If you have been on HubPages for very long, you know that there are many people who believe mutually contradictory things. They each know that the others are wrong; After all, God or the Holy Spirit or [insert an unimpeachable authority here] has revealed the truth to _them_.
Is it better to engage these people, with their ironclad, yet mutually contradictory beliefs, or to ignore them?
I admit, I'm not very good at ignoring them, and I don't know that they should be ignored. What do you think?
I try to ignore them. It's just like banging your head against a wall to engage them.
I think that if you are willing to show them that their ironclad beliefs may be wrong and that you have evidence to show that what you believe is true then no matter what that person believes they will have to question it. They will at least ask themselves why we don't believe as they do. Because they are either emotionally attached to their beliefs or trapped in a community of believers it may be hard for them to just change their mind. We may not see it but we will have made an impact. I mean if we want to believe what is true we would question what we believe is true and look for evidence/facts to back up that belief.
Haha, I wrote "Atheists - Stop Wasting Your Time" specifically to try and discourage people from engaging others with strong religious/theistic beliefs.
Humans do not learn well whilst in direct conflict - copious quantities of adrenaline and cortisol were not destined to help us change our opinion there and then. That is to say, changes in perception of events (such as the ones where God (or eq.) has revealed himself) arise from calmly mulling over other people's views and seeing the error of your ways.
I find that it is a chip away strategy, rather than a full on assault, that works best.
Here on HubPages I always advise writing hubs countering people's opinions rather than posting comments because there is always the chance that you yourself are wrong and public scrutiny will only be beneficial. If you are right, chances are that you will be voted up until everyone can see and you can combat this erroneous thinking en masse.
Please don't waste time writing individual responses!
I wish i had more self-control. I start sounding like an idiot when I try to talk to them. I just hate that they're so bigoted. It gets me extremely defensive and I make an ass of myself.
I'm working on ignoring it, because that's probably the best. I like reading religious discussions/hubs.. but the ones on hub pages are extremely one-sided. Hardly anyone is objective, including myself. It's just not something fun/interesting to be a part of . Gets my blood boiling. Wish it was more mind-engaging and less of a fight.
I want to unsubscribe. I don't know.
I guess another question is why it is important to you personally that their opinions seem to warrant correction. And why you feel that you are the person who needs to change them..
(The word "you" is meant to represent the individual that feels this way in general not YOU specifically hon.)
You'd really have to look at the whole evolution vs creationism debate and understand the history of religious oppression to understand why people like us voice their beliefs counter to your own. If you don't speak up against something then you might as well be allowing it.
I am so glad that we have people like you then that try your best to convince others that by not thinking like you they are wrong.
Knocked on any doors lately? I'm sure you could get some pamphlets made up.
I love people who try to convert others to their way of thinking. Evangelical atheists are great!
And I likely know as much... if not more... about the history of religious oppression and creationism vs. evolution debate as you. So you might want to be condescending to someone else.
And additionally... as you know nothing-again-about my viewpoint you really have no idea whether you are opposing it.
It's really funny you'd come to this conclusion.
You seem to lack an understanding or empathy despite claiming to have a knowledge of such nasty actions by your religion. A hypocrisy. Christians and other religions through history have gone around converting people in horrible ways but when someone who is not in a religion stands up to fight it then he is lumped into the same category as the oppressors he is fighting against? Interesting viewpoint.
I am not interested in converting anyone nor am I interested in convincing the willfully ignorant of my view point. Just know that what i am going to do us stand up and say something to the contrary of those who intend to pass off their fantasy as truth.
Once again you have no idea what my religion has done or hasn't done. As you have asked not once what my religion is and are going on the assumption that one Christian is the same as another.
But yes. Your belief is a hypocritical. No matter who does what you are doing... it's not cool. You are acting just like the people you are complaining about.
Almost as interesting as "It's okay when I do it because they started it". Playground logic is always the best way to go.
Amazingly that is exactly what fundamental Christians say about those who want to teach evolution in school... but that's different of course because they are wrong and you are right. And if you are attempting to change someone's view to your own then you are INDEED attempting to convert. That's what conversion means. And your assumption that their beliefs are fantasy while yours are the only true reality is observably arrogant...
Your assumption is that I care what brand of Christian you claim to be or that I have made any conclusion what so ever as to what kind that is. It's completely irrelevant.
I am not trying to convince anyone of my point of view or convert them, I said that if someone wants to have the discussion of whose viewpoint is valid I will. That is not a proactive attempt at converting people. If I wanted to do that I would start or join a church.
You do realize that your so-called "point of view" involves the spawning of life from a magical substrate that came from nothing, right?
If you are not trying to convince others to believe in the power of "nothingness," then why even engage in discussions about who is right or wrong or whose belief or religion is inferior to your lack of one, which sounds more faith-based than most?
Not everybody believes in talking rocks and magical pools of primordial soup or bangs without bangers, for example, so unless you are really in denial, why even bother trying to act like you are not "trying" to convince others about your dead rock religion?
Just curious, as to what fuels this madness, that's all...
That would be a totally incorrect view of my point of view.
As far as what I believe I base all my beliefs on what the evidence says and nothing I believe is based in faith. You can spin it as you like.
I don't believe in things like gods and spirits because there is no evidence to support their existence and the evidence I have viewed and in many cases tested shows that no supernatural being necessary to "create" life or existence. To assume a creator is to argue from ignorance. I am not trying to assert that you are anyone should believe as I do I am merely inviting you or other believers to prove that what you believe is true. So far what have I said in any forum that points to what I do believe or what others should believe? I have only explained why it is I believe what I believe in my hubs and never in any forum. So in what way am I attempting to convert anyone? By saying "I don't believe you"? Or "prove it"? You can label me all you want. What I have not done to you or Melissa is label you as a type of Christian or any other religion unless you told me that is the type you are. And the only time I have called anyone immature or ignorant is when they act like little children and I am done with their antics. As with vector7. I haven't said anything to Melissa to warrant any sort of disrespect from her yet she lumps me into a bigoted idea of how she thinks atheists are. In that sense she is a hypocrite. There are Christians here I very much respect. Unfortunately she will never be one of them.
Didn't you say you were done with me? Oh... you meant you were done with having a debate but you will continue to talk about me in your posts. Gotcha!
Oh my... again someone plays the persecution card. It must be because you are an atheist.. you couldn't have said anything that warrants someone disagreeing with you. And disagreeing is what I have done. I didn't "disrespect" you... that's laughable.
I've formed an opinion of YOU alone Don't try to lump yourself in with the other atheists on the forums to protect your ego. I'm sure you would love to think it's bigotry but honestly it really just is the way you have presented your opinions and what I believe are the underlying motives for your posts.
If that is hard for you to accept maybe you should ask yourself why.
Use your discretion. If you see someone who is capable of logic even if you don't agree with their beliefs then engage with them. When you start saying the same things over and over again to the same person and they give you the same answer each time then I think it's time to part ways.
You'll never change someone's mind and the more you try, them more stubborn they become in their belief, there's actually been a study published on that, although I can't be bothered to look for it online. You're just wasting your time trying to convince people that are set in their ways to change to the way they think to the way you see things, so you're better off to ignore them and just have a happy life with minimal frustration.
If we did that then we wouldn't have other atheists, we are growing because we are willing to ask the questions and give the evidence and make the arguments. There are several in my family and friends who have dropped religion because I asked them the questions the Bible could not answer.
ROFLMAO... but nope you aren't interested in conversion... just using it to support your attempt to change peoples beliefs and celebrating the "growing in numbers" of people who are being converted.
Pot... meet kettle. What is your version of the watchtower going to be called?
So do you feel good about changing the beliefs that someone has held dear and has built their lives around? Does it make you happy that you have swayed them to your side? Are you convinced that by talking them into your point of view that you have made their lives better?
You can take the boy out of Christianity but you can't take Christianity out of the boy... You are still "witnessing" and "spreading the gospel" you just have a different master you are peddling.
Wow you like to jump to some pretty outrageous conclusions, many of which I couldn't even attempt to seriously respond to.
Changing someone's point of view isn't about making someone's life better. Being a Christian or an atheist can't do that. The only thing that can make a persons life better is the individual responsibility towards self improvement and positive realism. Nothing to do with any belief system.
You can believe what you like and spin it any way you want.
You have an intellectually dishonest take on things. I am done with you. Bye
If you say so sparky Your opinions say it all. Bye now! Good luck with spreading the word.
Just curious, but do you really roll on the floor while laughing out loud when that happens? I usually just gracefully fall out of my, uh, chair, like this: splat! I get back up, and then start laughing; LOL!
Actually no... I generally roll my eyes and chuckle to myself. I might direct hubby to the thread so he can get a kick out of it too. Once or twice though I have spit coffee or tea out of my nose over something that someone said. Irony and blind hypocritical statements in particular amuse me...
I also love the "if you don't think like me then it must be because you are *insert belief here* rather than because the person is being obviously biased. It never seems to occur to anyone that I peg both atheists and Christians alike when they are being blatant about it. I think it's hilarious that I can be called both a blind Christian and told that I am not a Christian at all in the same thread... once by the same person.
Yeah ok, but I just don't see the point of spending your time trying to convince others. If someone is happy believing something, just let them get on with it and enjoy your life. I'm not religious, but I can't be bothered to spend my time forcing my views on others. I just let people get on with whatever they want to do.
As the old saying goes, as long as it doesn't scare the horses..
For the most part I agree but considering the outspoken ways of the religious, trying to force americans to believe this nation was based on Christian values contrary to what the first amendment says and trying to teach their brand of religion in secular schools, to comment on every science forum about their god then all I can say is I plan on responding back. Silence is approval.
I am religious. I believe in separation of church and state so much that I actually homeschool to avoid religious instruction to my children. Your generalized statement is false.
I am religious. I generally support the side of science in science forums. Your generalized statement is false.
If you insist on saying that all religious individuals act/believe in a certain way then all I can say is I plan on responding back. You are saying ALL which includes me... obviously... and your statements are untrue. My silence about your untruths would be approval.
I never said YOU, so stop getting all defensive about what you are doing, I am telling you why I speak the way I do about religion, because if I don't speak out then the religious who impose their rules (AGAIN NOT YOU NECESSARILY, UNLESS YOU DO) will think it's okay to do so. I ALSO NEVER SAID ALL RELIGIOUS INDIVIDUALS! But for the most part religion in general mandates, read your bible, that you preach to me and convince me.
Good for you, responding to my "untruths" would be approval....
However, I have defended, many religious people in all forums for constitutional reasons and attacked them simultaneously for the same, and defended my knowledge of reality with vigor, and will continue to do so.
As far as me and you are concerned, I would appreciate that we never acknowledge each other again, EVER. Doing so will be considered harassment and that goes for both of us. This is not a free speech forum, as hub pages has repeatedly informed me.
1. You said "ways of the religious" I am religous... therefore you were speaking of me. The same way as if you would have said "ways of white people" or "ways of women" If you would have said "some of the religious" it wouldn't have been inclusive. As it is it was.
2. My bible says nothing about having to preach to you and convince you. That's another untruth.
3. You responded first to me in this thread and you also continued to talk about me in other posts. If you would wish for me to stop pointing out your false statements I guess I will... as it seems to be upsetting you to have someone contradict you. It seems funny that it's okay for you to correct other people but you get upset and start screaming "harassment" when they correct you. I suppose by attempting to force my silence- by your logic- you can have the comfortable self-delusion that you are forcing my approval. Like I said before you can take the boy out of Christianity but apparently you can't take the Christian out of the boy. Don't respond to my posts and don't mention me by name or inference again however and you can have your enforced silence of the opposing opinion. Congrats Feel free to report me at anytime though hon and we'll see about whether I get banned or not. ROFLMAO.
Well - I have to point out that anyone responding to your posts will certainly NOT be considered harassment. The only way you can stop someone responding to your post is to not post.
"Ahem" speaking as one of the iron-clad, I would have to say it depends. The truth is that both among believers and non-believers, there is a certain amount of both iron clad belief and a lack of understanding of what they believe and why. It tends to lead to a lot of arguing and bad feelings. I've always found that there are reasonable people on both sides who are capable of talking about different beliefs, and there are those who are not.
I won't ignore them if they are 'forcefully' contradictory. It's necessary to stand up for yourself, especially if you are being attacked.
Chasuk, hello, I've wondered where you've been and how you've been. I think it is important to engage those who don't agree with us. As someone else has said, I think it is important to define your goals. My initial goal was to understand how others think and to refine my own thinking. When I've strayed from that goal, I've gotten in trouble. I've read others hubs; I've thought about what they've said. Honestly it's been helpful to me. Personally, I've grown. I think I've achieved the goal.
Sometimes I've seen a good guys/bad guys mentality set in. This mentality is found in every viewpoint by some people. When it's directed at people from my viewpoint, I find a defensiveness rise up within me that wants to "prove" either I'm right or I'm not a bad person. Speaking out of that place I've found is not loving and beneficial. At that point, I walk away from the computer. Sometimes I have to apologize which is hard because we all hate the taste of humble pie. If the discussion is not likely lead to understanding, then I walk away from the computer. If it seems to be dominated by people who just like a good fight, I'm not interested.
How do you think the limits of internet forum impact the discussions? Are these questions able to discussed adequately in this context? Should the goal be to come to conclusions in this type of format? Is it reasonable to think anyone is going to question their faith or nonfaith as a result of discussion on a hubpages thread? Wouldn't that require more reading and thinking? Wouldn't that require face to face discussions in real time? What goals are best accomplished in internet forums? What do you think? What kinds of progress can be made?
If two people are sufficiently, not necessarily fully, open minded enough to listen to the others words, no matter what the forum or method, if either person is willing to consider the others idea or give reasons for why they consider an idea invalid then one could very well convince the other that a particular point of view is valid. Personally I want to hear what others have to say on any and every subject. If someone makes an assertion I want them to give sufficient reason for coming to this assertion. Many of you will whine like children when those of us call you on your lack of rational or critical thinking. Sorry but that is just the way it goes.
Here's my question. What if a person lacks expertise in a particular area science, philosophy etc? Someone throws them a few lines of facts in a post. Most posters don't document from a particular source or expert. Before I'd concede, a person might want to do some research of his or her own. In other words, you'd give them food for thought for sure. That's valuable. Should you require they concede your right, or should you give them time? Is it reasonable anyone is going to concede or change there mind in a thread? Are we going to work that hard? Or are we going to end up calling each other names and making each other mad? Isn't it a waste of your time to listen to people who whine like children? Why do you continue the discourse? This phenomenon fascinates me. What constitutes sufficient open mindedness? Aren't the reasons sometimes far too complex for a thread post? Why do we have to validate or invalidate ideas in this context? Why not just ponder them? Do we have to have a snappy come back to be right?
The internet can be an opportunity to discover people who are not like you. I have learned more from reading people's hubs than these threads. I've read a couple of yours. Actually the comment segments after a hub tend to be far more useful and civil. Don't you think?
I'm still weighing whether this activity is useful and helpful expenditure of time yet. I'm somewhat attracted to this type of interaction. I'm not sure if it's healthy or not. Maybe I should engage more real flesh and blood people not like me. I don't want to end up calling people names, judging their maturity or personality or even judging their thoughts and beliefs from a few lines of text. Not sure if I should close up shop on this or not. Thanks for your thoughts.
"Should you require they concede your right, or should you give them time?" I am not saying that someone is gonna change their mind IN THE THREAD, you are correct that they do need time. Anyone thinking that someone's mind will be changed right then and their is fooling themselves. Yet, you should make the argument, they will dwell on what they heard, consciously or unconsciously and they will want to know for themselves and hopefully do their own research, ask their own questions and decide for themselves what is true or not. However, with more hard core oppositions you should let them know that people like you exist and will fight back (as they are letting you know). And if either person arguing has any intelligence then they will question the validity of the person they oppose. They may fall back on propaganda lies but in the end many will truly seek to understand the other person rather than generalize a particular person to a particular group.
As far as sufficient open mindedness, someone who is at least willing to give you counter point to your points and vice versa. One good argument I had was with HeadlyvonNoggin, he's a great person to talk to but in the end he couldn't wrap his head around the idea that he was rationalizing science and religion together in such a way he'd contradict one statement to make another statement true. If I respond to a done argument it's more just to let someone know that they are either being too closed minded or too hypocritical and will eventually stop talking to them completely. So I don't care about snappy come backs, but I do care about fairness and justice.
"I'm still weighing whether this activity is useful and helpful expenditure of time yet. I'm somewhat attracted to this type of interaction. " I am in the same boat actually, with all these people accusing the other of being too closed minded to talk to I at least give every single person the benefit of the doubt rather than giving my opinion and refusing to hear the other persons opinion free of initial judgement. I would say it's not necessarily healthy, it's obsessive compulsive, at least in my life, my wife calls me an info and argument junkie... she is correct.
The problem with engaging with real flesh and blood people, is that in the real world arguments can become physical altercations, if you engage a friend who happens to be highly influential in your community and you oppose him verbally you could end up being ostracized by your community. I was nearly ostracized from my family when I came out for being an atheist back in 1992. I lost several jobs for being found out as a nonbeliever, hence why I am now outspoken and sometimes militant about the first amendment.
Considering the history of those I oppose, I do sometimes get angry but like I have said, or had to reiterate "I may hate everything you say but I will fight to my death for your right to say it"
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I understand where your coming from. You helped me understand some of the emotion here. Helpful to me. Thanks. I'm not much of an arguer. I do like to know about how people think though. The writer, Frederick Buechner, calls people, "the universe next door." Those universes are pretty amazing. Since arguments aren't my cup of tea, I'll probably take my explorations to another venue. cheers.
From a psychological point of view I sometimes like to see people's reactions to different ideas contrary to their own. I used to go to this chat room when I was in college and pretend to be various types of people and peacefully strt a conversation. I was always respectful in portraying these personas but respect depended on their particular world view.
Something I've found Chasuk, is that everyone has some kind of contradictory belief at some point or another, whether it's of religious origin or anything else in life. It's something that changes if we are honest with ourselves. But it is not something that someone else can change. You can throw the idea out there if you want to. But, sometimes, we need those contradictions and to find a way to justify them because it makes it easier to live our lives without really doing anything about it and inquiring about it further/dealing with it.
I recently stopped talking to a friend, and knew my actions were contradictory, and after I stopped lying to myself and went with my logical nature, I realized I couldn't justify my anger or ignoring him anymore and am currently trying to slowly work things out, but I am willing to accept the consequences, whatever they might be. My actions were illogical, and I value logic, so, it was only natural that I apologize. I also care about him as a friend. Haha. But, it was mostly I'd stopped lying to myself.
Anyway, only when someone is extremely stubborn, should you not engage with them in conversation. To respectfully bow out would be wisest in that scenario, because they are so busy lying to themselves and holding on to that comfort for dear life that they certainly won't be able to accept the truth or a different perspective from you. It is then quite understandable not to engage in conversation with them. I think Elijah is a good example of this. Just poke a little fun, or not, haha, then move on.
What is better or best only you can decide. Whatever one decides may or may not reveal the contradictory nature of any belief/s another might have. It may however give one more insight into the diversity of beliefs if nothing else.
Chasuk, you ask thought provoking questions, so you're going to have to expect to provoke all sorts of "hornets" in the nest. Sometimes you just have to say, "enough" with some of them. Others, like I, are divine appointments to brighten your day...my unimpeachable source told me to tell you that!
There are those who think that they have cornered the market on God. I know some personally. They read Holy Scripture and interpret it (oftentimes through prayer) in accordance to their beliefs and training. It is difficult to deal with these people; however, I feel that we should at least "plant the seed" of a different viewpoint. (This is also true of politics.)
Ignorance is bliss; however, a little knowledge is helpful, and engaging in topics that may be controversial will, if nothing else, shed some light on the issue and allow those who are dogmatic to realize that there are other views. Also, many of those to whom you are refering are religious, but not necessarily spiritual. The know the letter of the law; however, they come short in the area of the spirit of the law. Once they begin reading Holy Scripture or any religious commentary with their head and heart rather than simply their head, they will become enlightened to other possible revelations. They may not agree with those ideas; however, they will be able to explain more fully why they believe the way they do based upon all information, not just their limited information.
Don't ignore; however, don't antagonize. Reply to their view with compassion.
Until the day you can effectively become an apathetic robot, it will always be hard to ignore human emotion. Why an individual would even try to do such, still amazes me today, unless one has become jaded from life and/or gave up on it, or is simply benumbed from drugs and/or abuse - whether physical or mental, and whatnot...
I will say that debating over politics and religious beliefs, seems to be a great pastime for many, albeit I got better things to do at the moment, like stabbing myself in the face with a soldering iron? LOL!
Say and think what you will, but, there are no atheist programs to get people off of alcohol and illegal drug use. AA, known for years as the moving force in this area, uses the presence of God to set these people on the right trak. There are no atheist movements to feed and house the hungry and homeless. All atheism does is remove all hope from those who have little or none already. Concentrate on Atheist programs to help the unfortunate and then maybe we'll talk. Even the Muslims do more than you jokers do.
Atheist Charities: It Gets Better Project, Atheist Centre of India, Shoulder to Shoulder, Population Connection, National Association for Urban Debate Leagues, Kiva, the Fellowship for Freethought. I could go on.
But perhaps the statement "even the Muslims" speaks for itself.
Finally...someone with some real data! Everyone else just let's me spout off because they know less that they want others to know. I applaud your response. Though I can't conceive how such closemindedness could even laughingly be called "free thought". At least I can sleep at night knowing that atheists can seek help, and that not all man's problems aren't the fault of God...Atheists can be drug addicts too!
Awesome! Lets all start a parade and give praise to the primordial soup theory that went "poof" like a pot of chili without beans and the big bang that went "bang" like a gun with invisible bullets, and blame everything on those darn talking rocks; praise be the robots!
My church is composed of a large percentage of atheists. Our average volunteer time per member is around 14 or so hours a week. All causes we support are secular. Atheists don't really form specific groups very often as that seems pretty religiony... which is kinda against what they do. Secular charities... of which there are many... abound with atheists.
Wow! Fascinating! Who would have thought that organized church could be filled with such things?
Well the Christians and the Buddhists asked the Wiccans if it was alright if we let them in. They circled a tree a couple times and burned a candle then said it was fine.... as long as they brought a non-perishable donation to the food bank when they came.
Hmm, that church sounds semi-advanced... At least they didn't make them drink goat blood while handling poisonous snakes and forcing them to listen to the tiresome song of Kumbaya? LOL!
No Kumbaya... but Birkenstocks were mandatory there for a while.
I can't wear regular dress shoes to ya church? Oh, great, that means I'll have to drop the whole "men in black" look with the secret agent thingy going on..? I suppose I can't wear my sunglasses, either? Can I at least bring my suitcase full of mystery items? Is there any "normal" churches available anymore?
Sure you can... we're all going to laugh at you though. But you'll get stale cookies and possibly...if you are lucky... some flat pop. Hippies can't cook anything but brownies... and I'd really recommend you stay clear of those.
Sounds more interdenominational. A meeting of minds...some aware that God is there, and some who simply don't care. Sounds appealling to me too, but, alas, I'm not a joiner. My church goes with me every day. I am more a spirit in the land.
“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”
Belief is taught through 'fear'. It isn't a deep seated need. it came about through difficult circumstances. Who would believe if bad things didn't happen to them?
The more afraid a person is, the firmer there conviction will be on the belief structure in question. If they are afraid of hell, the firmer their belief and their abandon will be in attempting to convert those who they deem are 'going' to hell.
They will not act out of love. On the contrary they will be harder on themselves and on gaining the person they are trying to 'save'.
If something freaky happens and your life is spared when you believed you were going to die, you will be more amenable to 'faith' and 'purpose' as opposed to logically stating that you survived.
But if you died, you wouldn't be able to say anything would you? But a believer will continue to say there is heaven they get to go. And what if you didn't believe in heaven or hell?
Either way people are arrogant in assuming the greatness of someone who 'saved' them gave them a 'great purpose' in life. Good grief...and some show humility by 'appreciating' life more.
Ugh, why can't people figure this out before they are confronted with difficult circumstances?
And why even go back to church or God when they are just being hypocrites? Once things get better, they will forget all about it.
Belief is nothing more than fear of death manifested, and humbling gratitude of life is really guilt about not acknowledging the fact...that eventually that person will die.
Hey, do you remember all of those crazy thoughts that went through your head when you were, say, 3 years old? There is a pristine format that you have most likely forgotten, eh?
When you become a Christian In church you are told that you are a 'baby' in Christ. In order to mature you have to be obedient. You can't grow up in Christ if you don't obey spiritual leaders. If you leave that church then you are rebellious.
Paul's epistles basically put a believer at the mercy of a spiritual leader. Accountability of a spiritual leader is only to God, not to other leaders, nor even to governments. So they can get away with anything, just like the catholic church has gotten away with molesting children.
I think its a form of hypnotic suggestion to convince a person that they are invaded by the Holy Spirit who will help them, lead them and guide them.
Much of the spiritual vocabulary used in churches is just that...more hypnotic suggestion to make you think you are a kid again.
That's not the experience I had at all. I'm aware there are some churches out there like that but not all. I think you do both yourself and others a disservice by lumping them all together.
If someone is mistreated at a McDonald's or in any corporation, the President himself gets involved to issue a 'formal' apology to the person in question. Another McDonald's won't say 'well you know we aren't all that bad'. They will respect the fact that something terrible happened to them.
They will step down and show some humility. They won't attempt to defend themselves, but they will allow their 'service' to speak for themselves.
You will never see this in churches. I don't know ANY to speak of. On the contrary websites like 'godhatesf***' is allowed to exist while all of the 'megachurches' sit by and do NOTHING. And christians sit in their own 'defense' and say 'well I didn't do it' and 'well don't lump us all together'.
At this rate....all will be lumped together and held accountable if all don't stop to take responsibility for their actions. They will be considered 'terrorists' for the things they are doing against LGBT. But I'm hoping in the future, as opposed to allowing them free reign like it was done in the civil rights movements decades ago, the Feds make some modifications to the system so that there will be no such thing as a 'freedom' of religion and that religion will be considered a 'corporations' and then and only then will they be made more accountable and not above the law.
The President of a 'corporation' that is, not the United States. And I'm correcting myself because I have watched your style on these forums Melissa.
I notice you tend to 'break' down a person's posts. Sometimes you go to other parts of the 'forum' researching in order to ridicule and consistently contradict 'for fun' especially when you believe you are making a good point.
I don't mind one bit. I have time. I have been waiting for you to find 'something' wrong with something I have posted in an attempt to be fair.
So give it your best shot.
Ok then... all Christians are the same.
I issue a formal apology in the name of all Christians for everything anyone who is a Christian has ever done in their entire life. We are all horrible people. I have never once jumped on another Christian for anti-gay rhetoric.
You are completely right on all of your assumptions about every Christian ever.
And you are completely right about no church ever doing anything about those spreading hate in Christ's name about the LBGT community. In fact I'm so ashamed of my faith and their "sitting on the fence" about the issue that I'll even post our own shameful website and opinions on the LBGT struggle...
Again... your stereotypes are completely justified.
*edit... and apparently you haven't watched me long enough... I am both a bi-sexual and extremely active in the Gay Right's movement. But sure... right... I'm just standing by not saying anything. Out of fear... you know... the same thing that indoctrinated me into a faith with absolutely no doctrines.
I never spoke about dogma dung within that comment you are replying to, hence forth your lack of understanding what "pristine thoughts" truly mean...
There are a few good Churches that are Christian in my opinion, I deeply respect what the Unitarians are doing and support them 100%. But for the most part I will say most religions, and their books, have much evil in them.
Thank you, Insane, for your comment above about the Native American spiritual mindset. As to this comment here...from my point of veiw, that is what Stephen Hawking describes, this truly marvelous (But understandable) universe was spawned from nothing but the force of gravity. In the Judaic foundation, it was spawned by God (s) [ Elohim], not, as you say, nothing. So, in this respect, Gravity and God are synonomous. Comprende?
Don't hold your breath on waiting for some realistic evidence.
Don't worry, I won't, we all know there is none.
Hold ya breath and you'll find some evidence; ha-ha!
There was a time when I was very close to death, I ride high performance Lambrettas. I was once hit by a car and was near death. I had interesting dreams while unconscious and I was told my heart had stopped and I wasn't breathing. Thanks to some great doctors I survived. I would not say I had any sort of "near death" experience and the closest thing to an out of body experience was a dream I had where I was still riding and found I was no longer on my scooter. Dreams, the mind can make you see or believe anything but that doesn't make anything you experience "spiritual".
I don't find you funny.
If only you would reciprocate that notion and begin to listen to others, maybe you would argue less..
It's not possible to not listen to someone here. You make a point I make a counter point I make a point you make a counter point. If you were sarcastic and condescending and hypocritical we might get to do that.
Really? It seems to me that we have very few points made on here while a lot of people are either not listening or simply couldn't care less... Hmm...
It's quite unfortunate, I attribute it to the general prejudice that people of faith have for people who are different: atheists, pagans, other religions, homosexuals, nonconformists, etc. while many will reciprocate this hatred, I am willing to look at them unemotionally... At least till their prejudice frustrates me. But I am always willing to forgive and forget unless a certain line is crossed and I dismiss them outright.
Your comment reminds me of the outcome toward the end of the movie "Independence Day," where mankind, due to an alien invasion, had to put down their prejudice ways and look at everybody as earthlings as opposed to this, that, and the other stereotypes that are commonly placed.
Umm, okay. Haven't seen that movie in... Since it came out.
Ah, it doesn't matter anyway... It is actually a fairly old concept, when dealing with certain matters like "what it would take to end mankind's prejudice ways." Well, outside of the simple solutions via a few gigantic nuclear blasts, of course...
But is there any evidence against it?
Where did the singularity come from?
Art...I base all my beliefs on what the evidence says, and nothing I believe is based on faith...and I believe in a higher form that qualifies as 'God'. Spin that.
Art...yeah, just switch the words. Gravity is the prime energy, which, according to Hawking, brought the universre into being, Everything is a manifestation of that energy, and, energy on that level could possibly be sentient, and is the basis for Noetics. In short, the universe or multi-verse could posess consciosness.
Good luck with teaching these guys what synonyms mean...
Your condescending way is not winning you any sympathy.
Thank you! That's the nicest thing anybody has said to me all day!
Oh, it pleases me to know that I come off as condescending when I'm merely being honest, cordial and respectful. Your comments show a lot about your reflection... Kudos!
Ha ha, good luck making anyone believe you are being honest and cordial and respectful.
You can make up any meaning you want to it but you are just attempting to rationalize your unconfirmable point of view.
Did you know that water in spanish is 'agua'? Science simply has mislabeled for your convenience the best candidate for God. E as in E=MC2. Rationalizing? Hardly. Just happen to know a smidgeon more about physics and quantum physics than you do....sounds magical, doesn't it? One question: Science tells us that the universe is mathematically perfect, that, with enough data, everything is predictable. Just how did Moses figure that out?
I am half Dominican so I do know a bit of Spanish. Saying you know more about physics and quantum physics than I do is hilarious since you have no idea what my education is. You are still talking about things for which you have no qualifications to talk about since you don't seem to have a clear understanding of these concepts.
Moses didn't figure anything out, using the word perfect or saying that something is perfect doesn't mean you know or don't know that something is mathematically perfect. It's just a quality you put forth on something and then attribute it to a being for which you have no actual knowledge of. It's all part of your imagination. Still rationalizing it for yourself, Druid dude.
Not a slight to your education, but, it is obvious...maybe not to you. I have access to other info which would also do little to convince you of anything. Not trying to convince you. Believe what you wish. Then it was a damn good geuss for a shepherd.
1) NOT a christian. 2) agree on your statement, but would point out that most of the founding fathers were church attending christians, and what the amendment actually says is "Congress shall make NO LAW corning an establishment of religion or the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
First Amendment, word for word.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Thomas Jefferson, Treaty of Tripoli
Though brought up in christianity, I turned my back on the followers of Peter and Paul, choosing to take council with the spirit of the man called Jesus. Further, my search has taken me to the far eastern regions where Buddhism is the way. I am a lso a student of Ghandhi and the concepts of peaceful protest. I embrace the Wakan Knowledge of the Native American people. I have been exposed to all faiths in my journey. I know this: the knowledge we have obtained was the knowledge we were supposed to obtain, an d will continue to be, and that is the nature of our evolution. An evolution of thought.
I don't, nor will I ever, embrace contradictory ideas, but, what on the surface may seem contradictory may just be a matter of context and perspective. Sometimes an artist's eye is required!
we must be diligent in reminding each other that righteousness is a shortcoming. all ideas no matter how contrary must be heard and added to the equation if we hope to solve a problem. proposal of contrary thinking . dose not mean the per poser is a subscriber to said idea . we are simply trying to cover all bases .
by Claire Evans3 months ago
This topic is old, I know, but I'd like to ask it anyway. Many Christians will ask an atheist, "Why are you here if you don't believe God (should it be a Christian thread)?" Some will answer,...
by Claire Evans5 years ago
It's easy to deconvert to atheism because they are disappointed, hurt or because they have lost their faith due to God making sense. It's harder to suddenly make a rational atheists convert to Christianity, which...
by Brittany Williams2 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people,...
by pisean2823116 years ago
Ok..being atheist , you dont believe in any intelligent supreme being ...my question is, you began atheist because of your observiation , experience and what role has religion played in making you atheist?
by il Scettico4 years ago
A common religion debate is that religious people try to shove their beliefs down every ones' throats, which is unwanted, closed-minded, and hypocritical. Yet the most common closed-minded belief shoving type of...
by cjhunsinger2 years ago
"Are atheists really so different from everyone else? Well, yes – but not in a bad way. Catherine Caldwell-Harris of Boston University has studied atheists and found that they share certain personality types,...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.