correct me if I am in error, Rabbi. That said, there very well might be Catholic members of this forum. I would find what you posted offensive, and would consider that perhaps what you have to say better posted in the area called preaching rather than philosophy. OF course, I am one of those dreaded atheists...

I would suggest that for some people it might be helpful to draw lines. There are some extremely wishy washy people out there who have real trouble making even simple decisions, and having a strong and authoritative background can certainly help SOME people. I knew a buddies girlfriend once who took thirty minutes, literally thirty minutes, to decide on a choice of two things that were identical. They were the same exact product, although I don't remember what the product was. They were the same brand, color, everything. And it took her 30 minutes.

sorry to have thrown a wrench at it...or maybe it's a good thing to view things from multiple perspectives and possibilities?

only if we are viewing the entire equation...

It's conditional to an extent. If I am told by someone walking by on the street that my brakes are bad, and the car is just sitting parked...I don't put very much faith in their statement. If I am told by my mechanic that my brakes are bad, I look at them myself(I know how to check brakes, btw ) because it's possible they are bad, or it's possible he's trying to get a little more money out of my pocket. I actually went to Sears one time for brake pads, I usually do them myself but it was cold outside and I didn't have a garage and I thought I would let someone else do the job for convenience. They told me they did a free inspection and I needed $800 bucks worth of work. I went to Autozone and bought the pads for 25$ and did it myself, and it did not need new calipers, new rotors and new brake lines. Then you have the level of the claim being made and the "expertise" of the person involved in the claim. As I said, some guy walking by on the street viewing my car parked and not running, and I don't know his credentials but I DO know he hasn't even looked at the brakes? No. I guess the bottom line of all that mess is sometimes you have to examine the evidence for yourself and decide. You may be right, and you may be wrong...but either way the decision and responsibility is yours and nobody else's.

Don't forget that the law must also be enforced. Moving to Georgia, I was somewhat happy that the law about not using cell phones in cars was here as well as in Illinois. Now, after a year of sitting in line to collect my kids from school and watching parents sit and yap or text on the cell phone constantly even in the line at school, and cops do nothing about that...well. It puts the law into perspective a little bit.

i can agree with that, except to add that the possibility exists that a person incapable or unable to prove their claim is not necessarily false, simply not believable.

the book providing answers is fine, unless its just for the sake of having answers. anyone can give AN answer, you know...but it might be wrong.

It was meant for a chuckle. Sometimes we just need to take ourselves less seriously. I had a world religion teacher who insisted that any religion you can't laugh with should be done away with. I tend to think the same thing in philosophy

you aren't trying to, you know...make philosophy, um...practical, right?

asking for proof of a claim(free will) is antagonistic? i'm done. you apparently arent interested in proving your claim. you seem to be antagonistic to me, making an issue of definitions, then telling me you dislike the definition you yourself were using, then making issue of me not using the accurate definition AFTER you cited it as flawed...you're all over the board on this one. but refusing to prove a claim you made and insisting I am being unreasonable? that's a stretch, and i agree...time to be done with your antics.

the best position is the one you decide is right, ability to defend is irrelavent. for me, person a tells me they had a tuna sandwich for lunch and i believe them. its not a bizarre claim and doesnt really affect me either way. if same person insists they were soundly dead and got better after a few days, i want proof. if they don't provide it, i see no reason to believe OR accept i don't know as a valid answer. i am not agnostic about little green men who are really good at hiding living on the moon, either. i dont believe in them, flat out.

A good reason for thinking that no supreme being exists would be a simple lack of solid evidence. Of course, it's subjective as to what each individual believes is solid evidence...Dan believes because the bible is solid evidence. I do not believe because I don't think the bible is solid evidence. A person shouldn't believe in something by default, so they should seek out evidence. If there is no evidence for something(as discussed) then they shouldn't believe.

I have heard it said that the obstacle is the way. I am not certain I fully fathom what that means, certainly not for others. But for myself, it means that the obstacles encountered are opportunities rather than setbacks. Then, I consider that regardless of the path I take, I will one day end up in the same place as all the people around me, and all the people have ended up before me. Dead. I would hazard that one of the major roadblocks we mostly have in common is desire.