Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[leicsmac]

I do not discount the idea that a supreme being might exist...but the idea that we might understand what they're trying to do/what they want from us, and build a belief structure around it to run society as a result, just strikes me as the most prideful type of arrogance that those same structures profess to rail against.

 

Thus, organised religion is full of hypocrites.

 

(Not necessarily an unpopular opinion on here, but considering that a large % of the world seem to follow these belief structures...)

[Milo]

42 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I do not discount the idea that a supreme being might exist...but the idea that we might understand what they're trying to do/what they want from us, and build a belief structure around it to run society as a result, just strikes me as the most prideful type of arrogance that those same structures profess to rail against.

 

Thus, organised religion is full of hypocrites.

 

(Not necessarily an unpopular opinion on here, but considering that a large % of the world seem to follow these belief structures...)

Yep - the difference between faith and religion. 

 

Faith good

religion generally not so 

 

[Countryfox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I do not discount the idea that a supreme being might exist...

 

I've seen him on Doctor Who !! ...        Very scary ....

 

 

[DennisNedry]

1 hour ago, Milo said:

Yep - the difference between faith and religion. 

 

Faith good

religion generally not so 

 

 

That's subjective for sure!

 

My unpopular opinion is that Black Lives Matter has no real basis for existing.

[Milo]

2 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

3 hours ago, Milo said:

Faith good

religion generally not so 

 

 

That's subjective for sure!

Nah - faith is always good. Doesn't have to be faith in a deity

[sm1]

Andy King is a great player and we as fans should be proud he plays for our club

[Webbo]

I don't mind Hoddle's co commentary. 

[Benguin]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I do not discount the idea that a supreme being might exist...but the idea that we might understand what they're trying to do/what they want from us, and build a belief structure around it to run society as a result, just strikes me as the most prideful type of arrogance that those same structures profess to rail against.

 

Thus, organised religion is full of hypocrites.

 

(Not necessarily an unpopular opinion on here, but considering that a large % of the world seem to follow these belief structures...)

You are missing something here. Most big religions revolve around the fact that truth has been revealed to man by a higher power. The religions aren't arrogant in pretending to know what truth is they have faith that truth was revealed. In fact if we take Christianity for example you would be hard pressed to find a scholar who denies Jesus existed or that he was a preacher and was executed for this. Therefore Christians are not so arrogant as to make claims about what truth is but rather they believe that what Jesus preached was truth.

[The Doctor]

28 minutes ago, Benguin said:

You are missing something here. Most big religions revolve around the fact that truth has been revealed to man by a higher power. The religions aren't arrogant in pretending to know what truth is they have faith that truth was revealed. In fact if we take Christianity for example you would be hard pressed to find a scholar who denies Jesus existed or that he was a preacher and was executed for this. Therefore Christians are not so arrogant as to make claims about what truth is but rather they believe that what Jesus preached was truth.

5 seconds to type Did Jesus Exist in Google and scroll down past the book of the same name: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.c9af627a00f5

 

If you can't find a scholar that disputes the existence of Jesus, you've not looked.

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, Benguin said:

You are missing something here. Most big religions revolve around the fact that truth has been revealed to man by a higher power. The religions aren't arrogant in pretending to know what truth is they have faith that truth was revealed. In fact if we take Christianity for example you would be hard pressed to find a scholar who denies Jesus existed or that he was a preacher and was executed for this. Therefore Christians are not so arrogant as to make claims about what truth is but rather they believe that what Jesus preached was truth.

4

Then I would still maintain that only mankind knowing that truth as revealed to them (or even a small subset of mankind in some cases) displays exactly the same arrogance.

 

Why one person, or a specific special group of humans (or indeed humanity in general) and not anyone else?

[Benguin]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Then I would still maintain that only mankind knowing that truth as revealed to them (or even a small subset of mankind in some cases) displays exactly the same arrogance.

 

Why one person, or a specific special group of humans (or indeed humanity in general) and not anyone else?

I'm not really sure what you mean? The truth according to each religion is accessible to anyone. 

[Benguin]

13 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

5 seconds to type Did Jesus Exist in Google and scroll down past the book of the same name: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.c9af627a00f5

 

If you can't find a scholar that disputes the existence of Jesus, you've not looked.

Hard pushed meaning very few not zero. Thought that was self explanatory.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I'm not really sure what you mean? The truth according to each religion is accessible to anyone. 

Accessible to any human who can read it, yes, and that truth being subject to the interpretation of the one who wrote it down/spoke it. That still means that truth travelled from the deity to the small group of people who recorded it (why were they favoured that way?) and discounts a lot of different life in a lot of different places - something that the religions insist their deity oversees too.

 

I'm sorry, but the idea that a deity thinks that humans (or one small group of them) are special enough to share the truth behind the universe with them and no other and to spread it in a way that only humans can interpret...that sounds much more like human self-importance than anything else to me. Again, I know I'm in the minority in that regard, though.

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Accessible to any human who can read it, yes, and that truth being subject to the interpretation of the one who wrote it down/spoke it. That still means that truth travelled from the deity to the small group of people who recorded it (why were they favoured that way?) and discounts a lot of different life in a lot of different places - something that the religions insist their deity oversees too.

 

I'm sorry, but the idea that a deity thinks that humans (or one small group of them) are special enough to share the truth behind the universe with them and no other and to spread it in a way that only humans can interpret...that sounds much more like human self-importance than anything else to me. Again, I know I'm in the minority in that regard, though.

I'm not going to try and defend religions as I am agnostic at best. I am pointing out that claiming big organised religious are arrogant in the sense that they think they alone are privy to the truth and they understand the will of god is wrong. In christianity's case, it was Jesus that did that and followers are simply believing his teachings.  Also I don't know a religious person alive that doesn't seek to spread or pray for those who don't know their truth.

[Strokes]

31 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

5 seconds to type Did Jesus Exist in Google and scroll down past the book of the same name: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.c9af627a00f5

 

If you can't find a scholar that disputes the existence of Jesus, you've not looked.

He plays for Man City, how can one deny?

[The Doctor]

31 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Hard pushed meaning very few not zero. Thought that was self explanatory.

Because most scholars from that field are Christians to start with, the focus is on biblical scholarship with the existence of the J-man assumed as fact - so the historicity isn't covered much. Presumption of an answer only tangentially related to the main focus is hardly a good building block for other questions.

[Illusion35]

That not everything currently being called 'sexual assault' by the media  is actually a sexual assault.

 

Putting your hand on someone's knee. Sending someone a card saying you find them attractive. These things are not sexual assault and should not be construed as such or compared with actual incidents of sexual assault which are clearly very distressing for the victims. 

[Captain...]

9 minutes ago, Illusion35 said:

That not everything currently being called 'sexual assault' by the media  is actually a sexual assault.

 

Putting your hand on someone's knee. Sending someone a card saying you find them attractive. These things are not sexual assault and should not be construed as such or compared with actual incidents of sexual assault which are clearly very distressing for the victims. 

 

I get what your saying, but the numerous incidents of unsolicited attention from men in power even seemingly minor incidents, all build up to an overwhelming feeling of oppression that facilitates the more serious forms of abuse.

[Wymsey]

What I find weird about it is that it tends to be women V men on that topic, as if males only do it/get complained about doing it to someone.

Hasn't there at all been any case in the workplace etc that a female did the hand-to-knee scenario to a male? 

Edited 11 November 2017 by Wymeswold fox

[Illusion35]

33 minutes ago, Captain... said:

 

I get what your saying, but the numerous incidents of unsolicited attention from men in power even seemingly minor incidents, all build up to an overwhelming feeling of oppression that facilitates the more serious forms of abuse.

I completely understand what you're saying about powerful men abusing that power and that minor transgressions can lead to more major ones. But there seems to be a lot of jumping on the bandwagon from people who are simply attention seeking. The whole #metoo thing. I have every sympathy for true victims. But some are not. You should not lose your job because you put your hand on someone's knee at a party several years ago. A man sends me a card saying he fancies me? I'd say thank you I'm flattered, but not interested in you that way. Not sexual assault. A man asks if he can masturbate in front of me, I'd say no thanks! One woman even said she said yes and then described it as sexual assault! 

 

I recognise my opinion as unpopular, hence under this thread title  

[leicsmac]

14 hours ago, Benguin said:

I'm not going to try and defend religions as I am agnostic at best. I am pointing out that claiming big organised religious are arrogant in the sense that they think they alone are privy to the truth and they understand the will of god is wrong. In christianity's case, it was Jesus that did that and followers are simply believing his teachings.  Also I don't know a religious person alive that doesn't seek to spread or pray for those who don't know their truth.

I think we're rather going in circles on this one tbh. I'm well aware that most of the major organised religions spread around the truth, but that truth is still truth that was originally passed to a single person or group of persons who are somehow special, and that it is still only accessible to humans alone. That we as a species are special enough to have access to that truth and the will of a deity when no others can still smacks of hubris IMO, but I guess we'll leave it there. 

[Dr The Singh]

16 hours ago, Webbo said:

I don't mind Hoddle's co commentary. 

So not surprised

[Dr The Singh]

14 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Accessible to any human who can read it, yes, and that truth being subject to the interpretation of the one who wrote it down/spoke it. That still means that truth travelled from the deity to the small group of people who recorded it (why were they favoured that way?) and discounts a lot of different life in a lot of different places - something that the religions insist their deity oversees too.

 

I'm sorry, but the idea that a deity thinks that humans (or one small group of them) are special enough to share the truth behind the universe with them and no other and to spread it in a way that only humans can interpret...that sounds much more like human self-importance than anything else to me. Again, I know I'm in the minority in that regard, though.

Seriously dude, not all religions are the same, please don't compartmentalise all of the them, because my faith does not say what your saying.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

Seriously dude, not all religions are the same, please don't compartmentalise all of the them, because my faith does not say what your saying.

If your faith doesn't say that only humans get an idea into the workings of a deity and we're special because of it, then fair enough.

 

Apologies if I'm going a little tough on this one but I've seen that hypocrisy so many times.

[The Doctor]

34 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think we're rather going in circles on this one tbh. I'm well aware that most of the major organised religions spread around the truth, but that truth is still truth that was originally passed to a single person or group of persons who are somehow special, and that it is still only accessible to humans alone. That we as a species are special enough to have access to that truth and the will of a deity when no others can still smacks of hubris IMO, but I guess we'll leave it there. 

Tbf we're just superior to other species, it's why we've managed to cage them so we can go and spray champagne, shouting "we're number one" at some chimps at our own leisure.