Do you Trust Religious or Non-Religious people more?

What school of theology did you attend which gives credibility to your assertion?

And if they are shams, they are shams perpetrated by atheists. Pretty nasty fellows, these atheists.

 

RPA1. trust is big to me. I do not give trust away easily myself. This comes from me knowing and having experienced people who like to manipulate, twist and turn in the name of various things. This is why I like to keep things plain and simple, as I am.

 

Self-righteousness is what I call it.

 

It is impossible for religions to lie to people being that religions are not animate. They do not speak, the do not breathe, they do not utter a sound. People lie, utter sounds, and are animate. So your disappointment comes from people, not religion being that religions do nothing to anyone. What I am saying is coming from me, one of the most anti-religious people that you will most likely meet. The difference with me is that I know that neither religions, religious books, nor anything that is inanimate can do no harm nor good to anyone, so when people say this that or the other in the name of religion, I know that it is them and not the religion they claim. Unfortunately, as with most things, there are those who do negative things and hide behind their religion, their politics, their knowledge, their culture, etc. Such people are cowards and untrustworthy. As I have said in the past and will continue to say, I trust an outright racist more than I will trust a Liberal or other who hides their ill-thoughts with a smile. If a person is honest enough and will tell me whether or not they like my kind with no equivocations, I will trust that person to the extent that they are honest in that regard so after that point I know how to not deal with them or deal with them. As I stated earlier, experience is the best teacher and knowledge is the key to all things.

 

God is also that which a person places over himself or herself as a guide or as a model and goal; that which plays a key role in said person's life activities as standards. I forgot to add this to the posting above.

 

My good sir Theology degree's are "Fantasy Degree's". They aren't real degree's. Theology is a pseudoscience education.


Tell me good sir, where do the pre-human humanoids fit into your Christian beliefs? Your religious book written by men says that your human god made you in his image, yet what about these pre-human humanoids that existed thousands of years before us humans? Why did your Christian god bother to make those and how do the humanoids that are 30,000 years old and older factor into Christianity when your religious book says the Earth is 6000 years old?


Do explain good sir as I want to learn and I know you can explain all this to us in great detail because your religion has all the answers from what you and others tell us about it.

 

I don't think the Bible has all the answers. And you are at least mistaken (and at most mendacious) when you say I have asserted as much.

If evolution turned you into an atheist, my condolences. If you want to know why it hasn't turned me into an atheist, you are going to have to study theology. I don't think you are interested in doing so.

If you are interested, start here:

http://fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/evolution_kuraev.htm

 

Sir I know it doesn't have the answers. It and every other religious book, manuscript and scroll were written by men who were likely very, very high on various intoxicants.


You do seem to have some basic reverence for Christianity and religion at large. You seem to trust it. My point to you is this and it is basic. If your or any other preferred human-sanctioned god was legitimate, why the timeline mistakes in their holy books with that of pre-human evolution? How could an all powerful gods holy books have mistakes? How could the bible say the Earth is 6000 years old if it is the word of god? How could Mohamed have raped all those little girls and have been so very righteous at the same time?

Seems like a lot of errors on the part of human-sanctioned gods. It just seems odd to me because these gods are supposedly all powerful and must clearly be capable of cosmic space travel if they really created Earth and humanity. How could such superior gods make such trivial, basic timeline mistakes that end up totally refuting their entire religion? Again it just seems very odd indeed.

 

Darwin's THEORY of Evolution is a theory. It has mysteries and unanswered questions just like religion(s), I wouldn't pooh pooh either one so easily.

 

[/QUOTE]

The abominal snowman in the photo may be gone, but Karim Abdul Jabar and Rosie Odonnell are still with us.

 

science
ˈsīəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
   "the world of science and technology"
   synonyms: branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline, field
   "the science of criminology"
   • a particular area of this.
     plural noun: sciences
     "veterinary science"
   • a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
     "the science of criminology"
     synonyms: physics, chemistry, biology; More
     

osbornterry,

I guess that it never dawns on people such as A random man that all theology is is science, that is all theology means, it is the science of belief and interpersonal relationships. Theology does not mean anything other than science, and science implies study or learning. Religion, which are not fully based upon theology, are systems of belief interpreted by the believer or adherent to said religion, which is one of the reasons I do not have a religion, never follow religion, and never profess religion. To be exact, religion is simply a codified system of rituals that tend to tie the followers or believers to a certain system of behaviors and practices. So I will give A random man that much credit, the religions are invented and made up to control the behaviors of people; customs. Societal codes of conduct are in fact religion, though most people give it little thought, but it is what it is. Morality is the same; morality took trillions of years to develop through observation and experimentation. This is the reality of morality, and yes, I do live life according to morality because it is morality that causes normal people from overstepping boundaries and violating the rights and boundaries of another. See, there is nothing wrong with inventing behavioral codes; the problem comes when people add their own brand of madness to morality to force others to adhere to said morality. This is wrong and cannot be done anyway. You cannot force a person to adhere to something that they are no inclined towards. When people acquiesce, it is done out of attrition, not because they "see the light". I have engaged many about this and have come to the conclusion that most religious people are full of caca. Most of them haven't even read (studied) the book of books they proclaim.


I realize that I have rambled, and I do apologize for it.

 

Thanks for rambling. Most intelligent post so far.

 

Thank you for the compliment, Grumblenuts

 

Your experience, your opinion. Ive been able to make the same claims about other groups of people as well. Sooner or later common sense says its specific individuals.
What exactly are you trying to flesh out of this survey anyway, besides making blanket statements about people.

 

Of course you can force people to adhere to something they are not inclined towards. That poor engineer at Google was fired because he said something politically correct. You can be sure that the remaining employees will not sin in the particular manner that James Damore did.

Is Political Correctness, then, a religion invented to control the behavior of people?

You mention that morality developed through "trial and error" over a long period of time. And yet there are revolutionary changes in morality in my lifetime. These long years of trial and error, according to your theory, determined that homosexuality was to be discouraged in almost all times and almost all places.

Yet, suddenly that is out the window. How did that come about? Is it a wise idea, or doesn't it make any difference what a particular morality is?

 

Isn't he wonderful? Isn't he so trustworthy and righteous?



OH WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!




AND!!!!!!!

IRS raids offices of ‘prosperity gospel’ preacher Benny Hinn

https://thinkprogress.org/irs-raids-prosperity-gospel-preacher-5ea1e94fd434/

It goes on and on and on......

Such trustworthy people!

 

I don't have reverence for all religions, only my own. I find many other religions are of interest, but not Islam.

You are looking at this the wrong way. You, I guess, were a Evangelical Protestant. Protestants threw away Christian Tradition and centered there attention on the Bible as the sole authority. They have stripped away the spirit and concentrate on the legalism. St. Paul wrote "all things are legal for me, but not all things are profitable."

The goal of all true religions is not to follow the rules but to attain a certain goal, a state of mind. The rules are not the ends in themselves, but are guides that are helpful in attaining this state of mind.

Protestantism has forgotten this and has devolved into a mere legalism.

The various texts were written not to inform people about the scientific facts of creation but about its spiritual nature, and so help them attain their true potential and understand their purpose.

"To put it in another way, we must live the dogma expressing a revealed
truth, which appears to us as an unfathomable mystery, in such a fashion that instead of assimilating the mystery to our mode of understanding, we should, on the contrary, look for a profound change, an inner transformation of spirit, enabling us to experience it mystically."

Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church

 

Ok, first things first.

Yes, PC or Political Correctness is in fact a religion, with codes, customs, beliefs, and admonishments, as well as punishments for "breaking" the codes of PC.

Punishment is not forcing adherence to a code. As I stated in the initial post, all punishment will do is cause a response behavior that is not genuine. Meaning, that the punishment will induce corrective behavior, only hypocrisy.

I did not say this at all. I said that morality, which is an encoded system of behaviors for interpersonal relationships [and their development and cohesion].
The following is exactly what I stated about morality:

Experimentation and observation is far different from trial and error.

Morality will never change, what has and is taken place is the same thing that took place in societies of old; people disregarded moral codes and decided that they will do their own thing. As I stated in the initial post,

Again, you are adding your own ideas to what I posted. Homosexuality is a recent practice, six thousand years is recent in the scope of trillions of years.
Before this time, there was no practice of homosexuality, such a practice came about from one region of the planet, and when it was introduced in another region, the people rejected such abominable behavior and the society that introduced it to the new region was ultimately destroyed. Take it or let it alone, morality comes from people naturally, and if it does not come to another, that is because morality is not the way of that other people. This is part of the reason why some societies and their religious leaders, in their attempt to enforce morality, use force and brutality, all in an effort to instill that which is not natural to said people. Take what the Church did in Europe as an example. Europe has never been a bastion of morality and never will be, but some European religious leaders, in their competition to "prove" their moral adherence, during the Crusades, brutalized their own people. Then you have those who claim Islam and their madness in the Holy Land, but this is your world which is based on such things. In turn, it is eating itself alive and now amorality and immorality are enforced and protected by governments, the federal government and the state and local governments of these United States. Liberalism is your new religion and it is being enforced just like the religions of old, through brute force, punishment and coercion.
Some people just don't get it.

 

I'm a practicing agnostic.

 

Definitely the way to go.

Although my go to phrases (regarding religion) remain:

Religion is the opiate of the people (Marx).

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him (Voltaire).

Words to live by.

 

Which is the best that can be done.

Of course Europe was never a bastion of morality. There was never a place or time that was. That is because the natural man is a pretty crummy creature. The aim of true religions is not to enforce a morality but to describe a way of life that can transform the natural man into a new creature that does not need a moral code to do the right thing but does it naturally (among other things). In this sense, Liberalism is not a true religion, in my way of thinking. True religions teach salvation from a debased condition. Liberalism teaches liberation from corrupt institutions.

Liberalism is based on the theory which is exactly the opposite. It posits that the natural man is inherently good (see Rousseau and his "noble savage"), and that it is institutions (such as religion) that makes him evil.

Liberalism persists in this delusion despite much evidence to the contrary. For instance, Liberals believe, as an article of faith, that racism is learned. There are many scientific studies which demonstrate that racism is, in fact, innate.

When this is documented for them, it is simply ignored. The cognitive dissonance is so great I don't think they can entertain this thought at all. They are just as quick to ignore or reject science which contradicts their most deeply held beliefs as an YEC.

“Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains ... an unuprooted small corner of evil.

Since then I have come to understand the truth of all the religions of the world: They struggle with the evil inside a human being (inside every human being). It is impossible to expel evil from the world in its entirety, but it is possible to constrict it within each person.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

 

Ok, before I finish reading your post, I am going to establish literary definitions.

Man: God or Man a his highest level, both morally and with knowledge.

Mankind: a man of a lesser degree in morality and in knowledge.

Now I am going to finish reading your post.

 

By "religious" people, are you talking about like serious bible thumpers? And by "non-religious" are you speaking of actual atheists? Because I am religious, but don't attend church. And I know folks who I would consider as not terribly religious, but of course they believe in God. I mean if you don't believe in God at all, you don't really have to have a conscience, right? So gosh, which group would I trust?

 

Honesty and integrity have little to do with a person's religious faith as human history has repeatedly and bloodily proven.

 

You don't "have to" either way.