Disbelief is not a choice

TheWriteAlex said:
I agree 100%. Though I am not an atheist, I cannot choose to follow any major religion no matter how much I want to. My empirical knowledge and sense of directive to finding the hard truth in all matters makes it impossible.
Click to expand...

I have a tendency to question everything and I have trouble with religions for much the same reason as you.
 
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

The funny thing about Anglicians is they were the first religious sect to accept Darwinism without second thought. So were the northern Baptists; and the Anabaptists; they too accepted it without much rift in their community.
Click to expand...
I'm a member of a Baptist church. This is from the statement of faith in our church's constitution:

"What We Believe …Continued
(6) We believe that the Godhead created the heavens (the universe) and the
earth, including all life, each after its own species, by direct act and not by a
process of evolution. Genesis 1 and 2; Colossians 1:16,17; John 1:3."

All the churches, evangelists, missionaries, colleges, and Christian organizations throughout America and the world that we associate with as a church also have the same belief.
 
I admit I struggle with this topic.

On one hand, I have my strong upbringing with my religious/spiritual/whateveryouwanttocallit beliefs and I have seen/read experiences of others who truly tried to take a path but could not...It's something I'm still trying to decide for myself.
 
If the person is mentally unstable, we cannot hold the person responsible for his actions.

If a person is born with the tendency to be homosexual, can we hold him responsible for something that is out of his control? Hmmm. That's what I struggle with.

Just to be CLEAR, I am NOT in any way suggesting that homosexuals are mentally unstable...lol. I realize it's a poor choice of analogy but that's the only one I can think of for now.
 
Many Christians are highly educated and intelligent scientists, engineers, lawyers, doctors, researchers, and professionals in all fields. Many others are uneducated, living in simple environments. Most are somewhere in between. Just like agnostics and atheists. It's not any one kind of person who becomes a believer, and it's not just one kind of person who disbelieves.
 
Daredevel7 said:
I totally agree with you on the first statement. However, I disagree with you in the bolded statement. There is no proof that we can ONLY use penis and vagina for fertilization of eggs. In fact, I can name one already. Release of urine.

Show me proof that it is biologically unacceptable to use a penis and vagina for uses OTHER than fertilizing eggs.
Click to expand...

You got me good but only because I'm looking at sexual purpose, as I do think Noise was.
 
Wirelessly posted

Reba, I am referring to the Baptists before the shift in doctrine and membership in the 1960s. To account for the rift, some of the Baptists started making the distinction they are "northern".

And yes, I had this conversatiom with several Baptist members and ex-Baptists who both don't agree with the change in doctrine. A surprising many left the congregrations.

Edit: I didn't know the first split occurred in 1845 over the issue of slave ownership; and a second one in the 1860s over racial segregration.
 
Last edited:
Steinhauer said:
:hmm: I thought we were not suppose to discuss religion and to "play nice".
Click to expand...

If people were mature enough to acknowledge there are differences of interpretations with the scriptures, then yes, it would make for a good discussion. However since people tend to bludgeons each others over the issue...

It's best to stick with history on the secular side.

That being said the Modernist Crisis of late 19th century and 20th century are well documented and it's certainly a colourful moment in time for Christianity. Islam is also seeing a major split right now over the same controversies.
 
I try very hard to stay away from religion for the reason you stated

however

mention sexuality and the same thing happens, people tend to bludgeons each other over the issue.
 
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

Reba, I am referring to the Baptists before the shift in doctrine and membership in the 1960s. To account for the rift, some of the Baptists started making the distinction they are "northern".
Click to expand...
Northern Baptists? I've been to Baptist churches in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Connecticut, and they believe the same as we do. I also know of liberal southern Baptist churches. I don't think it's a geographical distinction.

And yes, I had this conversatiom with several Baptist members and ex-Baptists who both don't agree with the change in doctrine. A surprising many left the congregrations.
Click to expand...
Ex-Baptists? Did they become "ex" because they supported evolution? Did they quit their congregations because of Creation? I'm a little confused. Do you mean they moved over to churches that did or didn't support Creation?

I didn't know the first split occurred in 1845 over the issue of slave ownership; and a second one in the 1860s over racial segregration.
Click to expand...
There were also non-denominational churches of baptist doctrine that never belonged to the main Baptist groups. Even now, I belong to an independent Baptist church.
 
souggy said:
Please discuss about psychology or cultural relevance. Remember, religious discussions are prohibited on AllDeaf, so play nice. So try to refrain from defending or attacking the scriptures or commenting about one"s spiritual belief.
Click to expand...
Umm, your quoted source is full of references to religion, so you're not even following your own guidelines.

BTW:

un·be·lief

the state or quality of not believing; incredulity or skepticism, especially in matters of doctrine or religious faith.


dis·be·lief

1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

2. amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.
 
How people label themselves does not necessarily correlates with actual geography. For instance, a Labrador Retriever is not from Labrador; they are a Scottish-derived breed. It only begets the name because of where the founders were from. To tie it back into the discussion, I know a handful who live in the Carolinas and still consider themselves as Northern Baptists.

By ex-Baptists, as in, they did not agree with the shift in constituency within the Congregation. There are numerous reasons to why they left their Church. The Modernist Crisis does not solely deal with evolution, but rather a whole range of topics.
 
As much as I want to "go with the flow" in the direction this thread has gone - I do not really see how different Baptists has anything to do with whether one is deemed "biologically" or even "medically" homosexual.


But, if you all want to carry on then:

2cb85_ORIG-I_LIKE_WHERE_THIS_THREAD_IS_GOING.jpg
 
Reba said:
Umm, your quoted source is full of references to religion, so you're not even following your own guidelines.
Click to expand...

If you note, the article was written by a member of an organization dedicated to secular humanism. Secular humanism and religious thinking don't necessarily preclude each others. By definition, what makes one a secular humanist is the ability to accept new evidences and adjusting their philosophy accordingly.

Saying that, one can still have a civil discussion about the topic at hand. Do not lie, the reason why religious discussion is a taboo on AllDeaf is because it usually boils down to a screaming-match "YOU'RE WRONG!" over interpretations.

There are some things that are factual however. Scientific advances always flourish in environments where they are secular. We see this repeatedly throughout history. In Greece, it flourished throughout the Hellenistic era.

The reason why sciences flourished during the Golden Age of Islam was because of a doctrine called ijtihad [trans. "independent reasoning"]. They declined since the 13th to 14th century because of a shift to taqlid, which in practice means obeying a higher authority.

Florence was largely secular too during the Renaissance during the 14th and 15th century.

We see a similar course of action under the Dutch Empire where they offered people refugees from the Protestant-Catholic War.

Similarly, the reason why Soviet and American sciences were so tightly competitive during the Cold War was because the scientific institutes in both countris were given some leeway in thinking for themselves; post-Stalinism that is. It's a bit of a misnomer to say Russian Communism prohibits free-thinking because the elites were largely democratic and for the most part they could speak freely among themselves; it's just that the commoners couldn't speak out.

So what David Niose is arguing against are people who see secular institutes as a threat to the survival of their theologies. One of the major arguments against secularism is the absence of a supernatural is a choice. It is not a choice when one realizes there is a natural order to things which can be explained without provoking the outerworldly. Doing so otherwise is sticking their head in the sand.
 
I have to ask an honest question. I think the average joe knows reasonably well that there has been a national debate on homosexuality, and that the religious right has been somewhat of a "barrier" to perceived rights of homosexuals. Since that is out there and in the open, is there a push from the left to make religious people out to be .... hmmmm ... nutjobs? I don't know of any other tactful way of asking that.
 
Steinhauer said:
I have to ask an honest question. I think the average joe knows reasonably well that there has been a national debate on homosexuality, and that the religious right has been somewhat of a "barrier" to perceived rights of homosexuals. Since that is out there and in the open, is there a push from the left to make religious people out to be .... hmmmm ... nutjobs? I don't know of any other tactful way of asking that.
Click to expand...

sorry, what was your question?
 
Cheetah said:
sorry, what was your question?
Click to expand...

is there a push from the left to make religious people out to be .... hmmmm ... nutjobs?

In other words, is there a push to delegitimize (if that is even a word) the POV of person's of faith in regards to homosexuality?

I could be wrong, but that is par for the course in discussions such as these.
 
Steinhauer said:
As much as I want to "go with the flow" in the direction this thread has gone - I do not really see how different Baptists has anything to do with whether one is deemed "biologically" or even "medically" homosexual.


But, if you all want to carry on then:]
Click to expand...

Would you accept someone telling you babies come from storks? Of course not, you are already well-versed in the topic of sexual reproduction. You know the stork story is false.

Similarly, do you need Santa to keep a naughty or nice list? No, you already know the consequences of not being nice to someone. You don't need Santa to keep you in line as you already have theories to back you explain why humans are supposed to be altruistic.

Or take Zeus. Do you still need Zeus to explain where thunders and lightening come from? The Greeks abandoned that theology during the era of philosophy. There's no one left who still follow the old Greek orders.

None of this has any bearing on one's spiritual belief. All of this has a lot to do with a change of a person's perceptive of the natural world.
 
souggy said:
Would you accept someone telling you babies come from storks? Of course not, you are already well-versed in the topic of sexual reproduction. You know the stork story is false.

Similarly, do you need Santa to keep a naughty or nice list? No, you already know the consequences of not being nice to someone. You don't need Santa to keep you in line.
Click to expand...

Thank you for answering my previous question. :wave:
 
Back
Top