Religious material in caches

[+KBI]

i'm sorry, what was your question?

No problem. I'll repeat. Please note the bolded parts:

 

... and that still doesn't explain why you should allow the printed tracts in geocaches to bother you.

 

Telling a charged-up, salvation-inspired theo-salesman (who is convinced he HAS to save you to prevent going to hell himself) to shut up isn't always easy. Telling an inert piece of paper to shut up, on the other hand, isn't all that difficult.

… and you STILL haven’t explained WHY you choose to allow those paper flyers to send you into a livid collar-choking frenzy when you could just as easily ignore them, shove them aside long enough to sign the cache logbook, and then forget about them.

[+flask]

i'm sorry, what was your question?

No problem. I'll repeat. Please note the bolded parts:

 

... and that still doesn't explain why you should allow the printed tracts in geocaches to bother you.

 

Telling a charged-up, salvation-inspired theo-salesman (who is convinced he HAS to save you to prevent going to hell himself) to shut up isn't always easy. Telling an inert piece of paper to shut up, on the other hand, isn't all that difficult.

… and you STILL haven’t explained WHY you choose to allow those paper flyers to send you into a livid collar-choking frenzy when you could just as easily ignore them, shove them aside long enough to sign the cache logbook, and then forget about them.

 

oh. uh, well, i CAN ignore them, and i do in the field, but as long as somebody asked about it, i thought i'd come out and make my case as to why this stuff is rude.

 

you're assuming lividness and collar-choking, which is why i think your uh, questions just didn't register on me.

[+KBI]

oh. uh, well, i CAN ignore them,

Good to hear.

 

and i do in the field, but as long as somebody asked about it, i thought i'd come out and make my case as to why this stuff is rude.

... and a strongly stated case it was. Excuse me for taking your words at face value; I guess I misunderstood just how gently you meant your feelings to be expressed while you were ranting about vandalism, flatulence and yanking choke collars.

 

you're assuming lividness and collar-choking, which is why i think your uh, questions just didn't register on me.

It wasn’t an "assumption." It was somewhere between a reiteration and a direct quote (please especially note the portion in bold):

 

suppose i ... NEED somewhere to take a dump ... can i do it on his lawn?

 

... surely if i just have that cadillac fleetwood towed for him, he will thank me....

 

it is precisely the arrogance of spiritual busybodies believing that they're doing you a favor that needs to be brought up short on a choke collar. they NEED to be informed that their claptrap is unwanted, unwelcome, and rude. not MEANING to be rude does not excuse them.

[+TrailGators]

oh. uh, well, i CAN ignore them,

Good to hear.

 

and i do in the field, but as long as somebody asked about it, i thought i'd come out and make my case as to why this stuff is rude.

... and a strongly stated case it was. Excuse me for taking your words at face value; I guess I misunderstood just how gently you meant your feelings to be expressed while you were ranting about vandalism, flatulence and yanking choke collars.

 

you're assuming lividness and collar-choking, which is why i think your uh, questions just didn't register on me.

It wasn't an "assumption." It was somewhere between a reiteration and a direct quote (please especially note the portion in bold):

 

suppose i ... NEED somewhere to take a dump ... can i do it on his lawn?

 

... surely if i just have that cadillac fleetwood towed for him, he will thank me....

 

it is precisely the arrogance of spiritual busybodies believing that they're doing you a favor that needs to be brought up short on a choke collar. they NEED to be informed that their claptrap is unwanted, unwelcome, and rude. not MEANING to be rude does not excuse them.

I never thought I'd say this but I'm with KBI on this. There was a lot of stuff said that was too excessive for someone putting a piece of paper in a cache...

[+flask]

oh. uh, well, i CAN ignore them,

Good to hear.

 

and i do in the field, but as long as somebody asked about it, i thought i'd come out and make my case as to why this stuff is rude.

... and a strongly stated case it was. Excuse me for taking your words at face value; I guess I misunderstood just how gently you meant your feelings to be expressed while you were ranting about vandalism, flatulence and yanking choke collars.

 

you're assuming lividness and collar-choking, which is why i think your uh, questions just didn't register on me.

It wasn’t an "assumption." It was somewhere between a reiteration and a direct quote (please especially note the portion in bold):

 

suppose i ... NEED somewhere to take a dump ... can i do it on his lawn?

 

... surely if i just have that cadillac fleetwood towed for him, he will thank me....

 

it is precisely the arrogance of spiritual busybodies believing that they're doing you a favor that needs to be brought up short on a choke collar. they NEED to be informed that their claptrap is unwanted, unwelcome, and rude. not MEANING to be rude does not excuse them.

 

you've heard of a choke collar, right? you use it when you're training dogs? you know, a quick correction on the lead? you don't use it because you're angry, and you don't actually choke the dog.

 

just because you recognize the words doesn't mean you've understood them, apparently.

[+TrailGators]

oh. uh, well, i CAN ignore them,

Good to hear.

 

and i do in the field, but as long as somebody asked about it, i thought i'd come out and make my case as to why this stuff is rude.

... and a strongly stated case it was. Excuse me for taking your words at face value; I guess I misunderstood just how gently you meant your feelings to be expressed while you were ranting about vandalism, flatulence and yanking choke collars.

 

you're assuming lividness and collar-choking, which is why i think your uh, questions just didn't register on me.

It wasn't an "assumption." It was somewhere between a reiteration and a direct quote (please especially note the portion in bold):

 

suppose i ... NEED somewhere to take a dump ... can i do it on his lawn?

 

... surely if i just have that cadillac fleetwood towed for him, he will thank me....

 

it is precisely the arrogance of spiritual busybodies believing that they're doing you a favor that needs to be brought up short on a choke collar. they NEED to be informed that their claptrap is unwanted, unwelcome, and rude. not MEANING to be rude does not excuse them.

 

you've heard of a choke collar, right? you use it when you're training dogs? you know, a quick correction on the lead? you don't use it because you're angry, and you don't actually choke the dog.

 

just because you recognize the words doesn't mean you've understood them, apparently.

You are equating those people to be as dumb as dogs with that metaphor.

[4wheelin_fool]

Religion is a deeply personal matter. When religious tracts are printed up for the masses and are being distributed without meeting anyone personally, it does not seem compatible.

 

Another issue is misplaced aggression towards the placer of the tracts, such as getting angry at the placer because it is assumed that they are similar to another annoying person that is aggressively religious.

 

However, the people that do this do not intend any malice or harm, as they actually believe they are trying to "help". I cannot see it helping much, as most people are either going to church (most likely a different one) or have already made up their mind about the subject.

 

And on the other side, the people that are annoyed are only trying to "help" the religious people realize that they are only aggravating others with their literature.

 

I personally deeply believe in God, but the irony is that the more organized a religion is, it seems the more hypocritical it is. When I hear the term "bible worship" I cringe because the irony is that the bible itself forbids the worship of "graven images"- which is exactly what "bible worship" is. It's a good reference book, but it should not be worshipped. Much is misinterpreted, and no doubt much of it has been altered.

 

I think that the tracts should just be traded out like any ordinary trade item, or ignored.

[PastorJon]

Flask...

 

It's about 45 miles from Ogunquit to CE. Our Church picnic is at Two Lights State Park on the 13th. We'll probably start around 11 in the morning, and run until early afternoon. Park admission is $3... but the food is free.

 

Seriously--you're more than welcome (as is anyone else reading this who's close enough to come... )

 

And just so I say something on topic... I tend to think that paper tracts probably don't belong in caches. I wouldn't CITO them out, unless they were already wet and moldy. On the other hand, I think that something like Theotokos avatar and Geocoin is absolutely beautiful, and an appropriate expression of faith. (Goodness, don't we have nude caching coins out there? I guess faith coins are pretty harmless, right?)

 

There's a pretty significant difference between speaking positively of your own faith journey, and putting down someone else's faith journey.

[+CrippledBlindSquirrel]

just because you recognize the words doesn't mean you've understood them, apparently.

 

<shrugs>

[+Metaphor]

You are equating those people to be as dumb as dogs with that metaphor.

Hey come on now... no personal attacks.

[+KBI]

you've heard of a choke collar, right? you use it when you're training dogs? you know, a quick correction on the lead? you don't use it because you're angry, and you don't actually choke the dog.

 

just because you recognize the words doesn't mean you've understood them, apparently.

Yes, I know what a choke collar is. Just because I understand what a choke collar is doesn’t mean I don’t see that you were using it as a metaphor for choosing to take a forcefully active response against the producers of inert and harmless paper religious tracts when all you really have to do is ignore them.

 

Whenever I encounter something which might annoy me (lame caches, religious tracts, infomercials, people who say “bless you” when I sneeze), my first response is NOT to try to forcibly modify the behavior of the rest of humanity in order to make the annoying thing go away. No, my first response is to determine whether it is acceptable to me to simply ignore the thing, and to not let it bother me. If the thing is benign and passive, doesn’t threaten my rights, and isn’t backed by malicious intent, I usually find it very easy to blow it off and forget about it.

 

What I DON’T do is talk about installing doggie choke collars on the necks of those who produced the thing, and yanking those collars to obtain a "quick correction" in the direction of my individual personal preference.

 

Pardon my bluntness, but: If you are truly secure and comfortable in your own religious beliefs, then in my opinion you shouldn’t have any reason to fear whatever is printed in ANY religious tract, no matter what religion (or non-religion) it promotes, and no matter how persuasively it’s written. Me, I am VERY secure in my own beliefs – which is why I actually enjoy reading the stuff when it conflicts with my beliefs.

 

One of the reasons I feel secure in what I believe is that I remain open-minded. I am always curious to see whether a tract, friend, book or TV show might lead me to question my assumptions about life and the universe. If it ever does happen, then I figure it will be because my assumptions needed questioning.

 

If you feel you must make an active effort to keep those offending ideas away from your head – to keep your mind closed, in other words – then your beef is not with the writers or distributors of those printed tracts; your beef is instead with yourself, and your own insecurity about what you believe.

 

Any belief system that actively seeks out competing ideas is a strong one, and will either be strengthened in the critical comparison, or will be abandoned in favor of something even easier to believe and defend.

 

Any belief system that must actively AVOID competing ideas in order to survive is a weak one, one that in my opinion is not worthy of my consideration.

 

That’s just my speculation, of course. Maybe your reasons have nothing to do with any of that. My intent here is not to challenge your beliefs. Your religion is your own private business. My intent is only to demonstrate that you need not be bothered by mere paper printings.

[CoyoteRed]

I'm pretty secure in my beliefs, but I still get annoyed by folks at my door trying to save my soul.

 

Now, on the other hand, I find tracts something useful when I'm in some truck stop restroom and I have nothing else to read as I sit there doing business. Still doesn't change my beliefs and I still do pretty much the same thing there as I do with tracts in a cache: round file.

 

Still, tracts in caches annoy me. They are not trade items or signature items. Tracts are trash with an agenda, ads for one's religion.

 

Do tracts bother me more because they are ads for one's religion versus, say, ads for some furniture store? Nope.

[+KBI]

I'm pretty secure in my beliefs, but I still get annoyed by folks at my door trying to save my soul.

 

Now, on the other hand, I find tracts something useful when I'm in some truck stop restroom and I have nothing else to read as I sit there doing business. Still doesn't change my beliefs and I still do pretty much the same thing there as I do with tracts in a cache: round file.

 

Still, tracts in caches annoy me. They are not trade items or signature items. Tracts are trash with an agenda, ads for one's religion.

 

Do tracts bother me more because they are ads for one's religion versus, say, ads for some furniture store? Nope.

I tend to agree with most of that, just not the annoyance part.

 

All I really know for sure it this: "Trash With An Agenda" would make a great name for a rock band.

 

(Maybe the Dixie Chicks need a new name? )

[+TrailGators]

You are equating those people to be as dumb as dogs with that metaphor.

Hey come on now... no personal attacks.

I love dogs mainly because they are always happy and accepting of everyone. We could all take a lesson from them.

[+TrailGators]

I'm pretty secure in my beliefs, but I still get annoyed by folks at my door trying to save my soul.

 

Now, on the other hand, I find tracts something useful when I'm in some truck stop restroom and I have nothing else to read as I sit there doing business. Still doesn't change my beliefs and I still do pretty much the same thing there as I do with tracts in a cache: round file.

 

Still, tracts in caches annoy me. They are not trade items or signature items. Tracts are trash with an agenda, ads for one's religion.

 

Do tracts bother me more because they are ads for one's religion versus, say, ads for some furniture store? Nope.

This is where I'm at too except the pieces of paper don't bother me. What annoys me is when people won't quit calling my house and my phone rings 5-6 times a night.

[+tozainamboku]

One of the reasons I feel secure in what I believe is that I remain open-minded. I am always curious to see whether a tract, friend, book or TV show might lead me to question my assumptions about life and the universe. If it ever does happen, then I figure it will be because my assumptions needed questioning.

 

If you feel you must make an active effort to keep those offending ideas away from your head – to keep your mind closed, in other words – then your beef is not with the writers or distributors of those printed tracts; your beef is instead with yourself, and your own insecurity about what you believe.

 

Any belief system that actively seeks out competing ideas is a strong one, and will either be strengthened in the critical comparison, or will be abandoned in favor of something even easier to believe and defend.

 

Any belief system that must actively AVOID competing ideas in order to survive is a weak one, one that in my opinion is not worthy of my consideration.

 

That’s just my speculation, of course. Maybe your reasons have nothing to do with any of that. My intent here is not to challenge your beliefs. Your religion is your own private business. My intent is only to demonstrate that you need not be bothered by mere paper printings.

I've been pondering why this thread has gone on for five pages on a geocaching. Apart from a few side comments about whether religious tract belong in caches and what one should do if they find tracts in a cache, it seems to be more a discussion of the tracts themselves. Some tract clearly spent more time attacking other religions and portraying them as being evil (or in the language of the the tracts - in league with Satan) than in trying to witness about their particular path to salvation. But even tracts that try to avoid criticism of others tend come off that way.

 

So why is someone like KBI so adamant that it is your choice if you let tracts offend you?

 

The reason is that tracts are bogus "found it " logs. The tracts are all claiming to have found the one way to salvation. Yet offer no proof. I suspect that when you get to the pearly ammo can you won't find the signature of anyone who ever wrote a tract. At least KBI is being consistent. If you are offended by a tract or by a bogus found it log it is your personal choice. KBI may find the tract and the bogus log silly but they have no effect on his search.

[WashoeZephyr]

I'm pretty secure in my beliefs, but I still get annoyed by folks at my door trying to save my soul.

 

Now, on the other hand, I find tracts something useful when I'm in some truck stop restroom and I have nothing else to read as I sit there doing business. Still doesn't change my beliefs and I still do pretty much the same thing there as I do with tracts in a cache: round file.

 

Still, tracts in caches annoy me. They are not trade items or signature items. Tracts are trash with an agenda, ads for one's religion.

 

Do tracts bother me more because they are ads for one's religion versus, say, ads for some furniture store? Nope.

Nicely put!

We have an area cacher that leaves the million dollar bills with the religious garb on it. I have ragged at him for folding them a million times to fit into micros (not leaving adequate room for the log book ). I think he got the hint because he doesn't do it anymore, although he still leaves them in larger caches, which I still find annoying but then that is my personal belief so I leave them::sigh:: small children do think they are cool, but they don't read them so I guess they do have an alternate purpose. He also leaves coins that have the 10 commandments on them. The coins I think are fine, that defines a "sig item" more so than paper garbage. The unfortunate thing is that I've found a cache out in the desert where someone took his stuff out and threw it on the ground. It bothers me that a cacher would do that. If you decide to throw them out, at least put it in your pocket and throw it away.

[+traildad]

 

So why is someone like KBI so adamant that it is your choice if you let tracts offend you?

 

The reason is that tracts are bogus "found it " logs. The tracts are all claiming to have found the one way to salvation. Yet offer no proof. I suspect that when you get to the pearly ammo can you won't find the signature of anyone who ever wrote a tract. At least KBI is being consistent. If you are offended by a tract or by a bogus found it log it is your personal choice. KBI may find the tract and the bogus log silly but they have no effect on his search.

Unless someone gets confused and logs the wrong cache, a bogus log is done intentionally. I would guess that most or all people that claim they have found the one true way to salvation. truly believe it. That is not the same thing as intentionally lying. If someone does not offer or is unable to offer proof, it does not automatically mean they are lying or wrong. A cache is a tangible thing. If you claim a find there should be no room for doubt and it is usually provable. The path to God is intangible. If you as an adult, follow someone that claims to have found the one true path to God, you do it knowing that it can't be proven right or wrong. I see no connection between tracts, religion or the path to God and bogus "found it" logs.

[+Snow Birds]

If a coin with the 10 commandments is acceptable, is a similar coin with a Satanic pentagram also acceptable? How many of you would take the pentagram coin to throw away, but leave the 10 commandments coin there because it is more "proper"?

 

How many Christian cachers would be offended by a Jewish tract trying to convert them to their beliefs?

How many Jewish cachers would be offended by a Christian tract trying to convert them to their beliefs?

How many Christian cachers would be offended by an Atheist flyer trying to show them the error of their ways?

Would not the Atheist be justified in trying to help the Christian see the reality?

 

I know very well that all of you "good Christians" don't think the same as the Pope. I also hope that at least most of you realize that all atheists don't think the same as the ACLU!! There are fanatics on both sides.

 

I think this whole thread would be off in a different direction if the offending material was Atheist in nature.

[+TrailGators]

If a coin with the 10 commandments is acceptable, is a similar coin with a Satanic pentagram also acceptable? How many of you would take the pentagram coin to throw away, but leave the 10 commandments coin there because it is more "proper"?

 

How many Christian cachers would be offended by a Jewish tract trying to convert them to their beliefs?

How many Jewish cachers would be offended by a Christian tract trying to convert them to their beliefs?

How many Christian cachers would be offended by an Atheist flyer trying to show them the error of their ways?

Would not the Atheist be justified in trying to help the Christian see the reality?

 

I know very well that all of you "good Christians" don't think the same as the Pope. I also hope that at least most of you realize that all atheists don't think the same as the ACLU!! There are fanatics on both sides.

 

I think this whole thread would be off in a different direction if the offending material was Atheist in nature.

I agree that you can't sit there and knock one belief and look the way for another belief. Atheism is a belief too. So we should all try to never put any religious or political items into caches. We should also all try to be respectful of others beliefs.

[+traildad]

If a coin with the 10 commandments is acceptable, is a similar coin with a Satanic pentagram also acceptable? How many of you would take the pentagram coin to throw away, but leave the 10 commandments coin there because it is more "proper"?

 

How many Christian cachers would be offended by a Jewish tract trying to convert them to their beliefs?

How many Jewish cachers would be offended by a Christian tract trying to convert them to their beliefs?

How many Christian cachers would be offended by an Atheist flyer trying to show them the error of their ways?

Would not the Atheist be justified in trying to help the Christian see the reality?

 

I know very well that all of you "good Christians" don't think the same as the Pope. I also hope that at least most of you realize that all atheists don't think the same as the ACLU!! There are fanatics on both sides.

 

I think this whole thread would be off in a different direction if the offending material was Atheist in nature.

Some people support one side or the other simply because it is their faith being targeted or simply because they despise religion. Some of them might change their opinion based on the message on the tract or coin. Other people support freedom of religion and freedom of thought and freedom of expression. These people are less likely to change their opinion based on the message on the tract or coin. However if the message was something along the lines of, "lets kill all the fill in the blank" in the name of religion etc. then that would be a completely different discussion. Maybe the Atheist could add their tract to the cache rather than trying to silence others. As for being justified, I don't think that would be my choice of words. If an Atheist wants to leave a tract in a cache or go door to door telling people what they think, I would support their right to free speech. That is as long as they don't wake me up on Sunday morning.

[+KBI]

So why is someone like KBI so adamant that it is your choice if you let tracts offend you?

 

The reason is that tracts are bogus "found it " logs. The tracts are all claiming to have found the one way to salvation. Yet offer no proof. I suspect that when you get to the pearly ammo can you won't find the signature of anyone who ever wrote a tract.

Thanks for a good laugh. Very clever! I enjoyed that, Toz.

 

You aren't far from the truth. What tracts and bogus logs have in common, from my point of view, is as follows: neither one violates my rights; neither one threatens to violate my rights; neither one impedes my access to the hobby; neither one hampers my ability to enjoy the hobby; neither one represents a hazard to life, liberty, or property; neither one is in the least bit difficult to ignore.

 

At least KBI is being consistent.

If you ever think I am being inconsistent, Toz, I would consider it an honor if you would let me know immediately.

[+KBI]

If a coin with the 10 commandments is acceptable, is a similar coin with a Satanic pentagram also acceptable? How many of you would take the pentagram coin to throw away, but leave the 10 commandments coin there because it is more "proper"?

 

How many Christian cachers would be offended by a Jewish tract trying to convert them to their beliefs?

How many Jewish cachers would be offended by a Christian tract trying to convert them to their beliefs?

How many Christian cachers would be offended by an Atheist flyer trying to show them the error of their ways?

Would not the Atheist be justified in trying to help the Christian see the reality?

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

- Richard Dawkins

[+BlueDeuce]

I think this whole thread would be off in a different direction if the offending material was Atheist in nature.

 

Do you mean the general discussion about how each person perceives various world religions and viewpoints, or the one about what to do with tracts in caches?

[CLV3]

Flask...

 

It's about 45 miles from Ogunquit to CE. Our Church picnic is at Two Lights State Park on the 13th. We'll probably start around 11 in the morning, and run until early afternoon. Park admission is $3... but the food is free.

 

Seriously--you're more than welcome (as is anyone else reading this who's close enough to come... )

 

And just so I say something on topic... I tend to think that paper tracts probably don't belong in caches. I wouldn't CITO them out, unless they were already wet and moldy. On the other hand, I think that something like Theotokos avatar and Geocoin is absolutely beautiful, and an appropriate expression of faith. (Goodness, don't we have nude caching coins out there? I guess faith coins are pretty harmless, right?)

 

There's a pretty significant difference between speaking positively of your own faith journey, and putting down someone else's faith journey.

 

Very well said, and greetings from another Maine Cacher.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Couldn't agree with you more! You're getting smart in your old age, my friend...

So ... you're suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is ... stupid?

 

Telling someone they are smart and telling someone they are stupid are different animals, KBI... Perhaps you should try to give more positive re-inforcement, instead of belittling those you disagree with?

 

For instance, here's an example of positive re-inforcement...

 

KBI, you have many good qualities. For example, you

Edited August 11, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+ReadyOrNot]

If a coin with the 10 commandments is acceptable, is a similar coin with a Satanic pentagram also acceptable? How many of you would take the pentagram coin to throw away, but leave the 10 commandments coin there because it is more "proper"?

 

How many Christian cachers would be offended by a Jewish tract trying to convert them to their beliefs?

How many Jewish cachers would be offended by a Christian tract trying to convert them to their beliefs?

How many Christian cachers would be offended by an Atheist flyer trying to show them the error of their ways?

Would not the Atheist be justified in trying to help the Christian see the reality?

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

- Richard Dawkins

 

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist...

[+KBI]

Couldn't agree with you more! You're getting smart in your old age, my friend...

So ... you're suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is ... stupid?

Telling someone they are smart and telling someone they are stupid are different animals, KBI...

Just following your lead, dude.

[+KBI]

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist...

Same here. That's why I consider myself an agnostic.

 

Atheism requires too much dogmatic certainty, which, in my opinion, is unscientific.

[+Snow Birds]

I think this whole thread would be off in a different direction if the offending material was Atheist in nature.

 

Do you mean the general discussion about how each person perceives various world religions and viewpoints, or the one about what to do with tracts in caches?

 

I mean the latter. I suspect that an Atheist flyer would be removed, no questions asked. I could be wrong. I was wrong once!

[+TrailGators]

I think this whole thread would be off in a different direction if the offending material was Atheist in nature.

 

Do you mean the general discussion about how each person perceives various world religions and viewpoints, or the one about what to do with tracts in caches?

 

I mean the latter. I suspect that an Atheist flyer would be removed, no questions asked. I could be wrong. I was wrong once!

I'm curious what an Altheist flyer would look like.

[+Snow Birds]

"I'm curious what an Altheist flyer would look like. "

 

I was wondering the same thing!

[Mushtang]

Couldn't agree with you more! You're getting smart in your old age, my friend...

So ... you're suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is ... stupid?

Telling someone they are smart and telling someone they are stupid are different animals, KBI...

Just following your lead, dude.

ZING!

[+TrailGators]

"I'm curious what an Altheist flyer would look like. "

 

I was wondering the same thing!

If it's a blank piece of paper, then I've been signing my name on it all these years....

[WashoeZephyr]

If a coin with the 10 commandments is acceptable, is a similar coin with a Satanic pentagram also acceptable? How many of you would take the pentagram coin to throw away, but leave the 10 commandments coin there because it is more "proper"?

 

How many Christian cachers would be offended by a Jewish tract trying to convert them to their beliefs?

How many Jewish cachers would be offended by a Christian tract trying to convert them to their beliefs?

How many Christian cachers would be offended by an Atheist flyer trying to show them the error of their ways?

Would not the Atheist be justified in trying to help the Christian see the reality?

 

I know very well that all of you "good Christians" don't think the same as the Pope. I also hope that at least most of you realize that all atheists don't think the same as the ACLU!! There are fanatics on both sides.

 

I think this whole thread would be off in a different direction if the offending material was Atheist in nature.

If a satanic pentagram (pentagrams are not generally satanic, but that is a whole 'nother can o worms) coin is what you're all about about then more power to you, I wouldn't be offended it by it either. I think a coin (regardless of content, ok, within reason) is more of an appropriate cache item than a piece of paper. The whole idea is to trade up? What are you going to trade up on some religious paper propaganda that most people don't take, Round Table coupons?

[+BlueDeuce]

I think this whole thread would be off in a different direction if the offending material was Atheist in nature.

 

Do you mean the general discussion about how each person perceives various world religions and viewpoints, or the one about what to do with tracts in caches?

 

I mean the latter. I suspect that an Atheist flyer would be removed, no questions asked. I could be wrong. I was wrong once!

 

Well shaw! Wouldn't that happened to any other flyer? I'm sorry but I can't get overly concerned about some cacher I never met that removed a tract that I never saw. What happens, happens.

 

The thread here wouldn't change one bit. It would be a hot topic just like it's always been.

 

Personally I think Happy Caching is the best approach. Trade even, trade up, or don't trade at all.

 

You leave tracts? Okay. You trade them out? Okay.

 

Never the two shall meet.

[CoyoteRed]

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist...

Same here. That's why I consider myself an agnostic.

 

Atheism requires too much dogmatic certainty, which, in my opinion, is unscientific.

Would it require any more or any less dogmatic certainty if the notion of the supernatural had never come to the human consciousness? Would the natural world be any different? Even if there were a Creator, if He didn't let His presence be known would the natural world be any different?

 

My thoughts on atheism (note the small 'a') is it is not the absolute certainly there is no God, it is the full rejection of the notion there is a God. Mayhap some folks can't get their minds wrapped around that notion, but that's alright. Like I said, I'm pretty secure in my beliefs.

[+KBI]

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist...

Same here. That's why I consider myself an agnostic.

 

Atheism requires too much dogmatic certainty, which, in my opinion, is unscientific.

Would it require any more or any less dogmatic certainty if the notion of the supernatural had never come to the human consciousness?

Are you asking me whether we would consider the possibility of the existence of a creator even if we never considered the possibility of the existence of a creator?

[mlbcard]

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist...

Same here. That's why I consider myself an agnostic.

 

Atheism requires too much dogmatic certainty, which, in my opinion, is unscientific.

 

No that's "strong atheism" and no one really believes in that (i.e. "I know that god doesn't exist."). Most athiests are just below that level ("I am fairly (99.99...%) certain that god doesn't exist"). Agnostics think that there's an equal chance that god could exist or not exist. To me agnostics are more unscientific because they are essentially saying that something is 50/50 when they see no evidence for it.

 

Now... who wants to get back on topic.

[+flask]

 

No that's "strong atheism" and no one really believes in that (i.e. "I know that god doesn't exist.").

 

you can't really believe that!

 

i was raised by people who believe precisely that.

[CoyoteRed]

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist...

Same here. That's why I consider myself an agnostic.

 

Atheism requires too much dogmatic certainty, which, in my opinion, is unscientific.

Would it require any more or any less dogmatic certainty if the notion of the supernatural had never come to the human consciousness to still be an atheist?

Are you asking me whether we would consider the possibility of the existence of a creator even if we never considered the possibility of the existence of a creator?

I added a few words for clarity. I did said it's hard to get one's mind wrapped around it.

 

Besides, this is not the forum for such deep thoughts. I just wanted to point out that atheism is not about the absolute certainty of a negative, but more of a full rejection of a notion.

[+KBI]

Atheism requires too much dogmatic certainty, which, in my opinion, is unscientific.

No that's "strong atheism" and no one really believes in that (i.e. "I know that god doesn't exist.").

Yes, there are some who believe that way. I've met some personally.

 

Agnostics think that there's an equal chance that god could exist or not exist. To me agnostics are more unscientific because they are essentially saying that something is 50/50 when they see no evidence for it.

Equal chance? 50/50? Where did you get that?

[+BlueDeuce]

Caching.

 

Sorry, trying to stay on topic.

[+KBI]

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist...

Same here. That's why I consider myself an agnostic.

 

Atheism requires too much dogmatic certainty, which, in my opinion, is unscientific.

Would it require any more or any less dogmatic certainty if the notion of the supernatural had never come to the human consciousness to still be an atheist?

Are you asking me whether we would consider the possibility of the existence of a creator even if we never considered the possibility of the existence of a creator?

I added a few words for clarity.

So you’re asking how much certainty it takes to disbelieve in the existence of something one has never even heard of?

 

Not enough clarity, apparently.

 

Would it require any more or any less mind-reading if the notion of whatever the heck you’re talking about had never come to my consciousness to still understand your post?

 

I just wanted to point out that atheism is not about the absolute certainty of a negative, but more of a full rejection of a notion.

Full rejection requires the same certainty as full acceptance. Which I still say requires too much faith for me. I cannot prove there is a God, but neither can I prove there is NO God.

[+Snoogans]

(i.e. "I know that god doesn't exist.").

i was raised by people who believe precisely that.

 

I remember my own father being that certain once.

 

He spent 6 months dying a very painful death of small cell carcenoma and was a devout Roman Catholic on the day of his passing.

 

There are no Atheists in foxholes.

 

I am devoutly Agnostic. A spiritual fence sitter. I refuse to define the undefinable for myself and more importantly, I refuse to define it for others. I believe in/have faith in Something and that's enough for me.

 

I will not sell out to a single religion on my death bed as so many people do. I plan to have a Priest, a Rabbi, an Imam, a Buddhist monk, a Sanyasi/Sinyasini, and a Shamen ALL there at the end of my time here to forgive my sins and make sure I don't get sent to anyone's version of hell.

Edited August 11, 2008 by Snoogans

[Roadtorque]

 

I think its rude to call someone rude when they are trying to help you.

 

it is rude to assume you know what's best for other people and it is rude to provide "help" that is neither requested nor welcome.

 

people insisting that religious proselytizing is really doing people a favor are rude on an extreme level. it would be rude to follow people around at the grocery store attempting to "assist" people in making better nutritional choices. it would be rude to go to people's homes and give unsolicited advice on the conduct of their marital relationships. it would be rude to offer unwanted fashion advice.

 

what makes these spiritual busybodies think that somehow their extreme discourtesy may be excused on the grounds that they know better the intimate workings of another person's soul?

 

it is patronizing and offensive to attempt to defend this behavior on the grounds that you are somehow spiritually superior and that you are somehow helping us.

 

Based on this I'm wondering if you turn off your TV when advertisments come on? Companies selling their product thinking it can better our lives how rude As far as proselytizing to people who dont "want it" sometimes you dont know you want it until someone is kind enough to bring it to your attention. Seems like people fear what they are uneducated about

[CoyoteRed]

Full rejection requires the same certainty as full acceptance.

No, it doesn't. Not in the sense you're saying it. Full rejection is the point were you don't accept any of the ideas, theories, or explanations of something.

 

...neither can I prove there is NO God.

...or there is no such thing as fairies, elves or Martians.

 

You can't proof the non-existence of anything, only disprove existence. If you get into a discussion of whether there is a cup you can't provide proof there is no cup. But if the pro-cup person says there is a cup on the table (proof of there being a cup) you can wave your hand through the space where the cup is supposed to be disproving the other person's "proof."

 

Remember, it's called "faith" for a reason. Otherwise, you won't need "faith" to believe in something, you'd have proof.

[+TrailGators]

Remember, it's called "faith" for a reason. Otherwise, you won't need "faith" to believe in something, you'd have proof.

You also need faith to not believe in something when you can't prove it doesn't exist. To me it's easier to have faith that something vastly greater than us exists, when you finally notice the incredible artistry of our universe. I have a much harder time not believing. Edited August 11, 2008 by TrailGators

[mlbcard]

Atheism requires too much dogmatic certainty, which, in my opinion, is unscientific.

No that's "strong atheism" and no one really believes in that (i.e. "I know that god doesn't exist.").

Yes, there are some who believe that way. I've met some personally.

 

Many may say that, but if you push most of them, they'll probably give you that 0.000001% chance that god exists (at least that's been my experience).

 

Agnostics think that there's an equal chance that god could exist or not exist. To me agnostics are more unscientific because they are essentially saying that something is 50/50 when they see no evidence for it.

Equal chance? 50/50? Where did you get that?

 

Well agnostics say that they can't know whether god exists or not, which means on the spectrum of "I know god exists" and "I know god doesn't exist", they're right in the middle.

Edited August 11, 2008 by mlbcard

[+TrailGators]

Agnostics think that there's an equal chance that god could exist or not exist. To me agnostics are more unscientific because they are essentially saying that something is 50/50 when they see no evidence for it.

Equal chance? 50/50? Where did you get that?

Well agnostics say that they can't know whether god exists or not, which means on the spectrum of "I know god exists" and "I know god doesn't exist", they're right in the middle.

In other words, they are undecided....