"I think you will find that those who arrogantly claim their religion is the one truth, who try to claim their myths as fact and/or who blow off all other religious paths and experiences as the devil at work tend to be the ones who get shredded." --Pagan--
Ditto from me. Stick around for a while Mr. CAS. If I remember correctly, you are fairly new to this board.
in the short time i've been here, i've seen:
people that you never hear from again who come through and post what seems like a quick burst of anger, and
some regulars who respond like that when pressed on a particular issue.
I think you will find that those who arrogantly claim their religion is the one truth, who try to claim their myths as fact and/or who blow off all other religious paths and experiences as the devil at work tend to be the ones who get shredded.
Bingo! I couldn't have said it better myself.
phil, you make some good points. there's one statement, however, that i think is the reverse of what it should be. you say.....'unless science proves or disproves the existence of one or more deities.'
it is religion that makes the claim for deities, so the burden of proof falls on it (religion) and not science. religion would have to offer proof that deities exist outside of 'faith', if they want to get into that debate. i doubt you will see science involved in areas outside its realm......like in the supernatural.
Can anyone here, without usuing the usual canned answers of religion persecuting the massess etc., explain why someone having and professing their faith in God, Allah, Buddah, or even nothing bothers you to the point of slinging insults at people?
Perhaps it lies in the fundamental structure of a religion that colors a person's/population's ability to more or less tolerant of other faiths. For example:
1) Monotheism- if your religious proclaims that the universe if governed according to the laws/judgements/rules of a single diety, then it may be quite difficult for you to accept that the diety of another religion is just as legitimate and true as your own. In contrast, a religion that is fundamentally polytheistic may feel less threatened by the inclusion of other dieties from other religions as part of a larger cosmic whole.
2) Prostelyzing/Conversion - If your religion dictates that is is ones duty or that it is acceptable to actively seek converts to your religion, there needs to be some element of rejection of the "other" religion(s). Thus, it would seem that those reigions that place the burden of conversion/missionalry work/prostelyzing on its members would have to some extent make it implicitly understood that any religion other than its own is always ultimately unacceptable. Those religions that do not actively seek out converts, it would seem, do not need to place as much emphasis on the negation of "other" beliefs.
3) Cyclical vs Linear world view: If your religion teaches that there is only one life, one path and one judgement, then it would seem that could make alternative beliefs a threat to that absolutist-type world view. However, in religions that posess a cyclical view of life - reincarnation, multiple lives, or even multiple saviors - then it would seem that "other" beliefs would be less threatening, and could be accepted as only one of many manifestations of one's thoughts/beliefs/beings that continuously reappear in varied forms.
philbenny wrote in post 15: Not sure if it was one of your posts or another I was respondng to - but the idea that the obligation of proof falls on religion (which is ridiculous) was what I was responding to.
phil, let me try one more time. all i pointed out was that when anyone wants to discuss or argue proof involving a god or gods, as you mentioned back in post #8, the burden of proof to prove or disprove the existence of the diety(s) rests with the side making the claim that the diety exists (religion).... not with science which is neutral about the subject of god and gods.
in post #10 you said (...unless science proves or disproves the existence of one or more deities.)
if i said, "prove that a pig has never flown. if you can't, then pigs fly." the burden of proof would rest squarely on me, and not with science, to prove that pigs fly.
People fear what they don't know or understand. It is difficult for someone to see inside the heart of another, if they are speaking different languages. Our own personal realities define our perspectives of the world and its inhabitants. My impression is that, over the past decade or so, people have become more self-isolating. For example, people may base entire social lives on their affiliation with a particular church, or other organization. I feel this has resulted in more isolated subcultures, and less understanding between individuals from these various self-determined communities. For example, one church may subscribe to the philosophy that they are duty-bound to aggressively preach the Gospel, even to complete strangers, in order to save souls. Meanwhile, a neighboring congregation believes that their best testimony is to provide a model of Christ's exemplary care and tolerance. Each could be passionately committed to their beliefs, and motivated by love for God and their fellow man. To someone from outside their experiential reality, however, such actions might seem judgemental - resulting in the aggressive defense of their own position.