ClumsyMonkey.net

I agree.

Going back to what Taylor said, about picking and choosing to suit oneself is exactly why "Spirituality" has become more popular. In Spirituality, anything goes, therefore people can act whichever way they want with no moral obligation, because they aren't a part of a religion, they only practise which parts are easy for them to obey.

I'm really tired of Sean's haughtiness.

I AM ME wrote:Religion doesn't need to be about absolutes.
In the modern world more people are becoming Spiritual not Religious.

I AM ME wrote:true, which is why Spirituality is becoming more popular then Religion

Do you have a point? You speak so disparagingly of the religious, yet the only promotion of spirituality as an alternative is that it is popular? This endorsement is intellectually bankrupt. It is not evidence or logic, just assinine assertion.

I AM ME wrote:or maybe some people don't believe in all the teachings of one religion. That could be it. Some people find it foolish to devote yourself to everything one source says just because you're trying to find some sort of comfortable meaning to your existance. Most of these new age spiritualists just believe that many religions have some things right, but other parts wrong. If you need to blindly follow doctrines without testing them yourself, then how can you truly, be faithful?

This is a direct shot at those of faith. This is underhanded, ignorant, offensive commentary on a subject you have demonstrated no understanding of. No, those of faith do not resort to faith as a remedy to egotistical worry or intellectual weakness.

Edit: I asserted an absolute. Any large group, such as the Christians this thread is concerned with, includes those who are part of the group because flawed reasons. There are surely some who match your description. I put it to you, however, that these people constitute a definite minority.

I AM ME wrote:1. I just don't understand what's wrong with people forming their own beliefs based on what they have experienced and what they have learned from other religions. 2. I think it's wrong that most people will simply follow whatever faith they were taught as children. 3. How do you know thatsome other belief wouldn't have fit your views better if you only ever learn about one, and have it forced down your throat from birth.

1. No one said it was wrong.

2. I'm revolted by the intellectual chokehold some (read: not all) parents put on their children. But you make it out to seem like anyone who follows the religion they were brought up under is an idiot. Wrong. Any learned individual, who fully understands (by which I mean careful study and analysis) the doctrine they follow is worthy of respect. This is a problem of education, not religion. Only those ignorantly following any regime of thought and behaviour - which you arrogantly and incorrectly describe as including all those who follow the faith of their birth - are those worthy of derision.

3. The notion that one should study a wide range of religions and philosophies (something I very honestly doubt you've done with any seriousness), and pick out the best parts to please their personal preferences is severely flawed. Don't turn around and call me small-minded - I support absolute freedom of thought and practice. But believing in something because it appeals to you is not a sound route to wisdom or truth. I find it unappealing that the laws of physics preclude me from flying, yet I believe in them wholeheartedly. I think it would be awesome if the Universe were lorded over by an omnipotent banana named Charles, but I see no evidence or reason to support such a theory.

You are not the hot shit genius hipster you make yourself out to be. You are none of these things. You follow fads and popular, media driven pseudo ideals, demonstrating very little analytical or empirical justification for any of it, assuming that most people will simply agree with you if you're enough of a bastard. You decry certain groups as being ignorant, irrational, and intellectually controlling, yet you are the worst example of these traits.

Stop making people out to be immoral for believing in something you do not. Stop making assinine assertions that are only supported by popular appeal.

Stop making yourself out to be better than everyone in general.

Thanks for that Josh. I agree completely with what you said.

joe_canadian wrote:

I AM ME wrote:or maybe some people don't believe in all the teachings of one religion. That could be it. Some people find it foolish to devote yourself to everything one source says just because you're trying to find some sort of comfortable meaning to your existance. Most of these new age spiritualists just believe that many religions have some things right, but other parts wrong. If you need to blindly follow doctrines without testing them yourself, then how can you truly, be faithful?

This is a direct shot at those of faith. This is underhanded, ignorant, offensive commentary on a subject you have demonstrated no understanding of. No, those of faith do not resort to faith as a remedy to egotistical worry or intellectual weakness.

You're right that was a direct shot. It was directed at those that make the ignorant, and offensive assumption that most people that don't follow an organized religion do so because they are not morally strong enough to do so, or to lazy. Obviously you have no understanding of those that choose to reject organized religion.

joe_canadian wrote:

I AM ME wrote:1. I just don't understand what's wrong with people forming their own beliefs based on what they have experienced and what they have learned from other religions. 2. I think it's wrong that most people will simply follow whatever faith they were taught as children. 3. How do you know thatsome other belief wouldn't have fit your views better if you only ever learn about one, and have it forced down your throat from birth.

1. No one said it was wrong.

It was implied.

joe_canadian wrote:2. I'm revolted by the intellectual chokehold some (read: not all) parents put on their children. But you make it out to seem like anyone who follows the religion they were brought up under is an idiot. Wrong. Any learned individual, who fully understands (by which I mean careful study and analysis) the doctrine they follow is worthy of respect. This is a problem of education, not religion. Only those ignorantly following any regime of thought and behaviour - which you arrogantly and incorrectly describe as including all those who follow the faith of their birth - are those worthy of derision.

Well at least we can agree that the power some parents exert over their children politically and religiously is disgusting. Any part of careful study should at least have basic study of other ideas and writings. If you don't read from several differing view points your not deciding on anything, you're re-inforcing your existing ideas and rejecting others. Some faiths to do not allow the questioning or analyzing of it's doctrines.

joe_canadian wrote:3. The notion that one should study a wide range of religions and philosophies (something I very honestly doubt you've done with any seriousness), and pick out the best parts to please their personal preferences is severely flawed. Don't turn around and call me small-minded - I support absolute freedom of thought and practice. But believing in something because it appeals to you is not a sound route to wisdom or truth. I find it unappealing that the laws of physics preclude me from flying, yet I believe in them wholeheartedly. I think it would be awesome if the Universe were lorded over by an omnipotent banana named Charles, but I see no evidence or reason to support such a theory.

First of all, i have studied a range of beliefs and religions, with all seriousness, with my own money and my own time. The fact that i'm not a Christian, nor raised a Christian, but have more then a basic understanding of the religion (most likely a better understanding of which, then most Christians have of other Religions) is a prime example of my intrest in faith as a whole, and study of it. Secondly, again you assume that people coose things as a easy way out, or because it appeals to us. Some people choose these beliefs because they believe them to be correct. I do not choose not to follow Christianity because it's to hard, i choose not to believe in all it's teachings because I believe some are wrong. Ex. Homosexual Sin, Creation Stories, Miracles. I believe that all suffering is a direct symptom of expectations, this is not an easy concept to live by, and is proof that i'm not looking for the easy way out, infact it is a contradiction of taking the easy way out.

joe_canadian wrote:You are not the hot shit genius hipster you make yourself out to be. You are none of these things. You follow fads and popular, media driven pseudo ideals, demonstrating very little analytical or empirical justification for any of it, assuming that most people will simply agree with you if you're enough of a bastard. You decry certain groups as being ignorant, irrational, and intellectually controlling, yet you are the worst example of these traits.

Now out of anger you resort to personal attacks and assumptions. Again proving it is you who is ignorant. I never claimed to be a genius, or hot shit. Not many people on this board have a very good knowledge of what people are like, how they live their life, or what they do off board. Because of this personal attacks are foolish, and only underline your own ignorance. You have no idea about what kind of person I am at all. I am not, a follower, and never have been. Peer-pressure has always been non existant to me, and if you actually knew me you would know that. I could go on a tirade of stories and bring up people that would say you're wrong but that would be a waste of time, and be pointless. You imply that I follow fads, and media based pseudo ideals, but again know nothing about me. Nothing at all. Unless you've spent more then a few days in my company please refrain from ignorant, personal attacks.

joe_canadian wrote:Stop making people out to be immoral for believing in something you do not. Stop making assinine assertions that are only supported by popular appeal.

I could ask some other people on this board to do the same.

My original statement is a comment on my opinion that there's several reasons why the Christian church has lost popularity. Not only because of scandal and public laziness. But also because there is now greater acess to other religions, some of which make more sense to people. Because of some religions lack of absolutes and willingness to evolve, people are flocking to them, because they are more in tune with science and common knowledge. Also it's no surprise to anyone that Spirituality has been growing for the last 30 years, and now takes many followers away from organized religion. To say that they leave though because they are weak, is ignorant

You're right that was a direct shot. It was directed at those that make the ignorant, and offensive assumption that most people that don't follow an organized religion do so because they are not morally strong enough to do so, or to lazy. Obviously you have no understanding of those that choose to reject organized religion.

Pardon me? I was raised in an aggresively atheist family, I grew up with and long held the views you are espousing. Every friend I had in my youth was atheist in the same way. Even now I possess a lifetime total of three religious friends, I have complete understanding of why people turn from religion. You have no basis for that comment.

Furthermore, you say that you are offended by people attributing weakness as the motivator behind your beliefs? So you level that accusation at those with different beliefs? Childish. Weak.

It was implied.

Where?

Also, grow some backbone.

Well at least we can agree that the power some parents exert over their children politically and religiously is disgusting. Any part of careful study should at least have basic study of other ideas and writings. If you don't read from several differing view points your not deciding on anything, you're re-inforcing your existing ideas and rejecting others. Some faiths to do not allow the questioning or analyzing of it's doctrines.

I completely agree. Let's move on.

First of all, i have studied a range of beliefs and religions, with all seriousness, with my own money and my own time. The fact that i'm not a Christian, nor raised a Christian, but have more then a basic understanding of the religion (most likely a better understanding of which, then most Christians have of other Religions) is a prime example of my intrest in faith as a whole, and study of it. 1. Secondly, again you assume that people coose things as a easy way out, or because it appeals to us. 2. Some people choose these beliefs because they believe them to be correct. I do not choose not to follow Christianity because it's to hard, i choose not to believe in all it's teachings because I believe some are wrong. Ex. Homosexual Sin, Creation Stories, Miracles. I believe that all suffering is a direct symptom of expectations, this is not an easy concept to live by, and is proof that i'm not looking for the easy way out, infact it is a contradiction of taking the easy way out.

You did not respond in any way to my criticism of "finding what parts of philosophies appeal to you". I was somewhat heated in this criticism, and meant no disrespect to anyone. However, for the purposes of this argument, I consider your original point weak and refuted.

Now, this is really fucking absurd:

1. No! You did! This was the philosphy that you endorsed!

"Some people find it foolish to devote yourself to everything one source says just because you're trying to find some sort of comfortable meaning to your existance."

2. Perhaps I didn't make it clear that I don't care if you're Christian or not. I don't care. But for this point, I agree with you. And the same can be said for those of faith. Faith does not preclude reason. People of faith believe what they do because they believe them to be correct. I have no doubt that you believe what you do for these reasons, but I question the assertions you made because, on this board, you have put forth the flimsiest of support for them, and have insulted people in doing so.

If you're trying to characterize me as a close-minded zealot, stop it. I am attacking your assertions because you attacked - albeit indirectly- my own beliefs without provocation, reason, or decorum.

Now out of anger you resort to personal attacks and assumptions. Again proving it is you who is ignorant. I never claimed to be a genius, or hot shit. Not many people on this board have a very good knowledge of what people are like, how they live their life, or what they do off board. Because of this personal attacks are foolish, and only underline your own ignorance. You have no idea about what kind of person I am at all. I am not, a follower, and never have been. Peer-pressure has always been known existant to me, and if you actually knew me you would know that. I could go on a tirade of stories and bring up people that would say you're wrong but that would be a waste of time, and be pointless. You imply that I follow fads, and media based pseudo ideals, but again know nothing about me. Nothing at all. Unless you've spent more then a few days in my company please refrain from ignorant, personal attacks.

Since you can't seem to differentiate between when I am criticizing your philosophy and when I am reacting to your attitude and behaviour, I'll tell you that from this point on I am unconcerned with what you think about religion, I am responding to your conduct.

You're damn right I'm angry. I'm angry because you have been tremendously egotistical of late and I am fed up. You have constantly told everyone of your alleged superiority in musical taste, put down those you view as inferior to yourself, and in this thread made many comments indicating how awesome you feel you are intellectually. The fact remains that you have provided no evidence or reasoning to back up your philosophical claims, and you've insulted good people, theist and otherwise, who were not offending your beliefs.

So I do retain that you are an ignorant, fat-headed, asshole.

You do follow fads. The spirituality (which can be a beautiful, rewarding endeavour) you described as your own is half-thought out, supported by no logic nor proof, and absolutely the creation of popular media. I've known hundreds of kids like you, and almost none of them had any real sense of what they were talking about. You think you're a leader? Absurd.

I won't say more on this, because there are good people following such ideals, ones that think things through and show some goddamned respect.

I could ask some other people on this board to do the same.

I assume that's a shot at me.

1. I don't think you're immoral, I think you're a jerk with some half thought out ideas that sound nice and that most of the people you know share, so you like to talk shit.

2. I've backed up what I've said.

I knew you'd do this. That you'd ignore my criticisms. You'd refuse to back up anything you've said. You'd refuse to acknowledge how offensive your behaviour is, or even entertain the thought of it. You're going to attack me and characterize me as, "one of those religious guys", continuing to maintain how adorably modern you are.

No, I don't know you personally. I am reacting to what you have said on this board. Everything I've stated about your disgusting attitude and your intellectual weakness I have drawn from what has been said here. I don't give a damn about how you act elsewhere, and for the purposes of this argument, I don't need to. I am attacking your persona on this board, of which I have ample experience with and proof of bad conduct.

So I say to you again:

Stop making yourself out to be better than everyone in general.

And you've already posted in two threads dismissing me and hinting at how great you are.

I'm amazed.

Edit: I don't want to upset the board Sean, contain this argument to this thread, please.

closeyoureyes wrote:Thanks for that Josh. I agree completely with what you said.

Even more so now.

I AM ME wrote:

joe_canadian wrote:Stop making people out to be immoral for believing in something you do not. Stop making assinine assertions that are only supported by popular appeal.

I could ask some other people on this board to do the same.

No one called you Immoral. I do not recall one instance in these religious threads where a person of Faith has handed out any judgement rendering you Immoral based on their religious beliefs. You on the other hand, judge freely interms of what is moral and what is not.

Ironic.

To say that they leave though because they are weak, is ignorant

Is it not then also ignorant to say that someone following a religion is weak?

Perhaps you do not realize this, but when you insult a persons religion, you insult them.

If I may quote someone who taught me more than they will ever know about what I believe today "Faith is not something I put in a box and take out on Sundays".

It is who you are. Everything in your whole life surrounds it. Its the most wonderful feeling in the world, and its also a part of who each person is. When you insult their Faith, it is a direct attack on their entire being.

If you'd like to see the post that started my annoyed response here it is.

closeyoureyes wrote:I think its because people don't want to have to be morally responsible for their actions, personally. Anything goes when you make your own rules.

That is who my "shot" was taken at. It was a sarcastic asshole remark made after someone said someting ignorant, and offensive. The second remark (V Quoted below) was also directed at people with that mindset.

joe_canadian wrote:

You're right that was a direct shot. It was directed at those that make the ignorant, and offensive assumption that most people that don't follow an organized religion do so because they are not morally strong enough to do so, or to lazy. Obviously you have no understanding of those that choose to reject organized religion.

Pardon me? I was raised in an aggresively atheist family, I grew up with and long held the views you are espousing. Every friend I had in my youth was atheist in the same way. Even now I possess a lifetime total of three religious friends, I have complete understanding of why people turn from religion. You have no basis for that comment.

As stated above that comment wasn't meant for you then, i assumed, which was wrong that you held the same veiw.

joe_canadian wrote:Furthermore, you say that you are offended by people attributing weakness as the motivator behind your beliefs? So you level that accusation at those with different beliefs? Childish. Weak.

When did i openly say that people of diffrent beliefs are morally weak, or lazy? I made a angry remark to Sinead, which was only a rebuttal to one she said earlier.

joe_canadian wrote:

It was implied.

Where?

Also, grow some backbone.

it was implied right here.

closeyoureyes wrote:I think its because people don't want to have to be morally responsible for their actions, personally. Anything goes when you make your own rules.

joe_canadian wrote:You did not respond in any way to my criticism of "finding what parts of philosophies appeal to you". I was somewhat heated in this criticism, and meant no disrespect to anyone. However, for the purposes of this argument, I consider your original point weak and refuted.

actually I did speakabout that point. re-read it.

"Secondly, again you assume that people choose things as a easy way out, or because it appeals to us. Some people choose these beliefs because they believe them to be correct. I do not choose not to follow Christianity because it's to hard, i choose not to believe in all it's teachings because I believe some are wrong. Ex. Homosexual Sin, Creation Stories, Miracles. I believe that all suffering is a direct symptom of expectations, this is not an easy concept to live by, and is proof that i'm not looking for the easy way out, infact it is a contradiction of taking the easy way out."

joe_canadian wrote:Now, this is really fucking absurd:

1. No! You did! This was the philosphy that you endorsed!

"Some people find it foolish to devote yourself to everything one source says just because you're trying to find some sort of comfortable meaning to your existance."

As i stated before, a sarcastic angry comment that i really don't put much faith in. Of course you are clearly immune to such outbursts.

joe_canadian wrote:If you're trying to characterize me as a close-minded zealot, stop it. I am attacking your assertions because you attacked - albeit indirectly- my own beliefs without provocation, reason, or decorum.

When did i try to paint you as anything other then some guy on a message board that knows nothing about me, but trys to speak volumes about my character? And who's to say that i wasn't attacked - albeit - indirectly by a member of this board, which caused me to react in a similar manner, although less abusive, then you?

joe_canadian wrote:Since you can't seem to differentiate between when I am criticizing your philosophy and when I am reacting to your attitude and behaviour, I'll tell you that from this point on I am unconcerned with what you think about religion, I am responding to your conduct.

Again, more personal attacks

joe_canadian wrote:You're damn right I'm angry. I'm angry because you have been tremendously egotistical of late and I am fed up. You have constantly told everyone of your alleged superiority in musical taste,

if you're referring to my music thread, the whole damn title was a joke, poking fun at myself. Then people get extremely offended because i made a joke about emo guys giving up on girls because they cry about them so much. Obviously people on this board know my views on homosexuality, and they should have known it was just a joke.

joe_canadian wrote:put down those you view as inferior to yourself, and in this thread made many comments indicating how awesome you feel you are intellectually.

when?

joe_canadian wrote:The fact remains that you have provided no evidence or reasoning to back up your philosophical claims, and you've insulted good people, theist and otherwise, who were not offending your beliefs.

my beliefs were offended as i said earlier.

joe_canadian wrote:So I do retain that you are an ignorant, fat-headed, asshole.

more insults, i haven't made a personal attack once, and yet i'm the asshole.

joe_canadian wrote:You do follow fads. The spirituality (which can be a beautiful, rewarding endeavour) you described as your own is half-thought out, supported by no logic nor proof, and absolutely the creation of popular media. I've known hundreds of kids like you, and almost none of them had any real sense of what they were talking about. You think you're a leader? Absurd.

More trash talk. But i would like to adress the fact that you assume i'm a Spiritualist. When did i ever claim for be? I am not, i was just making a comment. I refuse to brand myself as far as beliefs. I agree that spirituality is also a very hip thing to be into, but i am not part of that group of people. I had never even heard the defintion of the term untill this year, and have held my religious view point for years.

joe_canadian wrote:I won't say more on this, because there are good people following such ideals, ones that think things through and show some goddamned respect.

Respect? I made one angry sarcastic remark, in reply to dis-respect, then take personal attacks from you for the rest thread, and i have no respect?

joe_canadian wrote:

I could ask some other people on this board to do the same.

I assume that's a shot at me.

it wasn't it was at several other members of the board

joe_canadian wrote:I knew you'd do this. That you'd ignore my criticisms. You'd refuse to back up anything you've said. You'd refuse to acknowledge how offensive your behaviour is, or even entertain the thought of it. You're going to attack me and characterize me as, "one of those religious guys", continuing to maintain how adorably modern you are.

How would you like me to back up my remarks better? I never have branded you as one of those religious guys. And have you noticed how offfensive you've been?

closeyoureyes wrote:No one called you Immoral. I do not recall one instance in these religious threads where a person of Faith has handed out any judgement rendering you Immoral based on their religious beliefs. You on the other hand, judge freely interms of what is moral and what is not.

Ironic.

no but in the Homosexuality thread, several of my friends and my boss were implied to be immoral because of their religious beliefs.

The fact that i'm not a Christian, nor raised a Christian, but have more then a basic understanding of the religion (most likely a better understanding of which, then most Christians have of other Religions) is a prime example of my intrest in faith as a whole, and study of it.

i think i'll stay out of this argument, but i need to point out that you haven't shown any knowlege of the Christian religion at least in this thread. I'm not saying you haven't done any research, but it seems likely you're fooling yourself when it comes to a having a true understanding of different religious groups.

I AM ME wrote:

closeyoureyes wrote:No one called you Immoral. I do not recall one instance in these religious threads where a person of Faith has handed out any judgement rendering you Immoral based on their religious beliefs. You on the other hand, judge freely interms of what is moral and what is not.

Ironic.

no but in the Homosexuality thread, several of my friends and my boss were implied to be immoral because of their religious beliefs.

Dude.
(I believe you're talking about whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong, if not correct me)
My mother is a lesbian. I don't feel as if she was called immoral or attacked at all. Everyone is allowed to have a personal opinion about whatever they want, and EVEN IF it disagrees with yours, it doesnt make it WRONG. No one said Homosexuality was immoral, some may have said they DISAGREED, but immorality is a whole nother kettle of fish.

The fact that i'm not a Christian, nor raised a Christian, but have more then a basic understanding of the religion (most likely a better understanding of which, then most Christians have of other Religions) is a prime example of my intrest in faith as a whole, and study of it.

I'm positive I've commented on a similar statement of yours in another thread but it's worth repeating.

You view Christianity as something to be studied. You know about it's origins, it's basic doctrines and it's history through out the ages. But knowing ABOUT Christianity is completely different than LIVING it. To understand Christianity you must live it out. You must accept Jesus as savior. You must develop a relationship with God through prayer, worship and community with other Christians. You must read the Bible not as a artifact of history, but as the living and inspired word of God.

As for the Christian understanding of other religions, it can be of some use. But ultimately the main focus for a Christian is to deepen their relationship with God, not Allah, or Shiva.

that has nothing to do with what i was saying. The thing you're quoting wasn't even a point of argument, but rather a reply i made.

I would like to take this time to adress something from my other thread. Rob locked it, and i understand why and don't hold a grudge against him, and frankly i'm glad it was Rob who locked it and dealt with it appropriatly, other mods may have irritated me further. No offence intended to the Mod's but i have had run in's with deleted threads and edited posts with other mods. But anyways, i'm getting away from the point.

Both clumsychild, and Josh, and several others (indirectly), stated that i was an egotistical asshole. Clumsychild even went as far as saying she was itching to dig up some examples, that thread was designed to give them a way to back up what they were saying, and at least give me a chance to defend myself, rather then just have them talk about how big of an asshole i was, and have no way of actually defending myself.

Anyways, i just wanted to clarify why that thread was made, it being locked i couldn't do so there.


I also just want to point out the fact that of late people have been very confrontational, in one thread i was treated as a homophobe because of a clearly harmless joke. While the next day i was accused of being a anti-religion, left-wing close minded jerk because i was trying to support the idea of homosexuality existing everywhere outside Abrahamic culture. I didn't even bring religion into that thread, and consistantly tried to keep the discussion civil.

I AM ME wrote:i would say many people would disagree with you on that one.

I just don't understand what's wrong with people forming their own beliefs based on what they have experienced and what they have learned from other religions. I think it's wrong that most people will simply follow whatever faith they were taught as children. How do you know thatsome other belief wouldn't have fit your views better if you only ever learn about one, and have it forced down your throat from birth.

see i feel that way about politivs and political party affiliation. in terms of religion, eh...your on your own after like 15 anyhow.

I AM ME wrote:that has nothing to do with what i was saying. The thing you're quoting wasn't even a point of argument, but rather a reply i made.

I never said it was. I was just commenting on it because I believe it was an incorrect statement on your part.

Sean, I don't find you to be an egotistical asshole. You have good ideas, and you want them to be respected, I can respect that. The problem that I, and I think others you mentioned may have had is that you don't really respect other peoples opinions should they differ from yours.

I can relate times one billion to how you feel because it took me FOREVER to respect the oppositions opinion(Seriously, You can ask ANYONE on this board).

As for you trying to keep religion out of debates, if you are debating with a religious person, as i've said before and you've attacked before, their faith IS them. You cannot become secular from God should you accept him as your God. It just doesn't work like that. Its fine if you don't understand it, but you shouldn't attack it. Then you are as bad as what you so vehemently oppose, that of closemindedness and unacceptance based upon things out of ones control.