Sathfilms

who knows anything

You can scroll the shelf using ← and → keys

Science vs. God: A layman’s opinion « Ideas from free minds

May 27, 2007

Science vs. God: A layman’s opinion « Ideas from free minds

The second quote from this blog-post is really disturbing. Strange experiments that support scripture but are scientifically flawed seriously shouldn’t be encouraged. If anything, if science and religion disagree on a matter, children should be taught to question it – but not tricked into thinking that science and religion agree. They’ll be made into fools and ridiculed when they become older, and they’ll not have a leg to stand on when challenged by similar ideas by people who have different beliefs. They will not be taken seriously. Perhaps it will cause confusion in a child to be taught one thing in religion, and another by science, however it will allow them to come to conclusions that aren’t merely fabricated.

Are progressive religions seeking acceptance?

May 26, 2007 — 2 Comments

Perhaps “progressive” is too loaded? « Sathfilms

Again, this is a response to another comment that became a post.

“I think terming one’s religion ‘progressive’ is more an act of seeking acceptance than anything else. Today’s society loves anything that is ‘progressive’ or ‘open minded’…but what about when these values dilute the truth because it is just easier to handle it that way?”

As much as progressive religions get accepted by people like me, I feel there would be more dismay (and anger) from the “pure” religions they were derived from. This could be a Christian fundamentalist calling another Christian not a “true Christian.” Half the Christians that come up with rubbish like “true Christian” and associated terms, are Protestant Christians and the Protestant Church exists because of a reformation; and at that time, I’m sure it would have been thought of as what people know consider “progressive.” So, instead of wine and bread being Jesus’ blood and flesh, they became a symbol for his blood and flesh. Like Shannon said, in that context, it was progressive and frowned upon by those outside of the movement, but not by those within it.

Why would people who are pushing for progressive religions actually try and do it because they are merely seeking acceptance? Wouldn’t they just pack up and have their own beliefs at home and tell their friends about it? Maybe some are looking for acceptance, but I think more are looking for harmony. (more…)

A pefect partner exists – an assumption often made?

May 25, 2007 — 17 Comments

Sex before Marriage – Right or Wrong? « How bout a lil chillaxin?

I’m thinking about this in an Australian context because that’s where I live. The linked post asks a question that I think used to be far more important in Australian society some years back, however I haven’t really heard many people talk about it of late, although I acknowledge that there are sections of society that preach that sex before marriage is bad. It should probably be noted that the times that I’ve ever heard this topic being brought up, were with regards to religion, but obviously the topic can be discussed separate to religion also. Yet, I’m more interested in the assumption made in this argument/exploration/questioning/question, that a “perfect mate” exists somewhere out there. (more…)

For the sake of meaning?

May 24, 2007 — 9 Comments

This is my response to a discussion taking place on one of my posts. It was just going to be a comment, however I think I ended up going on a tangent and writing too much, so I thought I’d make it a post too.

I’ll let Sydspace discuss this with escapedmentalpatient, but as always, I’d like to add my two glorious cents.

I think in some ways you’re definitely on to something. I know a lot of people that are “very religious,” and although they deny it, have blind faith (they argue against the “blind” part) in their religion and in their particular scripture. And as you have said, they often automatically reject any possibilities outside of their very narrow frame. Some try and consider what may exist outside of their religious view, however, they look at it with jaded eyes that aren’t really considering other ideas, or input - people question without really considering that something else may indeed [also] be correct. I am generalising, and stating the obvious in some cases, but please, anyone, stand up and say something if you think differently. I can only talk with regards to my personal experience, and from my reading about fundamentalist thought. (more…)

Biggest Idiot or Funniest Comedian?

May 22, 2007 — 9 Comments

Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine « Blogs 4 Brownback

This is the funniest post I’ve ever read. I hurt from laughing. Oh, the humanity. You have to read it. The comments are somewhat amusing too. Apparently, the Earth doesn’t move because, for one reason at least, we can’t feel it moving.

What’s the difference between this fool, a Christian fundamentalist, who believes that the world doesn’t move and some of the Muslims fundamentalists that don’t believe (or do not acknowledge) that Israel exists. It’s funny and fascinating how people come to believe SOMETHING or anything. This blog post about heliocentrism must be a joke though.

The 222th comment, by packerwatch, on that blog post read: you’re stupid. just because we can’t FEEL the earth moving doesn’t mean its not you inbred dumbass. when you fly in a plane you don’t feel like you’re moving at 400 mph, you feel like you’re standing still. according to your ingenius observations, that means that the sky is actually flying past the stationary airplane. you are so stupid. and since we’re taking everything in the bible literally here, did you know that eating at Red Lobster is evil? and slavery is ok. you are a perfect example of why siblings shouldn’t have sex.

Passion! freedom and sex! « Escaped Mentalpatient

May 21, 2007 — 12 Comments

Passion! freedom and sex! « Escaped Mentalpatient

This post talks about ”religious twits” and the writer’s opinion is that those without religion are free. That instead of religious people having something that the writer doesn’t have, the writer has what religious people don’t have - freedom. The most interesting comment to this post is the first one – Basil has some interesting things to say, but he is as vehemently against atheism as much as the blog post’s writer is against religion. (more…)

Lone Star Diary » Blog Archive » Allah or Jesus? You decide.

May 18, 2007 — 2 Comments

Lone Star Diary » Blog Archive » Allah or Jesus? You decide.

This post talks of a Muslim Imam stating that each Muslim is meant to kill an unbeliever… and then uses that to promote Christianity… It reads like it was fabricated? If it was a movie, I would’ve said that the dialogue seems unrealistic.

Let them die?

May 14, 2007 — 2 Comments

The Last Visible Blog » Blog Archive » God kills

A blog post that talks about medicine that helps prevent a sexually transmitted disease for females, and the debates that surround the implementation of the vaccination in programs for women wanting the protection. I find it a bit arrogant to block vaccination programs based on a conservative view that is not shared by many in the community. The moral view of something like sex (as opposed to something like violence) greatly varies between people; therefore such a decision to block the implementation of vaccination programs to push a certain value system regarding such a morally hazy matter is unacceptable. The decision is supporting some communities within the larger American community and discriminating against other smaller communities who share different beliefs. So, is medicine a temptation which aids in giving way to other temptation?

Dalai Lama urges Christians not to convert to Buddhism

May 13, 2007 — 7 Comments

Strange? Dalai Lama urges Christians not to convert to Buddhism - Not strange to me. And somewhat in contrast to something I looked at in a previous post of mine about the Dalai Lama.

I like the Dalia Lama’s view; however his point about the same teachings and values is argued against by many including the many interviewees in Lee Strobel’s “A Case For Faith,” which is a text that I’d like to write about in a future post. It’s a quite a biased text, but then how can a text called “A Case For Faith” not be biased? Nonetheless, the Dalai Lama’s view is similar to my own, but it can be argued with when looked at with regards to specific scripture instead of the bigger picture of religion in general, or particular religion – which is evident in Lee Strobel’s book.

I found this link from a forum which had the heading “Is it right for a parent to impose their religious beliefs on their child?” which I in-turn found because people were getting to my blog (which someone had linked to) from that forum. One person was arguing that parents inevitably impose their beliefs onto their children since most kids end up following the same religion as their parents. Another person - who linked to a post of mine - argued that regardless of that, there comes a time when a child becomes older and decides to think for themselves and hence create their own beliefs. I don’t know – as much as I know many people who have their own views as they get older (and some who opposed their parents’ views as a child) there are as many (if not more) that I know who simply follow what their parents believed was right – because, it is “right.” I don’t think that it’s necessarily a bad thing until the fact that someone is “right” makes another “wrong.” Nonetheless, parents will impose their beliefs since they will usually think that their view is the best (i.e. it works for them so why not for their child?), whether its narrow-minded (religious or not) or open-minded (religious or not) – so it’s just a matter of having faith in the human nature to raise questions about the meaning of life (instead of the human nature of residing in the bliss of ignorant certainty). One can only hope and try and questions.

Another interesting wikipedia page that talks about “notable converts to Christianity,” that I found on the forum.

Women can’t be priests?

May 12, 2007 — 18 Comments

Irish-Catholic and Dangerous: Reason #3,987,240 Why Women Cannot Be Priests

Interesting read mainly because there are such strong biases in the writer’s view, so that the he doesn’t seem to feel the need to explain things properly. The post read like someone laughing at the idea of a female Catholic priest, and furthermore, there seems to be an expectation (assuming) that others will laugh accordingly at the ludicrous idea. I didn’t find the article about women priest funny or absurd in any way, but then again I’m not a Catholic or a Christian – so I’m just curious and confused. So, a woman being a priest is ridiculous in this blog post… It makes no sense to me apart from it being the following of tradition, which may have been initially set up because in that context perhaps only men were suitable for priesthood. What would actually make a woman being ordained a priest, bad? What innate difference in men and women stops women from being priests? Yes women an men are obviously different, but how, with regards to being a priest?