05 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957So you place Jesus on a higher plane than say, Buddha or
I feel your pain. Things are always easier when Jesus enters the picture. 🙂
Mohammed? I was wondering how this totem pole thing works.
Sorry, not meaning to redirect this thread, just curious.
I think the question of rights of the non-believers religion would
be the freedom to critizise, the freedom to draw images of other
religions' banned images, the freedom to have schools that don't
pretend to know what the gods they profess to believe in have in
the way of attributes, the freedom to have a school that isn't
contaminated by the local religion, the freedom to have a country
that isn't controlled by people who foist their religion into the
government, Iran and America come to mind there as examples
of governments foisting religions or the controls of such religions
on peoples lives. Is that clear enough?
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by sonhouseUh,...no. I was simply goading Rob. I think he knows that. I have no peckin order of Gods. I just try to get along with everyone.
So you place Jesus on a higher plane than say, Buddha or
Mohammed? I was wondering how this totem pole thing works.
Sorry, not meaning to redirect this thread, just curious.
I think the question of rights of the non-believers religion would
be the freedom to critizise, the freedom to draw images of other
religions' banned images, the freedom to have sc ...[text shortened]... oisting religions or the controls of such religions
on peoples lives. Is that clear enough?
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by eamondoNo need for a new religion - one already exists. It's called [secular] liberalism.
how about a new religion for those who dont believe, with all of the same rights afforded to all of those religions out there?
could it be a force for good and help to balance the situation which is a little out of hand?
any thoughts on this?
come on people, lets hear the arguments for and against
06 Feb 06
1 edit
religous groups often aim to influence decision-making by governments to suit their own religous agenda.
a Church of No God might be resist this by claiming, like others have often done, that something is "offensive to their religion".
if someone believed devoutly in "No God" then would they have a reasonable right of protest, the same as the member of any other religious denomination against initiatives or lobbying be ordinary religious groups? could No God be established as a faith?
of course one cant prove that there is no god, one would just need faith (or is it "un"-faith?)
ps-
anyone out there get the connection to alice through the looking glass? anyone know the song? who sung it?
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by eamondoNon-religious people would find your "Church of No God" to be ridiculous. They would have absolutely no use for it. Lack of belief is not itself a belief. Lack of faith is not itself a faith. There are groups such as the FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) that lobby the government to observe the separation of church and state, but they are not anti-religious. They do not worship the concept of "No God."
religous groups often aim to influence decision-making by governments to suit their own religous agenda.
a Church of No God might be resist this by claiming, like others have often done, that something is "offensive to their religion".
if someone believed devoutly in "No God" then would they have a reasonable right of protest, the same as the member ...[text shortened]... get the connection to alice through the looking glass? anyone know the song? who sung it?
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and its sequel Through the Looking-Glass were books by Lewis Carroll. And no, I don't know what connection you're driving at. I am unaware of any song by that title.
08 Feb 06
Originally posted by rwingettdavid c. the post you found so hard to understand was in reply to the post quoted above. I was trying to point out to rwingnett that, we as a species still create our own gods to compensate for the void created for lack of faith. Also that God is not just an etheral entity but a moral compass, which TV seems to have become for so many people. Thank you for pointing out the fact that i did not make myself clear, and i hope that you are now suitably enlightened. I wouldn't want to think i had been too vague for your superior brain to handle.
In pre-scientific cultures, perhaps. But I don't think that's true anymore.
🙂
08 Feb 06
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundIf people still create new gods it's only because they've had thousands of years experience in doing so. Old habits die hard. But if the first humans had somehow been scientifically literate, they would have had no need to invent gods in the first place. Indeed, the concept would probably sound quite strange to such a people.
david c. the post you found so hard to understand was in reply to the post quoted above. I was trying to point out to rwingnett that, we as a species still create our own gods to compensate for the void created for lack of faith. Also that God is not just an etheral entity but a moral compass, which TV seems to have become for so many people. Thank ...[text shortened]... tened. I wouldn't want to think i had been too vague for your superior brain to handle.
🙂
I do not think your equation of TV with a new God is a valid one. It may be a very influential medium, but it falls far short of the status of a god. TV itself is not a moral compass at all, but rather a reflection of society's moral compass.