>>Yes, and society doesn't see it (gay marriage) as a big deal. This in turn infuriates some of the faithful.
Infuriates suggests we are intolerant. Not so. I believe we are more saddened than anything else and try to rectify for the good of all. Doesn’t come off that way, I know that.
No, it really doesn't. I would say the more extremist of your mindset are pretty damned intolerant and have a strong aversion to *any* alternative points of view. Please note: I'm not lumping you personally into this predicament, and hopefully you can concede that this never translates well into having a rational debate about the subject. The consequence has a rather negative effect of alienating, which tends to further divide us as a society. However, the same can and will be said of extremism overall. Religious fanaticism tends to taint everything it touches, and unfortunately we are seeing its negative effects affecting the world in general in the form of terrorist attacks around the globe. I can only hope us humans can pull our heads out of our collective asses and realise some common ground before we do something *really* stupid and ruin everything for all of us.
The latter point simply puts forth the proposition If God exists, then we have a valid and important matter to consider. So the risk is now on the unbeliever to justify their position to God why the evidence for God and which One was weak, causing them to make no serious changes in their lives --- if and when it comes to that day.
Respectfully, this is far from my first rodeo addressing the subject of religion and I'm no spring chicken to the topic.
At my age, the outlook tends to lean towards what you might find boring, emotionless, logical, objective and scientific. Though I respect the passion and opinions of the devout, in reality I have little patience for anecdotes alluding to 'proving' the existence of the supernatural. It just hasn't been much of a priority to me for decades. Thus, I guess you can say I'm just not too 'spiritual' of a dude.
However, I also respect the phrase 'to each his own.'
As humans at our current level of technological ability, I believe we have developed a coherent understanding of the models of our own reality. Physics allows us at least a basic understanding of our physical environment within the universe. There are elements that logically fit into our reality (molecular makeup, DNA, sight, touch, research, analysis, etc.), and elements that require further hypothesis, peer review and replication to become an acceptable alternative in said models. I believe injection of the supernatural into said models will always require the latter and the evidence will always be scientifically unappealing since it solely relies upon the anecdotal. Eyewitness testimony is rarely reliable, but I'm sure you already know that. Thus, my interest in such things has been fairly limited for quite some time. I also understand this is purely a personal bias. Others' mileage will of course vary.
I concede that mankind, or science, doesn't have all the answers, nor should we, or it, ever claim to. That's just fine by me. But we (at least, some of us) seem to be in constant pursuit of knowledge, which gives me a 'hope' for the future of our species. It is a positive outlook that you might find it akin to the 'faith' of the believer as long as you can understand that I find language to be very important. Communication is key to our survival. Our words mean things. I feel we don't appreciate this enough.
That being said, I usually reject the notion that the injection of the anecdotal (I.E. the supernatural) into our said models of human reality requires the objective observer to 'prove' its non-existence. It's a completely illogical model of reality. The burden of proof should always fall on the shoulders of the individual injecting said concept into said model. Never the other way round. I hope I explained that coherently. Please accept my apologies if I didn't.
[me: And for man to openly defy God by being a sinful creature, grave consequences often follow.]
>> *sigh* This seems like something your ilk so often loves to remind 'others' about... Honestly, who do you feel this information benefits more? The heathen or the believer?
Well both or neither, I guess. Let us look at this another way. Where does the heathen get his information on what Christianity is all about? Mostly from opponents of Christianity in the news or on these boards. He will never be properly informed that way alone, nor is it very likely he will pursue other avenues that are more evidence producing or honest --- that is, once this person has matured and already made some fundamental decisions in his life. So we are limited in making our case.
I think this is a fair enough assumption, and probably not too far off the mark for many. However, don't be so obtuse as to think that others haven't really thought out your philosophy. For example, I personally come from a background of being a really 'good' fundamental Christian vessel for most of my boyhood. I will also concede that many foundations of many societies, both past and present, are a direct result of the religious tendencies of humans. That's simply a fact. Human nature, if you will. All one needs to do is study our history to understand this. It would be utterly stupid for me to trivialize the importance of religion in the development of human societies.
However, none of this is what I consider 'groundbreaking evidence' that what you believe in is the end-all-be-all 'truth', either.
I am a person that has studied world religion in my later years. I understand humans have exposed each other to religion and the supernatural since our inception via our stories, I.E. history. I even concede that much of my own personal 'information' must be rooted from some sort of theological foundation that has branched out onto whatever I now believe due to the acquisition of even more knowledge, and will never posit that the link between religion and society is inconsequential. It certainly isn't. Religion and society have been intertwined for centuries. It has been the basis of our laws, our governments and even the status quo in certain situations.
That said, I've learned a lot of fundamental things about Christianity, and I'm
still unconvinced. Whose fault is that? The believer will say it's my 'cross to bear' (pun intended). I say I simply
still don't believe the hype. Do with that information what you will.
[me: You referring to that as "religious extremism" is a loaded statement all on its own. As though you have discovered some eternal balance that allows for a lot of fooling around and we are the enemies of goodness.]
>>Maybe you are. I wouldn't be so bold to make such a distinction.
I think you possess some welcome virtues. But then, I could be wrong again. : )
Welp, I *really* appreciate your input too, and I believe you to be a hell of a decent fellow. So, be well, fellow human.
I'd never hate on ya like some of the mouth-breathing responses I've seen here. I have really appreciated your input, and hope you understand mine. Have a great day!
