The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Evolutionary conundrums for believers > Comments

Evolutionary conundrums for believers : Comments

By Glen Coulton, published 23/1/2013

If God wanted hordes of us humans hanging out in heaven with him, why didn't he just put us there from the word go?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
(Cont'd):
As usual, some have sought to go too far: to make a big deal out of their 'special' relationship with the unknown and unknowable, for prominence, power, gratification - or sometimes, as a means to bring order to an unruly mob, to introduce law and order, and assurance of 'belonging'. The best of intentions, with righteous and worthwhile initial results, can unfortunately lead to detrimental consequences if or when 'authority' goes that one, overly-zealous step too far.

The 'idea' of God is not detrimental, of itself, and can be greatly beneficial - unless it is railroaded out of sheer personal, ethnic or cultural selfishness. No future but what we make; no excuses for going against our 'hearts'; no 'divine right' to act like savages, like mere 'animals'.

Israel/Palestine: Power, prominence, turf, survival (of culture, tribe) - or solely of religious intolerance? A mixed bag.

Our 'inner' God, our 'hearts', may eventually lead us to peace, tolerance and understanding; but too many 'outer' gods, with too many seemingly irreconcilable differences, are spoiling the soup. It is time to learn from our mistakes and our misconceptions, but killing, oppressing or condemning is no way to make friends or influence people.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 25 January 2013 4:37:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles: <Can I conclude that I touched a raw nerve somewhere, GlenC?>

No, actually. Well, you could but you would be wrong.

Can I conclude that your refusal to substantiate your personal attacks on me other than by repeating them more loudly indicates that you have nothing substantial to say in defence of them?
Posted by GlenC, Friday, 25 January 2013 7:58:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GlenC “It's when, through political pressure, they secure not only the approval of the government to engage in proselytizing but its material support by way of public funding, tax breaks and being granted exemptions from laws they find inconvenient, that the rest of us have not just a right, but a duty to cry, "Enough".”

But you don't.
All the atheist articles I've seen abusively attack faith/religion itself, calling believers stupid or blaming religion for the crimes of those who happen to be religious (while downplaying or ignoring the stupid and criminal acts of the non-religious).

It's never just a questioning of tax status (I agree, *nobody* should be exempt) or school classes (I fail to see the issue with one-voluntary-period-a-week) or child abuse (that also happens in non-religious state care).

It's always, always bash-the-believer, bash-the-belief.

Can I conclude that your refusal to respond to any of my comments indicates that you have no genuine desire to debate the phoney “conundrums” you brought up?
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 26 January 2013 2:49:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I give my vote for the best post so far on this subject to Saltpetre Page 6 last post and top of page 7.
Posted by warmair, Saturday, 26 January 2013 7:56:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre: <We wouldn't necessarily send our thanks to God for a promotion, or for doing a good job on the barbecue, but perhaps when our house is still standing, unscathed, after a bushfire, or, when a loved-one recovers from a serious illness.>

And what do you send to God when your house is a burning rubble and your loved one dies?

<[W]e may pray for those who have lost a loved-one, and for the lost. Can it help them, or us? Can it hurt - anyone?>

For the most part, religious views and practices do not harm societies until the religions lobby governments to impose them on the population at large. Nobody denies the valuable contribution that most religions make to society (but Scientology?). But pressing praying on who those who believe that prayer achieves nothing and that praying is actually not a very intelligent use of time, as happens in parliaments and some councils, is presumptuously offensive. And praying can even hurt those who pray when they have to confront the potentially devastating reality that their prayer achieved nothing and they have been misled, which is a step of many on their road to disbelief.

<but killing, oppressing or condemning is no way to make friends or influence people>.

True, killing and oppressing are bad but when some get ideas that it's OK for them to kill and oppress, isn't condemning those ideas a good place to start? Indeed, isn't condemning them a responsibility that "good" people should embrace? And if religious organisations, especially Christian, Islamic and Judaean, argue for societies to adopt certain practices that are based on theological beliefs that are demonstrably incredible to all but the faithful, where else can the rest of us start other than to expose the flaws in those beliefs. It's not attacking people to expose the flaws in their beliefs, but religions regularly protest that it is.

And some who post to this site.
Posted by GlenC, Saturday, 26 January 2013 1:45:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic: <All the atheist articles I've seen abusively attack faith/religion itself, calling believers stupid or blaming religion for the crimes of those who happen to be religious (while downplaying or ignoring the stupid and criminal acts of the non-religious).>

If all the "atheist articles" you've seen abusively attack faith/religion, then maybe: (a) you choose very carefully what you don't want to read, or (b) you subscribe to the view that while questioning incredible beliefs of proselytizing organisations is just proper scepticism in action, when those organisations are religious it becomes something else akin to baby bashing.

If you were fair, you would admit that atheists do not blame religions for the crimes of the religious except when those crimes are committed to promote some religious objective, such as ridding the world of so-called witches, homosexuals, uppity educated women and girls, and theological dissenters.

I'm not sure why you thought it helpful to mention "stupid and criminal acts of the non-religious". They are just as irrelevant to this discussion as the run-of-the-mill stupid and criminal acts of the religious, unless they were committed by non-believers to give effect to some non-belief objective. That is why it is quite silly for believers to cite Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. They might have killed millions but it was for mainly political rather than atheistic reasons. They killed people who were in the way of their ambition whether or not they were religious.

Other than that, I'm sorry for not responding to your questions but I found them so all over the place and unconnected that the task was beyond the space allowed in a post — and my stamina.
Posted by GlenC, Saturday, 26 January 2013 2:02:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy