Damn right.

So...Did fruitbat actually get bad-touched by some guy named Lester? Because I just pulled that name out of my ass.

I didn't see that earlier post, I can't get online often enough to follow this thread in its entirety, its seems.

Anyway, to go back to that, I am absolutely more interested in how religion feels, because thats the point of it all. Eastern religions and a lot of elements of Abrahamic religions (Christian mysticism, Sufism), reflect on individual experience, of a different kind of knowledge, and Rumi said it best when he described it as a language beyond language. How can we say if its right if we can't put it in words?

I absolutely love healthy debate about religion, I really do, these are my favourite kinds of threads usually. I'm just absolutely sick of the arugment that RELIGION IS A POISON AND RELIGIOUS COEXISTANCE CANT EXIST AND IF YOU ARE RELIGIOUS YOU ARE STUPID. It doesn't help, its childish, and antiproductive. Atheism is the most logical path, that is true, but when people do have experiences, its only human of them to take the religious path if they do so choose. The validity of their doctrine is one thing, but their own faith is personal and often untouchable, if its broken its a conclusion they must come to themselves. I do argue often about people when their faith affects me or others, such as homophobia, but the very basic belief in a higher power, be it God or Jesus or the Tao, I find difficult to touch. You can say you won the debate because you scream the loudest, but it doesn't change the fact that humans have turned to religion since we were human, and its not going to change. China persecuted all religions for many years, and now that its (mostly) okay to be religious again, its enjoying a fantastic revival. Its not going to go away because its inconvenient, or deemed evil. Should we determine policy with it?

Gotta run, to be continued.

And you know I've been uncomfortable with elements Buddhism before, we talked about this when you said I should give the Dalai Lama a break for being anti-sex and other things. My own personal faith is non existant.

Sorry, I was at school and the next volunteer came in early, so I gave her the computer and went home.

Anyway, sorry for not rereading and editing, I just typed all that and didn't want to have to exit and start all over again when I got home. I mean to say after "Should we determine policy by it?", that we absolutely shouldn't, because there are times when you should be absolutely objective, law making is one of those times.

Christian faith specifically can very much be focused less on scripture and more on the individual's relationship with God, scripture isn't the be all and end all of religion. There's reason to believe that yes, the Bible isn't the word of God, but that doesn't deter many from seeking a relationship with God anyway.

And as for it poisoning people's mind, determining policy, people killing over it. We kill each other if we look at each other funny. We've fought wars over economic systems. America even overlooked religious differences and armed the Taliban to fight the dirty communists. Is religious thought inherently poisonous, or it is the tendency to be extremist? I know anarchists, communists and capitalists who get along just fine, hell we see that on this board most of the time. And yet according to communism, capitalism is exploitive, we shouldn't be able to live together. But we do, go figure. And there are those who would be willing to kill if they thought a revolution could succeed, but you don't see too many people anymore, well, outside the Tea Party, checking their bathrooms for Bolsheviks.

That said, absolutely you should combat extremism in all its forms. Whether its the Vatican or the Tea Party, religious or irreligious. or whatever it is. But that wasn't the purpose of this thread, unless you're just that dumb not to realize you're preaching to the choir. In the video Raptor was talking about Stephen Fry even acknowledged he has nothing against the individual believer, its the Vatican as an institution that is the problem. Religion is a human thing, however, and you're quite frankly going to have to learn to get along with people of all kinds of faiths, even the ones you don't like, its not going to go away in our lifetime, if ever. Extremist Christianity is oppressing you? Go forth and get thee to thy destiny, and smash that beast. But HP voting against Prop 8, my mom hoping she gets to see her parents and her siblings again someday, korrinna being an atheist pagan, a fifteen year old reading LaVey isn't hurting or affecting you in anyway, or anybody else. Plenty of people are religious without being oppressive, they don't have the political arm, unfortunately, but its absolutely possible to live in relative peace and quiet with them, and dare I say let them help you fight extremism. Hell, I have a super conservative aunt who I can still get along with fine, and I don't know if I'd change her if I could.

Politics are immanent. Religion is transcendent. If it is transcendent it is unquestionable, unchanging, and total.
Where political theories say "this is what is, what ought to be, and what might become"
religious dogma will say "this is what is, what you are in it, and what must remain"

There's really no logical step from comparing politics to religion except that religion influences politics, but that is not a step any more than a tennis shoe is a logical step towards a bicycle.

Also, again coming to this same old thing:
And is that BECAUSE of their religion or IN SPITE of it?

Simple. If it truly is "Beyond words" It is something that is immeasurable, unprovable, and uncommunicable. In other words: completely unintelligible to anyone but the individual experiencing it, and therefore it is completely and utterly irrelevant in regards to the physical world, and is totally pointless to bring up in this discussion.

However, I don't really think it is beyond words. I think it's simply a heightened emotional state brought on by a certain sensory experience (Meditation, Shared Communal Experience, a specific view or a moment in time. etc) You forget Saya: I was a Buddhist. I've had religious experiences as a Buddhist, a Christian, and an atheist. In fact, the most intense ones have been as an atheist, because I can actually appreciate what I'm experiencing for what it is, without the layers of superstition clouding my mind.

As I've said, this stuff feels great, but at the end of the day if you don't recognize it for what it is. If you confuse it for something beyond an emotional experience, you open yourself up for manipulation, and you can be lead to do some stupid, or downright evil things as a result.

No one has claimed any of those things. In fact I've said several times that I don't think religious people are stupid, just victims of indoctrination and social pressure. They've been religious nearly all their lives, and there's the social perception that atheists are immoral and that a human being positively MUST believe in a God(s) in order to be complete. This is fallacious.

Though I did compare religion to a bag filled with candy and vipers, that was mainly for humor. Religion is socially harmful, and can be downright insidious, but to claim I said it was poison exaggerates my position to a point where I'm not comfortable.

It IS however similar to an opiate, and I doubt you'd disagree with me on that, seeing as you're so wrapped up in the emotional experience of the whole thing.

And as for religious Co-Existence being impossible, you're straight up wrong. It is possible, Kontan even said it. True religious Co-Existence is possible when Kontan and I get our way, when all of the world religions are socially and politically irrelevant. Then followers can Co-Exist and believe whatever they want and follow their faiths without imposing on non-believers and other faiths.

I agree, but it's also only human to hate people who are different, and to fear things irrationally, and to think tribally. There are plenty of things we do naturally which are unhealthy.

...and often times they'll never get there if no one points it out in the first place.

I would hazard to say that this is because, you yourself believe in a higher power, and become uncomfortable when this idea is threatened.

It's a very natural reaction. I used to experience it. I don't anymore.

I'm not screaming. This is all text. I won the debate because I am more skilled at conversation, more entertaining, and my ideas are better than yours.

Yeah, I've thought about it, and I was wrong then. You're wrong now, and I'm sure you'll figure it out.

That's because they were raised to believe that they're broken without it, and can't emotionally let it go. ie; the results of indoctrination at a young age, and current social pressures. They're smart enough to be good people in spite of what their religion really is.

You've already made this argument, and it's already been rebutted. This is like saying: "People are going to die in car wreaks anyway, so why bother with seatbelts and speed limits?"

It's a poor argument. Stop using it.

Man, I remember when I used to think like this. It would be such an uncomplicated world if extremism was really the problem. The thing is, extremism in itself is not. It's being extreme about the wrong things that's the problem.

It is perfectly permissible to be extreme in response to extreme situations. If your government starts herding gays or jews into camps and gassing them, you are more than justified to take an extreme stance against them.

It is a truism to say that: Moderation is the key, but like most truisms, it is blatantly, observably, and measurably WRONG.

Yes, and the Choir called us terrorists, compared us to Nazis, and accused us of wanting to burn/ban holy texts and forcibly suppress religion. I don't want to think about what'll happen when we bring this argument to the true believers.

Why would you assume that I don't know how to get along with people? Even after this I'd still probably beat you in a popularity contest. Just because you want to get along with someone doesn't mean you need to lie to them, or give credence to stupid ideas.

Korrinna knows I consider her faith to be friggin' retarded, and I take the opportunity to politely inform her/remind her of this when it presents itself. (and no, she's not an atheist pagan, she's just a pagan with atheist friends who wants to fit in a bit more and isn't ready to give up her silly beliefs, you can't BE an atheist and a pagan).

You avoid confronting people you have an emotional attachment to because it's polite and your emotions muddy the waters. You care about their feelings and your relationship to them. That's fine, I do the same, but that doesn't mean I don't hold the beliefs I do, nor confront those whom my emotional attachment to is lacking.

and that's all I have to say on that post, Alan pretty much handled the rest.

I'm calling this one. We win.

I just don't understand the bizzare amount of hatred coming from someone talking about the benevolence of an athiest society. Seems as though, you'd be nicer, not talk over people and maybe take a moment to consider what you are reading from Christians.

This hatred is really creepy and uncivilized.

GOD DAMN IT! I JUST MOPPED IN HERE and you just come stumbling in and shitting everything up again. CLEARLY you hate me.

aren't u guys worried about he'll? It's REAL.