[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Incidently, I think this test is crap.

Of course you would think so, since it's supposed to help people find a religion that suits them. I personally know of five people who have benefited from this type of test, after they investigated the results. One lady had a radical change and switched from Catholicism to religious Taoism.

I can see where an atheist wouldn't get much from it. If, in a spiritual sense, you believe in nothing, how can it help you find more "nothing"?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Of course you would think so, since it's supposed to help people find a religion that suits them. I personally know of five people who have benefited from this type of test, after they investigated the results. One lady had a radical change and switched from Catholicism to religious Taoism.

I can see where an atheist wouldn't get much from it. If, in a spiritual sense, you believe in nothing, how can it help you find more "nothing"?

Shaddim knows nothing, or at least you claim to be an expert in nothing.

Atheists don't believe in God or Gods. Doesn't mean they are not spiritual or have no believe in anything.

There are many Buddhist and Taoist who are atheist.

Maybe you are thinking of Atheist who believe in Nihilism?

[Shaddim]

Hmmm, seems hyteckit posted something, but all I see is:

"This message is hidden because hyteckit is on your ignore list."

Darn, that's too bad.

[Chuckit]

Then I'll reiterate, because it was a pretty good point: Being an atheist doesn't mean you believe in nothing. It simply means you don't believe in a god. There are many Buddhists, Taoists, Satanists, etc. who have a religion but for all intents and purposes do not believe in a deity.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Of course you would think so, since it's supposed to help people find a religion that suits them. I personally know of five people who have benefited from this type of test, after they investigated the results. One lady had a radical change and switched from Catholicism to religious Taoism.

I can see where an atheist wouldn't get much from it. If, in a spiritual sense, you believe in nothing, how can it help you find more "nothing"?

This test is crap because it doesn't take into account the "feel" of a church, and it places moral doctrines along side of theology.

The "official" policy of ones' church on moral and social issues has nothing to do with which church you should belong to. The official morals of a church are always behind societal changes. If your church is less liberal that you, that's not a reason to leave, but to stay and work for change. (Gary Wills' book Why I Am a Catholic covers this issue.) There are many liberal-minded Catholics, for instance, but since it has nothing to do with worship or obligations it's better to stay. Most Catholics don't care what the Pope says about gays or condoms, but they like the atmosphere, liturgy, church music, and *privacy* that comes with Catholicism.

Also, even though churches like UU or Reform Judaism leave ethics to individual choice doesn't mean they must have liberal personal values - there's nothing fundamentally improper with being UU but still believing abortion is unethical.

The theology of that church is never gonna change, however, no matter what you do. If you think statues in a church are idolatry, you're never gonna be comfortable in a Catholic Church.

A church's feel is important too. The type of music, the way the church is financed, level of participation expected, etc. I can be comfortable in a Catholic Church (19%) but would go crazy around New Agers (41%) or Neo-Pagans (56%), especially since those categories are so broad as to be meaningless. And if your church demands personal evangelization efforts, you'll never be happy there if you just want to go to church to pray and sing and don't like "witnessing."

Also, churches which embody cultish qualities like Jehovah's Witness or Mormonism or Scientology really don't belong on this list. If you are at risk of being shunned by your family, it's better to stay and keep your family ties. Leaving the church can bring the entire church politics down on you and your family, which not everyone wants or can handle.

There's also the "belief verses practice" issue. There's no reason for a Hindu or a Jew to switch if he's comfortable keeping the practice, especially if it's gonna create family problems. Maimonides said once something like "keep the practice even if you can't keep the faith." Buddha also emphasized maintaining religious practices for non-religious purposes, if necessary.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Then I'll reiterate, because it was a pretty good point: Being an atheist doesn't mean you believe in nothing. It simply means you don't believe in a god. There are many Buddhists, Taoists, Satanists, etc. who have a religion but for all intents and purposes do not believe in a deity.

I've been saying that many atheists are religious for years, but certain people on MacNN have been shooting me down. Glad to see you agree with me.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I've been saying that many atheists are religious for years, but certain people on MacNN have been shooting me down. Glad to see you agree with me.

Jeez, you have it backwards again. He said no such thing.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This test is crap because it doesn't take into account the "feel" of a church, and it places moral doctrines along side of theology.

Of course it can't, it's just a broad indicator. Most organized religions mix moral dogma with their doctrine. Primarily, it aids in teaching that certain actions can be very harmful. Also, it's a means of control. Some people desire more control than others.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Jeez, you have it backwards again. He said no such thing.

really?

There are many Buddhists, Taoists, Satanists, etc. who have a religion but for all intents and purposes do not believe in a deity.

Looks obvious to me. Dogma comes in all shapes and sizes, grasshopper.

[Chuckit]

Aside from the "many," I think Shaddim's restatement of what I said is fair. (Just because many religious people are atheists doesn't necessarily mean many atheists are religious people. It definitely means some are, though.)

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I've been saying that many atheists are religious for years, but certain people on MacNN have been shooting me down. Glad to see you agree with me.

You are being disingenuous. When you would state that atheists are religious, it wasn't because they were Buddhists or Satanists, but because their belief in no god was a religious belief, i.e. a religion.

Like here:

An atheist is a person who has faith that a god doesn't exist (which is what I've been saying). As stated in the video, "it's about what you believe".

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You are being disingenuous. When you would state that atheists are religious, it wasn't because they were Buddhists or Satanists, but because their belief in no god was a religious belief, i.e. a religion.

Like here:

Then I'll say it's true that they can have religious conviction in both situations, which means they're probably a leg up on most Christians I know.

[- - e r i k - -]

Unsurprisingly:

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (90%)
3. Nontheist (81%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (71%)
5. Liberal Quakers (70%)
6. Neo-Pagan (60%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (53%)
8. Taoism (44%)
9. New Age (41%)
10. Reform Judaism (37%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (34%)
12. Orthodox Quaker (32%)
13. Sikhism (26%)
14. Scientology (24%)
15. Baha'i Faith (23%)
16. New Thought (23%)
17. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (20%)
18. Jainism (19%)
19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (17%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (16%)
21. Seventh Day Adventist (15%)
22. Hinduism (14%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (13%)
24. Islam (13%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (13%)
26. Roman Catholic (13%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (5%)

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You are being disingenuous. When you would state that atheists are religious, it wasn't because they were Buddhists or Satanists, but because their belief in no god was a religious belief, i.e. a religion.

Like here:

Not so much a religious belief as a form of faith.

Atheists, in my personal experience, tend to think that they're superior to non-atheists because they don't believe in something unknown or something they can't prove.

The problem is, the belief that there is no higher power (and no possibility of the existence of a higher power) requires faith, because it's something that can't be proven as fact.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Not so much a religious belief as a form of faith.

Atheists, in my personal experience, tend to think that they're superior to non-atheists because they don't believe in something unknown or something they can't prove.

The problem is, the belief that there is no higher power (and no possibility of the existence of a higher power) requires faith, because it's something that can't be proven as fact.

The difference between "religion" and "faith" is lost on most people. This makes them more dogmatic about whatever they're dogmatic about.

The funny thing about atheists is that they DO believe in something-very strongly. A negative belief ("there is no God") is still a belief, and their belief system (what does and doesn't exist) is just as rigid as any "believer's" system. Just as there can be no proof of the existence of divinity, there can be no proof that such does NOT exist, so in exactly the same way as the people they like to ridicule, atheists believe in the unprovable. And they don't get that this is a very cool inside joke. If they did, the strident among them could be a lot less unpleasant to be around.

I have some quite vocal Christian friends who, though they get preachy sometimes, are still pleasant to be around. Not so my atheist acquaintances-if they get into discussing atheism or divinity or whatever, they are very harsh and often rude. And they seem to look for opportunities to go that route.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I have some quite vocal Christian friends who, though they get preachy sometimes, are still pleasant to be around. Not so my atheist acquaintances-if they get into discussing atheism or divinity or whatever, they are very harsh and often rude. And they seem to look for opportunities to go that route.

You have a point, Glenn, but perhaps that's because we are a small minority, who is reminded everywhere we go that we are somehow inferior because we don't have an imaginary friend to talk to. Even so, I think you're generalizing too much.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The difference between "religion" and "faith" is lost on most people. This makes them more dogmatic about whatever they're dogmatic about.

The funny thing about atheists is that they DO believe in something-very strongly. A negative belief ("there is no God") is still a belief, and their belief system (what does and doesn't exist) is just as rigid as any "believer's" system. Just as there can be no proof of the existence of divinity, there can be no proof that such does NOT exist, so in exactly the same way as the people they like to ridicule, atheists believe in the unprovable. And they don't get that this is a very cool inside joke. If they did, the strident among them could be a lot less unpleasant to be around.

I have some quite vocal Christian friends who, though they get preachy sometimes, are still pleasant to be around. Not so my atheist acquaintances-if they get into discussing atheism or divinity or whatever, they are very harsh and often rude. And they seem to look for opportunities to go that route.

I've noticed this with atheists I've come across. They tend to be much more militant in their beliefs - and are openly hateful and cruel toward people who believe in a higher power (usually Christians). I used to be friends with a hardcore atheist who insisted that I was weak and spineless because I "needed" a deity in order to develop a set of moral values, whereas he "didn't need anyone to tell him what's right and wrong". He told me I had been brainwashed by my Christian upbringing, as though I couldn't possibly be a Christian if I gave any thought to what I believed in.

It seems like many atheists tend to carry an air of superiority that they're better than others for not believing in something unseen or unprovable, when in reality their own belief system requires just as much faith. I'd be able to tolerate atheists a lot more if they would at least openly admit that much.

[andi*pandi]

go team UU! Although some of the questions were somewhat vague for me. Religion I was born to is last.

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Secular Humanism (99%)
3. Neo-Pagan (91%)
4. Liberal Quakers (91%)
5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (82%)
6. Theravada Buddhism (79%)
7. New Age (72%)
8. Reform Judaism (72%)
9. Nontheist (70%)
10. Mahayana Buddhism (69%)
11. Taoism (65%)
12. Orthodox Quaker (62%)
13. Sikhism (49%)
14. Jainism (46%)
15. Scientology (46%)
16. New Thought (44%)
17. Baha'i Faith (42%)
18. Orthodox Judaism (37%)
19. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (36%)
20. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (35%)
21. Islam (35%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (32%)
23. Hinduism (30%)
24. Eastern Orthodox (25%)
25. Roman Catholic (25%)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I've noticed this with atheists I've come across. They tend to be much more militant in their beliefs - and are openly hateful and cruel toward people who believe in a higher power (usually Christians).

Yep. An awful lot of atheists aren't atheists at all - they're anti-theists. That is, their belief system is born out of a strong rebelliousness towards "established" belief systems rather than any strong conviction which they've independently arrived at.

Most of said "anti-theists" also tend to be lefties, since most leftism comes from the same place (a strong dislike of traditional values, of the status quo).

[sek929]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

It seems like many atheists tend to carry an air of superiority that they're better than others for not believing in something unseen or unprovable, when in reality their own belief system requires just as much faith. I'd be able to tolerate atheists a lot more if they would at least openly admit that much.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep. An awful lot of atheists aren't atheists at all - they're anti-theists. That is, their belief system is born out of a strong rebelliousness towards "established" belief systems rather than any strong conviction which they've independently arrived at.

Agreed on both counts, which is why I'm a firm spiritual agnostic. I'd rather get in a heated argument defending religion from a rude Atheist than the other way around. Although both sides love to re-define the other in their own words which is equally destructive to any productive discussion.

[Dakar V]

I've been derided as gutless for proclaiming agnosticism over atheism because I feel the latter requires a certainty you really have no business having.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I've been derided as gutless for proclaiming agnosticism over atheism because I feel the latter requires a certainty you really have no business having.

They find your lack of faith disturbing?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Agreed on both counts, which is why I'm a firm spiritual agnostic. I'd rather get in a heated argument defending religion from a rude Atheist than the other way around. Although both sides love to re-define the other in their own words which is equally destructive to any productive discussion.

If I'd remembered correctly, I was the one defending Scientology while you were the one criticizing the religion.

After all, Scientology is an established religion.

It takes a lot of faith not believing in UFO's

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep. An awful lot of atheists aren't atheists at all - they're anti-theists. That is, their belief system is born out of a strong rebelliousness towards "established" belief systems rather than any strong conviction which they've independently arrived at.

Most of said "anti-theists" also tend to be lefties, since most leftism comes from the same place (a strong dislike of traditional values, of the status quo).

Most Christians are born into the belief system "rather than any strong conviction which they've independently arrived at."


I'm not anti-theist.

I'm just defending the majority from imposing their views and "traditional values" on the minority.
It just so happens Christianity is the majority religion, so it gets most of my wrath.

I've defended Scientology against Christians here.
I've defended Islam against Christians here.
I've defended Buddhism/Hinduism against Christians here.


I stand up for minority rights.

Christians against gay rights.
Christians against abortion.
Christians against islam.
Christians against atheist.
Christians against scientology.


I've defended Scientology, Atheist, Abortion, Gay Rights, Islam, Buddhism/Hinduism, and so forth.


If Christians would stop imposing their "traditional values" on others, you will see me being less critical of Christianity.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I've been derided as gutless for proclaiming agnosticism over atheism because I feel the latter requires a certainty you really have no business having.

Interesting.

I have more respect for someone who at least admits they can't know for sure (in any belief system or dogma) than someone who not only insists they are unequivocally right but also openly looks with disdain upon those who disagree with them.

Atheists are not the only people who carry such an attitude, although they are sometimes more vocal about it.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Most Christians are born into the belief system "rather than any strong conviction which they've independently arrived at."

People are all born into some kind of belief system. Sure, you have those who are born into a liberal home and turn conservative (and vice versa), and you have people born into Christian homes who turn Buddhist or whatever. But the majority of any philosophical, religious, or political demographic is there because they were born into it.

I was born into a Christian home. Until a few years ago, I just kind of went with it because it's what I knew. Then as I started to research things for my own knowledge, I developed strong convictions about what I believe. My beliefs didn't change, but I don't believe in God because my parents do. I believe in God because I do.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Atheists, in my personal experience, tend to think that they're superior to non-atheists because they don't believe in something unknown or something they can't prove.

I'm sure you mean "evangelizing atheists" and not just atheists.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The problem is, the belief that there is no higher power (and no possibility of the existence of a higher power) requires faith, because it's something that can't be proven as fact.

[sigh] That's because you can't prove a negative. Basic logic. By your reasoning, not only does the Christian God exist, but all the Greek gods, the Japanese gods, Norse gods, are equally likely.

[Oisín]

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (93%)
3. Liberal Quakers (82%)
4. Neo-Pagan (71%)
5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (69%)
6. Nontheist (69%)
7. Theravada Buddhism (67%)
8. New Age (61%)
9. Taoism (55%)
10. Orthodox Quaker (52%)
11. Reform Judaism (52%)
12. Mahayana Buddhism (50%)
13. Baha'i Faith (40%)
14. Scientology (37%)
15. Sikhism (37%)
16. Jainism (35%)
17. New Thought (35%)
18. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (29%)
19. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (28%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (24%)
21. Islam (22%)
22. Orthodox Judaism (22%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (22%)
24. Hinduism (19%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (18%)
26. Roman Catholic (18%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (12%)

I’m not sure was ‘secular humanism’ is, but if it’s something that describes someone who really doesn’t bother spending any time (present Internet test excluded) thinking or worrying about Gods, religion, spirituality, or anything in that general area of thought, then it describes me just fine. I don’t know what I’d call myself, ’cause the whole concept of describing yourself as belonging to one kind of creed/belief/religion/non-belief/whatever or the other just seems utterly irrelevant to me.

It’s sort of like if someone were to ask me what kind of car I prefer driving (manual/automatic transmission, turbo/non-turbo, etc.). How am I supposed to answer that? I don’t even have a driving licence, and being a driver is completely irrelevant to me—it doesn’t enter into my world. Am I ‘anti-theist’, ‘atheist’, ‘agnostic’, ‘secular humanist’, or just a pedestrian, then? Who cares?

[sigh] That's because you can't prove a negative. Basic logic. By your reasoning, not only does the Christian God exist, but all the Greek gods, the Japanese gods, Norse gods, are equally likely.

Well, they are, aren’t they?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Well, they are, aren’t they?

Yep.

I believe with all my heart that God exists and that what the Bible says about Him is true.

But that doesn't mean that there's no possible way I'm wrong. I'm not naive enough to think that my religion couldn't possibly be wrong. In fact, what I believe means it's impossible for me to be unquestionably right - Christianity teaches that humans are fallible. Since what we know in 2009 about Christianity has been passed down through centuries by humans, it is inevitably imperfect knowledge.

The way I see it, I don't have anything to lose by choosing Christianity. It's entirely possible that I'm wrong. In fact, it's even possible (although I grant that it's one damn remote possibility) that L. Ron Hubbard really has figured everything out, and we should all be terrified of Xenu making a comeback.

I think it's important for anyone in any religious or philosophical background to remember that they can never be 100% certain they're right and have found the answer (or one of the answers, etc.).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I'm just defending the majority from imposing their views and "traditional values" on the minority.
It just so happens Christianity is the majority religion, so it gets most of my wrath.

I've defended Scientology against Christians here.
I've defended Islam against Christians here.
I've defended Buddhism/Hinduism against Christians here.

I stand up for minority rights.

Christians against gay rights.
Christians against abortion.
Christians against islam.
Christians against atheist.
Christians against scientology.

I've defended Scientology, Atheist, Abortion, Gay Rights, Islam, Buddhism/Hinduism, and so forth.

If Christians would stop imposing their "traditional values" on others, you will see me being less critical of Christianity.

See, there ya go. You're exactly who I described.

Big load of Christians rushing out of their churches and forcing you to celebrate Easter around where you live, is there?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

See, there ya go. You're exactly who I described.

Big load of Christians rushing out of their churches and forcing you to celebrate Easter around where you live, is there?

What? I love Christmas and Easter.

Maybe it requires a lot of faith not to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I must say, I never believed in them. Maybe I'm just anti-claus.

How do you feel if Hindus are the majority in the US and run the US government? How do you feel if those Hindus start banning the killing of cows? No more beef, no more hamburgers, no more steak.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

If I'd remembered correctly, I was the one defending Scientology while you were the one criticizing the religion.

After all, Scientology is an established religion.

Scientology is using the term "religion" to protect itself from the FDA and the IRS. I strongly defend anyone's right to believe in something stupid (and Scientology is bona fide stupidity) but that doesn't mean it deserves respect.

Maybe this is hard for you to understand, but some religions are more respectable than others. My degree of hostility to a religious person is proportional to their degree of stupidity.

A religion that claims mental illness is caused by invisible thetans or demonic possession is less respectable than a religion that respects modern scientific discoveries. To their credit, mainstream Christian churches have long recognized that even if possession is real, it's very, very rare. They have become more respectable by abandoning medieval nonsense. Scientology is pretending to be "scientific" while at the same time spewing unscientific rubbish, all for the purpose of grabbing money from gullible fools. Scientology is the worst "simony" ever seen.

Stupidity isn't the only reason I get my atheist back up. If someone is gonna "evangelize" their beliefs, I'm gonna "evangelize" mine right back. Stay outta the kitchen if you can't stand the heat.

And of course, if someone is gonna politicize their beliefs, I'm gonna get pissed. I won't stand for getting religion getting shoved down my throat.

So if your religion isn't brazenly absurd, you aren't evangelizing me, and you aren't trying to establish a theocracy, we can be friends.

[Oisín]

How do you feel if Hindus are the majority in the US and run the US government? How do you feel if those Hindus start banning the killing of cows? No more beef, no more hamburgers, no more steak.

Considering Doofy’s vegetarian—probably couldn’t care less.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I was born into a Christian home. Until a few years ago, I just kind of went with it because it's what I knew. Then as I started to research things for my own knowledge, I developed strong convictions about what I believe. My beliefs didn't change, but I don't believe in God because my parents do. I believe in God because I do.

So you are just reaffirming the religion you were born into?

Have you research other religions?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The way I see it, I don't have anything to lose by choosing Christianity.

It depends on the brand of Christianity.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Considering Doofy’s vegetarian—probably couldn’t care less.

It doesn't matter if he is a vegeterian or not. Unless he believes everyone should be a vegeterian and there should be laws banning eating meat.

What I have a problem is not with religion itself, but others imposing their religious believe or "traditional values" on others.

You don't believe in eating meat? Fine. Just don't banned others from eating meat.

You think homosexuality is wrong? Fine. Just don't banned gays from having sex.

You think sodomy is wrong? Fine. Just don't banned others from getting some anal/oral action going on.

Your religion says gay marriage is wrong? Fine. Just don't banned gays from getting married.


If vegeterian control congress and start banning meat, I would be very upset with vegeterians. It just doesn't mean I hate vegetables or vegeterians. I would start saying how stupid vegetarians are by banning meat.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Scientology is using the term "religion" to protect itself from the FDA and the IRS. I strongly defend anyone's right to believe in something stupid (and Scientology is bona fide stupidity) but that doesn't mean it deserves respect.

Maybe this is hard for you to understand, but some religions are more respectable than others. My degree of hostility to a religious person is proportional to their degree of stupidity.

A religion that claims mental illness is caused by invisible thetans or demonic possession is less respectable than a religion that respects modern scientific discoveries. To their credit, mainstream Christian churches have long recognized that even if possession is real, it's very, very rare. They have become more respectable by abandoning medieval nonsense. Scientology is pretending to be "scientific" while at the same time spewing unscientific rubbish, all for the purpose of grabbing money from gullible fools. Scientology is the worst "simony" ever seen.

Stupidity isn't the only reason I get my atheist back up. If someone is gonna "evangelize" their beliefs, I'm gonna "evangelize" mine right back. Stay outta the kitchen if you can't stand the heat.

And of course, if someone is gonna politicize their beliefs, I'm gonna get pissed. I won't stand for getting religion getting shoved down my throat.

So if your religion isn't brazenly absurd, you aren't evangelizing me, and you aren't trying to establish a theocracy, we can be friends.

I'm not going to start ranking religions based on their degree of stupidity. I'm pretty sure it's all relative.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Considering Doofy’s vegetarian—probably couldn’t care less.

Amen.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

It doesn't matter if he is a vegeterian or not. Unless he believes everyone should be a vegeterian and there should be laws banning eating meat.

What I have a problem is not with religion itself, but others imposing their religious believe or "traditional values" on others.

As an anarcho-capitalist, I'm down with what you're saying here.

Now, what about those little laws which expect me to pay tax just because the majority seems to like paying tax?
And that small matter of speed limits.
And let's not forget polygyny.

I hope you're fighting the majority view on those too. Else it'd just look like you're against Christianity, not the majority.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Amen.



As an anarcho-capitalist, I'm down with what you're saying here.

Now, what about those little laws which expect me to pay tax just because the majority seems to like paying tax?
And that small matter of speed limits.
And let's not forget polygyny.

I hope you're fighting the majority view on those too. Else it'd just look like you're against Christianity, not the majority.

Sound like you are an anti-theist who is just fighting against the status quo.

polygyny? Jeez, aren't you selfish and male chauvinistic. I support polygamy as oppose to polygyny. If a girl wants to marry more than one guy, that's fine. If a guy wants to marry more than one girl, that's fine.

But I do believe in laws, regulations, and equal human rights.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You have a point, Glenn, but perhaps that's because we are a small minority, who is reminded everywhere we go that we are somehow inferior because we don't have an imaginary friend to talk to. Even so, I think you're generalizing too much.

It could be that my opinions are heavily shaped by having lived in Austin, with a fairly large and vocal atheist population around me. This was in the mid-80s when the American Atheists were quite active and apparently "out to prove something." I saw people berated for the conversational "bless you" after someone sneezed. Sheesh, do simple social graces HAVE to be taken literally? Apparently so to some of these folks.

To have someone tell me or anyone else that "you are a lesser person for not sharing my concept of divinity" says that such a person is himself a very small person.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Sound like you are an anti-theist who is just fighting against the status quo.

Well, until you show me proof that those taxes and speed limits are supported by religion...

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

polygyny? Jeez, aren't you selfish and male chauvinistic. I support polygamy as oppose to polygyny.

The Bible supports polygyny but not polygamy, thus I'm bound by those rules (through choice). Human nature also supports polygyny, not polygamy.

So, how's the fight against all that doing? Is the land of the free ready for the freedom of no taxes, no speed limits and polygyny?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, until you show me proof that those taxes and speed limits are supported by religion...



The Bible supports polygyny but not polygamy, thus I'm bound by those rules (through choice). Human nature also supports polygyny, not polygamy.

So, how's the fight against all that doing? Is the land of the free ready for the freedom of no taxes, no speed limits and polygyny?

What? An anarchist who follows rules of the Bible? You can't be an anarchist who follows rules and laws.

How does taxes and speed limit infringe on the rights of the minority?
Are you against laws that make drunk driving illegal as well as speed limits?

If you are driving in a public highway, then you must obey the speed limit because it affects others who are driving in the public highway. Hell, if you own your own track, I couldn't care less if you go 200mph or drive drunk, as long as you are not endangering others lives.

In public, you are not allow to infringe on the rights of others. People want to be able to drive safely on the highway without crazy anarchist nuts who run through red traffic lights, don't obey speed limit, don't stop at stop signs, or drive while drunk.

You are actually against all those traffic laws?

I'm not pro-minority views. I don't support views just because they are a minority view.

I'm for protecting the equal rights of minorities when their rights are being impose on by the majority.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What? An anarchist who follows rules of the Bible? You can't be an anarchist who follows rules and laws.

I think you need to employ a better research assistant.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I think you need to employ a better research assistant.

Not at all. Anarchist are against rules and authority. You are just anti-government, but follows the rules and authority of the church and Bible.

You are not an Anarchist, you are just anti-government.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anarchist

a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Not at all. Anarchist are against rules and authority. You are just anti-government, but follows the rules and authority of the church and Bible.

I follow no church authority. The only authorities I am aware of are The Lord our God and my mom.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You are not an Anarchist, you are just anti-government.

Anarchist definition | Dictionary.com

a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

Like I said, you need a better research assistant.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I follow no church authority. The only authorities I am aware of are The Lord our God and my mom.



Like I said, you need a better research assistant.

I think you need a better research assistant.

What anarchist supports polygyny, but not polygamy? It's asking an established institution to make laws allowing a guy to have multiple wives, but banning a woman from having multiple husbands.

You said you support polygyny but not polygamy because it's established in the Bible, and a custom.

You are accepting the established rules and customs of an established institution.

You are no anarchist. Anarchist revolt against any established rule, law, or custom by any established institutions whether it's the government or a religious institution.

You sound more like an anti-government, anti-tax, right-wing radical who couldn't care less about equal rights of minorities, and would rather see government laws be supplanted by rules in the Bible.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What anarchist supports polygyny, but not polygamy? It's asking an established institution to make laws allowing a guy to have multiple wives, but banning a woman from having multiple husbands.

Did I say I'd ban polyandry or polyamory? No. I just said I don't personally support it. Not supporting something is not equal to wanting it banned.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You said you support polygyny but not polygamy because it's established in the Bible, and a custom.

You are accepting the established rules and customs of an established institution.

You are no anarchist. Anarchist revolt against any established rule, law, or custom by any established institutions whether it's the government or a religious institution.

You sound more like an anti-government, anti-tax, right-wing radical who couldn't care less about equal rights of minorities, and would rather see government laws be supplanted by rules in the Bible.

I think you need to go look up the term "anarcho-capitalist".

[- - e r i k - -]

Doofy's just Doofy. Let him define his own reality. He seems to be content in doing so.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I follow no church authority. The only authorities I am aware of are The Lord our God and my mom.

It's difficult for many to understand that you can worship God without bowing to human leadership.

Furthermore, they can't seem to come to grasp the not-so-subtle difference between not supporting something and wanting the practice banned. I blame our education systems.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The way I see it, I don't have anything to lose by choosing Christianity. [

Besides 10% of your income, premarital sex, drinking, and your Sunday mornings?

Unless your brand of Christianity involves rationalizing away any rules you don't want to follow.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Not supporting something is not equal to wanting it banned.

Unfortunately, quite a lot of people in the US believe exactly the opposite. These individuals almost always call themselves "Christians," but wouldn't let Christ, or anyone else with long hair, a beard and sandals, into their "houses of worship." I know a LOT of actually sincere Christians, but these "my way or the highway" individuals are not among that number, and I am extremely sorry that they use Christ's name without appearing to have a clue about His teachings.