What religion/faith are you?

[Discofan]

I don't think it's presumptuous to think the earth was made to support life. The conditions have to be just so, there are laws and patterns, and order, that make life very pleasant. There's beauty too. I've been guilty of taking it for granted too long.

Way to miss the point!


But what else is new?

 

[Armus]

Way to miss the point!


But what else is new?

I was responding to your rhetorical remark about presumptuousness. I wasn't trying to ignore an earlier point you were making. Arguing past each other is pretty pointless.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The aphorism about foxholes is more intended to be a statement on how people’s thinking changes when they are frightened and feel out of control. Like, accepting the idea that preserves your sanity as a defense mechanism to an emotional crisis.

The Earth wasn’t made to support life, life designed itself to be supported on Earth. That’s how natural selection works.

 

[Discofan]

I was responding to your rhetorical remark about presumptuousness. I wasn't trying to ignore an earlier point you were making. Arguing past each other is pretty pointless.

I didn't just use the word "presumptuous", there were other words around it. It would have been nice if you had answered to those as well. Right now it seems like you're arguing with a dictionary.

What's my next word you're going to answer to?

 

[Armus]

I guess I got the point but the metaphor could be translated many other ways and still mean the general point.. That does not answer the questions ... How do we know that we are actually thinking? and where can I make a mark so as to just ---- absurdly ignore it for what it is , a standard that was made at some point by someone whom I would disagree with -- probably right?



we need to set our own marks maybe that are reasonable maybe? or not.. ----

How do we know we are actually thinking? In the context of a back and forth exchange between people, actually listen the other person before you respond to them. That's an ongoing effort for me.

 

[Armus]

I didn't just use the word "presumptuous", there were other words around it. It would have been nice if you had answered to those as well. Right now it seems like you're arguing with a dictionary.

What's my next word you're going to answer to?

You don't have to be so defensive. You asked a rhetorical question and invited a response.

 

[think]

what about sightings of the virgin Mary ? did you see them ?000? the way I saw them .. back then?

The aphorism about foxholes is more intended to be a statement on how people’s thinking changes when they are frightened and feel out of control. Like, accepting the idea that preserves your sanity as a defense mechanism to an emotional crisis.

The Earth wasn’t made to support life, life designed itself to be supported on Earth. That’s how natural selection works.

If I was a fox in a fox-hole,, I might get worried but if I was a life form (which I might be) would I choose earth to let support me or would I try and support the earth in "her" efforts to go on..? IDK it makes no difference, as it is I accept the plight of life and what is offered ... and what I give ---- If I might. but is this sane or insane???? I say it can be both or neither either or. none not.. sanity for me is quite a different thing for someone else.. I have found and I do not assume anymore that everyone has that same "notion" of mindful awareness that is so sought after by these guru's of pud and poop but I have found it has no real matter of any substance really ,,, this language that is so difficult to communicate what we "think"

 

[Discofan]

You don't have to be so defensive. You made a rhetorical question and invited a response.

Except that, as I am painfully trying to make you realize, you never answered that question. Instead, you answered some other question that was never asked. That's called a straw man and it's a fallacy!

You get that?

 

[Nakita Akita]

Both the Army and Marines? Wow, that's impressive.
Your individual experience doesn't contradict anything said in the articles I posted, though.

The 1976th Destroyer Division of the KISS Army under Gen. "Demon" Simmons in the War Against the Juggalos of the ICP. Their Fucking Magnetrons killed a lot of good soldiers, even though they didn't seem to know how they worked.

So you were never in the military.
So you are basing your facts on an article from where? Written by who?
I'm sure you can tell everyone about conditions in Poland in World war two or
Venezuela this week with the same level of authority as someone who was there perhaps?

 

[Discofan]

So you were never in the military.
So you are basing your facts on an article from where? Written by who?
I'm sure you can tell everyone about conditions in Poland in World war two or
Venezuela this week with the same level of authority as someone who was there perhaps?

Yeah, you can't say anything about fish unless you are a fish yourself right?

 

[Armus]

Except that, as I am painfully trying to make you realize, you never answered that question. Instead, you answered some other question that was never asked. That's called a straw man and it's a fallacy!

You get that?

I did use different words than you did. It all means the same thing to me, although I see the difference now between saying earth vs. universe, support vs. create.

 

[Nakita Akita]

Yeah, you can't say anything about fish unless you are a fish yourself right?

Well, not really, a person can make supposition but can't really know how a fish thinks or feels.

 

[Discofan]

Well, not really, a person can make supposition but can't really know how a fish thinks or feels.

Well, it seems to me that the articles are about facts, not thoughts or feelings.

 

[Nakita Akita]

Well, it seems to me that the articles are about facts, not thoughts or feelings.

As a former military person,I'd have to say I would not want an atheist being my chaplain.

 

[Discofan]

As a former military person,I'd have to say I would not want an atheist being my chaplain.

Well, to me it was a little different we were in the military in peacetime and didn't have a chaplain, at least not that I know of. Anyway, the believers could go to any civilian church of their choosing, I guess, they didn't need the help of the army for that. Not that there were that many of them. We've been a truly secular country for a long time and it shows.

 

[Nakita Akita]

Well, to me it was a little different we were in the military in peacetime and didn't have a chaplain, at least not that I know of. Anyway, the believers could go to any civilian church of their choosing, I guess, they didn't need the help of the army for that. Not that there were that many of them. We've been a truly secular country for a long time and it shows.

What I noticed in the article was that they said the Chaplain also helps with regular counselling, but they have regular councellors for that.
A chaplain is supposed to be for 'spiritual' counselling. I can't think of an atheist helping someone with something they don't even believe. It honestly doesn't make sense.

 

[Discofan]

What I noticed in the article was that they said the Chaplain also helps with regular counselling, but they have regular councellors for that.
A chaplain is supposed to be for 'spiritual' counselling. I can't think of an atheist helping someone with something they don't even believe. It honestly doesn't make sense.

I've never seen a counselor or any kind of priest myself so I wouldn't know. I would feel weird telling my personal stuff to a complete stranger. I talk about personal stuff to people close to me but there are things I will always keep to myself.

 

[J.T.B.]

"There are no athiests in foxholes" is best used as a aphorism, not a statement of fact. Like any aphorism it can become a cliche. In many cases people in times of extreme stress or fear hope and believe in a higher power so there is some truth to it.

It's also offensive to many, implying that their beliefs are so tenuous and unfounded that they would never withstand the shock and stress of combat. Which of course is not true, countless non-believing people have gone through combat without having a religious conversion. It's a way to throw some disrespect toward a different belief system, and is often stated as a fact.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

So you were never in the military.

No, and I never claimed to be, so if that's some kind of gotcha, it's not much of one. You comment on things you haven't personally experienced or don't have expertise in constantly, and never (that I recall) with actual links relating to the subject matter to support your claims.

Of course, the only reason we're going on this little tangent is so you can avoid addressing the actual point, that there in fact plenty of atheists serving in active duty.

So you are basing your facts on an article from where? Written by who?

Is this a joke? Click on the links and see for yourself.

I'm sure you can tell everyone about conditions in Poland in World war two or
Venezuela this week with the same level of authority as someone who was there perhaps?

Since I'm not a time traveling soldier from the future, I'm gonna say no.
But thank you for your service in the Wehrmacht and Red Army and on either past special forces ops in Venezuela or future military deployments that haven't happened yet. Like I said, impressive.

One doesn't have to personally experience something to know it exists and point you in the direction of sources to back up their claims.

As a former military person,I'd have to say I would not want an atheist being my chaplain.

What I noticed in the article was that they said the Chaplain also helps with regular counselling, but they have regular councellors for that.
A chaplain is supposed to be for 'spiritual' counselling. I can't think of an atheist helping someone with something they don't even believe. It honestly doesn't make sense.

No one would be forcing you to have an atheist chaplain. They wouldn't be "your" chaplain unless you requested them, because he's specifically asking to be assigned as a secular-humanist chaplain, which you would not choose, for obvious reasons. So what's the problem? You wouldn't choose a Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist chaplain either, I presume, so this is no different. There are people who are spiritual but not religious, who don't believe in god but have faith in other things, who don't believe in god but still need ethical and moral guidance, who might be on the fence about what they believe or not and need someone to talk to to learn more. While many of them can get the answers they need from existing chaplains or counselors, what's the harm in having someone with the training available to address their needs more specifically? Someone they might feel more comfortable with? Why are you looking at this issue strictly from your perspective instead of from others?

Also, he has a doctorate in divinity, so he knows the scripture even if he doesn't believe in a supernatural source for it. You can be an admirer of the teachings of Christ the man (or the disciples) without believing he was divine. What if someone religious requested to speak to him because they wanted an interpretation of scripture based solely on the text without your personal faith or fear or doubt of God influencing your answer? It's not like he'd conceal his lack of faith from the soldiers he was meeting, it would be disclosed in advance so they could have a choice.

Following the aphorism of "No atheists in foxholes" you raised, what if someone who was previously a non-believer found faith after a life-threatening moment and wanted to share their thoughts with someone he or she felt comfortable with as a fellow non-believer before officially "coming out" as a Christian because they're worried about sharing their previous non-belief with others who might condemn them?

My point is, what's the harm in having secular-humanist chaplains available to address the concerns of a fast-growing number of service people?

 

[Nakita Akita]

No, and I never claimed to be, so if that's some kind of gotcha, it's not much of one. You comment on things you haven't personally experienced or don't have expertise in constantly, and never (that I recall) with actual links relating to the subject matter to support your claims.

Of course, the only reason we're going on this little tangent is so you can avoid addressing the actual point, that there in fact plenty of atheists serving in active duty.


Is this a joke? Click on the links and see for yourself.


Since I'm not a time traveling soldier from the future, I'm gonna say no.
But thank you for your service in the Wehrmacht and Red Army and on either past special forces ops in Venezuela or future military deployments that haven't happened yet. Like I said, impressive.

One doesn't have to personally experience something to know it exists and point you in the direction of sources to back up their claims.



No one would be forcing you to have an atheist chaplain. They wouldn't be "your" chaplain unless you requested them, because he's specifically asking to be assigned as a secular-humanist chaplain, which you would not choose, for obvious reasons. So what's the problem? You wouldn't choose a Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist chaplain either, I presume, so this is no different. There are people who are spiritual but not religious, who don't believe in god but have faith in other things, who don't believe in god but still need ethical and moral guidance, who might be on the fence about what they believe or not and need someone to talk to to learn more. While many of them can get the answers they need from existing chaplains or counselors, what's the harm in having someone with the training available to address their needs more specifically? Someone they might feel more comfortable with? Why are you looking at this issue strictly from your perspective instead of from others?

Also, he has a doctorate in divinity, so he knows the scripture even if he doesn't believe in a supernatural source for it. You can be an admirer of the teachings of Christ the man (or the disciples) without believing he was divine. What if someone religious requested to speak to him because they wanted an interpretation of scripture based solely on the text without your personal faith or fear or doubt of God influencing your answer? It's not like he'd conceal his lack of faith from the soldiers he was meeting, it would be disclosed in advance so they could have a choice.

Following the aphorism of "No atheists in foxholes" you raised, what if someone who was previously a non-believer found faith after a life-threatening moment and wanted to share his thoughts with someone he or she felt comfortable with as a fellow non-believer before officially "coming out" as a Christian because they're worried about sharing their previous non-belief with others who might condemn them?

My point is, what's the harm in having secular-humanist chaplains available to address the concerns of a fast-growing number of service people?

They have those people available to military personnel, they are called counsellors.

Also try to recall that I used to be Wiccan.