# Politics & General Chat



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Have you noticed that the Politics area has more topics and more posts than General Chat, but as a rule only about 1/3 as many people are in Politics at any given moment.

I bet that flips after more time passes and many choosing to not discuss politics.

Hey, 
We need a religion area so we can really tear each other apart and the atheists can choose not to enter. Or is atheism simply another religion like the Church of Climate Change?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I think there was a religion area at one time, but it was worse than politics with the bickering. Not sure I'm correct about that, but seems like I've seen it mentioned before.

I still read in politics, and post a little, but honestly it's like an echo chamber a lot of the time. Obama is pretty terrible...there's not much that will be done about him at this point, so I'm not interested in discussing him much. Hopefully there will be more to talk about as we get closer to him being out to pasture in Hawaii.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Trolling seems to be a bit more effective in the politics section.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Have you noticed that the Politics area has more topics and more posts than General Chat, but as a rule only about 1/3 as many people are in Politics at any given moment.
> 
> I bet that flips after more time passes and many choosing to not discuss politics.
> 
> ...


Was once such board but to many stomped toes ,wailing and gnashing of teeth . Few are open to just reading the Bible with no man made hierarchy added ,among other things :runforhills::thumb:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Have you noticed that the Politics area has more topics and more posts than General Chat, but as a rule only about 1/3 as many people are in Politics at any given moment.
> 
> I bet that flips after more time passes and many choosing to not discuss politics.
> 
> ...


Atheism is a religion, they just can't admit it! It is a belief.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Oggie said:


> Trolling seems to be a bit more effective in the politics section.


Nah, it is just the nature of political discussions everywhere. I don't call posting articles and opinions trolling. You can count on political discussions to get more heated than a discussion about Grandma's tea cake recipe or how cold it is outside.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Oggie said:


> Trolling seems to be a bit more effective in the politics section.


Hey here is something of interest to you... A newly discovered Dr. Seuss book which helps children make the right pet choice 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2015/02/18/dr-seuss-returns-with-another-new-book/23607039/


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Atheism is a religion, they just can't admit it! It is a belief.


Yeah, like not playing tennis is a sport.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Yeah, like not playing tennis is a sport.


Actually, I suppose if one took the opportunity to attack tennis players at every turn, dismissed their opinions as medieval, subjected them to ridicule for being tennis players, then I suppose it rises to the level of an extreme ideology. A cult.
However some forms of Buddhism don't ever reference god, finding a whole cosmology without a god. And they are certainly an accepted religion. I guess it needs a larger perspective than just objecting to others.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Have you noticed that the Politics area has more topics and more posts than General Chat, but as a rule only about 1/3 as many people are in Politics at any given moment.
> 
> I bet that flips after more time passes and many choosing to not discuss politics.
> 
> ...


Yes, more topics and posts because obama the muslim commie only has 2 years left and he is in full speed ahead over the/our(not his, he is anti american) cliff.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

where I want to said:


> Actually, I suppose if one took the opportunity to attack tennis players at every turn, dismissed their opinions as medieval, subjected them to ridicule for being tennis players, then I suppose it rises to the level of an extreme ideology. A cult.
> However some forms of Buddhism don't ever reference god, finding a whole cosmology without a god. And they are certainly an accepted religion. I guess it needs a larger perspective than just objecting to others.


If tennis left a trail of devastation through your life, broke up families, caused suicides, incredible grief and lifelong psychological damage to people you cared dearly about you would fight against it too.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

I never go on the politics forum because I'm not allowed. I guess I could request it but since I am not Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Independent, or Communist I don't see the need to be on it. It is true I watch politics for entertainment or to keep my blood pressure from getting to low but I'm better off not being on the forum.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

BlackFeather said:


> I never go on the politics forum because I'm not allowed. I guess I could request it but since I am not Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Independent, or Communist I don't see the need to be on it. It is true I watch politics for entertainment or to keep my blood pressure from getting to low but I'm better off not being on the forum.


Well you would fit right it you just described more than half the people over there :thumb:


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Yep only half the people over there ... the other half has been banned


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

There was once a religious section. It was a really nasty place to voice an opinion. Trolling was the norm and IIRC it took too much moderation time when the moderators would rather have been homesteading.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

BlackFeather said:


> I never go on the politics forum because I'm not allowed. I guess I could request it but since I am not Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Independent, or Communist I don't see the need to be on it. It is true I watch politics for entertainment or to keep my blood pressure from getting to low but I'm better off not being on the forum.


Obviously you just aren't self aware enough to know what you are. Venture into the politics forum and others will quickly inform you of your status and offer constant reminders.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Oggie said:


> Trolling seems to be a bit more effective in the politics section.


LOL! It is always funny to see who likes what.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Atheism is a religion, they just can't admit it! It is a belief.


I kinda hate to elevate it to a 'belief', a belief in nothing.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Truckinguy said:


> If tennis left a trail of devastation through your life, broke up families, caused suicides, incredible grief and lifelong psychological damage to people you cared dearly about you would fight against it too.


Not believing in a God doesn't do any of those things. Any more then believing in one can prevent those things.
Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Atheism is a religion, they just can't admit it! It is a belief.


Atheism is the lack of belief. I don't believe there is a god. I also don't believe there are unicorns. Is that also a religion?

Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Have you noticed that the Politics area has more topics and more posts than General Chat, but as a rule only about 1/3 as many people are in Politics at any given moment.
> 
> I bet that flips after more time passes and many choosing to not discuss politics.
> 
> ...


I quit going over there when it started requiring a separate registration because a few people couldn't control them selves from going over there and then complaining to the moderators about what they saw.

Jim


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Jim Bunton said:


> I quit going over there when it started requiring a separate registration because a few people couldn't control them selves from going over there and then complaining to the moderators about what they saw.
> 
> Jim


Some want a nanny state. Some want a nanny forum. 

I admit sometimes I get a little irked. I have spent my adult life around very diverse, some might say eclectic (and some eccentrics too) people, so I am used to differing values and beliefs. I can see how some might struggle to maintain an even keel.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Jim Bunton said:


> Not believing in a God doesn't do any of those things. Any more then believing in one can prevent those things.
> Jim


Yes but when Christianity has been the direct cause of all those things it becomes something to fight against. I know a lot of good Christians who are solid, stand up people but I've personally seen the devastation that religion in the hands of men can do. So, if I don't believe in any particular religion and actively try to save lives torn apart by one, does that give me a label (atheist for example) and make that label a religion or cult as mentioned above?

I don't actively believe in unicorns but I'm open minded enough to entertain the possibility...


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Maybe we need two new forums

GMO and Atheist :facepalm:


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Is it possible to be too open minded?


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Truckinguy said:


> Yes but when Christianity has been the direct cause of all those things it becomes something to fight against. I know a lot of good Christians who are solid, stand up people but I've personally seen the devastation that religion in the hands of men can do. So, if I don't believe in any particular religion and actively try to save lives torn apart by one, does that give me a label (atheist for example) and make that label a religion or cult as mentioned above?
> 
> Atheism is simply not believing there is a God. To actively push that belief or trying to convince others of it could fit some definitions of religion. Trying to help others whose lives have been ruined one religion does not make you an atheist. Many religions feel it is their moral duty to save people that are followers of the "wrong" religion. Religion and God are two different things. Religion is a creation of man. If there is a God man would be a creation of God.
> 
> Jim


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Obviously you just aren't self aware enough to know what you are. Venture into the politics forum and others will quickly inform you of your status and offer constant reminders.


Since politics is defined as the influencing of others, it is hard to not have a position that you are trying to influence other's to have too. So the status of everyone is critical, and, as a forum is all talk, strong talk is everything. Without objecting to other's beliefs and challenges to their reasoning, there is no influence.
And I admit that being offended by that means that you should not participate. But that is not the other participant's problem.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Jim Bunton said:


> Atheism is simply not believing there is a God. To actively push that belief or trying to convince others of it could fit some definitions of religion. Trying to help others whose lives have been ruined one religion does not make you an atheist. Many religions feel it is their moral duty to save people that are followers of the "wrong" religion. Religion and God are two different things. Religion is a creation of man. If there is a God man would be a creation of God.
> 
> Jim


OK, that's fair enough. I guess there is a difference in believing in something or not and pushing one's view on others. Unfortunately it seems that human nature dictates we try to get others to follow our point of view.

I try to stay out of any religious threads now because of my strong thoughts on the matter and I don't wanted to get booted off this site. I do admit to having a large chip on my shoulder which can be hard to ignore sometimes, though...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Recognizing a problem is the first, and maybe the most difficult, step in solving a problem.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I see religion and belief in God ( or not ) as two very separate and distinct things.

Religion is the practise of your belief with a group of like minded people. You can believe in God( or not) and not be religious.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Wlover said:


> I see religion and belief in God ( or not ) as two very separate and distinct things.
> 
> Religion is the practise of your belief with a group of like minded people. You can believe in God( or not) and not be religious.


That right there is a fact.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Is it possible to be too open minded?


Only to the extent that your brain falls out.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Truckinguy said:


> Yes but when Christianity has been the direct cause of all those things it becomes something to fight against. I know a lot of good Christians who are solid, stand up people but I've personally seen the devastation that religion in the hands of men can do. So, if I don't believe in any particular religion and actively try to save lives torn apart by one, does that give me a label (atheist for example) and make that label a religion or cult as mentioned above?
> 
> I don't actively believe in unicorns but I'm open minded enough to entertain the possibility...


And people who are adrift and miserable have found direction and comfort with religion. It might have saved their lives. It is wrong to attempt to destroy faith in God because you think differently. That might be destroying something necessary to that person. The best that should be done is render aggression, if there is any done in the name of faith, harmless. It's a pretty sad person who would attempt to destroy a faith simply because they don't share it and offer nothingness as an unsatisfactory replacement.
However, if you have faith, especially an evangelical kind, then that faith obligates you to try to persuade others to hold the same faith because you believe in the essential good in saving them from their lack of faith. It is illogical not to do so. It is the balance is between persuading and driving away that is the challenge for them. 
People can and are abusive in the name of religion, just as they are in the name of no religion. The aggression is in humans, not in belief in God. The best in religion tempers that aggression. That people fail to be tempered is a personal failure, quite common.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> I see religion and belief in God ( or not ) as two very separate and distinct things.
> 
> Religion is the practise of your belief with a group of like minded people. You can believe in God( or not) and not be religious.


The trouble with being unaffiliated is that every person has to reinvent the wheel and form their own personal religion unless they are purely agnostic.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> The trouble with being unaffiliated is that every person has to reinvent the wheel and form their own personal religion unless they are purely agnostic.


So! No need to reinvent anything. No need to have a religion in the first place if you are at peace with your belief in God.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Since politics is defined as the influencing of others, it is hard to not have a position that you are trying to influence other's to have too. So the status of everyone is critical, and, as a forum is all talk, strong talk is everything. Without objecting to other's beliefs and challenges to their reasoning, there is no influence.
> And I admit that being offended by that means that you should not participate. But that is not the other participant's problem.


The only insults that mattered on that forum were those to my intelligence. Ideas are critical, labels aren't. If most discussions had revolved around challenging beliefs and reasoning using tools such as verifiable facts and critical thinking I might still participate there. There were those I enjoyed sparring with who know how to construct a cogent arguement and challenge ideas, not personalities. Unfortunately they were too few and too often drowned out.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> The only insults that mattered on that forum were those to my intelligence. Ideas are critical, labels aren't. If most discussions had revolved around challenging beliefs and reasoning using tools such as verifiable facts and critical thinking I might still participate there. There were those I enjoyed sparring with who know how to construct a cogent arguement and challenge ideas, not personalities. Unfortunately they were too few and too often drowned out.


Which is where the editing value of ignoring comes in. If a person uses a phrase that indicates a belief not amenable to argument, such as name calling as the sole argument, I skip over it. Most religious based arguments are in that catagory. As are ones so personal that it comes down to a recitation of their own experiences, such as all (x) are evil because I had (x) bad experience. Since their whole argument is based on personal incident, you have to question that they had such an experience to argue against it and that rarely is effective much less polite.
However, sometimes a person's statement, irrational as it seems, is an opportunity to talk through my own ideas til I come to something more satisfactory for myself. Forums can be a refining fire.
Frankly, personal insults, whether name calling or sarcasm, especially coming from frustration, are part of not allowing yourself to be lured away from your own interests. You don't have to wade through the manure you can easily step over. 
Not that I don't have my own buttons. I hate to have my country or countrymen being insulted with a broad, snarky brush. I have a low tolerance for picking on people who are tenative or unaggressive. Because an insecure person has an incredibly weak argument is not a sign to pile on. It is a reason to be careful.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

where I want to said:


> And people who are adrift and miserable have found direction and comfort with religion. It might have saved their lives. It is wrong to attempt to destroy faith in God because you think differently. That might be destroying something necessary to that person. The best that should be done is render aggression, if there is any done in the name of faith, harmless. It's a pretty sad person who would attempt to destroy a faith simply because they don't share it and offer nothingness as an unsatisfactory replacement.
> However, if you have faith, especially an evangelical kind, then that faith obligates you to try to persuade others to hold the same faith because you believe in the essential good in saving them from their lack of faith. It is illogical not to do so. It is the balance is between persuading and driving away that is the challenge for them.
> People can and are abusive in the name of religion, just as they are in the name of no religion. The aggression is in humans, not in belief in God. The best in religion tempers that aggression. That people fail to be tempered is a personal failure, quite common.


Yes, I will agree that many people have found comfort in religion. My Parents are Christian and are two of the best people that you will ever meet. Sorry if this is not PC but the stereotypical black southern churches where people are on their feet, dancing and singing out hymns with gusto, bring out a lot of respect from me. There is an obvious joy involved, people have smiles on their faces and are emotionally moved while they're there.

The problems that I and many close to me have experienced have come from the cold, dark, sombre judgmental sects that divide families, cause mental breakdowns and suicides and force control using fear. It's nearly impossible to, as you say, render aggression in the name of faith harmless. They are very powerful in mind control and have extremely deep pockets to use any legal means necessary to silence critics and influence politics.

I"m not trying to destroy a faith because I believe a faith properly channeled can be quite beneficial to many. I'm also not offering nothingness as a replacement, I offer love, compassion and support to replace the judgement and abandonment that people have been through.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Truckinguy said:


> Yes, I will agree that many people have found comfort in religion. My Parents are Christian and are two of the best people that you will ever meet. Sorry if this is not PC but the stereotypical black southern churches where people are on their feet, dancing and singing out hymns with gusto, bring out a lot of respect from me. There is an obvious joy involved, people have smiles on their faces and are emotionally moved while they're there.
> 
> The problems that I and many close to me have experienced have come from the cold, dark, sombre judgmental sects that divide families, cause mental breakdowns and suicides and force control using fear. It's nearly impossible to, as you say, render aggression in the name of faith harmless. They are very powerful in mind control and have extremely deep pockets to use any legal means necessary to silence critics and influence politics.
> 
> I"m not trying to destroy a faith because I believe a faith properly channeled can be quite beneficial to many. I'm also not offering nothingness as a replacement, I offer love, compassion and support to replace the judgement and abandonment that people have been through.


Thought provoking. I wonder if you are talking more interpersonal family matters where religion is a tool to use against someone. And that, if religion weren't available, something else would have been substituted.

I also wonder if anyone can offer enough personal support to enough people to make up for the loss of a religious support system.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> So! No need to reinvent anything. No need to have a religion in the first place if you are at peace with your belief in God.


Only if your belief is that God demands nothing from you other than what you find congenial already. As I said, agnostic. How do you tell whether God is pleased with you, rather than you are pleased with you?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Only if your belief is that God demands nothing from you other than what you find congenial already. As I said, agnostic. How do you tell whether God is pleased with you, rather than you are pleased with you?


See now you are asking someone to share what may be personal to them and none of your business. Maybe just between them and their God.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> See now you are asking someone to share what may be personal to them and none of your business. Maybe just between them and their God.


I wouldn't have if you had not offered it in a public forum. Beside, having a standard to tell the difference between complacency and confidence is not that personal.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> I wouldn't have if you had not offered it in a public forum. Beside, having a standard to tell the difference between complacency and confidence is not that personal.


I offered an opinion on what I believe the difference between religion and believing in God. I did not offer up my beliefs on how to practice your belief in God or religion. You did try to qualify my statements like your opinion makes any difference to what I believe.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

People should be able to believe anything they want to believe. That does not give them the right to try to change another person's beliefs to theirs. Respect the beliefs of others even though they may be different than yours.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> I offered an opinion on what I believe the difference between religion and believing in God. I did not offer up my beliefs on how to practice your belief in God or religion. You did try to qualify my statements like your opinion makes any difference to what I believe.


Why yes you did offer an opinion. That was the public statement I referenced.
But you are wrong to think I have much of an interest in your beliefs- just an interest in seeing if you have solved a problem. 
I don't wish to pursue something you say is too personal. But it is difficult to tell that when posted in a forum. Usually that is a sign people want to discuss an issue.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

where I want to said:


> Thought provoking. I wonder if you are talking more interpersonal family matters where religion is a tool to use against someone. And that, if religion weren't available, something else would have been substituted.
> 
> I also wonder if anyone can offer enough personal support to enough people to make up for the loss of a religious support system.


No, it's an exclusive brethren sect that is world wide and involves tens of thousands of people. Admittedly it is very personal to me but I don't paint all Christians with the same brush as I explained above. Our family is only one example of perhaps thousands of families that have been split up and there have been many nasty court cases for child custody going back as far as I remember. 

My personal support for others is limited as I deal with issues myself. Most people pushed out by the church are in need of more professional help than I can give.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

pancho said:


> People should be able to believe anything they want to believe. That does not give them the right to try to change another person's beliefs to theirs. Respect the beliefs of others even though they may be different than yours.


You guys are tempting me beyond my ability to resist. 
I might have a philosophical respect for an individual who has a religious belief, but that does not mean I have to respect everything coming down the road just because someone else believes it. There is a difference.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Why yes you did offer an opinion. That was the public statement I referenced.
> But you are wrong to think I have much of an interest in your beliefs- just an interest in seeing if you have solved a problem.
> I don't wish to pursue something you say is too personal. But it is difficult to tell that when posted in a forum. Usually that is a sign people want to discuss an issue.


"*Only if your belief is that God demands nothing from you other than what you find congenial already.* As I said, agnostic. How do you tell whether God is pleased with you, rather than you are pleased with you?"


You quoted my post and then said the above. Like you were saying that my statement could only be true "if". My statement was true to me. If you had said " my god demands more of me" then you would be stating your opinion or your position on your religion. Instead you tried to put your beliefs on someone else ( me or someone else that believes in God).


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Truckinguy said:


> No, it's an exclusive brethren sect that is world wide and involves tens of thousands of people. Admittedly it is very personal to me but I don't paint all Christians with the same brush as I explained above. Our family is only one example of perhaps thousands of families that have been split up and there have been many nasty court cases for child custody going back as far as I remember.
> 
> My personal support for others is limited as I deal with issues myself. Most people pushed out by the church are in need of more professional help than I can give.


I think I see what you mean.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

where I want to said:


> You guys are tempting me beyond my ability to resist.
> I might have a philosophical respect for an individual who has a religious belief, but that does not mean I have to respect everything coming down the road just because someone else believes it. There is a difference.


How do you judge which one is right and which one is wrong?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

There are atheists who just don't believe in God or any gods and go about their lives without making a big deal about it...and then there are what I call evangelical atheists, who feel the need to convert others to their non-belief in God.

It irks me when anyone tries to convert others in an obnoxious way. I appreciate people who are able to share their faith or "anti-faith" in a gentle way without putting others down.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> "*Only if your belief is that God demands nothing from you other than what you find congenial already.* As I said, agnostic. How do you tell whether God is pleased with you, rather than you are pleased with you?"
> 
> 
> You quoted my post and then said the above. Like you were saying That my statement could only be true "if". My statement was true to me. If you had said " my god demands more of me" then you would be stating your opinion or your position on your religion. Instead you tried to put your beliefs on someone else ( me or someone else that believes in God).


Well, if you could explain the difference between complacency and confidence, it would be useful since it is confusing. But note that question is not an insistence that you are simply complacent rather than believing but rather asking how you know the difference. Since you seem to be taking offense that I might be saying that it is complacency, I figured you might have thoughts on it. I have trouble with that concept myself- whether my beliefs are held because the provide the least inconvenience to me or whether they are a result of understanding.
But if you are simply saying that you are happy with what you have said and object to any questions about how you got there, it's ok. I'll leave it. But it would be good to know that no questions are being taken despite being posted ahead of time.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> There are atheists who just don't believe in God or any gods and go about their lives without making a big deal about it...and then there are what I call evangelical atheists, who feel the need to convert others to their non-belief in God.
> 
> It irks me when anyone tries to convert others in an obnoxious way. I appreciate people who are able to share their faith or "anti-faith" in a gentle way without putting others down.


I agree. I do find that though that often those who believe a certain way ( with regards to religion and other beliefs ) don't want to let others beliefs ride. Some want to tell us why we are wrong instead of actually discussing the differences.

I don't see how I can sway someone towards belief or not believing in God or do I want to. I can discuss rationally why I do or do not believe but it should not sway their beliefs nor should they try to do more than explain what they believe.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Well, if you could explain the difference between complacency and confidence, it would be useful since it is confusing. But note that question is not an insistence that you are simply complacent rather than believing but rather asking how you know the difference. Since you seem to be taking offense that I might be saying that it is complacency, I figured you might have thoughts on it. I have trouble with that concept myself- whether my beliefs are held because the provide the least inconvenience to me or whether they are a result of understanding.
> But if you are simply saying that you are happy with what you have said and object to any questions about how you got there, it's ok. I'll leave it. But it would be good to know that no questions are being taken despite being posted ahead of time.


I don't feel the need to. I am not trying to sway your beliefs (or anyone elses) so it only really matters to you. I don't care nor does it have a place it what I believe.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

pancho said:


> How do you judge which one is right and which one is wrong?


Mostly from conflicts between the things that religious people say is the result of their practice and reality. For instance, if a religion says its practice leads to health, yet many of its practicioners are made sick by following its tenets, I would think there is a flaw in either the belief or execution. Same if it says that all are welcome, yet shuts out specific groups not based on practice. Or if it says doing something is a sin, yet its practitioners ignore it as irrelevant on a wide scale. Etc etc. These show that something is wrong with its purpose or tenets.
However if it simply says do this and you will go to heaven, without a promise that the doing will make better people on earth who are more acceptable to God, then who can really argue it?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> I don't feel the need to. I am not trying to sway your beliefs (or anyone elses) so it only really matters to you. I don't care nor does it have a place it what I believe.


That's ok- no discussion further.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Mostly from conflicts between the things that religious people say is the result of their practice and reality. For instance, if a religion says its practice leads to health, yet many of its practicioners are made sick by following its tenets, I would think there is a flaw in either the belief or execution. Same if it says that all are welcome, yet shuts out specific groups not based on practice. Or if it says doing something is a sin, yet its practitioners ignore it as irrelevant on a wide scale. Etc etc. These show that something is wrong with its purpose or tenets.


Just from my experience with religions I don't think I have ever heard about one that wouldn't fail your beliefs.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> I see religion and belief in God ( or not ) as two very separate and distinct things.
> 
> Religion is the practise of your belief with a group of like minded people. You can believe in God( or not) and not be religious.


Post of the day award.

'Course y'all know the difference in being religious & being spiritual, doncha? Spiritual peple are too lazy to go to church.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> It's a pretty sad person who would attempt to destroy a faith simply because they don't share it and offer nothingness as an unsatisfactory replacement.


Not "nothingness" ... _reality_. 

Some of us find reality rather satisfactory ... or at least preferable to candy-coated fairy tales. 

But it's a free country, and everyone can choose to believe what they will.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Candy coated Christianity works for me !

Hide from God and He will hide from you !

I have witnessed His power .... I have experienced angels... this is the reality I have experienced.

But I can not force you to believe ...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> Not "nothingness" ... _reality_.
> 
> Some of us find reality rather satisfactory ... or at least preferable to candy-coated fairy tales.
> 
> But it's a free country, and everyone can choose to believe what they will.


You kill me. Your biggest complaint against Christians is their proselytizing, yet you practice it at every occasion. 

Your other constant complaint against Christians is your perceived air of superiority they portray, yet you elevate your own status over those that trust Christ whenever you can.

Please,, let us be.

That labels you yourself with the same label you use often on Christians. I'l let you guess that label if you care to get that introspective. But it's a free country, and everyone can choose to believe what they will.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

pancho said:


> Just from my experience with religions I don't think I have ever heard about one that wouldn't fail your beliefs.


Sometimes success, like soup kitchens or hospitals, sometimes failures, like ISIS or Jones. But attempting improvement has more chance of occasional success than the sure failure of not trying.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Not "nothingness" ... _reality_.
> 
> Some of us find reality rather satisfactory ... or at least preferable to candy-coated fairy tales.
> 
> But it's a free country, and everyone can choose to believe what they will.


Most people have a real problem with knowing what is real. What I think you are objecting to is that the "fairy stories" did not deliver what you wanted and thought was being promised. But maybe, like the song says, you may not always get what you want, but it may be what you need.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> But I can not force you to believe ...


I can't even force myself to believe. I could pretend to believe, but I don't think that's the desired end goal.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

HDRider said:


> You kill me. Your biggest complaint against Christians is their proselytizing, yet you practice it at every occasion.
> 
> Your other constant complaint against Christians is your perceived air of superiority they portray, yet you elevate your own status over those that trust Christ whenever you can.
> 
> ...


Don't be too hard on WG, she's a good person...I'll tell on her a little...when one of the forum leaders was very ill, she said she'd try to pray for her, did some other good stuff to raise $$ to help out as well, & I have NO DOUBT she prayed for that member.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> Don't be too hard on WG, she's a good person...I'll tell on her a little...when one of the forum leaders was very ill, she said she'd try to pray for her, did some other good stuff to raise $$ to help out as well, & I have NO DOUBT she prayed for that member.


I try not to escalate on anyone, but rather match the tenor level. 

She is obviously a very bright person, and it is encouraging to hear she prays. It sounds like she is a good soul.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Besides she is not a party line person. So many post one comment and it is clear what their position on every other thing in the world will be. WG has surprises to offer, which makes a person think.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Besides she is not a party line person. So many post one comment and it is clear what their position on every other thing in the world will be. WG has surprises to offer, which makes a person think.


I do understand she is a small government socially liberal person. We are all complex creatures.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> We are all complex creatures.


I'm not so sure of that. As for Willow, I'm a member of her fan club, but I think you were right in your earlier post directed toward her. Religion seems to be a hot button issue she likes to really "twist the knife" on.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Well I like WG .... 

But I just can't believe her candy-coated story about life forming spontaneously in a little warm puddle many moons ago

:angel:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Well I like WG ....
> 
> But I just can't believe her candy-coated story about life forming spontaneously in a little warm puddle many moons ago
> 
> :angel:


It's not like it's her own little story. It's the prevailing scientific theory, and it's found in textbooks around the world.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Well I like WG ....
> 
> But I just can't believe her candy-coated story about life forming spontaneously in a little warm puddle many moons ago
> 
> :angel:


As compared to a special being rolling up a bunch of mud and making a person?


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

This started out about politics now its religion...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PePbzfXtnww

Did you see him in the pumpkin patch last fall?


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

I think both sides can be equally dismissive of the other but that just comes of both sides trying to tell the other they're wrong. What really irked me was being told I offer "nothingness" as a replacement for someone's faith. It seems to assume that one can't have a rich and fulfilling spiritual and physical life without a belief in a certain God or following a certain religion which cannot be farther from the truth. 



> This started out about politics now its religion...


The OP ended with a comment about needing a religious forum and a little jab at atheists so it was about religion right from the start.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Truckinguy said:


> I think both sides can be equally dismissive of the other but that just comes of both sides trying to tell the other they're wrong. What really irked me was being told I offer "nothingness" as a replacement for someone's faith. It seems to assume that one can't have a rich and fulfilling spiritual and physical life without a belief in a certain God or following a certain religion which cannot be farther from the truth.
> 
> The OP ended with a comment about needing a religious forum and *a little jab at atheists* so it was about religion right from the start.


I did not strike first. I struck back.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

pancho said:


> As compared to a special being rolling up a bunch of mud and making a person?


A special *intelligent *being

Yes we were made from mud (dust)... but just try to produce life like you would a box cake .... just add water and stir

you will only get a mud cake !!!


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

HDRider said:


> I did not strike first. I struck back.


Sorry, yours was the original post in the thread so I'm not sure who you were striking back at.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> I did not strike first. I struck back.


To quote my dear departed father- don't make me stop this car! Really, he poked me first is your defense?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> A special *intelligent *being
> 
> Yes we were made from mud (dust)... but just try to produce life like you would a box cake .... just add water and stir
> 
> you will only get a mud cake !!!


Just like a special intelligent being would if there was such a thing.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

HDRider said:


> I did not strike first. I struck back.


Luke 6:29, (as well as Matt. 7:6), but mostly, john 15:12 and 1John 4:19 
Have a blessed Sunday.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

pancho said:


> Just like a special intelligent being would if there was such a thing.


Science has been candy coating mud cakes for decades .... still can't make them breathe


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Science has been candy coating mud cakes for decades .... still can't make them breathe


What makes you thing a special intelligent being could, if there is such a thing?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

pancho said:


> As compared to a special being rolling up a bunch of mud and making a person?


And I believe in just that: the above explanation for the other belief (post #70) attributed to WG.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Science has been candy coating mud cakes for decades .... still can't make them breathe


Mud cakes are jam packed with bacterial and microbial life and given millions of years could very well grow into any number of things.

There are many people here on this forum who selectively bread for certain characteristics in their animals, be it for show purposes or more production in a meat animal and can see the differences in a few generations or years. It's completely within reason to expect great change over the course of thousands or millions of years.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Truckinguy said:


> Mud cakes are jam packed with bacterial and microbial life and given millions of years could very well grow into any number of things.
> 
> There are many people here on this forum who selectively bread for certain characteristics in their animals, be it for show purposes or more production in a meat animal and can see the differences in a few generations or years. It's completely within reason to expect great change over the course of thousands or millions of years.


where did the microbial life come from ?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> Mud cakes are jam packed with bacterial and microbial life and given millions of years could very well grow into any number of things.
> 
> There are many people here on this forum who selectively bread for certain characteristics in their animals, be it for show purposes or more production in a meat animal and can see the differences in a few generations or years. It's completely within reason to expect great change over the course of thousands or millions of years.


People also have been selective bred.
We don't know much about a million years ago. According to some religions the world is only about 10,000 years old.
If you look back at the way early man looked you will see quite a bit of difference when you look in the mirror. Or I sure hope you can.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Truckinguy said:


> I think both sides can be equally dismissive of the other but that just comes of both sides trying to tell the other they're wrong. What really irked me was being told I offer "nothingness" as a replacement for someone's faith. It seems to assume that one can't have a rich and fulfilling spiritual and physical life without a belief in a certain God or following a certain religion which cannot be farther from the truth.
> 
> .


What I said was that it's a pretty sad person who would attempt to destroy a faith because they don't share it and offer nothingness as an unstaisfactory replacement. I did not say that is what you did but I do believe it is what an evangelical atheist does. They deride a religious belief as superstition and tout the physical as all there is. If that physical world does not serve a person's needs, they consider it too bad for the loser- that is the nothingness to which I referred. So the greatest care should be exercised in disparaging someone's faith without being able to have a substitution to offer. And even more care should be exercised by those who do not believe that that anything other than the physical world exists as they have only their personal ideas to guide their actions rather than a long history of many people thinking deeply about it.
But you would need to explain how a spiritual life is lived without some kind of belief in a spirit. And if you believe in a spirit and share that with another so that they have an alternative to nothingness, how is that not a shared belief- ie a religion, even if only followed by two people?


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> where did the microbial life come from ?


I have no idea. Maybe they have always existed since before time and were just waiting for the right conditions on the right planet to grow. We can only hypothesize about the beginnings of the universe. To me, the universe randomly happening from the Big Bang is just as plausible as the existence of a supernatural being.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Truckinguy said:


> I have no idea. Maybe they have always existed since before time and were just waiting for the right conditions on the right planet to grow. We can only hypothesize about the beginnings of the universe. To me, the universe randomly happening from the Big Bang is just as plausible as the existence of a supernatural being.





> We can only hypothesize


You may hypothesize if you like.

There is nothing new going on in abiogenesis research.

Materialists state life is the result of a chain reaction of events.

Attempts to recreate life by randomly mixing ingredients in the lab have failed.

And now we have complete knowledge of the molecular structure of life .... and yet attempts to reverse engineer has also failed to produce life in the lab.

But we are all free to believe.

I believe life can only be produced from dust by intelligent assistance


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> You may hypothesize if you like.
> 
> There is nothing new going on in abiogenesis research.
> 
> ...


We haven't produced life yet but we also haven't proven there was a intelligent being in the first place. I think people have been trying to prove that for quite a bit longer.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

My personal experiencing of the spiritual is all of the proof I need.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> My personal experiencing of the spiritual is all of the proof I need.


That is the way it should be.
I sometimes wish I felt the same way.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

pancho said:


> We haven't produced life yet but we also haven't proven there was a intelligent being in the first place. I think people have been trying to prove that for quite a bit longer.


But in the pursuit of knowledge, it becomes a matter of the more we know, the more we find that we have to learn.

I can't understand the drive to make others admit that what satisfies us personally must be what satisfies everyone else. I can understand the call of some religions to evangelize because their organization requires that as saving the non-believer. But how in the world does an atheist have the same drive? It seems as if the requirement universal non-belief in God will not allow any guiding principles at all. The glorification of a dog-eat-dog world where the Stalin, if strong, is more effective than the humanitarian.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> But in the pursuit of knowledge, it becomes a matter of the more we know, the more we find that we have to learn.
> 
> I can't understand the drive to make others admit that what satisfies us personally must be what satisfies everyone else. I can understand the call of some religions to evangelize because their organization requires that as saving the non-believer. But how in the world does an atheist have the same drive? It seems as if the requirement universal non-belief in God will not allow any guiding principles at all. The glorification of a dog-eat-dog world where the Stalin, if strong, is more effective than the humanitarian.


Some may have the same drive. If religions have it, it is because it is a human trait to try to get people to believe the same as you.

There is also push back. Being preached to all you life by people that believe different than you and being told over and over you are wrong gets a bit much . It was actually very hard to stand up for what you believed ( if you don't believe in a God) in this majorly Christian country until the last couple of decades. You were ridiculed and looked down on ( and often still are).


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Truckinguy said:


> Sorry, yours was the original post in the thread so I'm not sure who you were striking back at.


There was no jab in the first post. It was a earnest question.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> What I said was that it's a pretty sad person who would attempt to destroy a faith because they don't share it and offer nothingness as an unstaisfactory replacement. I did not say that is what you did but I do believe it is what an evangelical atheist does. They deride a religious belief as superstition and tout the physical as all there is. If that physical world does not serve a person's needs, they consider it too bad for the loser- that is the nothingness to which I referred. So the greatest care should be exercised in disparaging someone's faith without being able to have a substitution to offer. And even more care should be exercised by those who do not believe that that anything other than the physical world exists as they have only their personal ideas to guide their actions rather than a long history of many people thinking deeply about it.
> But you would need to explain how a spiritual life is lived without some kind of belief in a spirit. And if you believe in a spirit and share that with another so that they have an alternative to nothingness, how is that not a shared belief- ie a religion, even if only followed by two people?


Dunno, really, no one REALLY does but gee, seems much smarter to me to err on the side of the Supreme Being.
Just a reccomendation...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> I have no idea. Maybe they have always existed since before time and were just waiting for the right conditions on the right planet to grow. We can only hypothesize about the beginnings of the universe. To me, the universe randomly happening from the Big Bang is just as plausible as the existence of a supernatural being.


And could that big bang be: "Let there be light..."?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

pancho said:


> That is the way it should be.
> I sometimes wish I felt the same way.


Be open to It, be aware...
If only b/c SCIENCE/medicine tells us that a belief in a Higher Power is much better for us, physically & mentally.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Now they are saying space aliens seeded the earth with life...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/mysterious-metal-globe-may-proof-5171748
http://endoftheamericandream.com/ar...ded-life-on-earth-and-that-jesus-was-an-alien

Not that I believe in aliens, but here is another view on the subject. (Just me causing trouble.)


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Be open to It, be aware...
> If only b/c SCIENCE/medicine tells us that a belief in a Higher Power is much better for us, physically & mentally.


I have gave it quite a bit of thought. 
The believing would be much easier if those who did believe would actually act like their belief tells them to.
It is the religion part that bothers me. I keep returning to the actions of those who do believe.

There are very good and decent religious people, of all religions. I have been lucky to know some. The bad part is they are over powered by those who use religion for other purposes.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Tricky Grama said:


> Dunno, really, no one REALLY does but gee, seems much smarter to me to err on the side of the Supreme Being.
> Just a reccomendation...


I agree that it makes sense to err on that side. And people always make the argument that if you believe and you're wrong, no big deal. But if you don't believe and you're wrong, you go to hell (or whatever that particular religion says).

My problem is I can't control what I believe. I can't force myself to err on the side of belief. Maybe some people can, but I don't see how. I could pretend to believe, but I think God will know the difference if I'm faking it.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

One of my worries is what I might do if God turns out to be Episcopalian.

I mean, after being confirmed into the Methodist church and all, what if God isn&#8217;t Methodist?

All that time and effort wasted.

Sizzle.

Sizzle.

Pop!


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Oggie said:


> One of my worries is what I might do if God turns out to be Episcopalian.
> 
> I mean, after being confirmed into the Methodist church and all, what if God isnât Methodist?
> 
> ...


Naw- Episcopalians are always shy on having a position of their own so everyone is welcome. Well, as long as they have money-that always helps. Besides, since there was never a mention of hell in my whole Episcopalian childhood, I think they did away with it years ago. I can remember my first attendence at a non Episcopalian service and -shock- the preacher actually said the word hell. I thought he was swearing.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

where I want to said:


> What I said was that it's a pretty sad person who would attempt to destroy a faith because they don't share it and offer nothingness as an unstaisfactory replacement. I did not say that is what you did but I do believe it is what an evangelical atheist does. They deride a religious belief as superstition and tout the physical as all there is. If that physical world does not serve a person's needs, they consider it too bad for the loser- that is the nothingness to which I referred. So the greatest care should be exercised in disparaging someone's faith without being able to have a substitution to offer. And even more care should be exercised by those who do not believe that that anything other than the physical world exists as they have only their personal ideas to guide their actions rather than a long history of many people thinking deeply about it.
> But you would need to explain how a spiritual life is lived without some kind of belief in a spirit. And if you believe in a spirit and share that with another so that they have an alternative to nothingness, how is that not a shared belief- ie a religion, even if only followed by two people?


Maybe spiritual isn't the correct word, then. We can lead extremely rewarding lives without the need for a spirit or God. We can be emotionally moved by many things, the birth of a child, the death of a loved one, giving compassion and support to those in need, achieving life goals, there are many ways in which our lives are enriched. We can marvel in the beauty of nature and appreciate the changing of the seasons. I raise and process my own animals which gives me an appreciation and respect for life and death. We're not just lifeless robots if we don't follow a certain faith.

I, an others, have had to pick up the pieces of others lives who have been terribly damaged by religion, sometimes to the point of suicide. We would never try to turn someone from their faith, many people have gone on to other churches and been happy, some have left the Christian path completely. I"m not trying to say I'm a counselor by any means but many of us form a support network for those in need. 

Religion, like many other things, can be the source of good in many ways but can be terribly destructive when used by those with sinister purposes.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Truckinguy said:


> Maybe spiritual isn't the correct word, then. We can lead extremely rewarding lives without the need for a spirit or God. We can be emotionally moved by many things, the birth of a child, the death of a loved one, giving compassion and support to those in need, achieving life goals, there are many ways in which our lives are enriched. We can marvel in the beauty of nature and appreciate the changing of the seasons. I raise and process my own animals which gives me an appreciation and respect for life and death. We're not just lifeless robots if we don't follow a certain faith.
> 
> I, an others, have had to pick up the pieces of others lives who have been terribly damaged by religion, sometimes to the point of suicide. We would never try to turn someone from their faith, many people have gone on to other churches and been happy, some have left the Christian path completely. I"m not trying to say I'm a counselor by any means but many of us form a support network for those in need.
> 
> Religion, like many other things, can be the source of good in many ways but can be terribly destructive when used by those with sinister purposes.


That is one of the best posts I have read in a long time.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> And could that big bang be: "Let there be light..."?


That's quite possible. I don't think it can be proven one way or another. At this point I prefer to take my own personal experiences and go by that. I"m less worried about how the universe came into existence than trying to negotiate my way through my life at present. The first few verses of the Bible are impossible to verify as there unfortunately weren't any biblical scholars there at the time to record it. 

As for erring on the side of belief, it would be a poor Christian who would think God wouldn't see right through that. :happy2:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Many, many spiritual scholars have had times of questioning. 
Its the way God made us.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Wlover said:


> That is one of the best posts I have read in a long time.


I agree. I wish I could explain things as well.
Good job.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Oggie said:


> One of my worries is what I might do if God turns out to be Episcopalian.
> 
> I mean, after being confirmed into the Methodist church and all, what if God isnât Methodist?
> 
> ...


God is much wiser than the one you envision.... He knows you way better than you know yourself. He is not interested in religious name tags. He is only interested in having a personal relationship with you .....


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> God is much wiser than the one you envision.... He knows you way better than you know yourself. He is not interested in religious name tags. He is only interested in having a personal relationship with you .....



Which is probably good news for Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, Jews or even Atheists.

If there is in fact one power that is responsible for everything in the universe, whichever system of beliefs through which we attempt to understand that power is going to be pretty meager when compared to all that power would be able to comprehend and control.

Whether that power is some sort of being or a systematic organization of what simply is will be of little consequence.


----------

