I don’t know about anyone else but I’m not too sure I WANT to inherit the Kingdom of God; sounds like a lot of (extra) responsibility to me. After dealing with my own adult life, I really want to minimize the responsibility thing in the afterlife. Just give me my harp and a small, quiet cloud, and I’ll be happy. And really, I appreciate the fact that you’re so concerned for my eternal soul, but why don’t YOU worry about YOUR soul and I’LL worry about MINE? Thanks.
I freaked out JWs at my door when I said it was clearly better to not be one of the 144,000 getting into heaven, because that has responsibilities, while the other has just the perks, after rapture heaven on earth
if only I had knowm about the not contaminated by women, so they are really saying only gay can be one of the 144,000
Remember: these are the ideological and/or biological descendants of people who believed that God told them it was perfectly acceptable to buy and sell black people like horses or ploughs.
any people one could conquer, really
Evolutionary biology certainly disproves it. 🙂
biology does not disprove religion. Anthropology does.
biology studies living organisms and their habitats
anthropology studies what people do
I would disagree with both of you. I don’t think anything can “disprove” religion. Certain historical claims, e.g. the Garden of Eden, the young earth, or the sun standing still for Joshua, can be disproven as matters of science. But religion is not science. Religion is comprised of the stories that people tell which lend meaning to their lives. I don’t think such stories can be disproven in any rigorous way.
you lack intellectual rigor,
religion proves a poor framework and only exists today because it has been protected and subsidized by government
on it’s own, it could not compete in the marketplace of ideas
it’s why religions plagiarized each other, easier to sell something familiar
kinder gentler crusades and inquistions
the burden of proof is on the religion of it’s claim
atheism is rejecting those claims
skepticism is doubting the claims
cynics is doubting the claimant, because religion is money for nothing with altar boys for free.
So if I said
“The story of Daniel in the lion’s den teaches me to be courageous in the face of danger”
what kind of proof am I burdened to provide? Does the story have to be historically true in order to have value?
If I said
“The story of Ebenezer Scrooge and the visitation of the three ghosts teaches me that I should be generous”
again, does that lesson become less valid, because Scrooge is a fictional character, and that story never happened in reality?
it’s not an if, you did post two examples of fiction with the story takeway message. and neither story has any meaning for modern life
don’t bother what little wildlife remains and ghosts are not real.
being kindly to others is it’s own self evident reward and no story is needed,
George Washington did not cut down a cherry tree
that impacts the ethics of the lesson
if you were curious, you would not be religious.
religion is answers that may not be questioned
while science is questions likely not to be answered in our lifetime
how do you maintain your cognitive dissonance that religion has any good, article after article, demonstrating religion is oppressive, abusive and not compatible with democracy or equality.
article after article, pedophile priests, violence against LGBTQ, oppression of women, breaking the USA Supreme Court and the theocratic attempt to take over American’s nuclear arsenal
but you want to tell fiction stories about being brave or nice?
I posted two fictional stories. Agreed. But “Neither story has meaning for modern life”? Really??
The meaning they have for modern life depends on the meaning makers, does it not? It might not be meaningful to you, because you’ll never experience a lion’s den or a ghost. But they might be meaningful to someone who says
“The lion’s den was sorta like that meeting I was in. I was surrounded by angry executives demanding to know why we missed the delivery date. They wanted blood. If Daniel can be courageous in the face of lions, I can be courageous and face down angry executives.”
We live in a world of metaphors. And you, dear Nina, don’t get to choose the metaphor, or define the meaning that someone else pulls out of a story.
it does not even matter what I post
you just keep on with your talking points.
in person, do you watch to see when people’s lips stop moving so you know it’s your turn again?
religion is mental illness and it’s not the first time I have told you that I am not interested in your religious opinion.
why are you incapable of understanding that or accepting a “no” ?
perhaps being in the real world rather than a metaphor would be a start.
Just because I read your talking points doesn’t mean I agree with your talking points.
You are “not interested in [my] religious opinion”. Funny I thought I was writing an opinion about meaning and metaphor. But you see everything through anti-religion lens, so that even basic concepts of story and meaning become “religion” to you.
“it’s not the first time I have told you that I am not interested in your religious opinion.” Then don’t listen. And don’t respond. But you don’t own this forum and you don’t get to dictate anyone’s else’s responses.
“Why am I incapable of understanding that”? Perhaps I am quite capable. Perhaps there are other people in this forum who are reading this. Perhaps they have ideas to share. I’m not writing ONLY to you, Nina. Are you a narcissist?
“Religion is a mental illness”?? Show me where that is stated
in the DSM-V and I’ll believe you. Otherwise you’re just another angry
atheist shouting to be heard, but having nothing to say.
you’re a delusional religionist with nothing to say, and you repeat it metaphorically,
I am not interested in your zero sum circle jerk.
Imagine if Hawaii had done marriage equality in the 1990s, they were almost the first state do to so.
Almost doesn’t count.
it should make everyone fighting to keep the equality attained angry enough to hold onto it and not allow every single rights gain from the recent marriage equality, to Roe v Wade, to be rolled back to before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (also why the unratified ERA is not okay because there is a patchwork of laws that address some issues and are not enforced or applied, and easily sweep aside in a theocracy take over)
Hawaii’s early marriage equality attempt was particularly brilliant
the learned that the “Moral Majority” religious group of the era had not registered in Hawaii, so, they registered the name as a group for equality.
learning from almost successes and failures and passing along knowledge is what is needed more in the LGBTQ community.