A Prayer Of Salvation (4 Viewers)

[Joe Bryant]

Despite being a curmudgeon, and not a believer in the same way the folks in this thread are, this has always made sense to me:

• Matthew 5:16 (NIV):
  .
  "Let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven".

The best way to witness your faith is through the life you lead. Are you at peace? Content? Resilient after a crisis? Faithful to the people in your life? Accepting of others as human beings? Do you fight against obvious injustice, or excuse it? Do you look the other way, or fail to recognize them, when you see evil deeds?

Someone who can't answer those questions well doesn't really have a whole lot to offer as far as faith goes IMO, no matter what they say they believe.

Thank you @Dinsy Ejotuz

I think that makes sense too.

 

[dgreen]

So if someone takes these steps and learns what we can call the "historical facts" around other religions and their own religion, then they'll be more aligned with reality. Now what? From your earlier post, you said that returning to reality will provide "a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth." Is that the goal? Or does this understanding and appreciation bring someone to some other goal? "Understanding and appreciation" sounds to be on par with the religious idea of simply believing the right things.

I framed that example in a way to be closer to Paddington's mindset than my own. I have no interest in changing anyone's mind and don't have any goals for others.

I do believe that a person who did those things would have a better appreciation for other religions and perhaps be more open-minded.

I also worry that a religious person's focus on the afterlife and view that the world is evil leads to worse outcomes here on earth.

I know it is common for Christians to accuse atheists of not having a moral compass. And I'll admit I held that belief at one point before getting to "know" so many of you here on FBG (and obviously some IRL). But, there is clearly a desire by you, and others, for things to be better. That's all I really meant by a "goal". I assumed your original post was more of a rhetorical response to Paddington than an actual presentation of a better way, but I do wonder if there's something that can be presented from the non-religious side that aims to transform us into better humans. I thought maybe this idea of understanding and appreciating could be discussed as a way to get humans to love each other more and care for this world we live in.

 

[dkp993]

know it is common for Christians to accuse atheists of not having a moral compass. And I'll admit I held that belief at one point

I just can’t fathom this mindset. For obviously smart reasonable people (like yourself) to not see that people can want to just be a good human beings just for the sake of it without needed to do it for some God or “reward” afterwards makes no sense to me.

 

[Psychopav]

Too bad things got personal in that other thread. We were just getting to Sola Scriptura, which IMO was pretty good progress while keeping it civil.

What's your understanding of Sola Scriptura? I feel like people use that phrase differently today than how it was used in the Protestant Reformation, so I'm curious how you see it. You're Catholic, right?

I am. My understanding of Sola Scriptura is that all doctrinal truth is revealed in the scripture alone, as opposed to my church's position that scripture is one leg of a three legged stool including the magisterium and sacred tradition. The Catholic viewpoint comes from sacred tradition. I'm not sure where the reformed viewpoint comes from but I always say when you want an explanation it's good to go to the source, and I'm not a Sola Scriptura adherent.

Maybe @Paddington or someone else who subscribes to it can expound on their understanding of Sola Scriptura, and whether/how it has changed since the time of the Reformation.

 

[Psychopav]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

 

[Osaurus]

Fascinating thread

 

[Joe Bryant]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

 

[Psychopav]

One of my buddies just sent this to me.

If you like the Blues and you love the scriptures, check out The book of Ecclesiastes was born to be Sung in Blues imo.

 

[dgreen]

Too bad things got personal in that other thread. We were just getting to Sola Scriptura, which IMO was pretty good progress while keeping it civil.

What's your understanding of Sola Scriptura? I feel like people use that phrase differently today than how it was used in the Protestant Reformation, so I'm curious how you see it. You're Catholic, right?

I am. My understanding of Sola Scriptura is that all doctrinal truth is revealed in the scripture alone, as opposed to my church's position that scripture is one leg of a three legged stool including the magisterium and sacred tradition. The Catholic viewpoint comes from sacred tradition. I'm not sure where the reformed viewpoint comes from but I always say when you want an explanation it's good to go to the source, and I'm not a Sola Scriptura adherent.

Maybe @Paddington or someone else who subscribes to it can expound on their understanding of Sola Scriptura, and whether/how it has changed since the time of the Reformation.

Yeah, that's basically what I understand to be its origins. An argument against Catholic church tradition and authority. Do Catholics claim magisterium (not sure what that is) and sacred tradition to be "inspired"?

As for its use today, I think people have taken the words "scripture alone" and used it to argue things like "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." In some circles, it is used to argue against Biblical scholarship that appears to go against an individual's understanding of their English translation. Even the idea of "interpretation" is frowned upon because that's not "scripture alone".

 

[Northern Voice]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

 

[dgreen]

know it is common for Christians to accuse atheists of not having a moral compass. And I'll admit I held that belief at one point

I just can’t fathom this mindset. For obviously smart reasonable people (like yourself) to not see that people can want to just be a good human beings just for the sake of it without needed to do it for some God or “reward” afterwards makes no sense to me.

I assume there are things you used to believe that you look back at and can't believe you used to believe that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

We'll disagree there. I do not think it's "flat out wrong".

 

[Northern Voice]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

We'll disagree there. I do not think it's "flat out wrong".

To put it another way, we're essentially saying in this thread it's too important not to talk about/pray to a guy who may or may not have rose from the dead 2000 years ago but we can't talk about global trade, economics, violence, housing, cost of living, current events, on and on and on that are happening every single day because they are political.

Sure we can agree to disagree on which is too important not to talk about I guess.

 

[Psychopav]

Too bad things got personal in that other thread. We were just getting to Sola Scriptura, which IMO was pretty good progress while keeping it civil.

What's your understanding of Sola Scriptura? I feel like people use that phrase differently today than how it was used in the Protestant Reformation, so I'm curious how you see it. You're Catholic, right?

I am. My understanding of Sola Scriptura is that all doctrinal truth is revealed in the scripture alone, as opposed to my church's position that scripture is one leg of a three legged stool including the magisterium and sacred tradition. The Catholic viewpoint comes from sacred tradition. I'm not sure where the reformed viewpoint comes from but I always say when you want an explanation it's good to go to the source, and I'm not a Sola Scriptura adherent.

Maybe @Paddington or someone else who subscribes to it can expound on their understanding of Sola Scriptura, and whether/how it has changed since the time of the Reformation.

Yeah, that's basically what I understand to be its origins. An argument against Catholic church tradition and authority. Do Catholics claim magisterium (not sure what that is) and sacred tradition to be "inspired"?

As for its use today, I think people have taken the words "scripture alone" and used it to argue things like "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." In some circles, it is used to argue against Biblical scholarship that appears to go against an individual's understanding of their English translation. Even the idea of "interpretation" is frowned upon because that's not "scripture alone".

My own terms: the Magisterium is the formal organized teaching body of the Church, which is comprised of the bishops in conjunction with the pope. I think you can identify its formal positions as those adopted by the various councils and ex cathedra papal pronouncements proclaimed down through the ages.

Sacred Tradition is distinguished from traditions of mere practice typically because it has been determined in these councils, similar to how Sacred Scripture was distinguished from other perhaps profitable, even holy, contemporary writings.

I am now getting a bit out of my depth so further answers from me on these items will probably rely on personal feelings about these things or references to online resources.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

We'll disagree there. I do not think it's "flat out wrong".

To put it another way, we're essentially saying in this thread it's too important not to talk about/pray to a guy who may or may not have rose from the dead 2000 years ago but we can't talk about global trade, economics, violence, housing, cost of living, current events, on and on and on that are happening every single day because they are political.

Sure we can agree to disagree on which is too important not to talk about I guess.

While I agree politics are far more important to our day to day lives than religion (and it's not even close), the political topics here were far more incendiary than the religion threads.

At worst it's basically a few people mocking other's beliefs and a few condescending religious types in here. It gets much uglier in political threads.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

We'll disagree there. I do not think it's "flat out wrong".

To put it another way, we're essentially saying in this thread it's too important not to talk about/pray to a guy who may or may not have rose from the dead 2000 years ago but we can't talk about global trade, economics, violence, housing, cost of living, current events, on and on and on that are happening every single day because they are political.

Sure we can agree to disagree on which is too important not to talk about I guess.

Yes. We're saying after giving it every chance possible, we proved we are not able to discuss politics here. And that will not change anytime in the forseeable future.

 

[Zow]

know it is common for Christians to accuse atheists of not having a moral compass. And I'll admit I held that belief at one point

I just can’t fathom this mindset. For obviously smart reasonable people (like yourself) to not see that people can want to just be a good human beings just for the sake of it without needed to do it for some God or “reward” afterwards makes no sense to me.

I can tell you that there are actual judges in meaningful positions who think this. It's scary.

 

[Ridgeback]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

We'll disagree there. I do not think it's "flat out wrong".

To put it another way, we're essentially saying in this thread it's too important not to talk about/pray to a guy who may or may not have rose from the dead 2000 years ago but we can't talk about global trade, economics, violence, housing, cost of living, current events, on and on and on that are happening every single day because they are political.

Sure we can agree to disagree on which is too important not to talk about I guess.

I certainly know what affects me on a daily basis, and what doesn't. It's also the condescending tone that I don't appreciate. We need to be saved? From what? Just because you believe in it, doesn't make it true for the rest of us.

 

[eoMMan]

Are you a bear?

 

[Northern Voice]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

We'll disagree there. I do not think it's "flat out wrong".

To put it another way, we're essentially saying in this thread it's too important not to talk about/pray to a guy who may or may not have rose from the dead 2000 years ago but we can't talk about global trade, economics, violence, housing, cost of living, current events, on and on and on that are happening every single day because they are political.

Sure we can agree to disagree on which is too important not to talk about I guess.

While I agree politics are far more important to our day to day lives than religion (and it's not even close), the political topics here were far more incendiary than the religion threads.

At worst it's basically a few people mocking other's beliefs and a few condescending religious types in here. It gets much uglier in political threads.

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

We'll disagree there. I do not think it's "flat out wrong".

To put it another way, we're essentially saying in this thread it's too important not to talk about/pray to a guy who may or may not have rose from the dead 2000 years ago but we can't talk about global trade, economics, violence, housing, cost of living, current events, on and on and on that are happening every single day because they are political.

Sure we can agree to disagree on which is too important not to talk about I guess.

I certainly know what affects me on a daily basis, and what doesn't. It's also the condescending tone that I don't appreciate. We need to be saved? From what? Just because you believe in it, doesn't make it true for the rest of us.

Yeah and definitely don't tell me it's "too important not to discuss" where the things impacting millions daily just get brushed aside as a wave. It's infuriating and comes from such a place of privilege.

 

[Captain Cranks]

So if someone takes these steps and learns what we can call the "historical facts" around other religions and their own religion, then they'll be more aligned with reality. Now what? From your earlier post, you said that returning to reality will provide "a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth." Is that the goal? Or does this understanding and appreciation bring someone to some other goal? "Understanding and appreciation" sounds to be on par with the religious idea of simply believing the right things.

I framed that example in a way to be closer to Paddington's mindset than my own. I have no interest in changing anyone's mind and don't have any goals for others.

I do believe that a person who did those things would have a better appreciation for other religions and perhaps be more open-minded.

I also worry that a religious person's focus on the afterlife and view that the world is evil leads to worse outcomes here on earth.

I know it is common for Christians to accuse atheists of not having a moral compass. And I'll admit I held that belief at one point before getting to "know" so many of you here on FBG (and obviously some IRL). But, there is clearly a desire by you, and others, for things to be better. That's all I really meant by a "goal". I assumed your original post was more of a rhetorical response to Paddington than an actual presentation of a better way, but I do wonder if there's something that can be presented from the non-religious side that aims to transform us into better humans. I thought maybe this idea of understanding and appreciating could be discussed as a way to get humans to love each other more and care for this world we live in.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying. I totally missed your point. I think you're right that in taking the time to learn or understand things outside our worldviews helps foster empathy towards others. Since we experience life from a singular perspective, it's easy to fall into 'my way right, your way wrong' mindset, but you can't build compassion and closeness to others if there's always some construct of division between you and them. Of course, this isn't contained to our religious views. Pretty much any relationship requires understanding, acceptance, and appreciation of our differences.

That said, we all strive for the same basic things here on earth and our collective efforts should be for us to achieve those things for everyone (love, comfort, acceptance, freedom).

If you were to put a secular hat on, what things do you wish society was prioritizing?

 

[dkp993]

know it is common for Christians to accuse atheists of not having a moral compass. And I'll admit I held that belief at one point

I just can’t fathom this mindset. For obviously smart reasonable people (like yourself) to not see that people can want to just be a good human beings just for the sake of it without needed to do it for some God or “reward” afterwards makes no sense to me.

I assume there are things you used to believe that you look back at and can't believe you used to believe that.

100%. And to be clear, I wasn’t trying to judge you or condemn in anyway. Really when I was speaking of the “you” in was meant in the collective.

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

So if someone takes these steps and learns what we can call the "historical facts" around other religions and their own religion, then they'll be more aligned with reality. Now what? From your earlier post, you said that returning to reality will provide "a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth." Is that the goal? Or does this understanding and appreciation bring someone to some other goal? "Understanding and appreciation" sounds to be on par with the religious idea of simply believing the right things.

I framed that example in a way to be closer to Paddington's mindset than my own. I have no interest in changing anyone's mind and don't have any goals for others.

I do believe that a person who did those things would have a better appreciation for other religions and perhaps be more open-minded.

I also worry that a religious person's focus on the afterlife and view that the world is evil leads to worse outcomes here on earth.

I know it is common for Christians to accuse atheists of not having a moral compass. And I'll admit I held that belief at one point before getting to "know" so many of you here on FBG (and obviously some IRL). But, there is clearly a desire by you, and others, for things to be better. That's all I really meant by a "goal". I assumed your original post was more of a rhetorical response to Paddington than an actual presentation of a better way, but I do wonder if there's something that can be presented from the non-religious side that aims to transform us into better humans. I thought maybe this idea of understanding and appreciating could be discussed as a way to get humans to love each other more and care for this world we live in.

I always thought this was telling on yourself.

"How can you have a moral compass if not for god/religion?"

They are essentially saying "if God were proven to be fake there'd be no reason for me not to kill/assault/steal etc"

 

[dkp993]

know it is common for Christians to accuse atheists of not having a moral compass. And I'll admit I held that belief at one point

I just can’t fathom this mindset. For obviously smart reasonable people (like yourself) to not see that people can want to just be a good human beings just for the sake of it without needed to do it for some God or “reward” afterwards makes no sense to me.

I can tell you that there are actual judges in meaningful positions who think this. It's scary.

For sure. And again, maybe poor choice of words on my part, but when I say “I can’t fathom” it’s not in the context of understanding it does happen. It more in the context of not understanding how it happens.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Are you a bear?

I hope not. They just gave up 52 points to the Lions.

 

[dkp993]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

We'll disagree there. I do not think it's "flat out wrong".

To put it another way, we're essentially saying in this thread it's too important not to talk about/pray to a guy who may or may not have rose from the dead 2000 years ago but we can't talk about global trade, economics, violence, housing, cost of living, current events, on and on and on that are happening every single day because they are political.

Sure we can agree to disagree on which is too important not to talk about I guess.

Yes. We're saying after giving it every chance possible, we proved we are not able to discuss politics here. And that will not change anytime in the forseeable future.

But hasn’t that exact thing been proven with this topic? Every thread has been shut down. In fact I’d argue that if you were to open up a sub-forum solely about religion it would turn out exactly how the PSF did. The only reason it hasn’t is you didn’t.

 

[Max Power]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

We'll disagree there. I do not think it's "flat out wrong".

To put it another way, we're essentially saying in this thread it's too important not to talk about/pray to a guy who may or may not have rose from the dead 2000 years ago but we can't talk about global trade, economics, violence, housing, cost of living, current events, on and on and on that are happening every single day because they are political.

Sure we can agree to disagree on which is too important not to talk about I guess.

Yes. We're saying after giving it every chance possible, we proved we are not able to discuss politics here. And that will not change anytime in the forseeable future.

But hasn’t that exact thing been proven with this topic? Every thread has been shut down. In fact I’d argue that if you were to open up a sub-forum solely about religion it would turn out exactly how the PSF did. The only reason it hasn’t is you didn’t.

It has more to do with a subsection of posters than the topics at hand. A lot of things parallel politics and its up to us to not cross the line. Like this thread... its an easy one to avoid if someone disagrees, but some just can't let it be.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

We'll disagree there. I do not think it's "flat out wrong".

To put it another way, we're essentially saying in this thread it's too important not to talk about/pray to a guy who may or may not have rose from the dead 2000 years ago but we can't talk about global trade, economics, violence, housing, cost of living, current events, on and on and on that are happening every single day because they are political.

Sure we can agree to disagree on which is too important not to talk about I guess.

Yes. We're saying after giving it every chance possible, we proved we are not able to discuss politics here. And that will not change anytime in the forseeable future.

But hasn’t that exact thing been proven with this topic? Every thread has been shut down. In fact I’d argue that if you were to open up a sub-forum solely about religion it would turn out exactly how the PSF did. The only reason it hasn’t is you didn’t.

We've struggled in the past for sure. But it's been manageable. As @Dr. Octopus said, the political topics here were far more incendiary than the religion threads.

 

[Joe Bryant]

So if someone takes these steps and learns what we can call the "historical facts" around other religions and their own religion, then they'll be more aligned with reality. Now what? From your earlier post, you said that returning to reality will provide "a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth." Is that the goal? Or does this understanding and appreciation bring someone to some other goal? "Understanding and appreciation" sounds to be on par with the religious idea of simply believing the right things.

I framed that example in a way to be closer to Paddington's mindset than my own. I have no interest in changing anyone's mind and don't have any goals for others.

I do believe that a person who did those things would have a better appreciation for other religions and perhaps be more open-minded.

I also worry that a religious person's focus on the afterlife and view that the world is evil leads to worse outcomes here on earth.

I know it is common for Christians to accuse atheists of not having a moral compass. And I'll admit I held that belief at one point before getting to "know" so many of you here on FBG (and obviously some IRL). But, there is clearly a desire by you, and others, for things to be better. That's all I really meant by a "goal". I assumed your original post was more of a rhetorical response to Paddington than an actual presentation of a better way, but I do wonder if there's something that can be presented from the non-religious side that aims to transform us into better humans. I thought maybe this idea of understanding and appreciating could be discussed as a way to get humans to love each other more and care for this world we live in.

I always thought this was telling on yourself.

"How can you have a moral compass if not for god/religion?"

They are essentially saying "if God were proven to be fake there'd be no reason for me not to kill/assault/steal etc"

I know that as a Christian, I don't think that. And @dgreen does not think that. It would seem obvious. Clearly there are zillions of non Christian people who are "good people" or would be said to have a strong "moral compass".

 

[dkp993]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

We'll disagree there. I do not think it's "flat out wrong".

To put it another way, we're essentially saying in this thread it's too important not to talk about/pray to a guy who may or may not have rose from the dead 2000 years ago but we can't talk about global trade, economics, violence, housing, cost of living, current events, on and on and on that are happening every single day because they are political.

Sure we can agree to disagree on which is too important not to talk about I guess.

Yes. We're saying after giving it every chance possible, we proved we are not able to discuss politics here. And that will not change anytime in the forseeable future.

But hasn’t that exact thing been proven with this topic? Every thread has been shut down. In fact I’d argue that if you were to open up a sub-forum solely about religion it would turn out exactly how the PSF did. The only reason it hasn’t is you didn’t.

We've struggled in the past for sure. But it's been manageable. As @Dr. Octopus said, the political topics here were far more incendiary than the religion threads.

I hear you and I agree, when you remove volume and time. Those are the only differences I believe, given the same volume of posts and time there would be no differences.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

We'll disagree there. I do not think it's "flat out wrong".

To put it another way, we're essentially saying in this thread it's too important not to talk about/pray to a guy who may or may not have rose from the dead 2000 years ago but we can't talk about global trade, economics, violence, housing, cost of living, current events, on and on and on that are happening every single day because they are political.

Sure we can agree to disagree on which is too important not to talk about I guess.

Yes. We're saying after giving it every chance possible, we proved we are not able to discuss politics here. And that will not change anytime in the forseeable future.

But hasn’t that exact thing been proven with this topic? Every thread has been shut down. In fact I’d argue that if you were to open up a sub-forum solely about religion it would turn out exactly how the PSF did. The only reason it hasn’t is you didn’t.

We've struggled in the past for sure. But it's been manageable. As @Dr. Octopus said, the political topics here were far more incendiary than the religion threads.

I hear you and I agree, when you remove volume and time. Those are the only differences I believe, given the same volume of posts and time there would be no differences.

No worries, GB. We will disagree there. I think the political topics here were far more incendiary and ugly than the religion threads. I think they were different in that regard. Not just in volume or time.

But that's off topic.

I'd like us to be able to discuss these civilly here like y'all have been doing. Thanks.

 

[Zow]

know it is common for Christians to accuse atheists of not having a moral compass. And I'll admit I held that belief at one point

I just can’t fathom this mindset. For obviously smart reasonable people (like yourself) to not see that people can want to just be a good human beings just for the sake of it without needed to do it for some God or “reward” afterwards makes no sense to me.

I can tell you that there are actual judges in meaningful positions who think this. It's scary.

For sure. And again, maybe poor choice of words on my part, but when I say “I can’t fathom” it’s not in the context of understanding it does happen. It more in the context of not understanding how it happens.

When I strongly believed in high school yet was not entirely happy with my life (I was shy due to some significant bullying more so in middle school, got friend zoned by the girl I liked, was just better than average at baseball despite spending way more time practicing than anybody else I knew, etc.), I yearned for ways to feel equal to or superior than others - even if that was a moral superiority because I felt objectively inadequate. The primary way I found to do that was by strictly abiding with the Catholic version of God's rules and presuming I was de facto a better person than those who didn't. It also made it more motivating and palatable to follow the rules as doing so wasn't exactly fun.

Not saying this is the primary motivation for those that feel this way, but as somebody who once felt that way this is the best way I can describe my rational in thinking that way.

 

[dkp993]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

We'll disagree there. I do not think it's "flat out wrong".

To put it another way, we're essentially saying in this thread it's too important not to talk about/pray to a guy who may or may not have rose from the dead 2000 years ago but we can't talk about global trade, economics, violence, housing, cost of living, current events, on and on and on that are happening every single day because they are political.

Sure we can agree to disagree on which is too important not to talk about I guess.

Yes. We're saying after giving it every chance possible, we proved we are not able to discuss politics here. And that will not change anytime in the forseeable future.

But hasn’t that exact thing been proven with this topic? Every thread has been shut down. In fact I’d argue that if you were to open up a sub-forum solely about religion it would turn out exactly how the PSF did. The only reason it hasn’t is you didn’t.

It has more to do with a subsection of posters than the topics at hand. A lot of things parallel politics and its up to us to not cross the line. Like this thread... its an easy one to avoid if someone disagrees, but some just can't let it be.

Sure and again I agree with your point, but isn’t that always the case? It’s always about the people who post, especially on a widespread public forum. On the same point, upstream it was mentioned it’s as simple as “if it bugs you ignore it”. Of that I couldn’t agree more as well. I’ve never once reported somebody (other than clear SPAM posts), that makes no sense to me. But that’s not how others feel. The subsection of posters you reference are always going to be there.

 

[Zow]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

We'll disagree there. I do not think it's "flat out wrong".

To put it another way, we're essentially saying in this thread it's too important not to talk about/pray to a guy who may or may not have rose from the dead 2000 years ago but we can't talk about global trade, economics, violence, housing, cost of living, current events, on and on and on that are happening every single day because they are political.

Sure we can agree to disagree on which is too important not to talk about I guess.

Yes. We're saying after giving it every chance possible, we proved we are not able to discuss politics here. And that will not change anytime in the forseeable future.

But hasn’t that exact thing been proven with this topic? Every thread has been shut down. In fact I’d argue that if you were to open up a sub-forum solely about religion it would turn out exactly how the PSF did. The only reason it hasn’t is you didn’t.

We've struggled in the past for sure. But it's been manageable. As @Dr. Octopus said, the political topics here were far more incendiary than the religion threads.

I hear you and I agree, when you remove volume and time. Those are the only differences I believe, given the same volume of posts and time there would be no differences.

No worries, GB. We will disagree there. I think the political topics here were far more incendiary and ugly than the religion threads.

The bummer is that buried in those threads was meaningful, informative stuff. But, yeah, when it got bad it got pretty darn ugly in those threads compared to the religion ones.

 

[fruity pebbles]

You want to see what a politics forum would look like now just dip your toe into the geek club. 30 seconds in you feel like you need a shower. It would be nonstop deleting posts.

 

[Joe Bryant]

You want to see what a politics forum would look like now just dip your toe into the geek club. 30 seconds in you feel like you need a shower. It would be nonstop deleting posts.

What site is the geek club?

 

[dkp993]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

We'll disagree there. I do not think it's "flat out wrong".

To put it another way, we're essentially saying in this thread it's too important not to talk about/pray to a guy who may or may not have rose from the dead 2000 years ago but we can't talk about global trade, economics, violence, housing, cost of living, current events, on and on and on that are happening every single day because they are political.

Sure we can agree to disagree on which is too important not to talk about I guess.

Yes. We're saying after giving it every chance possible, we proved we are not able to discuss politics here. And that will not change anytime in the forseeable future.

But hasn’t that exact thing been proven with this topic? Every thread has been shut down. In fact I’d argue that if you were to open up a sub-forum solely about religion it would turn out exactly how the PSF did. The only reason it hasn’t is you didn’t.

We've struggled in the past for sure. But it's been manageable. As @Dr. Octopus said, the political topics here were far more incendiary than the religion threads.

I hear you and I agree, when you remove volume and time. Those are the only differences I believe, given the same volume of posts and time there would be no differences.

No worries, GB. We will disagree there. I think the political topics here were far more incendiary and ugly than the religion threads.

The bummer is that buried in those threads was meaningful, informative stuff. But, yeah, when it got bad it got pretty darn ugly in those threads compared to the religion ones.

Joe’s place so Joe’s rules, and I truly mean that with all the respect it deserves. So the last post on this topic for me on this.

In my opinion, the only reason why they haven’t turned as nasty is they continue to get shut down. And the reason they’re being shut down is because they’re starting to turn personal and nasty. Had they continued they would’ve gotten every bit as ugly as the political posts, otherwise they wouldn’t have gotten shut down.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The subsection of posters you reference are always going to be there.

Possibly. But it's been my experience that folks are way more cool in the faith threads.

 

[fruity pebbles]

You want to see what a politics forum would look like now just dip your toe into the geek club. 30 seconds in you feel like you need a shower. It would be nonstop deleting posts.

What site is the geek club?

FFToday

 

[Joe Bryant]

I do find it interesting the amount of time spent in these threads discussing the validity of their existence. Nobody spends pages in the "What's Normal: Do you fold or scrunch" threads debating whether the thread belongs here. lol

I do think that's part of the "Why allow?" discussion as well.

I think this topic is massively important.

Enough that I'm willing to put up with frustrations or having to do work on them.

I don't think most political points are massively important in the big picture of things, and there was a ton more negative associated with them that didn't outweigh the positives.

This is so backwards though, it's flat out wrong. Even if you believe in heaven, it has absolutely no impact on your day to day life other than belief. Politics affects all of us every single day in very tangible ways like grocery prices, tariffs, threats on our sovereignty for those of us not in USA and we can't talk about that but we can can allow "you should act this way or else...". Which also wouldn't be allowed in any other thread other than under the guise of this "belief".

If you want to talk about benefits of community or coping with loss, I'm all for that but that's not what these threads are.

We'll disagree there. I do not think it's "flat out wrong".

To put it another way, we're essentially saying in this thread it's too important not to talk about/pray to a guy who may or may not have rose from the dead 2000 years ago but we can't talk about global trade, economics, violence, housing, cost of living, current events, on and on and on that are happening every single day because they are political.

Sure we can agree to disagree on which is too important not to talk about I guess.

Yes. We're saying after giving it every chance possible, we proved we are not able to discuss politics here. And that will not change anytime in the forseeable future.

But hasn’t that exact thing been proven with this topic? Every thread has been shut down. In fact I’d argue that if you were to open up a sub-forum solely about religion it would turn out exactly how the PSF did. The only reason it hasn’t is you didn’t.

We've struggled in the past for sure. But it's been manageable. As @Dr. Octopus said, the political topics here were far more incendiary than the religion threads.

I hear you and I agree, when you remove volume and time. Those are the only differences I believe, given the same volume of posts and time there would be no differences.

No worries, GB. We will disagree there. I think the political topics here were far more incendiary and ugly than the religion threads.

The bummer is that buried in those threads was meaningful, informative stuff. But, yeah, when it got bad it got pretty darn ugly in those threads compared to the religion ones.

Joe’s place so Joe’s rules, and I truly mean that with all the respect it deserves. So the last post on this topic for me on this.

In my opinion, the only reason why they haven’t turned as nasty is they continue to get shut down. And the reason they’re being shut down is because they’re starting to turn personal and nasty. Had they continued they would’ve gotten every bit as ugly as the political posts, otherwise they wouldn’t have gotten shut down.

No worries and thanks for sharing how you see it. All good.

 

[Joe Bryant]

You want to see what a politics forum would look like now just dip your toe into the geek club. 30 seconds in you feel like you need a shower. It would be nonstop deleting posts.

What site is the geek club?

FFToday

Thanks. That's their political forum?

 

[fruity pebbles]

You want to see what a politics forum would look like now just dip your toe into the geek club. 30 seconds in you feel like you need a shower. It would be nonstop deleting posts.

What site is the geek club?

FFToday

Thanks. That's their political forum?

It’s kind of a free for all forum but it’s 90% political and it’s downright ugly.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

You want to see what a politics forum would look like now just dip your toe into the geek club. 30 seconds in you feel like you need a shower. It would be nonstop deleting posts.

I used to follow along there also from time to time, it's been many years, but i took a look a few days ago and fully understand why there's no politics here. My goodness some of what i read was ugly.

 

[Zow]

You want to see what a politics forum would look like now just dip your toe into the geek club. 30 seconds in you feel like you need a shower. It would be nonstop deleting posts.

What site is the geek club?

FFToday

Thanks. That's their political forum?

It’s kind of a free for all forum but it’s 90% political and it’s downright ugly.

It makes our forum (the FFA) look really, really kind, professional, intelligent, and articulate.

 

[Joe Bryant]

know it is common for Christians to accuse atheists of not having a moral compass. And I'll admit I held that belief at one point

I just can’t fathom this mindset. For obviously smart reasonable people (like yourself) to not see that people can want to just be a good human beings just for the sake of it without needed to do it for some God or “reward” afterwards makes no sense to me.

I can tell you that there are actual judges in meaningful positions who think this. It's scary.

For sure. And again, maybe poor choice of words on my part, but when I say “I can’t fathom” it’s not in the context of understanding it does happen. It more in the context of not understanding how it happens.

When I strongly believed in high school yet was not entirely happy with my life (I was shy due to some significant bullying more so in middle school, got friend zoned by the girl I liked, was just better than average at baseball despite spending way more time practicing than anybody else I knew, etc.), I yearned for ways to feel equal to or superior than others - even if that was a moral superiority because I felt objectively inadequate. The primary way I found to do that was by strictly abiding with the Catholic version of God's rules and presuming I was de facto a better person than those who didn't. It also made it more motivating and palatable to follow the rules as doing so wasn't exactly fun.

Not saying this is the primary motivation for those that feel this way, but as somebody who once felt that way this is the best way I can describe my rational in thinking that way.

Thanks. I don't know why people do things and I'm sure there are people of all faiths who strive for a sense of superiority.

I've come to understand my Christian faith as seeing any sense there of my superiority as laughable. We've all fallen short of the standard of a sinless life. Me first. Paul talked of himself being of the worst sinners.

There's a reason the Dana Carvey character for the Church Lady is funny. It doesn't add up.

So while I'm sure some have a problem with this, I think the proper Christian stance on it is completely removing any sense of superiority.

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

So if someone takes these steps and learns what we can call the "historical facts" around other religions and their own religion, then they'll be more aligned with reality. Now what? From your earlier post, you said that returning to reality will provide "a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth." Is that the goal? Or does this understanding and appreciation bring someone to some other goal? "Understanding and appreciation" sounds to be on par with the religious idea of simply believing the right things.

I framed that example in a way to be closer to Paddington's mindset than my own. I have no interest in changing anyone's mind and don't have any goals for others.

I do believe that a person who did those things would have a better appreciation for other religions and perhaps be more open-minded.

I also worry that a religious person's focus on the afterlife and view that the world is evil leads to worse outcomes here on earth.

I know it is common for Christians to accuse atheists of not having a moral compass. And I'll admit I held that belief at one point before getting to "know" so many of you here on FBG (and obviously some IRL). But, there is clearly a desire by you, and others, for things to be better. That's all I really meant by a "goal". I assumed your original post was more of a rhetorical response to Paddington than an actual presentation of a better way, but I do wonder if there's something that can be presented from the non-religious side that aims to transform us into better humans. I thought maybe this idea of understanding and appreciating could be discussed as a way to get humans to love each other more and care for this world we live in.

I always thought this was telling on yourself.

"How can you have a moral compass if not for god/religion?"

They are essentially saying "if God were proven to be fake there'd be no reason for me not to kill/assault/steal etc"

I know that as a Christian, I don't think that. And @dgreen does not think that. It would seem obvious. Clearly there are zillions of non Christian people who are "good people" or would be said to have a strong "moral compass".

Do you employ the argument of "how can you have a moral compass if you are an athiest"?

 

[dgreen]

So if someone takes these steps and learns what we can call the "historical facts" around other religions and their own religion, then they'll be more aligned with reality. Now what? From your earlier post, you said that returning to reality will provide "a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth." Is that the goal? Or does this understanding and appreciation bring someone to some other goal? "Understanding and appreciation" sounds to be on par with the religious idea of simply believing the right things.

I framed that example in a way to be closer to Paddington's mindset than my own. I have no interest in changing anyone's mind and don't have any goals for others.

I do believe that a person who did those things would have a better appreciation for other religions and perhaps be more open-minded.

I also worry that a religious person's focus on the afterlife and view that the world is evil leads to worse outcomes here on earth.

I know it is common for Christians to accuse atheists of not having a moral compass. And I'll admit I held that belief at one point before getting to "know" so many of you here on FBG (and obviously some IRL). But, there is clearly a desire by you, and others, for things to be better. That's all I really meant by a "goal". I assumed your original post was more of a rhetorical response to Paddington than an actual presentation of a better way, but I do wonder if there's something that can be presented from the non-religious side that aims to transform us into better humans. I thought maybe this idea of understanding and appreciating could be discussed as a way to get humans to love each other more and care for this world we live in.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying. I totally missed your point. I think you're right that in taking the time to learn or understand things outside our worldviews helps foster empathy towards others. Since we experience life from a singular perspective, it's easy to fall into 'my way right, your way wrong' mindset, but you can't build compassion and closeness to others if there's always some construct of division between you and them. Of course, this isn't contained to our religious views. Pretty much any relationship requires understanding, acceptance, and appreciation of our differences.

That said, we all strive for the same basic things here on earth and our collective efforts should be for us to achieve those things for everyone (love, comfort, acceptance, freedom).

If you were to put a secular hat on, what things do you wish society was prioritizing?

Honestly, I think I'd have a really hard time imagining what it would be like to have a secular hat on so it's hard to say.

I think there's a lot of overlap in what secular culture cares about and what Christianity cares about. It's not like "thou shall not murder" is uniquely Judeo-Christian. It wasn't even breaking news to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai. They already knew not to murder. I think our culture is in agreement with the idea of loving your neighbor. Christians might argue that's because of religions influence on our culture, but I'd guess most cultures have a general sense of being kind and caring toward other people.

I could be wrong, but the big difference might come in how far one takes "love your neighbor". Jesus takes it to "love your enemy". Christianity, in its teachings, promotes radical love and forgiveness. Admittedly, Christians don't necessarily walk that out, but just about every Christian would agree we are supposed to. I'm not sure secularism would agree with loving enemies and practicing radical forgiveness. It seems logical to want members of Al Qaeda to be killed in a drone attack with zero civilian casualties. I remember a thread here when news broke about the death of the leader of a terrorist organization and people were, understandably, celebrating and saying things like "good riddance". I also remember Joe saying he didn't want any celebrating of anyone's death on these boards. That's radical, but a position I understand. I'm not sure I'd understand it from a purely secular perspective, but maybe I could.

 

[Joe Bryant]

So if someone takes these steps and learns what we can call the "historical facts" around other religions and their own religion, then they'll be more aligned with reality. Now what? From your earlier post, you said that returning to reality will provide "a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth." Is that the goal? Or does this understanding and appreciation bring someone to some other goal? "Understanding and appreciation" sounds to be on par with the religious idea of simply believing the right things.

I framed that example in a way to be closer to Paddington's mindset than my own. I have no interest in changing anyone's mind and don't have any goals for others.

I do believe that a person who did those things would have a better appreciation for other religions and perhaps be more open-minded.

I also worry that a religious person's focus on the afterlife and view that the world is evil leads to worse outcomes here on earth.

I know it is common for Christians to accuse atheists of not having a moral compass. And I'll admit I held that belief at one point before getting to "know" so many of you here on FBG (and obviously some IRL). But, there is clearly a desire by you, and others, for things to be better. That's all I really meant by a "goal". I assumed your original post was more of a rhetorical response to Paddington than an actual presentation of a better way, but I do wonder if there's something that can be presented from the non-religious side that aims to transform us into better humans. I thought maybe this idea of understanding and appreciating could be discussed as a way to get humans to love each other more and care for this world we live in.

I always thought this was telling on yourself.

"How can you have a moral compass if not for god/religion?"

They are essentially saying "if God were proven to be fake there'd be no reason for me not to kill/assault/steal etc"

I know that as a Christian, I don't think that. And @dgreen does not think that. It would seem obvious. Clearly there are zillions of non Christian people who are "good people" or would be said to have a strong "moral compass".

Do you employ the argument of "how can you have a moral compass if you are an athiest"?

No. That's why I said above, "I know that as a Christian, I don't think that."

 

[Psychopav]

Are you a bear?

I hope not. They just gave up 52 points to the Lions.

This is the most offensive thing in this thread so far.

 

[Psychopav]

So if someone takes these steps and learns what we can call the "historical facts" around other religions and their own religion, then they'll be more aligned with reality. Now what? From your earlier post, you said that returning to reality will provide "a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth." Is that the goal? Or does this understanding and appreciation bring someone to some other goal? "Understanding and appreciation" sounds to be on par with the religious idea of simply believing the right things.

I framed that example in a way to be closer to Paddington's mindset than my own. I have no interest in changing anyone's mind and don't have any goals for others.

I do believe that a person who did those things would have a better appreciation for other religions and perhaps be more open-minded.

I also worry that a religious person's focus on the afterlife and view that the world is evil leads to worse outcomes here on earth.

I know it is common for Christians to accuse atheists of not having a moral compass. And I'll admit I held that belief at one point before getting to "know" so many of you here on FBG (and obviously some IRL). But, there is clearly a desire by you, and others, for things to be better. That's all I really meant by a "goal". I assumed your original post was more of a rhetorical response to Paddington than an actual presentation of a better way, but I do wonder if there's something that can be presented from the non-religious side that aims to transform us into better humans. I thought maybe this idea of understanding and appreciating could be discussed as a way to get humans to love each other more and care for this world we live in.

I always thought this was telling on yourself.

"How can you have a moral compass if not for god/religion?"

They are essentially saying "if God were proven to be fake there'd be no reason for me not to kill/assault/steal etc"

I know that as a Christian, I don't think that. And @dgreen does not think that. It would seem obvious. Clearly there are zillions of non Christian people who are "good people" or would be said to have a strong "moral compass".

Do you employ the argument of "how can you have a moral compass if you are an athiest"?

Zow's comments above were interesting. The Catholic Church teaches that there is a natural law giving everyone a baseline moral compass, whether they are fellow believers or not.