Christian nutters try to forcefully convert Haiti chidren

[NBVegita]

I define religion as something that infects every thought in a persons brain.

 

Your definition of religion is that of an extremist. There are very few people of any religion that accurately fit into that category.

 

Someone who thinks long and hard about the God question before unenthusiastically answering "yea.... I believe in God", whilst not going to Church or disbelieving the majority of science, is not religious.

 

You've just described 95% of the worlds population. Also note to go along with your science idea, some of the best scientists in history were stoutly religious.

 

Nothing you get taught in school really affects your opinions on politics, philosophy, and life in general. It has very little effect on the sort of person you turn out to be. If you learn mathematics, history, geography, french, and so on, then what have you done other than absorb facts and get better at problem solving?

 

So I suppose atheist are non people? They've had no religion to define the sort of person they are, so they are no one? I am about as nonreligious of a man as there is and I would say that education is what has defined my opinions. Everything (in a broad sense) you learn helps you define opinions on politics, philosophy and life in general. I've never once made a political, philosophical or any other decision in my life, but as you see I hold many opinions about everything you've stated. Even the majority of pro-lifers don't simply say "oh God doesn't want you aborting babies", it's based on the fact that they believe that once a sperm has fertilized an egg you have a living person.

 

Where would Islam be in the Middle East if children weren't "given" their religion. You think 100% of Middle Eastern children just choose Islam?

 

The problem with Islam is that in the Middle East your religion is greatly tied into your law. Simply put you follow most of the constructs of your religion because it is against the law not to do so. Just a simple example, I believe it something like 95% of Americans admit to having pre-marital relations. That is against the Christian faith. Now if you made it illegal to do so and the women would be severely injured, jailed and or killed, I guarantee that number drops like a rock. The fact that our law is not tied to our religion is why our religions are practiced so casually.

[SeVeR]

You've just described 95% of the worlds population.

So are these Christian Missionaries in the other 5%? Yes? Thanks for making my point. Edited February 8, 2010 by SeVeR

[Dr Brain]

I doubt it. I've known a few missionaries, and none of them have fallen into your extremist definition.

[SeVeR]

lol.

[NBVegita]

No,

 

I would say your 5% includes sects like Opus Dei, "suicide bombers" and the like.

 

Not to say that someone in a missionary cannot fall into that 5%, but I don't believe the majority do.

[SeVeR]

Someone who thinks long and hard about the God question before unenthusiastically answering "yea.... I believe in God", whilst not going to Church or disbelieving the majority of science, is not religious.

You've just described 95% of the worlds population.

Not to say that someone in a missionary cannot fall into that 5%, but I don't believe the majority do.

If in all seriousness you can say that a Christian Missionary is more likely to be someone who "unenthusiastically answers "yea.... I believe in God", whilst not going to Church or disbelieving the majority of science", then this discussion is over.

 

You have gone beyond the ridiculous, and this has become a disagree at all costs kind of discussion, no matter how stupid you sound.

 

I'm out.

Edited February 8, 2010 by SeVeR

[Synister]

It's things like this that remind me why I chose to be Atheist.

[Simulacrum]

In school you are not taught to believe in things that are as divisive and unproven as believing in God. Nothing even comes close. ... Are you talking about democracy? - something agreed upon by almost everyone in our Western World.

Now wait a minute — you said this is about method, not outcome. What does it matter if something is divisive or widely-agreed-upon?

 

You can't seem to tell the difference between being taught to believe something, and being taught about why other people believe something.

Where has this ever come up in my posts?

[NBVegita]

A disagree at all costs?

 

You're turning your individual hatred toward the Christian faith and manifesting it in any way you can.

 

Honestly I don't think any one can argue that the vast majority of people fall out of the "fanatical" religious mentality and inversely only a small amount of people account for that. Simply put you're arguing as if the majority of Christians are fanatical and I don't believe a single person would help substantiate your claim.

 

Regardless of how you bend syntax that is my point. I will reiterate it to make it clear.

 

You cannot stereotype all Christians as radical because of the actions of a small few radicals any more than you could classify all Muslim's as radicals based on the actions of suicide bombers. Simply because someone belongs to a missionary does not mean they are a radical.

 

I hope that makes my stance clear enough for you.

[SeVeR]

Read what I said. I said my definition of a religious person is someone fanatical. I did not say all people who call themselves Christian are fanatical. As usual you are reading what you want into my argument.

 

"Simply put you're arguing as if the majority of Christians are fanatical"

 

You cannot stereotype all Christians as radical

 

Simply put, I am not. You can argue with yourself all you want. Twisting my argument so you can argue with it is another reason why I am ending my participation in this topic.

[NBVegita]

But you cannot bend the definition of a word to fit your concept.

 

Religious and fanatical are not tied together. Yes a religious person can be fanatical, yet a fanatic can be nonreligious. There, like anything are many degrees of being religious, fanatic being a very minor and extreme.

 

That is what I'm saying, let me make it further clear and to exclude a particular religion, as you're still trying to pick on syntax.

 

You cannot stereotype all religious persons as radical because of the actions of a small few radicals any more than you could classify all Muslim's as radicals based on the actions of suicide bombers. Simply because someone belongs to a religion does not mean they are a radical.

 

There is a stark difference between being religious and being fanatically religious.

[SeVeR]

But you cannot bend the definition of a word to fit your concept.

My concept? Read what I said again, what about it is fanatical? You are basing it on one sentence ("infecting every thought in a persons brain"), and you don't even know what that means. Let me tell you:

 

I know plenty of so-called Christians who talk about God/faith/Jesus all the time. Whenever they are asked about anything to do with philosophy, morality, politics or science they end up talking about God and faith instead. This is what I would call "infecting every thought in a persons brain", and this is my definition of a religious person. You call this fanatical and extreme, but I see this as the norm. What about my definition would you call fanatically religious?

 

Yes, fanatics are suicide bombers, and killers of abortion doctors. Where does my definition ever describe such a person?

 

A religious person, by definition, is someone devoted to their faith, it's not someone who "thinks long and hard about the God question before unenthusiastically answering "yea.... I believe in God", whilst not going to Church or disbelieving the majority of science".

 

You'll probably dig around online dictionaries now trying to find a dumbed down version of the accepted definition, but a religious person is someone devoted to a deity through faith, not someone who merely believes in God (a theist).

 

You are describing a religious person as someone who doesn't go to Church. Lol, why am I even arguing with you still.

Edited February 9, 2010 by SeVeR

[Dr Brain]

I can only assume that crazies attract other crazies, and that's why you've had interactions with "plenty" of these people. In my experience, people of faith almost never discuss their beliefs with atheists (not to be confused with agnostics), unless directly asked. I've known only a few exceptions, and I consider these people far outside the norm in many other ways, too.

[NBVegita]

Main Entry: 1re·li·gious

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jəs\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French religius, from Latin religiosus, from religio

Date: 13th century

 

1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

 

That's Merriam Webster, mainstream enough for you?

 

No where, in any definition of religious does it come remotely close to "infecting every thought in a persons brain".

 

Main Entry: 1rad·i·cal

Pronunciation: \ˈra-di-kəl\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin radicalis, from Latin radic-, radix root — more at root

Date: 14th century

 

3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs

 

I don't see how "infecting every thought in a persons brain" can not be deemed radical no matter if you're talking about teletubbies, sports, religion, ect.

 

Whenever they are asked about anything to do with philosophy, morality, politics or science they end up talking about God and faith instead.

 

That is radical.

 

Yes, fanatics are suicide bombers, and killers of abortion doctors. Where does my definition ever describe such a person?

infecting every thought in a persons brain

 

I would say that the only way you could kill someone in the name of your religion is if your religion is extremely influencing your thoughts. Or you were being paid handsomely to do so.

 

A religious person, by definition, is someone devoted to their faith

 

There is a stark difference from being devoted to your beliefs and having your faith permeate every thought. How can you disagree with that? I don't even know how anything religion or not could even remotely start to infect every one of your thoughts.

 

You are describing a religious person as someone who doesn't go to Church.

 

Firstly why do you have to go to church to be religious? Remember there are multiple sects of Christianity where piety is taken to many different levels. Second I have already amended my comments concerning the fact that I was being facetious to your facetious comment with something very well defined. As I doubt you will find many people who "thinks long and hard about the God question before unenthusiastically answering "yea.... I believe in God", whilst not going to Church or disbelieving the majority of science". I can't believe you were being serious with that one. My statement was applied to the "whilst not going to Church or disbelieving the majority of science" part. That part accounts for the majority. It really seems the only people who have to think about God are the agnostics. Most people simply believe or don't, there usually is not much hesitation, unless they feel it's social unacceptable in their current setting.

 

I will state my stand yet again adding even more definition for you,

 

You cannot stereotype all religious persons as having religion infect every thought in their brain because of the actions of a small few ..., any more than you could classify all Muslim's as radicals based on the actions of suicide bombers. Simply because someone belongs to a religion does not mean that every thought in their brain is infected by their religion.

Edited February 9, 2010 by NBVegita

[SeVeR]

You cannot stereotype all religious persons as having religion infect every thought in their brain because of the actions of a small few ..., any more than you could classify all Muslim's as radicals based on the actions of suicide bombers. Simply because someone belongs to a religion does not mean that every thought in their brain is infected by their religion.

Actions of a small few? You are trying to turn my definition of religion into your definition of a radical (suicide bombers). For what my definition actually is, there are many more than "a few" religious people who fit it. Second, I'm not even talking about actions.

 

And, yes I can "stereotype" like that, because I believe my definition of a religious person and the dictionary definition to be the same.

 

Dictionary: "faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity"

Me: "infecting every thought in a person's mind"

 

Faithful devotion to an ultimate reality is exactly what I am talking about. How can you have this kind of devotion without letting religion permeate through your brain?

 

I feel that my definition includes both religious people and radicals. Since radicals are also religious, I think that's a thorough definition.

 

I can only assume that crazies attract other crazies, and that's why you've had interactions with "plenty" of these people. In my experience, people of faith almost never discuss their beliefs with atheists (not to be confused with agnostics), unless directly asked. I've known only a few exceptions, and I consider these people far outside the norm in many other ways, too.

Translation:

I don't like you since you argued with me in another topic. I am now going to chip in with snide comments that imply you are "crazy", and generally be an unpleasant person because I am scorned and bitter about our previous arguments. Bla Bla Bla

OK Master Brain. Edited February 9, 2010 by SeVeR

[aquarius]

For the record I am not religious, but I believe in being a good person for the sake of being a good person. I don't need an incentive like heaven or good karma.

It's all opinion, and here's mine:

 

The missionaries in Haiti are there to help. Sure some may be a bit fanatic, most may try to convert the children, and a few may have seen the disaster as an opportunity, but all of the missionaries are simply doing what they think is right. It's their way of life to send the 'message of God' out to people in tough situations because they believe faith can better their lives.

 

Children are naturally righteous. They are very social and just want to play with their friends. They haven't wrapped their heads around the cruelty that exists in this world. That does make them good targets for indoctrination, but religion to them is just like a healthy diet: they don't think much of it. As parents and teachers we encourage kids to eat healthy and 'do onto others'. We often take our children to church and yes, even become missionaries to help the children of others. These are all just suggestions to them. Children will ultimately become adults and make their own decisions.

 

As a father myself, I do the best I can to preserve my sons innocence. I lead by example and teach him by means I see fit. If you think religious exposure is a good way for your child to be a good person then that is your decision and your intentions are pure. Now if my son and I were effected by a disaster like we've just seen Haiti, and my ability to take care of him has been ruined, I would certainly consider allowing the missionaries to adopt him.

 

I attended church for the first 14 years of my life, I was raised Christian. I was never exposed to fanatical preachings, I was only taught be be a good person. The fact that I grew up to be a good person while denouncing my Christianity is an example that children grow up to make their own decisions.

 

As for religion and education, education is far more life changing. I can believe in God all I want, but it's not going to get me a job to take care of myself and my family. Religion didn't teach surgeons to save lives or give scientists the ability to develop cures for diseases. Religion is simply a means of teaching moral, while education teaches us survival and optimizes our ability to live healthy.

 

[NBVegita]

Second, I'm not even talking about actions.

 

Well how can you determine that religion has infected everyone of their thoughts if it is not shown by their actions? Are you psychic?

 

Faithful devotion to an ultimate reality is exactly what I am talking about. How can you have this kind of devotion without letting religion permeate through your brain?

 

Very easily. To be devoted to your religion does not mean that your religion affects every one of your thoughts. I am faithfully devoted to my wife, yet that does not mean every thought I have involves my wife. In a more pragmatic manner, how does someone's religion infect the thought if they should eat an apple or orange? If they should live in a house in this city, or that city? If they should work for this company or that? If they should shower before lunch or after? If they drive a standard or automatic? If they should work out at the gym or watch TV? If they should vote to repave roads or if they shouldn't? If they should take dance class or Karate?

 

I mean honestly I would say that the majority of all of your decisions, unless you are one of the clergy are devoid of religion. Simply basing it off America, 90% of American's admit to having premarital sex. That means that at least 90% of American's are not religious by your definition. If you survey that 10%, I guarantee that they regularly commit some other sin that goes against Christianity. So you're basically only including a very small percentage.

 

Unless you're saying that you only need to "think" religious and not "act" religious to be religious.

[SeVeR]

The choice of house would depend on what Churches are nearby, the choice of work would depend on whether the company is involved in practices abhorrent to their religion like investing in pornography or the wrong kind of charity, the choice of television is obvious as anything agreeable with their religion or politics will be watched, and if nothing is on that meets that requirement, the sin of "sloth" may be an incentive thought to abandon the TV for the gym. As usual you are thinking about actions, I am talking about thoughts. The choice of apple or orange might trigger a thought about Adam and Eve which could influence the act (but doesn't need to for my definition that only talks about thoughts), the choice of when to wash might trigger a thought about the countless mentions in the Bible about washing yourself, for example you must wash before going to Church. The Bible enforces a mind-set receptive to traditions as opposed to change, so I would guess that most Christians go for a standard rather than an automatic. Conversely Bible study also detracts from any other form of study, reducing one's will to learn about anything non-Biblical or religious, this could result in an automatic being chosen. This is an example of a subconscious choice though, as these arguments are probably not acknowledged at the time. Dance, whether it should or not, provokes thought of homosexuality, at least many dances do in youth culture. Karate's aggression may provoke the pacifistic Jesus-loving Christian to choose dance.

 

Religion can and does infect every thought in the mind of someone devoted to the religion. Whether they act on it is another matter.

 

Unless you're saying that you only need to "think" religious and not "act" religious to be religious.

There ya go. Edited February 10, 2010 by SeVeR

[»Xog]

I love when people start to take words and meanings and give them opinions as if they're a thought.

 

 

A word has a meaning. That meaning is what the word MEANS. If you think it's something that it isn't, then you are wrong.

 

Let's clear this up.

 

 

Skiing = Christian

Ski Lift = Non-Religious

 

Think about it long and hard. Have fun.

 

Mind ==> Blown

[SeVeR]

I'm not saying every trivial thing is Christian or non-Christian, I'm saying that religion has an affect on the choices a religious person makes, because any kind of devotion (to God or otherwise), by definition, must affect all or many of one's choices. It wouldn't be devotion otherwise.

 

Devotion to Christianity requires a belief in the righteousness of the Bible and the thousands of assumptions and inferences the Bible makes. The number of these inferences is so great that I believe there is a saturation effect where no thought can be without the influence of one of these inferences.

Edited February 10, 2010 by SeVeR

[BDwinsAlt]

I'm not saying every trivial thing is Christian or non-Christian, I'm saying that religion has an affect on the choices a religious person makes, because any kind of devotion (to God or otherwise), by definition, must affect all or many of one's choices. It wouldn't be devotion otherwise.

 

Devotion to Christianity requires a belief in the righteousness of the Bible and the thousands of assumptions and inferences the Bible makes. The number of these inferences is so great that I believe there is a saturation effect where no thought can be without the influence of one of these inferences.

Devotion, as I have understood it over the years, is when someone follows God's rules and worships him. A devoted Christian will never deny that he/she believes in God, just to fit in with others. Devotion doesn't mean you always think about God, it just means you are friends really. Do you honestly spend all your time with a certain friend? Husbands and Wives usually have some time apart. God doesn't consume all my thoughts, but I do pray on a regular basis for forgiveness and guidance. If God wasn't real, it wouldn't bother me (not saying I'm doubting his existence). I'm glad I was fortunate enough to be part of something that is loving, hopeful, and forgiving. That's good enough for me.

[NBVegita]

The choice of house would depend on what Churches are nearby, the choice of work would depend on whether the company is involved in practices abhorrent to their religion like investing in pornography or the wrong kind of charity, the choice of television is obvious as anything agreeable with their religion or politics will be watched, and if nothing is on that meets that requirement, the sin of "sloth" may be an incentive thought to abandon the TV for the gym. As usual you are thinking about actions, I am talking about thoughts. The choice of apple or orange might trigger a thought about Adam and Eve which could influence the act (but doesn't need to for my definition that only talks about thoughts), the choice of when to wash might trigger a thought about the countless mentions in the Bible about washing yourself, for example you must wash before going to Church. The Bible enforces a mind-set receptive to traditions as opposed to change, so I would guess that most Christians go for a standard rather than an automatic. Conversely Bible study also detracts from any other form of study, reducing one's will to learn about anything non-Biblical or religious, this could result in an automatic being chosen. This is an example of a subconscious choice though, as these arguments are probably not acknowledged at the time. Dance, whether it should or not, provokes thought of homosexuality, at least many dances do in youth culture. Karate's aggression may provoke the pacifistic Jesus-loving Christian to choose dance.

 

I'd love to find a single person who acts/thinks this way.

 

Ultimately if your actions don't match your thoughts you are not religious. If you think really hard about going to church but never go, that does not make you religious. If you think really hard about not sinning, but still do, that doesn't make you religious. If you think about saying a prayer yet you don't, that doesn't make you religious. If I thought about going to work on time, but I didn't, I'm still tardy no matter what my thoughts were.

 

Over 90% of Americans act against your concept of being devoted to their religion, so I would daresay that you can very easily make the correlation that a very small minority of people actually fit your concept of being religious.

[SeVeR]

Utter rubbish NBV, if religious thoughts enter your brain whenever you are confronted with a choice then you are religious whether you act on them or not.

[SeVeR]

I'm not saying every trivial thing is Christian or non-Christian, I'm saying that religion has an affect on the choices a religious person makes, because any kind of devotion (to God or otherwise), by definition, must affect all or many of one's choices. It wouldn't be devotion otherwise.

 

Devotion to Christianity requires a belief in the righteousness of the Bible and the thousands of assumptions and inferences the Bible makes. The number of these inferences is so great that I believe there is a saturation effect where no thought can be without the influence of one of these inferences.

Devotion, as I have understood it over the years, is when someone follows God's rules and worships him. A devoted Christian will never deny that he/she believes in God, just to fit in with others. Devotion doesn't mean you always think about God, it just means you are friends really. Do you honestly spend all your time with a certain friend? Husbands and Wives usually have some time apart. God doesn't consume all my thoughts, but I do pray on a regular basis for forgiveness and guidance. If God wasn't real, it wouldn't bother me (not saying I'm doubting his existence). I'm glad I was fortunate enough to be part of something that is loving, hopeful, and forgiving. That's good enough for me.

I don't expect Christians to acknowledge and remember all the times they think about their religion, just like I don't remember how often I think about sex. Some people say it's every six seconds, but I've always found that hard to believe. Anyway, if you trust in God's guidance, then don't you often find yourself asking God what to do, or thinking "What would Jesus do?". Whether you can actually communicate with God or not, I expect most conclusions you reach are in line with the Bible.

[»Xog]

I believe in God and I pray to him on a daily basis. Would you be shocked to find out that I've never read the bible, and only went to church about 15 times in my life?

 

Would you call me religious?