Queeb Salaron wrote:True, true, and true. Christians dislike my beliefs. They think I don't go far enough; that it's not enough to lead a morally-guided life, but that I must convince others to do so as well. EEENNGGTTT!! Wrong. Religion is a selfish endeavor, and as such, the only person that matters in a religious aspect is myself. Fuck trying to save the world, how about just making the best with what I have? That's enough for me. And you're right, it's not as easy as walking around the corner. So I guess the analogy still fails. (And for the record, I'm not Christian.)
Ah, but you see, who are you to say that the Christians shouldn't save the world?
However, if you ever have children, it is your duty to influence them such that they will be capable of leading a moral life when they mature. So eventually you will have to try and influence people. The question is then how far you go with it.
I can see your point. But the Christians would disagree with you there. As was evidenced in the "I GOT HOVIND" thread, Christians would argue that God's displays of human sacrifice were ultimately done to save humanity. Sodom and Gamorrah were wiped out because they were, in essence, a cancerous growth on God's creation. Or so the bible would have you think. I am of the opinion that this is utter bullshit, but that's what the Christians think.
Eh, fundies will be fundies, I'm too zonked to bother dealing with that point right now though. I'm already violating the HFSNPWG principle as it is.
Whoa there, big fella. I never thought you were referencing me at all. I was just sticking up for the minority, that's all. I honestly don't even remember what we were talking about when I made that point, so I'll concede it. No use in starting a flamewar.
Eh, no biggie, just easier to reference you in this case (note the: "or the minority"). It was, however, your leap in logic, even though the same leap in logic is often commited by members of various minorities.
The point was the basic: "Not all Christians believe that rubbish, you shouldn't attack Christianity because of it," or something very similar, IIRC.
Nope. But he was one of the first. And pretty commonly known. So I used him as an example.
Dude was a punk.
Seriously though, would have been better to use some more...shall we say, secular personalities.
Obviously if they're being scammed then they're being hurt. Sure. But if they're NOT being scammed, then I see no problem with it.
Again, I'll have to return to my example of the remote seers and missing children. Even if no money is changing hands, I would argue that the professed remote seer is doing psychological and emotional harm to the parents by not only giving them false hope, but false closure as well. Either they'll tell the parents that the child is alive and well and will turn up soon or that the child is dead and the parents should move on, when in reality the case has been that the "remote seer" is completely wrong, and might drag out emotional trauma unecessarily for years.
Why? People who try to get Creationism taught in classrooms get laughed at repeatedly. Why? Because they preach Creationism as a science. Problem: IT'S NOT ONE! As Bill Hicks pointed out, if Creationism were to be taught in the classroom, it would be the most pointless class in existence. "God made the world in six days. On the seventh day, he rested. The end. Hope you can remember all that for the final." (Bill Hicks is a fabulous person, BTW.)
Saying that we shouldn't debunk them because they get laughed at is perplexingly contradictory. If we stopped challenging them, we wouldn't laugh at them any more, and thus remove any opposition from them sharing their views with people gullible (or devout) enough to be taken in by it. The only reason it is not being taught in schools as a science is because we take them head on and declare "this is bullshit", and then provide a list of reasons as to why, supported by logic, objective observations, and evidence. If we only laughed at them, we wouldn't even have a case, and we're back to creationism in the classrooms.
As for the people trying to make abortion illegal, well... That's been an issue for about 200 years in America, and it will continue to be an issue. We had to fight to LEGALIZE it, after all; it necessarily follows that we'll have to DEFEND that legalization. And yes, certain abortions are already illegal (partial-birth). So what we've got is a practice that, in its entirety, is only MOSTLY legal. Obviously there will be some debate as to whether it should be COMPLETELY illegal (or, on the other hand, completely legal). The point is that abortion is an issue that LOTS of groups have a stance on, and we can't pin Rightist pro-lifeism to the lapels of Christians alone. That's just not fair.
No, and that wasn't my intention to single them out as the only proponents of pro-life, but the fact of the matter is that there are a lot people who use their religion (primarily some branch of Christianity) as the primary reason for being pro-life. If we refuse to challenge them on that, then we are giving them preferencial treatment over EVERYONE ELSE who is involved in the ongoing debate.
