Scots Taffer on 16/1/2007 at 00:50
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
I think you underestimate just how many millions of people we're talking about here, and the extent to which fundamentalist religion grips even Western countries like the USA. Only 47% of American people say they would vote for a person who was openly atheist - that's plain scary.
And how is my point vacant when you just basically acknowledged that it applied to Saudi Arabia, a state founded on fundamentalist Islam?
I think you're overestimating several things in just that post, you talk of millions of people in the grip of fundamentalism and how religion is a threat to humanity, I've still to see any convincing evidence of this.
How many of these millions of American fundamentalists are a risk to your way of life? Probably one - the person in the White House who makes the decisions that have global impact. I know you will probably say it's the millions who put that person there that you're worrying about and again, I will say that so many other factors come into play in the selection of a Presidential candidate that you're simplifying things too much.
47% of Americans would vote for an aethiest President - so what? While I agree that religion has little place in politics, I can't see how an aethiest President is necessarily going to blaze brave new paths for humanity. This proves nothing and sounds like a meaningless soundbyte, what would the statistic be in Britain I wonder?
My point regarding Saudi Arabia was that it is so far removed from our reality that it proves to be little or no threat to humanity or our way of life, they are caught in their own little backwards pocket but that has as much to do with cultural issues as religious. They are introverted. They may hate Western ideaology, but for the most part they are isolated in their primitive ways.
Aerothorn on 16/1/2007 at 01:06
Plus - and I say this as an Athiest in America - in a representative democracy, the leaders are (THEORETICALLY) supposed to represent the people and their interests. So it wouldn't make much sense for an Athiest to lead a nation that was 80% or so Christian.
I will also say, as noted, that that's a meaningless soundbite. We have no real-world examples to compare to so it's a moot point. That said, Nixon was elected and he was a Quaker, something that only .01% or so of the American populace is. Course, the Quakers all hated him, but the point was he was still electable despite a non-mainstream religeon. Yes, he was still Christian, but back then the different branches still mattered a lot to a lot of people.
p.s. when will this topic die:(
fett on 16/1/2007 at 01:43
It's actually one of the better religion threads in recent memory as no one is screaming at each other. And it's making me think a bit which isn't usually bad.
Dr Sneak on 16/1/2007 at 01:59
I'm not wasting anymore time on this thread but after seeing this I will say this one last thing.
Quote:
If God exists, it makes absolutely no difference - particularly in the lives of people who 'believe'.
I don't know what went wrong with your faith Fett, but that statement has no bearing on reality from my experience.
fett on 16/1/2007 at 03:59
Experiences differ. Mine lasted 20 years in 5 different denominations (I was a pastor in 2). I've been to 12 countries on humanitarian trips, been inside the 'christian' music industry (what a joke). I've counseled literally hundreds of christians, and taught theology for 8 years.
In the end, every person whom I 'helped' (down to a single person) ended up deviating sharply from christianity, or dug deeper into whatever psychosis or neurosis they already had. I'm not bitter, I'm just stating what I have seen with my own eyes. It doesn't mean I don't believe in God necessarily, or I doubt the validity of the Bible. It just means I haven't seen a single shred of tangible evidence that the message actually changes people in nature or behavior. Hopefully my future experiences will change my mind.
Aerothorn on 16/1/2007 at 06:34
Which then leads to the question - what can change the nature of a man?
Shakey-Lo on 16/1/2007 at 07:28
Hard drugs.
Epos Nix on 16/1/2007 at 07:32
Quote:
It just means I haven't seen a single shred of tangible evidence that the message actually changes people in nature or behavior.Depends I suppose on how well people 'get it'. For most, religion isn't something that you can easily wrap your head around as most teachings are in direct contradiction with human instinct. If a person doesn't understand the purpose of religion they won't understand why they should change any part of their lifestyle, as up to this point it hasn't gotten them killed.
paloalto on 16/1/2007 at 09:04
Quote Posted by fett
Experiences differ. Mine lasted 20 years in 5 different denominations (I was a pastor in 2). I've been to 12 countries on humanitarian trips, been inside the 'christian' music industry (what a joke). I've counseled literally hundreds of christians, and taught theology for 8 years.
In the end, every person whom I 'helped' (down to a single person) ended up deviating sharply from christianity, or dug deeper into whatever psychosis or neurosis they already had. I'm not bitter, I'm just stating what I have seen with my own eyes. It doesn't mean I don't believe in God necessarily, or I doubt the validity of the Bible. It just means I haven't seen a single shred of tangible evidence that the message actually changes people in nature or behavior. Hopefully my future experiences will change my mind.
Why are you determining the efficacy of spirituality on the effect on others?Did they have the desire to change?Did your faith change you?I can only determine no since you were waiting to see it in others.
And how did you judge from an outer point of view that they had no change in their life?It is hard to understand how they could have opened up and not said why they bieleve and what they get out of it?Unless you knew where they started out from and everything about them.How did you apply you religious knowledge to help them with their psychoses?
Day to day small changes in your thinking is rather different than curing a major psychoses.It is hard to understand how you would not be changed by really applying something like,The Imitation Of The Christ in one's life.
SD on 16/1/2007 at 09:10
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
I think you're overestimating several things in just that post, you talk of millions of people in the grip of fundamentalism and how religion is a threat to humanity, I've still to see any convincing evidence of this.
Get your head out of the sand, that might help.
Quote:
47% of Americans would vote for an aethiest President - so what?
So what? When you consider 79% would vote for a gay president, then you'll understand atheists are the most discriminated against minority in the USA. When George HW Bush can come out with statements like "This is one nation under God, I don't even think atheists should be considered citizens", maybe that doesn't worry you, but then it doesn't affect you, does it?
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
Plus - and I say this as an Athiest in America - in a representative democracy, the leaders are (THEORETICALLY) supposed to represent the people and their interests. So it wouldn't make much sense for an Athiest to lead a nation that was 80% or so Christian.
So why can't an atheist represent a Christian? I would have (and indeed, have had) no problem voting for Christians to represent me - what difference does it make?
