There is a chance I am being too sensitive, but I’m not sure how. Can anyone explain to me another way to have interpreted Aasif’s last statement? I felt he had been making rather clear cut and rational observations about the situation up until that point.

And I could invoke any number of religiously charged terms to demonstrate the way I feel he is being treated.

I appreciate this as a constructive and valid discussion about religion, I just can’t believe people are still talking about Tiger Woods.

Here I am, talking about Tiger Woods.

……?!

I’ll never forget the history teacher who told me that when two polar opposites get extreme enough they rarely get further away from each other. Their extremism seems to bring them full circle, to the point where have more in common than those sitting between them in the “middle”.

Pretty simple analogy, but it was an eye opener when I was thirteen.

A “douche-bag” is a “douche-bag” regardless.

It depends on which religions you are talking about. Paganism, for example, certainly doesn’t believe this – in fact, it barely even has unifying theological principles.

It’s pretty fatiguing when others insist on their misunderstanding that a religious belief is some kind of objective or otherwise factual claim. (Maybe it’s the same mindset that continually counter-poises religion and science, believing that religion only offers an alternative to scientific knowledge.) A religious belief is inextricably bound to the practice of faith, and faith is inextricably bound to the experience of doubt, and the triad of belief, faith, and doubt make apparent that perceived religious truth does not exist or function on the same wavelength as other ideas that are agreed to be factual.

So, thank you for your post. You’ve got a fellow here.

Isn’t the basis of all these religions that they are RIGHT, and therefore everyone should accept and trust their rules and processes to avoid the wrath of GOD? What does that have to do with what sort of forgiveness it “offers”.

I have to wonder about the Christians who advocate joining their religion for it’s “features”.

I can see two distinct branches of religion in general; one is the spiritual element, and the other is the political. The political branch is a function of a religion being “organized” and is the root of a great many conflicts and assorted problems. The spiritual element is deeply personal, and can be attained independently of organized religion (and is probably easier to attain without political distractions, frankly). Either way, if everyone would just stop preaching and live according to the moral and ethical standards they claim to uphold (lead by example, like Jesus!) then the world would be a lot less annoying IMO. Less violent, too.

Quoting George from above: But if you don’t believe that objective spiritual truth exists then you must believe that all religions that do believe so are objectively wrong.

If objectivity does not exist (which it doesn’t) then objective spiritual truth cannot exist either. However, that also means no religion can be “objectively” wrong. Things like “facts” are just reliably reproducible results from a given set of conditions and so are probabilistic as opposed to objective.

Shouldn’t those people should convert to your system of belief, at which point they will no longer be wrong and will therefore be happier?

How is a lack of a certain type of belief qualify a “system of belief?” Since objectivity is an abstract construct, adopting or shedding a belief is irrelevant except in the context of large groups of individuals who organize and politicize their spiritual beliefs so as to impose them on others. Creationism stickers in biology textbooks, anyone? And “happiness” doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with belief or facts and can even be based on what more reasonable people would consider atrocities (like genocide; phrases like “The only good X [insert name of hated group here] is a dead X” come to mind). The more some people kill or destroy, the happier they get so happiness is probably not the best metric for big-picture analysis.

On the other hand, I guess I could say that other people ‘converting’ to a lack of belief can certainly help ME be happier if it means they’ll stop legislating their superstitious morality and let me find God on my own.

Shouldn’t those people should convert to your system of belief, at which point they will no longer be wrong and will therefore be happier?