Something I think bares reading.

[Hyena Dandy]

http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html

There are very high tensions on these forums recently. I stopped replying because I felt that the atmosphere on the religion forum was simply too... Angry... And I felt there was a total lack of respect from both sides, in a way that just ended up with people feeling either hurt, or smug and superior. That's not something I like, but... Well, I posted this because I think its a link that ought to be read, and kept in mind whenever discussing religion.

[Andara Bledin]

Thanks for the link.

I enjoyed the reading. :)

^-.-^

[Ghel]

To begin with, I'd like to point out that the linked blog post / article is written by a moderate Christian who would like to think that he understands the atheistic viewpoint, when, in fact, he does not.

I'll go through his suggestions, briefly. As you'll see, I agree with about half of them.

1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
Actually, no. Atheism has no tenets, no dogma, nothing that would tell someone what to do or how to do it. Atheism is a position on a single point: whether a god exists. Anything else is in addition to that. Therefore, nothing can ever be done in the name of atheism.

2. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
This I agree with.

3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
Generally speaking, I agree with this, too.

4. There Are Good People on Both Sides
Generally, I agree with this also. I believe that people are good or evil independent of their religion, or lack thereof. However, it takes religion to make a good person do evil things.

5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
No. I am not offended that anybody is a Christian. What somebody believes in the privacy of their own minds makes no difference to me. It is only when they want me to agree with them, or even remain silent when they state their beliefs as if they were the truth, that I have a problem with it. But I'm not offended simply because of somebody's private point of view.

Nor do I think anybody should be offended because I don't agree with their beliefs.

6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
Exaggeration is not so much of a problem as misrepresentations of another's views, such as claiming that atheism is "a belief that no gods exist," as has been done on fratching many times.

7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
This one is not supported in the article. There are Christians who believe the Bible is literal truth. And the caricature of an atheist is right that religion has destroyed civilizations and killed billions. There's no exaggeration there.

8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
It's interesting here that the author's most negative example of a Christian is Fred Phelps, when I certainly would have chosen the pope. The reason why I would chose the pope is that he has direct influence over the lives of his followers, who number in the millions, while hardly anybody takes Phelps seriously. Also of note is that his most negative example of an atheist is Hitler, who certainly was a Christian.

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
The author does not mention a single good thing that religion has produced that couldn't be produced without religion.

"The truth has to be somewhere in between."

No, the truth doesn't have to be somewhere in between. There doesn't always have to be a compromise. Sometimes, one side is just wrong.

10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence
The intent is not to force people to give up their religion. The intent is to make the environment hostile towards the meme of religion. To let theists know that we won't stand by while they try to put religious texts on courthouse lawns. That we won't stand by while they try to get their religion taught in public classrooms. That we won't stand by while they try to enact laws that define marriage based on their holy book. That's not harassment, that's self-defense.

So, all in all, I don't see the article doing much to close the rift between theism and atheism. As long as there are vocal theists trying to force others to act as if they believe the same as they do, there will be vocal atheists opposing them.

[Ipecac Drano]

Interesting article, but the author is painting both sides with too broad of a brush.

[AdminAssistant]

8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
It's interesting here that the author's most negative example of a Christian is Fred Phelps, when I certainly would have chosen the pope. The reason why I would chose the pope is that he has direct influence over the lives of his followers, who number in the millions, while hardly anybody takes Phelps seriously. Also of note is that his most negative example of an atheist is Hitler, who certainly was a Christian.

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
The author does not mention a single good thing that religion has produced that couldn't be produced without religion.

"The truth has to be somewhere in between."

No, the truth doesn't have to be somewhere in between. There doesn't always have to be a compromise. Sometimes, one side is just wrong.

10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence
The intent is not to force people to give up their religion. The intent is to make the environment hostile towards the meme of religion. To let theists know that we won't stand by while they try to put religious texts on courthouse lawns. That we won't stand by while they try to get their religion taught in public classrooms. That we won't stand by while they try to enact laws that define marriage based on their holy book. That's not harassment, that's self-defense.

I agree with most of what Ghel said, but these last 3 especially. I believe the article also mentions Stalin as an example of an atheist who has wrecked havoc. But Stalin didn't do what he did to further atheism. He did what he did to further his own power and because he was a homicidal fucknut. As far as charity goes, I no longer give to any charities associated with religion. First of all, I don't want part of that money spent on proselytizing. Second of all, I disagree with religious institutions being granted tax exempt status. There's a growing number of charities out there that have nothing to do with religion.

As to the last point, fundamentalist Christians are trying to take over American society, to the point of altering history books and having religious ideology taught in science class. Dictating who can and cannot have full rights based on their twisted version of a 'holy' book. Not only should atheists and agnostics be speaking out against this, but reasonable religious people should be as well. As I've said before, if someone really, really wants to live in a misogynist theocracy, I hear Iran is lovely this time of year.

[Ipecac Drano]

I believe the article also mentions Stalin as an example of an atheist who has wrecked havoc. But Stalin didn't do what he did to further atheism. He did what he did to further his own power and because he was a homicidal fucknut.
True, that. I laugh my ass off when someone uses Stalin, Mao, et al., as examples of "Atheism Out of Control!!!".


I disagree with religious institutions being granted tax exempt status.
I've always felt (even when I was a practicing Xtian) that if religious institutions can have a voice on political issues that they should also pay taxes.

[smileyeagle1021]

So, all in all, I don't see the article doing much to close the rift between theism and atheism. As long as there are vocal theists trying to force others to act as if they believe the same as they do, there will be vocal atheists opposing them.

This more than anything defines the conflict, until vocal theists (such as Phelps) back down, the rest of us will be forced to continue the fight for self preservation. I support atheism because atheism unlike theism poses no risk to my life (theism taken to its extreme would have me executed in the street... not that I think most theists would call for it, speaking of Hitler, Germany has proven just how easy it is for what starts as a small minority to take control and wreak havoc).

Interesting article, but the author is painting both sides with too broad of a brush.

broad brush paintings can still be useful, you may not be able to get a good idea of what the true picture is, but at least you have a rough guide of what the picture might look like... of course you have to understand going into it that it isn't a precise image for it to be useful.

As far as charity goes, I no longer give to any charities associated with religion. First of all, I don't want part of that money spent on proselytizing.

I really pissed off a Salvation Army guy at Sam's Club the other day for this very reason, he was asking for donations, I asked what the money would go to and he replied it would go to buy food for the homeless. I told him that I would get a few extra cases of food while I was inside Sam's Club, could he please provide me with the drop off location for the food bank they would be contributing to. He couldn't tell me where the food would be going, just trust him it was going to go to food. I told him in that case, since there was no way to guarantee that the money I was giving him would be going solely to purchasing food and could be instead used for overhead expenses which supports a management whose policies I don't agree with, I would go ahead with my original plan to purchase an extra carton or two of food and take it to the nearest food bank.
Actually I've gotten that way with a lot of charities, even the ones I like, if I am going to donate, I ask what they need and buy it myself and donate it rather than give them cash so I can know that they are using the donation for it's intended purpose, not being siphoned off for someone's pet project.

[Ipecac Drano]

broad brush paintings can still be useful, you may not be able to get a good idea of what the true picture is, but at least you have a rough guide of what the picture might look like... of course you have to understand going into it that it isn't a precise image for it to be useful.
That was a case where the broad brush wasn't needed.

[Ghel]

I really pissed off a Salvation Army guy at Sam's Club the other day...
Oh, I always smile at the Salvation Army bell ringers as I pass by. I'll even say "you, too" if they say "Merry Christmas" to me. But I never give them money. Not with their BS policies of hiring discrimination and throwing away donated toys.

Funny thing happened the other day. One of the Salvation Army's bell ringers told me "Happy Holidays." With all this "war on Christmas" stuff, you'd expect the Salvation Army to instruct their bell ringers to say "Merry Christmas" only. I giggled all the way out to the car.

[Hyena Dandy]

This more than anything defines the conflict, until vocal theists (such as Phelps) back down, the rest of us will be forced to continue the fight for self preservation. I support atheism because atheism unlike theism poses no risk to my life (theism taken to its extreme would have me executed in the street... not that I think most theists would call for it, speaking of Hitler, Germany has proven just how easy it is for what starts as a small minority to take control and wreak havoc).

While I know I often don't agree with you, Smiley, we have had our differences, I agree with this. IF there could only be one viewpoint in the world, I would support atheism for that. This is not because I'm an atheist, this is because Atheism is the one least likely to restrict anything. The problem is that there CAN'T be only one viewpoint in the world. There may be only one which is factually true, but there are always going to be disagreements. There are always going to be conflicts. There's always going to be fighting.

Life might very well have no divinely appointed meaning. That only means we have to appoint one to ourselves. I have appointed my meaning of life. I will be a Christian, and I will be respectful to all people's views. I will harbor disrespect only for individual actions. Finally, I will do my best to try to spread the second part to the rest of the world.

I have been disrespectful in this thread, recently. I posted an angry rant which was, rightfully, taken down. For that I am sorry. I am not sorry for the feelings I expressed. But it was not right place for me to respect them.

One of the Salvation Army's bell ringers told me "Happy Holidays." With all this "war on Christmas" stuff, you'd expect the Salvation Army to instruct their bell ringers to say "Merry Christmas" only. I giggled all the way out to the car.

I don't always follow these things, but has the Salvation Army really been that active in protesting the so-called war on Christmas?

[FArchivist]

1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One

Actually, no. Atheism has no tenets, no dogma, nothing that would tell someone what to do or how to do it. Atheism is a position on a single point: whether a god exists. Anything else is in addition to that. Therefore, nothing can ever be done in the name of atheism.

I must disagree with you on this one. Atheism does have a dogma; that all religion is false, that there is no supernatural entity to worship. Faith in absence instead of admitting "I don't know." is a dogma in and of itself. I can construct numerous scenarios wherein you could have a militant atheism, with atheism being the prime philosophical position of the state. (Although, militant atheism is usually given the term 'anti-theism' instead.)

Generally, I agree with this also. I believe that people are good or evil independent of their religion, or lack thereof. However, it takes religion to make a good person do evil things.

I would disagree with this stance saying that there is no universal 'good' and that 'good' is solely defined in the eye of the beholder. That there is only "good to me", thus allowing things such as "just war".

Nor do I think anybody should be offended because I don't agree with their beliefs.

And when the religion/philosophy/ideology demands you be offended because you don't agree?


Exaggeration is not so much of a problem as misrepresentations of another's views, such as claiming that atheism is "a belief that no gods exist," as has been done on fratching many times.

Strange. From Wikipedia: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." Does this series of statements not encompass "a belief that no gods exist"?

What would you say atheism is, if not that above?


It's interesting here that the author's most negative example of a Christian is Fred Phelps, when I certainly would have chosen the pope. The reason why I would chose the pope is that he has direct influence over the lives of his followers, who number in the millions, while hardly anybody takes Phelps seriously. Also of note is that his most negative example of an atheist is Hitler, who certainly was a Christian.

Speaking as a Catholic, I am required to point out that the Pope does NOT have direct influence over the lives of his followers. This is a common misconception for those that missed the effects of the Council of Trent and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. While the Pope has indirect influence, he has only direct influence over the Holy See, the central government in the Vatican. In order to affect areas outside of the Holy See, he must contend with the College of Cardinals, the College of Bishops, the Patriarchs of the Eastern affiliates, the Major Archbishops, the Metropolitans, the Abbots/Abbesses, the Prelates, the Eparchs....it's completely byzantine and insane to someone who doesn't realize that the Catholic Church is still organized on medieval lines.

Succintly, there are 13 Patriarchates, 2 Major Archdioceses, 536 Metropolitan Archdioceses, 80 Archdioceses, 2,181 Dioceses, 47 Prelatures, 10 Territorial Abbeys, 17 Apostolic Exarchates, 8 Ordinariates, 35 Military Ordinariates, 85 Apostolic Vicariates, 39 Apostolic Prefectures, 10 Apostolic Administrations, and 9 Missions 'sui juris'. And the local heads of all those divisions can and HAVE thumbed their nose at the Pope. Especially the current one, who is much weaker than John Paul II ever was. (This is because Benedict is a doctrinal uncompromising hardass with none of JP2's charm.)

In short, if you are looking for who has the most direct influence in the Catholic Church over a person, look to the local head of the regional authority. It's still medieval; the King issued dictates, but it was the local Baron who decided what was followed and how - especially if the King didn't have an army to enforce it.

In regards to Hitler, he was born Catholic and completely rejected the Catholic Church in practice and in private speech. Publicly, he claimed to be Christian, but privately he denounced it. *shrugs* While most people say he was atheist, I tend to think he was agnostic or Deist, if he thought about it at all. But he never issued atheistic pronouncements, in public or private.


The intent is not to force people to give up their religion. The intent is to make the environment hostile towards the meme of religion. To let theists know that we won't stand by while they try to put religious texts on courthouse lawns. That we won't stand by while they try to get their religion taught in public classrooms. That we won't stand by while they try to enact laws that define marriage based on their holy book. That's not harassment, that's self-defense.

While I understand and agree completely with your stance, how far do you believe it should go?

I ask because if my intent was "to make the environment hostile towards the meme of religion", I would take that quite literally. I would construct laws forbidding the practice and belief of religion and make it a crime. I would burn all religious texts, ban all religious expression, and tear down every religious building. If good is defined as "to make the environment hostile towards the meme of religion", then I will have succeeded (and thus have accomplished good) once all this is done.

Thus, there would be no "vocal theists trying to force others to act as if they believe the same as they do", because all vocal theists would be dead or imprisoned, having applied Occam's Razor to the problem. Or, as the computer in my head says, "This. Is. Logical."

[Ghel]

I don't always follow these things, but has the Salvation Army really been that active in protesting the so-called war on Christmas?
Well, I haven't specifically heard "war on Christmas" from or about the Salvation Army, but there's been so much news about them being pro-Christian and anti-everything else, that it wouldn't surpise me if they have told their bell ringers to say "Merry Christmas" exclusively.

I must disagree with you on this one. Atheism does have a dogma; that all religion is false, that there is no supernatural entity to worship.
That's not dogma - that's a conclusion. And one doesn't even have to come to that conclusion to be an atheist. All one has to do is not believe that there is a deity.

I can construct numerous scenarios wherein you could have a militant atheism, with atheism being the prime philosophical position of the state. (Although, militant atheism is usually given the term 'anti-theism' instead.)
Please explain which definition of "militant atheism" you are using here. I've seen at least half a dozen (sometimes conflicting) definitions of it. Oh, and "anti-theism" doesn't necessarily mean atheism. It could just mean the anti-theist supports a different brand of theism, or a religion that doesn't have a god.

I would disagree with this stance saying that there is no universal 'good' and that 'good' is solely defined in the eye of the beholder. That there is only "good to me", thus allowing things such as "just war".
Did I say anything about "universal good"? "Good" may be "defined in the eye of the beholder," but no person exists in a vacuum. "Good," generally speaking, is that which benefits society as a whole. An action that helps the most people and harms the fewest can generally be defined as "good." "Good to me" leaves out concepts such as empathy, grief, and familial bonds.

And when the religion/philosophy/ideology demands you be offended because you don't agree?
Demands I be offended? Somebody else's philosophy doesn't have any control over how I react.

Perhaps you meant "demands they be offended". Then that is a religion/philosophy/ideoology that I will speak out against.

From Wikipedia: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." Does this series of statements not encompass "a belief that no gods exist"?
You will find that most atheists prefer the inclusive definition: "the absense of belief that any deities exist." "A belief that no gods exist" is a subset of atheism, but leaves out a large portion of atheists.

Does this make sense, or should I link to a Venn diagram showing where the overlap is?

Speaking as a Catholic, I am required to point out that the Pope does NOT have direct influence over the lives of his followers.
Really? So you're saying that Catholics ignore papal edicts until they're told about them by their priests? So when the pope decreed that condoms must not be used except by gay male prostitutes, his followers didn't listen until it had trickled down through the ranks? What about the way he blames the victims of priests' sex crimes rather than the priests themselves? What about not taking responsibility for shuffling around pedophile priests so they could reoffend rather than answering for their crimes? Is that not direct enough for you?

In regards to Hitler, he was born Catholic and completely rejected the Catholic Church in practice and in private speech.[citation needed] Publicly, he claimed to be Christian, but privately he denounced it.[citation needed] *shrugs* While most people say he was atheist, I tend to think he was agnostic or Deist, if he thought about it at all. But he never issued atheistic pronouncements, in public or private.
So Hitler never spoke out against the Church and never made atheistic statement (also he was never excommunicated). Even if he was a Deist, he's still not the atheist that the article writer suggested he was.

I ask because if my intent was "to make the environment hostile towards the meme of religion", I would take that quite literally. I would construct laws forbidding the practice and belief of religion and make it a crime. I would burn all religious texts, ban all religious expression, and tear down every religious building.
Would you? Then I hope you never get into a position of power. If this is what you would do for an atheistic philosophy, I shudder to think what you would do in support of Catholicism.

Christianity doesn't need to be banned to destroy it. All that is needed is to show people that it can't support itself. This is quite obvious when Christians feel that they must enact laws in order to insinuate their religion into every aspect of society instead of letting their religion stand on its own merits.

Nor would I advocate the sort of dictatorship you're suggesting. Freedom of speech may be a bitch sometimes, but she's worth it. She's worth putting up with every protestor and every street preacher. After all, it's not the popular speech that needs protection, it's the unpopular speech that needs protection.

[Andara Bledin]

You will find that most atheists prefer the inclusive definition: "the absense of belief that any deities exist." "A belief that no gods exist" is a subset of atheism, but leaves out a large portion of atheists.

Does this make sense, or should I link to a Venn diagram showing where the overlap is?
It would seem to me that merely lacking a belief in a deity without actually taking the stance that there are none is not actually atheism.

Not only do you lack a belief that any god exists, but you lack a belief that no god exists. I'd say that's a textbook example of agnosticism.

Would you? Then I hope you never get into a position of power. If this is what you would do for an atheistic philosophy, I shudder to think what you would do in support of Catholicism.
You seem to have a disconnect somewhere between what he quoted and what he said. Those were your words, not his.

Simply put, he said that were he to make the statement that you made, that is how it should be interpreted. He never claimed that as his "atheistic philosophy." He was asking you to clarify what "The intent is to make the environment hostile towards the meme of religion" is supposed to mean as coming from you, because he doesn't think that's what you were trying to convey.

This is quite obvious when Christians feel that they must enact laws in order to insinuate their religion into every aspect of society instead of letting their religion stand on its own merits.
You make some astonishingly broad claims about Christians. In fact, you tend to have an overwhelming tendency to stereotype, as if whichever group you're currently targeting are all some great herd that always acts the same, no matter which group you're dealing with.

By the way, I tend to vote that shit down. There's separation of church and state for a reason, and I'd like it to stay that way, myself.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

It would seem to me that merely lacking a belief in a deity without actually taking the stance that there are none is not actually atheism.

Not only do you lack a belief that any god exists, but you lack a belief that no god exists. I'd say that's a textbook example of agnosticism.
Ok, I can see that several of you still aren't understanding the definitions of "atheism" and "agnosticism." I direct you to view this video by QualiaSoup (http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup#p/u/8/sNDZb0KtJDk). I am the same type of atheist as the fellow who made the video.

Those were your words, not his. ... He was asking you to clarify what "The intent is to make the environment hostile towards the meme of religion" is supposed to mean as coming from you, because he doesn't think that's what you were trying to convey.
Then he's misrepresenting my position and putting words into my mouth. I never, NEVER advocated destruction of property nor imprisonment or death for theists. FArchivist's phrasing of his response was not in the form of a question nor in the form of a request for clarification.

... you tend to have an overwhelming tendency to stereotype...
Did I say "all Christians"? No. Obviously, only some (perhaps only a small percentage) outspoken Christians are the ones trying to get legislation passed to teach creationism in schools and define marriage as "one man and one woman." However, the majority of Christians, by not opposing the extremists, are giving silent consent to what the extremists are doing.

By the way, I tend to vote that shit down. There's separation of church and state for a reason, and I'd like it to stay that way, myself.
Hey, there's one thing we agree on! That's a start.

[Peppergirl]

Hey, there's one thing we agree on! That's a start.


:eek: Well hallelujah and praise Jesus!!!


Sorry. Had to. :D

Just inserting a little levity, of course. Tongue strictly in-cheek.

[Andara Bledin]

Then he's misrepresenting my position and putting words into my mouth. I never, NEVER advocated destruction of property nor imprisonment or death for theists. FArchivist's phrasing of his response was not in the form of a question nor in the form of a request for clarification.
No, he's not. He's not even guessing at your position. He's saying that were he to use that phrase, that would mean that would be his position.

And it specifically was a request for clarification. He's asking you to tell him what your position would be. In fact, he said:
While I understand and agree completely with your stance, how far do you believe it should go?
Is there a reason you chose to accuse him of putting words in your mouth as opposed to actually answering his question?

Did I say "all Christians"? No.
You didn't say "some Christians," either. You chose not to qualify your statement - generalizing.

:eek: Well hallelujah and praise Jesus!!!
*snicker*

^-.-^

[Ghel]

Andara, I'm really tired of your nitpicking. If you have something to say in regards to the actual subject of discussion, then say it. If you have a response to my actual position, then say it. Stop picking apart what I've said. Stop misrepresenting my position.

How far do I think it should go? Everything I've ever advocated doing in response to theists' actions is speech. In my first post on this thread, I spelled out exactly what I would do: let theists know that we won't stand by while they try to force us to behave as if we believe the same as they do. Speeches, lobbying, and voting are the most effective forms of doing that, and they are all forms of speech.

Is there a reason you chose to accuse him of putting words in your mouth as opposed to actually answering his question?
Um, you were the one who said that those were my words. Funny, I don't remember typing them.

Edited to add:
:eek: Well hallelujah and praise Jesus!!!
Even though I'm an atheist, I'll say "Amen!" to that.

[Andara Bledin]

Um, you were the one who said that those were my words. Funny, I don't remember typing them.
How about you actually answer his question and stop deflecting?

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Since there seems to be some disagreement, let's rephrase the question.

Ghel: What do you mean by "Make the environment hostile to the meme of religion"?

[Ghel]

How about you actually answer his question and stop deflecting?
I did. Three times now. The first time was before he asked the question. Do you find something wrong with my response of (to rephrase it) talking about how religious claims are either wrong or unsupported, and speaking out against and voting against laws that would give unfair advantage to religion (whether one religion in particular or religion in general)? That is as far as I think it should go.

Or are you talking about some other question than FArchivist's "how far do you believe [making the environment hostile towards the meme of religion] should go?"

[Andara Bledin]

I find your use of the word "hostile" to not really be a good indicator of how far you would go.

Or do you really see religion, and/or those who practice religion, as an enemy? Do you honestly harbor ill will towards the same?

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

I am currently under moderation for my woefully inappropriate prior behavior in this thread, so if this post comes after you reply to Andara, Ghel, please forgive me. But to me, that doesn't sound like 'making the environment hostile' at all. To me, that seems purely like Secularization, and while I consider myself a Catholic, I also consider myself a Secularist.

Please forgive us for seeming confused about what you meant by 'making the environment hostile', but to me, that doesn't sound like making the environment hostile. It sounds simply fair. I don't have a problem with Churches having tax-exempt status, because I know many churches, at least around my area, are financially struggling, and adding taxation to the mix would close them down.

But while (if it were up for a vote) I would vote to allow them to continue having that status, I would not feel that the environment was hostile if they didn't have it. And if there aren't religious trappings in government, I don't care one wit. That doesn't seem 'hostile' to me either. That seems appropriate.

Now, to me, saying you are going to make the environment hostile towards the meme* of religion sounds like you're actively working to stop its spread. Forbidding conversion, forbidding people who are religious from public office, or at the very least levying extra taxes against religious organizations would be hostile to me. But for the most part, what you're advocating, I'm all for. And even the ones I'm not for, I'm not too passionately against.

I apologize for my lack of decorum previously, the phrase 'making the environment hostile' was actually what triggered it. I'm a homosexual. I have enough religious people making my environment hostile towards my personal life. I don't need atheists to do it too.

There was also the point that nobody raised something that the religious have done that couldn't have been done by atheists. And while its true that the basics of genetics, the Sistine Chapel, Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Ghandi, etc. COULD have been done without religious influence, they WEREN'T. To me, it feels unfair to ask what religion has done for the world, and then say "But it could have been done WITHOUT religion" for every point raised. Anything CAN be done without religious motivation, just as anything can be done WITH religious motivation. If there is a religious motivation to it, then I feel that should count towards something that religion has done. If it helps, I will for the purposes of the debate concede that the Crusades and the Inquisition** were religiously motivated, and count as something bad religion has done.





*And I don't understand the word in this context.

**I don't think the Spanish Inquisition was religiously motivated, I think it was politically motivated, but if it will help to foster a courteous, respectful atmosphere of debate I will concede the point that, at the very least, it wasn't completely NOT religious. As for the Crusades, all I can say is that we're really, really sorry about it.

[Ghel]

I guess I have to explain. A meme is an idea passed from person to person, sometimes through an intermediate medium, such as a web page, book, recording, etc. The environment in which memes reside is the human mind. Also, the definition I'm using for hostile is not "pertaining to an enemy" but "opposed in feeling, action, or character; antagonistic."

Even if I was a violent person (and I'm not), killing or imprisoning people who follow religion would not destroy the meme of religion. It would instead strengthen it by leading to backlash by the religious community.

Instead, the things I have previously advocated on this thread (speaking, voting, education) are the best way to protect human minds against the "God virus," as some like to call it. Once one has learned the basics of logic and science, one can see that the claims of religion are either full of errors or unsupported.

I don't have a problem with Churches having tax-exempt status, because I know many churches, at least around my area, are financially struggling, and adding taxation to the mix would close them down.
I think that churches (and other religious organizations) should be held to the same criteria as other tax-exempt organizations. If they can show that they are actually doing the charity work that they claim and that's where the money is going (instead of lining their own pockets), then they can and should continue to receive tax-exempt status. But as long as there is no review of churches' books, there will never even be a way to know if they're doing the charity work that is supposed to be the justification for churches being tax exempt.

There was also the point that nobody raised something that the religious have done that couldn't have been done by atheists. And while its true that the basics of genetics, the Sistine Chapel, Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Ghandi, etc. COULD have been done without religious influence, they WEREN'T.
It seems to me that some of these things were done in spite of religion.

Genetics - are you referring to the work of Gregor Mendel? His religion clearly hampered his work, since he no longer had time for his work after he became abbot.

The Sistine Chapel ceiling - especially during the renaissance, the church had more money than any other patron of the arts, so it's not surprising that talented artists were hired to decorate the insides of churches. Art supplies cost money, and so Michelangelo, like other renaissance artists, frequently worked on religious projects to avoid being a starving artist.

Gandhi's and King's philosophies appear to be "religion plus." They each took the portions of their religion that they preferred, then added things to it, such as non-violence, equality, etc.

Even if you are correct, and these things were religiously inspired, that still tells us nothing about whether the beliefs are true. As someone who wants to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, the only thing that matters to me about religious claims is whether they can be demonstrated to be true. As long as they cannot, I will not accept the claims.

[Hyena Dandy]

I apologize for the confusion. I was not saying that because there have been good people who are religious, then you should be religious because that will make you good. I am more than willing to acknowledge that there have been bad parts too. I was responding to a comment you made earlier that you haven't seen anything that religion has accomplished that couldn't be accomplished without religion.

My point was perhaps that's true, but that doesn't mean that religion has done no good in the world.

[Ghel]

I was responding to a comment you made earlier that you haven't seen anything that religion has accomplished that couldn't be accomplished without religion.

My point was perhaps that's true, but that doesn't mean that religion has done no good in the world.
Granted. However, I'm looking at this from a different point of view. Good is done by people, not by religion itself. And I still think that religion hampers the good that people otherwise might do.

Additionally, adding religion to the mix can corrupt the good that is done, such as a soup kitchen forcing its patrons to sit through a sermon before they're allowed to eat. Religion tends to prey on people when they are most vulnerable, and using charity as a method of indoctrinating people is horrible.

I don't think the Spanish Inquisition was religiously motivated, I think it was politically motivated, but if it will help to foster a courteous, respectful atmosphere of debate I will concede the point that, at the very least, it wasn't completely NOT religious.
I was going to agree with you on this point, but the more I thought about it... I'll give you that the Spanish Inquisition was politically motivated, but without religion there would have been nothing on which to base an "us vs. them." There would have been no "Christians vs. heretics," "Christians vs. Jews," or "Christians vs. everybody else" without religion. So the Church would have had no basis on which to determine who the enemy was without religion.

Add to that that the justification for (or perhaps the rationalization of) the Spanish Inquisition was religious in nature, and the original motivation falls out of the picture.

[FArchivist]

That's not dogma - that's a conclusion. And one doesn't even have to come to that conclusion to be an atheist. All one has to do is not believe that there is a deity.

Right, and the belief that there are no deities of any type, Christian, Hindu, whatever, is still a belief. It's not a conclusion. A conclusion has to be backed by rigorous scientific proofs and experiments, repeatable and verifiable. Neither the belief that there ARE deities or that there AREN'T deities can be proven by the scientific method.

Therefore, both theism and atheism rely on beliefs. Theism relies on the belief that there is a deity/are deities. Atheism relies on the belief that there is no deity/are no deities.

Please explain which definition of "militant atheism" you are using here. I've seen at least half a dozen (sometimes conflicting) definitions of it.

I'm using the standard definition. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_atheism): The terms militant atheism and militant atheist are designations applied to atheists who are, or are perceived to be, hostile towards religion. And Julian Baggini defines 'militant atheism' as "Atheism which is actively hostile to religion", which "requires more than strong disagreement with religion — it requires something verging on hatred and is characterised by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense and the second is that it is usually or always harmful."

If you've never encountered a militant atheist, count yourself lucky. They're much like the Westboro Baptist Church in their actions.

Oh, and "anti-theism" doesn't necessarily mean atheism. It could just mean the anti-theist supports a different brand of theism, or a religion that doesn't have a god.

Er, no. If you are anti-theist, you are against theism. Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. Philosophies such as Confucianism and Daoism count as theism for those concerned.

"Good" may be "defined in the eye of the beholder," but no person exists in a vacuum. "Good," generally speaking, is that which benefits society as a whole. An action that helps the most people and harms the fewest can generally be defined as "good."

That is the philosophical viewpoint of positive utilitarianism as to what "good" is, yes. Unfortunately, I'm not a positive utilitarian.

"Good to me" leaves out concepts such as empathy, grief, and familial bonds.

There are many who do not consider such items to be worth consideration, yes.


You will find that most atheists prefer the inclusive definition: "the absense of belief that any deities exist." "A belief that no gods exist" is a subset of atheism, but leaves out a large portion of atheists.

...
There's no difference between the two
Deities = gods. Two different words for the same thing. Synonyms in the dictionary.

Really? So you're saying that Catholics ignore papal edicts until they're told about them by their priests? So when the pope decreed that condoms must not be used except by gay male prostitutes, his followers didn't listen until it had trickled down through the ranks?

A Catholic is only required to follow papal edicts if they are spoken ex cathedra, which has been done a total of SEVEN times since the formation of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Catechism allows you to disagree with what the Pope states. There are orthodox and several heterodox views on many, many different items, doctrinal arguments that have gone on for centuries without being resolved one way or the other. Thus:

- So, yes, if it is not spoken ex cathedra, a papal edict can be ignored.
- Yes, when the Pope decreed that condoms must not be used except by gay male prostitutes, that can be ignored and WAS ignored by the majority of the Western hierarchy, especially the hierarchy here in the USA.

What about the way he blames the victims of priests' sex crimes rather than the priests themselves? What about not taking responsibility for shuffling around pedophile priests so they could reoffend rather than answering for their crimes? Is that not direct enough for you?

Funny enough, according to Catholic doctrine, That's All On Him. I don't like it and I censure him for it, but I'm allowed to. The rules say I can. Unfortunately, the rules don't allow Catholics to kick him out and put in a new Pope. That can only be done if he dies, unless one wants to set up a rival Vatican somewhere as an antipope and fight it out with armies.

Would you? Then I hope you never get into a position of power. If this is what you would do for an atheistic philosophy, I shudder to think what you would do in support of Catholicism.

Not a damn thing, actually. Per Vatican II doctrine, one is not allowed to impose the faith on others when political office is attained. One may vote in accordance with beliefs and such, but imposition is specifically deterred and condemned.

Christianity doesn't need to be banned to destroy it. All that is needed is to show people that it can't support itself. This is quite obvious when Christians feel that they must enact laws in order to insinuate their religion into every aspect of society instead of letting their religion stand on its own merits.

What do you mean by "show people that it can't support itself" exactly?

[FArchivist]

Instead, the things I have previously advocated on this thread (speaking, voting, education) are the best way to protect human minds against the "God virus," as some like to call it. Once one has learned the basics of logic and science, one can see that the claims of religion are either full of errors or unsupported.


Ah. Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion".

Of course the claims of religion are full of logical errors and cannot be supported by science. That's the whole point of all religion and philosophy; these are BELIEF systems that do not require foundation in fact. Belief never requires proofs or logic; that's the whole point of it being a belief.

Personally, I respond to the whole meme argument with Dawkin's God: Genes, Memes, & The Meaning Of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawkins%27_God:_Genes,_Memes,_and_the_Meaning_of_L ife)

I think that churches (and other religious organizations) should be held to the same criteria as other tax-exempt organizations. If they can show that they are actually doing the charity work that they claim and that's where the money is going (instead of lining their own pockets), then they can and should continue to receive tax-exempt status. But as long as there is no review of churches' books, there will never even be a way to know if they're doing the charity work that is supposed to be the justification for churches being tax exempt.


Except that churches aren't given tax-exempt status due to charity work. A church is made tax-exempt purely in recognition of separation of church and state, as established with the creation of the IRS in 1916. In order to be tax-exempt, a church must have the following:

* A distinct legal existence
* A recognized creed and form of worship
* A definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
* A formal code of doctrine and discipline
* A distinct religious history
* Members who are not members of any other church or religious order (transfer letters must confirm membership from one church to another).
* An organization of licensed and/or ordained ministers
* Ordained and/or licensed ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of studies
* Literature of their own
* Established places of worship
* Regular attendees and congregational memberships
* Regular religious sacramental and/or worship services
* Religious instruction for the young
* Schools or courses for preparation of its ministers

Nowhere, as you can see, is charity mentioned at all.

Genetics - are you referring to the work of Gregor Mendel? His religion clearly hampered his work, since he no longer had time for his work after he became abbot.


Uh, that would be due to genetic science being a HOBBY for the man. His full-time job was being a monk and a teacher of physics. He was a gifted amateur, but I wouldn't say religion got in the way of his work. He could have given up his vows at any time. You are allowed to do that.

The Sistine Chapel ceiling - especially during the renaissance, the church had more money than any other patron of the arts, so it's not surprising that talented artists were hired to decorate the insides of churches. Art supplies cost money, and so Michelangelo, like other renaissance artists, frequently worked on religious projects to avoid being a starving artist.


This totally discounts the fact that the majority of Renaissance artists sought wealthy patrons, period, and that outside of some ruling nobility the wealthiest entity of the Renaissance period was the Church.

Even if you are correct, and these things were religiously inspired, that still tells us nothing about whether the beliefs are true. As someone who wants to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, the only thing that matters to me about religious claims is whether they can be demonstrated to be true. As long as they cannot, I will not accept the claims.

I would like to point out that you cannot prove that no deities exist either, as a) proving a negative is not possible in formal logic and b) the hypothesis cannot be proven by scientific method either.

Thus, impasse! :) Neither theists nor atheists can demonstrate either position to be true.

[Ipecac Drano]

I would like to point out that you cannot prove that no deities exist either, as a) proving a negative is not possible in formal logic and b) the hypothesis cannot be proven by scientific method either.

Thus, impasse! :) Neither theists nor atheists can demonstrate either position to be true.
As been mentioned before on this forum, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. That said, why believe in something if there is lack of evidence either way? And, if one must think that they should believe in it, how could they dismiss anything else? Like, say, believing in elves but dismissing the Easter Bunny?

As for your bit on hypotheses, even though the God hypothesis fails under scientific testing, there are other things that have been hypothesized and theorized that carry more weight, like gravity or electricity.

[Hyena Dandy]

And, if one must think that they should believe in it, how could they dismiss anything else? Like, say, believing in elves but dismissing the Easter Bunny?

I have stated my position on it before. Believe whatever makes you feel good, and gives you peace. If life doesn't really have a meaning, then we should believe in whatever will give us comfort. If this is all there is, and one thing or another gives us more comfort, and makes us happy, believe in it.

[Ghel]

Atheism relies on the belief that there is no deity/are no deities.
This is a straw man. Before trying to argue against someone's standpoint, make sure that it is actually their standpoint.

There's no difference between the two
Deities = gods.
I'm not making a distinction between deities and gods. I know they are synonyms. I'm making a distinction between "lack of belief" and "a belief." Atheism is properly defined as "a lack of belief in a god or deity or deities (or any other claim)." Trying to define atheism as "a belief" in anything is misrepresenting what atheism is.

If you've never encountered a militant atheist, count yourself lucky.
Not only have I not encountered a militant atheist as you define it, I have never even heard of one. I have never heard of an atheist advocating "wip out all forms of religious belief."

That is the philosophical viewpoint of positive utilitarianism as to what "good" is, yes. Unfortunately, I'm not a positive utilitarian.

There are many who do not consider such items to be worth consideration, yes.
When you previously said
I would disagree with this stance saying that there is no universal 'good' and that 'good' is solely defined in the eye of the beholder. That there is only "good to me", thus allowing things such as "just war".
were you saying that [I]you were saying that there is no universal good, etc., or were you saying that you thought I was saying there is no universal good, etc.? My response was based on the former. If I misunderstood, I apologize. Still, you say a lot about what you are not, but nothing about what you are.

A Catholic is only required to follow papal edicts if they are spoken ex cathedra...
Are you saying that Catholics don't listen to the pope unless he's speaking ex cathedra? That's absurd.

Anyway, the reason I mentioned the pope to begin with is that he has many more followers than Fred Phelps, and thus has the ability to spread his brand of superstition to many more people. And since you agree with me about the shuffling of pedophile priests, I don't understand why you're arguing with me about this one.

What do you mean by "show people that it can't support itself" exactly?
I mean that the central Christian beliefs are unsupported. No one has yet demonstrated that the Christian God exists.

Ah. Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion".
What? Where? You mean my mention of memes? Actually, memes were introduced in "The Selfish Gene," (an excellent book - I'd recommend it to anyone) and that's where most of my introduction to memes comes from. Yes, memes are mentioned in "The God Delusion," but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Of course the claims of religion are full of logical errors and cannot be supported by science. That's the whole point of all religion and philosophy; these are BELIEF systems that do not require foundation in fact. Belief never requires proofs or logic; that's the whole point of it being a belief.
Until a belief system makes a testable claim. Then it moves itself into the realm covered by science and can be tested using science.

Personally, I respond to the whole meme argument with "Dawkin's God: Genes, Memes, & The Meaning Of Life"
Do you know where I can get a free copy of that? I'm not going to pay money for apologetics.

Except that churches aren't given tax-exempt status due to charity work.
No, charity work is one of the reasons other organizations are given tax-exempt status. I don't consider any of the reasons you listed as valid reasons to give an organization tax-exempt status.

This totally discounts the fact that the majority of Renaissance artists sought wealthy patrons, period, and that outside of some ruling nobility the wealthiest entity of the Renaissance period was the Church.
You just reworded what I said.

I would like to point out that you cannot prove that no deities exist either, as a) proving a negative is not possible in formal logic and b) the hypothesis cannot be proven by scientific method either.
Duh. But since that's not what atheists are actually claiming, that's irrelevant. Atheists simply lack a belief in a god. That's all. Did you actually watch the video I linked?

Look, it's like this: I don't believe in Yahweh, Jehovah (those two are the same, as far as I can tell), Allah, Vishnu, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Odin, or any other god that's ever been described to me. Nor do I believe in angels, demons, ghosts, dragons, unicorns, or fairies. You said you were Catholic, so you believe in at least one of those. You are an atheist towards all the others. I am an atheist towards one more.

[Andara Bledin]

There's no difference between the two
Deities = gods. Two different words for the same thing. Synonyms in the dictionary.
That's not the difference, just an inconsistency of terminology leading to your confusion. What is being referred to is the difference between a negative belief and an absence of belief.

Most science evangelicals have a belief that there are no deities. Many others haven't had a reason or desire to consider it enough to form an opinion as to whether a deity might exist or not, and thus lack any belief at all. Both are forms of atheism.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

As been mentioned before on this forum, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

Correct, but since neither can be proven by scientific method, that issue becomes moot.

That said, why believe in something if there is lack of evidence either way? And, if one must think that they should believe in it, how could they dismiss anything else? Like, say, believing in elves but dismissing the Easter Bunny?


*shrugs* Why does anyone believe anything? Why do people believe in natural human rights? Or that Karl Marx was correct? Or that Glenn Beck's political ideas are awesome sauce?

Answer: Because they feel like it and it suits them to do so. There's no other reason. All religion, philosophy, and political ideology fall in this camp: they're systems of belief with no factual basis, all with their own dogmas and doctrines.

As for your bit on hypotheses, even though the God hypothesis fails under scientific testing, there are other things that have been hypothesized and theorized that carry more weight, like gravity or electricity.


And here we have the difference. The God hypothesis fails because it is a system of belief not dependent on fact in any way, shape, or form.

Gravity and electricity? Objective physical theories based on fact and evidence. You could compare electricity and the luminiferous ether and show why evidence for one was wrong and the other was right, but that's because it involves fact.

Belief? It's just the stuff of dreams, like all such.

[FArchivist]

This is a straw man. Before trying to argue against someone's standpoint, make sure that it is actually their standpoint.

That's not a strawman. That IS the definition as is standard for all discussions on atheism. If you have a different definition that has substantial difference, by all means, lay it out. I can point to my source. What's yours?

I'm making a distinction between "lack of belief" and "a belief." Atheism is properly defined as "a lack of belief in a god or deity or deities (or any other claim)." Trying to define atheism as "a belief" in anything is misrepresenting what atheism is.

Again, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism): Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

The position that you are taking is not what most people consider atheism, but instead call agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic).

Not only have I not encountered a militant atheist as you define it, I have never even heard of one. I have never heard of an atheist advocating "wip out all forms of religious belief."

I refer you to the LJ communities 'atheism' and 'antitheism' for representative examples on the internet. The snark journal atheist_fail (http://community.livejournal.com/atheist_fail/) has a decent log of events involving such. Although, to be fair, Dawkins himself has advocated the eradication of all religion and religious works in the past (though he has since modified his stance).


When you previously said
I would disagree with this stance saying that there is no universal 'good' and that 'good' is solely defined in the eye of the beholder. That there is only "good to me", thus allowing things such as "just war".
were you saying that [I]you were saying that there is no universal good, etc., or were you saying that you thought I was saying there is no universal good, etc.? My response was based on the former. If I misunderstood, I apologize. Still, you say a lot about what you are not, but nothing about what you are.

I say there is no such animal as universal good, that universal good cannot and does not exist. If it did, we would be able to define that which is universally good. No one has simply because 'good' is relative and is defined in different ways by different people in accordance to cultural influence and life experience.


Are you saying that Catholics don't listen to the pope unless he's speaking ex cathedra? That's absurd.

Not quite. What I'm saying is that if the Pope pronounces something and he is not speaking ex cathedra, I am not required by the rules the Church set down a few thousand years ago to be bound by it.

The weight which I have to give to the pronouncement depends on many factors. For instance, type: is it a bull, a decretal, a missive, a statement, a declaration? Which title is he using? Is he speaking as the Bishop of Rome, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, the Primate of Italy, the Archbishop & Metropolitan of the Roman Province, the Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, or the Servant of the Servants of God? Is this endorsed by the Curia? The Council of Bishops? The Holy Office? What do the various orders say about it?

A lot of non-Catholics think "If the Pope says it, all of Catholic Christendom follows." That's a whole bunch of hooey. There are more factions and divergence of belief in the Catholic Church that are legitimate than there are factions outside of the Catholic Church. The monolithic Church is a myth; it doesn't exist.

I'm always rather surprised that I have to explain this. But then, most non-Catholics don't bother to learn the actual history of Christianity from when the New Testament ends to today. *shrugs*

Anyway, the reason I mentioned the pope to begin with is that he has many more followers than Fred Phelps, and thus has the ability to spread his brand of superstition to many more people. And since you agree with me about the shuffling of pedophile priests, I don't understand why you're arguing with me about this one.

I would revise that to say that the Catholic Church has many more followers than Fred Phelps. The Catholic Church =/= Pope. The Pope is just the guy at the very top. He doesn't do much of the work, is mostly a figurehead, and is the result of a popularity contest.

If you want to talk about who REALLY runs the Roman Catholic Church, I would say it's a combination of the Curia, the Council of Bishops, and the Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith.


I mean that the central Christian beliefs are unsupported. No one has yet demonstrated that the Christian God exists.

*shrugs* No one has demonstrated that ANY god exists. Or that they don't exist.


What? Where? You mean my mention of memes? Actually, memes were introduced in "The Selfish Gene," (an excellent book - I'd recommend it to anyone) and that's where most of my introduction to memes comes from. Yes, memes are mentioned in "The God Delusion," but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

What you are using is basically Dawkins' theories on religion, which he believes is a memetic virus. That memes exist at all is a subject that is disputed by semiotic theorists, but memes are a popular idea of the day.

At any rate, you do a good job of presenting Dawkins' arguments, but you don't seem to have developed any other arguments from another source. I recommend you to "The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer" as an excellent starting point.

Until a belief system makes a testable claim. Then it moves itself into the realm covered by science and can be tested using science.

A belief system can make a testable claim about a scientific fact, which can then be tested.

However, a belief system ITSELF cannot be tested at all. If it can, it stops being a belief system, period, and becomes a factual hypothesis. The very nature of ANY belief system, as all are completely subjective and without objective underpinning, prevents testing.

Or more succinctly: "There is no way to scientifically measure faith. Or love. Or happiness. Or..."

Do you know where I can get a free copy of that? I'm not going to pay money for apologetics.

I recommend trying torrents. I personally use Demonoid. (http://demonoid.me/)


No, charity work is one of the reasons other organizations are given tax-exempt status. I don't consider any of the reasons you listed as valid reasons to give an organization tax-exempt status.

Except we're not talking about other organizations, we're talking about why churches are tax-exempt. As I said, a church is made tax-exempt purely in recognition of separation of church and state. You can consider that to be an invalid reason, but you haven't told me WHY recognition of separation of church and state is an invalid reason to provide tax-exempt status.

I would also like to note that charity work is NOT the only reason tax exemption is given for non-churches. You can become tax exempt if you are a governmental entity, a pension scheme, an educational institution, or any other type of "not for profit" entity. Charity work isn't a requirement. That's why classes 501(c)(4) through 501(c)(27) exist. Also, this is why churches must also conform to 509(a)(1), 509(a)(2), and 509(a)(3). See the IRS documentation on tax exemption for full details. (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf)


Duh. But since that's not what atheists are actually claiming, that's irrelevant. Atheists simply lack a belief in a god. That's all. Did you actually watch the video I linked?

1) Actually, yes, that is what the standard definition of atheism claims.

2) The video that you linked is very sophomoric and does a great job of confusing agnosticism with atheism. It wouldn't make it in a college-level discussion of what is atheism.

Look, it's like this: I don't believe in Yahweh, Jehovah (those two are the same, as far as I can tell), Allah, Vishnu, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Odin, or any other god that's ever been described to me. Nor do I believe in angels, demons, ghosts, dragons, unicorns, or fairies. You said you were Catholic, so you believe in at least one of those. You are an atheist towards all the others. I am an atheist towards one more.

Wow, no, that's totally wrong. I can't be "atheist toward all the others." Atheism allows NO belief in religion, period. That is the definition of atheism.

As a Catholic, I would consider Vishnu or the Greek gods or whatever as pagan. Pagan, from the Christian perspective, refers to any religion outside of the Abrahamic (or if you prefer, Judeochrislamic) religions.

Allah as seen by the Muslims or Yahweh as seen by the Jews would be considered heretical or at the very very best heterodox.

If I wasn't sure that ANY deity or religion actually existed, but I couldn't say for sure that they didn't, then I would be defined as an agnostic.

I don't know where you got your definitions from, but they do not match the standard terminology used in comparative studies of religion and philosophy, including the philosophy of atheism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion)

What you are broadly painting as atheism is actually atheism, nontheism, agnosticism, ignosticism, antireligion, skepticism, freethought, antitheism or secular humanism depending on the argument used.

[Ipecac Drano]

Correct, but since neither can be proven by scientific method, that issue becomes moot.
What I had said was a philosophical consideration, not a scientific one.


*shrugs* Why does anyone believe anything? Why do people believe in natural human rights? Or that Karl Marx was correct? Or that Glenn Beck's political ideas are awesome sauce?
There are differences between a set of morals and a fantasy animal.


Answer: Because they feel like it and it suits them to do so. There's no other reason. All religion, philosophy, and political ideology fall in this camp: they're systems of belief with no factual basis, all with their own dogmas and doctrines.
Well, you're 67% correct.

[Ghel]

FArchivist, your definition of atheism is a straw man. You're mauling the English language. Until you accept the definition that atheists themselves use, we have nothing to talk about.

How can we have a conversation when I look at an overcast sky and say, "It's not raining," and you respond, "You're telling me the sky is clear"?

Wow, Andara, I almost agree with you. But what is a "science evangelical"? From the words, I'd guess it was "a person who promotes science as the best way of learning about the universe." But that doesn't make sense from the context.

It's true that scientists tend to be less religious than the general populous, but that doesn't mean that they have a positive belief that no gods exist.

[FArchivist]

FArchivist, your definition of atheism is a straw man. You're mauling the English language. Until you accept the definition that atheists themselves use, we have nothing to talk about.

No, it is not a strawman. I am GIVING the definition atheists use and commonly agree on. Proof follows:

Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition:

Atheism: 1a) a disbelief in the existence of deity 1b) the doctrine that there is no deity

This definition is backed by:
- Nielsen, Kai (2010). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism)
- Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967]. "Atheism". In Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359
- Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis.
- "Definitions: Atheism". Department of Religious Studies, University of Alabama. (http://web.as.ua.edu/rel/aboutreldefinitions.html.)
- Zuckerman, Phil (2007). Martin, Michael T. ed. The Cambridge companion to atheism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 56

Stated by the following prominent atheists:

- Omar Khayyám
- Thomas Hobbes: Of Religion, from Leviathan
- David Hume
- Percy Bysshe Shelley
- John Stuart Mills
- Karl Marx
- Charles Darwin
- Anatole France:
- Mark Twain
- Joseph Conrad
- Thomas Hardy
- H P Lovecraf
- H L Mencken
- Sigmund Freud
- Albert Einstein
- George Orwell
- Bertrand Russell
- Carl Sagan
- John Updike
- Michael Shermer
- Charles Templeton
- Richard Dawkins
- Elizabeth Anderson
- Penn Jillette
- Salman Rushdie
- Karl Rove
- Richard Stallman

I can cite the EXACT passages where these atheists follow the definition I give. I have personally heard it from the lips of Richard Dawkins and Penn Jillette. I have NEVER encountered an actual atheist who uses the definition you use.

If your definition is correct, I want the dictionary you got it from and/or the sources who give it that way.

Some words to the wise:
- It's not a strawman.
- If you're going to take a position in an argument/debate, don't weasel your way out using deflection, redirection, and
- Don't think that just because I'm a theist that I don't know what I'm talking about; I've argued FOR atheism before and I've researched it well.
- If you're going to take Richard Dawkins' position, don't contradict the definition of atheism Richard Dawkins uses.

Y'know, you might want to learn what the difference between agnosticism and atheism is, the difference between implicit and explicit atheism, and the difference between strong and weak atheism.

Wow, Andara, I almost agree with you. But what is a "science evangelical"? From the words, I'd guess it was "a person who promotes science as the best way of learning about the universe." But that doesn't make sense from the context.

A "science evangelist" promotes the scientific method and products of science as being the only relevant mode of thought. In its most strict form, science fundamentalism excludes any thought or media involving fiction or belief not founded in science fact, such as most art, fantasy novels, etc.

[Ghel]

Y'know, you might want to learn what the difference between agnosticism and atheism is, the difference between implicit and explicit atheism, and the difference between strong and weak atheism.
Actually, you might want to learn the difference between agnosticism and atheism. Gnosticism/agnosticism discusses knowledge claims, while theism/atheism discusses belief claims. They are different, but overlapping, realms. Someone can be a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist (though they're rare), or an agnostic atheist.

I don't have a problem if somebody wants to label themselves "agnostic," even if I consider them atheist. But I will not have someone who doesn't even share my philosophy dictating to me what I can or can't label myself.

Throughout this thread, you have been trying to tell me that weak atheism isn't atheism. Weak atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. It is the default category for all people, before they are introduced to the concept of gods. You must understand this if you're asking me to understand the difference between strong and weak atheism.

[Cata]

Actually, you might want to learn the difference between agnosticism and atheism. Gnosticism/agnosticism discusses knowledge claims, while theism/atheism discusses belief claims. They are different, but overlapping, realms. Someone can be a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist (though they're rare), or an agnostic atheist.

Throughout this thread, you have been trying to tell me that weak atheism isn't atheism. Weak atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. It is the default category for all people, before they are introduced to the concept of gods. You must understand this if you're asking me to understand the difference between strong and weak atheism.

What you're saying is correct in only the most narrow, pedantic of definitions, and only within the framework provided by those definitions. In the broader sense, you're wrong.

In common usage, atheism is a clear, specific position taken by the affirmative refutation of the existence of gods. The position is, quite simply, that there is no god or gods.

Similarly, in common usage, agnosticism is a broader term, covering both nonspecific belief ("I believe that there is a god, but not as any religions define him/her/it") and a general sense of acknowledging possibilities ("I believe that it's possible that a god, or gods, exist").

Strictly speaking, only agnosticism is a logical position - every other religious-based position, including atheism, requires faith to sustain it. That's not to say that the other positions are inherently "wrong" or "bad" - just that they require more than just logic to reach that position. It requires a leap of faith to go from, "There might not be a god," to, "There is no god." There is no proof of this lack, and therefore there is no evidence with which to form a logical statement.

[FArchivist]

What you're saying is correct in only the most narrow, pedantic of definitions, and only within the framework provided by those definitions. In the broader sense, you're wrong.

And Cata gets it in one. Ding, we have a winner.

Ghel, if you want me to take you seriously, you have to use the terminology that EVERYONE ELSE in the wide world uses, not your own definition of what is and is not atheism. Otherwise, you're just straight trolling.

[FArchivist]

What I had said was a philosophical consideration, not a scientific one.

Science itself can deal with philosophical considerations, as can anthropology and psychology.


There are differences between a set of morals and a fantasy animal.

But both are made-up creatures of the mind, figments of imagination. That is all that matters to me.


Well, you're 67% correct.

Don't tell me; you think political ideology ISN'T a matter of belief, correct?

[Hyena Dandy]

Ghel, I've given up arguing the definistion of Atheism with you, because that's a zero-sum game. But could you possibly tell me what strawman you see us tilting at now?

[Gravekeeper]

This is a fascinating, but headache inducing thread to read through. Which really has flown off the rails of the original intention me thinks. This particular sub forum also has a propensity to de-evolve into debates over semantics and terms it seems. >.>

I will offer only a handful of points for consideration:

1) Extremism is bad regardless of the viewpoint or belief in question and is never excused by said viewpoint or belief.

2) Pointing out how much odour the other side's shit emits in no way perfumes your own side's.

3) Every belief or viewpoint will end up having extremists. They may be drafted by different teams but they all came from the same training camp. I look at them as their own little team onto itself regardless of what they're trying to champion.

4) Glenn Beck is a fantasy animal.

[Ipecac Drano]

Science itself can deal with philosophical considerations, as can anthropology and psychology.
To a point.


But both are made-up creatures of the mind, figments of imagination. That is all that matters to me.
Then your world should be a lonely one.


Don't tell me; you think political ideology ISN'T a matter of belief, correct?
Don't tell me; you think that the whole world is based on set logic and absolutes, yes?

[Ghel]

Ghel, I've given up arguing the definistion of Atheism with you, because that's a zero-sum game. But could you possibly tell me what strawman you see us tilting at now?
The strawman is exactly that: that the theists in this thread keep trying to tell me how to define my own philosophy. Their definition of atheism is easier to knock down than the real definition.

Here's my last attempt to get you guys to see it correctly. The prefix "a-" means "lack of" or "without." The word "theism" means "belief in a god or gods." Therefore, "atheism" means "lack of or without a belief in a god or gods." Even if you go back to the original greek "atheos," which literally means "without gods," still says nothing about a positive belief that there are no gods.

If you guys refuse to learn the English language, then we have no basis on which to have a discussion.

[Gravekeeper]

The strawman is exactly that: that the theists in this thread keep trying to tell me how to define my own philosophy. Their definition of atheism is easier to knock down than the real definition.


This is not a strawman, this is a strangely vehement argument over semantics and terminology that even I gave up following a few pages ago. I'm not even sure what either side is arguing about anymore. Nor do I want to be informed. -.-

Atheism, or specifically the root atheos is "Without god". Can we not just agree Atheists don't believe in the existence of anyone's Sky Wizard and resume whatever the original debate was? -.-

[Hyena Dandy]

Their definition of atheism is easier to knock down than the real definition.

Our definition of Atheism IS the definition that's used by practically every English-speaker I've met BESIDES you. We call your position AGNOSTICISM.

And considering I'm evidently falsifying your position because its easier to argue against, I haven't really spent much time trying to disprove or knock down your definition of atheism. All I've ever asked is that we respect each-other, and each-other's beliefs. If I've constructed a strawman at all, which I still think I haven't, I've constructed it in order to ignore it and change the point.

If you guys refuse to learn the English language, then we have no basis on which to have a discussion.

Well, since our discussion seems to be about what atheism is at this point, then we do have a basis for a discussion. I believe that people in this thread have cited proof that Atheism means what we say it means. You have only said repeatedly "That's not it at all."

I believe FAarchivist offered to cite numerous people saying Atheism means what we say it means.

Also.

Do you know where I can get a free copy of that? I'm not going to pay money for apologetics.

Probably a torrent somewhere, but why are you not going to pay money for people arguing against you? I try to read up on all sides of the argument, which, yes, means that I have to spend money. I would hardly consider myself qualified to discuss something if I wasn't willing to actually look at the other side's arguments.


Anyway, enough about Atheism, and beyond the semantics.

And because I think this part of the message is more important, and don't want it ignored by anyone.

BEYOND THE SEMANTICS

I don't want to knock down your beliefs, or lack of beliefs, or what have you. I don't want to knock ANYTHING down. What I sincerely want is for us all to come together. Neither of us is evil. Nobody's position is going to destroy everyone. We shouldn't look at each-other as inferiors, but as equals who don't agree on this. Once we stop trying to destroy each-other's belief systems, we'll be able to move forward, as a people.

There are good atheists. Whether I'm using the standard definition of atheism, or any other I've heard. Atheists are not by definition moraless evil villains who want to rape and pillage.

There are good Christians as well. The fact that not all good people are Christian does not mean that there are no good Christians. It does not mean that religion cannot inspire people to good acts, or works.

And honestly, I am confused about something. This is not me trying to counter an argument, or acting naive in order to try to get some 'from the mouth of babes' cred for my point. I seriously want to know the explanation for this, because I haven't been able to get a good one.

If Christianity is unsustainable, why has it hung around for the last 17 odd centuries?

[Mytical]

This is a fascinating, but headache inducing thread to read through. Which really has flown off the rails of the original intention me thinks. This particular sub forum also has a propensity to de-evolve into debates over semantics and terms it seems. >.>

I will offer only a handful of points for consideration:

1) Extremism is bad regardless of the viewpoint or belief in question and is never excused by said viewpoint or belief.

2) Pointing out how much odour the other side's shit emits in no way perfumes your own side's.

3) Every belief or viewpoint will end up having extremists. They may be drafted by different teams but they all came from the same training camp. I look at them as their own little team onto itself regardless of what they're trying to champion.

4) Glenn Beck is a fantasy animal.

Can I just say that while GK is normally awesome anyhow, that this may be even a bit more awesome then usual? Which is a feat in itself. I only disagree with 4. I only WISH Glenn Beck was a Fantasy Animal :D

[smileyeagle1021]

If Christianity is unsustainable, why has it hung around for the last 17 odd centuries?

Well, up until maybe a century ago (if not less) there was no alternative (non religious) explanation to the question of "how".
Once science started answering the how, people started questioning if they needed religion to tell them the why.

[Gravekeeper]

Well, up until maybe a century ago (if not less) there was no alternative (non religious) explanation to the question of "how".
Once science started answering the how, people started questioning if they needed religion to tell them the why.

Science goes back quite a bit further than that. The problem is more that the further you go back, the greater probability of stake burning when you submit your paper for peer review. >.>

Personally, I think the biggest problem most major religions currently have is a general unwillingness to adapt and evolve to the times. This problem will just get worse over time. For me, I think science is the answer to religion. But not the replacement. If that makes any sense.

You'd think if you want to understand what everything is and how we were created, you'd be chomping at the science bit to find out. Especially right now when we're discovering such incredible things about the inner workings of our universe practically every other week. If you're ever going to get a definitive answer as to whether or not your particular space wizard exists, thats where you're going to find it.

Yet we have a Creationism Musuem down in the states. -.-

[Ghel]

Can we not just agree Atheists don't believe in the existence of anyone's Sky Wizard and resume whatever the original debate was? -.-
Please. Let's.

I would hardly consider myself qualified to discuss something if I wasn't willing to actually look at the other side's arguments.
First, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia has told me all I need to know regarding the suggested book, which is that the other side doesn't have an argument, just bald assertions. Second, I look at the other side's arguments all the time and find them wanting.

And the reason I won't pay money for books written by religious apologists is the same reason I won't give money to religious charities: at least a portion of that money goes towards proselytizing. I have, however, bought apologists' books second-hand and had loads of fun highlighting the errors. Literally. With a highlighter.

If Christianity is unsustainable, why has it hung around for the last 17 odd centuries?
If you're referring to what I said previously, I said that Christianity is "unsupportable." What that means is that there's no good reason to think that it's true.

Yet we have a Creationism Musuem down in the states. -.-
Yes, and they're adding a theme park with a full-size Noah's ark. With dragons and unicorns. (http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/12/will-there-be-unicorns-on-ark.html) :rofl:

[Ipecac Drano]

Yes, and they're adding a theme park with a full-size Noah's ark. With dragons and unicorns. (http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/12/will-there-be-unicorns-on-ark.html) :rofl:
Maybe they'll also have cockatrices and a satyr or two?

[Ghel]

Maybe they'll also have cockatrices and a satyr or two?
I doubt it. Unicorns, at least, are mentioned in the bible. According to the Answers in Genesis folks (those who created the "Creation Museum" and the associated Noah's Ark theme park), every creature mentioned in the Bible was on the Ark.

[Hyena Dandy]

Oh, damn that creation museum. Its just stupid is what it is... I believe in the bible, don't get me wrong, but I don't believe that every word of it is written by god.

[Gravekeeper]

Oh, damn that creation museum. Its just stupid is what it is... I believe in the bible, don't get me wrong, but I don't believe that every word of it is written by god.

Technically, not a *single* word of it was written by god <nitpick> -.-

The problem is when you take it literally. Its not meant to be literal, you lunatics.

[Andara Bledin]

The problem is when you take it literally. Its not meant to be literal, you lunatics.
Especially when it's rife with local idioms that we don't have the information necessary to translate properly. We can't even manage to have a consistent translation from one modern language to another. Anyone who is a fan of foreign films has encountered this.

^-.-^

[Ipecac Drano]

I doubt it. Unicorns, at least, are mentioned in the bible. According to the Answers in Genesis folks (those who created the "Creation Museum" and the associated Noah's Ark theme park), every creature mentioned in the Bible was on the Ark.
In the KJV, satyrs are mentioned in Isaiah 13:21 and in Jeremiah 8:17 there is mention of cockatrices.

[Ghel]

In the KJV, satyrs are mentioned in Isaiah 13:21 and in Jeremiah 8:17 there is mention of cockatrices.
Hmm... Then there should be satyrs and cockatrices on the ark in the theme park. On the other hand, the creators of the theme park may use a different translation that describes the creatures differently, and use that as an excuse for not having them. But since they talk about unicorns on the Answers in Genesis website, they don't have an excuse not to have unicorns on their ark. And that will make the theme park even more of a joke than it already is.

It just goes to show what happens to one's thinking when one accepts fundamentalist dogma.

[Gerrinson]

Well, as much as I hate to pull the conversation away from unicorns and cockatrices, here's what I have to say on it.

Everyone - I'm sick to death of freaking Wikipedia being a 'go to' source for knowledge. Either go read the background material on which the entries are based or assume that whomever wrote it could have slanted it to their worldviews especially in the case of things like religion or lack thererof which are emotionally volatile subjects at the start.

Ghel - if you haven't read the Bible, stop complaing that it is 'unsupportable'. Seriously. If you're going to fight over it, best to know what 'it' is.

I've read the KJV Bible twice. Cover to cover. The Bible is, in fact, by and large WHY I'm an atheist. I like the social contract provided by most of the 10 commandments. They're mostly a good way to keep a bunch of primates from gouging each other's eyes out every other day. Jesus seemed like a pretty stand up guy, I think he and I would have gotten along what with that whole 'love is the most important thing' shtick. The rest of it is mostly either a geneology, a smattering of historical fact, or a crock of shit. Mostly all three mixed together. Mmmm!

The rest of why I'm atheist is that science offers explanations but does not demand blind faith. If I can't understand it, I can follow the foundation work and learn the concepts until I can comprehend why, for example, an incandescent lightbulb works until you add air to the interior. Questions are welcome and answered.

Religion - specifically Christianity - hates questions and tends to browbeat the hell out of people who suggest that maybe things aren't the way they appear at first read. Then there are the smug jackasses who think going to Heaven with them is going to be so super special. If sanctimonious self aggrandizement is Heaven, I'll go stew in Hell with my compadres, thank you very much.

If you're a moderate Christian who disagrees with the paintbrush I used, then you need to speak up more in church. You'll find either the extremists beat you into submission or you'll come join me in my camp of being sick of them.

In the end, I don't care what you believe if you leave me to live my life as I see fit, so long as I do no harm to you and you do no harm to me. My lack of belief does not injure you or your life in any way. If it actually offends you, then you have just poked your nose way too deep into my business and you need to shove off because what I think is not your concern.

And lastly, my father was an ordained Methodist minister. He never shoved religion down my throat. In fact, he was the one that taught me to use scripture as a weapon of self defense when someone starts thumping me over the head with Bible quotes. Though he still believes and I do not, we get along just fine. If we can make it work, all moderates can make it work.

So let's take the extremists of all sides, transplant them to say, Antarctica, give them a crate of weapons apiece and shoot the survivors. Repeat as necessary until we all get the point that live and let live is the best way to, y'know, live with each other.

Oh, and I liked the article that started this thread, though I disagree with some of the statements and particularly his examples of extreme atheists.

/soapbox

[Hyena Dandy]

I consdier myself a moderate, and I do speak up whenever I can. But I am already in your camp of being sick of extremists. I just don't think a bunch of assholes are a good reason for me to lose my faith.

I'm fine with not wanting to believe blindly, though. That's a perfectly reasonable position. My problem is when people think there is a problem with believing without evidence.

And unlike some other Christians, I have no problem with asking questions. I'd never scold someone for asking questions. I believe that everybody has a spiritual journey. Some decide to embrace Christianity. Some decide they are more fulfilled by another religion. Some find that they are most comfortable with not believing in any religion.

I feel that no matter what path you take, the most important thing is that you are happy with it. And, the second most important thing, is that you allow others to take their own.

[Gravekeeper]

<snip>
I like the social contract provided by most of the 10 commandments. They're mostly a good way to keep a bunch of primates from gouging each other's eyes out every other day. Jesus seemed like a pretty stand up guy, I think he and I would have gotten along what with that whole 'love is the most important thing' shtick. The rest of it is mostly either a geneology, a smattering of historical fact, or a crock of shit.


The "crock of shit" part is largely remixed versions of existing legends that predate the Bible. But yeah, pretty much this. If you need to get a bunch of lunatics under control without a police force, you promise them they'll burn in Hellfire for eternity *after* they die. -.-

I'm sure Jesus was a real person, and was certainly on to some good ideas as a teacher. His *original* teachings were different then what is attributed to him these days, and many of his teachings were actually rather Budda like ( to the point its a question if he actually encountered said monks ). That whole "Son of God" thing was glued on later to help Christianity compete in the market place so to speak as it was up against some stiff competition. They needed to make him more "special".

But I mean any of the more fantastical stuff in the Bible was copy pasted from other older traditions. Look at Jesus's birth. Most of the major elements of it are redundant to other "prophet birth" stories all of which predate him by hundreds of years. Hell, look at Noah's Ark. Lots of different cultures have a "Flood" myth.

Really, everyone was a bunch of plagerizing bastards back then. You didn't try to convince other religions yours was better via its actual teachings so much as made up ever more fantastic shit to make it sound more impressive. Well, either that or you started burning people on stakes and what not.

[Ghel]

Gerrinson, it seems there is much that we agree about. I would just like to clarify my stance on a few points.

Ghel - if you haven't read the Bible, stop complaing that it is 'unsupportable'. Seriously. If you're going to fight over it, best to know what 'it' is.
I have read large portions of the Bible, including (but not limited to) Genesis, Exodus, and the four gospels. Even a cursory reading of the Bible is enough to show that it is a collection of myths and legends. It's certainly not something on which I would want to base my life.

Besides, I didn't say the Bible was unsupportable (that's a different argument). I said that Christianity can't support itself, and further clarified by saying that "the central Christian beliefs are unsupported. No one has yet demonstrated that the Christian God exists."

I like the social contract provided by most of the 10 commandments. They're mostly a good way to keep a bunch of primates from gouging each other's eyes out every other day.
The 10C may have been good enough millenia ago, but they're not so good today. I could condense and improve on the 10C with one commandment: "Respect your fellow human being and his or her property." Done.

Jesus seemed like a pretty stand up guy, I think he and I would have gotten along what with that whole 'love is the most important thing' shtick.
The teachings attributed to Jesus are a combination of good and bad advice. The is no great wisdom of the kind you would expect from an all-knowing God. Where's "wash you hands after you go to the bathroom and before you eat"? Where's "slavery is wrong"? Where's "homosexuality is ok"? Where's "women deserve equal status with men"? I see nothing better than the status quo of the time.

But there's one reason, in particular, that Jesus tops my list of the most evil storybook characters: he introduced the concept of Hell as a real place of eternal torture, where people get sent for the "sin" of not believing in a God who has never given us any reason to think that he exists. That's the most horrible, evil concept in all of human history, and Jesus (or whoever wrote his dialogue) introduced it.

If you're a moderate Christian who disagrees with the paintbrush I used, then you need to speak up more in church.
To me, moderate or extremist doesn't matter much. If you believe that anyone deserves eternal torture for any reason, you're just as evil as the extremists. Conversely, if you are not willing to say that you would lock your child in the basement and toture him for the rest of his life just because he won't say he loves you, then you are more moral than the God of the Bible.

And lastly, my father was an ordained Methodist minister. He never shoved religion down my throat. In fact, he was the one that taught me to use scripture as a weapon of self defense when someone starts thumping me over the head with Bible quotes. Though he still believes and I do not, we get along just fine. If we can make it work, all moderates can make it work.
You're lucky. When I told my mother I was an atheist, she started crying, and screaming, and saying "where did I go wrong?" We don't talk about religion any more, but we still talk.

I'm sure Jesus was a real person, and was certainly on to some good ideas as a teacher. His *original* teachings were different then what is attributed to him these days...
Assuming for the moment Jesus actually existed, how do you know what his original teachings were? I'm not being snarky, rather I know that the Church has suppressed documents that disagreed with Church doctrine. I also know that none of the surviving accounts of Jesus' life can be dated to the time when he supposedly lived, nor do we have anything written by Jesus himself. So how can anyone know what Jesus really said?

[Gravekeeper]

But there's one reason, in particular, that Jesus tops my list of the most evil storybook characters: he introduced the concept of Hell as a real place of eternal torture, where people get sent for the "sin" of not believing in a God who has never given us any reason to think that he exists.


Every culture has a "Hell" mythos. Its a useful tool to make people behave themselves when you don't have the means to do so otherwise. It is not unique to Jesus in any way shape or form and predates him quite easily. Attributing it to Jesus is silly.

Besides, if anything, Matthew was the Hell fanboy. He talks the most about it. Him and Revelations. But Revelations is a total crack trip.



Assuming for the moment Jesus actually existed, how do you know what his original teachings were? I'm not being snarky, rather I know that the Church has suppressed documents that disagreed with Church doctrine. I also know that none of the surviving accounts of Jesus' life can be dated to the time when he supposedly lived, nor do we have anything written by Jesus himself. So how can anyone know what Jesus really said?

Well, the Gospels are basically all accounts of his life from the perspectives of different people and it certainly shows. They disagree on the exact things he said and what he was. John for example was all ra ra son of God and Matthew was into the whole heaven/hell judgement end of days stuff. Thomas, however, didn't make the cut but presents the most reasonable view of Jesus. Depicting him as just plain ol' Jesus and a teacher, rather than a prophet or divine being. But we can't have that, it doesn't sell well. Especially when Jesus basically says you don't need a church and spiritual fullfillment is a personal thing. ( I guess personal spiritual fullfillment doesn't have a collection plate. )

He certainly existed in some form, else the gospels are a most intriguingly elaborate prank pulled off by a group of guys that couldn't even agree with each other over what the prank was. Still, me thinks quite a bit has been attributed or made up about him to puff him up. People like their saviours to be divinely inspired, it makes them feel like they made the "right" choice. If they stayed with just plain ol' wise teacher Jesus I doubt it would have gotten as far as it has. SON OF GOD Jesus sounds much more impressive.

[Andara Bledin]

But we can't have that, it doesn't sell well. Especially when Jesus basically says you don't need a church and spiritual fullfillment is a personal thing. ( I guess personal spiritual fullfillment doesn't have a collection plate. )
No kidding. Besides, supposedly Jesus made the distinction that he was the "son of man" just like the rest of us. If he didn't need the church, then neither do we. Now, if we want one, on the other hand...

He certainly existed in some form, else the gospels are a most intriguingly elaborate prank pulled off by a group of guys that couldn't even agree with each other over what the prank was.
Not only that, but there are other historical references to him from completely unrelated individuals.

As for the time being off, it's fairly well-established that the current year designation should have something like 50 years or so added to the number for it to be accurate. The cleric that established the current form and year was 500 years after the fact and either wasn't that big on accuracy or just didn't have the information he needed to get it right.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Not only that, but there are other historical references to him from completely unrelated individuals.

Some commentary I read some time ago here. (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html)

In short, though the site is pretty blatant in its aims, it does raise doubts over the authenticity of the claims.

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

But there's one reason, in particular, that Jesus tops my list of the most evil storybook characters: he introduced the concept of Hell as a real place of eternal torture, where people get sent for the "sin" of not believing in a God who has never given us any reason to think that he exists.

I was not aware that a punishing afterlife was unique to Jesus. As for the sin of not believing he exists, I seem to recall, though I may be mistaken, that in Christianity, you CAN get out of hell. You have to accept God as your lord and savior to do it, and accept and repent for your sins. Then you get to heaven, even if you started out in hell. And I think if hell existed, and you ended up there, you would have good reason to believe God exists.

That said, its one thing to not be Christian, and dislike Jesus. But I think you can hardly call Him one of the most evil storybook characters. That seems less like simply not believing do to lack of evidence, and sounds more like petty spite.

[Ipecac Drano]

Not only that, but there are other historical references to him from completely unrelated individuals.
Such as?

I was not aware that a punishing afterlife was unique to Jesus.
It's not unique to Jesus; if one doesn't follow Mohammad's instructions, or even just God's way, they could be sent to Hell, too.


As for the sin of not believing he exists, I seem to recall, though I may be mistaken, that in Christianity, you CAN get out of hell. You have to accept God as your lord and savior to do it, and accept and repent for your sins. Then you get to heaven, even if you started out in hell. And I think if hell existed, and you ended up there, you would have good reason to believe God exists.
Bottom line, one could end up in Hell for not believing in God or accepting Jesus.


That said, its one thing to not be Christian, and dislike Jesus. But I think you can hardly call Him one of the most evil storybook characters. That seems less like simply not believing do to lack of evidence, and sounds more like petty spite.
Considering that Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God are one, and God did some pretty nasty stuff in the Old Testament, one could consider Jesus as being evil.

Sending someone to suffer eternal damnation for not accepting you is the most extreme form of "petty spite".

[Andara Bledin]

I had a friend in high school that once explained his beliefs while a group of us were hanging out after school.

In a nutshell, God was the sum of everything as opposed to a distinct and separate being. However, it was possible for souls to become separated from God and that was what hell was - not a place, but a state of being.

I always found his ideas fascinating.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Considering that Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God are one, and God did some pretty nasty stuff in the Old Testament, one could consider Jesus as being evil.

And all Christianity is Catholic, is it? Or Episcopalian, I suppose... Not everyone believes in the trinity, you know.

[Ipecac Drano]

And all Christianity is Catholic, is it? Or Episcopalian, I suppose... Not everyone believes in the trinity, you know.
Then maybe the Protestants shouldn't use their own version of the Nicene Creed, if they don't believe in "The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost".

[Boozy]

In a nutshell, God was the sum of everything as opposed to a distinct and separate being. However, it was possible for souls to become separated from God and that was what hell was - not a place, but a state of being.

I always found his ideas fascinating.


"His" ideas are just Mahayana Buddhism boiled down to something easy-to-swallow.

But yes, they are fascinating. :D

[Ipecac Drano]

"His" ideas are just Mahayana Buddhism boiled down to something easy-to-swallow.

But yes, they are fascinating. :D
Some of it is a part of Gnosticism; also very fascinating.

[Hyena Dandy]

Then maybe the Protestants shouldn't use their own version of the Nicene Creed, if they don't believe in "The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost".

Maybe they shouldn't. But some of them do anyway. What do you expect me to do about it?

[Gravekeeper]

"His" ideas are just Mahayana Buddhism boiled down to something easy-to-swallow.

But yes, they are fascinating. :D

Very true, hence I tend to give Jesus a bit of a pass since he's suspiciously quoting Buddha here and there. -.-

[Eisa]

*blink blink* I've read this whole thread and now my head hurts.

Also Gravekeeper is awesome. Arguing over semantics is pointless. And why can't everyone just agree to live and let live? I don't like extreme theists OR extreme atheists. I don't like people who want to discredit the other side into not existing.

Also, I believe in dragons, unicorns, and faeries because they're AWESOME. :D

[guywithashovel]

This whole semantics thing is one of the reasons why I stopped talking about religion online. I don't see the point in spending so much time arguing over the definition of atheism, when most of the arguments are merely rewordings of the same definition.

Simply put, an atheist is someone who believes that deities don't exist. I've actually seen some people interject here and say, "No, no, it's not a belief that there's no god. It's an absence of a belief in gods." Maybe it is, but who cares? At the end of the discussion, you still think gods and goddesses don't exist.

[Andara Bledin]

Maybe it is, but who cares? At the end of the discussion, you still think gods and goddesses don't exist.
Well, see, that's just it. There is a section of atheists (or agnostics, depending on who you ask) that have neither a belief that gods exist, nor a belief that gods don't exist. They are in some nebulous middle ground belonging to those who are reserving judgment, and to those who just can't be bothered to care enough to make a choice.

^-.-^

[BigGiant]

Great discussion. I haven't read all of the posts (started skimming when the arguments about semantics started).

I'd like to add my $.02.

I am an atheist. I think I have a simpler view than what has been discussed so far.

First off, as far as the idea of religion doing more harm than good:

I don't buy it. In general, things done in the name of religion, for the most part are just that. What I mean is, the things that are done (both good or bad- regardless of your definition) would have been done anyway. Religion is just the justification folks use to do them. If there were no religion, these things would have been done anyway, and a different justification would have been found.

I see this all the time. You can also apply it to the argument of atheism doing good or harm.

Folks love to use religion as a justification for their actions- it is very convenient.

This doesn't make religion itself bad. As I said, those folks would just find something else to use. It isn't any different than Nationalism, Racism, or most any other -ism for that matter.

[Ghel]

Look, here's the central point. Even if "atheism" is defined as "a belief there are no gods," that doesn't make the theist's claims any more correct. All an atheist has to do is listen to a theist's claims and say "I don't believe it." The atheist doesn't have to do anything more, except wait for the theist to convince him. So even if the atheist believes there are no gods, his or her position is still a reaction to the claims of theists, nothing more.

[Hyena Dandy]

I think that Atheism is still a decision. Its still a position, not a reaction. You might as well classify religion as a reaction of atheism. They're still answers.

And I agree with Big Giant. I think, honestly, for the most part, things done in the name of religion could, and in some cases would, have been done without religion. The same applies to things done in the name of atheism. I do not think either side has done more harm than good. I think they're both about equal.

[Gravekeeper]

All an atheist has to do is listen to a theist's claims and say "I don't believe it." The atheist doesn't have to do anything more, except wait for the theist to convince him. So even if the atheist believes there are no gods, his or her position is still a reaction to the claims of theists, nothing more.

The problem is, you can reverse "atheist" and "theist" in this thought. You may try to argue that atheist is scientifically grounded, but a theist is still going to sit and wait for you to convince them there is no <insert deity here> just as much as you're waiting for them to convince you. It doesn't matter whether or not you think this is reasonable or logical, both sides have their convinctions and will cling to their position just as hard.

When it comes to such matters as religion, faith and spirituality, people with strong convinctions honestly do not give up their viewpoint unless a lifechanging event occurs. Hence people who have near death experiences often overcompensate religiously after surviving it. You're not going to convince someone who feels God is important that he doesn't exist, anymore than they'll convince you that he does. Thus is the nature of the beast.

Being atheist is not a reaction to theists, its a conclusion based on scientific knowledge. Which is perfectly fine.

[Rapscallion]

The problem is, you can reverse "atheist" and "theist" in this thought. You may try to argue that atheist is scientifically grounded, but a theist is still going to sit and wait for you to convince them there is no <insert deity here> just as much as you're waiting for them to convince you.

Not quite. From my viewpoint, I'm not saying there's something unknowable about the world. I'm seeing people claiming there's an invisible friend that everyone should obey and worship. The burden of proof is on those making the claims.

If an atheist tries to argue this, it's usually something equally unknowable thrown back - it's not part of said divinity's plan. Said divinity chose not to do anything this time.

James Randi had a great piece on this during his lectures. Prove that reindeer can fly, a la pulling a sled. Put it to scientific test and you're going to end up with a load of dead reindeer pushed off a building. Maybe they couldn't fly, or maybe they chose not to this time, or maybe it's only a dozen or so reindeer at the secret location that's maybe near the north pole.

The burden of proof should be on those making the claim, not the other way around.

Rapscallion

[Ipecac Drano]

The burden of proof should be on those making the claim, not the other way around.
True. Rather than sending people on a wild goose chase, the proponents should come forward with evidence. If someone were to tell me that the trunk of their car is filled with gold bullion, I shouldn't be expected to pry the door open. The guy making the claim should have his trunk key out and ready to use.

[Mytical]

Proof is not faith. Faith is not proof. If there was proof, it would not be faith, but fact. *shrugs*

[Gravekeeper]

Not quite. From my viewpoint, I'm not saying there's something unknowable about the world. I'm seeing people claiming there's an invisible friend that everyone should obey and worship. The burden of proof is on those making the claims.


I think you missed my point. I didn't say anything about who has the burden of proof or who should have the burden of proof ( I think thats been debated to death on the forum so far >.>). Heck, I specifically said it doesn't matter whether or not you think this is reasonable or logical. I said a theist may have the same viewpoint towards an atheist as an atheist has towards a theist. It doesn't matter if you think that viewpoint is illogical, it doesn't stop the viewpoint from existing.

Both sides basically require an absolute proof to back off of their convictions. But since science isn't going to finish discovering every last shred of our reality anytime soon to declare absolutely no sky wizards are hiding anywhere. And no sky wizards are going to wander onto CNN anytime soon to join a round table on immigration reform. Niether side is going to give up their convictions any time soon.

People don't just change their convictions on such things without some sort of major or life changing event involved. Whether atheists like it or not, they are equal to religion in one sense: You're not going to "convert" someone to your viewpoint by handing out pamphets at a bus stop.

[draco664]

Some commentary I read some time ago here. (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html)

In short, though the site is pretty blatant in its aims, it does raise doubts over the authenticity of the claims.

Rapscallion

Yeah, you'd reckon that a tall chap with long, flowing blond hair and a well trimmed beard would stand out a bit more in the Middle East two thousand years ago. Surely someone would have made comment.

[Ghel]

Proof is not faith. Faith is not proof. If there was proof, it would not be faith, but fact. *shrugs*
And how do you convince somebody your faith is correct? Most Christians believe they need to tell the world about their religion, if only to prevent those people from ending up in Hell. So how do you convince someone who doesn't have faith?

Niether side is going to give up their convictions any time soon.

People don't just change their convictions on such things without some sort of major or life changing event involved.
This isn't entirely true. Here in the US, at least, most atheists were once theists (usually Christians, but that's only because Christians are the majority in the US). People change their philosophy for all sorts of reasons. It could be, as you say, a life-changing event, or it could be as simple as reading a book that gives you a different perspective. Frequently, when a person enters college and learns about things like the burden of proof, scientific method, and standards of evidence, they will see that the religion they were brought up with is unfounded. Or it could be that the person was professing their faith, and somebody pointed out how ridiculous their statements were by making fun of them - that could lead someone to investigate their own beliefs as well.

Whether atheists like it or not, they are equal to religion in one sense: You're not going to "convert" someone to your viewpoint by handing out pamphets at a bus stop.
Do you mean this literally? Because I've never heard of atheists doing this.

If you're referring to atheist advertisements, then I think you're missing the point of the ads. The main focus of the ads is to (1) let atheists know that they're not alone, that they don't have to hide their lack of belief, and (2) to let theists know that not everybody shares their beliefs, which many theists find to be an insult on its own.

[Gravekeeper]

This isn't entirely true. Here in the US, at least, most atheists were once theists (usually Christians, but that's only because Christians are the majority in the US). People change their philosophy for all sorts of reasons. It could be, as you say, a life-changing event, or it could be as simple as reading a book that gives you a different perspective.


People with strong convinctions aren't goint to be swayed by reading a book. They may, however, become disenchanted with their faith due to events in their life. This is fairly big danger if you've been told your entire life you can cash in your virtue chips for Jesus Points by saving sinners and what not. Then something rather Bad(tm) happens to you.



Frequently, when a person enters college and learns about things like the burden of proof, scientific method, and standards of evidence, they will see that the religion they were brought up with is unfounded.

College is a major life event and can change your perspective, however, no offence, but if this occured "frequently" atheists would be a much much larger portion of the population. As is they are tiny % of the US population. Which, extremely sadly, seem to be viewed negatively even more than Muslims in the US. ><


Or it could be that the person was professing their faith, and somebody pointed out how ridiculous their statements were by making fun of them - that could lead someone to investigate their own beliefs as well.

Frankly, this will rarely if ever work ( and is also disrespectful I might add ). People become more resistent to an opposing viewpoint when you do this. Quite literally, the harder or more disrespectfully you try to convince someone their wrong ( in any sense ) the more the average person will actually believe they're right. Even if they aren't.



Do you mean this literally? Because I've never heard of atheists doing this.

No, I don't mean it literally.



If you're referring to atheist advertisements, then I think you're missing the point of the ads.

I'm not.



(2) to let theists know that not everybody shares their beliefs, which many theists find to be an insult on its own.

But now that you mention it, there's your pamphlet. >.>

[Ghel]

People with strong convinctions aren't goint to be swayed by reading a book. They may, however, become disenchanted with their faith due to events in their life.
I'm not talking about fundamentalist Christian to atheist in one step. But little steps, such as from fundamentalist, to moderate, to agnostic (as the term is most often used), to atheist, can and do happen. And yes, sometimes it happens from reading books.

College is a major life event and can change your perspective, however, no offence, but if this occured "frequently" atheists would be a much much larger portion of the population. As is they are tiny % of the US population.
I meant "frequently" to mean as a portion of those who started out life as theists and later became atheists. And since the more educated people are, the less religious they are likely to be, I think that holds up.

Frankly, this will rarely if ever work ( and is also disrespectful I might add ).
Disrespectful to the belief, not the person. Besides, you don't seem to have a problem with making fun of a group of people based on what they say or how they behave. I don't see it as any different to make fun of people who believe Noah's flood actually happened as to make fun of people who don't know how to spell their own name.

But now that you mention it, there's your pamphlet. >.>
Right, because saying "Don't believe in God? You are not alone." (http://www.freethoughtaction.org/) is the same as saying that an evil man who believes in Christ will go to Heaven, while a good man who doesn't will get tortured forever in Hell (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0037/0037_01.asp).

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not talking about fundamentalist Christian to atheist in one step. But little steps, such as from fundamentalist, to moderate, to agnostic (as the term is most often used), to atheist, can and do happen. And yes, sometimes it happens from reading books.


Books, perhaps, over the years. The original statement was singular however.



I meant "frequently" to mean as a portion of those who started out life as theists and later became atheists. And since the more educated people are, the less religious they are likely to be, I think that holds up.


That holds up when speaking about religious fundementalism. However, when you broaden it out to spiritual/agnostist, it doesn't hold up. Just because someone isn't religious, doesn't mean they're an atheist either.




Disrespectful to the belief, not the person.

So if I told you that you were going to burn in Hell in a lake of fire for being an atheist, that would be totally fine because I'm just being disrespectful to your viewpoint, not your person?



I don't see it as any different to make fun of people who believe Noah's flood actually happened as to make fun of people who don't know how to spell their own name.

You...can't make a distinction there? One is basic education, the other is someone's belief system. Noah's flood may seem silly to both of us, but if thats what someone believe's in then fine. They have a right to do so and I will respect that. That's quite different from someone that can't spell their own name while trying to do something that they knew would require them to spell their own name. That's just good ol' everyday stupidity.




Right, because saying "Don't believe in God? You are not alone." (http://www.freethoughtaction.org/) is the same as saying that an evil man who believes in Christ will go to Heaven, while a good man who doesn't will get tortured forever in Hell (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0037/0037_01.asp).

Nice incredibly selective examples there ( Isn't chick tract the ones convinced D&D players can really cast spells? -.- ). Let's try these instead: "Enjoy Life Now. There is NO afterlife" (http://ffrf.org/uploads/images/enjoylife.jpg) or "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life. (http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01217/ATHEIST-BUS-2_1217539c.jpg)

Despite the tongue in cheek attempt, they both say "You're wrong to believe in what you do". Which frankly isn't any different than the other sides billboards. You're both telling people what they should believe in a public forum. So yes, you have pamphlets too.

Here's a novel idea, why don't we all just respect what everyone else believes and agree that its a personal thing that should be keep the fuck off of public streets & public transit and in the privacy of our own homes? And before you start a "The other side does it" argument, just because there's Listen to Jeebus or Burn in HELL billboards, doesn't mean anyone else should sink to the same level.

[Hyena Dandy]

Or it could be that the person was professing their faith, and somebody pointed out how ridiculous their statements were by making fun of them - that could lead someone to investigate their own beliefs as well.

Do you honestly think that will ever work?

[Talon]

College is a major life event and can change your perspective, however, no offence, but if this occured "frequently" atheists would be a much much larger portion of the population. As is they are tiny % of the US population. Which, extremely sadly, seem to be viewed negatively even more than Muslims in the US. ><



Just a quick comment. Yes, the number of public atheists in the US is very small, but we'll never know how many atheists choose to live "in the closet". Given the undeserved reputation of atheists, "coming out" can jeopardize one's career. Aronra's unseen wife recently attested to this, in his "Happy Holidays Anyways" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qnS0DXnoxo) video, at 1:28.

BTW, I would argue that those atheist posters aren't so much aimed at theists, but closet atheists.


Nice incredibly selective examples there ( Isn't chick tract the ones convinced D&D players can really cast spells? -.- ). Let's try these instead: "Enjoy Life Now. There is NO afterlife" or "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.


Nope GK you're still wrong.
The example Ghel quoted contained a threat: eternal burning in hell. Neither of the new examples you quoted contain any threat, in fact they both contain the phrase "enjoy your life". If theists can somehow manage to convince themselves that that isn't a positive message, play them world's smallest violin.

Do you honestly think that will ever work?

It worked for youtube's TheraminTrees. His transition to atheism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0WwZc-Vz7Y) began with the asking of a simple question: "Can you explain why you believe?" Also in his case, reading the bible only introduced new problems for the faith he'd been indoctrinated with. (his words not mine)

[Hyena Dandy]

It worked for youtube's TheraminTrees. His transition to atheism began with the asking of a simple question: "Can you explain why you believe?"

That's not making mocking his beliefs, which was what Ghel was talking about.

[Gravekeeper]

Just a quick comment. Yes, the number of public atheists in the US is very small, but we'll never know how many atheists choose to live "in the closet".


We can make a rough approximation by looking at how many are in Canada for example ( Where we're not so....yeah ). Which is to say a good portion more than the US, but still quite small.



BTW, I would argue that those atheist posters aren't so much aimed at theists, but closet atheists.

That's an explaination, not a justification. The other side could ( and likely has ) make a similar arguement. Its not aimed at anyone else! We're just trying to remind the flock.



Nope GK you're still wrong.
The example Ghel quoted contained a threat: eternal burning in hell. Neither of the new examples you quoted contain any threat, in fact they both contain the phrase "enjoy your life". If theists can somehow manage to convince themselves that that isn't a positive message, play them world's smallest violin.

You missed my point completely. My point was not that they had a threat, but that they were informing people of what they should believe in a public forum. And its quite easy to interprete it as a negative message. "Everything you believe is a lie! Enjoy life!" is not a positive message. It's disrespectful of others.



It worked for youtube's TheraminTrees. His transition to atheism began with the asking of a simple question: "Can you explain why you believe?"

The original statement was "Or it could be that the person was professing their faith, and somebody pointed out how ridiculous their statements were by making fun of them -".

I fail to see how the question "Can you explain why you believe?" is making fun of him in anyway.

[Eisa]

Not much of a response, but I firmly believe that Jack Chick is a whackjob.

As does this person (http://www.enterthejabberwock.com/index.php?s=chick&submit=Search)

[Ghel]

Books, perhaps, over the years. The original statement was singular however.
Yes, one book. Like the one that altered my thinking in such a way that I changed from callng myself agnostic ("I don't know.") to atheist ("Whether I know or not, I don't believe."). I wish I remembered which book it was.

That holds up when speaking about religious fundementalism. However, when you broaden it out to spiritual/agnostist, it doesn't hold up. Just because someone isn't religious, doesn't mean they're an atheist either.
I'll grant you this one, but only becauce I don't want to revisit the whole semantics argument.

So if I told you that you were going to burn in Hell in a lake of fire for being an atheist, that would be totally fine because I'm just being disrespectful to your viewpoint, not your person?
Of course not. Threatening eternal torture is not the same thing as saying, "I don't believe in your god."

One is basic education, the other is someone's belief system. Noah's flood may seem silly to both of us, but if thats what someone believe's in then fine.
The fact that there's no evidence for a worldwide flood is basic education. Or it would be, if anybody bothered to examine their own beliefs.

Let's try these instead: "Enjoy Life Now. There is NO afterlife" (http://ffrf.org/uploads/images/enjoylife.jpg) or "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life. (http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01217/ATHEIST-BUS-2_1217539c.jpg)
These are the worst atheistic ads you could come up with? It's no wonder Christians feel insulted by them.

And before you start a "The other side does it" argument, just because there's Listen to Jeebus or Burn in HELL billboards, doesn't mean anyone else should sink to the same level.
How is advertising that there's help for recovering theists "sinking to the same level"?

Do you honestly think that will ever work?
Yes. It has, and it can. Even if it didn't, I still think it's fair for people to ridicule ridiculous ideas - which most religious ideas are.

We're just trying to remind the flock.
With the atheist billboards, it's not so much a reminder, but an informing of people who might not have known that atheistic organizations exist. If you're changing from one belief system to another, there's help for you during the transition, but if you're changing from religion to atheism, where do you go?

My point was not that they had a threat, but that they were informing people of what they should believe in a public forum. And its quite easy to interprete it as a negative message. "Everything you believe is a lie! Enjoy life!" is not a positive message. It's disrespectful of others.
So you think it's better to let people think that they're going to burn forever for something that their many-times-over-great grandmother did. Or perhaps you think it's better to let people be deluded into the comforting belief of an afterlife instead of doing things to improve their lives here and now. I still don't think it's disrespectful to correct falsehoods.

Not much of a response, but I firmly believe that Jack Chick is a whackjob.
That's something I think we can all agree on. Also, other religious tracts and pamphlets aren't much better.

[Gravekeeper]

Yes, one book. Like the one that altered my thinking in such a way that I changed from callng myself agnostic ("I don't know.") to atheist ("Whether I know or not, I don't believe."). I wish I remembered which book it was.


Me too actually, might be an interesting read.


Of course not. Threatening eternal torture is not the same thing as saying, "I don't believe in your god."

....alright, point failing to penetrate there. Moving on.



The fact that there's no evidence for a worldwide flood is basic education. Or it would be, if anybody bothered to examine their own beliefs.

Many people do and others I'm sure do at least a few times in their lives.



These are the worst atheistic ads you could come up with? It's no wonder Christians feel insulted by them.

You are completely missing my point.


How is advertising that there's help for recovering theists "sinking to the same level"?

So completely missing it. Those in no way "Advertised help". They made a statement of belief in the face of other's believes which no different then that which you rail against so much.

"Recovering theist" is also a term rift with arrogance, frankly.


Yes. It has, and it can. Even if it didn't, I still think it's fair for people to ridicule ridiculous ideas - which most religious ideas are.


The problem is your definition of ridiculous, which is quite liable to offend. Jesus riding dinosaurs is ridiculous. Jesus having existed as a real person is not. Nor is belief in a higher power. But they seem to be in your opinion.

I've also never seen anyone respond to mockery of their faith with "Oh, well, since you put it that way I'm totally wrong".

Its a simple matter of human respect.


With the atheist billboards, it's not so much a reminder, but an informing of people who might not have known that atheistic organizations exist.

With the Christian billboards, its not so much a reminder, but informing people who might not have known that Christian organizations exist.

Feel free to mix and match with any religion. How about Islam? That should turn a few heads as the bus goes by.



If you're changing from one belief system to another, there's help for you during the transition, but if you're changing from religion to atheism, where do you go?

To the exact same places you would when changing your belief system to another? The phone book or the internet?


So you think it's better to let people think that they're going to burn forever for something that their many-times-over-great grandmother did. Or perhaps you think it's better to let people be deluded into the comforting belief of an afterlife instead of doing things to improve their lives here and now. I still don't think it's disrespectful to correct falsehoods.

I'm not arguing for Christianity specifically. Plus the basis of practically every religion is to improve your life and be good here and now. Its not disrespectful to correct falsehoods, its disrespectful when we consider your broad definition of falsehoods.



That's something I think we can all agree on. Also, other religious tracts and pamphlets aren't much better.

Yes, the Dungeons & Dragons ones are still my favourite. >.>

[Hyena Dandy]

What on earth are these theists recovering from?

[Eisa]

^I like what one of the dissections points out in...First Bite. But a coven of Deity Knows What convened and a child of Satan was born and was a vampire and was off to destroy a Christian woman as his first victim... :rolleyes: He looked like Alfred Neumann with fangs.

So it was like...heh, I need to just go find the quote. :p

Storot: So, gays are stuck in hell because you “can’t be gay AND Christian”, but vampires just have to say “I accept Jesus” and they’re good? “I’m a direct son of the Devil, who crawled out from Hell to devour souls and do his work!” “Oh, really? We can fix you right up!” “I feel FABULOUS!” “OMG DIE EVIL HOMO!!!” Talk about a double standard.

From: here (http://www.enterthejabberwock.com/?p=707#more-707)



Also, again, I agree with GK. :) I wonder if anyone's ever been called a "recovering atheist."

[Gravekeeper]

I wonder if anyone's ever been called a "recovering atheist."

It's probably the politically correct term for a heathen these days. -.-

[Rebel]

Also, again, I agree with GK. :) I wonder if anyone's ever been called a "recovering atheist."

Or, I believe they can sometimes become "Born Again Christians". And their loudest spokespeople are Kirk Cameron and Stephen Baldwin, so....yeah.

[Andara Bledin]

"Recovering theist" is also a term rift with arrogance, frankly.
Or, I believe they can sometimes become "Born Again Christians". And their loudest spokespeople are Kirk Cameron and Stephen Baldwin, so....yeah.
Try "born again atheist," then. There is nothing like a 'born again' for going overboard and being unreasonable against the other side.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

You are completely missing my point.
...
So completely missing it. Those in no way "Advertised help". They made a statement of belief in the face of other's believes which no different then that which you rail against so much.
Statement of belief? What? "There's probably no God"? "There is no afterlife"? That's what you think people should be so upset about? Why?

"Recovering theist" is also a term rift with arrogance, frankly.
After having been raised Catholic, and trying to strip myself of the vestiges of the faith, I still consider myself a recovering Catholic. It took years for me to stop saying "Bless you" after someone sneezed. (Damned repetitive conditioning.) The threat of Hell was felt keenly for more than a decade, even though I knew it was an unreasonable guilt-induced threat (and not even real guilt - it was guilt over things that nobody should ever feel guilty about). You may see arrogance in it, but I see someone trying to overcome an abusive relationship.

The problem is your definition of ridiculous, which is quite liable to offend. Jesus riding dinosaurs is ridiculous. Jesus having existed as a real person is not. Nor is belief in a higher power. But they seem to be in your opinion.
Actually, I'm a Jesus agnostic. I don't think we can know whether a real historical Jesus existed (mostly because the Catholic Church has destroyed any evidence there might have been for the man on which the Jesus myth was based).

However, the idea that Jesus was the son of God is ridiculous. So are most of the miracles attributed to him (especially the fig tree incident - that one's hilarious). Also ridiculous is the belief in a perfect God who needs to be worshipped. Or an omnipotent, good God who refuses to stop unnecessary suffering. Or that everybody has pieces of multiple alien souls inside them trapped there by an alien overlord. I don't have a problem with anyone making fun of any of these beliefs.

I've also never seen anyone respond to mockery of their faith with "Oh, well, since you put it that way I'm totally wrong".
Maybe not, but it could be the catalyst that gets the person to actually think about what they believe and why. I could also be a wakeup call to someone on the sidelines, observing the exchange.

To the exact same places you would when changing your belief system to another? The phone book or the internet?
Good luck finding an atheist organization in the phone book. Or a local one on the internet. The nearest atheist organization to where I live is over 300 miles away. But you can't go three blocks without passing a church.

Plus the basis of practically every religion is to improve your life and be good here and now.
This is complete and utter BS. The point of practically every religion is to attract as many followers as possible. To fill the pews. To fill the collection plates. To breed more followers. To prepare the followers for an afterlife that they can't demonstrate exists.

I see very little about religion that will encourage people to improve their lives and to be good here and now without the carrot of Heaven and the stick of Hell.

[Ghel]

Or, I believe they can sometimes become "Born Again Christians". And their loudest spokespeople are Kirk Cameron and Stephen Baldwin, so....yeah.
Crockoduck! :D

Try "born again atheist," then. There is nothing like a 'born again' for going overboard and being unreasonable against the other side.
I have already been born once, and quite sufficiently, I think. --G'Kar

[Andara Bledin]

However, the idea that Jesus was the son of God is ridiculous.
Jesus said that he was the son of man several times. It seemed an important distinction to him.

I don't particularly hold with the various interpretations that claim it was a way of distancing or claiming some form of title. Everything written about him was about him showing the rest of us how we could be, and if he wasn't as the rest of us, then how could it be expected that we could be as he was.

I see very little about religion that will encourage people to improve their lives and to be good here and now without the carrot of Heaven and the stick of Hell.
You're obfuscating the point with the agenda.

Plus, nearly every blanket statement you make about "religion" is based almost entirely on Catholicism specifically and Christianity as a whole. You flat out ignore the many different recognized religions that actually eschew material wealth and have a goal of personal well-being. You're "religious" experience is very narrowly focused.

I have already been born once, and quite sufficiently, I think. --G'Kar
It's not about the name. It's about the attitude.

^-.-^

[Ipecac Drano]

Jesus said that he was the son of man several times. It seemed an important distinction to him.
Just because he may have said it doesn't mean it's so.


Plus, nearly every blanket statement you make about "religion" is based almost entirely on Catholicism specifically and Christianity as a whole. You flat out ignore the many different recognized religions that actually eschew material wealth and have a goal of personal well-being. You're "religious" experience is very narrowly focused.
What she had said isn't just about Xtianity; it applies to other religions as well. Not to speak for her, but if I were to focus on Xtianity, I would do so as it is a religion familiar to most of us here. If I were to comment on some obscure religion it would be a bit more difficult to discuss.

[Gravekeeper]

Statement of belief? What? "There's probably no God"? "There is no afterlife"? That's what you think people should be so upset about? Why?


You seriously don't grasp the problem? You don't see the ironic hypocrisy in acting exactly like the theists you so denounce, but saying its ok because you're right? ( You know, exactly like they do? ). No religious viewpoint should be advertised in a public forum. It should be a personal thing that does not extend beyond your friends, family and congregation/coven/cult/horde/D&D group.



After having been raised Catholic, and trying to strip myself of the vestiges of the faith, I still consider myself a recovering Catholic.

And your experiences are obviously global to everyone? I was raised Catholic too. I don't consider myself recovering in any way.



It took years for me to stop saying "Bless you" after someone sneezed. (Damned repetitive conditioning.)

...Are you serious? Practically everyone says that regardless of faith.


You may see arrogance in it, but I see someone trying to overcome an abusive relationship.

If thats how you see it, that's fine, but yet again that does not justify advertising a religious viewpoint on the side of a bus.


However, the idea that Jesus was the son of God is ridiculous.

Except I didn't say Son of God(tm) Jesus


Also ridiculous is the belief in a perfect God who needs to be worshipped. Or an omnipotent, good God who refuses to stop unnecessary suffering.

I also didn't say the fundementalist Christian God. All I said was "higher power". I also didn't mention Xenu. -.-





Maybe not, but it could be the catalyst that gets the person to actually think about what they believe and why.

Could be, but 95% of the time you're going to offend someone by belitting their believes. Have some respect.


I could also be a wakeup call to someone on the sidelines, observing the exchange.


Or you could piss them off too.





The nearest atheist organization to where I live is over 300 miles away. But you can't go three blocks without passing a church.

Your situation is not the global standard.



This is complete and utter BS. The point of practically every religion is to attract as many followers as possible. To fill the pews. To fill the collection plates. To breed more followers.

You are so completely wrong I'm not sure where to start. I have to go with Andara on this one. You're completely fixed on Christianity and Catholicism, and using that to make blanket statements about all religion.



Just because he may have said it doesn't mean it's so.

Wait, did you just argue *for* him being the son of God? >.>


What she had said isn't just about Xtianity; it applies to other religions as well.


Frankly, no it doesn't. Once you leave that primary sphere of Judeo-Christian-Islam things get quite a bit different. Also, things like Hinduism or Buddhism aren't obscure things no one has ever heard of.

[Peppergirl]

Just adding something I found humorous that I hope will make others smile. :D

Here is a Facebook status that my friend used that I, in turn, 'borrowed' for mine:



"It really doesn't matter how far left or right you go. Sooner or later, you hit crazy."



To a certain extent, I think the same can be said for theists vs atheists. There are extreme cases on both sides and both seem batshit to me.


Yeah, I know - I'm a shitty debater, which is why I don't even make an attempt in threads like these. But I found it amusing and figured I'd throw it in for the sake of levity. :D

[Ghel]

Jesus said that he was the son of man several times. It seemed an important distinction to him.
I wasn't referring to what Jesus is reported to have said. I was referring to the beliefs about him that people profess.

You're "religious" experience is very narrowly focused.
That's true. I have more experience with Christianity than any other religion, so that's what I talk about most. However, if someone were to try to convince me of the merits of a different religion, I would have a response to that. What type of response would depend, of course, on the specifics of that religion. The majority of my statements about Christianity could equally apply to any theism, that is, any religion that includes a creator god.

It's not about the name. It's about the attitude.
So the way a thing is said is more important than what is said?

No religious viewpoint should be advertised in a public forum. It should be a personal thing that does not extend beyond your friends, family and congregation/coven/cult/horde/D&D group.
I disagree. I have no problem with religious billboards. I usually have a good chuckle over them.

And your experiences are obviously global to everyone?
I never said they were, but the one thing that atheists tend to lack that theists have in abundance is a sense of community. These billboard campaigns are offering to promote that sort of community, where atheists can talk about their views without having to worry about being harassed or discriminated against. Why do you think that's such a bad thing? And yes, you're going to have to spell it out, because from what you've said so far, I just don't get it.

All I said was "higher power".
Please define "higher power." If it is not synonymous with "god," then I have no idea what you're talking about.

Your situation is not the global standard.
No, but it is the standard in the US. Unless you live in a big city, it's unlikely that there's an atheistic, freethought, or humanist organization anywhere near you. But in my town of about 9,000 people, there's 32 churches.

Have some respect.
Respect has to be earned.

[Mytical]

Peppergirl, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Problem is both sides 'zealots' don't see how similar they are. Neither can just let the other believe 'whatever', they MUST convert the 'Non-believer'. If that is somebody who doesn't believe there is a god, or somebody who believes there is.

One side so firmly believes that humans have enough knowledge to dismiss anything not seen (Not counting anything they believe in that can't be seen under normal circumstances). They use theory and what they call 'common sense' (just because a lot of people believe something (common) doesn't mean it is true...or we'd still be living in a flat world) as if it was religious doctrine. "This person says 'blah blah blah', and if you don't believe it you are ignorant". Again not realizing, nor admitting, how much they sound like their polar opposite. They also tend to use the 'science is just a tool' argument as much as their polar opposite use the 'it is meant as a lesson and not to be taken literally'. Neither can admit that however. Their precious belief (Yeah, yeah I will get pelted by the atheist for daring to use that word) can not be wrong.

The polar opposite believe every word of their religious text, or what their religious leader believes. If anything doesn't quite make sense they either cite it as 'just a lesson', or such.

Both absolutely can not stand somebody having a different opinion or thought on the matter. Oh they claim differently, but they just can not leave well enough alone. They MUST prove their superiority to everybody. Their opinion is the only 'logical' one. I can be just as guilty about this as anybody else. I am just human :p.

Just chill. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to believe what they believe. There is a way of dealing with somebody when they try to 'spread the word' (either atheism or religion). It is called walking away. I know, radical concept right?

[Gravekeeper]

The majority of my statements about Christianity could equally apply to any theism, that is, any religion that includes a creator god.


Except they don't. They don't even apply to every faction of Christianity. This is the problem. You can't generalize like that. You admit you don't know about much else but the Christianity you grew up with, so how can you possibly apply a blanket statement to every religion based on that alone?

Even the Catholicism you grew up with is different than what I grew up with, which are both different from the Christianity my mom believes in ( Which for reference does believe in reincarnation. Her church doesn't even believe in Hell. ).



I disagree. I have no problem with religious billboards. I usually have a good chuckle over them.

Yet again, that's not the point. The point is a seperation of religion from the public sphere.


I never said they were, but the one thing that atheists tend to lack that theists have in abundance is a sense of community.

An interesting issue, I might surmise it has to do with the different ways one might arrive at the conclusion of atheism. Which decentralizes it. Its an emphasis of conclusion over teaching. I for example am similar, my beliefs are a conclusion and thus I have no one I know that shares my beliefs nor any church or other establishment. However, as my beliefs are personal, I have no need for that either. I honestly find it more interesting to talk to people with different beliefs than the same ones. As I may learn something new from them.


These billboard campaigns are offering to promote that sort of community, where atheists can talk about their views without having to worry about being harassed or discriminated against. Why do you think that's such a bad thing? And yes, you're going to have to spell it out, because from what you've said so far, I just don't get it.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can spell it out. If the billboard said "Hey, are you an Atheist? So are we! Here's our number". But they don't, they make a statement about the non-existent of God then stick a URL at the bottom. That's a much different thing. This isn't an outreach program, it's a statement of belief. A statement of belief of a religious viewpoint shouldn't be on the side of the bus. From anyone, theist or atheist.



Please define "higher power." If it is not synonymous with "god," then I have no idea what you're talking about.

Really? Higher power is just a general term for anything outside of our mortal realm so to speak. God certainly qualifies under the term, but to define it as God is extremely narrow.



No, but it is the standard in the US. Unless you live in a big city, it's unlikely that there's an atheistic, freethought, or humanist organization anywhere near you. But in my town of about 9,000 people, there's 32 churches.

That's my point, its the standard where you are, so please stop applying it as the standard to everywhere else. It's not. Besides, you have the Interwebs don't you?




Respect has to be earned.

You are completely misunderstanding again. There should be a basic level of human deceny and respect for others period. Otherwise you're just an asshole.

[Gravekeeper]

Problem is both sides 'zealots' don't see how similar they are. Neither can just let the other believe 'whatever', they MUST convert the 'Non-believer'. If that is somebody who doesn't believe there is a good, or somebody who believes there is.

Just chill. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to believe what they believe.

Precisely.

Also, I just Google'd "Crocoduck". Now my brain hurts, but I'm compelled to order a t-shirt.

[Andara Bledin]

So the way a thing is said is more important than what is said?
Sometimes, yes.

However, in this case it's about what is said, not the 'shortcut' used to say it.

I don't normally turn to the Urban Dictionary, but in this case, they've got it covered:
"Former theists or agnostics that upon shifting to atheism become as militant, preachy and annoying as Evangelical Christians. Can be spotted easily by overuse of the word 'fairytale'."

Respect has to be earned.
If you don't give it, you don't earn it.

There should be a basic level of human deceny and respect for others period. Otherwise you're just an asshole.
And this.

^-.-^

[Rebel]

Precisely.

Also, I just Google'd "Crocoduck". Now my brain hurts, but I'm compelled to order a t-shirt.

Ha!
My favourite will forever be the "Banana Theory" for God.
And to think that I used to watch him in Growing Pains when I was a kid.

I'm also working out how lazy an atheist I am. All I do is not personally believe in any God. I couldn't care less about anybody else's religion.
Unless they're a Scientologist.
And I'm a little bit against JW's, but that has to do with a bad personal experience.
And people of any religion who aggressively try to convert me can fuck right off. But I think that's a universal thing.

[Gravekeeper]

Ha!
My favourite will forever be the "Banana Theory" for God.
And to think that I used to watch him in Growing Pains when I was a kid.


Oh god, the banana theory. That was even worse.



And people of any religion who aggressively try to convert me can fuck right off. But I think that's a universal thing.

Exactly. -.-

JWs are...somewhat painful. Even worse if you know someone who is a JW. Not because they try to convert you, but because that door to door missionary work is mandatory and its the older generations that are hard core about it and force it on the younger. I had JW friends in high school, and they were utterly *mortified* to have to do it. My mom use to peg which ones were the zealots and which ones were utterly ashamed of themselves. Then invite the latter in for coffee not to talk about religion, but just to give them a break and let them pretend they were doing something. >.>

I remember one of the older zealot types forcing some handbook for teenagers on me one morning back in high school ( They woke me up at 7am on a Sunday, I was not awake and just took whatever if it would make them go away ). Later on when I woke up and actually read it, it was basically 300 pages on how if I ever touched my penis, I would spontaneously combust. And that God should fullfill all my needs for breasts. Yes, thinking about God. That's going to keep a 15 year old's mind off boobies.

[Mytical]

*hides in embarrassment* Now how in the heck could I say "Doesn't believe in a good.." when I mean God? Going to go fix it and hide now.

[Ipecac Drano]

Wait, did you just argue *for* him being the son of God?
Uh, no...


Frankly, no it doesn't. Once you leave that primary sphere of Judeo-Christian-Islam things get quite a bit different.
They have a lot more in common with the Abrahamic religions than you think.


Also, things like Hinduism or Buddhism aren't obscure things no one has ever heard of.
I never said that no one had heard of them. I said that most of us Westerners would know more about the Abrahamic religions than the Eastern ones.

[Gravekeeper]

Uh, no...

Whew, ok, that would have been....weird. -.-




They have a lot more in common with the Abrahamic religions than you think.

Such as? Most eastern religions err on the side of polytheism, reincarnation and some nature worship. Or can be alltogether godless philosophies.



I never said that no one had heard of them. I said that most of us Westerners would know more about the Abrahamic religions than the Eastern ones.

Er, I was responding too: "What she had said isn't just about Xtianity; it applies to other religions as well." and you did say "If I were to comment on some obscure religion it would be a bit more difficult to discuss. ".

Bah, anyway, point is you can't brush stroke all of religion based on Christianity. -.-

[Ghel]

One side so firmly believes that humans have enough knowledge to dismiss anything not seen (Not counting anything they believe in that can't be seen under normal circumstances). They use theory and what they call 'common sense' (just because a lot of people believe something (common) doesn't mean it is true...or we'd still be living in a flat world) as if it was religious doctrine. "This person says 'blah blah blah', and if you don't believe it you are ignorant". Again not realizing, nor admitting, how much they sound like their polar opposite.
You're right. Any atheist who says something like this is being stupid. The reason science works isn't because some authority said so, it works because it builds a working model of the universe that can be used to make accurate predictions. That working model is based on observation (which isn't just what's "seen"), evidence, and experimentation. If a scientific theory doesn't make accurate predictions, it is revised or discarded. How often do you see that in religion?

You admit you don't know about much else but the Christianity you grew up with, so how can you possibly apply a blanket statement to every religion based on that alone?
What do you expect me to do? Investigate every god that humans have ever worshiped before I declare myself an atheist?

A statement of belief of a religious viewpoint shouldn't be on the side of the bus. From anyone, theist or atheist.
You're certainly entitled to that point of view. But here in the US, we have this thing commonly called "separation of church and state." In this case, it means that it would be unconstitutional to make a law prohibiting advertising based solely on its religious content. And that's something I agree with.

There are privately-owned bus companies that have chosen not to place any religious or atheistic advertisements on their buses. And as long as the policy is executed fairly and evenly, I don't have a problem with it.

Really? Higher power is just a general term for anything outside of our mortal realm so to speak. God certainly qualifies under the term, but to define it as God is extremely narrow.
Are you talking about something that's supernatural? Does it interact with the natural realm, or is it in its own realm? If it doesn't interact with the natural realm, why should we care?

That's my point, its the standard where you are, so please stop applying it as the standard to everywhere else. It's not. Besides, you have the Interwebs don't you?
First, most of the atheist advertisements we've been talking about have been located in the US, so it's only natural that they're advertising to a US audience. Second, human beings need personal interaction, which can't be provided by the internet.

I don't normally turn to the Urban Dictionary, but in this case, they've got it covered:
"Former theists or agnostics that upon shifting to atheism become as militant, preachy and annoying as Evangelical Christians. Can be spotted easily by overuse of the word 'fairytale'."
:D I suppose they think "legend," "myth," "superstition," and "fantasy" are overused, too? How about "unfounded," "unsupported," and "contradictory"?

[Rapscallion]

You are completely misunderstanding again. There should be a basic level of human deceny and respect for others period. Otherwise you're just an asshole.

No matter what those people do? We have a blanket ban on slamming religions on CS, but I make special exeption for Phelps and his gang. This is partly because I wouldn't expect anyone to be in a position where they had to appear to defend them, but also because they've proved they don't deserve respect.

Rapscallion

[Ipecac Drano]

Such as? Most eastern religions err on the side of polytheism, reincarnation and some nature worship. Or can be alltogether godless philosophies.
Blind faith, disembodied beings (in some cases)...


Er, I was responding too: "What she had said isn't just about Xtianity; it applies to other religions as well." and you did say "If I were to comment on some obscure religion it would be a bit more difficult to discuss. ".
Again, it's not about whether we know such religions exist; it's about what we know about them.


Bah, anyway, point is you can't brush stroke all of religion based on Christianity. -.-
No, just the things they share with it.

[Hyena Dandy]

Again, it's not about whether we know such religions exist; it's about what we know about them.

So they're irrelevant in a discussion of religion because they're not the primary faith in your area?

[Ipecac Drano]

So they're irrelevant in a discussion of religion because they're not the primary faith in your area?
That's not even close to what I was saying...

[Ghel]

So they're irrelevant in a discussion of religion because they're not the primary faith in your area?
No, it's that the primary religion in our area has more political power, is more vocal, and is simply more popular. That means that the average person in the US is more knowledgeable about Christianity than any other religion. That's why it's more likely to come up in a discussion.

[Andara Bledin]

No matter what those people do?
Yes and no.

Until we have knowledge that someone has done something unacceptable, then no matter what their professed political or religious views, we should still extend a basic modicum of respect.

Once they go the direction of, say Phelps and his ilk, then it's open season. But until then, if you make a blanket decision that anyone who believes in God doesn't deserve the basic respect of not mocking them for their belief in what is the most popular religion on the planet, you are, as Gravekeeper so eloquently states, an asshole.

Again, it's not about whether we know such religions exist; it's about what we know about them.

No, it's that the primary religion in our area has more political power, is more vocal, and is simply more popular. That means that the average person in the US is more knowledgeable about Christianity than any other religion. That's why it's more likely to come up in a discussion.

If you're talking about Christianity, then stop calling it by the blanket term religion. You're not talking about religion. You're talking only and specifically about Judeo-Christian religions and to assume that everybody here only has the same limited knowledge base as yourself is, again, insulting.

Particularly when you know that there are members of this forum who believe religions other than those you are talking about.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

That's not even close to what I was saying...

Than can you explain it? I seem to have become confused. You seemed to be implying it was some 'obscure religion' and therefore not worth commenting on.

That's why it's more likely to come up in a discussion.

Well, now, however unlikely, other religions have come up. Why don't we discuss them, too. :D

[Ipecac Drano]

Than can you explain it? I seem to have become confused. You seemed to be implying it was some 'obscure religion' and therefore not worth commenting on.
I made no such implication.


Well, now, however unlikely, other religions have come up. Why don't we discuss them, too. :D
Feel free.

[Ghel]

If you're talking about Christianity, then stop calling it by the blanket term religion. You're not talking about religion. You're talking only and specifically about Judeo-Christian religions and to assume that everybody here only has the same limited knowledge base as yourself is, again, insulting.
When I'm talking about religion in general, I use the word "religion." When I'm talking about a belief in a god (still pretty generic), I use the word "theism." When I'm talking about Christianity, I use the word "Christianity." If someone brought up a different religion, I would use the appropriate term for that religion. I'm not assuming anything.

Well, now, however unlikely, other religions have come up. Why don't we discuss them, too. :D
What would you like to discuss about them?

[Gravekeeper]

How often do you see that in religion?


<points at Buddhism>


What do you expect me to do? Investigate every god that humans have ever worshiped before I declare myself an atheist?


No, but I do expect you to not make blanket statements about that which you admittedly don't know about.



You're certainly entitled to that point of view. But here in the US, we have this thing commonly called "separation of church and state." In this case, it means that it would be unconstitutional to make a law prohibiting advertising based solely on its religious content. And that's something I agree with.

I never said a thing about making a law, so you can retract that strawman.


Are you talking about something that's supernatural? Does it interact with the natural realm, or is it in its own realm? If it doesn't interact with the natural realm, why should we care?

Yes, depends, depends. Its a general term and I know better than to argue semantics here ( as it is futile ). Why you should or should not care is up to you. It doesn't change the definition.


First, most of the atheist advertisements we've been talking about have been located in the US, so it's only natural that they're advertising to a US audience. Second, human beings need personal interaction, which can't be provided by the internet.

First, the atheist advertisements I linked were from the UK and the whole atheist bus campaign started in the UK first before moving to the US and then Canada. Where I should note they were mostly barred because in Canada because our transit is publically owned and thus no religious advertisement is permitted. A difficulty they ran into in several other countries.

Also, I should point out the entire atheist bus campaign stopped going the purely atheist route and now argues for a complete seperation of church and state, and an end to religious bias in science and public institutions. Which I fully agree with them on.


No matter what those people do?

What Andara said. -.-


Blind faith, disembodied beings (in some cases)...

Those are the only two you can come up with? Buddhism doesn't even have blind faith and to many schools Buddha is just a dead guy. >.>


Again, it's not about whether we know such religions exist; it's about what we know about them.


Then lets agree to stop making blanket statements about all religion when we don't know about them?



When I'm talking about religion in general, I use the word "religion." When I'm talking about a belief in a god (still pretty generic), I use the word "theism." When I'm talking about Christianity, I use the word "Christianity." If someone brought up a different religion, I would use the appropriate term for that religion. I'm not assuming anything.

Honestly, I only recall you referencing the Judeo-Christian type God. I don't recall you ragging on Vishnu at any point. Everything I've seen you talk about has been centered on Christianity which you extend to everything else.


What would you like to discuss about them?

Crocoduck! Clearly we have not yet discussed this marvel of human understanding to the full extend it deserves. >.>

[Ghel]

No, but I do expect you to not make blanket statements about that which you admittedly don't know about.
Where did I do that?

I never said a thing about making a law...
I didn't say you did. I was explaining why I disagree with you.

Yes, depends, depends. Its a general term and I know better than to argue semantics here ( as it is futile ). Why you should or should not care is up to you. It doesn't change the definition.
You haven't given a definition to change. You still haven't explained what you mean by "higher power." In a previous post, you said that it was wrong of me to think that a belief in a higher power is ridiculous. I think it's ridiculous to believe in something that you can't even define.

Honestly, I only recall you referencing the Judeo-Christian type God. I don't recall you ragging on Vishnu at any point. Everything I've seen you talk about has been centered on Christianity which you extend to everything else.

Well, I'll say it now. Vishnu is just as ridiculous as any other god. Happy? The main difference is that Hindus (I'm not sure that's the right word) aren't trying to get their creation myth taught in science classrooms where I live. Groups of Hindus aren't bombing abortion clinics or staging protests at military funerals or preventing consenting adults from getting married. At least not in the US. I'll talk about Hinduism, if that's what you want to talk about, but it doesn't effect my life the way the Christianity does. It's not a matter of painting all religions with the same brush, it's a matter of which one has the biggest effect on the country I live in.

[Mytical]

Well see Ghel there is another problem, right there. You make more blanket statements. From 1984 till roughly 1988 I was a Christian. I can guarantee you, I never bombed a abortion clinic, tried to prevent anybody getting married, etc. Nor did I know anybody who did. Not once did the church I attend have a Sermon that decried the 'evils of homosexuality', nor do we picket/protest or such.

Most of the Christians I talk with (and they are many) have never done such. It is the problem again of the vocal minority causing people to make such blanket statements.

The lessons, sermons, and interpretation of the bible I (and the rest of the church(es) I attended) received are MUCH different from what you appear to have been 'taught'.

The church(es) I attended (yes there were more then one) could care less if 'creationism' was taught, or prayer was in school, or such. They offered such things in church, and only those who wished attended. Nobody was forced to do anything. Even children made up their mind if they wanted to attend that or not. In fact, it was an amazing experience that despite how it turned out I would redo even knowing what I know now.

I also don't think giving the OPTION of learning different things is a BAD thing. Nobody should be forced, but if they want to learn creationism..then they should have the option.

Yes, I turned away from Christianity, but I harbor no ill will to the religion, nor most of the people in it. I just understand that PEOPLE can be jerks. They would be so if religion never existed, having some other reason to think themselves better then others. Be it 'science', 'education', 'color of skin', 'political leaning', whatever.

[Gravekeeper]

Where did I do that?


You're doing it right now. ><



You haven't given a definition to change. You still haven't explained what you mean by "higher power."


I'm having trouble understanding how you don't know what it means. I did answer your previous three questions. Yes, it means something "supernatural", it may or may not interact with the natural world and it may or may not exist within its own realm. Because its a general term for anything above or outside the power of an individual person and is, yes, outside of our current scientific understanding or even, if you want, may not exist at all beyond our own belief in it.




In a previous post, you said that it was wrong of me to think that a belief in a higher power is ridiculous. I think it's ridiculous to believe in something that you can't even define.

I said it was wrong of you to ridicule someone's belief's to them just because they were ridiculous to you, as your definition of what is ridiculous is quite broad.




Well, I'll say it now. Vishnu is just as ridiculous as any other god. Happy? The main difference is that Hindus (I'm not sure that's the right word) aren't trying to get their creation myth taught in science classrooms where I live. Groups of Hindus aren't bombing abortion clinics or staging protests at military funerals or preventing consenting adults from getting married. At least not in the US. I'll talk about Hinduism, if that's what you want to talk about, but it doesn't effect my life the way the Christianity does. It's not a matter of painting all religions with the same brush, it's a matter of which one has the biggest effect on the country I live in.

This is exactly what we're talking about. The so called Christian's you're talking about are such an incredibly small, miniscule number of the whole you can't possibly blanket it to the entire religion no more than you can say every Muslim is a terrorist.



I also don't think giving the OPTION of learning different things is a BAD thing. Nobody should be forced, but if they want to learn creationism..then they should have the option.

No they shouldn't, actually. Or more precisely, the option should not be part of public education. If they want to learn it privately, fine. But absolutely no religion should be supported or endorsed as part of public education.

[KnitShoni]

I'll grant you this one, but only becauce I don't want to revisit the whole semantics argument.

This actually isn't an issue of semantics. Religion and spirituality can very well be mutually exclusive. A person is fully capable of believing there is a higher power/deity/afterlife without observing the rituals many religions require.

[Andara Bledin]

I just understand that PEOPLE can be jerks. They would be so if religion never existed, having some other reason to think themselves better then others. Be it 'science', 'education', 'color of skin', 'political leaning', whatever.
I've said this several times, but I think it's fairly obvious to everyone that some people have chips on their shoulders about some things, and no amount of rational and logical discussion is going to pull the blinders from their eyes.

^-.-^

[Ipecac Drano]

Those are the only two you can come up with? Buddhism doesn't even have blind faith and to many schools Buddha is just a dead guy.
Who may have either reincarnated or "moved up".

Then lets agree to stop making blanket statements about all religion when we don't know about them?
The backbone of religion is pure blind faith. That's all I need to point out whether it's Xtianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

If you're talking about Christianity, then stop calling it by the blanket term religion. You're not talking about religion. You're talking only and specifically about Judeo-Christian religions and to assume that everybody here only has the same limited knowledge base as yourself is, again, insulting.
Or maybe, just maybe, we're talking about religion in general and using Xtianity as an example? That you're pretending to not see this is even more insulting.

Well see Ghel there is another problem, right there. You make more blanket statements. From 1984 till roughly 1988 I was a Christian. I can guarantee you, I never bombed a abortion clinic, tried to prevent anybody getting married, etc. Nor did I know anybody who did. Not once did the church I attend have a Sermon that decried the 'evils of homosexuality', nor do we picket/protest or such.
Nor did she say that all Xtians do those things; or even most, or even half. She was talking about small pockets of people doing those things.

If someone is commenting on one group of people, it doesn't mean that they are commenting on everybody.

[Gravekeeper]

Who may have either reincarnated or "moved up".


I believe I already pointed out the whole reincarination study thing.



The backbone of religion is pure blind faith. That's all I need to point out whether it's Xtianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

Buddhism does not demand blind faith, quite the opposite actually. To quote Buddha himself: Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor upon tradition, nor upon rumor, nor upon what is in a scripture, nor upon surmise, nor upon an axiom, nor upon specious reasoning, nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over, nor upon another's seeming ability, nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher.".

One should never believe anything without personal inquiry and your own verification. In fact he specifically warns against taking your own opinions, scriptures, news or the opinions of teachers or authority figures at face value without doing your own inquiries to verify they are correct.



Nor did she say that all Xtians do those things; or even most, or even half. She was talking about small pockets of people doing those things.

She said simply "Christianity" without any such distinctions.




If someone is commenting on one group of people, it doesn't mean that they are commenting on everybody.

Actually it does when the use the name of said group without any specifics. If I said "Americans" you don't assume I mean "Just Kansas".

[Ghel]

Just because someone isn't religious, doesn't mean they're an atheist either.
I'll grant you this one, but only becauce I don't want to revisit the whole semantics argument.
This actually isn't an issue of semantics. Religion and spirituality can very well be mutually exclusive. A person is fully capable of believing there is a higher power/deity/afterlife without observing the rituals many religions require.
Yes, and one can be religious without believing in a god. There are atheistic religions out there, with Buddhism being perhaps the most prominent one (although I'm told that some Buddhists consider Buddha a god, but I digress). So religion isn't necessarily synonymous with theism, but they tend to go together.

If someone goes through college and realizes that the notion of god is logically unsound and is unsupported by evidence, they will likely discard that notion of god. At that point, if they don't start believing in some other god, they become an atheist. They still may be religious or spiritual (whatever that means), but that's a different question from whether they believe in a god.

Well see Ghel there is another problem, right there. You make more blanket statements. From 1984 till roughly 1988 I was a Christian. I can guarantee you, I never bombed a abortion clinic, tried to prevent anybody getting married, etc. Nor did I know anybody who did. Not once did the church I attend have a Sermon that decried the 'evils of homosexuality', nor do we picket/protest or such.
I didn't say that every Christian did these things. I said that the people who did these things were Christians, motivated by their beliefs. Because without a belief that the Bible is accurate, why would someone try to get creationism taught in public schools? Without a belief that abortion is murder, why would someone bomb an abortion clinic? Without a belief that homosexuality is a sin, why would someone try to prevent consenting adults from getting married?

Even children made up their mind if they wanted to attend that or not.
Really? Even before they understood what was being asked? Even in the face of not wanting to disappoint their parents?

I'm having trouble understanding how you don't know what it means. I did answer your previous three questions. Yes, it means something "supernatural", it may or may not interact with the natural world and it may or may not exist within its own realm. Because its a general term for anything above or outside the power of an individual person and is, yes, outside of our current scientific understanding or even, if you want, may not exist at all beyond our own belief in it.
I still don't understand why anybody should care about this "higher power." Is it something conscious? Is it intelligent? Does it want to be worshiped? If the answer to any of these is "no," then why should anybody believe in it?

I said it was wrong of you to ridicule someone's belief's to them just because they were ridiculous to you, as your definition of what is ridiculous is quite broad.
That's my sense of humor for you, and I'm not going to apologize for it.

No they shouldn't, actually. Or more precisely, the option should not be part of public education. If they want to learn it privately, fine. But absolutely no religion should be supported or endorsed as part of public education.
Hey, there's something we agree on! We're making progress.

[Ipecac Drano]

I believe I already pointed out the whole reincarination study thing.
But to address a different point.


Buddhism does not demand blind faith, quite the opposite actually. To quote Buddha himself: Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor upon tradition, nor upon rumor, nor upon what is in a scripture, nor upon surmise, nor upon an axiom, nor upon specious reasoning, nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over, nor upon another's seeming ability, nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher.".
What else does it proport?


One should never believe anything without personal inquiry and your own verification. In fact he specifically warns against taking your own opinions, scriptures, news or the opinions of teachers or authority figures at face value without doing your own inquiries to verify they are correct.
So, we must trust him blindly to believe that?


She said simply "Christianity" without any such distinctions.
In some places, where it applied.


Actually it does when the use the name of said group without any specifics. If I said "Americans" you don't assume I mean "Just Kansas".
How about posting an example?

[Gravekeeper]

Yes, and one can be religious without believing in a god. There are atheistic religions out there, with Buddhism being perhaps the most prominent one (although I'm told that some Buddhists consider Buddha a god, but I digress).


There are basically 3 big schools of Buddhism. Out of them 1 views Buddha as a higher ( aka "enlightened" ) being ( Though not a god. ). There are no schools that view him as a god, because thats directly counter to his teachings. Buddhism has no creator god or anything like that. Also, the definition of "god" in eastern religions is much different than western ones. Western ones always assume an all powerful sort of deity that created everything. While in some eastern religions, "gods" are more like powerful spirits. Neither omnisentient nor omnipotent. Often falliable as well.



I didn't say that every Christian did these things. I said that the people who did these things were Christians, motivated by their beliefs. Because without a belief that the Bible is accurate, why would someone try to get creationism taught in public schools? Without a belief that abortion is murder, why would someone bomb an abortion clinic? Without a belief that homosexuality is a sin, why would someone try to prevent consenting adults from getting married?

"Because they're assholes" I guess isn't going to cover it, is it? ( But they are assholes. >.> ). Really, though, they are assholes picking and choosing parts of the Bible ( while ignoring others ) that fit their agenda. You can't just go with the part of Leviticus that implies homosexuality is a sin, and ignore the parts about eating shellfish and never shaving.

I view them more as dickheads just using religion to justify being, well, dickheads. >.>

Creationism however, I have no explaination for. That one seems unique to the US Bible belt. I guess its what you get when you combine evangelicals with a piss poor school system that shapes its cirriculum based on politics rather than knowledge.

Though I will still totally go see the unicorns on Noah's Ark if given a chance.



I still don't understand why anybody should care about this "higher power." Is it something conscious? Is it intelligent? Does it want to be worshiped? If the answer to any of these is "no," then why should anybody believe in it?


I didn't say you had to care. I'm just desperately trying to argue for some basic respect for your fellow human beings. ><




Hey, there's something we agree on! We're making progress.

Hey, I may be spiritual, but I don't want religion anywhere near anything to do with politics, education or science. None of these things should be shaped by unicorns. So yes, huzzah for seperation of church and state ( and everything else ).



So, we must trust him blindly to believe that?

...wha....? Are you being serious or are you just trolling me now? Blindly believe we shouldn't blindly believe?



How about posting an example?


.....no really, are you trolling me now? -.-

[Ipecac Drano]

...wha....? Are you being serious or are you just trolling me now? Blindly believe we shouldn't blindly believe?
This isn't a koan. I'm talking about believing the guy who said it. Can we trust him?

...
.....no really, are you trolling me now? -.-
I'm not asking for the impossible.

[Hyena Dandy]

So, we must trust him blindly to believe that?

We don't have to blindly trust that we should question things. That's something we should have been able to figure out for ourselves. Most buddhism just goes on the basis that Sidhartha was just a really smart guy.

He's not asking us to blindly trust him that we should question things. He's saying we should question things because that seems like a good idea.

[KnitShoni]

I didn't say that every Christian did these things. I said that the people who did these things were Christians, motivated by their beliefs. Because without a belief that the Bible is accurate, why would someone try to get creationism taught in public schools? Without a belief that abortion is murder, why would someone bomb an abortion clinic? Without a belief that homosexuality is a sin, why would someone try to prevent consenting adults from getting married?



Regarding abortion and homosexuality: I wasn't aware that believing abortion is murder and homosexuality disgusting was solely the realm of Christians.

[smileyeagle1021]

Well see Ghel there is another problem, right there. You make more blanket statements. From 1984 till roughly 1988 I was a Christian. I can guarantee you, I never bombed a abortion clinic, tried to prevent anybody getting married, etc. Nor did I know anybody who did. Not once did the church I attend have a Sermon that decried the 'evils of homosexuality', nor do we picket/protest or such.

Most of the Christians I talk with (and they are many) have never done such. It is the problem again of the vocal minority causing people to make such blanket statements.



The problem is that those Christians who aren't hateful bigots never rarely speak up about their faiths.
I'm sorry, but as a person who lives less than 5 miles from the office building that houses the administrative offices of the church that has been one of the most influential churches in anti-gay laws in the nation, and anti-gay bigotry runs rampant amongst those who proclaim their love of their religion and their hate of homosexuals... who am I to believe, the extremely small minority of people talking about their faith and love (or at least acceptance) of homosexuals claiming that they speak for the silent majority and the bigots are the vocal minority, or the far larger number of those who speak of their their faith and their hatred of homosexuals who claim to speak for all. Right now the silence is deafening.

[Ipecac Drano]

Regarding abortion and homosexuality: I wasn't aware that believing abortion is murder and homosexuality disgusting was solely the realm of Christians.
Nor did she say that. Just because those who commit the atrocities she had listed were Xtian doesn't mean that she was saying that only Xtians carry those sentiments; nor does it mean that she was saying that all Xtians are that way.

[Ghel]

GK, thanks for the explanation of how Buddhists view Buddha. I appreciate it.

I view them more as dickheads just using religion to justify being, well, dickheads. >.>
I don't disagree. I just don't think that's the whole story. I think that any religion that posits an absolute moral code (or even just an absolute source for the moral code) stunts its followers' moral growth. People can figure out what's right and wrong without religion.

I didn't say you had to care. I'm just desperately trying to argue for some basic respect for your fellow human beings. ><
Is it respect to let people think it's ok to indoctrinate children into religion? Is it respect to stifle laughter when someone says their God can forgive sin but can't stop rapists? Is it respect to remain silent when a Muslim says that the biggest miracle of Islam has to do with a passage in the Koran talking about iron falling out of the sky, since Mohammad supposedly knew nothing about meteors, yet there's an iron meteorite that Muslims are to kiss when they make their pilgrimage to Mecca?

Most buddhism just goes on the basis that Sidhartha was just a really smart guy.
Ok, I can respect that. But you know there's been other smart people, before and since, right? What makes his particular philosophy so special? Why should anyone believe that you can learn everything you need to know from meditation and introspection? Why should anyone believe that they have been reborn or will be reborn?

I keep hearing in my head this paraphrasing of the Four Noble Truths in Yoda's voice:

Desire leads to suffering. Suffering leads to rebirth. Achieve enlightenment and you will end the cycle of rebirth. hmmmMMMmmm.

Regarding abortion and homosexuality: I wasn't aware that believing abortion is murder and homosexuality disgusting was solely the realm of Christians.
I didn't say they were. I said the beliefs were common among Christians. I said that since Christians are the majority here in the US, protests against abortion and homosexuality tend to be populated by Christians.

[Andara Bledin]

The problem is that those Christians who aren't hateful bigots never speak up about their faiths.
I speak up about my faith every time it's relevant to a discussion.

I usually get attacked by one side trying to claim I'm not a "real" Christian or the other side for being a theist at all. But those are just the knee-jerk bigots who can't see past their own prejudices to realize that their attacks say a lot more about their own shortcomings than the ones I'm supposed to have.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

I speak up about it a lot as well. Saying that we never speak up is insulting to me personally, and a little despairing in general. I speak up. Many like me speak up. But a lot of the time, nobody wants to listen.

[Gravekeeper]

This isn't a koan. I'm talking about believing the guy who said it. Can we trust him?


Right, I'm just gonna talk to Ghel. Honestly, I don't have any confidence in you that you aren't just stirring things up half the time.


Most buddhism just goes on the basis that Sidhartha was just a really smart guy. He's not asking us to blindly trust him that we should question things. He's saying we should question things because that seems like a good idea.

This. ^


Regarding abortion and homosexuality: I wasn't aware that believing abortion is murder and homosexuality disgusting was solely the realm of Christians.

It's not, I think they're just the most vocal. Case in point, one of the old conservative schools of Buddhism doesn't like homosexuality as do several cultural specific sects ( Because honestly its a cultural issue, no a religious one. People just use religion as an excuse ). You just wouldn't know it, because Buddhism isn't about imposing your viewpoint on anyone so they don't act on it.

Likewise, abortion doesn't exactly gel with basic tenants of Buddhism, but again, Buddhists aren't picketing or shooting abortion doctors because Buddhism isn't a philosophy of judgement or conversion. I for example, am pro-choice despite basic Buddhist philosophy being pro-life. Both because Buddhism doesn't view life in such a black and white way that we can make such judgements, and because Buddhism doesn't demand I adhere to every word of it to stay in the club.

Buddhism thankfully leaves me with the ability to evolve with the times. If it didn't, I wouldn't have bothered with it to begin with.


The problem is that those Christians who aren't hateful bigots never speak up about their faiths.

"The problem is that those Muslims who aren't terrorists never speak up about their faiths."

Just something to mull over.



I don't disagree. I just don't think that's the whole story. I think that any religion that posits an absolute moral code (or even just an absolute source for the moral code) stunts its followers' moral growth. People can figure out what's right and wrong without religion.

Agreed, an absolute moral code simply cannot sustain itself as both people and society evolves. I tend to use a very simple bench test from the Dalai Llama. Which was basically: Is what you're about to say or do going to cause suffering to another living thing without any benefit? Then its a Bad Thing(tm).

Basically, stay aware of how your words and actions affect the world around you. Most people don't do this. To use a CS example, people don't realise acting like a dick while talking to the girl at Starbucks probably ruined her entire morning. It doesn't even register to them what their words or actions have done and they forget the moment they leave the store.



Is it respect to let people think it's ok to indoctrinate children into religion? Is it respect to stifle laughter when someone says their God can forgive sin but can't stop rapists? Is it respect to remain silent when a Muslim says that the biggest miracle of Islam has to do with a passage in the Koran talking about iron falling out of the sky, since Mohammad supposedly knew nothing about meteors, yet there's an iron meteorite that Muslims are to kiss when they make their pilgrimage to Mecca?

You're drifting away from my point again. My point was simply people don't deserve to be ridiculed just for having beliefs. Everyone deserves a basic amount of respect just for being another living being. Respect doesn't start at 0 and they have to work their way up. It should start at 50, then they can work their way up, or do shit that makes me whittle them down to 0. But I will always give them a 50 to start with till they prove they're worth more or less.

And sure, some beliefs are pretty damn silly, but my problem is your definition of what ones are silly is too broad for the tactics you employ ( Which is to say ridicule ). Belief in a god doesn't deserve ridicule. Believing your god watches you masturbate and wants you to yell at homosexuals deserves ridicule. But someone that far gone isn't going to listen to reason or ridicule anyway. Though I would still use reason *before* ridicule, because I am a better person than the asshole with the sign. -.-

Basically, I don't care what someone believes unless they're forcing that belief on others or are causing suffering to others through their beliefs. And yes, evangelicals are doing the whole belief forcing/suffering thing, but I don't hold that against every Christian I meet. Because not every Christian is like that.


Ok, I can respect that. But you know there's been other smart people, before and since, right? What makes his particular philosophy so special? Why should anyone believe that you can learn everything you need to know from meditation and introspection? Why should anyone believe that they have been reborn or will be reborn?

See that's the fun part. Absolutely nothing is special! Buddha had some good ideas, many of which were well ahead of its time ( such as gender equality, which didn't fly so well ). But he lived in the past, and while much of his core ideas are universal to just being human, sure there are some that just don't fit in today's world. And that's fine. Because the whole philosophy is to keep seeking and learning. Buddha never said "Just listen to me, I know it all.". He said "Well here's what I've learned, but if you can find anything better, go for it. I'm just one dude.".

He doesn't rule out other teachers or methods of learning, nor did he ban his followers from listening to anyone else. The only reason Buddha is "special" is because enough people agreed he had some good ideas for those ideas to survive the test of time. The same reason any other religion or philosophy is "special".

There are plenty aspects to Buddhism I don't agree with. Especially with two of the major schools ( one's too conservative and self centered, the other is ironically too grounded and studious. Hell, even the one I mostly follow is too out there at times. ). I mean I barely agree with anything in Tibetan Buddhism ( Its batshit crazy when you delve into its "afterlife" ). But again, that's perfectly fine because it doesn't threaten to set me on fire for not swallowing the entire thing and adhering to it as an absolute truth.



I keep hearing in my head this paraphrasing of the Four Noble Truths in Yoda's voice

I freely admit to having read sutras in Yoda's voice on more than one occasion. But if the sutras are any indication, Buddha had a great sense of humour. And the Buddha ( "Buddha" is actually a title ) I lean towards in particular spent her time playing pranks on monks that took shit too seriously.

[smileyeagle1021]

I speak up about my faith every time it's relevant to a discussion.



One reason why I changed the word to rarely...
Yes, people do occassinally speak about faith without talking about why God hates Fags... and in fairness, the number of people who do is slowly improving, I won't deny that. It still leaves the question, what are people supposed to think when the vast majority stays silent and allows a small minority to speak for them?


"The problem is that those Muslims who aren't terrorists never speak up about their faiths."

Just something to mull over.


Something else to mull over, want to know where else I've heard this quote...
If you guessed from Muslim members of discussion panels on Islam's negative imagine in America you'd be right. Every single Muslim member of UVU faculty that participates in those panels has agreed that the best first step do improving the general view of Islam in America is for moderate Muslims to speak up about their faith and stop letting the extremists speak for them.
My boss at the hotel says the exact same thing, he does bring up his faith because he doesn't want the extremists to speak for him.

Hell, I will even hold that standard to myself, "the problem with homosexuals is that those who aren't pansies and ninnies refuse to come out of the closet and show the general population the true diversity in the LGBT community"
And for full disclosure, yes, I am guilty of that too... I won't claim it's easy, but I will claim it's necassary... I am working on fixing this problem with myself.

[Andara Bledin]

Hell, I will even hold that standard to myself, "the problem with homosexuals is that those who aren't pansies and ninnies refuse to come out of the closet and show the general population the true diversity in the LGBT community"
The same thing happens with the furry community. And with gamers. And metal-heads. I'm all of those things and usually nowhere near what people tend to envision when they think of those groups. Well, maybe a bit with the gamer tag. *wipes Cheetos dust off fingers*

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

The same thing happens with the furry community. And with gamers. And metal-heads. I'm all of those things and usually nowhere near what people tend to envision when they think of those groups. Well, maybe a bit with the gamer tag. *wipes Cheetos dust off fingers*

^-.-^

I didn't know you were a furry! :O

But I agree. Often, the stereotype gets into the public image. People see the ones who fit it, and think "There goes another X". They don't think of X when they don't see people who don't fit their mental image, because none of the associations are being called up.

[Andara Bledin]

I didn't know you were a furry! :O
I'd have thought the anthro alicorn avatar would be something of a giveaway. ;)

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

I'd have thought the anthro alicorn avatar would be something of a giveaway. ;)

^-.-^

I can't tell what your avatar is. :P You got a larger picture?

But I was doing some more thoughts on this.

Part of the reason it sounds like the Christians who aren't like that never speak up is that the Christians who aren't like that (for the most part) don't use the Bible as their REASON for it. They don't say (for the most part) I'm a Christian, therefore, I think homosexuals should have the same rights I do."

They don't make Christianity part of the argument, so it sounds like they're not speaking up about it.

That's just my rambling thoughts.

[Ghel]

My point was simply people don't deserve to be ridiculed just for having beliefs. Everyone deserves a basic amount of respect just for being another living being. Respect doesn't start at 0 and they have to work their way up. It should start at 50, then they can work their way up, or do shit that makes me whittle them down to 0. But I will always give them a 50 to start with till they prove they're worth more or less.
For me, that scale works slightly differently. Everybody starts at 0 (neutral) before I meet them, since I haven't formed an opinion about them. Once I meet someone and get to know them, they can go down that scale (into disrespect) or up (into respect). That person's religious beliefs is only one of many things that can move them up or down that scale. Please keep in mind that this scale only exists in my mind, and I'm not even consciously aware of it all the time.

And sure, some beliefs are pretty damn silly, but my problem is your definition of what ones are silly is too broad for the tactics you employ ( Which is to say ridicule ). Belief in a god doesn't deserve ridicule.
Depending on that person's definition of "god," it may. Still, that doesn't mean I'll laugh in that person's face when they tell me their loving god saved their loved one in a car crash when everybody else died (which I consider a ridiculous belief). I generally still behave courteously towards people even when I find their beliefs ridiculous. I still have empathy, even when they don't (for example, towards the families of the people who died in the hypothetical car crash, who their god didn't save).

Believing your god watches you masturbate and wants you to yell at homosexuals deserves ridicule. But someone that far gone isn't going to listen to reason or ridicule anyway. Though I would still use reason *before* ridicule, because I am a better person than the asshole with the sign. -.-
I realize that not every tactic will work in every situation. Also, there may be some situations where no tactic will sway the subject. But I still think that ridicule is a valid tactic in some situations. If it seems that no tactic is going to work in a particular situation, we might as well entertain ourselves by making fun of the subject's ridiculous beliefs.

Basically, I don't care what someone believes unless they're forcing that belief on others or are causing suffering to others through their beliefs. And yes, evangelicals are doing the whole belief forcing/suffering thing, but I don't hold that against every Christian I meet. Because not every Christian is like that.
Generally, I agree. I, also, don't hold evangelicals' or fundamentalists' behavior against every Christian I meet. Lots of Christians go through life without the beliefs they were brought up with having much impact on their day-to-day lives. But I'm probably not going to be able to be friends with someone who is strongly religious, no matter which religion they subscribe to.

See that's the fun part. Absolutely nothing is special! ... the whole philosophy is to keep seeking and learning.
So you consider Buddhism more of a philosophy than a religion? That's cool. Do you follow the bits about rebirth and enlightenment breaking the cycle of rebirth?

[Gravekeeper]

For me, that scale works slightly differently. Everybody starts at 0 (neutral) before I meet them, since I haven't formed an opinion about them. Once I meet someone and get to know them, they can go down that scale (into disrespect) or up (into respect). That person's religious beliefs is only one of many things that can move them up or down that scale. Please keep in mind that this scale only exists in my mind, and I'm not even consciously aware of it all the time.


Fair enough.



I still have empathy, even when they don't (for example, towards the families of the people who died in the hypothetical car crash, who their god didn't save).

Really thats all I'm talking about to get right down too it. If someone's faith helps them lead a better or happier life, then that should be fine. They don't deserve ridicule ( Unless unicorns are involved maybe ). Its when they start with all the other stuff. ;p


I realize that not every tactic will work in every situation. Also, there may be some situations where no tactic will sway the subject. But I still think that ridicule is a valid tactic in some situations. If it seems that no tactic is going to work in a particular situation, we might as well entertain ourselves by making fun of the subject's ridiculous beliefs.

Also fair enough ( Unicorns! )



But I'm probably not going to be able to be friends with someone who is strongly religious, no matter which religion they subscribe to.

Neither am I, honestly. Strongly religious people make me uncomfortable and I don't really want to talk to anyone whose going to try and cram their religion into the conversation constantly.




So you consider Buddhism more of a philosophy than a religion? That's cool. Do you follow the bits about rebirth and enlightenment breaking the cycle of rebirth?

Yes, I consider it a philosophy ( and when you get right down to it I've glued bits of several other philosophies too it from Shintoism to Native America philosophies to just plan old stuff wiser people than me have said in recent years ). I'm not a religious person. I don't think anything out there cares if I'm not performing a mindless ritual daily in its reverence. Or if I'm showing up at the official Place of Worship(tm) at the appropriately scheduled times. If there is any intelligence out there above our own, I can't imagine it would be that shallow or judgemental. Otherwise its not much of a"god" or what have you and in no way more evolved than we are.

I follow some of them. If only because they make sense when I consider the complexity of the universe. Specifically, the universe is one massively complex, intricate and frankly amazing machine. It is logical to assume that if there are any other planes or dimensions of existence too it, they too must have similar systems and complexities. Likely woven into the existing universe on levels we haven't fully uncovered yet. The soul could just be a quantum simulation running on the Omega Point for all I know.

If we assume, as I do, that this is all basically a learning experience. Then I can reason reincarnation would be a good mechanism within this system, because we sure as fark aren't learning everything in one lifetime. While there is scant evidence for reincarnation, at least there *is* scant evidence. Which is more than you can say for Heaven/Hell.

It's funny though, isn't it? The one thing the human conciousness cannot comprehend is it no longer existing. We can comprehend our bodies no longer existing, but not our conciousness.

[Hyena Dandy]

The thing that bothers me, Ghel, is that you say you just want religious people out of your life, but you also say they should be mocked, and that disagreeing with you on this makes you disrespect them. If they should respect you, why shouldn't you respect them?

[Mytical]

Smiley, some of us spiritual people realize our beliefs are a personal thing. We have no desire to force others to believe as we believe. We speak up when we feel we need to. I am very live and let live, and am very vocal about that. Because those of us who respect others lives, however, it is somewhat a two way street.

While I personally am against a lot of the things the vocal minority want (banning gay-marriage, etc)..as long as they don't go out killing/etc I also support their right to think however they wish. When they start bombing abortion clinics or killing people, that is when, yes , I will speak out.

Everybody should be free to express an opinion, even if it is one I personally hate. For if we silence everybody we don't like, then nobody would be able to speak. I might debate with them (and somewhat very vocally), but as long as they don't try to stuff their ideas down my throat, I won't force mine on them either.

A lot of the Christians at the local soup kitchen scratch their heads when they hear about things that WBC does. They can not understand it anymore then I can. They are against it as much as I am.

People like to hate anything different then themselves, and will use any excuse to justify it. I myself am guilty of prejudice, of weakness. I am a major pacifist..not sticking up for those who can't or won't stick up for themselves.

[Ghel]

While there is scant evidence for reincarnation, at least there *is* scant evidence. Which is more than you can say for Heaven/Hell.
Since we've come to agree on so much, I'm not going to dismiss this out of hand. But I haven't seen any better evidence for reincarnation than I've seen for Heaven and Hell, which usually falls into the categories of either personal revelation or appeals to authority, neither of which actually count as evidence. Still, I'd be interested in looking at the evidence you have for reincarnation, if you can provide a link.

It's funny though, isn't it? The one thing the human conciousness cannot comprehend is it no longer existing. We can comprehend our bodies no longer existing, but not our conciousness.
While I wouldn't say that I can comprehend my consciousness no longer existing, I can at least contemplate it. I had no consciousness for all of time before I was born, why should it be any different after I die?

The thing that bothers me, Ghel, is that [1]you say you just want religious people out of your life, but [2]you also say they should be mocked, and that [3]disagreeing with you on this makes you disrespect them. [4]If they should respect you, why shouldn't you respect them?
Instead of breaking up the quote, I've marked the four points made.

[1]I don't recall saying that. I did say that I don't want other people's religious beliefs to interfere with my life, and that I am unlikely to be friends with someone who is deeply religious, but that's not the same thing. I also said that I would like to see people give up their unfounded, harmful, or ridiculous beliefs, but that's still not the same thing.

[2]Not all religious people, necessarily. Nor do I think the mocking should focus on the people, but rather their beliefs. Instead of treating something ridiculous like it should be revered, I think we should treat it like it is - ridiculous.

[3]Only slightly. And again, someone's religious beliefs is only one of many things that will alter how much I respect them. I don't think I'm alone in that point of view.

[4]If they should respect me... Well, I hope that people will determine whether they respect me or not based on what I say and how I behave. Based on that, I think most people will respect me. And if they respect me, it will go a long way towards me respecting them. But I don't expect them to automatically respect me the first time we meet - instead, I would expect them to be neutral towards me, as I am to them.

[Gravekeeper]

Still, I'd be interested in looking at the evidence you have for reincarnation, if you can provide a link.


This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson#Reincarnation_research) wrote several books on it after years of research. Though take it with a grain of salt ( some of his theories, like biological links, sound a little bit too out there. Though I guess I haven't seen all his case study evidence for or against it ). He didn't prove reincarnation so much as prove that we should be trying to actually do some more research on it to prove or disprove it once and for all. Or find what mechanism is causing the illusion of it.

Note that he makes absolutely no religious judgements or suggestions, and examines it only as a mechanism. Though, like I said, it was enough to get Carl Sagan to raise an eyebrow. Which is pretty good. Still, its hard to get a serious scientific study on anything like reincarnation because it gets dismissed out of hand.

Actually, now that I look, it looks like Jim Tucker took over his research a few years ago. Interesting. Haven't read any of his books. This may require a trip to Chapters. -.-




While I wouldn't say that I can comprehend my consciousness no longer existing, I can at least contemplate it. I had no consciousness for all of time before I was born, why should it be any different after I die?

I can contemplate it. But the idea of no longer, well, thinking is ironically hard to wrap my mind around.

[Andara Bledin]

I can conceive of an contemplate the idea that after my death, there will be nothing left of what made me, specifically, but for the decomposing physical remains.

It doesn't bother me any more than the idea of being dead, which is not much, although the actual dying is a minor concern.

It does seem a waste, somehow, that we would go through and learn so much over the course of a lifetime for everything we know to disappear like an extinguished flame, never to benefit anyone ever again.

You could say that it offends my sensibilities; it seems so inefficient, somehow.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson#Reincarnation_research) wrote several books on it after years of research.
Hmm. I thought that Wikipedia page looked familiar. Somebody linked it on a previous thread (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=2193).

He didn't prove reincarnation so much as prove that we should be trying to actually do some more research on it to prove or disprove it once and for all. Or find what mechanism is causing the illusion of it.

Note that he makes absolutely no religious judgements or suggestions, and examines it only as a mechanism. Though, like I said, it was enough to get Carl Sagan to raise an eyebrow.
I still hold the same view as I did on that previous thread (though, at first, I was talking about ghosts).

"Warrants further investigation" is not the same thing as agreeing with the claim. It's not even the same thing as saying that there's enough supporting evidence to think the claim might be true. The "something there" could be anything - it doesn't mean that it's necessarily ghosts. The same goes for the claims of reincarnation.

Still, if there were research done that found evidence of reincarnation, I could be persuaded to change my viewpoint.


It does seem a waste, somehow, that we would go through and learn so much over the course of a lifetime for everything we know to disappear like an extinguished flame, never to benefit anyone ever again.
Never? Do you think your actions and words have never had an influence on anyone? We each can have an effect on the world in so many different ways: raise a child, write a book, write or record some music, save a life, help out a friend, etc.

Even if you're only talking about knowledge, I still think you're mistaken. Our knowledge isn't just stored in our minds. We teach others (sometimes without realizing it). We can write our knowledge down and continue to pass it on to others long after we're gone. Because we can store our knowledge, it is cumulative and exponential in nature. We don't have to worry about our knowledge being lost when we die, as long as we have stored it or shared it in some way.

[Gravekeeper]

I still hold the same view as I did on that previous thread (though, at first, I was talking about ghosts).

"Warrants further investigation" is not the same thing as agreeing with the claim. It's not even the same thing as saying that there's enough supporting evidence to think the claim might be true. The "something there" could be anything - it doesn't mean that it's necessarily ghosts. The same goes for the claims of reincarnation.


Never said it was, I said it raised an eyebrow and merits further investigation as there's possibly something there we don't understand yet. Scientific investigation. Ghosts is another matter entirely. I'm not sure anyone has done a some odd 8 year research study on ghosts and actually bothered to use a scientific method. ( Night vision cameras and EM meters don't count. ).

I'd like to see more research into it ( and actually there does seem to be a guy that picked the research up, so good on that anyway. ) It *is* something that can be studied and proven or disproven ( not reincarnation specifically, but that a mechanism of transference of some sort may exist ) by using similar controls as you would when performing a study on say psychic powers.

It is something we can scientifically test. Unlike Heaven/Hell.




We can write our knowledge down and continue to pass it on to others long after we're gone. Because we can store our knowledge, it is cumulative and exponential in nature. We don't have to worry about our knowledge being lost when we die, as long as we have stored it or shared it in some way.


The problem is people write things down the way they want to see it or they way the want others to believe it. Thus skewing it for those that follow. Because people suck. -.-

Man, if we could get everything down 100% accurate without the bullshit, we wouldn't have most of the problems with religious infighting, historical whitewashing, common misconceptions, etc.

[Hyena Dandy]

Perhaps I should rephrase my earlier statement. I do not start out respecting people. But I do start out treating them WITH respect. I do my best to avoid offending people. Do you think you can you mock someone's beliefs without offending them?

[Hyena Dandy]

Beliefs are something very personal. Something very dear to the people who hold them.

Also, you did say earlier in the thread that you didn't mind if people had their religious beliefs, as long as they didn't try to ban gay marriage and put the ten commandments on courthouse lawns. And yet, you seem to feel it is every rational person's duty to try to convert people to your viewpoint, but you seem to get upset about people trying to convert you to theirs.

[Andara Bledin]

Also, you did say earlier in the thread that you didn't mind if people had their religious beliefs, as long as they didn't try to ban gay marriage and put the ten commandments on courthouse lawns. And yet, you seem to feel it is every rational person's duty to try to convert people to your viewpoint, but you seem to get upset about people trying to convert you to theirs.
I pointed this out in another thread, but the reply was a deflection about terminology and some other trivial matter.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

The problem is people write things down the way they want to see it or they way the want others to believe it. Thus skewing it for those that follow.
It seems to me that knowledge, like science, is self-correcting. If someone is willing to take the time to do some research, they can (usually pretty easily) see what is correct and what isn't.

Perhaps I should rephrase my earlier statement. I do not start out respecting people. But I do start out treating them WITH respect.
That is similar to what I said earlier that respect and courtesy are two different things, and that I will continue to treat people courteously even if I don't respect them.

Do you think you can you mock someone's beliefs without offending them?
That depends on the person and the belief. People with closely-held beliefs tend to view any criticism of their beliefs as a personal attack against themselves. In such a case, I suppose the person would be offended when I point out how funny their beliefs are.

Beliefs are something very personal. Something very dear to the people who hold them.
I don't think that's true in all cases. Some people have vague beliefs or don't think about them very much. Of course, in those cases, there's less to make fun of, too.

Also, you did say earlier in the thread that you didn't mind if people had their religious beliefs, as long as they didn't try to ban gay marriage and put the ten commandments on courthouse lawns.
That's part of my point of view, but it's not complete. There's more things that should go under "as long as", including trying to convert me or people I care about.

And yet, you seem to feel it is every rational person's duty to try to convert people to your viewpoint...
I think I covered this in my last response to you. I have said that I would like people to give up their unfounded, harmful, or ridiculous beliefs. That's not conversion; that's education. As a person comes to understand how the universe really works, they're likely to give up their superstitions, their unfounded faith, or their comfortable delusions. Reality is far more awe-inspiring than anything a religion could dream up.

...but you seem to get upset about people trying to convert you to theirs.
This is frequently true, especially when they can't give me any reason that I should think their claims are true. On the other hand, they're usually the ones who get upset when I start picking apart their claims - or even just questioning them, since they almost always think their claims are above reproach.

[Andara Bledin]

I think I covered this in my last response to you. I have said that I would like people to give up their unfounded, harmful, or ridiculous beliefs. That's not conversion; that's education. As a person comes to understand how the universe really works, they're likely to give up their superstitions, their unfounded faith, or their comfortable delusions. Reality is far more awe-inspiring than anything a religion could dream up.
I think Einstein said it best:
You may call me an agnostic... I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being

Would that more would act with some humility.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

Would that more would act with some humility.
I've learned my lesson about making sure I post complete quotes. Perhaps you should learn this lesson, too. He're the entire quote:
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
Aside from the statement Einstein's making here that he doesn't believe in a personal God (which rules out him being a follower of the Abrahamic religions), he seems to be addressing two different points. The first is the "crusading spirit of the professional atheist" and the second is the "humility corresponding to the weakness of the our intellectual understanding of nature". I disagree with him that these are mutually exclusive. One can be humbled before nature (or our low level of knowlege about nature) and still crusade against religion's intrusion into our lives.

But that's really beside the point. I don't see what humilty has to do with anything. Are you accusing me of being proud or arrogant? Even if that were true (and I don't think it is), so what? What does attitude have to do with this discussion? Are you trying to make a link between humility and respect? Or perhaps contrast humility and ridicule? What's so great about humility, anyway?

[Hyena Dandy]

So, they can have their religious beliefs, as long as they don't try to convert you, but you should be able to mock them for believing silly things?

[Andara Bledin]

Are you accusing me of being proud or arrogant?
I don't know why you're asking this since I've already stated as much to you directly just last November.

Are you trying to make a link between humility and respect?
What's so great about humility, anyway?
Being humble includes showing respect as well as not being full of false pride and pretension.

Not only is it applicable, but its positives seem rather self-evident.

^-.-^

[Boozy]

Mod Note:

No more discussion about who may or may not be arrogant please. Get back on topic or we'll be handing out infractions and closing the thread.

We're getting tired of having to watch this thread so closely. If you're enjoying the debate, keep it going by obeying the rules.

[Ghel]

So, they can have their religious beliefs, as long as they don't try to convert you, but you should be able to mock them for believing silly things?
It doesn't bother me that people have religious beliefs, as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves. As soon as they state their beliefs as true, then they open themselves up to ridicule. They also accept the burden of proof, and since the vast majority of religious beliefs can't be demonstrated, they can be dismissed as false.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm going to have to side with Einstein.

"The bigotry of the non-believer is, for me, nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer." - Albert Einstein

<3 Einstein.

[Ghel]

"The bigotry of the non-believer is, for me, nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer." - Albert Einstein
Even if that quote is accurately attributed, I would have to disagree, again, with Einstein. But that doesn't really matter. It is difficult to figure out what Einstein actually believed, based on his writings. And what he believed should have little bearing on what others believe. Einstein was very knowledgeable about his field: physics, but he was no more knowledgeable about gods than any other human being.

[ExRetailDrone]

...since the vast majority of religious beliefs can't be demonstrated, they can be dismissed as false.

I have no idea why I'm jumping into this thread, but this line just struck a nerve with me.

While I do not believe in some big guy in the sky, just because it cannot be demonstrated yet does not mean it can be dismissed outright as false. It just means that it's unknown.

I have not believed in a deity, per se, for a very long time, but I do not find those ideas ridiculous. They're just not for me. And when people take them to the extreme, then I have a problem with those individuals, but not the beliefs outright. Really, the beliefs themselves do no harm. It's when they are interpreted by certain people so those people feel they have a reason to do the things they would do anyway, but the blame still falls on the people involved, not the beliefs they hold.

I hold some pretty unusual beliefs and thoughts, but I definitely know that most people will not find them to fit in their own lives, and that's ok. I definitely do not feel that I should be ridiculed for them, since they are used for my own self-development and understanding of the universe around me and nothing more. Can they be proven? No, not yet. Perhaps they will never be proven as long as humans are around, but that says more about the limit on our scientific capabilities. As our capabilities have grown, more and more that was previously thought or known to be false is showing as true, or at least possible. I place religious and other belief systems in this category. Unknown.

[Andara Bledin]

As soon as they state their beliefs as true, then they open themselves up to ridicule.
Well, at least now you're admitting that you ridicule the people instead of trying to claim you only ridicule their beliefs.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

While I do not believe in some big guy in the sky, just because it cannot be demonstrated yet does not mean it can be dismissed outright as false. It just means that it's unknown.
If you want to withhold judgement, that's fine with me. But I'm not going to bother withholding judgement just because leprechauns cannot be demonstrated to exist yet. I'm 99% certain that leprechauns don't exist, so I'm going to live my life as if they don't. For all intents and purposes, the claim that leprechauns exist is false. The only difference between a belief in leprechauns and a belief in a god is the number of believers.

Really, the beliefs themselves do no harm.
I disagree. The beliefs color the person's worldview, causing them to act differently than they would without the belief.

As our capabilities have grown, more and more that was previously thought or known to be false is showing as true, or at least possible.
That doesn't mean that anyone is justified in believing something to be true until it has been demonstrated to be true. Saying something is a neat idea is a long way from saying that it is true.

Well, at least now you're admitting that you ridicule the people instead of trying to claim you only ridicule their beliefs.
Well, I must admit that it's hard not to laugh when somebody says something akin to "The universe-creating pixies forbid me from eating strawberries on Tuesdays."

[Andara Bledin]

For all intents and purposes, the claim that leprechauns exist is false. The only difference between a belief in leprechauns and a belief in a god is the number of believers.
An inability for a person to discern a difference does not mean that there isn't one and that it doesn't have a measurable effect. Plus, your assessment of the differences falls far short of actuality.

The beliefs color the person's worldview, causing them to act differently than they would without the belief.
My beliefs, and Gravekeeper's as well if I'm not mistaken, both call for us to be respectful to others. But the beliefs themselves have no power outside of that which we choose to give them.

One should not blame the beliefs for the actions of the people. People are the ones that make the choices, both in what actions they take, and what beliefs they ascribe to.

That doesn't mean that anyone is justified in believing something to be true until it has been demonstrated to be true. Saying something is a neat idea is a long way from saying that it is true.
I'm as justified believing in God as you are in disbelieving in God. Neither of us has any greater claim.

However, I have no objection to anyone's stance on the matter, regardless of how ridiculous their ideas may seem to me. It is only their actions that I take more than an academic interest in.

Well, I must admit that it's hard not to laugh when somebody says something akin to "The universe-creating pixies forbid me from eating strawberries on Tuesdays."
I don't really find it that difficult to have enough respect for my fellow man to not laugh in his face because I think his beliefs are silly. All I request is that my fellow man have the courtesy to do the same.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

I don't really find it that difficult to have enough respect for my fellow man to not laugh in his face because I think his beliefs are silly. All I request is that my fellow man have the courtesy to do the same.
See, here's another place where we differ. I totally expect to be laughed at if I say something stupid, silly, or ridiculous.

I see we have totally different senses of humor. I like George Carlin's "Religion is Bullshit" bit. I like Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death" bit. I see nothing wrong with showing the humor in religion. Here's a belief I find completely hilarious: "the creator of the universe sacrificed himself to himself to save his creations from a punishment he inflicted on them for breaking a rule that his creations could not have possibly understood before they broke it." Absurd.

[Gravekeeper]

Even if that quote is accurately attributed


5 seconds with Google would have answered that for you instead of throwing that out just to be flippant.



It is difficult to figure out what Einstein actually believed, based on his writings.

He talked quite a bit about religion, God, Jesus and the like.

"If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity." - Albert Einstein, Mein Weltbild.

Einstein was effectively agnotistic with, much to my surprise, the occasional Buddhist like quip. He rejected western concepts of God, but was open to teachings that would advance the good of humanity as a whole. He was for understanding and the liberation from self, while opposing the egotism of self. Which is a Buddhist like viewpoint. He believed there was worth in the teachings of great moral leaders such as Jesus, Buddha and Gandhi, but also believed that such teachings had been hopelessly skewed and exploited by humanity.

He also believed that if every religion in the world were to actually adhere to the values of own its beliefs, there would be no conflict between religions or between religion and science to begin with. He's probably right. >.>

But yes, he spoke extensively about god, religion and science. Its actually quite fascinating and I have to agree with him on a lot of points. Now I have to dig up more Einstein essays...



Einstein was very knowledgeable about his field: physics, but he was no more knowledgeable about gods than any other human being.

Perhaps, but he certainly has more reason and understanding than most people and seemingly more knowledgable about our behaviour and society. That alone makes him worth a listen.

[smileyeagle1021]

It doesn't bother me that people have religious beliefs, as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves. As soon as they state their beliefs as true, then they open themselves up to ridicule. They also accept the burden of proof, and since the vast majority of religious beliefs can't be demonstrated, they can be dismissed as false.

To quote Mark Morford (a devout and vocal athiest)

To suggest that the scientific method, peer-reviewed research, et al, while deeply precious to the advancement of the species, is the only path to valid human knowledge? I find this is almost exactly as packed with total shimmering BS as believing there's a hoary grandfather squatting on a gilded throne in the Carina Nebula surrounded by winged toddlers, all watching you make stupid choices and masturbate to Danish fetish porn.

original article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/19/notes011911.DTL)

Just because what they are saying can't be proven with the scientific method doesn't mean that it isn't a valid path to human knowledge. There are some things we just can't explain, something for which I am eternally greatufl. Life would be quite boring without at least a few unanswered questions.
I have to ask, if I were to say "I love my fiance" would you ask me to prove it? If we are going to apply that standard to religion, to provide proof, to other areas of life, we are in trouble. There is nothing I can do to prove that I love my fiance, but I know that I do, as does he.

[Ghel]

5 seconds with Google would have answered that for you instead of throwing that out just to be flippant.
Actually, my 5 seconds of searching unearthed criticism of the book that quote is from that the author had very little evidence to back up his claims of Einstein's religious views. But that's really moot, as I'll get to in a moment.

Perhaps, but he certainly has more reason and understanding than most people and seemingly more knowledgable about our behaviour and society. That alone makes him worth a listen.
It's probably true that Einstein was knowledgeable about human behavior. But what I was saying was that he had no more evidence for a god than any other person, which is all that matters to me.


Just because what they are saying can't be proven with the scientific method doesn't mean that it isn't a valid path to human knowledge.
In response to Mumford's article, I would want to ask him what method he would like to use that yields as good of results, if not better, than science. The reason science is the best tool we have for learning about the universe is that it produces reliable, repeatable, usable results. You don't get that kind of results from mysticism.

I have to ask, if I were to say "I love my fiance" would you ask me to prove it? If we are going to apply that standard to religion, to provide proof, to other areas of life, we are in trouble. There is nothing I can do to prove that I love my fiance, but I know that I do, as does he.
First of all, I don't like to use the verb "prove" in these situations. It is very easy, I would hope, to demonstrate that you love your fiance. All you should have to do is be near your fiance, and the way you and your fiance behave towards each other should be enough to demonstrate to anybody around you that you love each other.

When we're talking about a god, however, we're talking about it existing, not somebody's feelings towards it. It's even easier to demonstrate that your fiance exists than to demonstrate your feelings towards him. We could talk to him, see him, shake hands with him, smell his cologne, etc. We can do none of these things with a god. What we're looking for, here, is some evidence of the god's existence. So far, no one has produced any.

If my friend said he had a cat, but when I went to his house, I saw no cat, no cat hair, no cat food, no cat toys, no litter box, why would I believe that he had a cat?

[Gravekeeper]

If my friend said he had a cat, but when I went to his house, I saw no cat, no cat hair, no cat food, no cat toys, no litter box, why would I believe that he had a cat?

Because the cat inspired people to write a book that they left behind on the coffee table!

......sorry <cough>.

And my 5 second Google search actually brought that quote up on a number of atheist websites. ;p


"A conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors." - Albert Einstein

That one was given both in in a talk he gave and latter in a work he published himself. Really, his thoughts on science, religion and atheism aren't a huge mystery. His problem was with the concept of a "Personal God" as in the western concept of God. The all creating, all powerful, all knowing sky wizard thats watching you masturbate in brooding judgement.

[Peppergirl]

The problem is that those Christians who aren't hateful bigots never rarely speak up about their faiths.


What complete and utter hogwash. Seriously.

Speaking for myself, I've ALWAYS been very open and outspoken about the fact that I'm a Christian, I'm pro-CHOICE, and I'm pro-GAY MARRIAGE.


What's it going to take for you to stop generalizing about how every Christian hates gays and therefore wants you dead?

After awhile the 'well, if you lived where *I* live and have been through what *I* have been through' line doesn't wash.

You have been through some horrible, HORRIBLE things and for that, I am deeply sorry. I am also deeply sorry that all of the people who have hurt you profess to be Christian. It disgust me to the point of almost physical illness.

However, I'm sick and tired of hearing how awful every single christian on the planet is, simply because of YOUR experiences.

I'll say it again: I am Christian. I am Pro Choice. I am PRO Gay marriage and many of my best friends are gay, both male and female.

I'm truly not sure what it's going to take to get through.

And on that note, I'm hijacking the atheism vs christianity thread and for that, I apologize.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled circular debate.

Edited to add: I failed to notice that you changed your 'never' to 'rarely'. A step in the right direction, but still a long way. Nearly every Christian that I personally know is pro-gay marriage. I'll concede that in your area there are probably very few, but in many areas, it's not all that rare.

[Hyena Dandy]

What complete and utter hogwash. Seriously.

Speaking for myself, I've ALWAYS been very open and outspoken about the fact that I'm a Christian, I'm pro-CHOICE, and I'm pro-GAY MARRIAGE.


What's it going to take for you to stop generalizing about how every Christian hates gays and therefore wants you dead?

After awhile the 'well, if you lived where *I* live and have been through what *I* have been through' line doesn't wash.

You have been through some horrible, HORRIBLE things and for that, I am deeply sorry. I am also deeply sorry that all of the people who have hurt you profess to be Christian. It disgust me to the point of almost physical illness.

However, I'm sick and tired of hearing how awful every single christian on the planet is, simply because of YOUR experiences.

I'll say it again: I am Christian. I am Pro Choice. I am PRO Gay marriage and many of my best friends are gay, both male and female.

I'm truly not sure what it's going to say to get through.

And on that note, I'm hijacking the atheism vs christianity thread and for that, I apologize.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled circular debate.

Edited to add: I failed to notice that you changed your 'never' to 'rarely'. A step in the right direction, but still a long way. Nearly every Christian that I personally know is pro-gay marriage. I'll concede that in your area there are probably very few, but in many areas, it's not all that rare.

Its not really a Christianity versus Atheism debate by now. At least from my perspective its a "People should be respected, even if you disagree" versus "No, religious people should have their beliefs mocked."

No wonder mods keep needing to come by.

[Peppergirl]

No wonder mods keep needing to come by.

I probably should have pointed out...the post I made was most definitely made in 'mod hat off' mode.

[Mytical]

Personally, I think that this discussion has gotten to that point. The point where we have to realize we are not going to change anybody's mind, and that we are talking in circles. Let those who don't believe not believe. Let those who do, do. Any of the ones who don't who can't respect others, pity them. Any of the ones who do believe, and can not let somebody not..pity them as well.

[Ghel]

Every time I try to steer this discussion towards logic, reason, and evidence, I am told that I lack respect or humility. Instead of all these ad hominem responses, I would like to see people actually addressing my arguments. But nobody has said "those examples you gave of ridiculous beliefs aren't ridiculous, and here's why" or "there is evidence for a god, and here's a link to a peer-reviewed article that demonstrates it" or "here's a method of gaining knowledge that works just as well as science (if not better)".

Personally, I think that this discussion has gotten to that point. The point where we have to realize we are not going to change anybody's mind...
I disagree. GK and I were able to find common ground on most of the things we were discussing. He changed my perspective on one or two points, and I think I may have changed his perspective on one or two points, as well. That makes the conversation worth the month or so we've been having it.

I'll say it again: I am Christian. I am Pro Choice. I am PRO Gay marriage and many of my best friends are gay, both male and female.
Here's what I think the relevant questions are: Is there a reason to oppose abortion that isn't religious-based? Is there a reason to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't religious-based? Regarding abortion, you might be able to find a philosophy that isn't religious but still regards abortion as wrong, but I don't think you could find the same for same-sex marriage. Opposition to either should be based on the harm it does towards the individual or society, not on what some religious authority says.

[Gravekeeper]

I disagree. GK and I were able to find common ground on most of the things we were discussing. He changed my perspective on one or two points, and I think I may have changed his perspective on one or two points, as well. That makes the conversation worth the month or so we've been having it.


True. While I am not, nor will ever be an atheist, I have learned a few things I didn't know in this thread and found some new stuff to read. Thus I have aquired +Wisdom, which is the entire point of my theism anyhow. -.-



Here's what I think the relevant questions are: Is there a reason to oppose abortion that isn't religious-based?

You could oppose it based on simple morality. It's just difficult to seperate morality from religion with a lot of people is all. I'm pro-choice despite default Buddhism being pro-life. Simply becase pro-life is an unrealistic viewpoint that falls into the realm of "In a perfect world, sure" for me. In a perfect world where everyone only gets pregnant when they mean too, there's no rape, no incest, etc then sure, pro-life all the way. But until we achieve that magical utopia, pro-choice all the way.


Is there a reason to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't religious-based?

No. ( That was easy! )

[Mikkel]

Is there a reason to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't religious-based?

No. ( That was easy! )

There are fear. Fear of other lifestyles.

[Ghel]

There are fear. Fear of other lifestyles.
You mean the unreasonable fear of things that are poorly understood?

[Cata]

You mean the unreasonable fear of things that are poorly understood?

Not necessarily. Tribalism is, generally speaking, just a fear of what is different. You can understand it and still fear it, if it's different enough from what you're accustomed to.

[Mytical]

The problem with 'logic', 'reason', and 'evidence' that there is nothing beyond what humans can understand..is there is none. To think that humans are the pentacle, the end all and be all, of evolution is a bit egotistical. Or that our limited understand of the universe means we know everything about it. Logically, if you believe that the universe is indeed billions of years old then any number of things could exist that we have no clue about.

Including a being that designed, made, and controls said universe.

Let us assume however, that somehow some way matter and energy always existed (how this can always exist and an entity that creates such can not, we won't discuss again as that seems a futile effort). 1) Do you honestly believe in the assumed billions of years that the earth was the first with life on it? That evolution was not possible on ANY other planet, million, maybe billions of years before Earth was even formed? Really?

Now if they have those extra millions/billions of years, what could they have evolved into? A higher power could simply be a being or beings who has evolved. Something beyond our knowledge.

Look at how many 'absolute, unquestionable' facts eventually got proven wrong. So..your arguments that logic, etc dictates there can not be anything beyond what humans can understand I find a bit..questionable.

[Ghel]

I hated having to break this quote into pieces, but there's just so much wrong here.
The problem with 'logic', 'reason', and 'evidence' that there is nothing beyond what humans can understand..is there is none.
I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. Are you saying there is no evidence beyond what humans can understand? I can't tell. Could you state this a different way?

To think that humans are the pentacle, the end all and be all, of evolution is a bit egotistical.
Does anybody actually believe this? Certainly no evolutionary biologist would. Anyone who understands evolution understands that every species alive today is the pinnacle of evolution today. If it wasn't, the species would have died off before reaching today. Evolution is not a ladder. Humans are not more evolved than other species. We might be more successful (which could mean many different things) than other species, but that doesn't mean that we are superior to any other species.

Or that our limited understand of the universe means we know everything about it.
Who claimed that we know everything about the universe? We (humans, collectively) are learning new things about the universe every day.

Logically, if you believe that the universe is indeed billions of years old then any number of things could exist that we have no clue about.

Including a being that designed, made, and controls said universe.
Until someone demonstrates that such a being exists, we have no business believing it exists.

Let us assume however, that somehow some way matter and energy always existed
Yes, that's pretty much the current understanding.
(how this can always exist and an entity that creates such can not, we won't discuss again as that seems a futile effort).
Let me push you in the right direction, and maybe you can figure out the answer to this one yourself. The matter and energy that (very probably) has always existed has not always existed in the same form. Think about that. It's far more profound than it seems at first glance.
1) Do you honestly believe in the assumed billions of years that the earth was the first with life on it?
Not necessarily, but it's the only one we know of.
That evolution was not possible on ANY other planet, million, maybe billions of years before Earth was even formed? Really?

Now if they have those extra millions/billions of years, what could they have evolved into? A higher power could simply be a being or beings who has evolved. Something beyond our knowledge.
That extra time for evolution to work doesn't necessarily mean that the resulting creatures would be more "evolved." Some creatures, such as crocodiles, have remained largely unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Or that they would necessarily have survived to the present. Some 99% of species that have ever lived have gone extinct.

Even if somewhere in the universe, some species existed that was more technologically advanced than humans, or more knowledgeable, or had evolved some sort of hive mind that allowed them to communicate at the speed of light over interstellar distances (which would still be a slow way to communicate), that still wouldn't make them a "higher power." They would be different, but not necessarily superior. I've watched enough sci-fi to know that if an alien shows up claiming to be a god, something is horribly wrong. As Kirk said, "What does God need with a starship?"
Look at how many 'absolute, unquestionable' facts eventually got proven wrong.
Right, like that the Earth is flat or that the Earth is the center of the universe. Things that religion (mostly Catholicism) continued to believe long after after they were demonstrated to be false by scientists. The problem is not that these "facts" were proven wrong, the problem is that when these "facts" were corrected, authority figures refused to acknowledge it.

So..your arguments that logic, etc dictates there can not be anything beyond what humans can understand I find a bit..questionable.
Who said this? Certainly not me. It might help if you addressed your arguments to the person who made the claims you're attempting to refute.

Oh, wait. You're talking about my statement that science is the best tool we have for learning about the universe, aren't you? Or are you? You haven't addressed my actual point: that any method of gaining knowledge that someone posits will have to show that it is at least as good at providing usable, repeatable, reliable results that can be used to make predictions about our universe as science is. If it can't, then it's not as good of a tool as science.

I actually think that, while there are limits to what humans can know currently, there may not be limits to what humans can ever know. We continue to build on our knowledge, discovering new things and correcting the mistakes of the past. Therein lies the promise of humankind - to build, to examine, to explore, to cure, to comfort, to benefit us all. Knowledge is the most precious thing we have, and we should all treasure it.

[Andara Bledin]

There are fear. Fear of other lifestyles.
For the most part, it all boils down to fear more than anything else. Religion is just a handy excuse for being against things people fear.

You mean the unreasonable fear of things that are poorly understood?
Not necessarily. There are people who fear things that they understand just fine, but still cannot accept purely due to basic xenophobia.

I hated having to break this quote into pieces, but there's just so much wrong here.
This, right here, is why people respond to you and not your points.

You could have just addressed the flaws as you saw them, but instead, you chose to be insulting first. It's demeaning and lessens the impact of anything else you might have to say to anyone that doesn't already agree with you.

Oh, wait. You're talking about my statement that science is the best tool we have for learning about the universe, aren't you?
No. He's talking about statements like this:
Until someone demonstrates that such a being exists, we have no business believing it exists.
According to this statement, nobody has any business believing in the abstract or having faith in things that cannot be quantified, which is quite uncompromising and, in a lot of ways, intolerant.

I, personally, find this a very bland and cold way to exist and it's not for me.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

The theory of a flat earth is exactly one of the problems. Lets take the scientific approach on the matter that seems to be the 'catch all' being used. That being that unless it is observable, we must dismiss it, as it can not be proven.

So therefore nothing existed beyond that horizon. It could not be observed, therefore didn't exist. IE the earth was flat. Those who dismiss a possible higher power are doing the exact same thing. They are 'thinking the earth is flat' so to speak. After all, we can not see it, must not exist. Right?

Which was the point I tried to make. Closing ones mind to the fact there might be something beyond that horizon gets us nowhere. Even limits the amount of knowledge we might possibly gain.

You see no evidence that a higher being can possibly exist, or that it doesn't matter if there is or not. So, will you be one of those who when the first person to cross over that horizon and returns, refuses to believe there is anything beyond that horizon? I mean, at the time they could not PROVE they had went beyond that horizon. All the evidence you have, points to them 'making it up'. They must be delusional, liars, or suffered heat stroke .. right? :D.

Would you then argue that people should ignore the sailors claims? Since they can't prove it, it doesn't exist. That nobody should believe there is anything past that horizon, and if they do they are delusional? That what is beyond that horizon shouldn't even be considered, anymore then say a 'flying spaghetti monster' should be considered?

Right now our knowledge, technology, and understanding can not provide proof. So it can't exist right? We are still living in that flat earth?

Well, I am the modern 'sailor' of the 'uncharted waters'. You want to know why I believe there is something beyond death? No, I've not had a 'near death experience'. However, I have seen spirits, and more then one. Can I prove it? Even if I had a camera at the time, and it was ready (which would make me personally question somebody..would be a bit 'convenient') there is no guarantee that our current devices can capture/measure/etc such a phenomenon.

All I can tell you is, I've been past that horizon, seen what is there, and the world is not flat. There are things that humans can not fathom, can not understand, and can not prove..yet. While spirits do not by themselves prove a 'higher power', if there is life after death my hope is that somebody is there to explain things. Not proof there is something beyond just being a spirit, however, I will admit.

You ask for proof, and currently there is none. I am sure that many people in the past asked for proof the Earth is not flat. Refused to even consider the Earth was not flat. The question is, should we not consider what is beyond that horizon? Should we not look beyond that horizon? Should we not seek answers?

[Ghel]

Andara, since you would rather discuss my tone than my actual arguments, I am not responding to a single point you made.

After all, we can not see it, must not exist. Right?
Observation includes far more than seeing. We can observe using the other senses, we can use instruments to detect things that our senses cannot, and we can make observations that detect variations over time. This idea that observation is merely "seeing" misrepresents science.

Closing ones mind to the fact there might be something beyond that horizon gets us nowhere. Even limits the amount of knowledge we might possibly gain.
Who's closing their mind to knowledge? Certainly not me. You know what really closes minds to knowledge? Religion, particularly theism. If one believes that everything is caused by a god (or "higher power," if you prefer), then one stops looking for answers.

Would you then argue that people should ignore the sailors claims?
That's a really funny analogy to use, since Greek sailors, in the 6th century BCE, were the first ones to bring back evidence that the Earth was round.

Right now our knowledge, technology, and understanding can not provide proof. So it can't exist right? We are still living in that flat earth?
Your analogy is breaking down. Are you trying to say that we still don't have evidence for a spherical Earth? Because we most certainly do. On the other hand, the total accumulated evidence for a god: 0.

While spirits do not by themselves prove a 'higher power', if there is life after death my hope is that somebody is there to explain things.
That's right, you "hope." You do not have evidence. Instead of looking for your "higher power" to explain things, why don't you read some of the popular science books that are available? Learn about what we really know; it's far more fascinating than anything religion or mysticism can make up.

You ask for proof, and currently there is none.
No, I ask for evidence, but you're right that there is none.

Should we not seek answers?
Of course we should, but we should seek answers that actually fit the evidence, not some pat answer handed down by an authority figure.

When someone proposes an explanation for something, the most important question we can ask is "is it true?" To quote PZ Myers (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/substance_over_sweetness_anoth.php), "that 'truth' is not some magical absolute, but something we can only approach by trial and error, and that truth is something you have to work towards, not simply accept dogmatically as given by some unquestionable source..."

I rather like the idea of Occam's Razor, that the best explanation is the simplest one that can account for all the evidence. If the explanation is more complex than it needs to be or if it doesn't account for some part of what is observed, than it is not a good explanation. Positing a "higher power," "creator," or "god" makes the explanation more complex than it needs to be to account for everything that humans have observed about the universe.

[Mytical]

Not much of a person to quote, but since some can not seem to understand (my fault I am sure) lets try this again.

Observation includes far more than seeing. We can observe using the other senses, we can use instruments to detect things that our senses cannot, and we can make observations that detect variations over time. This idea that observation is merely "seeing" misrepresents science.

True. I would have figured somebody as intelligent as you would figure out that I was speaking of all the senses, technology, and other means of 'proof'. My apologies for assuming.

Who's closing their mind to knowledge? Certainly not me. You know what really closes minds to knowledge? Religion, particularly theism. If one believes that everything is caused by a god (or "higher power," if you prefer), then one stops looking for answers.

For some, as others take anything else (including science) as a reason to stop looking for things they can not 'see' (and in clarification each time I say 'see' I will make sure to include that that means all the senses, technology, and other means currently available). Others, regardless of their belief, or lack of, question everything.


That's a really funny analogy to use, since Greek sailors, in the 6th century BCE, were the first ones to bring back evidence that the Earth was round.

Immaterial to the discussion, but interesting nontheless.


Your analogy is breaking down. Are you trying to say that we still don't have evidence for a spherical Earth? Because we most certainly do. On the other hand, the total accumulated evidence for a god: 0.

There I go assuming again, assuming that you would realize the metaphor. My fault entirely, I apologize. I am saying that just because currently we do not have evidence that a 'higher being' does not mean that we will never have. That we should keep looking beyond the horizon (and just so I cause no more confusion the horizon being something beyond death, not an actual physical horizon)


That's right, you "hope." You do not have evidence. Instead of looking for your "higher power" to explain things, why don't you read some of the popular science books that are available? Learn about what we really know; it's far more fascinating than anything religion or mysticism can make up.

This is where you assume. Acknowledging there may be a higher power does not answer my questions, so I continue to ask them. I just keep my mind open to the possibility. I realize and understand that just because we do not 'see' (again all five senses, technology, etc as covered before) something..does not mean it does not exist. After all, at one time we could not 'see' (thanks to lack of the right technology) many things. Who knows what we will be able to 'see' tomorrow (not literally tomorrow, just so there is no confusion).


Of course we should, but we should seek answers that actually fit the evidence, not some pat answer handed down by an authority figure.

Yet..that is what some are doing, and I don't mean religious or spiritual people either. Because it is not written down somewhere, or some 'authority figure says "It is not possible for a 'God' (insert whatever god or religion)" to exist..then it is not possible. They assume our limited human knowledge can KNOW, and it just can not.

[Andara Bledin]

Andara, since you would rather discuss my tone than my actual arguments, I am not responding to a single point you made.
I made a single statement explaining why people respond to your tone.

The rest of my post was specifically and only rebuttals to specific statements.

You are projecting a lot into my response that just doesn't exist.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

For some, as others take anything else (including science) as a reason to stop looking for things they can not 'see'...
If somebody thinks that science is a reason to stop looking for answers, they misunderstand science.

Others, regardless of their belief, or lack of, question everything.
I question everything. That's why I lack a belief in anything supernatural.

There I go assuming again, assuming that you would realize the metaphor.
I realize it's supposed to be a metaphor; I just don't think it's a very good one.

I am saying that just because currently we do not have evidence that a 'higher being' does not mean that we will never have. That we should keep looking beyond the horizon (and just so I cause no more confusion the horizon being something beyond death, not an actual physical horizon)
The problem here is that you presuppose that something exists beyond the "horizon." You presuppose that there is a "higher being" and waste time looking for it, when it might not even exist. Personal experience (such as yours with "spirits") carries no weight because it is, by definition, personal. There's no way to demonstrate to anybody else that it is true.

Acknowledging there may be a higher power does not answer my questions, so I continue to ask them.
That's a step in the right direction.

I just keep my mind open to the possibility.
By all means, keep an open mind; just not so open your brain falls out.

Who knows what we will be able to 'see' tomorrow...
Whatever we discover tomorrow will have evidence to back it up. Your presupposition of a "higher being" has no evidence behind it.

Because it is not written down somewhere, or some 'authority figure says "It is not possible for a 'God' (insert whatever god or religion)" to exist..then it is not possible.
It is true, for certain definitions of "God," that it is not possible for that God to exist. For example, logically inconsistent Gods.

They assume our limited human knowledge can KNOW, and it just can not.
It is possible to know, even based on our limited human knowledge, that something is impossible. It is also possible to aggragate information and determine, based on a lack of evidence, that a thing does not exist. For example, if a religion claims that A, B, and C should happen because of their beliefs, and A, B, and C fail to happen, that shows that their beliefs are wrong (maybe not completely, but at least partially).

Theists like to say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But the absence of evidence for a god that has been accumulated over the span of human history is evidence for the absence of a god. If there were a god who interfered in the lives of humans, we would expect to see some evidence of it. But there is none.

[Ghel]

The rest of my post was specifically and only rebuttals to specific statements.
I could be wrong. Let's take a second look.

Religion is just a handy excuse for being against things people fear.
Actually, relgion tends to instill irrational fear in people, such as the fear of Hell.

There are people who fear things that they understand just fine, but still cannot accept purely due to basic xenophobia.
Education can go a long way to calming xenophobia. Once a person understands something, they are less likely to fear it.

According to this statement, nobody has any business believing in the abstract or having faith in things that cannot be quantified, which is quite uncompromising and, in a lot of ways, intolerant.

I, personally, find this a very bland and cold way to exist and it's not for me.
Your analysis of my statement is partially correct. It's true that my philosophy is uncompromising. It is also intolerant towards falsehoods. But it is in no way bland or cold. The more I learn about reality, the more fascinating I find it, and the more flat and boring I find religious explanations.

Andara, you do include rebuttals to "specific statements," but no responses to my core statements: What evidence is there for a god (or higher power)? Why should I believe something for which there is no evidence? By what standard can you say that a god exists? (This last point goes along with my question about what method of gaining knowledge can give us as good of, if not better, results than science?)

[Mytical]

*Nods* and you are standing on the shore, looking at the horizon and assuming there is nothing beyond. Like those who still believe that the world is flat. It is not my job or duty to change your mind. Live and let live, and all of that. I do respect your views, and your right to them, even if I disagree with them.

I will leave with one final thought.

This statement : Whatever we discover tomorrow will have evidence to back it up. Your presupposition of a "higher being" has no evidence behind it.


Currently there is no proof, just as there was no proof (at the time) that something was beyond that horizon. If you don't even go looking, you will never find.

Peace.

[Gravekeeper]

Random quirkly point of interest: We just discovered the oldest galaxy we've ever seen clocking in at 13.6 billion years. So who the Hell knows. -.-



Actually, relgion tends to instill irrational fear in people, such as the fear of Hell.

This is why I perfer Karmic systems, as it puts the onus upon me, myself and I for my actions. Rather than some dude with a pitch fork.

[Andara Bledin]

This is why I perfer Karmic systems, as it puts the onus upon me, myself and I for my actions. Rather than some dude with a pitch fork.
I don't believe in the dude with the pitchfork. At least, not like that, anyway. And even if he were to exist like that, he has no power over me that I don't give him, which puts the onus squarely on my own shoulders.

Different paths, same result.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

I don't believe in the dude with the pitchfork. At least, not like that, anyway. And even if he were to exist like that, he has no power over me that I don't give him, which puts the onus squarely on my own shoulders.

Different paths, same result.

^-.-^

The Devil amuses me. Seeing as he's not actually described anywhere in the Bible as anything more than a voice. All the pitch fork/horns shit was glued on during the Middle Ages to scare people. Which means the Devil would technically still look just like an angel which.....ok, well technical, angels in the Bible looked absolute fscking terrifying so I guess there's that. Seriously, what the hell? "Wheels within wheels, the rims of which are covered in eyes"? Holy (*@$. Angel or not I would run screaming from that. >.>

Nevermind Cherubs. Ezekiel 10:14 "Each of the cherubim had four faces: One face was that of a cherub, the second the face of a human being, the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle."

Sweet Jeebus.

Just like the Devil, Angels got an overhaul in the Middle Ages to make them look awesome ( instead of unbridled nightmare fuel ).

[Mytical]

Just like the snake and 'satan'. Or Satan and Lucifer. It's kinda confusing. The snake is neither satan nor lucifer. Lucifer is the 'morning star', and got thrown to earth..yet Satan is the bad guy (and apparently not the same being). I need a score card.

[Ghel]

It so hard to keep track of what matches up with what in the Bible. That's part of the reason that I don't consider it an authority on anything, including the character of God ("character" meaning both the sum of his traits and that he's a fictional character).

*Nods* and you are standing on the shore, looking at the horizon and assuming there is nothing beyond.
This kind of reminds me of the first episode of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series, although you're looking at things from a different perspective than Sagan. In the episode, he says such things as "The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean. ... Recently, we've managed to wade a little way out, maybe ankle-deep, and the water seems inviting." and "We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact." Good advice, there.

I have no problem with someone saying that "such-and-such would be really neat." But to go looking for it when there's not a whit of evidence is a waste of time. Better to spend your life grounded in reality than chasing after leprechauns.

[Gravekeeper]

I <3 Carl Sagan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc&) ( and indeed the entire symphony <cough> ).



It so hard to keep track of what matches up with what in the Bible. That's part of the reason that I don't consider it an authority on anything, including the character of God ("character" meaning both the sum of his traits and that he's a fictional character).


I recall reading this one thesis many years ago that suggested that the Bible ( sans Gospels ) had several parts collected from previous legends ( which much of it was, honestly ) but specifically Sumerian. And that there quite literally was two "Gods" as some of the superpowered stuff being attributed to God in the various legends/fables was actually from two seperate gods in Sumerian legends/fables. Hence God going bipolar and sometimes being loving and wise, but other times being totally insane, destructive and vengeful. Because they had to rewrite and combine them into one God. Bonus Fun fact: Sumerian Gods have a "holy trinity" of 3 gods, one in Heaven, one that represents the Earth, and a third who is the son of the one in Heaven. -.-

Was an interesting read, wish I could find it.

[Ghel]

Symphony of Science is awesome. I particularly like The Poetry of Reality (http://www.youtube.com/user/melodysheep#p/u/1/9Cd36WJ79z4), which talks about how science shines light on the world.

Tracy Harris of the Atheist Experience has did a series on the Gods (yes, plural) of the Old Testament. You can find the videos here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7143320070446993932#), here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-409150903083942192#), and here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3048879793791495094#). They're really interesting and informative.

[Rapscallion]

http://www.smbc-theater.com/?id=248 is pretty concise.

Rapscallion

[Talon]

This is why I perfer Karmic systems, as it puts the onus upon me, myself and I for my actions. Rather than some dude with a pitch fork.

So your Karma ran over the Dogma? :D

Ok back to being serious.

Karma's a nice idea, but it's demonstrably wrong. It is entirely possible to live a virtuous life, not lie/cheat/steal/murder, and still get kicked in the teeth by life. Look to any war or natural disaster for proof of that. The virtuous die right along with the wicked. And the most damning thing of all: sometimes we have no choice but to be "bad" in order to survive. Some poor kid growing up in a shantytown? They can steal, or they can starve.

Then there's the flipside. History is full of examples of the most vile, contemptible mass-murdering scumbags. Did the Universe magically punish those people? On the contrary, many of them prospered from their misdeeds. Granted they probably had to sleep with both eyes open for the rest of their lives, but that strikes me as a very small consolation prize.

Being good certainly has advantages within a human community. But it's not going to magically change the universe.

[Hyena Dandy]

Karma's a nice idea, but it's demonstrably wrong. It is entirely possible to live a virtuous life, not lie/cheat/steal/murder, and still get kicked in the teeth by life. Look to any war or natural disaster for proof of that. The virtuous die right along with the wicked. And the most damning thing of all: sometimes we have no choice but to be "bad" in order to survive. Some poor kid growing up in a shantytown? They can steal, or they can starve.

That is a misunderstanding of Karma, though its easy to see how you did it. People often call something bad happening to someone who did something bad 'Karma'.

Karma is not supposed to come back on you in this life. The idea is that you go through this life, and if you're good, shit goes wrong in your NEXT life. I.E. A mass-murderer comes back as a maggot, a saint comes back as a prince (Or, well, a cow, I guess, but it'd have to be in India.)

[Ghel]

It seems to me that both the concepts of Karma and of Heaven/Hell are damaging concepts because they convince people to take a lot of shit (or, at least, be happy with the status quo) instead of trying to improve their lives or the lives of their fellow human beings. It may be a comforting thought that the villain will either rot in Hell or have karma visited on him, but (as Talon rightly pointed out) that's no guarantee that anything will actually happen to him. The only way to be sure that things will get better, or that justice will be done, is to work towards that goal ourselves.

[Talon]

Hyena Dandy,

Ok you've got me there :o

Karma is not supposed to come back on you in this life. The idea is that you go through this life, and if you're good, shit goes wrong in your NEXT life. I.E. A mass-murderer comes back as a maggot, a saint comes back as a prince (Or, well, a cow, I guess, but it'd have to be in India.)

Actually I was exposed to this idea of karma growing up, the idea of next-life benefits/punishments.
My Hindu parental units were oh-so-smug in their criticisms of Abrahamic faiths for their lack of an explanation of the suffering of innocents. They said that people were being punished in this life because they were bad in their past lives. It sounded reasonable to my young ears.

But I don't buy it now.
For a long time I sincerely believed in the idea of reincarnation, despite the fact that I couldn't remember anything from my supposed past life. And please don't anyone try to tell me it was because I didn't believe "hard" enough. Wishful thinking does not make it so. My point is I think it's incredibly unfair for the Universe, or God, Karma, whatever, to punish someone with a potential lifetime of suffering, as penance for crimes they don't remember committing.

"How can I confess my sins to God, when I don't even remember what they are?" - Brother Theo, Babylon 5

Maybe the Karma idea could provide some short-term comfort to someone scrounging through refuse heaps for their next meal. But as Ghel pointed out, it could also de-motivate them from making any effort to improve their lot in life. Then there's the Snowball effect, or maybe Unintended Karmaic Consequences. As I mentioned before, someone may have no choice to be Bad in order to survive, steal or starve. The history of the oppressed is not pretty. Jammed into the boxcars of oppression, victims turn on each other for survival. Thereby they earn even more bad karma, as if last-life's bad karma wasn't enough. Yeesh this is horrifying, an endless timeless cycle of misery that even death can't save you from :eek:

Maybe the universe really is this unfair. As I myself have said, life isn't fair, it simply exists. But that still leaves us with this: there is no demonstrable evidence that reincarnation happens, and with that there's no reason to believe in Karma either.

[Gravekeeper]

Instead of trying to improve their lives or the lives of their fellow human beings.


Except those two are key aspects of Buddhism. The very center of it is universal compassion for all living beings ( animals included ) regardless of who they are or what they've done. To help ease the suffering of *everyone* in mortal life.


It may be a comforting thought that the villain will either rot in Hell or have karma visited on him, but (as Talon rightly pointed out) that's no guarantee that anything will actually happen to him.

The thing is, that's *still* a basic "vengeance" wish. Buddhism isn't about vengeance. The very act of wishing suffering on another isn't exactly that much better than someone inflicting suffering to begin with. Both are damaging and harmful.

Nrrr, ok, time for work. Will finish my thought later. >.>

[Andara Bledin]

It seems to me that both the concepts of Karma and of Heaven/Hell are damaging concepts because they convince people to take a lot of shit (or, at least, be happy with the status quo) instead of trying to improve their lives or the lives of their fellow human beings.
Why would you assume that the two concepts are mutually exclusive?

Part of living a good life is based on self-improvement. If you do nothing to further yourself, that's not going to be of any benefit to anyone in this life or the next. You can't help your fellow man if you, yourself, are in need of help.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Right, broadcasting live from the salt mine. >.>


My point is I think it's incredibly unfair for the Universe, or God, Karma, whatever, to punish someone with a potential lifetime of suffering, as penance [B]for crimes they don't remember committing.

I can't really speak for Hinduism, but as I understand it from Buddhism your karma can affect your station in the next life, but does not just curse you to a life of misery or anything. On top of that, the cycle of life is a learning experience, and we must experience all it has to offer, good and bad, if we are to learn. Finally, as we are masters of our own actions, it is inevitable those actions will affect others or good or ill. But at the end of any given life, we will be shown exactly how we affected others before we move on to the next.

In Tibetan culture in particular, your station in the next life is actually partially determined by how you react to seeing the consequences of your actions in life. The Tibetan Book of the Dead for example is particularly fascinating because it is not exclusive to any one religion. It explicitely states that you will see that which you believe in during these moments. Be it God, Jesus, Buddha or the flying spaghetti monster. That which comes to guide you will take on whatever form you expect to see it in.

Which is a rather fascinating perspective for an older culture to have. As typically the further you go back, the more rigid cultures become in regards to this kind of thing.



As I mentioned before, someone may have no choice to be Bad in order to survive, steal or starve.

See, ironically this is not Bad(tm) in the Buddhist viewpoint. Bad(tm) is causing undo suffering. Which places the onus more on whomever is causing you to starve. Now if you and your neighbour were both starving, and he had a piece of bread, and you caved his head in with a rock for it. That would be Bad(tm). >.>

Karma is not suppose to be an inescapable downward spiral, that would make for a self defeating universe. I honestly don't think we can define the inner workings of the universe in terms of our petty morale absolutes.

[Hyena Dandy]

instead of trying to improve their lives or the lives of their fellow human beings.

I firmly believe in trying to improve my life and the life of my fellows.

The interesting thing about hell is one of the points its mentioned in the Bible is the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man in the Gospel of Luke. (Text taken from Wikipedia, my bible isn't at hand)

Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, living in luxury every day. A certain beggar, named Lazarus, was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. Yes, even the dogs came and licked his sores. It happened that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. In Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom. He cried and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in anguish in this flame."

What the parable means to me is that it is a Christian duty to help the needy. Or else, you know, hell. But the key part is that in one of the few places that the Bible references heaven or hell, its about helping people in need.

The Bible doesn't say a lot about improving yourself, but at least the new testament has a hell of a lot about improving others.

[Ghel]

The very act of wishing suffering on another isn't exactly that much better than someone inflicting suffering to begin with. Both are damaging and harmful.
I don't believe in thought crime. Thinking that someone should suffer is not as bad as inflicting that suffering yourself. The only person who might be damaged by thought crime is the thinker, and it would only be mental, not physical harm.

Why would you assume that the two concepts are mutually exclusive?
I didn't say that they were, although, now that you mention it, how do you reconcile the concepts of Heaven and Hell with the concept of Karma (as it relates to reincarnation)?

Part of living a good life is based on self-improvement. If you do nothing to further yourself, that's not going to be of any benefit to anyone in this life or the next. You can't help your fellow man if you, yourself, are in need of help.
I agree, except for the part about a next life.

In Tibetan culture in particular, your station in the next life is actually partially determined by how you react to seeing the consequences of your actions in life. The Tibetan Book of the Dead for example is particularly fascinating because it is not exclusive to any one religion. It explicitely states that you will see that which you believe in during these moments. Be it God, Jesus, Buddha or the flying spaghetti monster. That which comes to guide you will take on whatever form you expect to see it in.

This is a Neat Idea(tm), but there's no evidence that it's true. I would much rather follow a philosophy that is both useful and can be demonstrated to be true.

What the parable [of Lazarus and the rich man] means to me is that it is a Christian duty to help the needy. Or else, you know, hell.
Do you really need to be threatened with punishment before you'll do something nice for somebody? This is, I think, one of the greatest faults of the Christian philosophy (irrespective of whether it's true). It doesn't encourage people to be good because it's good. It instructs people to be good so they'll be allowed into Heaven or avoid Hell. That's no more moral than saying, "If you hit your little sister, I'm going to beat you bloody and lock you in your room for a month, but if you're nice, I'll give you a cookie."

[Ipecac Drano]

What the parable means to me is that it is a Christian duty to help the needy. Or else, you know, hell. But the key part is that in one of the few places that the Bible references heaven or hell, its about helping people in need.
According to biblical concordances, it's actually about the Jewish people rejecting Christ. But, if one takes it literally to be a lesson about charity, then maybe some good will come from it.

[Gravekeeper]

I don't believe in thought crime. Thinking that someone should suffer is not as bad as inflicting that suffering yourself. The only person who might be damaged by thought crime is the thinker, and it would only be mental, not physical harm.


I didn't say it was now, did I? And you're precisely correct, it is unhealthy for the one wishing it. Not for the one it is being wished upon. One of the points of Buddhism is to try to be above that. Attachment, suffering, yadda yadda. You know, enlightenment. -.-



I didn't say that they were, although, now that you mention it, how do you reconcile the concepts of Heaven and Hell with the concept of Karma (as it relates to reincarnation)?

I can't speak for Christianity, or even really my own beliefs as I don't believe in either location. However, I can put out again, the Book of the Dead. Which has Heaven/Hell equivilents ( amongst several other possibilities including being tossed right back to the animal kingdom ), but they are more sort of incarnations. As in, your next incarnation would be pleasent ( and heavenly ) or a struggle ( and hellish ). It seems to make specifics such as being born into a life surrounded by war or famine. Its an odd book, but interesting. Just....scary thick and badly translated. I own it, but reading it makes me go cross eyed >.>




This is a Neat Idea(tm), but there's no evidence that it's true. I would much rather follow a philosophy that is both useful and can be demonstrated to be true.

The interesting part about it is if you follow along its actually basically describing a Near Death Experience ( and then some after wards ). As the entire purpose of the Book of the Dead is to prepare you for death and try and teach you what to expect. NDEs are near universal in that they come in one of two types: The "Oh I met <insert my deity here> and it was awesome but then I came back and it sucks here" ones. And the "OH FUCK DARKNESS AND MISERY" ones.

Which is rather fascinating as your chance of having any sort of NDE back then was rather remote given the medical science at the time. >.>




Do you really need to be threatened with punishment before you'll do something nice for somebody? This is, I think, one of the greatest faults of the Christian philosophy (irrespective of whether it's true).

Agreed. Obviously, not every Christian looks at it that way. But many do ( act out of fear of Hell, or the promise of Heaven ) instead of an inherent honest desire for the well being of others. I really don't think you can make it too far if you stay within the confines of an "ultimate judgement" type scenario.

[Hyena Dandy]

This is, I think, one of the greatest faults of the Christian philosophy (irrespective of whether it's true).

I know plenty of Christians who think good behavior is its own reward. I certainly do. I help people because that's what I do, not to get into heaven. If I get into heaven, that's fine. But mainly I believe in helping in the name as helping.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't believe in thought crime. Thinking that someone should suffer is not as bad as inflicting that suffering yourself. The only person who might be damaged by thought crime is the thinker, and it would only be mental, not physical harm.
I'm almost of the same position. Except that harming oneself part, as I think that's also bad, although definitely not to the same degree as harming others.

Plus, trying to not think ill of others goes with the whole concept of self-improvement and personal gain.

I didn't say that they were, although, now that you mention it, how do you reconcile the concepts of Heaven and Hell with the concept of Karma (as it relates to reincarnation)?
I don't believe in hell as a place so much as a state of being. And as I've established before, I believe in reincarnation, so Karma wouldn't be incompatible.

I know plenty of Christians who think good behavior is its own reward.
I do "good things" as a mix of altruistic, selfish, and egotistical reasons.

The egotist in me likes being able to make things happen. The selfish part of me likes how people treat me when I do things for others (enlightened self-interest). And the altruistic part of me just gets all sorts of warm fuzzies by making other people happy.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

I didn't say it was now, did I?
Well, you did say (and I'm paraphrasing, here) that thinking about committing a crime is almost as bad as actually committing the crime. But I see that you're clarifying what you meant. If I understand correctly, we actually agree. Thinking about causing harm, or wishing harm against someone, is detrimental to the thinker's mental health, but is not harmful to anyone else.

The interesting part about it is if you follow along its actually basically describing a Near Death Experience ( and then some after wards ).
So, you're saying they based their fantasy on a hallucination. That doesn't make the fantasy any more true. I'll still grant that it's a Neat Idea(tm), but that's all.

I know plenty of Christians who think good behavior is its own reward. I certainly do. I help people because that's what I do, not to get into heaven.
But that's not what you said before. You said, "Or else, you know, hell." If you're changing your position or correcting your previous statement, please explain.

I don't believe in hell as a place so much as a state of being. And as I've established before, I believe in reincarnation, so Karma wouldn't be incompatible.
Ok, I can see Heaven and Hell as a metaphor, but you said (in a PM) that you believe in reincarnation based on your reading of the Bible. How do you support that? What passages say to you that Heaven and Hell aren't literal, physical places? Additionally, what role does the Christian God play in a system that includes reincarnation?

[Hyena Dandy]

But that's not what you said before. You said, "Or else, you know, hell." If you're changing your position or correcting your previous statement, please explain.

I was not changing my position. I was saying that that story says "Help people, regardless of their position. If you don't, you end up in hell."

That does not mean I, and other Christians, can't do good things for the sake of doing good things.

I am not changing my position or correcting my previous statement. The two statements are unrelated.

[Ghel]

The two statements are unrelated.
I disagree. "Do good or else you'll be tortured forever" and "Do good because it's good" are competing philosophies.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation. Suppose you have two children. With Child A, every time he misbehaves, you threaten to beat him. With Child B, every time he misbehaves, you sit him down and teach him empathy. ("How do you think your brother feels when you bite him?") At the end of ten years, both children are well-behaved, but which one is more moral? I think we can all agree that the child whose moral code is based on empathy will be more moral.

I agree, however, that Christians can hold both concepts in their heads at the same time. It's not unusual for humans to compartmentalize their minds in order to believe two or more competing, or even mutually exclusive, concepts. That doesn't make the statements unrelated. It just means that humans (all humans) have stupid brains, which we have to train to recognize contradictions and sort out which one is actually correct (or better, at least).

[Andara Bledin]

I disagree. "Do good or else you'll be tortured forever" and "Do good because it's good" are competing philosophies.
Nobody is arguing that they are.

If you don't cherry-pick one phrase out of the middle of a larger comment, you can easily see that he's talking about part of what the story of Lazarus is supposed to impart, not that he ascribes to that message.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

Nobody is arguing that they are.
I am. Arguing that they are competing philosophies, that is.

If you don't cherry-pick one phrase...
I'm not cherry picking. I'm quoting a short portion of a post which I think sums up the post. If I'm misunderstanding the post, it would help if that poster would explain where I'm mistaken, rather than somebody (you) trying to explain what somebody else meant.

Andara, I would appreciate it if you would respond to my questions regarding how you reconcile your Christian beliefs with your belief in reincarnation. It's difficult to debate beliefs with someone (you) who refuses to make a clear statement about what they believe.

[Hyena Dandy]

Andy was absolutely right. I was saying "This is what the story says" which is separate from "This is what I do."

Saying a Christian can't do good things for the sake of good things because their religion says they'll go to hell is just as ridiculous as saying atheists never do good things because their religion doesn't say they're going to hell.

[Andara Bledin]

I am. Arguing that they are competing philosophies, that is.
Ok. I'm not sure who your arguing against, then.

This is the whole statement:
What the parable means to me is that it is a Christian duty to help the needy. Or else, you know, hell. But the key part is that in one of the few places that the Bible references heaven or hell, its about helping people in need.
He's talking about what he thinks a story's moral is supposed to be, not that he believes in that moral.

Your quote, out of context, looks like you're trying to imply that he, personally, said "or hell" as opposed to him saying that the story said "or hell."

It's difficult to debate beliefs with someone (you) who refuses to make a clear statement about what they believe.
Apologies, but I am not currently debating my own beliefs. The last few times I tried I was mocked for having them and it was implied that it also means I am delusional and a danger to my own health with no honest attempt made to gain any understanding of why I might have them in the first place. As such, I don't see any point in continued debate on the matter.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

Andy was absolutely right. I was saying "This is what the story says" which is separate from "This is what I do."
You said, "What the parable means to me...", which implies that what follows is a statement of your beliefs. And what followed appeared to say that you believed that the reason to do good was to avoid Hell. I see that you clarified your position in later posts, but not in the post where you quoted the parable.

Saying a Christian can't do good things for the sake of good things because their religion says they'll go to hell is just as ridiculous ...
Where did I say that? I said that Christianity teaches a moral code that's based on an avoidance of Hell, not that a Christian can't do good for goodness' sake.

Apologies, but I am not currently debating my own beliefs. ... with no honest attempt made to gain any understanding of why I might have them in the first place. As such, I don't see any point in continued debate on the matter.
I have asked you several times to explain what you believe and why. You have said very little about either. What little you have said is confusing and seems contradictory. I was hoping you would be willing to shed some light on your beliefs in order to foster understanding between us.

I don't want to discuss somebody else's beliefs with you. I want to discuss your beliefs. And my beliefs. I don't want to ask you to defend beliefs that you don't hold. But without knowing what your beliefs are, specifically, I'm in danger of assuming details (which might not be accurate) about your beliefs based on what little you've described on this forum.

You're right that stating your beliefs will open them up to criticism. That's as it should be. If you don't think your religious beliefs can withstand criticism, you (and all people) have two options. You can either examine your beliefs, find out where they're faulty, and correct them. Or you can voluntarily withdraw from debates about religion. Those are really your only two options, because no idea is above criticism. No concept is sacred.

Now, as a show of goodwill, I will make a statement of my beliefs. This is a tentative statement, and subject to change, but as of this moment, this is what I believe: I believe that all life is sacred, that we should each do our best to make each life as free from pain and suffering as possible. I believe that this life is the only one we get, and so we should cherish it and enjoy it as much as possible without harming ourselves or others. I believe that the best possible relationship that one can have with another human being involves love, lust, and friendship in equal amounts. I believe that science is the best tool (set of tools, really) that we have for learning about the universe. And I believe there are no gods.

Now it's your turn, Andara, and anybody else who would like to join in.

[Andara Bledin]

But without knowing what your beliefs are, specifically, I'm in danger of assuming details (which might not be accurate) about your beliefs based on what little you've described on this forum.
If you want to know my beliefs you can ask. That way you would avoid making mistakes based on assumptions.

You can either examine your beliefs, find out where they're faulty, and correct them. Or you can voluntarily withdraw from debates about religion. Those are really your only two options, because no idea is above criticism. No concept is sacred.
No. There is a third option, and that is the one I've chosen. I will be more than happy to answer questions about what I believe. I just won't debate about it. That is one of the beauties of personal beliefs; the only person I need to convince is myself.

If I was trying to sway people to my way of thinking, then it would behoove me to provide some form of proof or backing or citation. As I'm not, I choose to refrain.

Now it's your turn, Andara, and anybody else who would like to join in.
The only significant difference in our beliefs is that I believe that there is more than just this life and this in life and that there are gods, including my own.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Like Andy, I have taken the third option. I will answer questions about my beliefs. But I will never be able to rationally prove them, as the only person who I need to prove my beliefs to is myself.

I will not withdraw from debates about religion, but I will not debate my religious beliefs. I do not make posts claiming to that my beliefs are the only way that life can be looked at. I will happily debate religion. I will answer any questions anyone has about my beliefs. Unless I don't want to, in which case I will say I'd rather not answer that question. And then I will not answer it.

I will not stand for my beliefs being mocked. But I will not stand for anyone else's being mocked either, as I also believe that religious beliefs are inextricable from the person who believes them.

[the_std]

If you want to know my beliefs you can ask. That way you would avoid making mistakes based on assumptions.

I have asked you several times to explain what you believe and why.

[/snip]

I don't want to discuss somebody else's beliefs with you. I want to discuss your beliefs. And my beliefs. I don't want to ask you to defend beliefs that you don't hold.

[/snip]

Now it's your turn, Andara, and anybody else who would like to join in.

I don't mean to sound snarky here, but it's pretty obvious that Ghel has asked you what you believe, multiple times. If you're unable to accurately explain your beliefs (which I believe is understandable, because not all that is inside of us has words that are equal to the feelings), then you can say so. But if you say that, then you can't get upset when people make assumptions about what you believe if you can't explain those beliefs.

[Hyena Dandy]

I would like to add, if there was any confusion, though.

My points in this thread have not been about what I believe. My thesis throughout this argument has been about proper behavior, not proper belief.

[KnitShoni]

I don't mean to sound snarky here, but it's pretty obvious that Ghel has asked you what you believe, multiple times. If you're unable to accurately explain your beliefs (which I believe is understandable, because not all that is inside of us has words that are equal to the feelings), then you can say so. But if you say that, then you can't get upset when people make assumptions about what you believe if you can't explain those beliefs.

I think her point was that she DID explain her beliefs, and got ridiculed for them, more than once.

[Ghel]

How can one hold beliefs that they don't think will stand up to scrutiny? Why would anyone hold beliefs that they think cannot be demonstrated to be true? I don't understand this. I strive to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. That is why I am not afraid to state my beliefs on a public forum. If I discover that something I believed is not true, I will change my beliefs. Willingly. Immediately.

It worries me that so few people hold this level of skepticism. I worry that people are being taken in by charlatans and frauds (not just religious ones) because they're willing to believe what they're told or what sounds comforting rather than investigating the claims. I'm going to add one more thing to my list of personal beliefs from my previous post: I believe that skepticism, properly applied, leads to atheism.

[the_std]

How can one hold beliefs that they don't think will stand up to scrutiny? Why would anyone hold beliefs that they think cannot be demonstrated to be true? I don't understand this.

I think this is the problem with you trying to understand other peoples' beliefs. Most religious beliefs are not demonstrably false. They're just not proven. And while that may not be as logical or rational as only living by tenants that hold up to your rather extreme use of skepticism, it's really just tough cookies for you.

I, like you, am an atheist. I have no belief in a higher power as that does not seem logical to me and I see no proof of one in my daily life. But I don't give a flying fig if other people do or do not believe because I do not have any real proof that my viewpoint is correct, just as a Christian does not. Neither do you. So while I support you trying to understand the other side on a forum, I really don't think that you ever, truly will. I think this argument is just going to go on in a circle, maybe you or others winning small points and side-arguments here and there, but you, your reality and your brain make-up will likely never be able to comprehend the appeal of a personal religious viewpoint.

[Andara Bledin]

I think this is the problem with you trying to understand other peoples' beliefs. Most religious beliefs are not demonstrably false. They're just not proven. And while that may not be as logical or rational as only living by tenants that hold up to your rather extreme use of skepticism, it's really just tough cookies for you.
Pretty much precisely what the_std said.

These are my beliefs, and as such, the only person that requires any convincing is me. That you don't believe them is just fine; they're not supposed to be for you.

I worry that people are being taken in by charlatans and frauds (not just religious ones) because they're willing to believe what they're told or what sounds comforting rather than investigating the claims.
See, this is where you go off the rails.

Sure, there are people who don't have enough skepticism to protect themselves from charlatans, but this is not something that happens only to theists. And it's not something that happens to all theists.

You don't seem to understand that in matters of religion, some people choose to suspend their skepticism for their own personal gain.

Honestly, the more you talk about what you believe the more I come to think that not only are you an extreme skeptic, but you are also very pessimistic about the world around you. I'm on the other end of the spectrum, which is yet another reason why I choose the path of believing despite a lack of evidence while you choose to actively disbelieve despite a lack of evidence against.

So while I support you trying to understand the other side on a forum, I really don't think that you ever, truly will. I think this argument is just going to go on in a circle, maybe you or others winning small points and side-arguments here and there, but you, your reality and your brain make-up will likely never be able to comprehend the appeal of a personal religious viewpoint because.
I made a comment amounting to this same thing back in the "miracle" thread. It was basically ignored in favor of attacking minutia.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

So, you're saying they based their fantasy on a hallucination. That doesn't make the fantasy any more true. I'll still grant that it's a Neat Idea(tm), but that's all.


I'm saying its logical to deduce that that's where it might have come from and thus find it interesting that enough people managed to have NDEs ( and not just...Ds ) that far back. Considering the lack of medical technology back then.

I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I'm saying "Hey, here's something interesting". Because it is interesting. Especially in the aspect that a book that old is not being specific to any one religion. Which makes it more a philosophical work.



You're right that stating your beliefs will open them up to criticism. That's as it should be. If you don't think your religious beliefs can withstand criticism, you (and all people) have two options. You can either examine your beliefs, find out where they're faulty, and correct them. Or you can voluntarily withdraw from debates about religion. Those are really your only two options, because no idea is above criticism. No concept is sacred.

Ehh...that's...what's the word I'm looking for....rather...rigid? Going to have to go with Andy and Hyena on this one. >.>




How can one hold beliefs that they don't think will stand up to scrutiny? Why would anyone hold beliefs that they think cannot be demonstrated to be true? I don't understand this.

The problem, is that you seem to rule out the realm of the "possible" along with everything else. There are many things that cannot yet be demonstrated to be true, in all aspects of civilization, yet we pursue them regardless. If we did not, we'd never figure out how to demonstrate they were true.




It worries me that so few people hold this level of skepticism. I worry that people are being taken in by charlatans and frauds (not just religious ones) because they're willing to believe what they're told or what sounds comforting rather than investigating the claims.

I don't think anyone present in this thread is a Blind Sheep(tm) like that with their beliefs. Everyone here seems to have amassed an amalgamation of beliefs based on their own reasoning and experience. You included.



I'm going to add one more thing to my list of personal beliefs from my previous post: I believe that skepticism, properly applied, leads to atheism.

I don't believe that to be the case honestly as I am quite skeptical myself ( thanks to several Sheep Tenders over the years ), however as you've included the qualifier "properly applied", this is firmly rooted in your own opinion. Thus I will not argue it.



I think this is the problem with you trying to understand other peoples' beliefs. <snip>

Yes, there we go. Thank you.



Now, as a show of goodwill, I will make a statement of my beliefs.

See, aside from the God point, I do not see how your beliefs are so incompadible with anything but the most rigid of religious fundementalists. I would say that the average theist would largely agree with you on many of those points with the exception of the God question.

I will likewise state my own, though like Andy, I am not stating them because I wish to fight over them. They work for me, and that is good enough for me:

I believe life is intended as an evolutionary learning experience, and we should strive to understand and experience as much as we can, in all aspects of it. And as such, I believe in reincarnation, because such understanding would never be completely possibly with only one short lifetime at one point in human history. As civilization and thus understanding in science and technology advances, we too must return to advance with it. I don't think one go around life as a caveman for instance, really counts for everything.

I believe in universal compassion for all life, and that we should keep it as free from pain and suffering as possible. I believe we have potential, maybe even purpose in some cases, but never a "divine" plan as that would negate free will. I believe we must strive to come to understanding and reason that gets us above our base impulses and emotions. Not in the sense that we should squash them and become Vulcans, but in the sense that we should never act upon them at the expense of reason. For that tends too, more often than not, lead to suffering.

I believe there is wisdom in the past, but wisdom in the future is the realm of science.

I do not believe in gods in any western sense of the word. I do believe there are beings higher than us. And in that position, thus have compassion for us for they would not be above us if they didn't. But I do not believe these beings have any more real power over creation than we do. They are there, and they watch over us when need be. But to interfere with us would defeat the whole point.

[Ghel]

Most religious beliefs, while not demonstrably false, are not demonstrably true, either. Thus, there is no reason any human being should believe them.

The point of this discussion was never "to win." But I've lost track of what the point was, except to encourage people to examine their own beliefs and see where they're lacking.

I apply skepticism to all things (that's what I mean by "properly applied"), and even more so for supernatural claims. There's no subject from which I withhold skepticism.

It's true that we pursue the possible, but we do so using science, not mysticism. We withhold judgment on a possibility until we have enough evidence to say that the possibility is truth. If that possibility is out of line with the rest of what we know to be true, then we can reasonably declare it to be false until such time as sufficient evidence is presented or discovered to move it into the realm of possibility. That still doesn't mean that anyone should believe something that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.

GK, I'm only going to make one nitpick about your statement of beliefs. I obviously don't believe in reincarnation, or any sort of higher beings, but this bit is demonstrably false: "...such understanding would never be completely possibly with only one short lifetime at one point in human history." Human understanding is not limited to what a single person can learn in a single lifetime. Humans share their knowledge, and that body of knowledge grows exponentially with each human being's addition of knowledge to it. One human's death does not take away any of that amassed knowledge, as long as it is shared. As technology advances, the rate at which information can be shared increases, undermining what seems to be your basis for your belief in reincarnation.

[Gravekeeper]

GK, I'm only going to make one nitpick about your statement of beliefs. I obviously don't believe in reincarnation, or any sort of higher beings, but this bit is demonstrably false: "...such understanding would never be completely possibly with only one short lifetime at one point in human history."

Yes, you are nitpicking because I mean individual knowledge and experience. The very experience of being human. I don't mean solely academic knowledge. If you lived one good life with a silver spoon in your mouth, how would you ever know the experience of living a poor life? If you lived an evil life, how would you know what it was to live a good one? Or visa versa? You're not going to get the complete human experience, in all its complexities, in one go. Nor are you going to obtain the wealth of human knowledge in one go either now that you mention it. Technology may increase our capacity to transfer information but it has yet to truly increase our speed of learning it ( So that'll have to wait till we can just plug textbooks into our head I guess? ;p ). Nor are you going to have lived and interacted with other living beings enough to achieve a universal understanding and compassion in one go. That much is screamingly evident by the state of the world.

So no, you're not undermining anything about my beliefs.

[Andara Bledin]

The point of this discussion was never "to win." But I've lost track of what the point was, except to encourage people to examine their own beliefs and see where they're lacking.
No, actually, that's not the point of the OP at all.

The point of the OP was for us to stop being so judgmental of the other side.

That still doesn't mean that anyone should believe something that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.
Which is the other side of not disbelieving something that hasn't been demonstrated to be untrue.

And, yes, you can not disbelieve something without actively believing it. You can withhold judgment entirely awaiting further information.

Human understanding is not limited to what a single person can learn in a single lifetime. Humans share their knowledge, and that body of knowledge grows exponentially with each human being's addition of knowledge to it.
He's talking about individual knowledge. Knowledge gained through experience. Because book-learning, while all well and good and a good place to start, really means jack shit compared to experience.

As an example, take relationships. Have you ever known anyone who was told that the person they were seeing was bad for them that ever stopped seeing that person without first learning for themselves that the person was bad?

Hell, if you really want to be skeptical, you shouldn't trust any research that hasn't been tested by you, yourself. Most personal experience cannot be tested.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

Don't tell me; you think that the whole world is based on set logic and absolutes, yes?

No, my objective reality is based in facts and figures. My subjective reality I keep to myself.

Also Gravekeeper is awesome. Arguing over semantics is pointless.

I must disagree. Semantics are the most important thing to discuss.
Why? Look at the definition of semantics itself: semantics is the study of meaning. How we define things and what the meaning of things are defines our reality.

Semantics is primarily important to me because of the work I do. You cannot program a computer without being sure of the semantics of the code, or the program will not work. You cannot have laws or do anything legal without being sure of your semantics, or consequences you did not intend will occur (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-09-25-Left-kids_N.htm). When we say semantics is pointless, we say meaning is pointless.

What on earth are these theists recovering from?

Supposedly, all people who have ever had faith in a religion are all either mentally brain-damaged and/or only have faith under threat of punishment or durance vile. At least, that is how other militant atheists have explained it to me. Regular atheists of my acquaintance just roll their eyes at the term.

Statement of belief? What? "There's probably no God"? "There is no afterlife"? That's what you think people should be so upset about? Why?

Actually, I've always preferred the Lovecraft explanation. Since there is no afterlife, deity, or what have you, then that means that all I have is my allotted span on the Earth. After I die, I can guarantee that no one will remember me in 100 years, that any works I've created will be obliterated within 300-1500 years, and that anything I do will have Absolutely No Impact on the universe, especially as I am less than an eyeblink in the timescale.

Which means that my life has no meaning. At all.

Now, since the absolute basic underpinning of my personality and mind is "Everything Happens For A Reason.", can you imagine the absolute chaos that would descend if I embraced atheism? For instance, why would it matter that I love my wife? There's no point, as there is no Meaning to it.

And you might respond "It has meaning to her!" But to me, that would be irrelevant, because I'm not looking for personal meaning. I'm looking for Universal Meaning. Since atheism cannot provide me with a Universal Meaning for my basic existence or any actions I take, it is not viable for me. (Notice those two words there: FOR ME.)

It becomes a bad thing especially when we move on to the next core of my personality: That Which Has No Meaning MUST Be Destroyed.

The point of practically every religion is to attract as many followers as possible. To fill the pews. To fill the collection plates. To breed more followers. To prepare the followers for an afterlife that they can't demonstrate exists.

That's not the point of: Buddhism, Zen, Shintoism, Confucianism, Taoism, or heck, the majority of Eastern religions. Or tribal religions. Or really, any religion outside of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition.

That working model is based on observation (which isn't just what's "seen"), evidence, and experimentation. If a scientific theory doesn't make accurate predictions, it is revised or discarded. How often do you see that in religion?

You don't, because religion is not predicated on the scientific method, but instead on faith. I have never known any religion outside of certain variants of Protestant Christianity to claim otherwise. And as I am a Catholic and you are a recovering Catholic, you should be well aware that the Roman Catholic Church has never claimed that either.

Scientific method and faith are completely incompatible. Something based on one cannot be reconciled with the other. Jesuits have been pointing that out for a few centuries now.

You're certainly entitled to that point of view. But here in the US, we have this thing commonly called "separation of church and state." In this case, it means that it would be unconstitutional to make a law prohibiting advertising based solely on its religious content. And that's something I agree with.

Nitpicking, but actually, we don't have 'separation of church and state'. We do have the the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment, which prevents government from making a law respecting the establishment of religion or interfering with the practice thereof.

'Separation of church and state' is a phrase that was coined by Thomas Jefferson, but it is not included in any official documentation. Nevertheless, SCOTUS has stated that Jefferson's comments may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the 1st Amendment. However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as meaning absolute separation of government from all things religious.

This is especially put forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, where SCOTUS said: "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable. Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship." Thus, the establishment of the Lemon Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_Test#Lemon_test) to determine if something crosses the line.

Buddhism does not demand blind faith, quite the opposite actually. To quote Buddha himself: Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor upon tradition, nor upon rumor, nor upon what is in a scripture, nor upon surmise, nor upon an axiom, nor upon specious reasoning, nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over, nor upon another's seeming ability, nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher.".

One should never believe anything without personal inquiry and your own verification. In fact he specifically warns against taking your own opinions, scriptures, news or the opinions of teachers or authority figures at face value without doing your own inquiries to verify they are correct.

*nods*
If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

I'd have thought the anthro alicorn avatar would be something of a giveaway. ;)


Begone, furry! Before we unleash the FURSECUTION upon you!
...
*snerk* ;) Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm a member of too many snark comms and you know how ready-made for wankery the furry community can get.

Never? Do you think your actions and words have never had an influence on anyone? We each can have an effect on the world in so many different ways: raise a child, write a book, write or record some music, save a life, help out a friend, etc.

Ah, but will these things matter when the sun goes out? Will they be important or have any meaning 5000 years from now? What difference do these things make to the universe at large?

That's the only type of meaning I'm interested in.

See, here's another place where we differ. I totally expect to be laughed at if I say something stupid, silly, or ridiculous.

I see we have totally different senses of humor.

I would say it has more to do with etiquette than sense of humor. I enjoy the comedians you mention, but I would not find their humor appropriate to the dinner table, for instance.

First of all, I don't like to use the verb "prove" in these situations. It is very easy, I would hope, to demonstrate that you love your fiance. All you should have to do is be near your fiance, and the way you and your fiance behave towards each other should be enough to demonstrate to anybody around you that you love each other.

Which to me is not demonstration enough, as love is subjective and everyone has different definitions of love. Thus the problem with 'demonstrate'. It's why I prefer 'prove'.

For instance, I love my wife. I will do anything to prove that I love my wife. If she commanded me to steal for her, I would. If she commanded me to murder someone for her, I would. If she commanded me to kill myself, the knife would be at my throat. If she commanded me to commit genocide, I would annihilate by the millions.

The point being, my love is deeper than the ocean, higher than sky, vaster than the universe, and more persistent than the burning of a thousand fiery suns. That causes me to find your requirements for demonstration to be very shallow.

Thus, prove. Preferably with an objective and qualitative standard.

Every time I try to steer this discussion towards logic, reason, and evidence, I am told that I lack respect or humility. Instead of all these ad hominem responses, I would like to see people actually addressing my arguments. But nobody has said "those examples you gave of ridiculous beliefs aren't ridiculous, and here's why" or "there is evidence for a god, and here's a link to a peer-reviewed article that demonstrates it" or "here's a method of gaining knowledge that works just as well as science (if not better)".

You want people to provide scientific proofs for something that cannot be proven by scientific method, as it relies completely on faith. As I said before, the two are primarily incompatible.


Here's what I think the relevant questions are: Is there a reason to oppose abortion that isn't religious-based? Is there a reason to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't religious-based?

If we're doing thought experiments, yes, I can come up with reasons for those.

Is there a reason to oppose abortion that isn't religious-based? Yes. The state requires a military. What better than to have your own Janissary Corps? Abortions are forbidden so that the pregnant will have the children, who will be automatically collected by the state as property of the state. Said children will be raised to be indoctrinated to obey the state and be the perfect soldier, becoming a soldier at age 18.

Is there a reason to oppose same-sex marriage that isn't religious-based? Certainly. Same-sex marriage does not allow for production of offspring on a cheap basis (ie, not using in vitro, cloning, etc). Therefore, it is prohibited by the state as we need more and more citizens for the factories, farms, and military, preferably with each marriage contributing at least 3 children.

[Note: I'm being asked to come up with a reason. I wasn't asked to come up with good reasons. ;)]

Now, as a show of goodwill, I will make a statement of my beliefs. This is a tentative statement, and subject to change, but as of this moment, this is what I believe: I believe that all life is sacred, that we should each do our best to make each life as free from pain and suffering as possible. I believe that this life is the only one we get, and so we should cherish it and enjoy it as much as possible without harming ourselves or others. I believe that the best possible relationship that one can have with another human being involves love, lust, and friendship in equal amounts. I believe that science is the best tool (set of tools, really) that we have for learning about the universe. And I believe there are no gods.

To which I must dissect:
1) Why is all life sacred?
2) Why must we be free from pain and suffering?
3) Why must our enjoyment come without harming ourselves and others? What if one's enjoyment is caused by harming ourselves and/or others? Is that person just out of luck?
4) Why is what you describe as the best possible relationship the best possible relationship?

The key word in all of this is why. What you believe is interesting, but mostly irrelevant. WHY you believe something is far more important. As you state your beliefs can be demonstrated, I am sure you will have no issue with the why questions.

[Gravekeeper]

No, my objective reality is based in facts and figures. My subjective reality I keep to myself.

I must admit your subjective reality is occasionally dark, but certainly entertaining.



I must disagree. Semantics are the most important thing to discuss.

Meaning is important, but squabbling over the definition of a single term rather than discussing the point at hand is unproductive.


Semantics is primarily important to me because of the work I do. You cannot program a computer without being sure of the semantics of the code, or the program will not work.

This sounds more like a job for syntax.



Actually, I've always preferred the Lovecraft explanation.

To understand the true nature of the universe is to know madness?



That's not the point of: Buddhism, Zen, Shintoism, Confucianism, Taoism, or heck, the majority of Eastern religions. Or tribal religions. Or really, any religion outside of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition.

Precisely.


You don't, because religion is not predicated on the scientific method, but instead on faith. I have never known any religion outside of certain variants of Protestant Christianity to claim otherwise.

Buddhism. >.> Buddhism effectively has its own "scientific method", dhamma vicaya. The impartial investigation of the physical world, nature and one's own self. Hence Buddha likes him some science. The Dalai Llama loves science. Quite a few studies have been done on Buddhist monks and meditation ( Stuffing them into MRI machines and what not. For fun and profit. ). And Buddhism will accept anything science proves, just as it accepts anything any other religion or philosophy can prove. Basically if you have a better idea, we'll listen.

Did you know even a couple months of meditation changes the structure of your brain? -.-





If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

That would so not be good karma. Though possibly you might gain his power via the Quickening.




Ah, but will these things matter when the sun goes out? Will they be important or have any meaning 5000 years from now? What difference do these things make to the universe at large?

Technically, the sun will devour us when it enters its red giant stage before it ever actually goes out. So we'll be slowly burned to a crisp first before our entire planet falls into the sun. ( Science! ).

<zen>The only meaning we can hope to have in the long run is to have motivated humanity to continue to search for meaning</zen>

Unless the sun eats us. Then oh well, good game everyone. We learned a few things. Shame about falling into the sun though.




Note: I'm being asked to come up with a reason. I wasn't asked to come up with good reasons. ;)]

But entertaining. >.>

[Ghel]

Which means that my life has no meaning. At all.

That Which Has No Meaning MUST Be Destroyed.
Please seek professional help.

I'm looking for Universal Meaning.
I don't see a Universal Meaning, either. Therefore, our lives have the meaning we give them. It doesn't matter whether our words and actions will be remembered 5000 years from now. What matters is that our words and actions have a real effect on those around us right now.

That's not the point of: Buddhism, Zen, Shintoism, Confucianism, Taoism, or heck, the majority of Eastern religions. Or tribal religions. Or really, any religion outside of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition.
Any religion that has a temple or other meeting place needs to collect donations in order to keep it up and running. Any religion that doesn't encourage its followers to either breed or recruit more followers isn't going to last long. And no religion that includes any sort of afterlife has been able to demonstrate (or prove, if you prefer) that the afterlife exists, otherwise it would be fact, not belief.

I would say it has more to do with etiquette than sense of humor. I enjoy the comedians you mention, but I would not find their humor appropriate to the dinner table, for instance.
Depending on who is sitting around the dinner table, I agree. One important aspect of humor is to know your audience.

You want people to provide scientific proofs for something that cannot be proven by scientific method, as it relies completely on faith. As I said before, the two are primarily incompatible.
If a god exists, its existence should be able to be proven by science.

What you believe is interesting, but mostly irrelevant. WHY you believe something is far more important. As you state your beliefs can be demonstrated, I am sure you will have no issue with the why questions.
I never said anyone's beliefs could be demonstrated. I said that claims (such as the existence of something) should be demonstrated to be true before anyone accepts them as true.

My statement of belief is mine. Whether anybody else shares those beliefs depends on what their core values are. The philosophy and values that led to my statement of belief are outside the scope of this thread.

[Gravekeeper]

Any religion that has a temple or other meeting place needs to collect donations in order to keep it up and running. Any religion that doesn't encourage its followers to either breed or recruit more followers isn't going to last long.


Depends, you could view donations as a payment for service. Its when you move out into religious taxes or tithes that things would get questionable. In eastern religions for example, donations to a temple were often simply food stuffs for the monks. While in some places, Shaolin monks for example, they most certainly provided a service. >.>

Also, you can clearly see in the current distribution of world religions exactly how missionary work played out. Eastern religions are rarely "spread the word" in their philosophies. While the Judeo Christian religions were all about amassing as large a flock as possible. As a result, they're the most wide spread. While eastern religions mostly stayed localized to their own cultures. You don't need to recruit followers, only be passed down through generations in a region.

[Talon]

Supposedly, all people who have ever had faith in a religion are all either mentally brain-damaged and/or only have faith under threat of punishment or durance vile. At least, that is how other militant atheists have explained it to me. Regular atheists of my acquaintance just roll their eyes at the term.

No not all ex-theists, but there is a trend.

As I've posted in another related thread, over at Richard Dawkins' website there's a section Convert's Corner (http://richarddawkins.net/letters/converts), with 30+ pages of testimonials from ex-theists. I've read almost all of them, though this was several months ago.

Some of them are recovering from indoctrination, from artificial fear and guilt imposed by their former religion. So the term "recovering theist" is not without merit.

[Andara Bledin]

Religion didn't do this to them: People did this to them. Including themselves.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

People, you say? Suppose we allow that it is people who have indoctrinated others into religion, rather than the institutions of religion, does that make the "deconversion" tales invalid? The distinction that people act, rather than religions, seems irrelevant.

[Andara Bledin]

Not at all. But it is more truthful, and better for those affected, to lay the responsibility at the feet of those actually responsible and stop pinning things on convenient scapegoats.

^-.-^