You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
the entity
Good film that.
My prognosis is that SIL is using the extremist religious stuff as a smoke screen for what is really going on for her. Which, in all likelihood, she has no conscious idea as to what is really going on for her because it’s all part of her denial process.
It could be that something has recently come into her knowledge that is very difficult for her to resolve. Or perhaps she’s told herself repeatedly that her responsibilities as a parent are overwhelming, a delayed post natal depression except the delay, borne from denial and ignoring the issue, has exacerbated and magnified her feelings of fear, inadequacy and possibly more importantly, her growing lack of control over the care and development of her young children.
If so, suggest she does not read the current “Creating Little Ones” thread.
Fight or flight being a natural response to any threat and she’s chosen flight with extreme mental anguish and behaviour. She needs help but unless she’s prepared to be completely honest with everyone, any help will be limited.
If science cannot solve the problem, one cannot instead just make up some random bollocks and present it as a viable and directly comparable alternative, no.
Au contraire. Feels are much more important than yer ackshull science these days.
Onewheelgood - there are quite a few issues with it.
It assumes all kinds of things about the nature of God, along the lines of a monotheistic religion. Not to mention the obvious questions about the nature of the penguin. Where did it come from? What, if anything,caused it?
It's a switcheroo from God to a penguin. It would be a good argument if you wanted to whip up a hardcore monotheist. Not so good for arguing against the god of Hegel and people like that.
Good film that.
Yes, I like that too 😀
I sprinkled some condiments around my house the other day and since then I have absolutely not been visited by any invisible entities. My anti-tiger spray is proving 100% effective too.
The logic is rather the same. Put it this way you won't want to stay in a place that smells so badly so you either clean it or move on. A bit like having a slurry pit near you. The mixture might be normal to us but for the entities it might smell like slurry pit etc, so they move on. The idea is to make it so uncomfortable for them to stay that just move on themselves.
No-one has a right to force their beliefs (or lack of them) on to any other person
Wrong!
Struggling with this bit. Why would it be acceptable to force your views onto others?
Bikebob, some people do think it’s ok though.
Why would it be acceptable to force your views onto others?
Hey - I don't make the rules.
Don’t invite the bil to the stag do...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=krgUVduKFL4
Arghh. Missed the sarcasm, damn. Now it makes sense. I thought Scotroutes was off track, turns out it’s me 😆
they have just started doing their own Sunday school and church service at their own house, as they fell out with their old pastor (which is a recurring theme). So, no one is challenging their views at all, which I find quite scary.
You do get a few people in churches like mine like this. They use belief as a crutch but don’t want to follow anything a pastor or vicar teaches. They lurch from church to church blaming each one for their ills but never willing to talk to someone about them.
It is quite worrying they have started their own church in house, things may only get worse.
Turd egg, awesome, I'll be calling my kids that all week!
If anyone absolutely refutes the existence of god fullstop then I’d really like to hear your reasoning because most of the arguments are also a fallacy ridden mess.
Does lack of evidence constitute a fallacy ridden mess? I'm guessing it does.
Yeah that's not really so much a fallacy ridden mess as bias ridden mess. It assumes for one thing that you're even capable of understanding god, let alone describe it using the tools available to you in the current English language. It also assumes that the only acceptable proof of God is empirical.
I have really hard time pulling apart religion and god from the biases that got drummed into me growing up in 20/21st Britain in a Christian tradition. So I can definitely say I don't believe in the Christian God, or the Muslim God or the Viking gods for that matter. But, in a broader sense, I genuinely don't know.
I am sure you take the time to say that to their faces being as you seem so solid in your views
got no issue with doing that if the conversation goes that way.
This is definitely not true.
it pretty much is. If an adult believed in santa clause you could describe them the same way. Belief in santa clause is no different to believing in a deity.
If anyone absolutely refutes the existence of god fullstop then I’d really like to hear your reasoning because most of the arguments are also a fallacy ridden mess.
So OK.
Let's deal with the elephant in the room first of all. It is impossible to prove a negative so if you're asking "can I / anyone disprove god full stop" then the answer is "no we can't." It's my understanding that famed poster-boy target of True Believers everywhere Richard Dawkins describes himself as agnostic for this reason.
However.
To my mind, there is no credible evidence to suggest that our concept of an Abrahamic god has any basis in fact. Evidence aside even, there's no reasoning to think that this might be true.
With a nod to Russell's teapot: I cannot prove that there aren't tiny invisible unicorns living in my skirting board. Does this mean I should give equal credence to the notion that there might be? Of course not, it's a ludicrous thing to even countenance without some reason to think that there might be. Finding droppings maybe, shed horn skins, tiny unexplained nibbles out of my cupcakes.
I do not know absolutely that I don't have a unicorn infestation, however I do know beyond reasonable doubt that I don't. If I sat here going "I've got unicorns, prove me wrong" I'd probably be sectioned. And that is surely sufficient, if new evidence came to light which suggested that I might be wrong then I would of course reevaluate my belief.
So with (a / the) god the same reasoning applies. I cannot prove it but I know beyond reasonable doubt that it's a nonsense, and I can back up the reasons why people have believed otherwise throughout history a thousand-fold (which would make for a much longer post and I've got a hot date with the Xbox waiting for me).
Can I prove god doesn't exist? No. But the odds are sufficiently in my favour that I don't need to, so I'm quite happy to self-identify as atheist and assert that organised religion is bunkum unless someone can give me any cause at all to think otherwise. If someone is going to make outlandish claims and want to be taken seriously then the burden of proof lies with those making the claims, it's not the job of everyone else to prove them wrong.
It assumes for one thing that you’re even capable of understanding god
This is the circular reasoning argument again.
"We don't understand the universe."
"God did it."
"We don't understand god."
"Ah, well, you see, that's complicated and currently beyond our understanding."
Now cross out the middle two of those four statements and see if it changes any.
I’m quite happy to self-identify as atheist and assert that organised religion is bunkum unless someone can give me any cause at all to think otherwise. If someone is going to make outlandish claims and want to be taken seriously then the burden of proof lies with those making the claims, it’s not the job of everyone else to prove them wrong.
Religion is a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act. Have you any idea how much disrespect you are showing by stating this position and not buying into the concept put forward by those who believe in one or more gods? It's not about scientific proof. It's about belief.
That is very well put @Cougar. Couldn’t have said it even close to as well.
Religion is a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act. Have you any idea how much disrespect you are showing by stating this position and not buying into the concept put forward by those who believe in one or more gods? It’s not about scientific proof. It’s about belief.
As far as I'm aware I'm not interviewing anyone for a job here, or as a moderator routinely life-banning Christians or something. (If I banned everyone whose opinions I disagreed with STW would be a much quieter place and not for the better.)
People can believe what they want so long as they aren't hurting anyone else and don't expect preferential treatment because of it. Have you any idea how much disrespect you are showing by challenging my beliefs?
(Wait, is this Poe's Law in action? I've not been paying attention.)
Agree with that Cougar, because you've taken the effort to define it as the Abrahamic God. It still isn't categorical because there are many other rational or empirical proofs of god that have nothing to do the Abrahamic Religions.
I think your also misrepresenting why Dawkins is open to the possibility of the existence of God. It isn't purely an issue of probabilities but the existence of other concepts and proofs of god.
Arghh. Missed the sarcasm, damn. Now it makes sense. I thought Scotroutes was off track, turns out it’s me 😆
It's not just you, I missed it too.
I really struggle with the internet sometimes.
Tomd
One of these proofs please?
there are many other rational or empirical proofs of god
Really? Awesome. Such as?
I think your also misrepresenting why Dawkins is open to the possibility of the existence of God.
I am - I rather suspect that the real reason is so that he doesn't leave himself open to attack.
In any case, I'm open to the possibility too, however unlikely I think that may be. It's just that in nearly 50 years on this planet I've yet had any cause to think otherwise. I would sincerely love it for someone to prove me wrong.
Also, could someone get to work on my unicorns? Cos that would be ****ing awesome.
Sorry, I'm just after some clarity here. It seems that it's OK to post on this forum dismissing folk religious beliefs. Denying the fact of them. Mocking them. Calling them feeble of mind. To what other areas of belief does this standard apply?
Now, see, this is interesting,
the existence of other concepts
This I can get behind. I can totally believe that the concept of 'god' as something other than "holy spirit and creator of the universe" might well be a thing. Like, people pray, right? And then from their religious starting point god answers them and things get better. But, what if praying is like the spiritual equivalent of pulling your socks up?
Say things are shit at work, you do your hail Marys and genuflecting or whatever and then in your belief that your god has empowered you you go and work harder, get better results, things are less shit. Hurrah, proof positive that god exists, when in reality you've just used your faith to sort your life out, kinda like a goddy placebo effect. God as a metaphor for some sort of inner reserve makes total sense here.
Sorry, I’m just after some clarity here. It seems that it’s OK to post on this forum dismissing folk religious beliefs. Denying the fact of them. Mocking them. Calling them feeble of mind. To what other areas of belief does this standard apply?
I've deleted one of the two total reported posts we've had on this thread and its follow-up replies. It's a difficult line between 'negative use' and outright censorship.
Part of the problem here is that if the forum posters choose to engage, it can be counterproductive to just delete a post rather than let the userbase give them an appropriate kicking and the cleanup quickly gets messy. Always always always please use the Report Post link for things you believe are inappropriate and it will be reviewed, engaging in a public argument is almost like implicit acceptance.
It is quite worrying they have started their own church in house, things may only get worse.
If they are unsure of what they are doing then they will be trapped. i.e. Separating the sheeps from the flock is the first step, then the family will start to argue and to quarrel amongst themselves; and finally ripe for picking whatever it is ...
If an adult believed in santa clause you could describe them the same way. Belief in santa clause is no different to believing in a deity.
I believe in higher/lower beings such as deity or the opposite or another term beings from other dimension. Superstitions? However, I also believe in science for practical reasons. The view that everything has to be empirical is interesting. What about inventions or discoveries that is stumbled upon with no empirical evidence?
Like, people pray, right? And then from their religious starting point god answers them and things get better. But, what if praying is like the spiritual equivalent of pulling your socks up?
Are people actually praying or are they merely reciting certain rules set long time ago but without knowing the actual meaning behind them? Therefore, when they pray they also focus their mind on the "rules" and relate the "rules" to the entity(s) that is trying to cause harm.
Tomd
One of these proofs pleasr
Why do you need proof of God TJ? If someone says He exists, why don't you believe them?
So we're clear however, and this is my opinion rather than anything like official STW policy (because such a thing doesn't exist),
Religion is a protected status when it comes to things like prejudice. I could not, for example, ask about religious beliefs in a job interview. This does not mean that it gets some sort of special immunity from discussion or debate. The post I removed was because it was a direct attack against forum users which is against the forum T&Cs. Whether you're a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist, or something else your opinions are equally valid.
"Belief" does not have special status here either positively or negatively, if I had a friend who thought he was a toaster would I stick a slice of bread up his arse at breakfast time or would I give him a mirror and and Argos catalogue and leave him to work it out for himself?
If criticism of a religion is invalid then criticism of a lack of religion is equally invalid. You cannot champion someone's beliefs whilst simultaneously wanting to censor someone else's. Can open, worms all over the shop. And I really really despise censorship as a general concept.
What about inventions or discoveries that is stumbled upon with no empirical evidence?
They then went on to be tested. That's how science works. What examples are you thinking of?
Sorry Cougar, I know that modding STW is a team effort and that we can't expect complete consistency. It's just that I have first hand, recent experience which suggests that some beliefs are NOT allowed to be questioned on here.
I'll leave it at that, otherwise the whole thread ends up about me and not the OPs issue.
Scotroutes
He said he had proof. I have never seen any proof. It might be interesting to see this proof
They then went on to be tested. That’s how science works. What examples are you thinking of?
I am talking about the pre-testing.
I am sure some of the older Chinese historical inventions did not go through the necessary empirical testing but more like try and error (is this test?). i.e. gun powder. I may be wrong.
So does that mean empirical testing needs to have a starting point (concept etc) and most importantly there must be some sort of interest in testing them, otherwise why waste time testing something not important? In this case, if there is no concept then there is no empirical test then?
It’s just that I have first hand, recent experience which suggests that some beliefs are NOT allowed to be questioned on here.
Feel free to PM me (or email moderator@) then cos I've no idea what you're talking about. And honestly I thought you were arguing the opposite here. (TBH I wasn't entirely convinced that you weren't just on a wind-up exercise.)
I cannot offhand think of any "belief not allowed to be questioned" unless either a mistake has been made (which happens more than we'd like but we're only human) or that belief is tied into something blatantly abhorrent. Like, if you believe that gay people shouldn't all be put in a big sack and drowned, that's pretty unquestionable and arguments to the contrary would hopefully be moderated accordingly.
It is quite possible to discover something by accident - take penicillin for example.
Science has many layers to it just think about breathing. most people will know oxygen goes in and carbon dioxide comes out but most people won't know about the ins and outs of the krebs citric acid cycle and the electron transport chain.
You can make a discovery while being ignorant of the science.
I am talking about the pre-testing.
Oh, sure. Science is littered with happy coincidences and guesswork. But it's the start of the process, not the end of it.
Gunpowder AFAIK was one of those accidents, you're right. They were fannying about trying to create the elixir of life or some shizzle when they suddenly realised it'd got a bit explody.
... it's probably a pertinent time for this again.
Gunpowder AFAIK was one of those accidents, you’re right. They were fannying about trying to create the elixir of life or some shizzle when they suddenly realised it’d got a bit explody.
I always wonder who those "brave" souls were doing those "testing". 🤔 "Hey you low ranking soldier go light the fuse and observe if something will happens ... " 😬
… it’s probably a pertinent time for this again.
Is he supposed to be funny? I have never found him funny at all. Ricky Gervais in his Golden Globe award hosting is funny.
That is very well put @Cougar. Couldn’t have said it even close to as well.
I’m not sure it is really. It’s just a lot of words not really going anywhere. It started well , at some point, I forget where, with the Abrahamic God and denying the existence of that. The rest of it... I confess to getting bored. Define God and not the creator of the frikking Universe because that’s a bit too two dimensional.
Not even three dimensions will really adequately be able to define whatever “God” is. Personally, I feel that @Tomd got pretty close way back up there ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️
Edit: Anyway, it doesn’t really matter because leaving aside the bollox and dogma of the religious doctrines, which let’s face it, are pretty easy to usurp and deny, actual “God”, we’ll that’s a personal thing, open to personal definition and acceptance or denial, whatever floats your jolly old boat. And for those who then, after having a new set of guidelines to perhaps follow, a good suggestion would be to search within, rather than without, if you really want to look.
Or not.
I know God does not exist. It's fact.
You can't say I'm wrong as that is my belief and you should therefore just believe me. That's how it works isn't it?
I self-id as one of Cougars unicorns.
That is very well put @Cougar.
With the best will in the world towards Cougar whom I like and respect - it was a little vague.
Firstly, he seems to automatically assume that the debate about God is the 'Abrahamic' i.e. Jehovah. This opens up two lines of reasoning - does the God from those traditions exist? Or is there some other kind of external agency acting on either us or the universe?
But these two things are not in fact incompatible. The scriptures we have were written by humans, so they are human feelings and thoughts. If there is an external agency then it could easily have been viewed as Jehovah by these people. Or, they could have imagined it all. Or, imagining it and being influenced by it could be the same.
But really - it's called 'faith' for a reason.
Faith is belief without proof. this is irrational by definition.
There is no evidence for gods of any sort ever anywhere.
there does seem to be something in some people psyche that needs this belief in the supernatural.
the thing I find worst about religions is their desire to make me conform to their superstitions. Its a huge effect on the world and often a very malign one. Many folk do not realise just how pervasive that is and I find it extremely offensive to be told what I can and cannot do because of someone irrational superstitions. Catholic church and condoms in Africa for one very malign example. that has cost huge numbers of lives. Blood on their hands
I do not tell them how to live their lives. the arrogance that they can tell me how to live mine is totally abhorrent.
Back to the original OP.....
I would go out of my way to make sure the child is involved as much as possible, and really feels like part of the family. To hell (lol) with the flower/heart "wand". This is a great opportunity to interact "normally" with the child, which will be what she needs for a while to come yet.
I would certainly be keeping a wary distance from the parents - nothing you can say/do will help them to take a step back, but they will probably be looking for ways in which you have offended them. Better to remain at a safe distance and maintain some semblance of a relationship, than try to engage with them and be cut off completely.
It’s just a lot of words not really going anywhere. It started well
Ah, irony.
Firstly, he seems to automatically assume that the debate about God is the ‘Abrahamic’ i.e. Jehovah.
I'm not assuming anything, rather I was replying to a very specific question. If you want a different answer then ask a different question.
We can debate the relative merits of Horus and Thor if you like, though I doubt my reasoning would change much.
But really – it’s called ‘faith’ for a reason.
No arguments there.
Back to the original OP…..
Ah yes, that's probably a very good idea. Sorry if I derailed things. As I said, I was replying to a question.
the thing I find worst about religions is their desire to make me conform to their superstitions.
That's far from universal behaviour of the religious. Your problem isn't with religion, it's with people who try to force their views on you. This is annoying regardless of wether the views are religious.
Can't argue with that either.
Though, organised religion rather empowers those sorts of people, n'est-ce pas? Like, can you think of many non-religious / cultish situations where that would happen? (And I put brexit in the latter category.)
Though, organised religion rather empowers those sorts of people, n’est-ce pas?
Does it?
Are you talking specifically about Jehovah's Witnesses?
You know - there are probably loads of people you know who are religious but they never mention it so you never find out.
Op,
I am really interested in finding out their reasons for the flower/heart “wand”.
I am serious by the way.
Does it?
Does it not?
Are you talking specifically about Jehovah’s Witnesses?
I'm far from talking specifically at all, rather the opposite. Variations on "do what we say and you'll get an eternal reward, disobey and you'll be condemned to torment" have historically been staples of many organised religions since Zeus was in short pants.
If I had my Dick Mode hat on I'd be asking you what you had against JWs to make that assumption... (-:
No molgrips - its pretty much a part and a large part of many religions. Catholics with blood on their hands over condoms and aids. Religious right attempting to row back on abortion and birth control, people using their "religion" in allsorts of ways to attempt to control others.
I cannot think of any secular group who do this - and its pervasive with the organised religions. Its so pervasive it becomes normalised. the only one I know of that forbids this is Sikhism. Maybe Buddism as well?
anyway - enough derailing and this discussion never goes anywhere good
anyway – enough derailing and this discussion never goes anywhere good
Yep. 4 pages and it's back to the same old. In fact it was fairly close to being there by page 2
Op - Are the kids attending a normal school or home schooled? Sounds like they need some balance in their lives and hopefully they can get this at school. Their situation at home doesn’t sound healthy at all.
Funkmasterp, they are attending a local school, however they are taken out of any lesson that goes against their beliefs. She is down as a 'hard parent' by the school due to this. Apparently the older boy bit a class mate after said class mate apparently took the Lords name in vein. He is 7.
If their beliefs are so strong, then why can't they engage with other topics? I find it wrong to be completely dismissive of anything that doesn't conform to their held beliefs.
I cannot think of any secular group who do this – and its pervasive with the organised religions. Its so pervasive it becomes normalised. the only one I know of that forbids this is Sikhism. Maybe Buddism as well?
Current obvious elephant in the room is the Chinese Communist Party. I believe Marx and Lenin were quite clear on religion but it hasn't stopped all kinds of murderous controlling backwards crap.
I'm slightly confused by the magic thing, presumably 'miracles' are okay though?
I cannot think of any secular group who do this – and its pervasive with the organised religions. Its so pervasive it becomes normalised. the only one I know of that forbids this is Sikhism. Maybe Buddism as well?
Current obvious elephant in the room is the Chinese Communist Party. I believe Marx and Lenin were quite clear on religion but it hasn’t stopped all kinds of murderous controlling backwards crap.
It seems to me that it is more related to extreme viewpoints or beliefs, religious or otherwise. Any system be it religious, political or even movie fandom has extremes that aren’t healthy or just outright dangerous.
Member
Tomd
One of these proofs please
Kant's moral argument for the assumption of the existence of God.
Another interesting one is Kierkegaard who is paradoxically a Christian that believes in God but makes a fantastic reasoned argument about why trying to prove Gods existence is a waste of time.
I think what you're really asking for is a scientific proof of god, and there isn't one but that assumes that's the only proof and indeed that a proof is necessary or possible.
Sadly it isn't black/white. There are some brilliant modern atheist philosophers who I'm more inclined towards than the alternatives.
Funkmasterp, they are attending a local school, however they are taken out of any lesson that goes against their beliefs. She is down as a ‘hard parent’ by the school due to this. Apparently the older boy bit a class mate after said class mate apparently took the Lords name in vein. He is 7.
If their beliefs are so strong, then why can’t they engage with other topics? I find it wrong to be completely dismissive of anything that doesn’t conform to their held beliefs.
At least they are getting some influence outside of their home. What’s happening to the kids is the real tragedy here.
they are taken out of any lesson that goes against their beliefs.
sounds like the social services should get involved. Kids have a constitutional right to an education and parents can't decide what they are and are not taught. The parent also has a legal responsibility to ensure the child attends. The only thing you can opt out of IIRC is anything religious.
tomd - non of those are proofs and yes - a scientific proof is the only sort of proof. What other sort of proof is there
Funkmaster - Nope - its not just extreme views unless you consider the catholic church extreme or the COE
However - thread drift into areas that never ends well.
@cougar
Herbalife, Juiceplus...
I see a lot of similarities between religious zealots and MLM believers.
@the op...You could of course tell them that theyve barely scratched the surface...
The universe is a big place and certain souls choose to incarnate on this planet as a kind of 'fast-track' to developing their mental/ physical skills for use in future lives.
The real pros are the disabled/ mentally ill who have not only incarnated into this planets 'psychic-forge', but in doing so, help to keep our intersubjective reality 'stitched' together.
Maybe your over-zealous pals are trying to compensate for incarnating into humdrum and unchallenging lives, and displace their frustration onto their children. Or maybe their kids are more spiritually advanced and this foments jealousy in the parents.
They're but spectators in a magical universe and should quit whining and just get on with putting food on the table, etc.
Yet, theyll deify nailing some guy, nailed to a cross. That process would only stand him/ her in good stead in some future live. (Toleration of pain, empathy, mental acuity, psychic powers?)
Likewise, there's plenty plenty crackpots who torture children as being witches. All that's doing is boosting their abilities in their next live..."such a magnificent centre-forward, it's almost uncanny, etc"
How will the OP's pals react to that!
Kant’s moral argument for the assumption of the existence of God.
As an atheist, I genuinely find Kant’s moral theory patronising and insulting.
I cannot think of any secular group who do this
The world is full of secular groups who either try and control how we live, or try to persuade us certain lifestyles are superior. And much of their advice is probably quite sound, as is much religious advice.
Political parties of all shades are the obvious ones, then environmental groups, health organisations, pressure groups......even mountain bike fora on occasions!!
Can't say I have ever had a religious group that's tried to control me, force me to do something or offend me in any way that I can think of. Plenty I have disagreed with, but the same goes for all walks of life.
I've more contempt for the people who cancelled Futurama than any religion.
I kind of admire your absolute certainty on things like this TJ. It's funny though that often people who state that the the scientific method is superior to everything don't actually follow that method for almost all the decisions they make.
The world is full of secular groups who either try and control how we live, or try to persuade us certain lifestyles are superior.
Correct.
TJ's argument is flawed because he is conflating the attempts to control people's lives and religion. There are many religious groups who don't want to control people's lives, and many secular groups who do. In fact, any campaigning group is attempting to 'control' your life to the same extent, including humanitarian or environmental pressure groups. They are trying to tell us what to do, because they think they are onto something important. I happen to agree with some of them, of course. Then there are groups like US (or indeed any country's) conservatives, who want us all to feel the way they do. The fact that most of them they are religious cannot be identified as a causal link. And of course there are the conspiracy theorists.
You are demonstrating confirmation bias - ignoring the things that don't fit your hypothesis.
a scientific proof is the only sort of proof. What other sort of proof is there
How about a belief purely based upon what a person feels? Are you saying that should be dismissed as bunkum?
OK
I do not want to really continue this discussion but a lot of the religious interference in secular life becomes normalised and hidden as a result
The main ones are the Catholic church and condoms to prevent aids and the COE ( and other religious groups) with its attacks on anyone who promotes dignity in dying along with the open homophobia from religious groups
These things have caused immense suffering and huge numbers of deaths. Its something I deal with every working day and it is abhorrent
~The link on all these is obvious and well proven in the harm it does - and yes it is religious groups often dressed up as other things.
Want to continue the discussion? PMs please
Agree with you TJ.
Funkmaster – Nope – its not just extreme views unless you consider the catholic church extreme or the COE
I actually would consider the Catholic Church to be on the brink of extreme. Then again there will be moderate catholics who ignore the extreme element. Just like you have people who will go watch Star Wars and enjoy a good old brain dead action film and people who will threaten the director because it doesn’t meet their personal vision.
Probably not the best analogy.
Teej is correct.
Molgrips, KennyP, There’s a massive difference between the secular groups and organisations that you mention (even the ones I/we don’t agree with) and religious groups. The religious groups justify their attempts to influence on elaborate make believe, and call it faith. Even the NRA (as a not (specifically at least) religious group whom I find the aims of abhorrent) use reasoning and dodgy statistics to get their own way. Religion is far more opaque and sinister. The fact that most are fairly benign does not excuse the fact that they are basing their position on fallacies.
These things have caused immense suffering and huge numbers of deaths.
I suspect far fewer deaths than "secular" organisations such as tobacco companies, breweries, fast food manufacturers, gun lobbies etc etc.
The religious groups justify their attempts to influence on elaborate make believe, and call it faith.
Whereas the groups I mentioned above often just downright lie.
Whereas the groups I mentioned above often just downright lie.
Ah, but they do it for profit, not prophet.
I don’t like either motive particularly, but the profit motive is at least transparent.
Can’t say I have ever had a religious group that’s tried to control me, force me to do something or offend me in any way that I can think of.
Probably because you are lucky enough to have been born in 21st C Western Europe, where religion’s influence is very much in decline.
Even my grandparents’ generation would have thought very differently to you and there are still vast swathes of the world, well documented places, where religious groups will tell you how to behave if you visit.