What about the belief that money has inherent value, rather than simply being a means of exchange? That is a belief in something that does not actually exist.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Sorry Nora it does not work like that for me. I am against all supernatural belief systems.
I avoid anyone who is part of any of them. At work I only worked with those people I have never socialised with them. Luckily they were a very small minority. The same goes for the people my wife and I meet socially. These days religious wingnuts are few and far between. I never judge people but I will confront them if any mention is made to a belief system.
All belief systems are a tumour in our society and have to be removed even the most benign.

Maybe I'm going a bit soft in my old age. I used to think somewhat similarly to yourself Scot. Any belief in woo, I considered ridiculous and unhealthy, generally bad for society etc. The only thing is, without using thought police, you can't turn those beliefs off for people completely.

If the fundamentalists could however at least tone down their preaching, indoctrination and attempts to enforce their beliefs onto the rest of society to the level of the Quakers, I'm not sure that they would present anyone with any problem.
I've never heard of any form of overt Quaker campaigning for anything that I would consider harmful, backward, immoral or indeed wrong in any way shape or form. I've never seen any form of hateful words attributed to Quakers.

There's a couple of families at my daughter's school who are Quakers. They seem like very nice people, with nice kids and don't cause me any problem at all. The only reason I know they are Quakers in the first place is from some school work on display in the hall as you go into the school. This is completely different to the experience I have had with a Mormon family (particularly the mother) who can't help but prattle on about God at every opportunity to the point that I will not let my daughter go to their house any more (her classmate's) and come home frightened and upset about her parents going to hell and her with them unless she accepts God into her life!

In terms of "religious nuisance value" or "religious profile", Quakers seem so low level that they are hardly on the scale. Now I accept that people are going to believe in what I consider to be complete woo, regardless of what anyone else says. I just wish that if they insist on believing in it, more of them could do so in the quiet, dignified manner people such as Quakers do.

Fallible wrote:You never judge people? That's exactly what you've just been doing. You've just judged all Quakers en masse as the same as fundamentalists simply because they tenuously share one belief.

I do not judge individuals and tha was the point made. I judge groups just on the simple premis of belief systems.
Are they not claiming to be xtians or not?

It's your prerogative to avoid such people. It is not your prerogative to demand that others believe only the things which you have deemed acceptable and stop believing anything else. I am against all supernatural beliefs systems too, in that I think they are daft and I don't hold any. I still recognise that it's none of my business what others believe as long as it causes no harm to anyone else.

That is not the way they see it. They think it is their right to impose their beliefs onto our society. They think it is their right to indoctronate children into their belief systems. Do we have to allow them? We cant make any objections to what they are imposing? Sorry.....

The thing about Quakers is that if you leave them alone, or even if you don't, they will leave you alone. You never have to concern yourself with them. So why do you? Why do you presume to dictate what other people can think, rather than just sticking to personally avoiding anyone whose beliefs you don't like? Isn't that exactly the kind of thinking that has religious wing-nuts interfering in our society?

I am not dictating anything I am just opposing any supernatural belief system and I want it cleared out of our society and luckily here it is going in the right direction.
Allowing any form however mild to exist still causes religious static in our society. This what other belief systems like islam play on. If you clear out one the rest becomes easy.

cursuswalker wrote:What about the belief that money has inherent value, rather than simply being a means of exchange? That is a belief in something that does not actually exist.

Is there a supernatural deity involved?
I dont think so. Mind you people thinking like that are maybe need some form of help.

monkeyboy wrote:In terms of "religious nuisance value" or "religious profile", Quakers seem so low level that they are hardly on the scale. Now I accept that people are going to believe in what I consider to be complete woo, regardless of what anyone else says. I just wish that if they insist on believing in it, more of them could do so in the quiet, dignified manner people such as Quakers do.

Did the children ask to be quakers? Would like to live in a quaker society. A very dull experience as I have found speaking to them. As I have already stated I do not judge individuals but as a group they perpetuate the xtian static even though they represent the quieter end of the xtain spectrum. It is the whole spectrun I want removed and unmantled.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

cursuswalker wrote:What about the belief that money has inherent value, rather than simply being a means of exchange? That is a belief in something that does not actually exist.

Is there a supernatural deity involved?
I dont think so. Mind you people thinking like that are maybe need some form of help.

There is an irrational belief in the existence of something (inherent value) that cannot be demonstrated to exist.

cursuswalker wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

cursuswalker wrote:What about the belief that money has inherent value, rather than simply being a means of exchange? That is a belief in something that does not actually exist.

Is there a supernatural deity involved?
I dont think so. Mind you people thinking like that are maybe need some form of help.

There is an irrational belief in the existence of something (inherent value) that cannot be demonstrated to exist.

Does that make it a supernatural belief system? If it is what is its deity?

I cant see one. I agree it is irrational but lots of us have irrational beliefs that have nothing to do with supernatural belief systems.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

cursuswalker wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Is there a supernatural deity involved?
I dont think so. Mind you people thinking like that are maybe need some form of help.

There is an irrational belief in the existence of something (inherent value) that cannot be demonstrated to exist.

Does that make it a supernatural belief system? If it is what is its deity?

I cant see one. I agree it is irrational but lots of us have irrational beliefs that have nothing to do with supernatural belief systems.

Any belief that alleges the existence of something that cannot be demonstrated to exist is surely a supernatural belief? In that the thing that is alleged to exist lies outside nature.

cursuswalker wrote:Any belief that alleges the existence of something that cannot be demonstrated to exist is surely a supernatural belief? In that the thing that is alleged to exist lies outside nature.

It is believing in the supernatural but not in a supernatural deity.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

cursuswalker wrote:Any belief that alleges the existence of something that cannot be demonstrated to exist is surely a supernatural belief? In that the thing that is alleged to exist lies outside nature.

It is believing in the supernatural but not in a supernatural deity.

What is it about the supernatural belief being in a living thing that makes it worse?

cursuswalker wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

cursuswalker wrote:Any belief that alleges the existence of something that cannot be demonstrated to exist is surely a supernatural belief? In that the thing that is alleged to exist lies outside nature.

It is believing in the supernatural but not in a supernatural deity.

What is it about the supernatural belief being in a living thing that makes it worse?

I would not say it is worse but it is irrational would could affect one's judgement as does believing in a supernatural deity.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

cursuswalker wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

It is believing in the supernatural but not in a supernatural deity.

What is it about the supernatural belief being in a living thing that makes it worse?

I would not say it is worse but it is irrational would could affect one's judgement as does believing in a supernatural deity.

Can you clarify that? The parts of the sentence before and after "as does" seem to both be referring to the same thing.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:In terms of "religious nuisance value" or "religious profile", Quakers seem so low level that they are hardly on the scale. Now I accept that people are going to believe in what I consider to be complete woo, regardless of what anyone else says. I just wish that if they insist on believing in it, more of them could do so in the quiet, dignified manner people such as Quakers do.

Did the children ask to be quakers? Would like to live in a quaker society. A very dull experience as I have found speaking to them. As I have already stated I do not judge individuals but as a group they perpetuate the xtian static even though they represent the quieter end of the xtain spectrum. It is the whole spectrun I want removed and unmantled.

Do children of otherwise perceivably dull parents with perceivably dull hobbies and interests who happen to be atheists get off any lighter? Maybe my kids will grow up not wanting to visit sites of natural beauty, artistic and historical interests when they're older, being encouraged to learn whilst on holidays etc. At the moment they seem not to mind being dragged around the country and on occasion the world to such places and even seem interested but maybe they'll never visit such places again as adults. Maybe they'll resent me for not having taken them to Disneyland or some other vulgar (IMO) places instead of being given the opportunity to install some cultural knowledge. Maybe they'd prefer theme parks to days out sailing, hiking, canoeing, climbing, potholing, white water rafting and skiing.

At least from my brief reading on the Quakers, if the children grow up choosing a different lifestyle and rejecting the woo, they won't be ostracised or "shunned" as in some other religions. They'll still be respected as people. That's a major difference to some more fundamentalist type religions I can think of.

I understand the idea of wanting to dismantle they idea of belief in all forms of woo but that's only going to happen over time. I firmly believe that we're in the era in history where that's going to happen, education and freedom of speech is going to continue to erode some of the firmly entrenched ideas that people hold. I'd just sooner focus efforts at those people who insist on trying to affect my life and the things I'm allowed to do because of outdated superstitious beliefs they hold rather than be getting all het up over a bunch of quiet unassuming types who don't interfere with anything much. Even when they do, it's historically been to the benefit of society.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Fallible wrote:You never judge people? That's exactly what you've just been doing. You've just judged all Quakers en masse as the same as fundamentalists simply because they tenuously share one belief.

I do not judge individuals and tha was the point made. I judge groups just on the simple premis of belief systems.
Are they not claiming to be xtians or not?

Why would you not judge individuals? Without them, there would be no belief system, surely.

That is not the way they see it. They think it is their right to impose their beliefs onto our society. They think it is their right to indoctronate children into their belief systems. Do we have to allow them? We cant make any objections to what they are imposing? Sorry.....

You're not listening. Quakers do not see that they have a duty to impose their beliefs on our society. If you leave them alone, they will leave you alone. Even in their own meetings, you are not molested or proselytised at in any way. I've been to them, and therefore speak from a position of real-world experience. As for the indoctrination of their children, this would be one of the reasons why it's silly to lump people into big groups and judge them all equally harshly. Quakers vary in their beliefs. Cursuswalker might have more insight into whether their children are indoctrinated than I do.

I am not dictating anything I am just opposing any supernatural belief system and I want it cleared out of our society and luckily here it is going in the right direction.

Saying that belief systems must be removed is dictating, sorry if you didn't realise that. I'd like them gone too, but I stop short of making demands, because it's none of my fucking business what people believe if it doesn't harm anyone else.

Allowing any form however mild to exist still causes religious static in our society. This what other belief systems like islam play on. If you clear out one the rest becomes easy.

I'm sure the Romans, Norse people and Greeks of old among others would have something to say about that, probably something contrary to what you claim. Speaking in terms of 'allowing' beliefs to exist assumes you have the power to make them go on demand. You don't, thankfully. What resides inside a person's own skull is their business, no one else's.

Fallible wrote:Cursuswalker might have more insight into whether their children are indoctrinated than I do.

I do indeed. In the childrens' class I do remember being told bible stories from the New Testament. But I equally remember being told about diversity and respect.

My parents NEVER told me what I should believe.

Does anyone have criminal demographic information on the Quakers?
I'm curious if Christian morality as practiced by the Quakers could be shown to be less crime prone than other groups that do not live under a strict Christian morality.

Perhaps if the difference is great enough, the dangers of secularism / atheism will be reevaluated, and that the secular court rulings starting in the 1950s were directly responsible for an increase in crime and negative social issues