Something I think bares reading.

[Hyena Dandy]

Again, it's not about whether we know such religions exist; it's about what we know about them.

So they're irrelevant in a discussion of religion because they're not the primary faith in your area?

[Ipecac Drano]

So they're irrelevant in a discussion of religion because they're not the primary faith in your area?

That's not even close to what I was saying...

[Ghel]

So they're irrelevant in a discussion of religion because they're not the primary faith in your area?

No, it's that the primary religion in our area has more political power, is more vocal, and is simply more popular. That means that the average person in the US is more knowledgeable about Christianity than any other religion. That's why it's more likely to come up in a discussion.

[Andara Bledin]

No matter what those people do?

Yes and no.

Until we have knowledge that someone has done something unacceptable, then no matter what their professed political or religious views, we should still extend a basic modicum of respect.

Once they go the direction of, say Phelps and his ilk, then it's open season. But until then, if you make a blanket decision that anyone who believes in God doesn't deserve the basic respect of not mocking them for their belief in what is the most popular religion on the planet, you are, as Gravekeeper so eloquently states, an asshole.

Again, it's not about whether we know such religions exist; it's about what we know about them.

No, it's that the primary religion in our area has more political power, is more vocal, and is simply more popular. That means that the average person in the US is more knowledgeable about Christianity than any other religion. That's why it's more likely to come up in a discussion.

If you're talking about Christianity, then stop calling it by the blanket term religion. You're not talking about religion. You're talking only and specifically about Judeo-Christian religions and to assume that everybody here only has the same limited knowledge base as yourself is, again, insulting.

Particularly when you know that there are members of this forum who believe religions other than those you are talking about.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

That's not even close to what I was saying...

Than can you explain it? I seem to have become confused. You seemed to be implying it was some 'obscure religion' and therefore not worth commenting on.

That's why it's more likely to come up in a discussion.

Well, now, however unlikely, other religions have come up. Why don't we discuss them, too.

[Ipecac Drano]

Than can you explain it? I seem to have become confused. You seemed to be implying it was some 'obscure religion' and therefore not worth commenting on.

I made no such implication.

Well, now, however unlikely, other religions have come up. Why don't we discuss them, too.

Feel free.

[Ghel]

If you're talking about Christianity, then stop calling it by the blanket term religion. You're not talking about religion. You're talking only and specifically about Judeo-Christian religions and to assume that everybody here only has the same limited knowledge base as yourself is, again, insulting.

When I'm talking about religion in general, I use the word "religion." When I'm talking about a belief in a god (still pretty generic), I use the word "theism." When I'm talking about Christianity, I use the word "Christianity." If someone brought up a different religion, I would use the appropriate term for that religion. I'm not assuming anything.

Well, now, however unlikely, other religions have come up. Why don't we discuss them, too.

What would you like to discuss about them?

[Gravekeeper]

How often do you see that in religion?

<points at Buddhism>

What do you expect me to do? Investigate every god that humans have ever worshiped before I declare myself an atheist?

No, but I do expect you to not make blanket statements about that which you admittedly don't know about.

You're certainly entitled to that point of view. But here in the US, we have this thing commonly called "separation of church and state." In this case, it means that it would be unconstitutional to make a law prohibiting advertising based solely on its religious content. And that's something I agree with.

I never said a thing about making a law, so you can retract that strawman.

Are you talking about something that's supernatural? Does it interact with the natural realm, or is it in its own realm? If it doesn't interact with the natural realm, why should we care?

Yes, depends, depends. Its a general term and I know better than to argue semantics here ( as it is futile ). Why you should or should not care is up to you. It doesn't change the definition.

First, most of the atheist advertisements we've been talking about have been located in the US, so it's only natural that they're advertising to a US audience. Second, human beings need personal interaction, which can't be provided by the internet.

First, the atheist advertisements I linked were from the UK and the whole atheist bus campaign started in the UK first before moving to the US and then Canada. Where I should note they were mostly barred because in Canada because our transit is publically owned and thus no religious advertisement is permitted. A difficulty they ran into in several other countries.

Also, I should point out the entire atheist bus campaign stopped going the purely atheist route and now argues for a complete seperation of church and state, and an end to religious bias in science and public institutions. Which I fully agree with them on.

No matter what those people do?

What Andara said. -.-

Blind faith, disembodied beings (in some cases)...

Those are the only two you can come up with? Buddhism doesn't even have blind faith and to many schools Buddha is just a dead guy. >.>

Again, it's not about whether we know such religions exist; it's about what we know about them.

Then lets agree to stop making blanket statements about all religion when we don't know about them?

When I'm talking about religion in general, I use the word "religion." When I'm talking about a belief in a god (still pretty generic), I use the word "theism." When I'm talking about Christianity, I use the word "Christianity." If someone brought up a different religion, I would use the appropriate term for that religion. I'm not assuming anything.

Honestly, I only recall you referencing the Judeo-Christian type God. I don't recall you ragging on Vishnu at any point. Everything I've seen you talk about has been centered on Christianity which you extend to everything else.

What would you like to discuss about them?

Crocoduck! Clearly we have not yet discussed this marvel of human understanding to the full extend it deserves. >.>

[Ghel]

No, but I do expect you to not make blanket statements about that which you admittedly don't know about.

Where did I do that?

I never said a thing about making a law...

I didn't say you did. I was explaining why I disagree with you.

Yes, depends, depends. Its a general term and I know better than to argue semantics here ( as it is futile ). Why you should or should not care is up to you. It doesn't change the definition.

You haven't given a definition to change. You still haven't explained what you mean by "higher power." In a previous post, you said that it was wrong of me to think that a belief in a higher power is ridiculous. I think it's ridiculous to believe in something that you can't even define.

Honestly, I only recall you referencing the Judeo-Christian type God. I don't recall you ragging on Vishnu at any point. Everything I've seen you talk about has been centered on Christianity which you extend to everything else.

Well, I'll say it now. Vishnu is just as ridiculous as any other god. Happy? The main difference is that Hindus (I'm not sure that's the right word) aren't trying to get their creation myth taught in science classrooms where I live. Groups of Hindus aren't bombing abortion clinics or staging protests at military funerals or preventing consenting adults from getting married. At least not in the US. I'll talk about Hinduism, if that's what you want to talk about, but it doesn't effect my life the way the Christianity does. It's not a matter of painting all religions with the same brush, it's a matter of which one has the biggest effect on the country I live in.

[Mytical]

Well see Ghel there is another problem, right there. You make more blanket statements. From 1984 till roughly 1988 I was a Christian. I can guarantee you, I never bombed a abortion clinic, tried to prevent anybody getting married, etc. Nor did I know anybody who did. Not once did the church I attend have a Sermon that decried the 'evils of homosexuality', nor do we picket/protest or such.

Most of the Christians I talk with (and they are many) have never done such. It is the problem again of the vocal minority causing people to make such blanket statements.

The lessons, sermons, and interpretation of the bible I (and the rest of the church(es) I attended) received are MUCH different from what you appear to have been 'taught'.

The church(es) I attended (yes there were more then one) could care less if 'creationism' was taught, or prayer was in school, or such. They offered such things in church, and only those who wished attended. Nobody was forced to do anything. Even children made up their mind if they wanted to attend that or not. In fact, it was an amazing experience that despite how it turned out I would redo even knowing what I know now.

I also don't think giving the OPTION of learning different things is a BAD thing. Nobody should be forced, but if they want to learn creationism..then they should have the option.

Yes, I turned away from Christianity, but I harbor no ill will to the religion, nor most of the people in it. I just understand that PEOPLE can be jerks. They would be so if religion never existed, having some other reason to think themselves better then others. Be it 'science', 'education', 'color of skin', 'political leaning', whatever.

[Gravekeeper]

Where did I do that?

You're doing it right now. ><

You haven't given a definition to change. You still haven't explained what you mean by "higher power."

I'm having trouble understanding how you don't know what it means. I did answer your previous three questions. Yes, it means something "supernatural", it may or may not interact with the natural world and it may or may not exist within its own realm. Because its a general term for anything above or outside the power of an individual person and is, yes, outside of our current scientific understanding or even, if you want, may not exist at all beyond our own belief in it.

In a previous post, you said that it was wrong of me to think that a belief in a higher power is ridiculous. I think it's ridiculous to believe in something that you can't even define.

I said it was wrong of you to ridicule someone's belief's to them just because they were ridiculous to you, as your definition of what is ridiculous is quite broad.

Well, I'll say it now. Vishnu is just as ridiculous as any other god. Happy? The main difference is that Hindus (I'm not sure that's the right word) aren't trying to get their creation myth taught in science classrooms where I live. Groups of Hindus aren't bombing abortion clinics or staging protests at military funerals or preventing consenting adults from getting married. At least not in the US. I'll talk about Hinduism, if that's what you want to talk about, but it doesn't effect my life the way the Christianity does. It's not a matter of painting all religions with the same brush, it's a matter of which one has the biggest effect on the country I live in.

This is exactly what we're talking about. The so called Christian's you're talking about are such an incredibly small, miniscule number of the whole you can't possibly blanket it to the entire religion no more than you can say every Muslim is a terrorist.

I also don't think giving the OPTION of learning different things is a BAD thing. Nobody should be forced, but if they want to learn creationism..then they should have the option.

No they shouldn't, actually. Or more precisely, the option should not be part of public education. If they want to learn it privately, fine. But absolutely no religion should be supported or endorsed as part of public education.

[KnitShoni]

I'll grant you this one, but only becauce I don't want to revisit the whole semantics argument.

This actually isn't an issue of semantics. Religion and spirituality can very well be mutually exclusive. A person is fully capable of believing there is a higher power/deity/afterlife without observing the rituals many religions require.

[Andara Bledin]

I just understand that PEOPLE can be jerks. They would be so if religion never existed, having some other reason to think themselves better then others. Be it 'science', 'education', 'color of skin', 'political leaning', whatever.

I've said this several times, but I think it's fairly obvious to everyone that some people have chips on their shoulders about some things, and no amount of rational and logical discussion is going to pull the blinders from their eyes.

^-.-^

[Ipecac Drano]

Those are the only two you can come up with? Buddhism doesn't even have blind faith and to many schools Buddha is just a dead guy.

Who may have either reincarnated or "moved up".

Then lets agree to stop making blanket statements about all religion when we don't know about them?

The backbone of religion is pure blind faith. That's all I need to point out whether it's Xtianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

If you're talking about Christianity, then stop calling it by the blanket term religion. You're not talking about religion. You're talking only and specifically about Judeo-Christian religions and to assume that everybody here only has the same limited knowledge base as yourself is, again, insulting.

Or maybe, just maybe, we're talking about religion in general and using Xtianity as an example? That you're pretending to not see this is even more insulting.

Well see Ghel there is another problem, right there. You make more blanket statements. From 1984 till roughly 1988 I was a Christian. I can guarantee you, I never bombed a abortion clinic, tried to prevent anybody getting married, etc. Nor did I know anybody who did. Not once did the church I attend have a Sermon that decried the 'evils of homosexuality', nor do we picket/protest or such.

Nor did she say that all Xtians do those things; or even most, or even half. She was talking about small pockets of people doing those things.

If someone is commenting on one group of people, it doesn't mean that they are commenting on everybody.

[Gravekeeper]

Who may have either reincarnated or "moved up".

I believe I already pointed out the whole reincarination study thing.

The backbone of religion is pure blind faith. That's all I need to point out whether it's Xtianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

Buddhism does not demand blind faith, quite the opposite actually. To quote Buddha himself: Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor upon tradition, nor upon rumor, nor upon what is in a scripture, nor upon surmise, nor upon an axiom, nor upon specious reasoning, nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over, nor upon another's seeming ability, nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher.".

One should never believe anything without personal inquiry and your own verification. In fact he specifically warns against taking your own opinions, scriptures, news or the opinions of teachers or authority figures at face value without doing your own inquiries to verify they are correct.

Nor did she say that all Xtians do those things; or even most, or even half. She was talking about small pockets of people doing those things.

She said simply "Christianity" without any such distinctions.

If someone is commenting on one group of people, it doesn't mean that they are commenting on everybody.

Actually it does when the use the name of said group without any specifics. If I said "Americans" you don't assume I mean "Just Kansas".