Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Atheists are Searching for Self Definition. Even if it is More About Who They Are Against. That's why the Religion Forum attracts them. Also, they have more mixed feelings about religion and Christianity than they admit to. Hello Conflicted Atheists.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 760 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 6:55:52 PM PST
Kenyon: And one of our values, is that we expect some serious thinking from each other.

DKM: Can't tell that from the quality of your posts.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 7:04:12 PM PST
Thinking is fine. When you get to a spot, though, that says "well, this is what our religious text says", then thinking gets turned off, as everything else has to revolve around THAT. There is no need for circumcision, and I have grave issues with any religion placing their mark on someone before they even have a chance to make a choice for themselves. And that's worse than not thinking; that's a general disrespect and disregard for the individual, all for the benefit of those who think that mutilation is a great way to bring a new baby into the world, just because some thousands-of-years-old superstitious tradition says that it should be done.

Posted on Dec 31, 2012 7:35:19 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 8:21:37 PM PST
"Michael gets a bit creative about what he deems to be infringing on the rights of others."

Do I? News to me...

"He feels that Jewish people should not be the ones who decide what the rights of Jewish children are, and the it is non-Jewish people who should decide what constitutes infringing on the rights of Jewish children. "

Actually, what *he* feels is that you shouldn't cut healthy tissue out of healthy babies without a very, very good reason for doing so... and "it's tradition", "We've always done it", and "I want him to look like his father" (I've actually heard that given as a reason) don't qualify as being sufficient justification.

Note that neither the words "religion" nor "Judaism" appear in the above paragraph.

"Quite frankly, I don't believe that he really cares about circumcision."

We'll just add this one to the very long (and growing longer by the post) list of things you claim which are (a) not supported by evidence, or (b) contradicted by evidence.

"He takes a hard line against it,..."

Because I'm against cutting healthy tissue out of healthy babies.

What part of that is unclear to you?

"There is a certain type of personality that will look for more pretexts, no matter how many concessions are made, until they have forced religious Jews to assimilate into secular culture."

I'm asking that people not cut up healthy babies without a legitimate medical justification for doing so.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 8:23:21 PM PST
I'm not an enemy of the jewish people; wow, do you have a persecution complex. Obedience to a "positive" commandment? What makes it so positive? The idea that God put something there that shouldn't be there? Earlobes aren't necessary either, why do they get a pass? I just think it's mutilation, and can't find any justification for those who insist on it.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 8:24:28 PM PST
"It is also a tradition"

Exactly my point about thinking. There is none once you go there.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 8:26:46 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 8:29:05 PM PST
"That you say things like this, while trolling religious discussions, is exactly why you are not regarded as a sincere discussant, or honest poster."

You are one of the few people who seem to have this view of me... which I believe is a statement about you rather than a statement about me.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2012 8:39:04 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 7:08:10 AM PST
Irish Lace says:
I asked Jen what an "atheist mob" would look like. Her reply was "Cambodia."

I agree - breathtakingly brilliant on a number of levels.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 7:25:09 AM PST
Irish Lace says:
"And one of our values, is that we expect some serious thinking from each other. "

Up to the point where someone _thinks_ there might be something in that Talmud the brain surgeon and the neurologist are teaching that is not, in fact, correct.

"We 'think'. "

What you describe isn't what I would call thinking as much as I would call it mutual reinforcement free of any sort of challenge.

"I'm pretty certain that you don't 'think' any more that the average resident of your typical trailer park. "

Tell us again, Kenyon, which of us is the bigot?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 7:25:09 AM PST
Ariex says:
Kenyon says: "We are religious, and we have a disciplined way of life, and maintaining the cohesiveness of the community is very important to us, so we teach our values to each other very actively, and we have a disciplined approach to 'getting on the same page' with each other. And one of our values, is that we expect some serious thinking from each other."

Ariex: Well, let's see if that is a virtue or a flaw. As long as one doesn't think too much about what you said, it sounds very admirable, but upon reflection, it seems guaranteed to force the thinking of the individual into the "box" your community as a whole subscribes to, the "peer pressure" dilemma.

Kenyon says: "Most of the members of my community have doctorates. I have the privelege of studying Talmud every week with a man who is not only a Torah Scholar, but he is also a brain surgeon."

Ariex: I agree that well educated people are good thinkers, but when their thinking is culturally restricted, they can be very intelligent when it comes to things like brain surgery, but when it comes to Talmud, it is more a matter of memorizing what has already been defined as "correct" by tradition and community, so no real thinking is done.

Kenyon says: " And I also regularly attend a class that is taught by a Hasidic Rabbi, who is a neurologist. He is also a brilliant philosopher (all Hasidic masters are), and a musical genius."

Ariex: Again, one can excel in things that are open to exploration, but when it comes to things that one's culture has already established as "given", only memorization of "Truth" takes place due to peer and community pressure.

I have met some brilliant LDS (Mormons) who appear to be great thinkers, but when it comes to examining their own beliefs, they just don't apply thinking, they repeat what they have memorized, what their indoctrination has installed into their heads. I would be willing to bet that many great "Talmud scholars" do exactly the same thing, trying to fit the world into their traditionally defined boundaries instead of using the reality of the world to establish those boundaries.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 7:31:08 AM PST
Ariex says:
David K. Myers says: (RE: Kenyon: And one of our values, is that we expect some serious thinking from each other.)

David K. Myers says: "Can't tell that from the quality of your posts."

Ariex: Neither can I. Mostly what I get is pride and arrogance, the attitude, "We are G-d's chosen people" ("Because our ancestors said that G-d said so"). The claim of "serious thinking" combined with a guaranteed formula for absorbing indoctrination just doesn't sound like a good idea.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 7:38:52 AM PST
Ariex says:
Kenyon says: "It is also a tradition that has withstood thousands of years of assault,"

Ariex: In many cultures it is a long standing tradition to treat women as property or second class beings. My point is that traditions are often BAD THINGS, no matter how long they have withstood attempts to change them. What do you think about the Muslim "tradition" of "circumcising" girls? Does its traditional status change it from painful mutilation into "sacred rite"?
Traditions are often established by those in power for the purpose of benefiting those in power in some way, and circumcision is no different. Keeping the followers focused on following benefits leaders. Guilt and fear are always useful tools for exploiting followers, even if it only involves the benefits of special social status for leaders. After all, lust for power is one of the most common selfish motives. Obey the Lord by cutting your babies, as a reminder that you are subservient to G-d, through your wise and holy leaders, of course.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 7:52:54 AM PST
Ariex says:
Kenyon says: "He feels that Jewish people should not be the ones who decide what the rights of Jewish children are, and the it is non-Jewish people who should decide what constitutes infringing on the rights of Jewish children."

Ariex: I'll bet the Jehovah's Witnesses and members of some other denominations feel the same way when outsiders object about their choices to pray for cures to their children's life-threatening illnesses instead of giving standard medical care. I'll bet some Muslims object when outsiders decide that mutilating the genitalia of female babies so they will never be able to enjoy sex is an infringement on the rights of those babies. In fact, some Muslims object when outsiders decide that Muslim females HAVE rights. If you carry your argument to other possible scenarios, you might be faced with: The worshippers of Marduk think that outsiders should not interfere with their sacrifice of children as burnt offerings to their God because it doesn't really infringe on the rights of their children.

So when you put your argument in perspective, it becomes clear that ALL HUMANS should have the same rights, and one particular religion, no matter what their beliefs, does not have the AUTHORITY to pronounce its members exempt from those rights.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 8:02:01 AM PST
Sir Pugsly says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 8:05:26 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 1, 2013 8:06:30 AM PST
Your post is incoherent.

I oppose the burning of wives. The justification given for that action is irrelevant.

I am not categorically anti-religion. I am pro-reason. I am pro-justice.

As for Kenyon, she continues to make false statements concerning what I believe, and the truth of the content of my posts. I suspect it is easier for her to deal with "pretend Michael" than the genuine article, hence the plethora of straw men.

I am not "punching" Kenyon... I'm just pointing out that some of what she says just isn't true, or doesn't follow logically from the evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 8:38:11 AM PST
Your "logic" leaves a lot to be desired. Nonetheless, since you're obviously unable to support your claims I'll leave you to them.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 8:41:00 AM PST
Another idiotic faux-explanation from you. Laughable.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 8:42:42 AM PST
You know, without false dilemma fallacies you wouldn't be able to post anything at all.

"The rational argument." Hilarious.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 8:51:52 AM PST
Sir Pugsly says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 8:53:08 AM PST
"... and cornering atheists with facts... "

Somehow, I doubt that your description accurately captures what really happened.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 9:11:55 AM PST
The next set of facts you present will be the first. Making claims, even fervent ones, doesn't amount to supporting your point. As far as entrenched position are concerned, well, I suggest you take a good long look in the mirror before you start accusing others of such behavior.

I come to sites like this to discuss and argue about what others say. If you post something I disagree with, I'll say so. Your tactic - taking the high road and declining to actually discuss your claims - is not an uncommon one, and generally signals a lack of logic behind the claims. It's pretty much what I expected.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 9:19:23 AM PST
Irish Lace says:
"You are one of the few people who seem to have this view of me... which I believe is a statement about you rather than a statement about me. "

I absolutely agree. In addition, on the two threads where I have been following Kenyon for several days now, I have yet to see one comment that I can honestly say contributes anything of any interest or particular insight or value. He seems to just be harboring masses of free-floating anger and hatred of atheists and it seems to be centered mostly around self-centered, focused paranoia and his conviction that we have no right to join discussions on the Religion forum.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 9:20:14 AM PST
My parents were religious, and when I was young, I gave religion a chance. After years of soul-searching, I found that it was no more than unsubstantiated stories. Some of the stories are nice, some of them make a valid point, a lot of them don't. It's very easy to hear voices when you have primed yourself up to expect them, but they aren't real. Your mind will provide "evidence" if you want to believe it badly enough, but belief is not reality.

I was religious. I came out of the entrenched religious mentality, and found the whole world instead. The world is an astoundingly beautiful and strange place, once you take the blinders of religion off. And it's a whole lot more sane and rational. An insecure mind wants an easy explanation, that someone's in control. A secure mind doesn't need superstitious stories thousands of years old to explain it all. No one knows what this is all about. Not me, and not you. Although you think you do. YOU are the one who is entrenched.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  60
Total posts:  760
Initial post:  Dec 29, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 2, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions