[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Kevin

For one, I am a more tolerant person.

LOL. Hardly.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Again tolerance is how you treat the very people you don't agree with.

It seems like I'm not the only person who disagrees with you here:

Main Entry: tol·er·ance
Pronunciation: 'tä-l&-r&n(t)s, 'täl-r&n(t)s
Function: noun
sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION...

So how does this "indulgence" and "sympathy" thing work out in terms of religious diversity for a fundie?

Originally Posted by Kevin

I've had enough people in here complain to me about your posting problems in this forum.

Rest assured, I don't have any "posting problems". Strange though, that people would complain to you about my posts.

OTOH, I really couldn't care less about people who don't even have the balls to PM me about their "issues".

Originally Posted by Kevin

I would say tolerance is very important.

So do I. Too bad you don't even understand the concept behind the term.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I assure you I do not.

Well, If you expect anybody to take you seriously, you would. But then nobody really does. So don't be surprised about that.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, Christianity = A way of life. One you consider fundamentalist.

Errr, no, Christianity=faith. That's just the point. And that's why people like you don't get to make it political. No matter what you believe.

Originally Posted by Kevin

You usually never differentiate the two Kronos.

And that's another flat out LIE! As a matter of fact, I've differentiated between the two several times in this thread.

Originally Posted by Kevin

You call ANYONE of faith names and belittle them.

I just call 'em as I see 'em while exercising my freedom of speech. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Kevin]

Wow Kronos, a post of nothing but personal attacks.

Grow up.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Because these "concepts" are ethnocentric myths and metaphors. They are very cliché and certainly don't have any "universal" standing in terms of cross-cultural relevance.

These "real manifestations" (i.e. a place with a lot of fire, a place in the clouds etc.) are mythological fabrications and images, which were, at the time of their inception the height of the respective cultural paradigm - 400 to 600 years ago!

It may behoove a simple person without formal education or knowledge of cultural anthropology to believe in such things. But the truth is that each culture has it's own mythology and there is no universal claim to esoteric or super-natural myths. They simply reflect ethnic stereotypes, clichés and more often than not, "real life" social interactions.

Even the most cursory study of comparative anthropology reveals this.

[edit]

If "stupid" and "ignorant" are words which seem to harsh, you may replace them with "incredibly naive" or "uneducated".

The problem I have isn't so much with the metaphysical allegories, but with the literal interpretation of text. Here, as always, it is the fundamentalist attitude which is hurting and distorting the image and perception of religious people and their beliefs.

I'm back from weekend, I hope the waiting-time was not too hard. Good to see you bringing up your reasoning for thinking that belief in a physical heaven/paradise or hell is "incredibly naive" and uneducated.

So you take the position that since many cultures have myths about the beyond, and these myths are not identical, that it means that there is no underlining universal truth.

But let's imagine that God really exists, and that He really created everything, including us humans, and that He really intends to recreate every human on judgment day and bring them all to court, and punish the ones in a real and physical hell forever and reward others forever in a real and physical paradise.

Let's also imagine, that God inspired humans throughout the ages, who reported about the beyond and its reality, not just the famous six, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, but hundreds of thousands of messengers in diverse cultures and in diverse times and ages, most of them way before messages could be preserved in written form.

Given that there would be now two possibilities:

1. There is only one reality of the beyond, and the diverse cultures only developed different concepts, because a) the different languages and mindsets led to different descriptions of what is possibly not perfectly describable in human languages, or b) the oral tradition of most cultures led to a transformation of the original messages over the time.

2. In the beyond there are multiple realities, every culture would find in the beyond the reality that is described to them in the message they received from God.

Personally I'm inclined more to number 1, but both possibilities would explain the different concepts in different cultures.

So, in the end it depends on what you believe in the first place. If one, like you, believes that God doesn't exist, that there will be no ressurection, and no beyond, then one can glance at the concepts of the beyond of the different cultures, and thinking that they are all myths developed by humans out of fear regarding death and life's sense, and further confirm the belief in God's and beyond's nonexistence.
But if one, like me, believes that God exists, that there will be ressurection and a beyond, then one can glance at the concepts of the beyond of the different cultures, and see it as God's message expressed in different languages, mindsets and times, describing a reality of the beyond that is ultimately not fully describable in human languages, and probably transformed by humans over the time thanks to the oral tradition of most cultures.

Taliesin

[marden]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

LOL. Hardly.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, Christianity = A way of life. One you consider fundamentalist. But that is really irrelevant now isn't it?

You usually never differentiate the two Kronos.

You call ANYONE of faith names and belittle them. So lets not pretend otherwise.

That's what gets me upset. Atheists try to take advantage of Christians good nature and tolerance to piss in the pool that EVERYONE has to swim in. But they only make things suitable for their own 5% of the population selfish interests that love to swim in fouled water. I think that stinks.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I'm back from weekend, I hope the waiting-time was not too hard. Good to see you bringing up your reasoning for thinking that belief in a physical heaven/paradise or hell is "incredibly naive" and uneducated.

So you take the position that since many cultures have myths about the beyond, and these myths are not identical, that it means that there is no underlining universal truth.

But let's imagine that God really exists, and that He really created everything, including us humans, and that He really intends to recreate every human on judgment day and bring them all to court, and punish the ones in a real and physical hell forever and reward others forever in a real and physical paradise.

Let's also imagine, that God inspired humans throughout the ages, who reported about the beyond and its reality, not just the famous six, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, but hundreds of thousands of messengers in diverse cultures and in diverse times and ages, most of them way before messages could be preserved in written form.

Given that there would be now two possibilities:

1. There is only one reality of the beyond, and the diverse cultures only developed different concepts, because a) the different languages and mindsets led to different descriptions of what is possibly not perfectly describable in human languages, or b) the oral tradition of most cultures led to a transformation of the original messages over the time.

2. In the beyond there are multiple realities, every culture would find in the beyond the reality that is described to them in the message they received from God.

Personally I'm inclined more to number 1, but both possibilities would explain the different concepts in different cultures.

So, in the end it depends on what you believe in the first place. If one, like you, believes that God doesn't exist, that there will be no ressurection, and no beyond, then one can glance at the concepts of the beyond of the different cultures, and thinking that they are all myths developed by humans out of fear regarding death and life's sense, and further confirm the belief in God's and beyond's nonexistence.
But if one, like me, believes that God exists, that there will be ressurection and a beyond, then one can glance at the concepts of the beyond of the different cultures, and see it as God's message expressed in different languages, mindsets and times, describing a reality of the beyond that is ultimately not fully describable in human languages, and probably transformed by humans over the time thanks to the oral tradition of most cultures.

Taliesin

He will not be able to make sense of what you have elequently pointed out.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

So you take the position that since many cultures have myths about the beyond, and these myths are not identical, that it means that there is no underlining universal truth.

That too. But then there have been cultures that didn't have any concept of the "beyond", others again didn't see it as anything separate from the "here and now".

The interesting part, to me at least, is that these descriptions always mimic the respective social life and attitudes of the cultures in question. Almost as if they were projecting something into the "heavens". Or the underground…or where ever they thought their souls would travel when their "earthly containers" had passed away.

Some believed they would take their bodies with them, others thought they'd enter different bodies…

The bottom line is though, that all of these are myths.

And yes, most people who believe in a physical manifestation of heaven and hell do so because they simply haven't been exposed to alternative theories and religions. And if they are, they simply ignore the fact that their mythology is one out of many that have come and gone in the course of history - and there's really nothing "special" about it.

Originally Posted by Taliesin

...but hundreds of thousands of messengers in diverse cultures and in diverse times and ages, most of them way before messages could be preserved in written form.

Actually, oral traditions have proven to be fairly "accurate" and "stable" throughout history. Some creation myths, religious accounts, stories about the afterlife are strikingly similar. Others so completely different from each other, that one would have a tough time drawing any parallels or reconciling the all too apparent differences (both on a cultural and mythological level)

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Given that there would be now two possibilities…

No, actually, there would be an endless number of possibilities.

The bottom line is, either you believe in rational, repeatable, intellectual and what is most important verifiable evidence, - or you believe whatever you want. And then the possibilities go as far as your imagination stretches.

One not more valid or viable than the other. All equally "true".

[Nicko]

The fact is, the concept of a god or other diety is just a theory and will remain so forever.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Nicko

The fact is, the concept of a god or other diety is just a theory and will remain so forever.

Oh I am sure one day each of us will find out.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

That too. But then there have been cultures that didn't have any concept of the "beyond", others again didn't see it as anything separate from the "here and now".

The interesting part, to me at least, is that these descriptions always mimic the respective social life and attitudes of the cultures in question. Almost as if they were projecting something into the "heavens". Or the underground…or where ever they thought their souls would travel when their "earthly containers" had passed away.

Some believed they would take their bodies with them, others thought they'd enter different bodies…

The bottom line is though, that all of these are myths.

And yes, most people who believe in a physical manifestation of heaven and hell do so because they simply haven't been exposed to alternative theories and religions. And if they are, they simply ignore the fact that their mythology is one out of many that have come and gone in the course of history - and there's really nothing "special" about it.

Yes, there is definitely some projecting of the respective social lifes and attitudes into the beyond, but the reason for that can be three-fold, or probably more, but these to should suffice:
a) God gives every culture in the beyond something that resembles their understanding, ie. different realities for different cultures.
b) The inspiration and receiving of God's message runs through a translation and transformation-process when going through the brain of the inspired human, and therefore the description of the unknown and potentially indescribable beyond gets linked with the known concept of the respective social life and attitude.
c) Some cultures received information about the beyond, while then the stories about it travelled around and got copycated and transformed and integrated into other stories.. ie. a dynamic process of myth-creation.

It's also possible that all three, a)- c), are true at once.

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Actually, oral traditions have proven to be fairly "accurate" and "stable" throughout history. Some creation myths, religious accounts, stories about the afterlife are strikingly similar. Others so completely different from each other, that one would have a tough time drawing any parallels or reconciling the all too apparent differences (both on a cultural and mythological level)

How can it be proven that oral traditions are fairly accurate and stable, espescially over times of thousands of years?

And like already said, the difference in the accounts and descriptions of the beyond, doesn't mean that there is none.

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

No, actually, there would be an endless number of possibilities.

The bottom line is, either you believe in rational, repeatable, intellectual and what is most important verifiable evidence, - or you believe whatever you want. And then the possibilities go as far as your imagination stretches.

One not more valid or viable than the other. All equally "true".

You take the wrong route here, when talking about the beyond there is no possibility for rational verifiable science, for that there would have to be a possibility to reach the beyond to measure it and to come back to report about it.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

I think Taliesin just made a little baby smackdown in our presence.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I think Taliesin just made a little baby smackdown in our presence.

Good on you, Taliesin!


That's how I make a baby smackdown icon.

[Dakar]

Yeah, the size and dimensions tag reek of 'infant' in my mind.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Yeah, the size and dimensions tag reek of 'infant' in my mind.

If your is better, I'll remove mine.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by marden

If your is better, I'll remove mine.

Sorry, I'm not into partisan cheerleading.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Sorry, I'm not into partisan cheerleading.

Maybe I'm too busy with my partisan cheerleading to notice. But when do you criticize the leftists or the enemy?

[Dakar]

Usually when you've been banned.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Usually when you've been banned.

You obviously are mistaking me for someone else.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by marden

You obviously are mistaking me for someone else.

Sorry, I must have been thrill seeking.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Sorry, I must have been thrill seeking.

Get your thrills in Iraq.

[Dakar]

Nothing thrilling about that.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Yes, there is definitely some projecting of the respective social lifes and attitudes into the beyond, but the reason for that can be three-fold, or probably more, but these to should suffice:

Hey, even one would suffice if your claim wasn't that these are actual physical places we are talking about.

Because:

Originally Posted by Taliesin

…when talking about the beyond there is no possibility for rational verifiable science, for that there would have to be a possibility to reach the beyond to measure it and to come back to report about it.

And that's why literalism and fundamentalism only speak to most simple minded and naive. It's a truth that doesn't need...no, actually, can't be verified.

Again, you only have 2 choices. Believing, or knowing. If you believe, there is no reason to chose one over the other, - if you know, literalism and fundamentalism are completely useless.

[- - e r i k - -]

But then again in the mind of a fundamentalist believing is knowing.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

And that's why literalism and fundamentalism only speak to most simple minded and naive. It's a truth that doesn't need...no, actually, can't be verified.

Again, you only have 2 choices. Believing, or knowing. If you believe, there is no reason to chose one over the other, - if you know, literalism and fundamentalism are completely useless.

Nothing about God and beyond can be verified, they are both outside of the realm of scientific inquiry-possibility. Scientific inquiry requires controlled environment and repetitive and reproducable results, you can't do that with God and beyond, cause it's impossible for us humans to die and then to do the measurement and then to come back, at least not until judgment day, but I guess then it's too late to bother.

So if you are of the kind that can only believe things that can be scientifically verified, then I guess you are out of the game, but then again scientifically verifiable things don't require belief, ok maybe a minimum verging on nearly nothing, because they tend to become knowledge.

For me personally, faith is a sort of process that doesn't start with the beyond, but with the here and now. Thinking about this world leads me after a lot of philosophical and scientific steps to the crossway of either believing that things can come into existence out of nothing, or that (a) creator(s) is (are) responsible. I found the latter possibility way more probable, and considering the structure and laws of this universe I came to the conviction that only one creator is possible, or at least a unified will of multiple creators, which would in effect be the same.

Given that I thought about human life's sense in such a created universe, and the abrahamitic religion's message of recognizing that creator, being thankful, doing good... made sense to me, and the promise of a recreation and a just judgment, depending on deeds and faith, ie. truthfulness, which would be an easy task to do for the creator of the universe, not only possible but also hopeinducing.

The rest, so to speak, is history.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Sorry, I'm not into partisan cheerleading.

Partisan?

Me and tali usually disagree.

Sorry that didn't work out the way you were planning...

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Partisan?

Me and tali usually disagree.

Most of the time its conservatives cheering for conservatives, right?

Anyway, you supporting someone debating an atheist ain't exactly a stretch for the imagination, either.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Sorry that didn't work out the way you were planning...

I'm sorry your posts frequently carry this type of worthless content.

[kent m]

my hope is that it would be assholes like the guy who asked this stupid question in the first place.

[Buckaroo]

What is the problem with Atheists? They just don't believe in a God. Gads. I don't like it when atheists put down Christians, but I don't have a problem with them and their beliefs.

I will never vote for a Muslim or a Queer (is that term politically incorrect?) Anyhow, that's how I feel.
I would vote for a female, if I feel she is qualified. Hillary is qualified, but I don't agree with any of her principles, so I will not vote for her. Besides, I'm a Republican who is unhappy with the left wing Bush.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

What is the problem with Atheists? They just don't believe in a God. Gads. I don't like it when atheists put down Christians, but I don't have a problem with them and their non-beliefs.

[goMac]

You know, looking back at this thread, I realize that no one else in this country is as interested in picking out who the current minority is than the far right. And of course this minority has to be branded as "non-American" because they aren't like everyone else.

I think the best reason I've come up with as to why the far right (not the entire right, this thread seems to have some level headed right wingers in here) would do this is because they need some group to blame for their screw ups.

"(insert massive screw up) isn't our fault! It's the fault of the (choose one: godless, evil, un-American) (choose one: Atheists, Gays, Muslims, Liberals, Jimmy Carter, etc)."

Also, I really don't believe that %90 figure. I think they're counting lay people along with practicing people. Example: I am Roman Catholic, and traditionally any time that I take a survey asking what I am, I say Roman Catholic. But I'm not practicing. I mean, if I got married, it would be in a Roman Catholic church. But I don't practice. In the future I should probably start marking atheist if available...

[Kevin]

Of course you'd think that.

I would say the FAR anything. The EXTREME right (think KKK) and the EXTREME left (think PETA)

The US usually votes for what is closest to the middle.

And these past elections the left has had A. Gore (incompetent) and B. Kerry (Far left)

Those that think Bush is far Right doesn't know what far Right is.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Whoever is speaking is America's ultimate outsider.

Seriously. Everyone has this massive persecution complex, while the truth is that very few Americans (or non-Americans, for that matter) really have any interest in persecuting anybody at all.

Very well put Millennium.

*As an aside, I love rants of intolerance railing on those they deem intolerant.

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

In a way, there is a fine irony about people who actually accept a nihilistic, atheistic view of the world. They know that our existence is the ultimate tragedy and yet they continue to go about their lives in a civilized fashion. God probably holds these types of people in high regard.

It could be argued that religion is a denial of mans inevitable nihilistic position. In fact Nietzsche quite successfully argued that very thing ("Christians and other nihilists.."). Both theists and atheists can be nihilists, but likewise, both theists and atheists can attempt to find meaning in, or attempt to impress meaning upon, their lives.

It's a bit like being stuck on a desert island. You can pretend you're at home watching football on the TV, but you're really still just stuck on that island. So, maybe you should try and work on building a raft from all the bits of broken ship that wash up on the shore.

[Graviton]

Post deleted by user




. ....End of line

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Very well put Millennium.

*As an aside, I love rants of intolerance railing on those they deem intolerant.

There is no such thing as absolute tolerance, because to be for absolute tolerance you need to be intolerant of intolerance. However, going after somebody (such as myself) that is intolerant of intolerance is a pretty futile exercise of debating semantics.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is no such thing as absolute tolerance, because to be for absolute tolerance you need to be intolerant of intolerance. However, going after somebody (such as myself) that is intolerant of intolerance is a pretty futile exercise of debating semantics.

Who's going after you for being intolerant?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Who's going after you for being intolerant?

Nobody, but your idea of pointing out that people that are railing against intolerance are simultaneously being intolerant is very circular... and intolerant

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Nobody, but your idea of pointing out that people that are railing against intolerance are simultaneously being intolerant is very circular... and intolerant

Not all circular things are bad. Intolerance of hypocrisy is good. Futile exercises of debating semantics is bad.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dakar 

Most of the time its conservatives cheering for conservatives, right?

I think it's mostly those that are right cheering for those that are right. No matter what side you are on.

Anyway, you supporting someone debating an atheist ain't exactly a stretch for the imagination, either.

I was just pointing out it had nothing to do with partisanship.

I'm sorry your posts frequently carry this type of worthless content.

Was that one of your sarcastic/ironic jokes? I hope it was. I didn't see any white text though...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

fixed

Saying "I disbelieve God exists" and "I believe that God doesn't exist" are the same things worded differently. I could pull off the same spin.

I disbelieve that God doesn't exist.

Because I don't have a belief, but a disbelief, faith is not required!

Wow I found a loophole on how to be faithless Christian!

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is no such thing as absolute tolerance, because to be for absolute tolerance you need to be intolerant of intolerance.

I don't have to be tolerant to your beliefs because I deem them intolerant!

Tolerance isn't excepting a person's beliefs. Tolerance is how you treat the very people you disagree with. No matter what they believe. Doing otherwise is being intolerant. And if you are against intolerance...

You don't have to agree with what they stand for to be tolerant. Just treat them with respect, and don't belittle them.

For example, if I were to start making fun of or belittling the religion/race/sexual orientation of people that would make me intolerant.

That said, i've never claimed to be tolerant.But ebuddy did make a point. Lots of people that claim they are tolerant are usually just tolerant to their own beliefs. Their attitude is "Since the other person is obviously wrong, it's ok to be intolerant to them" which is absurd.

[besson3c]

Is it true that drinking orange juice can make you gay?

[OldManMac]

It certainly is; ask Anita Bryant.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is it true that drinking orange juice can make you gay?

Not when it's