Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

sounds like you blew your chance at going to a pants party.

chances arent the only thing getting blown at a pants party

This belief in conformity of thought being necessary to ensure the goodness/rightness/decency of others isn't limited to religion. I think we kind of hit on this topic when I quoted Bastiat. We all agree that charity is good and the poor need aid, but somehow I'm a dillhole for thinking that government isn't the appropriate vehicle for providing said charity and aid. So, look at it this way, when you picked up that chick's books, or I say, "charity is good and the poor need help," that chick/other's who shall remain nameless see their own values reflected in that, but when they're disappointed to find that your actions/words are motivated by something other than what is entirely in line with their own beliefs, you're bound to become the object of emotions ranging from pity to scorn.



Humans are tribal creatures. Like calls to like in the heart of man. It's probably some sort of evolutionary urge that causes the different=bad response in people.

I don't think the chick was "ostracizing" you, either. I'd have to hear how she said, "Oh, Jesus have mercy on you," to be sure, but she probably felt pity and sadness for you.



Depends on what people choose to do with their religion, how they follow what, whether they're picking-and-choosing what to believe or not, what context they interpret the important stuff in. Religion isn't a requirement for morality, and I have read some philosophy that is atheist in nature that insists there is a moral code.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

The important thing in this exchange is to realize that for many, their religious beliefs are first. You see this in the most devote believers of most faiths. While this can be irritating for many, true believers have no real choice because true belief is spreading the word. Your exchange with this girl was:

Girl: I believe God is watching over me, and I'm fishing to find out if we might have similar beliefs, since you are so nice.
You: I'm not really interested in your religion.
Girl: Why not?
You: I don't believe there is a God.
Girl: I can't imagine living without my certainty that God is with me, and I feel sorry for you that you don't have that in your life.




She probably sincerely felt pity for you. That's how she believes, and true believers are "fishers of men." And, IMHO, you did well to walk away without trying to convince her that she's stupid. Why would you try to take away someone's belief, anyway? You think she believes in fairy tales. That's fine. But, if those fairy tales make her life happier, why take them away?

inb4: But, dooj, they're pushing their shit on me! Why can't I fire back? Because you are entering an fruitless argument. It's better to simply "be happy for them in their certainty."




First off, she didn't say you were evil. She also invited you to her church, which is certainly not an attempt to ostracize (although, I'll admit that you'd have likely been ultimately unwelcome there if you continued in your disbelief).



My personal views are that religious teachings are guidelines for people to live by that will reduce the inevitable conflicts that men are so prone to have. These teachings are much like Aesop's Fables, or Grimm's Fairy Tales; stories with morals/lessons. I personally read the bible, but I believe most of it to be metaphorical. So, my opinion is that, overall, religion improves morality, even when you factor in the zealots from every faith who use religion for evil.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

I agree with Bordalt's assessment.

I am comfortable enough in my own spiritual beliefs to explore others without feeling threatened. I can go to church or go to a Hindu temple, etc, without feeling preached to. It simply doesn't bother me.

It seems like you were reading into her tone, and at the same time are making the same sort of judgment about her that you are upset that she made about you.

Callysta of Reverence

I don't want a religious person's pity. They've got nothing I want.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

It has nothing to do with what you want, it has to do with what they think you're lacking. Your perception of yourself doesn't influence the emotional response, only their perception of you does that.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Boredalt more or less said everything I wanted to say, sparing me all the typing. Thanks, brah.

She wasn't anything special. Black hair, sort of puckered face, about an A cup, and a modest dress. Nothing to hope for, really.

And, in regard to Quad, you're right about it being the first written law code, but then what would constitute an official oral law code? Surely the sub-Saharan nomads had a multitude of them during the original human migrations out of Africa, right? We all have our own morals and ethics, but the argument at hand is the source of said morals and ethics. Oh, and the theory that the undeciphered Indus language could have been used in a law code of some sort is purely speculative. Plus, Hammurabi's code was written in the early-to-mid eighteenth century BCE. Considering that Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa flourished over 1000 years prior to that, the chances of either having an established written law code are slim.

Jubber, most ofwhat you said is essentially my underlying thought process. However, it was no doubt scorn that motivated her to look down upon me. If people who thought like her had it their way, non-Christians would most likely be living in ghettos like the Jews did in the Middle Ages. And yes, religion is a nice way to spread moral teachings. But what good are moral teachings when critical thinking and an appreciation for human life are suppressed throughout a lifetime of living with your imaginary friend(s)?

Finally, I do have to disagree with you, Dooj.

To respond to your first point, I have to say that it's most likely not HER choice to "spread the faith." The overwhelming majority of religious people, Jews and Christians especially, are born into their faith. A true believer would have a basis for their beliefs. However, those who are indoctrinated into the faith from childhood are, above all else, ignorant of other viewpoints. This ignorance evolved into a hostility that was apparent in both her body language and tone. By the end of our short discourse, she saw me as the enemy.

In regard to the second point, your observations are correct but your message is flawed. Those "fairy tales" that she believes in can often cause severe emotional trauma in those who question the faith later in life. I believe that I would have helped her more if I had spent time reasoning with her, but that was obviously a situation that would be hard to come by.

Like I said about the ghettos in a Christian-dominated world, she would have attempted to ostracize me for my disbelief if she had the chance. That I'm sure of.

You didn't state so in your original post, and what you see and hear and perceive isn't always right, especially in your state.

So because I mentioned body language, I automatically unearthed a dimension of possible perceptions?

When you're done assuming theoreticals that are skewed by your own faith or lack thereof and want to discuss other people's opinions with equal interest as your own, let us know.

Until then, you created this thread to play king of the hill.



You reply to people who have stated other viewpoints with information you claim is critical to the understanding of what you perceived without acknowledging that you're limited and biased in your scope.

This entire thread is you posting about someone's words, to talk about how you read into a "short discourse" while only glancing at the cover.

Resubmit.

Never.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition or anything.

No one suspects the Spanish Inquisition.