Republicans rally against 'war on religious freedom'

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

In the absence of science, there will always be something we fill that void with, and a all supreme being is generally what people tend to fill it with.


I think you took what I said and ran with it. Insulting the intelligence of those that have faith? Hardly. Putting their intelligence in perspective. Most definitely. Again, most people that believe in man made fairy tales are ridiculed and made fun of, even by some of the same people that also believe in a fairy tale themselves. (aka..christians) The fact is, both Santa Claus and the Bible were man made creations, based of some truth and history. Why is faith in one real, but not the other? There is no distinction regardless of what anybody thinks.

Comparing the Bible and Santa is not a fair analogy. Santa is a myth created. The Bible is not a myth but a tangible object.

The Bible is a man made creation - true enough. In fact, it was a book by committee if you will. The Bible, however, is not God. It is simply an attempt to describe the infinite through history, symbolism, poetry and parable. Ultimately, it is an attempt by finite minds to expand their limited means (words/language) beyond their defined terms in order to aid in the search for truth. Further, since its writing people have argued, discussed, contemplated, etc. over what is the "real" ness portrayed in the Bible.

The real analogy you assert is that God, as described in the Bible, and Santa are equivalent man made creations. Whereas one is an acknowledged myth whose tangible, finite existence (living at the North Pole, travelling by flying reindeer, etc.) can actually be disproven by known science, the God described in the Bible (certainly the one I believe in) exists beyond the finite and cannot be not defined or described by science. [Don't get me wrong, science gives incredible insight into the being I know as God and when legitimate science disproves aspects of my faith, I accept the science and reflect on the effect it has on my understanding of the creator. Ultimately, if your understanding of God is contradicted by legitimate science you're understanding needs to adjust. It's like they say in the army, when the map don't match the ground, go with the ground].

My point is that, while I believe no one's beliefs should be ridiculed (see my earlier statement about understanding the nature of the universe), I disagree with the assertion that all beliefs in supernatural beings (for lack of a better term) should be given equal credence. To assert that the belief in anthropomorhic Santa is the same as the belief in an infinite, undefinable being is just wrong. I claim no additional enlightment, I simply say that belief in a provable myth (i.e. we know from whence the created Santa comes and can disprove his existence as described) is different than the belief indefinable, infinite being (of whom, BTW, the mythological Santa was intended as is partial reflection).

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Intolerant? I think you are barking up the wrong tree with that accusation. In fact, I'm probably the most tolerant person you'll come across when it comes to ones beliefs. My general rule of thumb is if it doesn't affect me, or harm others in any way, I'm fine with whatever you want to do.

I don't look down on religious people, nor do I shun them. I grew up in a Christian home, and went to a private Christian school the majority of my youth. I know the Bible, I understand the belief as I used to believe and practice it myself. I sit here and still laugh at your accusation of intolerant, when my best friend actually believes the zombie apocalypse is coming. Yes, he believes the dead will rise (either by god or man made chemicals) at some point in time. Now as ignorant as this sounds, he still remains to be my best friend and I will always have his back.

Believing in god doesn't make you stupid, but it's hard to not question ones decision making when their lives and actions are based around something that may simply not exist. Believe it or not, some people would call this psychotic if it involved something other than "god". (aka..invisible friends).

Well, actually, Rat has on more than one occasion implied that the belief in God is merely a mental disease.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

science is getting close to proving religion to be an addictive or flaw of the mind.

Perhaps, I should have said "intellectual intolerance" in the sense that I have encountered the claim that, with no knowledge how people came to their leap of faith (whatever it might be), any such leap is ultimately foolish. If that is not your belief, then the accusation of intolerance is not intended for you.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I don't look down on either person. Choose to believe in Santa Claus or God. Doesn't make any difference, but lets not call one guy crazy and the other one enlightened.

When it comes to crazy, as with stupid - crazy is as crazy does. Further, I would suggest that whether someone is "enlightened" or not is dependent on much more than their belief in God or Santa - it's the "why's" behind their belief that lead me to conclude someone is crazy or enlightened. I have known many an individual with beliefs I consider far fetched but whose underlying belief system displayed a much deeper thought, more rational thought than many a Christian I have known.