Doomsday Church: Still Open For Business - Page 3

**Daredevel7** · 05-23-2011, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StSapphire

Not sure if this was directed towards me at all, but for the most part, when I'm not already directly engaging in a debate that's fueled in any part by religion, I usually try to keep it out of it.

Nah. To me, there is a big difference in making fun of religion in general for the sake of comedy (Although it wont be funny to some people, but hey I'm all about freedom of speech) and personally attacking one's views to put them down, to make them feel stupid, to change their mind, and so on. Yes, the line between the two CAN be blurred, especially by the context.

Questioning someone about their beliefs is perfectly okay with me, as long the questioner is civil about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StSapphire

Though, related to your later point (about religious people really really caring about what happens to people around them and that's why they proselytize), for some atheists (and maybe a few non-religious people, but I'm going more along the lines of the "militant atheists"), we view the world around us somewhat similarly, except that every time religion is mentioned, we fear for the future of our world, rather than every time religion isn't mentioned.

Exactly. The extremes (hardcore Christians and militant atheists) aren't that different from each other. I, personally, am not a fan of extremes, but I understand where they are coming from and why they have a hard time accepting the "If it doesn't directly affect you, then mind your business" view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StSapphire

I assume she's talking primarily about the parts of the world where everyone here are from. If someone's a Christian holed up in Iraq or Afghanistan, then the remarks about religion towards them would be far different than a Christian in South Carolina or Texas.

Yep.

flip · 05-23-2011, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StSapphire

Not sure if this was directed towards me at all, but for the most part, when I'm not already directly engaging in a debate that's fueled in any part by religion, I usually try to keep it out of it.

Though, related to your later point (about religious people really really caring about what happens to people around them and that's why they proselytize), for some atheists (and maybe a few non-religious people, but I'm going more along the lines of the "militant atheists"), we view the world around us somewhat similarly, except that every time religion is mentioned, we fear for the future of our world, rather than every time religion isn't mentioned.

Sounds like a lot of work to be afraid of religion?

Berry · 05-23-2011, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StSapphire

Hah, and here I thought I was just being funny. But thanks, since I'm pretty sure that was a compliment.

Humor, by its very nature is High Context. Your training is logic, and that is well and good, you are good at it. But your nature is High Context: Embrace it.

YES it is a compliment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StSapphire

A couple things.

1) Where are people getting upset about Reba "putting down" Muslims?
2) While I accept that I've been mocking, because that's a positive action to me, I'm honestly unsure of what it is that I've supposedly mocked. I made a joke involving a well-known internet meme (Raptor Jesus, see XKCD for the internet obsession with Raptors) and a play on words because "Raptor" and "Rapture" sound vaguely similar.

The bolded part.

Some of us see humor as healing and laughter as the best medicine; We can take it and we can dish it out; We see all forms of humor, comedy, satire, lampoons, etc. as the saving graces of humanity. We see sanity in humor.

Others see them as profane, blasphemy, mocking, insulting, demeaning, and they see all the worst of humanity in humor. Refer the puritan attitudes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StSapphire

You do understand there's a difference between "mocking" and "putting down" (to use your terms) or "insulting", right?

Perspective: POV: One person's teasing is another's insufferable insult. In our family we tease our little children about the things we know they will be harassed about in school. Why? If the people who love you most tease you about these things how can it hurt if someone else does?

The question is: Is the lack of verbal skills on the part of the thin skinned person the responsibility of the joker or the responsibility of the person who lacks verbal skills and immediately resorts to fists and / or authority to settle the "dispute"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by StSapphire

But even if not, keep in mind that the intent behind a message is something you should try to look for. In this case, I assumed it was plainly obvious that I was just making a joke, and not trying to make any sort of a serious effort at insulting or otherwise seriously make fun of them.

The bolded part: Any time, every time: Not just the net.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StSapphire

I'm not sure what the whole backlash against "you make fun of Christians but not Muslims!" is for, anyways. Fatwa envy, perhaps?

The thread was about Christians. The humor was about certain Christian beliefs. The reference to Muslims was a strawman and had nothing to do with the discussion.

BTW, Fatwa is a more interesting and complex term than most people realize. Too much so to go into here.

StSapphire · 05-23-2011, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Ok, guess you just are a bit unsensitive then.

Well, I tried being sensitive and was told I was just being overly-politically-correct. Instead I opted for honesty. I enjoy it better that way.

But yeah, I can be insensitive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Yes, that's important to remember. The problem you describe here, how some secular people fail to understand the feelings involved when something is perceived as holy by other people, and not just important, is a reason religious discussions are banned here, as I see it. The point is, it's not necessary the religious people that are to blame for the ban, but secular people as well.

This is actually one of the largest issues that I have with the majority of religions and even simply generic beliefs that people have. I understand all too well the feeling involved when people perceive objects and concepts as "holy". And I abhor that. The concept of "holiness" is an anathema to me. Declaring something "so special that it is beyond all reproach" (and by implication, declaring it beyond criticism by others) is the ultimate cop-out with any belief.

It's one thing to say "no, your criticism is invalid because of X, Y and Z", and entirely another to say "OMG YOU'RE NOT RESPECTING WHAT I HOLD HOLY, YOU'RE A HORRIBLE PERSON".

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

The mocking of christians reminds me of kids that hate their parents. It's a bit immature. Parents are frustrated, but the kids just appears cute and a bit stupid

That said, I enjoyed "Life of Brian" a lot, and still belive I respect the faith any person got, though I can disagree with their morale.

Do you respect the faith of Scientologists? Does that include their more "out there" beliefs, such as Xenu and Thetans and the like, or various cult groups?? (If you do, that's fine, I'm actually curious if that's the case or not.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Nah. To me, there is a big difference in making fun of religion in general for the sake of comedy (Although it wont be funny to some people, but hey I'm all about freedom of speech) and personally attacking one's views to put them down, to make them feel stupid, to change their mind, and so on. Yes, the line between the two CAN be blurred, especially by the context.

Questioning someone about their beliefs is perfectly okay with me, as long the questioner is civil about it.

How about impolite civility? To be fair, someone who believes in heaven/hell or young-earth creationism or suicide bombings are (to me) equally as deludes as people who believe in fairies, unicorns and Santa. I've been told it's impolite to share this fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Exactly. The extremes (hardcore Christians and militant atheists) aren't that different from each other. I, personally, am not a fan of extremes, but I understand where they are coming from and why they have a hard time accepting the "If it doesn't directly affect you, then mind your business" view.

Naturally, as someone who occupies one end of the extremes, I tend to view my own point of view in a far different light, but it's easy to see how both sides can be boiled down to "The Other is not only wrong, but they are promoting a view that is actively harmful towards society as a whole."

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Sounds like a lot of work to be afraid of religion?

What sounds like a lot of work? (And it's not religion specifically, so much as it is "bad thinking".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berry

Humor, by its very nature is High Context. Your training is logic, and that is well and good, you are good at it. But your nature is High Context: Embrace it.

YES it is a compliment.

Hah, well, I still don't buy your sweeping theories about it, but I never claimed that context was unimportant, at all. Just that I don't see how logic has to be contradictory. But that's for the other topic, and I don't want to derail this one even further, lol.

**Reba** · 05-23-2011, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StSapphire

This is actually one of the largest issues that I have with the majority of religions and even simply generic beliefs that people have. I understand all too well the feeling involved when people perceive objects and concepts as "holy". And I abhor that. The concept of "holiness" is an anathema to me. Declaring something "so special that it is beyond all reproach" (and by implication, declaring it beyond criticism by others) is the ultimate cop-out with any belief.

It's one thing to say "no, your criticism is invalid because of X, Y and Z", and entirely another to say "OMG YOU'RE NOT RESPECTING WHAT I HOLD HOLY, YOU'RE A HORRIBLE PERSON".

So, anything that doesn't fit your belief system, you feel compelled to insult and ridicule? To what end? Do you enjoy denigrating those that others hold precious?

Quote:

How about impolite civility? To be fair, someone who believes in heaven/hell or young-earth creationism or suicide bombings are (to me) equally as deludes as people who believe in fairies, unicorns and Santa. I've been told it's impolite to share this fact.

"Sharing" is one thing; mocking and insulting are another.

Berry · 05-23-2011, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Ok, guess you just are a bit unsensitive then.

Right now one of the social conflicts is between those who espouse humor and those who espouse "sensitivity" and "political correctness". Right now whenever anyone makes a joke about anything violence and or authority is turned to in order to solidly eliminate anyone who finds humor in any save the most mundane events.

Thus the days when "All In the Family" was the top rated TV show is gone, replaced by "Two and a Half Men".

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

The mocking of christians reminds me of kids that hate their parents.

Very few children hate their parents. Those I have met who do have very good reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

The mocking of christians reminds me of kids that hate their parents. It's a bit immature.

Perhaps you mean "rebel against their parents." In which case it is not "immature" in any sense. It is a process of self identification which in some form is necessary in any society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

The mocking of christians reminds me of kids that hate their parents. It's a bit immature. Parents are frustrated,

Only those parents who do not understand the process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

but the kids just appears cute and a bit stupid

Only to those who do not understand the process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

I respect the faith any person got, though I can disagree with their morale.

I respect the person who follows their belief to the best of their ability and does not try to foster that belief on others. It does not matter to me what that belief is.

Berry · 05-23-2011, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

So, anything that doesn't fit your belief system, you feel compelled to insult and ridicule? To what end? Do you enjoy denigrating those that others hold precious?

think the real test of that is whether StSapphire can take it as well as give it out. In fact StSapphire and I got into a very heated discussion about Context and Logic in another thread and I don't remember even once being vilified. I do remember StSapphire pointing out that I was being illogical, and of course I was, which was the point.

But no "personal digs' ever happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

So, anything that doesn't fit your belief system, you feel compelled to insult and ridicule? To what end? Do you enjoy denigrating those that others hold precious?

The bolded part: It has not been established whether StSapphire "feels compelled to" or simply "chooses to"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

So, anything that doesn't fit your belief system, you feel compelled to insult and ridicule? To what end? Do you enjoy denigrating those that others hold precious?

Whether something is "insulting", "ridiculing" or "teasing", "jesting" depends on the perspective of the person. Once again it falls into the category of "How serious a thing is often depends on how seriously someone takes it."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

To what end?

Humor is its own reward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Do you enjoy denigrating those that others hold precious?

Hmmmmm.

None of the members of my genetic family can speak their own language because the Christians said it was barbaric and they were only allowed to speak English.

None of the members of my genetic family is fully conversant in their own religion because the Christians said it was childish and heathen and my forebears needed The Great White Father to save them.

But hey, they were serious and stone faced when they did it. Not a smile in the bunch.

Berry · 05-23-2011, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockin'robin

Employees Not Convinced Rapture Coming

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- By now, you've probably heard of the religious group that's predicting the end of the world starts this weekend.

Harold Camping and his devoted followers claim a massive earthquake will mark the second coming of Jesus, or so-called Judgment Day on Saturday, May 21, ushering in a five month period of catastrophes before the world comes to a complete end in October.

At the center of it all, Camping's organization, Family Radio, is perfectly happy to take your money -- and in fact, received $80 million in contributions between 2005 and 2009. Camping founded Family Radio, a nonprofit Christian radio network based in Oakland, Calif. with about 65 stations across the country, in 1958.

But not even all of his own employees are convinced that the world is ending on Saturday.

In fact, many still plan on showing up at work on Monday.

"I don't believe in any of this stuff that's going on, and I plan on being here next week," a receptionist at their Oakland headquarters told CNNMoney.

A program producer in Illinois told us, "We're going to continue doing what we're doing."

According to their most recent IRS filings, Family Radio is almost entirely funded by donations, and brought in $18 million in contributions in 2009 alone.

According to those financial documents, accountants put the total worth of Family Radio (referred to as Family Stations on its official forms) at $72 million.

With those kind of financials -- and controversial beliefs -- it's no wonder skeptics have accused the group of running a scam.

Camping first inaccurately predicted the world would end in 1994. Even so, he has gathered even more followers -- some who have given up their homes, entire life savings and their jobs because they believe the world is ending.

Esther, the receptionist in the Oakland office, said some of her most extreme coworkers have recently driven up in fancy cars or taken their families on nice vacations as a last hurray.

But overall, she estimates about 80% of her coworkers don't even agree with Camping's May 21 forecast. She has stuck to her work as usual, booking appointments and filling up calendars for her coworkers well beyond the May 21 date.

Meanwhile, some employees are questioning the meaning of Harold Camping's goodbye letter sent to the Family Radio mailing list last week. While he says farewell, he encourages employees to "steadfastly continue to stand with us to proclaim the Gospel through Family Radio."

Could that mean he plans on disappearing, but the company should still go about its business as usual?

The producer in Illinois said, "We're trying to guess what it means for the company. Our producers have programs done through the end of the month, so we're not looking at that having any effect on the work." Also curious is why Family Radio filed for an extension to file their financial paperwork. The group is required to file financial paperwork in many of the states where they solicit donations, and in Minnesota they requested an extension from their July 15 deadline to November 15.

July 15th was already well past their Judgment Day prediction -- when they say believers will ascend to heaven -- so why bother requesting an extension to November?

But Family Radio's financial filings otherwise look hardly unusual for a religious nonprofit.

"At first glance, it looks like they have a lot of assets, but they actually don't have a lot of cash that they're stockpiling," said Laurie Styron, analyst with the American Institute of Philanthropy.

Most of the group's net worth is tied up in FCC broadcasting licenses, valued at $56 million. Family Radio claimed it held only $1.5 million in cash on its books at the end of 2009.

The paperwork shows Camping has so far, never taken a penny for his own salary, but Family Radio has plenty of other paid employees.

The nonprofit employed about 350 people and paid them a collective $8.3 million -- or roughly $23,000 per person -- in 2009.

What the 2009 IRS filings don't show, is how the organization's donations and expenses may have changed during 2010 and leading up to the May 21 Judgment Day prediction.

In the last few months, Family Radio billboards have popped up across the country. And the group purchased RVs to drive around the country on its evangelizing missions.

Those expenses could have changed their financial picture, but since Family Radio doesn't have to turn in their next IRS filing until November, it may not even matter.

"If people donating to this group think the world is ending on Saturday, then I'm not sure that they care," Styron said.

Doomsday Church: Still Open For Business - Family News Story - WJXT Jacksonville

Hey, the poor guy is just misquoted. He didn't mean the whole world -- He just meant Joplin Missouri -- And SEE! His prediction came true.

It was just a slight misunderstanding.. Now all say "Wow" to the great man.

**saywhatkid** · 05-23-2011, 03:46 PM

Seeing some of the comments/replies back and forth, it is no wonder that religious discussions are banned. Sadly, it usually ends up that only lampooning of religious beliefs is allowed.

For people that embrace a religion, (I am one of those) it is a wonderful addition to their (our) lives. For those of you that do not believe in an afterlife/God, there is nothing waiting for you when you perish. You just go cold. I prefer to have something to look forward to. Imagine the feeling you will get when you realize your short time here is all you get. I intend to qualify for the "Eternity" plan. Also, I find that the teachings of the Bible are an excellent guide for me. So do many millions of others.

I now bow out from making any more posts in this thread related to religion.

**Daredevel7** · 05-23-2011, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

Seeing some of the comments/replies back and forth, it is no wonder that religious discussions are banned. Sadly, it usually ends up that only lampooning of religious beliefs is allowed.

For people that embrace a religion, (I am one of those) it is a wonderful addition to their (our) lives. For those of you that do not believe in an afterlife/God, there is nothing waiting for you when you perish. You just go cold. I prefer to have something to look forward to. Imagine the feeling you will get when you realize your short time here is all you get. I intend to qualify for the "Eternity" plan. Also, I find that the teachings of the Bible are an excellent guide for me. So do many millions of others.

I now bow out from making any more posts in this thread related to religion.

A friend of mine (a Christian) tried to convert me and one of his tactics was "But, don't you want to go to Heaven? Why don't you just believe in God and you have a surefire way to get into Heaven, if there is one? Sort of like "just in case"?"

I thought it was a really bad reason to be a Christian.... simply believe in God "just in case"....

I actually would feel like I'm somewhat offending God if I converted to Christianity just because I want some form of death insurance. But that's just me.

**saywhatkid** · 05-23-2011, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

A friend of mine (a Christian) tried to convert me and one of his tactics was "But, don't you want to go to Heaven? Why don't you just believe in God and you have a surefire way to get into Heaven, if there is one? Sort of like "just in case"?"

I thought it was a really bad reason to be a Christian.... simply believe in God "just in case"....

I actually would feel like I'm somewhat offending God if I converted to Christianity just because I want some form of death insurance. But that's just me.

Sorry if you've only gotten the "Heavenly vacation" brochure. We will use anything to get your vote.

Berry · 05-23-2011, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

Seeing some of the comments/replies back and forth, it is no wonder that religious discussions are banned. Sadly, it usually ends up that only lampooning of religious beliefs is allowed.

For people that embrace a religion, (I am one of those) it is a wonderful addition to their (our) lives. For those of you that do not believe in an afterlife/God, there is nothing waiting for you when you perish. You just go cold. I prefer to have something to look forward to. Imagine the feeling you will get when you realize your short time here is all you get. I intend to qualify for the "Eternity" plan. Also, I find that the teachings of the Bible are an excellent guide for me. So do many millions of others.

I now bow out from making any more posts in this thread related to religion.

Many religions that do not use the Bible believe in an afterlife in one form or another. Zoroastrianism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and certain, but not all Native American religions, to name a few off the top of my head.

jillio · 05-23-2011, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berry

Many religions that do not use the Bible believe in an afterlife in one form or another. Zoroastrianism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and certain, but not all Native American religions, to name a few off the top of my head.

True, that. And I am sure the followers of those religions feel that it is a benefit to their lives, as well. Difference being, I don't see the followers of those religions preying on the vulnerable in the way that I see a certain other religion doing.

**saywhatkid** · 05-23-2011, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berry

Many religions that do not use the Bible believe in an afterlife in one form or another. Zoroastrianism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and certain, but not all Native American religions, to name a few off the top of my head.

Certainly. They have their own versions of the "Heavenly vacation" brochure.

**saywhatkid** · 05-23-2011, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

True, that. And I am sure the followers of those religions feel that it is a benefit to their lives, as well. Difference being, I don't see the followers of those religions preying on the vulnerable in the way that I see a certain other religion doing.

If you are making a veiled reference to Christianity, I would beg to differ. What about those 10 year olds strapping on the bombs for Islam?

Anyhow, I gotta stop walking the thin line of bending the "no religion" rules.

Berry · 05-23-2011, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

A friend of mine (a Christian) tried to convert me and one of his tactics was "But, don't you want to go to Heaven? Why don't you just believe in God and you have a surefire way to get into Heaven, if there is one? Sort of like "just in case"?"

I thought it was a really bad reason to be a Christian.... simply believe in God "just in case"....

I actually would feel like I'm somewhat offending God if I converted to Christianity just because I want some form of death insurance. But that's just me.

I understand this. The one thing I wanted when I was young was a college education so I could study science. I would have probably gravitated to one of the anthropologies.

Only one real opportunity presented itself. Some people in a church believed in me. All I had to do was tell the right people that I intended to become a preacher in their churches when I graduated: That and I had to take take comparative religions and some other "minister type" courses.

They told me there was no commitment to actually become a preacher. All I had to do was say I wanted to be one now.

One little white lie that would change my life forever.

I told the minister and the others "A lie like that would be an affront to myself let alone to God."

jillio · 05-23-2011, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

If you are making a veiled reference to Christianity, I would beg to differ. What about those 10 year olds strapping on the bombs for Islam?

Anyhow, I gotta stop walking the thin line of bending the "no religion" rules.

There is quite the difference between fanatical beliefs and practices and mainstream belief systems. But I'll leave my reply at that.

StSapphire · 05-23-2011, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

Seeing some of the comments/replies back and forth, it is no wonder that religious discussions are banned. Sadly, it usually ends up that only lampooning of religious beliefs is allowed.

Ironically, if they weren't banned, I'd probably be saying the same things that I am now, though possibly a tiny bit more overt. Seems like the mods only intervene when people start dishing it out as personal attacks (ie "you're stupid because you believe that") rather than discussing generics like we are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

For people that embrace a religion, (I am one of those) it is a wonderful addition to their (our) lives. For those of you that do not believe in an afterlife/God, there is nothing waiting for you when you perish. You just go cold. I prefer to have something to look forward to. Imagine the feeling you will get when you realize your short time here is all you get. I intend to qualify for the "Eternity" plan. Also, I find that the teachings of the Bible are an excellent guide for me. So do many millions of others.

I now bow out from making any more posts in this thread related to religion.

I choose to take joy in the merely real. To take a quote from that link, being unable to do so is setting yourself up for a fall - "sooner or later you're going to be disappointed in everything - either it will turn out not to exist, or even worse, it will turn out to be real."

I am one of the people you refer to who don't believe in God or an afterlife. I need not "imagine" the feeling I get when I realize my time on Earth is all that I get - I know it well, it is my life. And you know what? That's good. It allows me to, much more than someone who anticipates a fantasy afterlife, appreciate and enjoy the life I have now.

Additionally, your reasoning is a form of Pascal's Wager, which is a false dichotomy and was long ago demonstrated to be quite silly. (If you're unaware of why, let me know and I'll explain.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

A friend of mine (a Christian) tried to convert me and one of his tactics was "But, don't you want to go to Heaven? Why don't you just believe in God and you have a surefire way to get into Heaven, if there is one? Sort of like "just in case"?"

I thought it was a really bad reason to be a Christian.... simply believe in God "just in case"....

I actually would feel like I'm somewhat offending God if I converted to Christianity just because I want some form of death insurance. But that's just me.

I have a unique response to that that - "Nope, I don't want to go to heaven."

Most people just stare blankly with a confused look on their face after that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

Sorry if you've only gotten the "Heavenly vacation" brochure. We will use anything to get your vote.

Reality works best for me. Science got me with that one hook line and sinker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

True, that. And I am sure the followers of those religions feel that it is a benefit to their lives, as well. Difference being, I don't see the followers of those religions preying on the vulnerable in the way that I see a certain other religion doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

There is quite the difference between fanatical beliefs and practices and mainstream belief systems. But I'll leave my reply at that.

Pft, yeah right. Take off your blinders, the only reason you don't see those religions preying on the vulnerable is because they're not in the majority around you. In general they're still all preying on fear of the unknown.

**Reba** · 05-24-2011, 12:16 AM

The title of this thread is a little misleading. There is no "church" that Camping heads. From what I've read, Camping believes that we aren't even in the church age, so, for him, there are no legitimate Christian churches. There is no "Doomsday Church" and there is no religion that supports Camping. His Family Radio is the closest thing to a para-religious organization that he runs.

flip · 05-24-2011, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StSapphire

Do you respect the faith of Scientologists? Does that include their more "out there" beliefs, such as Xenu and Thetans and the like, or various cult groups?? (If you do, that's fine, I'm actually curious if that's the case or not.)

Depends. Last time I checked, they mocked gay and deaf people so can't respect every aspect of their faith. What I don't respect with your atheism, is the need to call the thinking of other religious people as "bad thinking" and the belief that your z,y,x world is superior to other worldviews. Reminds me of myself when I was 15 years old, so can bear with it. The point is that this kind of secular hostility is a cause behind the religious ban on AD.

StSapphire · 05-24-2011, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

The title of this thread is a little misleading. There is no "church" that Camping heads. From what I've read, Camping believes that we aren't even in the church age, so, for him, there are no legitimate Christian churches. There is no "Doomsday Church" and there is no religion that supports Camping. His Family Radio is the closest thing to a para-religious organization that he runs.

This is a good point. I generic terms, I'd guess that "church" at best is used here to describe his radio station which he uses as a pulpit to preach from. Not the same though.

StSapphire · 05-24-2011, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Depends. Last time I checked, they mocked gay and deaf people so can't respect every aspect of their faith. What I don't respect with your atheism, is the need to call the thinking of other religious people as "bad thinking" and the belief that your z,y,x world is superior to other worldviews. Reminds me of myself when I was 15 years old, so can bear with it. The point is that this kind of secular hostility is a cause behind the religious ban on AD.

You didn't answer the question I was actually asking though. Do you respect the beliefs of a Scientologist who believes in Xenu or the beliefs of an adult who actually believes that every December, Santa Claus comes down their chimney and gives them gifts?

As for my own atheism, that's (slightly) a mischaracterization.

1) I don't "need" to call out anything because of that. I choose to because I think it might make the world a better place if the sort of thinking that tends to propel religious belief was minimized or eliminated. I'm perfectly capable of not saying anything when someone brings up religion, and have done so many times even on this forum, mostly when the topic either didn't really have anything even remotely to do with religion, or when it was a subject I was wholly uninterested in.

2) I don't think all thinking by religious people is (necessarily) "bad thinking". I think that the thought processes that fuel religious belief is a form of "bad thinking" (specifically, the process that compels people to be less skeptical of claims when they fall under the domain of "faith", and related methods of thinking). I'm fully aware that there can be very many intelligent religious people. I'd specifically include Reba with this (and any number of other people, but she's been active here) - I may not agree with her on much of anything, but I can clearly understand her thought processes and generally only have issues with her starting premises, rather than the thought processes flowing from those premises.

3) Of course I view certain worldviews as superior to others. If I meet two people, and one of them says "1 + 1 = 2" and the other says "1 + 1 = 3", then the first person's view of mathematics is clearly superior to the second person's. Refusal to accept that any opinions can be superior to others is the ultimate form of moral relativism, which is nice on paper but doesn't really "work". Using this sort of basis is how I decide whether a worldview is "superior" to another or not - if one starts with a premise that, to the best of my knowledge, is faulty or flat-out incorrect, then I'll tend to accept that one whose premises seem far more likely to be correct (all other things being equal between the two) as superior to the other.

jillio · 05-24-2011, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StSapphire

This is a good point. I generic terms, I'd guess that "church" at best is used here to describe his radio station which he uses as a pulpit to preach from. Not the same though.

The last time I checked, "church" does not refer to a building with pews and alters exclusively.

souggy · 05-24-2011, 01:10 PM

I am not surprised the rapture didn't happen. It's an American-based theology. Well, I have a less friendly word for it, but I don't want to incite flames. Anyway, the idea of a rapture was first recorded with the Puritans, and was first written about in the late 1700s and was embraced by Baptists.

I am not saying one shouldn't believe in a rapture, but... why the recent revelations? Why only in the last 300 years this was introduced as a doctrine? One would think the rapture is important enough to be the core education of all Christian branches from the beginning. So, like I said... I am not surprised the rapture haven't occurred.

Berry · 05-24-2011, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StSapphire

3) Of course I view certain worldviews as superior to others. If I meet two people, and one of them says "1 + 1 = 2" and the other says "1 + 1 = 3", then the first person's view of mathematics is clearly superior to the second person's. Refusal to accept that any opinions can be superior to others is the ultimate form of moral relativism, which is nice on paper but doesn't really "work". Using this sort of basis is how I decide whether a worldview is "superior" to another or not - if one starts with a premise that, to the best of my knowledge, is faulty or flat-out incorrect, then I'll tend to accept that one whose premises seem far more likely to be correct (all other things being equal between the two) as superior to the other.

I have a relative who is fond of saying, "Opinions are like anuses. Everybody has one."

Typical remark of that person's culture.

But many have the attitude of "That is just your opinion." As though an opinion has no weight and cannot be evaluated for quality.

Yet in truth everything a person says or believes is their opinion, whether it can be supported by demonstrable fact or not. A person can choose to believe only in those facts that have been demonstrated by science, and may believe their opinions are superior simply because of this -- But in the end it is their opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

There are in fact other ways to evaluate the quality of an opinion. One of the best ways I know of is to evaluate by the effects, or to put it Biblically "By their fruits you shall know them."

For instance if one believes only that which has already been proven then anything that has yet to be proven will be scoffed at -- Until it is "proven." These people make excellent technicians. They keep the world running as it is. Valuable to society but not encouraging to those who disagree.

On the other hand if one chooses to believe in everything whether it is proven or not, then a person will believe in things that are not now, never have been, and never will be. One the other hand they will be proven right often enough to keep them encouraged. These people have a value to society as well. They keep the curious curious and keep people wondering if there might be something more than what we know.

But if someone chooses to believe those things that are not proven should be questioned and tested. These are the people who become scientists and help society move forward. They also perform a service to society.

Now let us look at a different type of opinion.

Scientists and technicians often tend to believe the 'ignorance' of the 'Believers in anything" should be stomped out, by force if necessary.

If you take that view, rather than the social view listed above, what happens?

Certain people are marked as "stupid" socially "wrong" and certain social conflict will result.

If you take the "social view" that each group contributes to the social dynamic, what happens?

People are accepted for their differences and respected as individuals and social conflict will be minimized.

So do you really believe an opinion is an opinion is an opinion?

Or do you recognize that an opinion can be objectively evaluated whether it can be proven or not?

**Reba** · 05-24-2011, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

The last time I checked, "church" does not refer to a building with pews and alters exclusively.

No, it doesn't always. But Camping's organization would be considered a para-church organization, especially since he doesn't even claim it to be a church. I don't think Family Radio is chartered as a church.

Definitions of church:

1. a building (ex.: the church on the corner)

2. a local congregation (ex.: a member of our church)

3. the body of all believers in Jesus Christ (ex.: rapture of the church)

4. religion in general (ex.: separation of church and state)

5. a specific denomination (ex.: the Catholic Church)

StSapphire · 05-24-2011, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berry

I have a relative who is fond of saying, "Opinions are like anuses. Everybody has one."

Typical remark of that person's culture.

But many have the attitude of "That is just your opinion." As though an opinion has no weight and cannot be evaluated for quality.

Yet in truth everything a person says or believes is their opinion, whether it can be supported by demonstrable fact or not. A person can choose to believe only in those facts that have been demonstrated by science, and may believe their opinions are superior simply because of this -- But in the end it is their opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

There are in fact other ways to evaluate the quality of an opinion. One of the best ways I know of is to evaluate by the effects, or to put it Biblically "By their fruits you shall know them."

For instance if one believes only that which has already been proven then anything that has yet to be proven will be scoffed at -- Until it is "proven." These people make excellent technicians. They keep the world running as it is. Valuable to society but not encouraging to those who disagree.

On the other hand if one chooses to believe in everything whether it is proven or not, then a person will believe in things that are not now, never have been, and never will be. One the other hand they will be proven right often enough to keep them encouraged. These people have a value to society as well. They keep the curious curious and keep people wondering if there might be something more than what we know.

But if someone chooses to believe those things that are not proven should be questioned and tested. These are the people who become scientists and help society move forward. They also perform a service to society.

Now let us look at a different type of opinion.

Scientists and technicians often tend to believe the 'ignorance' of the 'Believers in anything" should be stomped out, by force if necessary.

If you take that view, rather than the social view listed above, what happens?

Certain people are marked as "stupid" socially "wrong" and certain social conflict will result.

If you take the "social view" that each group contributes to the social dynamic, what happens?

People are accepted for their differences and respected as individuals and social conflict will be minimized.

So do you really believe an opinion is an opinion is an opinion?

Or do you recognize that an opinion can be objectively evaluated whether it can be proven or not?

There's a slight issue with this that you've missed, though. (And I agree with a lot of your points, above).

The issue isn't with "only that which is proven". My issue is with opinions that have been disproven. I'm well aware that limiting yourself to merely what has been proven is silly (after all, how could you ever prove that vanilla is a superior ice cream flavor to chocolate, regardless of how true I think it is?

). What I have a problem with would be if someone said that arsenic flavored ice cream (with real lead paint chips in it!) was a superior flavor to vanilla or even to chocolate. They can certainly have that opinion... but I see nothing wrong with very strongly pointing out how having paint chips in your ice cream can cut your throat from the inside, and that lead paint can poison you, and if all of that fails, the arsenic will almost definitely kill you.

And to that end, no, I honestly don't have a problem with trying to persuade everyone who thinks that arsenic and lead paint chip ice cream is the best that they're not only wrong, but dangerously wrong, too.

I do agree that you can objectively evaluate someone's opinion, even when it can't be "proven" (or "disproven", either).

**Reba** · 05-24-2011, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

I am not surprised the rapture didn't happen. It's an American-based theology. Well, I have a less friendly word for it, but I don't want to incite flames. Anyway, the idea of a rapture was first recorded with the Puritans, and was first written about in the late 1700s and was embraced by Baptists.

I am not saying one shouldn't believe in a rapture, but... why the recent revelations? Why only in the last 300 years this was introduced as a doctrine? One would think the rapture is important enough to be the core education of all Christian branches from the beginning. So, like I said... I am not surprised the rapture haven't occurred.

The concept but not the term "rapture" has been in the Scriptures ever since they were written.

Maybe emphasis is increasing because the time is getting closer. I'm not naming a date; closer could still mean another hundred years. Yet, closer than ever.

**deafskeptic** · 05-24-2011, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

A friend of mine (a Christian) tried to convert me and one of his tactics was "But, don't you want to go to Heaven? Why don't you just believe in God and you have a surefire way to get into Heaven, if there is one? Sort of like "just in case"?"

I thought it was a really bad reason to be a Christian.... simply believe in God "just in case"....

I actually would feel like I'm somewhat offending God if I converted to Christianity just because I want some form of death insurance. But that's just me.

Sounds like Pascal's wager.

StSapphire · 05-24-2011, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Sounds like Pascal's wager.

And we all know that's the most convincing argument...

05-23-2011, 03:46 PM	#69 (permalink)
saywhatkid Emerging from the sun Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In space Posts: 7,242 Blog Entries: 2	Seeing some of the comments/replies back and forth, it is no wonder that religious discussions are banned. Sadly, it usually ends up that only lampooning of religious beliefs is allowed. For people that embrace a religion, (I am one of those) it is a wonderful addition to their (our) lives. For those of you that do not believe in an afterlife/God, there is nothing waiting for you when you perish. You just go cold. I prefer to have something to look forward to. Imagine the feeling you will get when you realize your short time here is all you get. I intend to qualify for the "Eternity" plan. Also, I find that the teachings of the Bible are an excellent guide for me. So do many millions of others. I now bow out from making any more posts in this thread related to religion. __________________ "Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies." ~ Mother Teresa

05-24-2011, 12:16 AM	#79 (permalink)
Reba Granny Terp Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: South Carolina Posts: 39,196	The title of this thread is a little misleading. There is no "church" that Camping heads. From what I've read, Camping believes that we aren't even in the church age, so, for him, there are no legitimate Christian churches. There is no "Doomsday Church" and there is no religion that supports Camping. His Family Radio is the closest thing to a para-religious organization that he runs. Berry and Beach girl like this.

05-24-2011, 01:10 PM	#84 (permalink)
souggy Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 9,541	I am not surprised the rapture didn't happen. It's an American-based theology. Well, I have a less friendly word for it, but I don't want to incite flames. Anyway, the idea of a rapture was first recorded with the Puritans, and was first written about in the late 1700s and was embraced by Baptists. I am not saying one shouldn't believe in a rapture, but... why the recent revelations? Why only in the last 300 years this was introduced as a doctrine? One would think the rapture is important enough to be the core education of all Christian branches from the beginning. So, like I said... I am not surprised the rapture haven't occurred. jillio likes this. __________________ "It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it." - Richard Freynman

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com