Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on May 11, 2006, 10:02:10 AM
-
Stumbled across an image today that I thought I'd share, as a counterpoint to the oft repeated claims here that christianity is the core of our government.
(http://godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Jefferson.jpg)
Here's one for Lazs, who (if I recall correctly) kept claiming that atheism was a religion:
If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease.
- Clark Adams
-
Food for thought. The general opinion potrayed by the news, and spoken by very many people (including many on this board), is that the US is in a downward spiral of morality. At the same time, there is currently a higher percentage of Christians in the US than any time in history.
Absolute Morality leads to Absolute Intolerance.
Hooray for Provisional Morality & Provisional Libertarianism :)
-
Great for when there is a head wind Chair. :)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1147361854_tm.jpg)
-
Originally posted by indy007
...there is currently a higher percentage of Christians in the US than any time in history.
The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2001 shows the opposite (1990 - 88.3%, 2001 - 79.8%). Where is your information coming from?
-
Originally posted by indy007
Food for thought. The general opinion potrayed by the news, and spoken by very many people (including many on this board), is that the US is in a downward spiral of morality. At the same time, there is currently a higher percentage of Christians in the US than any time in history.
Absolute Morality leads to Absolute Intolerance.
Hooray for Provisional Morality & Provisional Libertarianism :)
Christianity - Don't hack it till you try it. It has a bad rap but that doesn't come from the teachings of the bible. The Bible was just a political document in my mind until I stopped talking about something I hadn't read yet. So I read it and now it makes sense.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2001 shows the opposite (1990 - 88.3%, 2001 - 79.8%). Where is your information coming from?
The Science of Good and Evil, by Michael Shermer. Go back further on the survey to when the country was founded and compare the %'s then. There's quite a bit more disparity than you'd think. People have been saying the country has been spiralling out of control since shortly after it became a country.
Either way, the cartoon was right, the framers of the Constitution were heavily influenced by secular Enlightenment philosophers, who's writings laid the groundwork for a secular ethical and political system. Regardless of which religion (or even no religion) one believes in, certain moral principles hold. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's primitive and flawed (open to abuse, etc), but it's still the best thing we have. This is in exact opposition to many religious beliefs (no gay marriage, etc).
The quote at the end of Chairboy's post can also be picked apart. Atheism can easily lead to Absolutism. You see this when people are so quick to jump and and bash religions and ideas they don't believe in. At that point, whether the source of the ethical behavior comes from God, the Koran, the state, nature, ideology, or philosophy... it doesn't matter, because the end result is the same. They become the final arbiters of truth, creating Good & Evil, Right & Wrong, Faithful & Apostate.
"Don't be silly, Ninety-Nine. We have to shoot, kill, and destroy. We represent everything that's wholesome and good in the world." -Agent Eighty Six, Get Smart
-
Originally posted by mosgood
Christianity - Don't hack it till you try it. It has a bad rap but that doesn't come from the teachings of the bible. The Bible was just a political document in my mind until I stopped talking about something I hadn't read yet. So I read it and now it makes sense.
I was baptised Roman Catholic many moons ago. Baptism, First Confession, Confirmation, was an Altar Boy (save the molestation jokes, I've heard them all, and my spincter has never been violated), grew up going to a private, Catholic school (6 hours of Religion class weekly for 8 years). Read the bible once or twice :)
edit: Ironic memory that just dredged up while re-reading this post... one time the Bishop was saying mass at our church, and we had 5 altar boys instead of 2 or 3. I had to hold his pointy hat & beanie and bring it out at various times... I accidently blew a booger on it and had to rub it in real quick so you couldn't see the spot... never mentioned that to anybody but my current g/f 12 or 13 year after it happend. :lol Pretty glad nobody noticed at the time.
I'm not knocking Christianity at all. Simply put, I can be good and moral without God or the threat of divine, fiery retribution, or the promises of enternal paradise. I think religion is even helpful for many people. It gets them on the right track and can help improve some behavior (sometimes immoral, as opposed to constantly immoral). However, I think it's folly to assume religion has the final say in what is right & wrong.
-
Just a related little issue that has been "bothering" me:
As someone who values pragmatic and realistic reasoning (self-acclaimed) I find the thought of religious people in places of authority or within my organization somewhat disturbing.
How the hell can I hire, consult, employ, work with or depend on someone who makes important decisions and builds his frame of reference on something that never has been proven, indicated or even remotely been hinted at by some tangible events or items or the like?
If an individual says that there is a deity because he believes so, how can I be assured that he will base his decision to accept an offer, participate in a project or bid on a job on real-world considerations, not some hunch or irrational belief?
I know I've formulated it without nuance but in general this is at least an interesting consideration...
-
Originally posted by indy007
I was baptised Roman Catholic many moons ago. Baptism, First Confession, Confirmation, was an Altar Boy (save the molestation jokes, I've heard them all, and my spincter has never been violated), grew up going to a private, Catholic school (6 hours of Religion class weekly for 8 years). Read the bible once or twice :)
edit: Ironic memory that just dredged up while re-reading this post... one time the Bishop was saying mass at our church, and we had 5 altar boys instead of 2 or 3. I had to hold his pointy hat & beanie and bring it out at various times... I accidently blew a booger on it and had to rub it in real quick so you couldn't see the spot... never mentioned that to anybody but my current g/f 12 or 13 year after it happend. :lol Pretty glad nobody noticed at the time.
I'm not knocking Christianity at all. Simply put, I can be good and moral without God or the threat of divine, fiery retribution, or the promises of enternal paradise. I think religion is even helpful for many people. It gets them on the right track and can help improve some behavior (sometimes immoral, as opposed to constantly immoral). However, I think it's folly to assume religion has the final say in what is right & wrong.
Ya, after I re-read my post I realized you really hadn't. Sorry for trying to put words in your mouth.
Funny story
-
I guess it's time to peel off my What Would Jesus Do poster off my cubicle.:noid
-
Those studies claiming that 75%+ of americans are religious get those absurdly high results because people like me who haven't gone to church in many years still mark the box for "Catholic" (or whatever demonination).
In practice, I believe that well under half of the population is functionally religious.
J_A_B
-
Great thread so far, thanks guys! (Well, no thanks to Jackal1, the only troll I've seen here today).
I was originally going to post that quote and cartoon to the 'Atheists least trusted' thread, but that's been dead for a month.
Last year, my wife told her grandmother that she was atheist (when asked about something having to do with church plans for the kids). Her grandmother was completely shocked and thought my wife was trying to fool her. After talking, it became clear that her grandma had been taught that atheists were no different from satanists (the irony was lost on her). We've talked with friends, and it seems like that's not an uncommon assumption, that atheism is inherently evil.
Jackal1's posturing aside, I know that this is a solid group with a wide variety of backgrounds, including plenty of folks with religious backgrounds that I'd never have a chance to talk to in person.
Back to business, does anyone disagree with the Jeffersonian quotes in the first post? It seems to be more evidence that our founding fathers did not envision the christian paradise that some of my compatriots suggest.
-
John Adams:
# The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.
-
If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease.
The one I like is "saying that atheism is a religion is like saying that bald is a hair colour".
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Back to business, does anyone disagree with the Jeffersonian quotes in the first post? It seems to be more evidence that our founding fathers did not envision the christian paradise that some of my compatriots suggest.
"Faith in God is important to me. Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?" -anonymous reporter
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -George Bush, Sr., O'Hare Airport, 1988 presidential campaign.
ahh, here's a good one... according to a 1997 survey conducted by the University of Ohio, it showed intolerance among Christian activists is relatively high, especially when it comes to the perceived moral delcine of America. 99% agreed that "moral decay is the cause of America's problems." 33% of those that responded listed the ACLU as the most dangerous group in America. Gay rights groups came a close second. 80% stated that members of the ACLU and gay rights groups "should not be allowed to: make a public speech, run for public office, demonstrate in public, or operate legally." 44% declared that such dangerous people "should not be allowed to teach in public schools." 52% agreed with the statement: "Christians should take dominion over all aspects of society." No less than 91% believe that "God works through politics and election returns," and 89% think that ""the U.S. has prospered when it obeyed God", and that "Clergy and churches should be involved in politics." 75% agreed that, "if enough people were brought to Christ, social ills would take care of themselves."
Now, I don't put all my faith into that study. That would be ridiculous. I could easily pad such a study by simply picking people who had jesus fish emblems on their trunk (or better, the fish eating the darwin fish), on the logic that people who go to lengths to show their beliefs are more likely to have extremist stances. Ever had your car keyed 2 days after putting a darwin sticker on the trunk? Thankfully it was a crappy car, and a bottle of touch up paint later (and a new darwin sticker) and I was good to go.
-
Arguing magic is a waste of calories.
-
There is no way this country is more religious today than in the past. If anything it's the opposite. That's why I don't fear the right wing bible thumpers at all, they're definately in the minority no matter what some wacko secular leftist might try to convice you of.
-
consider reading william bradford's "of plymouth plantation" and any other writings that predate 1700.
jefferson's diesm was certainly in vogue at the time.
hap
-
Anyone know what religious beliefs of all the founding fathers? I would think that THAT would have a big influence on what they ment.
-
Ya know. Religion, or the expresison thereof, is just another opinion. Everyone builds their way of life around opinions. I see religion as just another unsubstantiated opinion. You are free to have to have your own opinions.
I really do not know where society took the wrong turn. Once we started putting labels on ideas, we became bigots. For me, there is no difference between hating someone for thier skin color, or hating them for thier ideas.
The promotion of labeling everyone is saddening. It simply means we are driven or compelled to insure division amongst ourselves. This allows petty people to take control as we cannot, nor ever will, be able to find a common ground to bring us together.
It will be the undoing of mankind.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2001 shows the opposite (1990 - 88.3%, 2001 - 79.8%). Where is your information coming from?
Ahh, found it! All-in-wonder tractor-feed/flatbed scanner/fax/copiers rock :)
(http://www.trdparts.com/AH/IMAGE1.JPG)
-
Jefferson believed as I believe so far as I can tell
"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Virginia Baptists, 1808. ME 16:320
"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416
"Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291
"In our early struggles for liberty, religious freedom could not fail to become a primary object." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists, 1808. ME 16:317
"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
"The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and... if any act shall be... passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right." --Thomas Jefferson:
I think that he felt that everyone was entitled to believe as he wished and that the "establishment of religion" as it applied to the government meant that no one religion would recieve any special treatment under or be sponsored soley by government.
I am not a Christian. I have nothing against Christians per se... until they gain power over me and try to remove my rights.
Having said that... I find chairboy and others insistence that they are "athiests" to be pretty funny... It seems like a play for attention... a play to look "hip"... silly really.
Why not just say "I don't know" and be done with it if you have doubts? certainly.... you have no proof nor.... does it really affect you one way or the other....
To have to go out of your way to claim and repeatedly proclaim in every available forum (here... to grandma etc.) that "I AM AN ATHIEST" to shock and to garner attention... this smacks of religion to me...your athiesm is a religion.
When people tell me they have seen ghosts or aliens... I let em slide... Hell.... I don't know if those things exist.... I certainly am not gonna make a fool of myself and say that tjhey don't.... truth is... I don't know. I don't care if it is hip or whatever to make fun of em... it makes no sense to.
Truth is....you don't know either chairboy so quit making a fool of yourself. You and others seem to delight in attacking religious people... this makes you guys seem like the zealots you are condeming.
But...I will be glad to banter Jefferson with you tho. He is a very interesting and complex man who lived long enough and was smart enough to evolve and even change some of his thinking while maintaining a certain core human rights stance.
lazs
-
Jefferson also said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. " Does that mean we need to have a war or assassination now and then to stay free?
My point being that the Founding Fathers were just people, with opinions and ideas as divergent as people have today.
Jefferson was an intellectual, who owned slaves despite seeing the conflict with his humanitarianism. He (and the other Virginian founding fathers) were landed aristocrats in a highly stratified local society.
Adams was a self made, practically educated driven man with a puritan background and mindset. He felt awful about his never ending ambition, but not awful enough to give it up.
Both were founders -- and neither were anything more than individuals who reflected their subcultures.
Immigrants during america's first centuries WERE a unique bunch, self selected out of their birth cultures for drive, and willingness to work to make life changes. And, a very high proportion of religiously motivated people. I remember reading in ?simon Schama's Story of Britain that while abstainers from the mandatory Church of England amounted to only ~5% or less in Britain, they were ~40% or more in the English colonies. (NUmbers off the top of my head....)
So america IS unique, in that her citizens have been selected in a statistically skewed manner for both initiative and religious commitment. its no surprise that those trends continue, if we acknowledge that some personality features are genetic, and religious beliefs are likely to be passed on generationally within the family.
-
Indy, dont forget "Liars, Dam liars, and Statisticians"!!
Your data uses church membership as a proxy for religious commitment, without accounting for nonmember believers. Has the fraction church members/all believers been constant at all points in the history of religious culture? I'd bet not.
Also, "early America" is not usually held to have started in the 1870's -- why was that date picked?
Was it because the Third Great Awakening (Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Great_Awakening)) started in 1880, guaranteeing an upward curve in religiousity?
Was the presenter's thesis harder to support from data in the 1600's and 1700's? Makes conclusions very hard to draw from data presented.
Made all the harder by the tendency of fanatics on both sides to tout the info that supports their beliefs, even if they have to tweak the numbers, or pick the variables, to show what they want to be true.
-
Actually iirc, the quote was "There are lies, damn lies, and church statistics.” It's that way according to The Great Quotations. Kinda strange though that it's attributed to Disraeli, but doesn't appear in any of his writings.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
But both you and I know that you'll never read the Declaration, nor actually understand what he was talking about.
I have and do.
hap
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Jefferson also said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. " Does that mean we need to have a war or assassination now and then to stay free?
Yes. Next question?
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Ya know. Religion, or the expresison thereof, is just another opinion. Everyone builds their way of life around opinions. I see religion as just another unsubstantiated opinion. You are free to have to have your own opinions.
I really do not know where society took the wrong turn. Once we started putting labels on ideas, we became bigots. For me, there is no difference between hating someone for thier skin color, or hating them for thier ideas.
The promotion of labeling everyone is saddening. It simply means we are driven or compelled to insure division amongst ourselves. This allows petty people to take control as we cannot, nor ever will, be able to find a common ground to bring us together.
It will be the undoing of mankind.
u anti-labelists are ruining america!!!!!!!1
-
Specifically, the last paragraph I think more than confirms the belief that God is and was a founding principle over the United States and they cite it:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence , we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
There is more to it, but that paragraph alone, the conclusion, sums up the entire Declaration.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
For me, there is no difference between hating someone for thier skin color, or hating them for thier ideas.
What if their idea is to hate you for your skin color?
:cool:
-
Originally posted by indy007
75% agreed that, "if enough people were brought to Christ, social ills would take care of themselves."
Now, I don't put all my faith into that study. That would be ridiculous. I could easily pad such a study by simply picking people who had jesus fish emblems on their trunk (or better, the fish eating the darwin fish), on the logic that people who go to lengths to show their beliefs are more likely to have extremist stances. Ever had your car keyed 2 days after putting a darwin sticker on the trunk? Thankfully it was a crappy car, and a bottle of touch up paint later (and a new darwin sticker) and I was good to go.
Oddly enough, I think that if enough people were brought to Christ (for real, not the Sunday Christians that permeate our society) our "social ills" WOULD take care of themselves.
A lot of what is wrong with our society (on a social ills level, I'm not going to say that "entitlement thinking is destroying our nation, because I think thats horse****) comes from a basic detachment from what is moral, and good.
Single parent homes, as a result of having kids out of wedlock, and as a result of divorce. While I'm not psychologist, I don't see how either can be healthy for a kid. And a fluffied up kid will grow up to be an fluffied up adult. This is because we (as a society) see nothing wrong with (irresponsible) premarital sex, OR divorce. I'm not condemning people for either, but there really is no societal judgement for immoral behavior.
Discipline. As a society, we are sadly lacking. I personally lack discipline, but at least I know.. and if I wanted to I could fix it. Any decent religion will count discipline amoung its most basic virtues.
Anyway, thats enough diatribe I suppose.
I don't personally believe... I'm not a religious person. I don't know if that'll change, but up till now in my life I've always been kind of a "show me" person. But I do think that the guidelines set forth for moral behavior are a good thing, and they mostly come from organized religion.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
See Rule #4
This is comedy gold.
Exactly who's freedom were we fighting for in the Mexican War? The Civil War, maybe 1/2 of us were fighting for freedom.. WW1.. freedom to ... uh... Take an Ocean Liner?
"Black and white I defined these terms
Quite clear, no doubt somehow,
Ah but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now"
-
Talk about polar opposites. I think organized religion is one of the bigger problems our society faces. The basic idea behind it may be a sound one, but the implementation lacks a lot to be desired.
The Bible is a dang good book of philosophy. Lots of good stuff there for sure. But to take it and use it to lead people around like so much cattle? I see no benefit from that.
However, there are people who do need 'organized' religion. Or organized anything. Nothing wrong with that, per se. But as a panacea for curing social ills it lacks a lot to be desired for many.
Then there are those who participate in orgranized religion, who are nothing more than hypocrites. They do one thing with one crowd, then act entirely different with another crowd. Always rationalizing thier behavior. I really do not know how people can live like that. Thankfully, possibly hopefully, they are few, but I think I am being wishful.
When you really get do to it, we are so busy laying off blame we have no idea what the heart of the problems we have really are. Until you get to the core, everything else is superflous and a waste of time.
-
religion is evil plain and simple
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Specifically, the last paragraph I think more than confirms the belief that God is and was a founding principle over the United States and they cite it:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence , we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
There is more to it, but that paragraph alone, the conclusion, sums up the entire Declaration.
Horsepucky.
Every single instance and refrence to the 'divine' is nothing more (or less) than a nod in the general direction of religionists among the colonists.. a fair piece of the original colonists being essentially religious cults of one stripe or another that migrated here to get out from under the 'state church' of England. The refrence is merely Politics.
Taking the next step in the direction of common sense, please point out a war.. any war.. where one side or the other (and usually both) didn't claim 'divine support' for their cause to either motivate or mollify religionists.
Lastly, the very definte ..do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.. without any nod in any other direction than directly towards THE PEOPLE sums up the 'entire declaration'.
This religionst revisionism and pandering to obfuscate and disguise an agenda towards intolerance for people that are exercising the rights guaranteed by the same document you are attemptingt to subvert to your religionist agenda is utterly disgusting, Bodhi. It's just religious hate rehtoric, thinly vieled.. and deserving of the same quick crushing stomp of the boot that islamic intolerance should receive.
If this nation is to survive, it will be under the Banner of Humanism and not under the Banner of a God.. ANY God. The moment we allow our Military to wear the mantle of 'An Army of God', we will have become the very enemy we seek to destroy.
-
Good Topid Chairboy,
Icemaws ignorance aside, I'm glad you brought up the Adam's quote because I have one of my own from him that I allways liked
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
While I'm not a strong advocate that the constitution is a wholey "christian" I do beleive it was written specifically for a moral and religious people and based on those judeo christian values. Not so much in as "Thou shall have no other gods besides Me..." but more or less that it's wrong to murder or lie. In other words an imoral people would abuse said rights granted to them thus negating the reason entirly to have a constitution.
I think the likes of Sean Hanity can be extreme and colorfull at times but wholey justified in others. I do beleive that there are people in this country that specifically forget the whole "free exercise there of" part and jump strait to "seperation of church and state" removing all public aspects of religion for some un-explainable "offensivness". When people find a cross offensive and not a peta billboard showing an animal with it's guts turned inside out I have to wonder where their motivation comes from and how "tolerant" they really are.
Just my thoughts.
-
Yeah... well said, Hang.
-
The American Civil Liberties Union is no more or less in charge of our destiny as a nation than God is.
What ticks me off real quick is 'holier than thou' rehtoric hooked to Government policy. And,, I don't give a rats behind who shouts that crap; wether it's the pope or a president.. crap is still crap; no matter what it's wrapped in.
This country is supposed to operate under the Rule of Constitional Law... not the Rule of the Church.
There is NO PLACE in American Policy, Foriegn or Domestic for Religion. ANY religion. Neither the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence is a Religious Decree.. and expousals to the contrary are utterly disingenous.
It is absolutely CORRECT to slap down attempts by religious groups to hijack the legal system or government policy for their own ends.. and I agree most wholeheartedly that to allow Religion... ANY religion access to the power of Government is WRONG.
WHY, oh WHY cannot churches and religionists practice their beliefs WITHOUT attempting to cram the stuff down the throats of citizens that have no desire for the taste of the stuff?
Vis a Vis.. I wholeheartedly support the notion that any religious group is free to practice it's faith as they see fit.. as long as they don't attempt to legislate their dogma into law.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yeah... well said, Hang.
Not really. I'm having a hard time getting across just how close to the dangerous edge we tread as a nation.. and the more I hear the term 'christian nation' tied to 'United States of America' the more convincied I become that we have failed as a people to keep the promise of a Free Nation.
But, thanks for the sentiment.
-
Granted, it is a very hard thing to articulate... especially theze daze... but I think you pretty much hit it bang on in that post.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
This religionst revisionism and pandering to obfuscate and disguise an agenda towards intolerance for people that are exercising the rights guaranteed by the same document you are attemptingt to subvert to your religionist agenda is utterly disgusting, Bodhi. It's just religious hate rehtoric, thinly vieled.. and deserving of the same quick crushing stomp of the boot that islamic intolerance should receive.
If this nation is to survive, it will be under the Banner of Humanism and not under the Banner of a God.. ANY God. The moment we allow our Military to wear the mantle of 'An Army of God', we will have become the very enemy we seek to destroy.
Listen up Hangtime.
I have NEVER advocated any agenda. It is more likely you pushing the agenda. You, who fails to understand my statement, warp the context and add false meaning, and then label me as "attempting to subvert the declaration of independence to my religous agenda". Thats pathetic and a flat out wrong assumption. In your attempts to deny the existence of God you label and disrespect the opinions of any others who state something that disagrees with your view of issues.
All I stated is what I believe, that the declaration is a document that uses Divine Providence and the judgement of God in it's closing paragraph, which shows that they believed in God, and that is was through those principles that the United States were founded. I preach no religous intolerance. I do not believe that the military should be under the any banner other than our flag. As I stated before, I believe that the United States was founded by those that believed in Judeo/Christian ethics and the belief that those principles set forth in the Old and New Testament were decent moral guidelines to create a society on. Further more, I do not think that organised religion is what should run a country, I think that is up to the people. If you think that is hate rhetoric, you need to read the dictionary and find out just what it is.
Your retort shows that while you claim others to be intolerant of views, it is you that is the real intolerant one. That in a nutshell is hypocritical.
-
^^^^^ What he said.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Listen up Hangtime.
I have NEVER advocated any agenda. It is more likely you pushing the agenda. You, who fails to understand my statement, warp the context and add false meaning, and then label me as "attempting to subvert the declaration of independence to my religous agenda". Thats pathetic and a flat out wrong assumption. In your attempts to deny the existence of God you label and disrespect the opinions of any others who state something that disagrees with your view of issues.
All I stated is what I believe, that the declaration is a document that uses Divine Providence and the judgement of God in it's closing paragraph, which shows that they believed in God, and that is was through those principles that the United States were founded. I preach no religous intolerance. I do not believe that the military should be under the any banner other than our flag. As I stated before, I believe that the United States was founded by those that believed in Judeo/Christian ethics and the belief that those principles set forth in the Old and New Testament were decent moral guidelines to create a society on. Further more, I do not think that organised religion is what should run a country, I think that is up to the people. If you think that is hate rhetoric, you need to read the dictionary and find out just what it is.
Your retort shows that while you claim others to be intolerant of views, it is you that is the real intolerant one. That in a nutshell is hypocritical.
I stand by my statement.. and I find the commentary that 'they believed in god' to be neither supportable or proveable.. by EITHER side; religionist or atheist. The point of 'judeo-christian' ethics as coughed up by you is even more disingenuous.. Jews were roundly despised by Christians of the era... and your mention of them I view as merely 'inclusionary' just as the much as the Framers and Authors of the document intended their statements relevant to 'divinity' were.
As a point of refrence from where I sit, I reacted to your statement to be nothing more than a 'green light' for continued erosion of the seperation between church and state, an issue that was clearly understood by the framers... AFWIW, it's proveable beyond any reasonable doubt that they considered the possibility of a 'state' religion to be distasteful at the least, and cause for the taking up arms in revolt if proposed.
If I am in error, and you are NOT calling for the further involvement of religionists in the peformance of the policy of government, then please accept my humble apologies.
-
Bodhi:
============================
"I have NEVER advocated any agenda."
"... the declaration is a document that uses Divine Providence and the judgement of God in it's closing paragraph, which shows that they believed in God, and that is was through those principles that the United States were founded."
Sounds like an agenda to me.
==========================
"I preach no religous intolerance."
Do I have to do a search on "Bodhi" + "towel heads?" Or "gays" or whatever else you also happen to be intolerant of?
Nice try, but please, don't patronize us.
==========================
"Your retort shows that while you claim others to be intolerant of views, it is you that is the real intolerant one. That in a nutshell is hypocritical. "
I'm bored.... completely bored of that rhetorical twist. Since when did this become the BBS version of the Special Olympics? It's like saying:
"Yeah, I am an intolerant son of a *****, but because you can't tolerate my intolerate arse, then YOU sir, are intolerant.
What do you take us for? We're certainly not stuck in the playground with ya, no matter how much you you continue to speak to us in the language of school kids.
=============================
What's amazing to me, as a casual observer, is that this tortured language, this sandbox revisionism, this pavlovian barking..... has amounted to anything!
Hang's right. You gotta fight this garbage tooth and nail every single time it raises it's ugly head. And be diligent about it.... because they certainly are. They're not ****ing around.
-
You are in error, and confirmed my statements.
Any Religion running any government is wrong, UNLESS the people democratically vote that in. Don't count on my vote for that or me staying around if it happens. Now I would vote for the return and mandatory display of the 10 commandments in all court rooms and schools. Call them anything you want, they are just good rules to live by. That and the return of the Pledge of Allegiance, both are just good rules / principles to live by. But, I am one man, and it has not come up on the ballot, so no "religionist agenda" being pushed here. Just my opinions.
-
Thanks for the quote, Gunslinger, good additional perspective on Adams. I've got some other quotes from him on religion, I'll post those later, but I don't want it to look like a rebuttal. :D
Same to you, Hangtime, you've also made some great points (much more eloquently than me).
-
...boy, they got your number, don't they?
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Nash,
You, the king of intolerance, need not lecture me about that word. You, who spends more time whining about other peoples views, complaining about that which you have no right to influence, and generally whining about the US government need to take a class on tolerance.
BTW, trying to tell me I can not tolerate you is more or less a waste of breath as well as a flat out lie. I think you are nothing more than a malcontent, and that even if this was utopia, you'd still find fault. So, whats the point in even engaging a discussion with you. You view the world in your mind with a skew that apparently makes you believe that your view is the only one. Truth is, there are so few like you out there that it really does not matter what you think.
Nice ploy on the attempt to call yourself a "casual observer"... almost choked laughing. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
You are in error, and confirmed my statements.
Any Religion running any government is wrong, UNLESS the people democratically vote that in. Don't count on my vote for that or me staying around if it happens. Now I would vote for the return and mandatory display of the 10 commandments in all court rooms and schools. Call them anything you want, they are just good rules to live by. That and the return of the Pledge of Allegiance, both are just good rules / principles to live by. But, I am one man, and it has not come up on the ballot, so no "religionist agenda" being pushed here. Just my opinions.
Bhodi, the Law of this Land is the Constitution.. not the 10 Commandments. We, as a nation; owe our allegience to the constitution. Not the Church and it's Laws. By placing the 10 commandments over our Contitution we aknowledge the Primacy of the Church over Government. That's a revisonist re-write.
Regarding the possibility of a 'vote' to establish religious primacy.. should that occur, I shall perish with my rifle in hand. I'm not leaving. I will fight. I am well aware that this 'democracy' is all but a sham.. my elected representative government no longer speaks in the halls of the house or the senate to the will of the people. It is the corporate shill. What keeps my rifle in it's case is the hope that once awakened, the people will act to regain control of their representatives by replacing them. In our lifetime we will see either the peoples government restored or the public chained. Either way, my voice will be heard.
-
"I preach no religous intolerance."[/i]
Do I have to do a search on "Bodhi" + "towel heads?" Or "gays" or whatever else you also happen to be intolerant of?
Nice try, but please, don't patronize us.
just wondering...since when did gay become a religion?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
just wondering...since when did gay become a religion?
they worship the pole dont they?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Bhodi, the Law of this Land is the Constitution.. not the 10 Commandments. We, as a nation; owe our allegience to the constitution. Not the Church and it's Laws. By placing the 10 commandments over our Contitution we aknowledge the Primacy of the Church over Government. That's a revisonist re-write.
Regarding the possibility of a 'vote' to establish religious primacy.. should that occur, I shall perish with my rifle in hand. I'm not leaving. I will fight. I am well aware that this 'democracy' is all but a sham.. my elected representative government no longer speaks in the halls of the house or the senate to the will of the people. It is the corporate shill. What keeps my rifle in it's case is the hope that once awakened, the people will act to regain control of their representatives by replacing them. In our lifetime we will see either the peoples government restored or the public chained. Either way, my voice will be heard.
Hangtime,
The Law of this land IS the contstitution. Never disagreed with that. What I said plain and so VERY simply was that the 10 Commandments, pretty nice set of laws, were displayed in most courthouses for a lot of years, never said you had to believe in God to follow them, just stated I though they were good principles to live by. Same goes for the Pledge of Allegiance. Can you think of something that better defines what you should do for your country? Pledge you allegiance to uphold and protect it's constitution and people.... thats how I hear it.
Anyways, this argument is getting old. You are anti-religion. Guess what. I am too. I think most religions of the world are dominated by the search for power. I can not think of anymore warped way to twist the values set down by God (whom I believe is the same in all religous belief just they use different names) then for a religion to search for power.
Belief in God is a personal issue. The choices you make are yours and yours alone. I hope your choice is right for you. I know mine is right for me. After saying that, I still believe that my previous post with regards to the commandments was spot on. Good socially moral guidelines to "remind" others walking through those doors that maybe, just maybe, your actions affect others around you.
Good night.
-
" just wondering...since when did gay become a religion?"
You obviously haven't seen a gay parade. It's like a gospel church run amok in the middle of the street high on rapture and acid.... and buttless chaps.
Hey - it's what they believe. Who am I to judge?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Jefferson believed as I believe so far as I can tell
"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Virginia Baptists, 1808. ME 16:320
"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416
"Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291
"In our early struggles for liberty, religious freedom could not fail to become a primary object." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists, 1808. ME 16:317
"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
"The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and... if any act shall be... passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right." --Thomas Jefferson:
I think that he felt that everyone was entitled to believe as he wished and that the "establishment of religion" as it applied to the government meant that no one religion would recieve any special treatment under or be sponsored soley by government.
... I find chairboy and others insistence that they are "athiests" to be pretty funny... It seems like a play for attention... a play to look "hip"... silly really.
Why not just say "I don't know" and be done with it if you have doubts? certainly.... you have no proof nor.... does it really affect you one way or the other....
To have to go out of your way to claim and repeatedly proclaim in every available forum (here... to grandma etc.) that "I AM AN ATHIEST" to shock and to garner attention... this smacks of religion to me...your athiesm is a religion.
Concur. Thought it bore repeating. :D
-
The only thing as annoying as people who are obsessed with their belief in God's existence is...
people who are obsessed with their belief in God's non-existence.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
The only thing as annoying as people who are obsessed with their belief in God's existence is...
people who are obsessed with their belief in God's non-existence.
The funny thing is... is that you don't see much of that. Or.... any of that.
At least I can't recall seeing the pressure applied to the government for X or Y agenda from the Council of Concerned Athiests.
.... and don't you dare try and lump in the majority of those who share religious values with atheists, just because they are against imposing those values on everyone else.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Hangtime,
The Law of this land IS the contstitution. Never disagreed with that. What I said plain and so VERY simply was that the 10 Commandments, pretty nice set of laws, were displayed in most courthouses for a lot of years, never said you had to believe in God to follow them, just stated I though they were good principles to live by. Same goes for the Pledge of Allegiance. Can you think of something that better defines what you should do for your country? Pledge you allegiance to uphold and protect it's constitution and people.... thats how I hear it.
Anyways, this argument is getting old. You are anti-religion. Guess what. I am too. I think most religions of the world are dominated by the search for power. I can not think of anymore warped way to twist the values set down by God (whom I believe is the same in all religous belief just they use different names) then for a religion to search for power.
Belief in God is a personal issue. The choices you make are yours and yours alone. I hope your choice is right for you. I know mine is right for me. After saying that, I still believe that my previous post with regards to the commandments was spot on. Good socially moral guidelines to "remind" others walking through those doors that maybe, just maybe, your actions affect others around you.
Good night.
I have horribly misrepresented myself if I come off as anti-religion.. I'm an agnostic by social definition, by my own; I'm just ambivelent. I see many good works done in the name of God.. who here could impune that men like Seagoon are a bane on society?
On the other side of that coin is the evidence of History. God and Government should remain mutually exclusive propositions of faith. In my mind, salvation of this nation lies not with God.. it lies upon our shoulders; not His.
Socially, the Moral Guidelines of the Great Proposition has no equal.. and in my opinion; should supplant all occurances in our publicly funded buildings and edifieces of Governement any religious exposal of piety... as proof to the other Religious (and defective by that fact) nations of this world our intent as a nation AND a People just what it is we are about. The People hold their own Destiny in Thier hands. Not God.
Humor me. Read this aloud. Feel the tingle. You'll stand straighter. Your shoulders will square a bit. Your voice will gain a a steely tone. And you'll walk your Path a little taller.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. [/b]
-
I accept the fact that there are those that believe in a God/Supreme Being. They see it as truthful as the air we breathe, the water we drink.
I also believe with the same if not more conviction of there not being the existance of a supreme being. I reached my conclusions based on the lack of factual evidence. I'm a "show me" type of person and take many things that seem to defy logic (based on my interpretations of course) with a healthy dose of scepticism. You want me to believe, then show me some actual facts and proof, not conjecture.
There's a reason they call it faith and not fact.
You cannot prove to me that God does exist. Why, because it's called faith.
Heaven? Nope, faith.
Hell? Nope, faith.
I call myself an Atheist only because that seems to be the label for those that don't believe in a God/Supreme Being.
I don't "practice" it for it is not a religion. I don't pray to anything. I don't go to Atheist gatherings (is there truly such a thing?). I don't have to do anything to prove my Atheism to others or to myself. It is what I am. I pay about as much attention to my Atheism as I do to my skin color which is nil. I pay even less to it than my heritage. There's not even an official book, nor is there required passages that I have to read/quote/etc in order to be an Atheist. I am what I am.
I have but one life. I was born, I live, one day I'll die. No God or Satan, no heaven or hell, no reincarnation, no afterlife, etc. I have only one shot at it.
If I am right about there not being a God/Supreme Being, you lose nothing. If you are right about your version of Christianity, then I'm screwed. Think of how strong my convictions must be then.
We're all different with our own views. I'll respect your rights as long as you respect mine, deal?
Regards,
SaburoS
-
The issue whether anyone is/was religious/nonreligious/in-between should have absolutely no bearing on the current structure. I personally find many of the founders to be rakes... albeit rakes with good points. Here, I'll copy/paste from the same site as lazs:
"I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him, and not to the priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, 1816. ME 15:60
"From the dissensions among Sects themselves arise necessarily a right of choosing and necessity of deliberating to which we will conform. But if we choose for ourselves, we must allow others to choose also, and so reciprocally, this establishes religious liberty." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:545
"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378
"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198
[/b]
God, dog, flying spaghetti monster or lackthereof, I hope we find harmony whichever path we choose... lets keep it to ourselves, mmkay?
-
Originally posted by Nash
The funny thing is... is that you don't see much of that. Or.... any of that.
At least I can't recall seeing the pressure applied to the government for X or Y agenda from the Council of Concerned Athiests.
.... and don't you dare try and lump in the majority of those who share religious values with atheists, just because they are against imposing those values on everyone else.
I was thinking more on a personal level than political.
-
That's beacuse most of us tend to respect the people that practice religion and masturbation in private.
OTOH, either practice conducted under the guise of public government tends to annoy the living crap outta me.
-
Originally posted by Nash
The funny thing is... is that you don't see much of that. Or.... any of that.
At least I can't recall seeing the pressure applied to the government for X or Y agenda from the Council of Concerned Athiests.
.... and don't you dare try and lump in the majority of those who share religious values with atheists, just because they are against imposing those values on everyone else.
That is the biggest pile of steaming B.S. I've ever seen, unless you are blind, deaf, and mute.
The atheists and the ACLU, just in recent history, have sued to have the Ten Commandments removed from any number of buildings, have sued to have the Pledge of Allegiance banned, and have sued to have a Cross removed from a war memorial cemetary. Not to mention having suing to have crosses removed from seals and emblems for cities, towns, counties, and states all across the U.S. We're not talking about suing to prevent forced religious practice, but the removal of all religious symbols and speech from all public display. God has been in government documents since the nation was founded. Suddenly, since Madelyn Murray O'Hare (however you spell it) in the sixties, after nearly 190 years of references to God being all over the government, the atheists and the ACLU have found it necessary, fashionable, and desireable to sue to have God removed from anything and everything at every opportunity. Anyone who denies that is either a fool or a liar.
In near 43 years on this planet and in this country, I have NEVER seen anyone FORCED to pray to or pay homage to any God at any time, in any court, school, or government institution. Not even here in the Bible Belt of the South. In fact, as far back as my pre school years, I've seen all sorts of exceptions and allowances made for those who choose not to acknowledge God, or any diety.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
That is the biggest pile of steaming B.S. I've ever seen, unless you are blind, deaf, and mute.
The atheists and the ACLU, just in recent history, have sued...
"The atheists and the ACLU....."
Christ...
I'm willing to bet that most of the folks in the ACLU aint athiests. I sure as hell aint, and godspeed to them.
Anyone who is discomforted by the imposition of our beliefs upon them is probably an "athiest" to you.
That's messed up.... and it's not a good thing for a country to try and absorb. Don't believe me? Read a history book.
-
I've seen all sorts of exceptions and allowances made for those who choose not to acknowledge God, or any diety.
And therin lies the Crux. So nice that you concede that there should be 'allowances' made for those of us who won't utter the secrect passwords.
While I doubt that the ACLU expects to succeed in their suits, I'm reassured that their vigorously opposing the continued erosion of the seperation of your church's views and OUR national governments public policy has annoyed the self-annoited 'holier than thou' pulpit thumpers that wanna impose their beliefs where they don't, by law belong.
Now, I still stand, twice a month and repeat the Pledge of Alliegance, including all it's original lines, as I learned it in the early 1950's. It has meaning to me, and the sentiment of 'under God' affects not one little bit the welling in pride that suffuses myself and everone else in the room.
But, that's not what's at issue; is it? What's at issue is wether or not I'm as worthy as a religionist to suck air and consume the resources of the planet; ain't it? It's about the ugly propensity of religionists to legislate their creed into policy, to influence the public education system to subvert early the minds of our children...
So yeah; I'm glad the ACLU is harrasing the hell outta the religious incursion into the polity of government and education. I'm pretty sure we need 'em to keep making sure of our 'exceptions and allowances made for those who choose not to acknowledge God, or any diety'.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
While I'm not a strong advocate that the constitution is a wholey "christian" I do beleive it was written specifically for a moral and religious people and based on those judeo christian values. Not so much in as "Thou shall have no other gods besides Me..." but more or less that it's wrong to murder or lie. In other words an imoral people would abuse said rights granted to them thus negating the reason entirly to have a constitution.
Just my 2 pennies on this one... I disagree that it was based on christian values. Morality came first, religion came second. Religion codified moral behavior. The belief is that humans have rights and values in and of themselves. These rights and values are not grounded in religion, or any supernatural force, but in themselves. These rights stand alone. We deserve life, liberty, and happiness, not because God said so, but because we're human. These rights exist because we say they exist, and that's all that's needed.
Here's the inherrent problem, which can be found in Euthyphro's Dilemma... "The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods?" The inherrent problem is that most religion state moral principles are and must be linked to a God or gods to be absolute & eternal. A problem exists over whether God embraces moral principles naturally occurring and external to him because they are good (holy), or that these moral principles are good because he created them. It's one or the other. I happen to believe morality transcends religion.
-
Originally posted by Nash
"The atheists and the ACLU....."
Christ...
I'm willing to bet that most of the folks in the ACLU aint athiests. I sure as hell aint, and godspeed to them.
Anyone who is discomforted by the imposition of our beliefs upon them is probably an "athiest" to you.
That's messed up.... and it's not a good thing for a country to try and absorb. Don't believe me? Read a history book.
I never said the ACLU was atheist. I said they sued on behalf of atheists. Learn to read, and read what is written, not what you want to see.
No, just because someone is uncomfortable with what I believe it does not make me think they are atheists. So, again, you are so completely wrong it is not funny. Evidently, and not surprising, you know not of what you speak.
Oh, and I'm no Bible thumper either. I have been inside a church about 5 times in the last ten years. ONCE was strictly of my own choosing, a little more than a year ago, two days after my father died after a long and difficult illness. The other times were funerals and weddings. So no, I'm no holier than thou Bible thumper.
Congratulations on having enough arrogance and ignorance all in one head to completely misjudge me and miss grasping the points of the post.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
And therin lies the Crux. So nice that you concede that there should be 'allowances' made for those of us who won't utter the secrect passwords.
While I doubt that the ACLU expects to succeed in their suits, I'm reassured that their vigorously opposing the continued erosion of the seperation of your church's views and OUR national governments public policy has annoyed the self-annoited 'holier than thou' pulpit thumpers that wanna impose their beliefs where they don't, by law belong.
Now, I still stand, twice a month and repeat the Pledge of Alliegance, including all it's original lines, as I learned it in the early 1950's. It has meaning to me, and the sentiment of 'under God' affects not one little bit the welling in pride that suffuses myself and everone else in the room.
But, that's not what's at issue; is it? What's at issue is wether or not I'm as worthy as a religionist to suck air and consume the resources of the planet; ain't it? It's about the ugly propensity of religionists to legislate their creed into policy, to influence the public education system to subvert early the minds of our children...
So yeah; I'm glad the ACLU is harrasing the hell outta the religious incursion into the polity of government and education. I'm pretty sure we need 'em to keep making sure of our 'exceptions and allowances made for those who choose not to acknowledge God, or any diety'.
The position of the ACLU and the people on whose behalf they sue is that religion is forced upon those who are not religious. The fact that no one forces them to do anything religious is evidently irrelevant, to them and you.
I have no church. I have not been a member of any church since the early eighties. As I stated in my reply to Nash, I've been to church ONCE in the past 20 years by my own choice alone, two days after my father died. So again, you are wrong.
I don't give a damn whether you are religious or not. Don't go thinking you are that important to me. You are not. I do give a damn that attempts are made to change the very foundation on which the country was built. Like it or not, the core beliefs of the Judeo Christian religious beliefs are what the laws in this country are based on. And don't go blathering about the Christians of the era hating Jews. It doesn't matter. The difference is that Christians embrace all of the Bible, and Jews only the Old Testament. And Christians who hate Jews are no more Christians than Muslims who hate Jews are Muslims. They are a segment of a group that is wrong, and not the whole group. Nothing more.
The problem with religion isn't religion, it is with some of the people who practice it, and how they do so. Religion is like a firearm. Whether it is used for good or ill depends soley on who is using it.
-
...I knew I shoulda never mentioned the ACLU.
-
sheesh... we are talking about three completely seperate things here...
We are talking athiesm... we are talking a nation that was founded on a belief in godand then.... we are talking christianity.
I agree with Jefferson in that there is a god and that he gave us human rights that no religion or government can take away. I also agree that religions have acted badly.
I agree that athiests have acted badly...
I agree that we should not let the government establish any religion but that a belief in god is no more of a "religion" than athiesm is. Saying that you believe in a god does not make you religious any more than subaru saying he has a strong faith based belief that there is no god makes him religious.
One could argue I suppose that saying that we have god given rights is religous but in that context I don't think Jefferson or any founder would have a problem with it.
I do not know of any founder who was an athiest or even an agnostic.
lazs
-
Oh... and subaru.... seems the court agrees with me that athiesm is a religion..
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874
lazs
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
In near 43 years on this planet and in this country, I have NEVER seen anyone FORCED to pray to or pay homage to any God at any time, in any court, school, or government institution. Not even here in the Bible Belt of the South. In fact, as far back as my pre school years, I've seen all sorts of exceptions and allowances made for those who choose not to acknowledge God, or any diety.
:aok Agreed.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
In near 43 years on this planet and in this country, I have NEVER seen anyone FORCED to pray to or pay homage to any God at any time, in any court, school, or government institution.
1. Epperson v. Arkansas the supreme court considered an Arkansas statute that restricted the teaching of evolution.
2. Indiana, Kansas and many other States prohibit alcohol sales on Sundays.
3. Intelligent Design - nuff said.
4. Nationally funded "Abstinance only until marriage" programs.
5. In Detroit a Catholic man was criminally punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program.
That took all of 5 minutes.
-
The position of the ACLU and the people on whose behalf they sue is that religion is forced upon those who are not religious. The fact that no one forces them to do anything religious is evidently irrelevant, to them and you.
Virgil, I've got better than a decade on you age-wise. And in the Los Angeles County School system, religion was most definitely crammed down my throat, especially in grammer school.
In 1962 the Supreme Court ruled that mandated prayer be excluded from the curriculum and a few years later excluded bible reading as well. Thank you, ACLU.
Next, if piety and trips to church is a dick measuring contest... mines bigger than yours. Big whoop. Yer right.. who cares? Further.. it's nobodys business; and it ain't part of the debate. The debate remains, 'What place does religion have in government policy'.. and I side with the ACLU and the Court. The fact that religion is being forced outta the governments policy statements is a good thing in my view.. I thorughly support the notion that the freedom to practice religion is guaranteed to the people.. but not to the government.
On that, I'm pretty sure we both agree.
History has demonstrated time, and time again that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Examine the Islamic Fundamentalist nations for modern proof of this.
I firmly believe that without the organized efforts of the ACLU to counter the organized efforts of religion to subvert the government we'd be a lot further down the path of being a 'Christian' nation in arms against others who worship differently.. again; thank you; ACLU.
-
For those of you that believe the Ten Commandments belong in courtrooms and the "Cross" is appropriate on government documents please consider this.
Change {God vs. Government} to {Black vs White} just for the sake of arguement.
I see no difference between these 2 lines ...... 10 commandments being ok as the thinking that 12 white male jury members, 1 white male judge, and 1 black defendant is ok.
Scary for the black guy
Scary for the non Believer
This thread is PROOF that Freedom of Religion is nescessary. Can you imagine all the further violence and bloodshed, that WOULD have occured, all in the name of Jesus?
Much of the professing of faith and god in earlier times was fear based on the fact you would be harrassed, terrorised, harmed, and economically boycotted by the good "christians" of Anytown, USA.
What "right wing politicians" are trying to do today with "God" is the reason I believe we should hold near and dear our right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Be ever vigilant my fellow Americans :noid
Cthen
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Ya know. Religion, or the expresison thereof, is just another opinion. Everyone builds their way of life around opinions. I see religion as just another unsubstantiated opinion. You are free to have to have your own opinions.
I really do not know where society took the wrong turn. Once we started putting labels on ideas, we became bigots. For me, there is no difference between hating someone for thier skin color, or hating them for thier ideas.
The promotion of labeling everyone is saddening. It simply means we are driven or compelled to insure division amongst ourselves. This allows petty people to take control as we cannot, nor ever will, be able to find a common ground to bring us together.
It will be the undoing of mankind.
We have been tribal beings since way back in the day, labeling is just an extention of that.
We cant escape our basic human nature, people will always find something to believe in and seek out others with similar beliefs.
All these beliefes, IMO, are just reference points.. it's just too puzzling to accept that life on Earth could be a random act, a mistake, a freak accident... When the Greeks couldn't explain where lightning came from, someone decided it was the gods chucking anger, which gave them a reference point, an explanation.. which is a lot less scarier than the unknown. Labling people turns them from unknown to known.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Oh... and subaru.... seems the court agrees with me that athiesm is a religion..
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874
lazs
lazs,
So, how do I "practice" my Atheism?
Just because a court rules on something doesn't make it right.
It may make it law, but it doesn't make it right.
Kind of like when a court ruling makes a decision on banning a certain firearm.
Abortion? Let's not cherry pick for our argument.
That ruling calling Atheism a religion is stupid. I feel the same on certain firearms bans.
Atheism is simply the belief that a God/Supreme Being does not exist. No divine intervention.
-
From your link. Yeah, I agree with the guy.
(snip)Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."
"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.
Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."
"It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited," Fahling said.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
That is the biggest pile of steaming B.S. I've ever seen, unless you are blind, deaf, and mute.
The atheists and the ACLU, just in recent history, have sued to have the Ten Commandments removed from any number of buildings, have sued to have the Pledge of Allegiance banned, and have sued to have a Cross removed from a war memorial cemetary. Not to mention having suing to have crosses removed from seals and emblems for cities, towns, counties, and states all across the U.S. We're not talking about suing to prevent forced religious practice, but the removal of all religious symbols and speech from all public display. God has been in government documents since the nation was founded. Suddenly, since Madelyn Murray O'Hare (however you spell it) in the sixties, after nearly 190 years of references to God being all over the government, the atheists and the ACLU have found it necessary, fashionable, and desireable to sue to have God removed from anything and everything at every opportunity. Anyone who denies that is either a fool or a liar.
In near 43 years on this planet and in this country, I have NEVER seen anyone FORCED to pray to or pay homage to any God at any time, in any court, school, or government institution. Not even here in the Bible Belt of the South. In fact, as far back as my pre school years, I've seen all sorts of exceptions and allowances made for those who choose not to acknowledge God, or any diety.
Another ayuh. :aok
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
So, how do I "practice" my Atheism?
Probably the same way alot of Christians practice their Christianity. Passively. And thanks to the freedom of religion we enjoy in the U.S., everyone here is free to believe what they want and practice it how they want (as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others).
Amen ;)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
1. Epperson v. Arkansas the supreme court considered an Arkansas statute that restricted the teaching of evolution.
2. Indiana, Kansas and many other States prohibit alcohol sales on Sundays.
3. Intelligent Design - nuff said.
4. Nationally funded "Abstinance only until marriage" programs.
5. In Detroit a Catholic man was criminally punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program.
That took all of 5 minutes.
1. As the teaching of "the other theory" is restricted, this just promotes ignorance, not religious belief.
2. Which God do I pay homage to or pray to when I stock up on beer on Saturday? (stupid laws but doesn't force me to believe)
3. Same as issue as #1 really, intellegent design is making its way through the courts.
4. Which God do I pay homage to or pray to when teenagers are not having children? (I doubt this works, but it might and is a noble effort, as the one sure way to poverty is early parenthood)
5. You may have something here. 12 step programs patterend after AA have the belief in something "greater than oneself"
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
1. Epperson v. Arkansas the supreme court considered an Arkansas statute that restricted the teaching of evolution.
2. Indiana, Kansas and many other States prohibit alcohol sales on Sundays.
3. Intelligent Design - nuff said.
4. Nationally funded "Abstinance only until marriage" programs.
5. In Detroit a Catholic man was criminally punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program.
That took all of 5 minutes.
Lets do a quick check here:
1. Nope no mention of religion there
2. Again these are laws made by state legistlature that is elected by the people....again no religion mentioned
3. Again.....don't see a hint of religion
4. Hmmmm telling kids not to have sex....again failing to see religion
5. Never heard of this one.
that took all of 2 minutes.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Thanks for the quote, Gunslinger, good additional perspective on Adams. I've got some other quotes from him on religion, I'll post those later, but I don't want it to look like a rebuttal. :D
Same to you, Hangtime, you've also made some great points (much more eloquently than me).
Yup John Adams has some good ones. He's not a big fan of religion but does beleive in the devine IIRC.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Another ayuh. :aok
Keep reading; Arlo, .. you'll find my reply.. and my friend, getting religion pounded up a kids highly impressionable backside was a fact of life when I went to school. In 1962; thanks to the ACLU, that crap was stopped.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Lets do a quick check here:
1. Nope no mention of religion there
2. Again these are laws made by state legistlature that is elected by the people....again no religion mentioned
3. Again.....don't see a hint of religion
4. Hmmmm telling kids not to have sex....again failing to see religion
5. Never heard of this one.
that took all of 2 minutes.
1. Direct result of Christian right wingers trying to force Creationism into the SCIENCE classroom... clearly a religious law.
2. Now why do you think they picked Sunday?... duh.
3. See #1
4. Marriage is not always a religious observance, however this particulr "class" was funded by the government and run by a Christian church AND it was presented in public school.
5. Now you've heard of it.
All of these are very recent...but like Hang says, 40 years ago it was much more pervasive.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Keep reading; Arlo, .. you'll find my reply.. and my friend, getting religion pounded up a kids highly impressionable backside was a fact of life when I went to school. In 1962; thanks to the ACLU, that crap was stopped.
At what point am I attacking the ACLU or advocating forced Christianity?
Wait ... hold on .... nope .... sorry ... false alarm. I didn't.
What I don't see sensible is the continuing crusade ... wasting time and money to erase all possible reference to Christianity on public buildings, bills and coins. Things that shouldn't present a threat to someone's atheistic preference as they would have me believe. If it is ... then their atheism is easily shaken. :D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
...
2. Now why do you think they picked Sunday?... duh.
...
80 years ago, we couldn't buy beer on any day. This is six days of progress.
The fact that they picked Sunday does not effect my religious beliefs.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
At what point am I attacking the ACLU or advocating forced Christianity?
Wait ... hold on .... nope .... sorry ... false alarm. I didn't.
What I don't see sensible is the continuing crusade ... wasting time and money to erase all possible reference to Christianity on public buildings, bills and coins. Things that shouldn't present a threat to someone's atheistic preference as they would have me believe. If it is ... then their atheism is easily shaken. :D
The ACLU ain't wasting a dime of your money or your time.. and they are involved in constitutional issues.. which regardless of your consideration of worth are mighty important in curbing the re-emergence of religious influence in the public business of governemnt.
Finally, I'd not have dropped on your post is it wasn't just a rubber stamp of Virgils. The crux of his post is nothing more than indignant parroting of PC propaganda. I pointed out the facts. He's was off base, got tagged.. and so are you.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
1. Direct result of Christian right wingers trying to force Creationism into the SCIENCE classroom... clearly a religious law.
2. Now why do you think they picked Sunday?... duh.
3. See #1
4. Marriage is not always a religious observance, however this particulr "class" was funded by the government and run by a Christian church AND it was presented in public school.
5. Now you've heard of it.
All of these are very recent...but like Hang says, 40 years ago it was much more pervasive.
:noid
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
The ACLU ain't wasting a dime of your money or your time.. and they are involved in constitutional issues.. which regardless of your consideration of worth are mighty important in curbing the re-emergence of religious influence in the public business of governemnt.
Finally, I'd not have dropped on your post is it wasn't just a rubber stamp of Virgils. The crux of his post is nothing more than indignant parroting of PC propaganda. I pointed out the facts. He's was off base, got tagged.. and so are you.
Neh. The "threat" was neutralized. No need to panic. :D
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
The ACLU ain't wasting a dime of your money or your time.. and they are involved in constitutional issues.. which regardless of your consideration of worth are mighty important in curbing the re-emergence of religious influence in the public business of governemnt.
Finally, I'd not have dropped on your post is it wasn't just a rubber stamp of Virgils. The crux of his post is nothing more than indignant parroting of PC propaganda. I pointed out the facts. He's was off base, got tagged.. and so are you.
Tagged my ass. Oh, and by the way, the ACLU is continually clogging the courts with all of the anti religion B.S. lawsuits. Since I get the crap taxed out of me to pay for the courts, and every time the ACLU sues the government, the govenment pays almost all the bills, I figure they ARE wasting MY time and MY money. And it really pisses me off.
-
Good!
For my part; Government funded preaching torques my rod.. nothin makes me happier than seeing the government; bible in hand; getting kicked right in the testicles for arrogantly sponsoring, endorsing and propogating a faith-based belief system... a practice that has lead to murder, rape, genocide and despotisim for over 2000 years.
I don't wanna see my tax dollars wasted 'defending' the government sponsorship of religion either. So, tell yer congressman to put down the bible and pick up the constitution.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Probably the same way alot of Christians practice their Christianity. Passively. And thanks to the freedom of religion we enjoy in the U.S., everyone here is free to believe what they want and practice it how they want (as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others).
Amen ;)
If they are being passive, then they aren't really practicing their religion.
Again, how do I as an Atheist, practice my Atheism?
I'll agree with you 100% if you change "religion" to "expression"
This way it includes us non-religious Atheists ;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Good!
For my part; Government funded preaching torques my rod.. nothin makes me happier than seeing the government; bible in hand; getting kicked right in the testicles for arrogantly sponsoring, endorsing and propogating a faith-based belief system... a practice that has lead to murder, rape, genocide and despotisim for over 2000 years.
I don't wanna see my tax dollars wasted 'defending' the government sponsorship of religion either. So, tell yer congressman to put down the bible and pick up the constitution.
Well sir since you are so up in arms about religion how bout the whole "free exercise there of" part in the constitution. The ACLU has gone after many of groups and it seems they are hell bent on getting any thing from santa clause to the easter bunny out of the limelight come holliday times. Hell they have never met a boyscout troop that they didn't want to sue.
Next time you defend the ACLU for their stand up of "rights" ask yourself how many 2nd amendment issues they've defended......there's not that many.
They are a communist socialist organization that disguises themselves in the mantra of civil liberties.....hell just look at the founder.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the constitution but to me the ACLU seems more like a trojen horse than a defender of rights.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
If they are being passive, then they aren't really practicing their religion.
Again, how do I as an Atheist, practice my Atheism?
Ahem... we like to travel door to door and try to talk people out of their faith.
On weekdays, we parade up and down the street with a few copies of "Godless Heathen Weekly".
Get with the program. :D
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
If they are being passive, then they aren't really practicing their religion.
Again, how do I as an Atheist, practice my Atheism?
I'll agree with you 100% if you change "religion" to "expression"
This way it includes us non-religious Atheists ;)
What? You don't want your atheism protected by law? Even so, claiming it ain't your religious belief still doesn't make it right for the government to promote it over other people's beliefs at their expense. :D
-
This is laughable. Knowing full well that it is a sensitive issue, that Texas judge shouldn't of had the statue of the Ten Commandments put in the tax funded lobby. Anyone want to put blame of costing tax payers more money, should put it where it belongs, blame the judge. That judge made it a sensitive issue by his actions.
Now if he wants to put that same statue in his private property, more power to him.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... we like to travel door to door and try to talk people out of their faith.
On weekdays, we parade up and down the street with a few copies of "Godless Heathen Weekly".
Get with the program. :D
Neh ... religiously picketing the courthouses of America for threatening the fabric of American atheism by having the ten commandments displayed in stone or crossing out "In God We Trust" on currency is anything but a nonsensical religious style ritual. :D
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
This is laughable. Knowing full well that it is a sensitive issue, that Texas judge shouldn't of had the statue of the Ten Commandments put in the tax funded lobby. Anyone want to put blame of costing tax payers more money, should put it where it belongs, blame the judge. That judge made it a sensitive issue by his actions.
Now if he wants to put that same statue in his private property, more power to him.
It's not nearly as laughable as the crusade against the word "God" theatening atheistic belief. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
What? You don't want your atheism protected by law? Even so, claiming it ain't your religious belief still doesn't make it right for the government to promote it over other people's beliefs at their expense. :D
I want my freedoms intact as best as they can.
I don't want some state sponsored religion forced upon me.
I don't want kids beinf forced via peer pressure to believe in a religion their parents don't want their kids to learn.
Thankfully the govt is trying to limit that.
The govt must remain neutral and does try to be.
Last I checked, I haven't noticed a proclaimation of there not being a God by the govt.
I havent noticed govt officials trying to change the teaching of the Bible or Creationism in Religious sponsored private schools and churches.
Our govt isn't taxing those institutions either.
As long as it isn't disruptive, nor shown as a possible state sponsorship, people can pray before taking their final or before their meal. I've NEVER seen it prevented. I actually think it is a good thing to see others practice their religious faith (as long as they aren't being disruptive).
..You were saying?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Neh ... religiously picketing the courthouses of America for threatening the fabric of American atheism by having the ten commandments displayed in stone or crossing out "In God We Trust" on currency is anything but a nonsensical religious style ritual. :D
Blaming the whole of one group is kind of well...prejudicial.
Kind of like blaming all Christians as murderers cause a fraction get convicted of killing abortion doctors.
For the record:
I actually don't care if "Under God" stays in the Pledge of Allegience.
I find the Pledge as actually not necessary.
I don't care if "In God We Trust" stays on our currency.
It actually makes sense the concept behind it.
Using currency made of paper instead of the tried and true gold or silver takes a lot of faith. What better statement of faith than a religious one? As long as we get paid the worth of that denomination, I'm cool with it.
However, if some religious zealots use those as examples of why religion and government can be together in an official fashion, then I'll change my mind.
I don't want things of religious faith being taught in federal or state tax funded institutions. That's why we have private schools and places of worship.
To borrow a line:
Don't tread on me.
As it is, I'd consider it a cultural thing (even though "Under God" was added rather late in the game).
Added:
For the record, I've yet to vote for a politician soley because of their stance on religious issues.
I've never sued anyone for any reason.
I've never picketed or protested a religious thing.
I'm pretty laid back actually with a live and let live mindset.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I want my freedoms intact as best as they can.
I don't want some state sponsored religion forced upon me.
I don't want kids beinf forced via peer pressure to believe in a religion their parents don't want their kids to learn.
Thankfully the govt is trying to limit that.
The govt must remain neutral and does try to be.
Last I checked, I haven't noticed a proclaimation of there not being a God by the govt.
I havent noticed govt officials trying to change the teaching of the Bible or Creationism in Religious sponsored private schools and churches.
Our govt isn't taxing those institutions either.
As long as it isn't disruptive, nor shown as a possible state sponsorship, people can pray before taking their final or before their meal. I've NEVER seen it prevented. I actually think it is a good thing to see others practice their religious faith (as long as they aren't being disruptive).
..You were saying?
Hey. There is no state sponsored religion in this nation. There isn't even a threat of it. Just a perceived threat by you. Those stone tablets ain't gonna threaten your freedom. The "In God We Trust" on your money isn't. If they could they would have before you was born. Even the half arsed attempt to fool people into thinking "intelligent design" wasn't the same old fight against Darwinism turned out not to be a threat. Prayer in school isn't a viable issue. You don't have to feel threatened over it, either. Your kids are as likely to choose to mimic your beliefs or not in spite of the threats you perceive that aren't really there. Providing an example they respect has more to do with that.
If an old hippie Christian like me can accept you for what you are without feeling threatened, you'd think an "open minded" atheist could do the same in return.
Crusades are so previous turn of the millenium.
:D
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Blaming the whole of one group is kind of well...prejudicial.
Kind of like blaming all Christians as murderers cause a fraction get convicted of killing abortion doctors.
There you go. Stop there and I think you've almost got it. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
It's not nearly as laughable as the crusade against the word "God" theatening atheistic belief. :D
...and that's not nearly as laughable as those that keep trying to paint Atheism as a religion.
Again, how does an Atheist practice his Atheism?
The word God doesn't threaten Atheistic belief. It is the perceived persecution of those Atheists by the religious majority some Atheists worry about. Having a Government backing a religious organization where Atheists are said to be the "enemy" is actually the scary part.
Separation of Church and State? Oh yeah.
BTW, 2 things:
1) Atheists don't look at people of religion as the "enemy". We tend to worry from those that try to erode our rights or try to harm us.
2) I would personally join the religious side in protest if my government tried to interject evolution as a forced curriculum into Sunday School, private religious schools, or places or worship.
-
Arlo,
Here's a scenario for you:
Judges are now allowed to erect any religious staues/monuments they wish.
Now they get this idea that Christianity in the courtroom is a good idea.
So now I appear before that same judge. He finds out that I am an Atheist.
He rules against me unfairly.
That is one scary scenario.
-
Arlo,
I am not a threat to you.
The religious right is a threat to me.
I think those that say they are truly Christian should practice it and forgive those they disagree with and move on :D
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
-
Kind of amazing that this discussion has degenerated into whether atheism is a religion and whether the right wing religous wackos are trying to destroy the US.
I seem to remember and stand by my statements:
That the US was founded on and with a basis of Judeo / Christian ethics.
That the 10 commandments were good guidlines to basic living.
That the pledge of Allegiance was a good nationalistic guideline.
I never advocated the merging of religion and government.
I advocated the continued display of the commandments in court houses as a good example.
That intolerance of any ideas was wrong, so long as they did not hurt the sanctity of our nation.
That the direction of this country is no ones business but the american people.
That the US Constitution is law, and subject to our popular vote as to change.
Ya'll can argue till you are blue in the face. In the end, we (those of voting ability in the US), as a people of the United States of America are going to forge our future. Right or wrong, it will happen. Thats the beauty of this free land. We have the right to speak freely. We have the right to freely express our beliefs. We have the right in majority to change our governmental direction. We are free.
-
"The ideologists of the conservative revolution superimposed a vision of national redemption upon their dissatisfaction with liberal culture and with the loss of authoritative faith. They posed as the true champions of nationalism, and berated the socialists for their internationalism, and the liberals for their pacifism and their indifference to national greatness."
...Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology. 1961.
"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less...
Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ."
...
George Grant, The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action. 1995
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Well sir since you are so up in arms about religion how bout the whole "free exercise there of" part in the constitution. The ACLU has gone after many of groups and it seems they are hell bent on getting any thing from santa clause to the easter bunny out of the limelight come holliday times. Hell they have never met a boyscout troop that they didn't want to sue.
Next time you defend the ACLU for their stand up of "rights" ask yourself how many 2nd amendment issues they've defended......there's not that many.
They are a communist socialist organization that disguises themselves in the mantra of civil liberties.....hell just look at the founder.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the constitution but to me the ACLU seems more like a trojen horse than a defender of rights.
Guns, I'm with yah.. the ACLU seems to be a massive pile of contradictions to someone on the right.. or the left.. or in the center. Cripes, sometimes I wonder if they're freakin scizoid.. but I'm certain tthey ain't communists.. in fact they banned commies from membership back in the 1920's.
But, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you come from or what the mood of the country is regarding issues.. if yer rights get stepped on, the ACLU is where you go to get assistance. Doesn't matter if yer a bell-ringing pain in the bellybutton Witness or a black woman with her wide fat bellybutton in a seat on the front of the bus.
Yah.. I agree with yah; I think they shirked the 2nd issues.. wish they were as vile and rabid about protecting those as they are about boy scouts and statues of dead jews.. but when the NRA needed a hand with a position brief the ACLU opens their files for them.
The Wiki list of critics of the ACLU is long and interesting.. as a sample I've snipped and pasted just the section on Cristian Critics.. hope you'll read through it and maybe go look at some of the other folks they've pissed off...
Conservative Christian Critics of the ACLU
At the grassroots level, the ACLU often involves itself in cases involving the separation of church and state. Therefore, some Christians, including many who may be considered conservative Christian, often take issue with its positions. Many in this community contend that the ACLU is part of an effort to remove all references to religion from American government.
In 2004, for example, the ACLU of Southern California (ACLU/SC) threatened to sue the city of Redlands, California if it did not remove a picture of a cross from the city's seal. The ACLU/SC argued that having a cross on the seal amounted to a government-sponsored endorsement of Christianity and violated separation of church and state. The city complied with the ACLU/SC and removed the cross from all city vehicles, business cards, and police badges. However, the issue was put on the November 2005 ballot [49]. The ACLU/SC also threatened Los Angeles County, California if it did not remove an image of a cross from its seal. As in the Redlands case, the county board complied with the demands and voted to remove the cross from its seal as well. There was a petition against the changing of the seal, which ended on August 15, 2005 [50].
In 1990, Pat Robertson founded the American Center for Law and Justice, as a counterweight to the ACLU, which is perceived by Robertson as "liberal" and "hostile to traditional American values"; another non-profit legal center, the Thomas More Law Center, also bills itself as the "Christian answer to the ACLU."
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Rev. Jerry Falwell remarked that the ACLU, by trying to "secularize America," had provoked the wrath of God, and therefore caused those terrorist attacks. (Falwell later apologized for the remark.) Other critics of the ACLU do not make such strong accusations, but claim that the organization pushes the concept of separation of church and state beyond its original meaning. The ACLU and Jerry Falwell sometimes find themselves on the same side. Notably, the ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting a suit by Falwell against the state of Virginia. The suit, which was successful, overturned the Virginia constitution's ban on the incorporation of Churches. In addition, the ACLU has defended the rights of a Christian church to run anti-Santa ads on Boston subways, the rights to religious expression by jurors, and the rights of Christian students to distribute religious literature in school. [51]
While the ACLU does oppose the use of crosses in public monuments [52], [53], there have been false allegations that the ACLU has urged the removal of cross-shaped headstones from federal cemeteries and has opposed prayer by soldiers; such charges have been deemed to be urban legends. [54]
Many minority religious groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims have at times been defended by the ACLU. In the Mormon community, the ACLU is viewed positively by some, who cite Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, a case litigated by the ACLU on behalf of a Mormon student concerning school prayer [55]. However, a good number of Mormons, including some local leaders, are strongly against the activities of the ACLU [56].
Jehovah's Witnesses were involved in twenty-three Supreme Court rulings between 1938 and 1946 over religious objections to serving in the armed forces and over saluting the flag and reciting the pledge of allegiance [57], over local and state ordinances prohibiting the Witnesses from publishing criticisms of the Roman Catholic church [58], as well as over government reluctance to prosecute anti-Witness vigilantes; the ACLU was directly involved in these cases [59]. The ACLU's involvement with Jehovah's Witnesses continues, and they joined the Witnesses in a 2002 case over doorbell-ringing [60].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#History
Yup.. lotsa contradictions... but I think we need a watchdog group like this that'll take a civil rights case regardless of who's wheaties get crapped in.
If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
a practice that has lead to murder, rape, genocide and despotisim for over 2000 years.
you err. and confuse and or conflate matters consequent, subsequent, and coincident.
hap
p.s. murder, rape, genocide, and despotisim pre-date Christ. Evil and sin cause them. They are not the result of belief nor form of governent, way of thinking, or manner of living.
People who cite religion, government, ways of thinking, manners of living to murder, rape, commit genocide, and acts of despotism to justify the unjustifiable evince that evil and sin deforms.
-
The aclu has stated numerous times that it does not believe that the second amendment is a right for individuals. That it is a "collective right" whatever that is.... that it only guarentees that the government can have arms. The aclu is a lefty socialist group that has no interest in individual rights.
As for the ten commandments.... I would venture to say that they had a great deal to do with our laws and the they have a place in the lobby of a courtroom... several other religions have passages that would fit just as well and I have no objection to them any more than having quotes from philosophers or whatever. Those who focus on the religious aspect are paranoid or agendized.
I somehow do not feel that christianity is attacking my freedoms in this country I think that we need to be vigilant when they do tho... stupid laws that restrict my freedom are evil no matter if a religious group or a socialist group instigates em.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
laws that restrict my freedom
all laws restrict freedom. actually they don't restrict anything. law, if you're caught, will set in motion civially punitive measures.
all laws restrict freedom. in fact, it's quite a popular thing to do. folks want folks' freedom restriced. the devil is in the details.
hap
-
sorry hap... I meant laws that restrict my freedom for no good reason and/or laws that take away human rights. I am an individualist. So long as what I do causes you no harm you have no right to stop me from doing it.
lazs
-
Okay, I better check my temperature cause as to the ACLU and the Second Ammendment, I agree with lazs.
The ACLU is wrong in that case, IMHO.
I don't have a problem with them in most of their cases though.
******
As to Religion being the root of evil (if that's what I think some may say), no, religion may be used as the battle cry of "evil" thinking individuals.
Have there been some wrongdoings done in human history with religion/God used as a rallying point? Sure, since most people seem to believe in a God/Supreme Being, it shouldn't be unusual for religion to be used as a rallying point and/or "motive".
To cite a couple of non-religious massacres:
Pol Pot didn't use religion when he had his troops murder a million of his own fellow citizens.
The Japanese didn't use God as a reason in the rape of Nanking.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Okay, I better check my temperature cause as to the ACLU and the Second Ammendment, I agree with lazs.
The ACLU is wrong in that case, IMHO.
I don't have a problem with them in most of their cases though.
******
As to Religion being the root of evil (if that's what I think some may say), no, religion may be used as the battle cry of "evil" thinking individuals.
Have there been some wrongdoings done in human history with religion/God used as a rallying point? Sure, since most people seem to believe in a God/Supreme Being, it shouldn't be unusual for religion to be used as a rallying point and/or "motive".
To cite a couple of non-religious massacres:
Pol Pot didn't use religion when he had his troops murder a million of his own fellow citizens.
The Japanese didn't use God as a reason in the rape of Nanking.
You're on to something there sir. Let's not forget about Stalin.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Okay, I better check my temperature cause as to the ACLU and the Second Ammendment, I agree with lazs.
The ACLU is wrong in that case, IMHO.
I don't have a problem with them in most of their cases though.
Yup. Infuriates the hell outta me; some of the stuff they consider 'important' seems trivial at best, diruptive in the routine; 'anti-american' at worst. Still; a as a Civil Rights watchdog.. glad they are there. Sons-a-Beyatches may someday revist the 2'nd position stand; if the right case comes along.
Originally posted by SaburoS
As to Religion being the root of evil (if that's what I think some may say), no, religion may be used as the battle cry of "evil" thinking individuals.
Have there been some wrongdoings done in human history with religion/God used as a rallying point? Sure, since most people seem to believe in a God/Supreme Being, it shouldn't be unusual for religion to be used as a rallying point and/or "motive".
To cite a couple of non-religious massacres:
Pol Pot didn't use religion when he had his troops murder a million of his own fellow citizens.
The Japanese didn't use God as a reason in the rape of Nanking.
Sure.. not ALL modern tyrants and despots are in 'leauge' with a religious drummer... but it's certainly evident that a new 'holy war' is being brewed up. If the cries of 'Allah Akbar" are any indication at all of what's to come, then we need to be damn sure that our response is not a religious retribution... or a holy war of our own.
Crush them, YES. For crimes against humanity... without a shred of religious symbolisim displayed by us at any time in the process.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
...and that's not nearly as laughable as those that keep trying to paint Atheism as a religion.
Again, how does an Atheist practice his Atheism?
Take it up with the law, Subo. It classifies it as such and as such protects your right to such a choice of belief. If that bothers you then crusade against that law first. As for the rest ... you make much ado bout nuthin' .... pretty much like every obsessive compulsive thread started by Chairboy to prove Atheists rule and Christians drool. :D
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Arlo,
Here's a scenario for you:
Judges are now allowed to erect any religious staues/monuments they wish.
Now they get this idea that Christianity in the courtroom is a good idea.
So now I appear before that same judge. He finds out that I am an Atheist.
He rules against me unfairly.
That is one scary scenario.
Yeah. It's scary. But it's just a boogyman scenario. Much like a scenario where vampires come in the night and eat your head. Get back to me when it threatens to actually become a reality and I'll join you in defense of said boogyman. :D
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Arlo,
I am not a threat to you.
The religious right is a threat to me.
I think those that say they are truly Christian should practice it and forgive those they disagree with and move on :D
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
I didn't say you were. I said atheists who are currently in arms and afraid the word "God" is a state sponsored religion are acting silly. It's not a threat to you. At least not yet. Chances are slim it'll happen unless our current system is completely destructured. If that happens, the word "God" is really the least of your problems. Like I said, get back to me when the threat actually materializes for everyone to see. ;)
-
Originally posted by Nash
"The ideologists of the conservative revolution superimposed a vision of national redemption upon their dissatisfaction with liberal culture and with the loss of authoritative faith. They posed as the true champions of nationalism, and berated the socialists for their internationalism, and the liberals for their pacifism and their indifference to national greatness."
...Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology. 1961.
"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less...
Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ."
...
George Grant, The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action. 1995
Is he a senator or congressman?
-
I think it probably takes about as much faith to believe there is no self aware creator of the space/time continuum as it does to believe that there is. Faith and religion go hand in hand so I don't think it was much of a stretch for the court to declare Atheism a religion. Seems to me we have some pretty fervent adherents to their faith on this board.
-
Lukster: Is good health a 'disease'? It is the absence of illness, but by your logic, it is therefor classified as a disease. Atheism is a lack of religious belief.
-
Chairboy, you have the space/time continuum in front of you. Your confidence that is was not created by an intelligent being can only be called faith.
-
Can you answer my question please?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Atheism is a lack of religious belief.
yes it is.
hap
-
Originally posted by lukster
Chairboy, you have the space/time continuum in front of you. Your confidence that is was not created by an intelligent being can only be called faith.
We, as a species of animal on this planet, have searched high and low for well over 2000 years for evidence of a creating, intelligent, being.. three strikes so far.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I think it probably takes about as much faith to believe there is no self aware creator of the space/time continuum as it does to believe that there is. Faith and religion go hand in hand so I don't think it was much of a stretch for the court to declare Atheism a religion. Seems to me we have some pretty fervent adherents to their faith on this board.
What's to believe? Atheists, at least those I know, don't "believe" there is no god, they (like myself) don't see any proof that god exists and therefore are not willing to take "on faith" that he does. None, not one, of the athiests I know have any problems with theists chosing to believe what they like. The same cannot be said of fundamentalist theists of any brand in regard to atheists.
It seems to me that an awful lot of theists think that the refusal to believe in god, as defined by man in the currently extant religions, is exactly the equal of believing that god does not and can not exist. While this labelling does fit neatly in the simplified black & white world view of the fundamentalist theist, it has precious little to do with who and what atheists truly are. The refusal to believe, or have "faith" that, something is true is not the same thing as believing that it is not true.
As an atheist I don't preclude the existance of god because that would require me to accept an hypothesis as hard fact, i.e I take it on faith that god does not exist. I believe in things I can prove or see, or know to have been proven. I take nothing on "faith", especially when someone else tells me it is "the right thing to do".
asw
ATHEIST.
gratuitous Christ bashing to follow if you need an excuse to get upset at me. Actually, this is a song I used to know that I thought was pretty funny and have forgotten the words to. I really would like to be able to sing it again.
Anyone know the lyrics to "Christ the Magic Hebrew"? I used to know them but I forgot. It's sung to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon and it goes something like this:
"Christ the magic Hebrew,
Lived by the sea,
and taught us social protest
in a land called Galilea.
Ooooh Christ the magic Hebrew...."
I forgot the rest except the ending. To whit:
"...
so they nailed him to a tree.
(final chorus)
Oh Christ the mag..." etc.
Any help would be appreciated...
really.
thx
Cheers,
asw
(PM me with the lyrics if you have em and don't want to feel the wrath of ... nevermind. Just PM me).
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Take it up with the law, Subo. It classifies it as such and as such protects your right to such a choice of belief. If that bothers you then crusade against that law first. As for the rest ... you make much ado bout nuthin' .... pretty much like every obsessive compulsive thread started by Chairboy to prove Atheists rule and Christians drool. :D
...and yet here you are continually posting in a thread that pretty much is "much ado bout nuthin'." ;)
Seems it means more to you than you are letting on.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I didn't say you were. I said atheists who are currently in arms and afraid the word "God" is a state sponsored religion are acting silly. It's not a threat to you. At least not yet. Chances are slim it'll happen unless our current system is completely destructured. If that happens, the word "God" is really the least of your problems. Like I said, get back to me when the threat actually materializes for everyone to see. ;)
So I take it then you wouldn't mind if the term "Under God" was removed from the Pledge?
How about removing the term "In God We Trust" on our currency?
It's not a threat to anyone's religion after all.
How about you get back to me when the threat actually materializes for everyone to see. ;) (borrowing your line)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
You're on to something there sir. Let's not forget about Stalin.
Oh I purposely left out Stalin and Hitler as well as the Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch hunts, The Great Crusades, Phalange Christian massacres of Palestinian camps. History is full of examples of massacres where religion was used as a rally cry/"motive" as well as nonreligious ones.
For the same thing can be said of good deeds in human history. Some include religion, some don't.
Bottom line, it's not what religion does as it can't do anything on its own. It's what mankind does, good and evil, with or without religion that matters.
Religion is a tool. Can be used for good, or bad.
-
How about In the Easter Bunny We Trust?
Another point for this thread... a common christian point of view I hear a lot:
If a christian man does a good deed, then he is a good christian.
If an atheist man does a good deed, then he is a good man.
If a christian man commits a bad deed, then he is not a true christian.
If an atheist man commits a bad deed, then he is an evil atheist.
Yet...
if a buddhist man commits a good deed, he is a good man.
if a buddhist man commits a bad deed, he is a bad man.
Why is it christianity feels the need to claim all goodness not even necessarily done it its name and take no responsibility/credit for the evils done in its name?
-
Originally posted by detch01
What's to believe? Atheists, at least those I know, don't "believe" there is no god, they (like myself) don't see any proof that god exists and therefore are not willing to take "on faith" that he does. None, not one, of the athiests I know have any problems with theists chosing to believe what they like. The same cannot be said of fundamentalist theists of any brand in regard to atheists.
It seems to me that an awful lot of theists think that the refusal to believe in god, as defined by man in the currently extant religions, is exactly the equal of believing that god does not and can not exist. While this labelling does fit neatly in the simplified black & white world view of the fundamentalist theist, it has precious little to do with who and what atheists truly are. The refusal to believe, or have "faith" that, something is true is not the same thing as believing that it is not true.
As an atheist I don't preclude the existance of god because that would require me to accept an hypothesis as hard fact, i.e I take it on faith that god does not exist. I believe in things I can prove or see, or know to have been proven. I take nothing on "faith", especially when someone else tells me it is "the right thing to do".
Refusal to believe... as if belief were a choice. For me, it's not a matter of "do or do not". It's a matter of "can or cannot". I can't just turn it on or off by free will.
I did not choose to be atheist.
From what I've read, there are some people that can indeed direct belief by force of will. I'm not one of them.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Can you answer my question please?
Is good health a disease? No, by definition disease is in conflict with "good health" or normal functioning. Of course we can debate what normal functioning is can we not?
That has little to do with what I am saying though. Faith is the belief in something without proof. You cannot prove that the Universe wasn't created by a god. That you believe this without proof makes it faith. If you really want to be religion free you will be agnostic rather than athiest.
-
their are degrees of athiesm... their is the angry "shout it from the rooftops in your face" type who use it as a club against the religious...
Then their is the "it sounds so rebel and hip" type.
Then their is the "I have a belief that there is no god because he didn't save my puppy" type.
Then their is the "I never give it much thought but if I do I would say that I have to believe that there is no god" type
I have problems with the first three types in a big way... they are pretty pathetic.
The last is simply ignorant of what faith means or... more accurately.. don't care.
let's just use ghosts or aliens instead of god.... why is their no word for those who do not believe? Why are those who do not believe in ghosts or aliens not all defensive and/or in your face about it?
What is the difference? that is the quyestion an athiest needs to ask himself... why so combative on one and not the others?
lazs
-
Treaty with Tripoli (1797)
It was on this date, June 10, 1797, that President John Adams signed into law, promising thereby "faithfully to observe and fulfill ... every clause and article" the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary. The Treaty with Tripoli, as it is now known, a regency in what is now Libya, has become a key document in the debate over whether or not the United States is, or ever was, or was intended to be, a Christian nation, or even founded on Christian principles.
First, what are we talking about? Did George Washington say, "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"? No, he didn't. He did delegate to Joel Barlow (a Deist) the negotiation of a treaty with that Barbary leader to halt their plundering of US cargo ships.
Second, the entire treaty has 12 articles, 860 words, and the questionable clause is from Article 11. In its entirety, Article 11 reads,
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion — as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] — and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Article 11
Article 11 of the
Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the
United States of America and the
Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary
Third, how can this be unclear? Detractors cite numerous politicians of the time proclaiming their Christian principles. One says that the article must be read "as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion," and that "such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation." The logic of this is seriously flawed. The Declaration of Independence refers only to a creator, not to a Christian God, and has no force of law, anyway. And the Constitution is conspicuously godless — Jefferson wrote that an attempt was made to insert a reference to Jesus Christ, and that it was voted down
Treaty with Tripoli (http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0610almanac.htm)
-
Good one, Dago! Yah, know; I was aware of that treaty... The Barbary war is an interesting one, and the development of our naval policy and capabilities prior to the War of 1812 and defense of our trade being my focal point. But the significance of religious infuence on the Sultans had'nt impacted my 'vist' to the subject 35 years ago.
A DAMN good find!
It should be remembered that that Treaty was framed and ratifed at a time in our history when the original framers of the constitution and the bill of rights were still very much involved in the Government of our fledgeling Nation.
The Bill of Rights. Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The treaty with the Bey's.. 1797.
That should put the context of the Church and the State and just what the hell the "hacks" that wrote our Constitution AND that Treaty.. our first with a forigen power, had in mind!
Again... THANKS Dago!
-
God didn't create us all as robots to be Christians. He gave us all the ability to choose for ourselves. Those that choose not to believe don't bother me one bit. It is not I that they will answer to. I will never try to convince anyone to be a Christian if they don't want to believe in God. I hold no ill will or animosity toward those who are athiests. It is their choice to make & the people who claim to be Christians that try to force their beliefs on others are most likely nothing but religious cults. Most every religeon has them whether it be muslims, hindu's, etc..
Christ died on the cross for all. Athiests & believers alike. It is up to each of us to decide whether you accept it or not. If you do, God loves you. If you don't, God loves you.:)
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=175522&highlight=Treaty+with+Tripoli
I knew I saw this somewhere.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
...and yet here you are continually posting in a thread that pretty much is "much ado bout nuthin'." ;)
Seems it means more to you than you are letting on.
I participated in yet another obsessive/compulsive Chairboy "Why Atheists rule and Christians drool" (alternating with "OMG! Teh Christians are taking over teh guvmint and oppressing my good Atheist people!") thread by offering my advice that the sky isn't falling and militant atheists need to get a grip and take a deep breath. The road to reality is paved with oxygen molecules. It hasn't universally sunk in to date. It probably never will. But I reckon I've as much a right to be a Don Quixote as Chairboy. He found a Sancho Panza in you. I'll just have to make do without. :D
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
So I take it then you wouldn't mind if the term "Under God" was removed from the Pledge?
How about removing the term "In God We Trust" on our currency?
It's not a threat to anyone's religion after all.
How about you get back to me when the threat actually materializes for everyone to see. ;) (borrowing your line)
It's not the issue you would make it out to be. *ShruG* I just don't see how it theatens the Atheists so greatly. Didn't prevent them from being one so far. Guess I'm just secure in my own belief that way. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I participated in yet another obsessive/compulsive Chairboy "Why Atheists rule and Christians drool" (alternating with "OMG! Teh Christians are taking over teh guvmint and oppressing my good Atheist people!") thread by offering my advice that the sky isn't falling and militant atheists need to get a grip and take a deep breath. The road to reality is paved with oxygen molecules. It hasn't universally sunk in to date. It probably never will. But I reckon I've as much a right to be a Don Quixote as Chairboy. He found a Sancho Panza in you. I'll just have to make do without. :D
Yet ironically, you seem to be the one tilting at windmills with talk of 'militant atheists'.
Oh, that's ironic in the Merriam-Webster sense, not the unfortunate Alanis Morrisette misuse.
BTW, I've been doing my darndest to start interesting conversations that keep a civil tone, and so far so good. Isn't that what the board is for?
-
They are interesting, in a psychological study of "Atheists on a crusade to defend America from the obvious Christian takeover of the guvmint" pov. And, as such, I don't mind. Mind my chiming in from time to time? I probably only post in less than 10% of the threads you start regarding such. They are fairly prolific. And though you seem to infer that the direction being taken could lead to something less than civil, I don't particularly see a degree of sarcastic scorn as *that* uncivil. We've both seen (and probably done) worse. ;)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
...and that's not nearly as laughable as those that keep trying to paint Atheism as a religion.
Again, how does an Atheist practice his Atheism?
The word God doesn't threaten Atheistic belief.
"Atheistic belief"
Faith is the belief in the unprovable.
The existence or non existence of God is unprovable.
Therefore, .... if one believes in the unprovable, one has faith.
Faith is the foundation of Religion. All you need to do then is have a leadership, an organization that defends the faith and proselytizes the belief and you have a religion.
-
Seems like too many people are confusing atheism with agnosticism.
-
I think you are correct Nash, See? I do agree with you sometimes.
I have no religious beliefs. I am agnostic.
-
Hehe.
The thing I'm confused about is a term for someone like me, who believes in a little bit of this, and a little bit of that.
A Smorgasbordian, maybe.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hehe.
The thing I'm confused about is a term for someone like me, who believes in a little bit of this, and a little bit of that.
Wishy Washy.
-
Ooh that stings.
phht.
-
I am every bit as embarassed to be around someone taking every opportunity to proclaim his "athiesm" as I am to be around the guy who quit drinking last week and is now wearing a huge wooden cross around his neck and a glazed look on his face.
lazs
-
Because I've never met an atheist proclaimer on any continent I've been on, and I'm old. I've never seen an athiest preacher on my TV, I've never had an athiest knock on my door, or offer me athiest literature at a public place. It's hard for me to sympathize with the weariness of being harangued by atheists.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
"Atheistic belief"
Faith is the belief in the unprovable.
The existence or non existence of God is unprovable.
Therefore, .... if one believes in the unprovable, one has faith.
Faith is the foundation of Religion. All you need to do then is have a leadership, an organization that defends the faith and proselytizes the belief and you have a religion.
I heard this in my head in the Monty Python voice... "and if it weighs the same as a duck......."
I have faith in a lot of things that don't constitute a religion.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I heard this in my head in the Monty Python voice... "and if it weighs the same as a duck......."
I have faith in a lot of things that don't constitute a religion.
religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I think atheism qualifies.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I have faith in a lot of things that don't constitute a religion.
You have unquestioning beliefs in the truth of unprovable ideas?
I took you for a more logic based individual.
-
I believe black holes exist. Can you prove that they do? You can suppose, you can draw inferences from empirical data, but you can't prove it.
I guess I belong to the Religion of the Almighty Black Hole.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I believe black holes exist. Can you prove that they do? You can suppose, you can draw inferences from empirical data, but you can't prove it.
I guess I belong to the Religion of the Almighty Black Hole.
Just don't drink the kool-aid. ;)
-
If you don't believe the easter bunny exists, that's a religion too, right?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
If you don't believe the easter bunny exists, that's a religion too, right?
I guess that depends on how ardent your belief or fervent your preaching. I think it really goads some to discover they are what they despise.
For the sake of argument though there is absolutely no evidence to support belief in the "easter bunny" that isn't easily disproven. On the other hand we have the Universe.
-
Ah, but that's evidence that the universe exists, not god.
My kids get candy on easter, so the easter bunny exists, right? That's the same quality of logic being employed to use the existance of the universe as proof of god.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I believe black holes exist. Can you prove that they do? You can suppose, you can draw inferences from empirical data, but you can't prove it.
I guess I belong to the Religion of the Almighty Black Hole.
So you maintain that the existance of black holes is an unprovable idea in which you have an unquestioning belief? I have faith ;) that that is not what you meant, but if so, you do belong to the religion.
My confidence in the existance of black holes comes from the extrapolation of General Relativity. A scientific process which if shown wrong tomorrow, would eliminate my confidence in the idea.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ah, but that's evidence that the universe exists, not god.
My kids get candy on easter, so the easter bunny exists, right? That's the same quality of logic being employed to use the existance of the universe as proof of god.
Is there no other explanation fo the appearance of the candy?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So you maintain that the existance of black holes is an unprovable idea in which you have an unquestioning belief? I have faith ;) that that is not what you meant, but if so, you do belong to the religion.
My confidence in the existance of black holes comes from the extrapolation of General Relativity. A scientific process which if shown wrong tomorrow, would eliminate my confidence in the idea.
Quit messing with my religion.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Is there no other explanation fo the appearance of the candy?
Of course there are. You could argue that my wife or I put the candy out. Of course, there are other explanations for the existance of the universe too, explanations that have experimental evidence can be modeled mathematically, and are visible to the eyes of deep space telescopes.
So going back to the beginning, saying "if the universe exists, that proves god" is equally as valid as saying "if my kid finds candy on easter, then the easter bunny exists".
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ah, but that's evidence that the universe exists, not god.
My kids get candy on easter, so the easter bunny exists, right? That's the same quality of logic being employed to use the existance of the universe as proof of god.
Your kids belief that a bunny delivered their candy is false and easily and concretely disproven.
When you can prove to me that the Universe was not intentionally created by an intelligent being I will give up my belief that it was. I believe that I fully understand my faith. Do you understand yours?
You have the evidence of a Universe, that is your ultimately reality. You cannot explain how it came to be without faith.
How religious you are in this is directly realted to how fervent you are in believing that which you cannot prove.
-
The explanation of the divine cause of the universe does not end the chain of questions.
To the chain that ends "Who (or what) created the universe" it just adds "Who created God?"
The answer that God created universe is not supported by a logical argument. It is faith based: logic and faith cannot be used to prove each other.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The explanation of the divine cause of the universe does not end the chain of questions.
To the chain that ends "Who (or what) created the universe" it just adds "Who created God?"
The answer that God created universe is not supported by a logical argument. It is faith based: logic and faith cannot be used to prove each other.
I believe that time and space is a creation and therfore it's creator must exist "beyond" it. Therefore the "who created God" question may not be valid since it is based on our experience within the constraints of linear perception. I do relaize of course that this same argument may be applied to the existence of a "createdless" Universe. I admit to having faith.
-
The Grand Canyon was created by a river. In that sense, it has a 'creator', but do you believe that the creator must have consciousness, will, and intent? Is 'god' another name for a non-living, unconscious, natural process that initiated the big bang?
Of course this all takes us away from the intent of the thread, which I was hoping would stay focused on the role that atheists have in the US government. I don't hold christian beliefs against someone who is running for office, I vote the issues. Can all of the religionists here say the same thing about an atheist up for election?
-
I don't care what someone's religious beliefs are so long as they have a plan and can be successful in reducing the size of government including social programs and they can successfully promote individual liberty. I suspect we may differ on what the latter means though.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Because I've never met an atheist proclaimer on any continent I've been on, and I'm old. I've never seen an athiest preacher on my TV, I've never had an athiest knock on my door, or offer me athiest literature at a public place. It's hard for me to sympathize with the weariness of being harangued by atheists.
You mean this thread and all the other ones Chairboy's started that are essentially looking for responses regarding how bad Christians are and how good Atheists are ... are figments? Hmmmmm ... now that's rather philosophically interesting. :D
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You have unquestioning beliefs in the truth of unprovable ideas?
I took you for a more logic based individual.
Believing without a doubt that there isn't a creator is every bit as much a leap of faith as believing without a doubt there is one. Perhaps the doubting Thomases are the only true non-believers. ;)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
If you don't believe the easter bunny exists, that's a religion too, right?
Ahhh ... confusion of faith and religion. Seen this before. But this is just philosophical meanderings. Legal rights tends to require a definitive level playing field. :)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Believing without a doubt that there isn't a creator is every bit as much a leap of faith as believing without a doubt there is one. Perhaps the doubting Thomases are the only true non-believers. ;)
OK... why should we believe in your god? Why not the Hindu gods? Or some god of a tribe buried deep in the Amazon? I mean... your god has a track record of dishonesty, intefering with other mens wives, nuking complete cities and so on.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
OK... why should we believe in your god? Why not the Hindu gods? Or some god of a tribe buried deep in the Amazon? I mean... your god has a track record of dishonesty, intefering with other mens wives, nuking complete cities and so on.
I haven't asked you to. I'm not evangalizing here. I'm just addressing those who are. Those who are evangalizing Atheism as the superior to Christianity but taking a swing at their perceived enemy. If based on your viewpoints of God (what you call "your God"), Atheism's track record is no better. Because that's the track record of man. Don't confuse me with a fundamentalist. I'm aware of the fallibility of any faith's writings, Christianity included. But the teachings of Christ gave perspective. For those who chose to believe them.
The best way to convince someone that your beliefs are worthy is living them and setting a decent example (Lord knows I'm not the best at that). That goes for Atheists as well a Christians a well as Muslims a well as Jews ... etc. :)
-
Of course, an atheist who lives well and does good by others is still condemned to the burning depths of hell. The hard sale indeed!
Back to the subject, I've gotten one answer from someone on my "Would you vote for an atheist who in all other respectes represented your views?" question. Anyone out there who wouldn't?
-
Still don't see anyone suggesting your "Yay Atheists! Boo Christians!" thread be turned into a Christian evangelism thread. *ShruG* You're free to believe what you're secure and comfortable believing. I just don't see your display here particularly secure looking.
Yeah ... I'll vote for anyone that proves themselves capable and are willing to represent my needs in office and serve this nation well. Do you consider that a particularly "damning" suggestion? ;)
-
Good, two 'yes', no 'not on your life'. Good!
BTW, what part of this thread is "atheists yay! christians boo!"?
-
Feel free to clarify your actual intent. Seemed transparent to me but then, so have the others. If I'm wrong, I can take it, but it'll take a pretty good amount of rationalization for you to get me there. Still, if this particular one had nothing to do with the other ones, forgive? :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Believing without a doubt that there isn't a creator is every bit as much a leap of faith as believing without a doubt there is one. Perhaps the doubting Thomases are the only true non-believers. ;)
Absolutely: hence atheism is faith that there is no God.
That is why I am agnostic: no faith one way or the other.
-
No argument here. Imagine that. :)
-
Agnosticism is compatible with both theism or atheism.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I haven't asked you to.
You may not have, but christianity in general is making a fairly staunch effort to force me to. Heres the hypocracy... "In god we trust", shoved down the throats of american's, in NZ its "god of nations"... try to get the words changed and the christians claim we're being 'antichristian' and picking on them. But they still want us to (falsely) worship their god.
For me, and many athiests I know, my first reaction to christians is its an excuse to hide behind. Sure there are exceptions, but very few I've ever met practise what the preach - usually its 90% preach 10% practise.
So for me its a bunch of people trying to force their beliefs down my throat, one way or another, forcing me to 'recognise' their god, trying to say they are better than me for their beliefs, and passing judgement on me on my lack of belief in their god alone (ie not my actions), then in the background their not really following those beliefs. Wouldn't that make you just a little iritated?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I believe black holes exist. Can you prove that they do? You can suppose, you can draw inferences from empirical data, but you can't prove it.
My sistas a hoe. only costa yah 20 bucks ta prove it.
Originally posted by midnight Target
I guess I belong to the Religion of the Almighty Black Hole.
she ain't all that.
-
Is this a good time to talk about hang's multiple personality disorder and his *cough* sister?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
You may not have, but christianity in general is making a fairly staunch effort to force me to. Heres the hypocracy... "In god we trust", shoved down the throats of american's, in NZ its "god of nations"... try to get the words changed and the christians claim we're being 'antichristian' and picking on them. But they still want us to (falsely) worship their god.
For me, and many athiests I know, my first reaction to christians is its an excuse to hide behind. Sure there are exceptions, but very few I've ever met practise what the preach - usually its 90% preach 10% practise.
So for me its a bunch of people trying to force their beliefs down my throat, one way or another, forcing me to 'recognise' their god, trying to say they are better than me for their beliefs, and passing judgement on me on my lack of belief in their god alone (ie not my actions), then in the background their not really following those beliefs. Wouldn't that make you just a little iritated?
Wow, "In god we trust" on a buck makes you feel all that oppressed? I suspect your faith is in jeopardy.
-
on the other side of the coin, lukster; whats the big whup about having it removed? what threat does NOT having 'in god we trust' on cash hold for religionists?
all were talking about is de-moobification.
removing 'in god we trust' makes you feel persecuted?
-
I don't really care that much one way or the other but.... when it comes to something as harmless as "in god we trust" on the money..... Hell.... just put it up for a vote.
I don't really like to change things just for changes sake or to please a couple of disgruntled athiests but if the people don't want it on there.... fine with me.
I kind of like it as being "traditional" so would vote to keep it but wouldn't get all upset (maybe shake my head in amusement) if it got dumped.
lazs
-
Lazs, what about when 'under god' was added to the pledge of allegiance?
-
asking for money or a prayor never flyes with me..
mixing politics with religion never goes well..
money and god?.. dont even get them in the same thread..
im not an atheist..
im not a beliver..
im something inbetween..
does not mean im in for mixing them up..
they are separate..
yet they are all mixed up..
complex is what it all is..
debating either wihtout the other is hard..
debating either with the other is worse..
so lets all just skip it..
and agree..
that the oposite sex is what its all about.... when you break it down.. (unless you are a brokeback type person..
if you are, all the above is still valid..
huh?
:huh
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't really care that much one way or the other but.... when it comes to something as harmless as "in god we trust" on the money..... Hell.... just put it up for a vote.
I don't really like to change things just for changes sake or to please a couple of disgruntled athiests but if the people don't want it on there.... fine with me.
I kind of like it as being "traditional" so would vote to keep it but wouldn't get all upset (maybe shake my head in amusement) if it got dumped.
lazs
^^^^^^
what he said
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Absolutely: hence atheism is faith that there is no God.
That is why I am agnostic: no faith one way or the other.
Wishy-washy fence sitter!!! Bbbpppphhhhtttzzz :D
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
So I take it then you wouldn't mind if the term "Under God" was removed from the Pledge?
How about removing the term "In God We Trust" on our currency?
Arlo,
Care to answer or do you want to continue to avoid it?
-
-
Wishy-washy fence sitter
No offense, but faith will blow any which way irrationality does.
Reason is... reasoned.
-
As an atheist, I don't divulge my beliefs to too many people. I began doubting my Christian beliefs in college when I started becoming more educated. And whereas Christians do things such as helping the poor and following rules/laws because they think they will go to hell if they dont, I do the same things because I believe they are the right things to do.
I think religion is good for the common people because it gives them a moral code to follow, and gives them hope. But I'm not fond of our elected leaders being religous. I'd rather them to make rational decisions based on logic, not superstition.
-
There doesn't (shouldn't) have to be any overlap between religious ideas and secular discipline in reality.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I began doubting my Christian beliefs in college when I started becoming more educated.
:rofl
Classic.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Christians do things such as helping the poor and following rules/laws because they think they will go to hell if they dont
I will speak for this Catholic. I seek to do the things you mentioned not because I will go to hell if I don't, but because I love God and to be my brother's keeper is the right thing to do. The one whom we love we desire to obey. If we love someone, we seek to do right by them. Just like little children. St. John 15:9 came to mind, "As the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you. Abide in my love."
And of course, the quintessential example in holy scripture of being charitable towards the poor can be found in St. Matthew's Gospel chapter 25.
What can be interesting is Jesus tells the parable of the sheep and goats to teach something of God's indiscriminate love & criteria for judgment. At least in part, like you said the parable concerns judgment. But as to why I should do these things the Church is crystal clear, being God's kids all people from the uttermost to the guttermost still have the dignity that he invested us with when he created us no matter how vile we've become or how viley we've treated others during our time on earth.
Helping and loving others is the right thing to do and I do it because it's the right thing to do. I love God because he first loved me. Certainly circular reasoning. As it should be, since God has put us on a circular path. Our existence is circular. We enter this world and then exit it. We are born and die. We came from him, and we return.
A possible difference between myself, a Cathloic, and you, an athiest, are our proofs for life's fundamental question: why am I here?. My proof, in part, rests on faith. As far as logic goes, check out St. Thomas Acquinas, quite a fan of logic. Faith is grace by the way open to all for the asking and seeking, not of my own doing per se.
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
My proof, in part, rests on faith.
Contradictio in terminis.
-
nelson and chairboy... I don't make that big a deal out of it. I have no problem with "under god" being added a long time ago to the pledge.
Why? well... things were different maybe... maybe not but... people wanted it and they probly still do.
At this point it is moot (not you moot)... it is traditional. It is a tradition and part of Americana... No need to change it unless so many people in the US get bleeding eyes or vocal cords from seeing it or saying it that it becomes intolerable...
I think that new additions of "god" to public and government are appropriate to challenge but I am not for changing traditional money or statues or pledges on the whim of a few.
It just seems bitter and useless and silly and.... just plain mean and militant to tear down old traditions that harm no one and bring a little comfort to many.
It makes the militant athiests that want to destroy tradition seem like nothing more than childish griefers.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Thud
Contradictio in terminis.
You've nailed the problem squarely Thud.
Some have been taught quod erat demonstrandum exists exclusively apart from religion.
Thanks for the reminder.
hap
-
Originally posted by moot
No offense, but faith will blow any which way irrationality does.
Reason is... reasoned.
An Agnostic isn't sure either way. Some feel there might be a God, but proof doesn't exist of its existence, and/or God doesn't have a direct influence on our daily lives.
To an Agnostic, there may or may not be a God/Supreme Being.
Basically a fence sitter on the issue.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
As an atheist, I don't divulge my beliefs to too many people. I began doubting my Christian beliefs in college when I started becoming more educated. And whereas Christians do things such as helping the poor and following rules/laws because they think they will go to hell if they dont, I do the same things because I believe they are the right things to do.
I think religion is good for the common people because it gives them a moral code to follow, and gives them hope. But I'm not fond of our elected leaders being religous. I'd rather them to make rational decisions based on logic, not superstition.
I don't think you ever understood your own faith if you truly believe Christians help others to avoid to hell. There may be many helping others for selfish reasons like gaining public favor but most do it because they believe it is the right thing to do and feel very good about doing it. I don't think the fear of hell really motivates many people.
Faith is not the opposite of reason. I'm open to reason regarding my faith and am not only unafraid of truth but actively seek it.
-
So do you think I could get a tax break and maybe some of that "Faith Based" money if I started the "'Church of the Complete Lack of a God"?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't really care that much one way or the other but.... when it comes to something as harmless as "in god we trust" on the money..... Hell.... just put it up for a vote.
I don't really like to change things just for changes sake or to please a couple of disgruntled athiests but if the people don't want it on there.... fine with me.
I kind of like it as being "traditional" so would vote to keep it but wouldn't get all upset (maybe shake my head in amusement) if it got dumped.
lazs
Makes a lot of sense to me, too. In reality, what's on the dollar doesnt make a culture "christian" or "atheist" in the least, any more than a "Red Hot Sale" sign proves a good price.
Guess that makes 3 votes now....
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
...snip....
I don't hold christian beliefs against someone who is running for office, I vote the issues. Can all of the religionists here say the same thing about an atheist up for election?
I vote policies, not fraternities or expressed beliefs.
Incidentally, I'd vote against any candidate who proposed legislating religious practices -- even if the practices he wanted to implement favored my religious beliefs.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So do you think I could get a tax break and maybe some of that "Faith Based" money if I started the "'Church of the Complete Lack of a God"?
Dunno about that but it appears that you can start your own anti-god group if you wanna spend some time in prison.
-
lazs2 ... I don't make that big a deal out of it. I have no problem with "under god" being added a long time ago to the pledge.
IIRC "Under God" was added to the pledge early on in the COLD WAR to prove that we were "better" than the Soviets because we had a God we were allowed to worship.
I understand alot of you are to young to remember the Cold War and all it's joys like watching films on how to "Duck and Cover" under your school desk while the big bad Nuclear Weapon destroys everything around you. Trust me it was scary!
My 2 cents on God vs. Universe
God is the Universe, The Universe (a living entity) is God. Quite possibly the "universe" we can see and know is only 1 part of the whole of "God" and we are but the cogs in the mechanism known as Life.
Remove "Under God" from money, pledges, courtrooms, etc... anything less is just a Theocracy not a Democracy.
I have seen and witnessed many acts of good and evil portrayed by people of Religion. I want no part of it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Live and Let Live, enjoy, and Don't Tread on ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by lukster
Dunno about that but it appears that you can start your own anti-god group if you wanna spend some time in prison.
Lukster: Make up your mind. Either atheism is a religion or it isn't. If it's a religion, then we can form an "atheist church" and avoid paying taxes. If it isn't, then you retract what you said earlier.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lukster: Make up your mind. Either atheism is a religion or it isn't. If it's a religion, then we can form an "atheist church" and avoid paying taxes. If it isn't, then you retract what you said earlier.
It's ok by me, I just don't make all the laws. I was referring to the court's declaration that atheism is indeed a religion and that inmates were to be allowed to practice it.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
....snip....
So for me its a bunch of people trying to force their beliefs down my throat, one way or another, forcing me to 'recognise' their god, trying to say they are better than me for their beliefs, and passing judgement on me on my lack of belief in their god alone (ie not my actions), then in the background their not really following those beliefs. Wouldn't that make you just a little iritated?
Sorry for the text wall, but the issues arent simple.
Couple points.
First. Although many offenders make it difficult, please try to separate the behavior of SOME beleivers from the practice of Christianity as Jesus taught it. For every 5 self righteous oppressive jerks, there is probably one Seagoon out there who's living the faith, not just using it -- and a couple more of us trying to approach the life the "Seagoons" live.
"Christian" means pertaining to Christ: just as "american" means pertaining to America. Anyone who makes the mistake of citing Bush and saying "Americans believe...." deserves the smackdown he's gunna get -- so why should Christianity be held responsible for what some religious activist proclaims?
Instead, look at what Jesus said and taught....
1)When he encountered the most religious, rule abiding people in his culture he called them "whitewashed tombs." (This in a culture where even touching a dead body resulted in ceremonial uncleanness requiring extensive ritual to correct.) The imagery is powerful -- beautiful, clean on the outside, but in reality housing decay and corruption. And yep, the same is true for some "christians" today.
2)Elsewhere, he told a story of two guys praying in the Temple, and said in essence that the respectable, judgemental religious one was rejected while the outright wicked guy who approached God in honesty and humility was heard.
3)In another illustration, Jesus closed by saying that in the end there would be some who said, "Look, we've prayed to you , we've done this and that in your name, we've even done miracles for you..." -- but God replies, "Get out, I never knew you."
Second Christianity as Jesus taught it is NOT political. He treated politics, government as being maybe BESIDE the point. When opponents tried to trap him in political debate, he said -- look who's face is on the coin; give caesar what belongs to him, and give to God what belongs to God. Later, Paul didnt teach political activism against Imperial Rome. He said "submit to the authorities over you and pray for them" (He did practice what we'd call civil disobedience to secular laws that directly opposed what God expects.)
Now, in a representative republic, one could argue that the "rulers" ARE the people, and so Christians should participate in government just like everyone else. But, theocracy by a believing minority would NOT be consistant with either democratic principles OR with Jesus' teaching. Personally, even if the majority favored rule including legislated religious practice, I would be strongly against it as inconsistant with the heart based teachings of Jesus.
That kind of theocratic rule, though, should be different from democratic rule by people who happen to be religious.
-
Second point: christianity as Jesus taught it is NOT political.
Try running for President of the United States or heck run for City Council as a Atheist and see how far you get.
If you win I will convert to christianity on the spot as I have just witnessed my first live "miracle" :O
Cthen
-
Originally posted by Cthen
Try running for President of the United States or heck run for City Council as a Atheist and see how far you get.
If you win I will convert to christianity on the spot as I have just witnessed my first live "miracle" :O
Cthen
Heehee.
But again, you're talking about the political activism of people who claim to be christians -- not about what christians were taught to do by the Boss.
I'd even disagree with your premise. In a city not far from here, a group of dedicated christians got elected to the school board in an offyear election. They tried to implement curriculaum changes based on their religious beliefs, not based on representing those who elected them. There was an outcry, and the next cycle they were thrown out on their ears by the non-believing, pro-evolution majority. I recall the same thing happened with Oklahoma's state board, but I may be mistaken there.
In any case, the electorate in this Midwest "bible belt" area isnt as polyester wearing, church going, as closed minded as you imply...
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Heehee.
But again, you're talking about the political activism of people who claim to be christians -- not about what christians were taught to do by the Boss.
I'd even disagree with your premise. In a city not far from here, a group of dedicated christians got elected to the school board in an offyear election. They tried to implement curriculaum changes based on their religious beliefs, not based on representing those who elected them. There was an outcry, and the next cycle they were thrown out on their ears by the non-believing, pro-evolution majority. I recall the same thing happened with Oklahoma's state board, but I may be mistaken there.
In any case, the electorate in this Midwest "bible belt" area isnt as polyester wearing, church going, as closed minded as you imply...
This is yet another excellent example of the truth.... nipped in the bud, as it were.
"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics."
Thanks, Simaril! :aok
-
n any case, the electorate in this Midwest "bible belt" area isnt as polyester wearing, church going, as closed minded as you imply...
Move a bit further south Simaril if you want the belt of the bible HEHEHE
I'm from Memphis, TN., home of the most churches per capita in the nation IIRC from newspaper last year. People here are divided on many issues and if you want to win in politics you better join the "right" church first. Even denominational differences here can mean the difference in winning or losing. I would feel safe in saying Jewish/Catholic/Muslem ie...non protestant and you WILL lose. You are however correct in your statement in that Christians are not "following the Boss's orders".
How can 150+ denominations all derived from 1 book be correct thinking and justified? I can not grasp this idea as hard as I try. "Jesus said soandso"and the faithful hear goanddo however you see fit to git r done.
I stand by my current premise, run for election as an AVOWED (almost said by GOD heheh) Atheist and win. This is near impossible here.
PS>>> I post and speak with liberal amounts of trying to get people to think for themselves instead of being sheep. :huh :rofl
Cthen
-
Originally posted by Cthen
How can 150+ denominations all derived from 1 book be correct thinking and justified.
how right you are :aok
hap
p.s. humans have a long history of not reading the directions :(
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lukster: Make up your mind. Either atheism is a religion or it isn't. If it's a religion, then we can form an "atheist church" and avoid paying taxes. If it isn't, then you retract what you said earlier.
Membership dues and donations to American Atheists, Inc are tax deductible. http://www.atheists.org/membership.html
-
Originally posted by Cthen
...snip...
How can 150+ denominations all derived from 1 book be correct thinking and justified? I can not grasp this idea as hard as I try. "Jesus said soandso"and the faithful hear goanddo however you see fit to git r done.
...snip....
Cthen
People have different personalities and styles, so even in an ideal world there might be associations of like minded believers. Where one group might like informality to enjoy God's approachability, another might be most comfortable with classical worship to appreciate his majesty. Different strokes and all that.
Unfortunately, we humans are most comfortable falling back on our tribalism...which also means excluding those who are different.
So I view real world denominationalism as part of our humanity, not part of our christianity.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
please try to separate the behavior of SOME beleivers from the practice of Christianity as Jesus taught it.
Of course what ruins your entire reply is the know well known fact is that the bible is fair from representititve of what any guy called Jesus taught, its a collection of stories chosen from roughly 30 other texts around the 2nd or 3rd century BC by a council who decided they knew best what to teach.
-
Not quite true, Vulcan....
First, just for the sake of argument -- if you accept the NT as being what it claims to be, and THEN assess Christianity on its own foundations, its fair to say that what many criticise about christians has little or nothing to do with Christianity itself.
From that perspective, what I posted is completely relevant and applicable. Nothing's ruined at all....
Second comes the question of the canon's historicity, and thats another question entirely. Your perception is common enough, but it tends to overlook the limitations inherent in documentary researcch in the first century CE.
As I recall, there are only 2 or 3 references to Jesus and Christianity in the first century outside the bible at all -- BUT that shouldnt be take n to mean that they didnt exist at the time. The surviving referenceswere in Roman governmental documents, almost as asides. There jsut isnt much else in the original for the very good reason that the kind of documents common people made in the 1st century simply didnt last and werent institutionally preserved.
The canonical councils didnt pick and choose arbitrarily; they codified consensus. The non-canonical documents people wave about now are, frankly, either obviously VERY different from biblical texts and teachings or downright silly.
In fact, do an internet search right now on "the gospel of Thomas" or the "gospel of mary" that I've seen refernces to as religious texts that have been "lost" after having been arbitrarily rejected by the councils. Translations of these from origianl documents sound more like "new age" drivel from the 20th century, although their really Gnostic influenced.
The canon's origins are not an area of expertise for me, but I can dig around some and make an intelligent discussion of it. If you want to plunge into it, why dont we make a new thread and see if a really capable discussant like Seagoon would show up....
-
(http://www.youdamnkid.com/comics/ydk20010315.gif)
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Not quite true, Vulcan....
(snipped a lot) ...the kind of documents common people made in the 1st century simply didnt last and werent institutionally preserved.
The canonical councils didnt pick and choose arbitrarily; they codified consensus. The non-canonical documents people wave about now are, frankly, either obviously VERY different from biblical texts
Translations of these from origianl documents sound more like "new age" drivel from the 20th century, although their really Gnostic influenced.
So imagine if the government formed a council to revise the bible now, how would you feel about that?
I also find it incredibly amusing your attitude to the "new age drivel" - ie biblical teachings like the Gospel of Judas which sound a lot closer to the likes of buddhist teachings - and sounds like it teaches away from the institutionalised ways of the current christian regime.
-
chair....I think that you take particular delight in anything that mocks religion and belief in god. That is fine but you act like you are disinterested and fair when you are in reality....
more concerned about religion than a lot of religious folks... you seem to think about it a lot. Have you even bothered to ask yourself why? maybe in a few years..
get comfortable with yours and others beliefs. You seem to be on a personal crusade to hurt people of faith.
you should realize that you make them angry and stubborn but that is about it. You may even get ridiculed like you have been in this thread for your unreasonable faith based way of thinking.
People might dismiss other things you have to say because of your prejudice here. To some of us... that is no big deal but... arguing belief or not in a supreme being seems a pretty dumb way to marginalize yourself.
It doesn't look any better on the rabid athiest than it does on the rabid christian or muslim.
lazs
-
An atheist complained to a Christian friend, "You Christians have your special holidays, such as Christmas and Easter. Jews celebrate their national holidays, such as Passover and Yom Kippur. But we atheists have no recognized national holidays. It's unfair discrimination."
His friend replied, "Why don't you celebrate April first?"
-
Lazs, how could one little poster like myself say anything that would hurt people of faith? If your religious convictions are as you say, how can a message thread on a BBS cause you such pain?
Something just doesn't add up here. It's kinda like when a book of fiction (The Da Vinci Code) apparently "shook the foundations of christianity", a concept I had a hard time believing.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
It's kinda like when a book of fiction (The Da Vinci Code) apparently "shook the foundations of christianity"
:lol
-
I agree, lukster, it IS ridiculous, but with all the protests and the racks full of counterpoint books at the bookstore, that seems to be the impression the christians are giving.
-
Those people's problem isn't spirituality, it's being gullible and/or stupid.
They flock to religion like kids to sugar and teens to pornography.
-
Originally posted by moot
Those people's problem isn't spirituality, it's being gullible and/or stupid.
They flock to religion like kids to sugar and teens to pornography.
Someone once said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" Probably the only correct thought he ever had.
-
Don't appeal to mercy to God the Father up in the sky, little man, because he's not at home and never was at home, and couldn't care less. What you do with yourself, whether you are happy or unhappy-- live or die-- is strictly your business and the universe doesn't care. In fact you may be the universe and the only cause of all your troubles. But, at best, the most you can hope for is comradeship with comrades no more divine (or just as divine) as you are. So quit sniveling and face up to it-- 'Thou art God!' [Robert A. Heinlein Oct. 21, 1960]
[/b][/i]
Amen.
-
This has been a very enlightening and moving "Atheistic Outreach Revival."
Glad Heinlein made an appearance as the guest evangelist!
When's the invitation? Do you think there will be many conversions?
When you gonna pass the plate? Do you use the offerings to further the faith?
You guys should really consider starting mission programs abroad, in underprivileged, undeveloped, and illiterate countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia (although your faith is already firmly established in certain areas of that continent).
Next year, why don't you invite Arthur C. Clarke to speak! He would really pull em in!
Amen brothers!
-
...and the band starts playing again.
-
Ahhh.. touched a nerve, I see.
Here's another.. maybe it'll send yah into a catatonic state. ;)
Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything... just give him time to rationalize it.
[/i][/b]
Perhaps this is why the church is going into a freakin frenzy over a movie? There's plenty in it that a mind susceptible to 'faith based beliefs' can latch onto. Sewing the seeds of doubt must be wigging out the 'faithful'.
-
Wellll...I naturally assumed that you guys were proselytizing. You ARE trying to save all us simple-minded religious types from our delusions, aren't you?
Or are these monthly internet hoe-downs just meetings of your "Mutual Admiration Brotherhood" where you tweak your opponent's noses, touch a few nerves, and congratulate each other on your intellectual superiority.
For a group that insists that religious types leave you to your own beliefs you can't seem to reciprocate.
Why don't ya'll just post a calendar indicating when one of you is going to start another religion bashing thread? That way the rest of us can make plans accordingly.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Wellll...I naturally assumed that you guys were proselytizing. You ARE trying to save all us simple-minded religious types from our delusions, aren't you?
Not me. frankly; what you believe or don't is not my business.. untill agents of yer cult try to monkey with the public library system, public schools, government or courts.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Or are these monthly internet hoe-downs just meetings of your "Mutual Admiration Brotherhood" where you tweak your opponent's noses, touch a few nerves, and congratulate each other on your intellectual superiority.
For a group that insists that religious types leave you to your own beliefs you can't seem to reciprocate.
Why don't ya'll just post a calendar indicating when one of you is going to start another religion bashing thread? That way the rest of us can make plans accordingly.
Welllll.. naturally, you can always make a choice. In this situtation, since yah know the subject matter and you find it annoying, you can choose to simply not read it, not post to it and put the offensive posters on yer ignore list.
As always.. the choice is yours. ;)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Arlo,
Care to answer or do you want to continue to avoid it?
Did you miss the answer? Track back and unknot. ;)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
You may not have, but christianity in general is making a fairly staunch effort to force me to. Heres the hypocracy... "In god we trust", shoved down the throats of american's, in NZ its "god of nations"... try to get the words changed and the christians claim we're being 'antichristian' and picking on them. But they still want us to (falsely) worship their god.
For me, and many athiests I know, my first reaction to christians is its an excuse to hide behind. Sure there are exceptions, but very few I've ever met practise what the preach - usually its 90% preach 10% practise.
So for me its a bunch of people trying to force their beliefs down my throat, one way or another, forcing me to 'recognise' their god, trying to say they are better than me for their beliefs, and passing judgement on me on my lack of belief in their god alone (ie not my actions), then in the background their not really following those beliefs. Wouldn't that make you just a little iritated?
No. Because I'm not the extremist sensitive reactionary you are. I reserve my energy for causes that deserve it. ;)
-
Shuckins, faith is not part of reason's domain.. so what are you arguing? :)
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
You ARE trying to save all us simple-minded religious types from our delusions, aren't you?
Don't want to and impossible anyways.
Because if a group of people decides for themselves that they will adopt a certain dogma or religion it has nothing to do with reason whatsoever.
(After all one thing that religions have in common is that their is no proof evidence or foundation for their contents)
Therefore it is completely useless to go and try to change their minds by argument or reasoning. They've proven by the mere adoption of their beliefs that they are unreceptive to logic or reason.
-
Originally posted by Thud
Because if a group of people decides for themselves that they will adopt a certain dogma or religion it has nothing to do with reason whatsoever.
Ahhh ... confusing group mentality with individual choice. Only Atheists can be individuals. It's very "rebel" like. ;)
-
I can`t find any scientific proof that atheism actualy exists. :)
I believe it is a farce.
:rofl
-
I suppose, then, that you must simply have faith.
:D
-
Atheist finds faith. Continues online crusade against Christianity. News at .... ok ... not really news. :D
-
?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I suppose, then, that you must simply have faith.
:D
Until it is proven scientificaly , you will just have to have faith that I do. :)
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything... just give him time to rationalize it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Patrick explained it with a shamrock. Three lobes of a single leaf.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
chair....I think that you take particular delight in anything that mocks religion and belief in god. That is fine but you act like you are disinterested and fair when you are in reality....
more concerned about religion than a lot of religious folks... you seem to think about it a lot. Have you even bothered to ask yourself why? maybe in a few years..
get comfortable with yours and others beliefs. You seem to be on a personal crusade to hurt people of faith.
you should realize that you make them angry and stubborn but that is about it. You may even get ridiculed like you have been in this thread for your unreasonable faith based way of thinking.
People might dismiss other things you have to say because of your prejudice here. To some of us... that is no big deal but... arguing belief or not in a supreme being seems a pretty dumb way to marginalize yourself.
It doesn't look any better on the rabid athiest than it does on the rabid christian or muslim.
lazs
Watched this stuff for awhile. Wasn't gonna post this time BUT.......... this is getting old.
LOLROF IMHO you pegged this person right on lazs!
IMHO this person is the one with the problem.
It's as if an effort is being made to get people to ....... agree?
hmmm.... why?
hmmm.... perhaps the need here is to seek outside agreement to make inner beliefs more concrete?
OR perhaps this person doesn't quite believe, have enough faith, in their own view?
OR some kinda guilt thing maybe?????
Just makes me wonder. Over and over and over this subject gets brought forth by this person. Gettin old.
Always SEEMS to be dealt with in the same way. Same technique.
Seen it many times. Had a college proffessor type that used it allot.
I have come to refer to the technique used as weasally. Avoid answering just attack or turn it back.
Grasping for quotes from ........ LOL
Now it will come....... the >>> When did I attack?
Hey you can believe what you want. IMHO it is one of your basic human rights. I don't care what you believe. It don't matter to me. None of us will know the truth until we die.
You can try to use science to prove your position if you like. Science has shown OVER and OVER they can't prove or disprove the existance of ..........
WHY? because over and over they prove they don't KNOW allot of things. Science lacks the knowledge. Science lacks ALL the facts! Science is still learning the ?secrets? of the universe. Can't measure something if you are unaware if it exist or not.
Wasn't till 2000 or so that science finally discovered why some refered to male ejaculatory fluid for many years as SPUNK. They discovered it contains a hormone that affects the human body, male or female, resulting in the growth/alteration of an organ within the brain and SEEMS to make a person feel "spunky". They're still examining what it does to the human body.
AGAIN I don't care what you believe. It doesn't matter. IMHO you have every right to believe what you wish. What I object to is the technique used!
-
Howdy Wrag! "That person" is me, right here. It's customary in polite society to address people directly, usually, but of course you're entitled to your own opinion.
You say that since I talk about Atheism, I "don't have enough faith in (my) view". Preachers like Seagoon talk about christianity all the time, why don't you accuse them of the same?
I've been preached to, ministered to, and evangelized to for my entire life by christians, and that's "OK". But when an atheist asks "What the heck?" suddenly I'm the one with the problem?
Your ship does not appear to be in order.
Finally, science doesn't claim to have all the answers, but it persists in asking questions. Religion claims to have all the answers and discourages questions. If I have to pick between the two, I know which one I'll take.
-
Generalization and stereotypes must cut both ways it seems. My faith has never discouraged me from asking questions. But then I differentiate between religion and faith. There's more than one flavor of Christian. Choosy lions choose ....
;)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything... just give him time to rationalize it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Patrick explained it with a shamrock. Three lobes of a single leaf.
"..just give him time to rationalize it."[/i]
I rest my case.
-
Then there is the story of the three blind men who descibe an elephant. One says it must be a tree, one says a snake,and one says a rope.
Each only see a piece (Leg, trunk, and tail) and do their best to describe the whole.
Just because there are three different descriptions doesn't mean any of them are incorrect, or that the elephant is indeed three entities.
Any description of the trinity or any other religious concept for that matter is going to be illogical by design.
faith and logic are independant of each other.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Howdy Wrag! "That person" is me, right here. It's customary in polite society to address people directly, usually, but of course you're entitled to your own opinion.
You say that since I talk about Atheism, I "don't have enough faith in (my) view". Preachers like Seagoon talk about christianity all the time, why don't you accuse them of the same?
I've been preached to, ministered to, and evangelized to for my entire life by christians, and that's "OK". But when an atheist asks "What the heck?" suddenly I'm the one with the problem?
Your ship does not appear to be in order.
Finally, science doesn't claim to have all the answers, but it persists in asking questions. Religion claims to have all the answers and discourages questions. If I have to pick between the two, I know which one I'll take.
Howdy Chairboy......... this is polite society? Seems to me we are both entitled to opinions.
I did not say you were anything, I asked questions (reread my post?).
I made no claim as to your belief (reread my post?).
If I thought you were ASKING, if my opinion of your post in this thread was that you were asking questions, I would not have replied. For I have found personal belief is just that personal. I don't feel any need whatsoever to justify my belief nor do I have a need to attempt to explain my belief to you or anyone else. I don't care if you agree or disagree with my belief or disbelief.
I don't believe in "religion".
Further I stated no belief either way.
I am not interested in preaching to you or anyone else. Seagoon has been preaching to you? I have not seen that. I have seen questions put to Seagoon and Seagoon has replied.
Further if I want to hear preaching I have found I must seek it out. That it rarely comes to me and when it does I can turn it off, change the channel, send them away, or leave.
To clarify.........
AGAIN! It is NOT your belief I am responding to!
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Then there is the story of the three blind men who descibe an elephant. One says it must be a tree, one says a snake,and one says a rope.
Each only see a piece (Leg, trunk, and tail) and do their best to describe the whole.
Just because there are three different descriptions doesn't mean any of them are incorrect, or that the elephant is indeed three entities.
Any description of the trinity or any other religious concept for that matter is going to be illogical by design.
faith and logic are independant of each other.
Then there is an old, old story about a theologian who was asked to reconcile the Doctrine of Divine Mercy with the doctrine of infant damnation. 'The Almighty,' he explained, 'finds it necessary to do things in His official and public capacity which in His private and personal capacity He deplores.
Faith and Logic are indeed seperate... unless yer profession happens to be 'theologian'.
;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
"..just give him time to rationalize it."[/i]
I rest my case.
Whaterever rationalization you use to accept one belief and reject another is yours to embrace. As is whatever rationalization someone else uses is theirs. Faith is faith, man. Don't resent others if it really doesn't threaten yours. Of course, as seen here, perception is one's reality.
Truck on. :aok
-
While I am certain that i have no resentment, on any level, for any man of faith because of his faith.. I realize that my presence on and in this topic may be easily misconstrued to mean that I am an enemy of 'the church'. I am not. I am my own enemy, and require no other.
;)
-
Amen, brother. Aren't we all? :)
-
Originally posted by wrag
AGAIN! It is NOT your belief I am responding to!
Correction, that's lack of belief. Common mistake.
-
So you don't believe there is no God? ;)
-
Almost. I don't believe there IS a god.
-
You believe there is no God. ;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I realize that my presence on and in this topic may be easily misconstrued to mean that I am an enemy of 'the church'. I am not. I am my own enemy, and require no other.
;)
Watch what you confess too hang... before you know it you'll be strapped to a stake with a BBQ roaring underneath you.
-
chair... how do you get that I am "upset"? I am just saying the same thing that most logical people say... If you are an "athiest" if you have to name your belief then you are simply trading one religion for another...
And... much like the way you accuse the religious of hate and intollerance and ureasonable belief... your athiesm is a mirror image.
Like I have said... I know poeple who have seen ghosts and aliens..... I am not about to say they have not... I have a feeling that they haven't or that those things don't exist but am open mided about it.
I don't make it a big deal to ridicule em or come up with a name for my disbelief. I freely admit that they may be right. It is very possible.
If pointing out that you are a faith based belief in your athiesm is being "upset" or if pointing out that you are on a campain against religion means I am "upset" then so be it... the clues are not hard to see tho... your rant about how you have had preaching shoved down your throat all your life pretty much shows a hate based intolerance on your part tho.
Seagoons and others faith does not bother me in the least. I hope it gives them comfort and realize that they could be right... your faith in athiesm is just mean and nasty and striking out. It is also the hieght of hypocracy. You are doing what you accuse the people you feel have harmed you did.... You are using a faith based belief to try to hurt people by mocking their faith.
lazs
-
It is ridiculously amusing that all of the religious boardmembers and their supporters stubbornly keep trying to focus any discussion on religion on atheism being a faith or religion as well.
Not believing is not a faith or religion as long as the opposite has not been proven.
Someone who uses no drugs whatsoever would be addicted to keeping clean by this infantile reasoning. Off to rehab with them!!
Keeping an open mind to religion is like giving the Nigerian moneyscam the benefit of the doubt till you still have not received your part of the huge heritage you have helped to secure after ten years.
Are you an agnostic or believer when you find the mail from mr. Nkwankwo in your inbox? :rolleyes:
Ah well, not expecting any better of a country where an overwhelming majority of citizens believes that atheists can not be trusted.
-
Originally posted by Thud
Ah well, not expecting any better of a country where an overwhelming majority of citizens believes that atheists can not be trusted.
Here's how it works.. you stop by to pick up your prom date; the father wants to know what church you belong to. The job interview wanders around your 'hobbies and do you belong to a church?'
For most of us, 'bending' a bit and putting on the nice clothes and trying to create a good impression involves a bit of a masqurade, doesn't it?
Sad thing is, the exceeding majority of us play right along.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Here's how it works.. you stop by to pick up your prom date; the father wants to know what church you belong to. The job interview wanders around your 'hobbies and do you belong to a church?'
That is universal, the only thing I find perhaps even more peculiar is that for example Budhists do not express the moral superiority and (semi-)active conversion / intrusion routine that seems to be ubiquitous in virtually all christians and muslims I know (same for orthodox Jews if it weren't for their tendency to isolate themselves).
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Sad thing is, the exceeding majority of us play right along.
I don't know if it's a sad situation, as an athiest I find myself in lots of situations where my respect for others religious beliefs takes precidense over my own.
For instance, situations where there's a call for prayer at a public function. Although I won't bow my head I'll not disrupt the prayer by continuing whatever I'm doing, a minute of being respectful of others religion doesn't hurt one bit.
One situation where I can be disrespectful is when someone tries to enlighten me at my front door, that is where my respect for religion tends to break down. I suppose that my reaction to that situation would be similar to a religious persons reaction if some athiest came knocking on their door trying to convert them.
-
Question.
What do atheist preachers such as Chair thump while not spreading the non-word? :D
-
Their heads on the desk, I think. ;)
-
Lukster never answered the whole 'tax exempt' question for atheism. Hells bells, if I'm an atheist preacher, then I should be able to write off just about everything as a 'church expense'.
Wait, why are churches tax exempt again?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lukster never answered the whole 'tax exempt' question for atheism. Hells bells, if I'm an atheist preacher, then I should be able to write off just about everything as a 'church expense'.
Wait, why are churches tax exempt again?
Huh? I did answer your question. I said it's fine by me if an atheist church is exempted from taxation. You better check the laws regarding those "church expenses" though.
-
chair... I think that if you called your athiesm a church and were completely non profit you could indeed be tax free.
thud... the example you gave is a bad one... if you sent money to the nigerian then you believed in him... If you did not it could mean a lot of things...
Agnostic is understandable. Athiest is very much faith based. Why would you even care? What would be wrong with just answering that you didn't know when asked about a belief in god? You can't possibly know can you?
You don't know about aliens or ghosts either but I bet you say... "I don't know" you don't get all huffy about it and try to hurt those who do believe. Obviously... you don't bother to put a name to it if you don't believe in ghosts or aliens do you?
saying "I am an athiest" is simply saying that you have an agenda. How else do you base such a belief except on faith? In my short lifetime I have never met an athiest who didn't strongly dislike religious people. Why is that?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Wait, why are churches tax exempt again?
Perhaps the same reason that American Atheists, Inc. is?
-
Hmm, never heard of 'em. We don't really make the same point of organizing that the religious types do.
BTW, once again, I don't have a faith that there's no god, I just fail to believe that there is a god. I don't understand where the confusion is coming from, perhaps I'm not being clear when I say that.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Correction, that's lack of belief. Common mistake.
CORRECTION back at you......................
There you go with your twisting things again.
Your lack of belief is in fact your belief. It is what YOU BELIEVE.
Correct?
Or you gonna play word games now?
SOOOOO
HERE
I really DO NOT CARE if you belief is to NOT believe, disbelieve, misbelieve, or imagine.
I DON'T CARE. What ever it is it's your's. That creates no problem for me.
NOW is my statement clear?
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
I don't know if it's a sad situation, as an athiest I find myself in lots of situations where my respect for others religious beliefs takes precidense over my own.
For instance, situations where there's a call for prayer at a public function. Although I won't bow my head I'll not disrupt the prayer by continuing whatever I'm doing, a minute of being respectful of others religion doesn't hurt one bit.
One situation where I can be disrespectful is when someone tries to enlighten me at my front door, that is where my respect for religion tends to break down. I suppose that my reaction to that situation would be similar to a religious persons reaction if some athiest came knocking on their door trying to convert them.
Hmmm.............. IMHO well stated SIR.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Hmm, never heard of 'em. We don't really make the same point of organizing that the religious types do.
BTW, once again, I don't have a faith that there's no god, I just fail to believe that there is a god. I don't understand where the confusion is coming from, perhaps I'm not being clear when I say that.
You've never heard of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and the organisation which took school prayer to the Supreme Court and won?
According to Websters,
Atheist:
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
Agnostic:
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
According to Websters you are agnostic.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
saying "I am an athiest" is simply saying that you have an agenda. How else do you base such a belief except on faith? In my short lifetime I have never met an athiest who didn't strongly dislike religious people. Why is that?
Dislike religious people? I have NEVER taken a position of dislike towards another based only on their religion. Most of the athiests I know wouldn't either.
It seems that a lot of those who dislike others for their religious beliefs are in fact religious themselves and the fact that another religion is at odds with thiers causes that rift.
One think that seems realy hypocritcal to me is the fact that these days mainstream religion tends to brew hate towards other members of the community just because of their choice in lifestyle.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You've never heard of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and the organisation which took school prayer to the Supreme Court and won?
According to Websters,
Atheist:
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
Agnostic:
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
According to Websters you are agnostic.
Heneh. Never seen him at the meetings....
;)
-
Believing that there are no gods is a characteristic of some atheists, not atheism in general. Most atheists (like myself) simply lack a belief in god(s) without having a belief that no gods exist.
The difference between atheism and agnosticism is belief vs. knowledge. Atheism is a lack of theistic belief. Agnosticism, on the other hand, asserts that it lacks the knowledge or ability to know whether there are gods.
With belief, you either believe there are one or more gods, or you do not believe there are one or more gods. With knowlege, you either know or do not know.
Atheism and agnosticism aren't incompatible, they're side by side descriptors that are used together.
1. Someone is either a theist or an atheist. Ie, they're religious or they aren't.
2. Someone is also either gnostic or agnostic. Ie, they know that god exists or they don't know.
Technically, all of my christian friends are actually agnostic because while they _believe_ there is a god and they have _faith_, they still don't actually know. They won't know until they die. They, like many of you, believe themselves to be gnostic theists following the above definition.
A gnostic atheist is someone who will say "There ain't no god." and will meet the careful definition that some of you have been trying to herd me into without realizing there was an alternative. An agnostic atheist, on the other hand, maintains a lack of belief that god exist. That's me.
Before you clap your hands in delight and say "ah ha! A chink in Chairboy's armor, we've changed him to an agnostic!", recognize that Webster's definition is overly simplistic. An agnostic is a type of theist, and there are actually 4 states possible from the combination.
I hope this clarifies things!
-
so, yer not comin to the meetings?
-
I lack a belief in paying membership dues. :D
-
Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
Mono - theism
The belief in one God
(note it is not the single belief in god, but the belief in a single God)
Poly - theism
The belief in many Gods. (note it is not the many beliefs in God, but the belief in many Gods)
It would follow that the prefix of the word theism refers to the number of Gods, not the number of beliefs, so A - theism would be the belief in no gods. (Webster agrees)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I lack a belief in paying membership dues. :D
it's tax deductable.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I lack a belief in paying membership dues. :D
But you believe membership dues exists, right? :)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
...snip...
Wait, why are churches tax exempt again?
First Amendment, Constitution of the United States
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Originally written by Chief Justice Marshall in US Supreme Court Opinion, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
...That the power to tax involves the power to destroy.....
Any questions?
-
Sorry for the slow response...hadn't checked email for a couple days.
Originally posted by Vulcan
So imagine if the government formed a council to revise the bible now, how would you feel about that?
Ummmm.....clever, but a non sequitor.
Your proposition SOUNDS like its a response to teh issue at hand, but in reality you've completely changed the basis of argument from the historically ancient origins of the canon (by consensus of believers), to governmentally controlled religion in the modern day.
Nice footwork.
Originally posted by Vulcan
I also find it incredibly amusing your attitude to the "new age drivel" - ie biblical teachings like the Gospel of Judas which sound a lot closer to the likes of buddhist teachings - and sounds like it teaches away from the institutionalised ways of the current christian regime.
OK, I guess I have to spell out the logic I'd implied previously.
1) Ancient documents were sparse even back then. We take near universal literacy for granted, but in ancient times you could actually make a living out of simply being one of the few around who could read and write. "readers" were like, say, accountants now -- with unique and marketable skills. So, few reades mean few originals, and even less chance of finding a preserved one now.
2) Ancient documents dont last without special efforts at preservation. Parchments and papyri decay rapidly with exposure, and the information on them would only persist if recopied or preserved. So, for all intents and purposes, only documents preserved by institutions persist from ancient times.
3) The "Church" only became an institution after Constantine removed punitive laws in 313. So, dont be surprised by paucity of documents prior to that...could you really expect otherwise?
4) Multiple ancient documents that DO survive quote or refer to texts (liek the letters of Paul) now considered canonical, so you cant really claim they were invented by a council long after the fact.
As to the last point...about "incredible amusement"...well, you kinda proved my point about the Gnostic "gospels". To me they sounded New Age; to you they sound Buddhist. I think we can safely agree that they do NOT sound consistnat with the rest of the biblical texts.
Does that mean that current Christianity is wrong, departed from its roots? Not at all...because Gnosticism was considered a competing religion, separate from christianity, by the people who lived back then.
In other words, the Gnostics talked about Jesus but had very different beliefs about him than Christians did. (Augustine wrote extensively about this.) Its jsut like today, when Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christians all talk about Jesus but have fundamentally different ideas about his origins, his nature, and his role in humanity's relationship with god. And, to a rational person finding contradictions between Mormon and (say) Baptist writings about Jesus today cant be taken as damaging to the Jehovah's Witness theology...right?
Vulcan, if you're interested in understanding the issues, you might check into any number of resources on the net...including a pretty nice and even handed one on Wikipedia. If you've already made up your mind, and don't think you need any new info, well...good for you, I guess.
-
I'd like to hear about how the Gospel of Judas is more akin to Buddism. ;)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Believing that there are no gods is a characteristic of some atheists, not atheism in general. Most atheists (like myself) simply lack a belief in god(s) without having a belief that no gods exist.
The difference between atheism and agnosticism is belief vs. knowledge. Atheism is a lack of theistic belief. Agnosticism, on the other hand, asserts that it lacks the knowledge or ability to know whether there are gods.
With belief, you either believe there are one or more gods, or you do not believe there are one or more gods. With knowlege, you either know or do not know.
Atheism and agnosticism aren't incompatible, they're side by side descriptors that are used together.
1. Someone is either a theist or an atheist. Ie, they're religious or they aren't.
2. Someone is also either gnostic or agnostic. Ie, they know that god exists or they don't know.
Technically, all of my christian friends are actually agnostic because while they _believe_ there is a god and they have _faith_, they still don't actually know. They won't know until they die. They, like many of you, believe themselves to be gnostic theists following the above definition.
A gnostic atheist is someone who will say "There ain't no god." and will meet the careful definition that some of you have been trying to herd me into without realizing there was an alternative. An agnostic atheist, on the other hand, maintains a lack of belief that god exist. That's me.
Before you clap your hands in delight and say "ah ha! A chink in Chairboy's armor, we've changed him to an agnostic!", recognize that Webster's definition is overly simplistic. An agnostic is a type of theist, and there are actually 4 states possible from the combination.
I hope this clarifies things!
Clarifies things? Hmmmmm..........
Now you are going to argue with the dictionary?
Come on.
You have put forth a lot of information here.
Where does it all come from?
Wanna back it up with a source?
Or is the above just your opinion?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Agnostic is understandable. Athiest is very much faith based. Why would you even care? What would be wrong with just answering that you didn't know when asked about a belief in god? You can't possibly know can you?
Agnostics don't know one way or the other.
For Atheists to say "I don't know." would make them Agnostic.
My Atheism is based on the possibility of a God/Supreme Being not being proven. Keep in mind scientists have been trying to prove the existance of God/Supreme Being since organised religions have been made official doctrine.... yet the proof is still lacking. The moment it becomes proven/fact, is when it loses the faith label.
Originally posted by lazs2
saying "I am an athiest" is simply saying that you have an agenda. How else do you base such a belief except on faith? In my short lifetime I have never met an athiest who didn't strongly dislike religious people. Why is that?
Perhaps you'd like to point out the Atheists here that strongly dislike religious people.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You mean this thread and all the other ones Chairboy's started that are essentially looking for responses regarding how bad Christians are and how good Atheists are ... are figments? Hmmmmm ... now that's rather philosophically interesting. :D
Since you've stated "threads" and I am apart of some, care to point out where I, an Atheist, say anyone of religion is bad?
Or that all Atheists are good?
As a matter of fact, isn't your generalizing here the same thing you accuse Chairboy of?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Believing without a doubt that there isn't a creator is every bit as much a leap of faith as believing without a doubt there is one. Perhaps the doubting Thomases are the only true non-believers. ;)
Agnostics don't have an apinion either way for they can't be sure to their satisfaction. They usually admit that if there is a God, there doesn't appear to be proof. If there were the proof they agreed on, that would make them a religious believer.
They can't say there isn't a God for they don't buy all the scientific "facts" as conclusive and they leave open the possibility of there being a God. If they truly didn't believe in a God existing, that would make them an Atheist.
Agnostics are the fence sitters of the maybe, maybe not. They don't truly "non-believe", that title goes to the Atheists.
I won't speak for others but myself. I refuse to believe something just because someone says so, especially if it defies logic (in my mind, of course).
If someone says God exists, I want proof.
Keep in mind (this bears repeating), I am in no way questioning anyone's faith in their religious beliefs. I find that religion is very important for those that believe to get through some very tough times. I have seen first hand how religion helps those that want and need it.
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1148378324_abun.jpg)
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Does that mean that current Christianity is wrong, departed from its roots? Not at all...because Gnosticism was considered a competing religion, separate from christianity, by the people who lived back then.
and your source of information is what? Its clear there was oodles of 'revisionism' going on in early christianity through to the third century. So whats really right? Most of the 'gnosticism was wrong' arguments I see are based on assuming the anti-gnostic sources are correct.
Originally posted by lazs
saying "I am an athiest" is simply saying that you have an agenda. How else do you base such a belief except on faith? In my short lifetime I have never met an athiest who didn't strongly dislike religious people. Why is that?
Actually lazs, I get on really well with religious people. And so do many atheists I know. I even had a religious wedding, with the top religious leader of a country (popn ~ 15 million I think) perform the ceremony. I go quite regularly with my wife to a religious temple. And the crazy thing is... the monks beliefs there don't clash with mine! and the monks teachings are something I'd happily follow! and I don't even have to believe theres a god to follow their beliefs and be part of their religion! in fact I can even DENY there is a god and they think thats ok! they even have no problem with the theory of evolution! IMAGINE THAT!
My problem lazs, if you haven't guessed it, is with lying cheating double talking hypocritical christians who wear their religion like a back-stage-pass. Not all christians, just those, who unfortunately seem to make up a majority.
-
Vulcan, your quote by sim has gnosticism right. as far as sources, any credible encyclopedia such as britannica will give one a fair start.
Henry Chadwick's "The Early Church" can be picked up cheaply and is good as well.
-
vulcan... fair enough... I dislike lying cheating hypocrits too but feel no need to lump them all together under a religion... I believe that their various religions do not promote that behavior?
This is just silly... There can be no proof whatsoever that god or gods do not exist... the proof that he does is pretty sparce too...
I am not a christian or a religious person. I believe a god exists.. it is a personal belief and I can offer no proof and it affects only me. I do not believe (but it is possible) that any religion has it exactly right.
I admit that all these things are personl belief based on personal experiance and have no proof.
I find it the height of hypocracy that there is even an athiesm... to say that you believe that there is no god even tho you have no proof because... believing in god is faith based and therefore wrong.... silly and pouty and probly just wrong headed based on either agenda or.... the natural human tendancy to rebel... somewhat twisted of course.
If you are an athiest then you have a faith based belief that there is no god... you have no proof you just "feel" it and you rationalize it by saying that a lack of faith in god means the same as the total faith that there is none. Do you realize how dumb you look?
Now... I am not a christian as I have said but... been on these boards for a while and I do indeed see a mean spirited athiesm... Chritstians and their beliefes are mocked here all the time. threads are started and cartoons inserted into the threads..... very hip.
Being an athiest doesn't make you hip and smart... it makes you illogical and ignorant and easily persuaded to follow cults.
Agnostic is a logical and scientific way of looking at the whole thing.
lazs
-
And vulcan... it is easy to see that many religious teachings are some of the best and most noble of all philosophy.... I think that the ten comandments in the courthouse loby is a worthy statue... Even tho I am agnostic on the whole story of what they are and all...
To say that you can live by the teachings of the monks and not believe that humans are guided to the good by a higher power seems strange to me... to think that you can come up with the strength to get through some of the things that this life will throw at you without some help from said power seems odd to me also. It seems so self centered and egotistical... at odds with being a good human.
My personal beliefe is based on the fact that no matter how tough people think I am.... I could not have gotten through a few of the things I did on my own. I freely admit that other explanations may exist for the things that I have felt and the reserves of strength I do not posses but I choose to believe in a god in my life.
like you... I can bow my head and respect religious cerimony that I might not believe in but... while doing so.... I am at least in touch with my god. I can relate to agnostics as I was one for many years (but to be hip rebelious I claimed athiesm).... I have no respect for athiests. Their very belief is a hypocracy that I can not ignore.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have no respect for athiests. Their very belief is a hypocracy that I can not ignore.
You still haven't identified why you feel it's a hypocracy. You just keep repeating that it's "wrong headed". Can you clarify where the hypocracy is?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Agnostics don't know one way or the other.
For Atheists to say "I don't know." would make them Agnostic.
My Atheism is based on the possibility of a God/Supreme Being not being proven.
You've based your belief system on something that is not proven?
That is the essence of faith.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I find it the height of hypocracy that there is even an athiesm... to say that you believe that there is no god even tho you have no proof because... believing in god is faith based and therefore wrong
hap
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You still haven't identified why you feel it's a hypocracy. You just keep repeating that it's "wrong headed". Can you clarify where the hypocracy is?
LMAO he said it a dozen times.
People who believe in a deity do it with no proof.= take it on faith
People who don't believe do so also with no proof.= take it on faith
You can't prove there is or isn't a deity.
So the when either side calls the other names for their beliefs .... Hypocrisy flag is thrown.
Bronk
-
This just in from the Schoolmarm at Little House on the Prairie:
hy·poc·ri[/u]·sy
(hĭ-pŏk'rĭ-sç)
n., pl. -sies.
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
An act or instance of such falseness.
-
What I believe.....
I believe in rainbows, and puppy dogs and fairy tales. And I believe in the family: Mom, and Dad, and Grandma, and Uncle Todd, who waves his noodle.
And I believe in 8 of the Ten Commandments, and I believe in going to church every Sunday, unless there's a game on.
And I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome, and natural things that money can buy.
And I believe it's derogatory to refer to a woman's breasts as "boobs", "jugs", "winnebagos", or "golden bozos". And you should only refer to them as "hooters".
And I believe you should place a woman on a pedestal, high enough so you can look up her dress.
And I believe in equality, equality for everyone, no matter how stupid they are, or how much better I am than they are.
And people say I'm crazy for believing this, but I believe that robots are stealing my luggage.
And I believe I made a mistake when I bought a 30-story, one-bedroom apartment.
And I believe that the "Battle of the Network Stars" should be fought with guns.
And I believe that Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was: an arctic region, covered with ice.
And I believe the United States should accept all foreigners in this country, provided they can speak our native language: Apache.
And lastly, I believe that of all the evils on this earth, there is nothing worse than the music you are listening to right now.
(Steve Martin)
-
Holden, I'll be impressed if you manage to make that particular point understood..
-
Originally posted by Toad
hy·poc·ri·sy
(hĭ-pŏk'rĭ-sç)
n., pl. -sies.
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
An act or instance of such falseness.
That's the definition as I understand it too. So, Lazs, Bronk, where's my hypocracy? What belief/feeling/virtues have I professed that I don't possess? What lie?
-
Don't make the schoolmarm get out the ruler to slap your wittle wrists!!!
hy · poc ·r i[/u] ·sy
-
Mmm, I gotta disagree a bit on that Bronk. Most athiests I've met tend to believe pretty firmly in science and mathematics.
It's the entire idea of "burden of proof". If you believe in an idea, prove it. It's that simple. You can prove n+1=3 therfore n=2. You can prove neo-darwinism by looking at fossils, genetics, iteration studies, or macroevolution in process (hawthorn fly). In fact, there's even a computer software suite that designs objects by generating hundreds of permutations, tests them, and mashes the best traits together with code-based natural selection. Creates a new generation based on that and repeats. The nickname for it is the "idea machine". It's faster, more effecient, and gets better results than human engineers. It holds 3 patents.
If you choose to have faith in something, more power to you. I'm a skeptic at heart. I simply want information to be provable in repeated experimentation & peer review. Then, it becomes more than faith, more than an idea... it's fact. If you want to say, well, God invented natural selection. Okay, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. It's up to you to prove that he did, in a fashion repeatable by others.
-
hukd on fonics werked fur me.
-
Ah kin cee dat; it hepped me 2. ;)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
That's the definition as I understand it too. So, Lazs, Bronk, where's my hypocracy? What belief/feeling/virtues have I professed that I don't possess? What lie?
You profess that you have the correct answer.
You can't prove that it is the correct answer.
I never said you lied.
You profess your belief is the correct answer while you do not posses THE correct answer.
Hypocrisy :D
Technically then both sides are hypocritical. Because neither can prove or disprove .
Personally I have no idea if there is or isn't a supreme being.
Bronk
Also this is going by the definiton of atheist and if you are one.
-
Indy, that's not sufficient. Those people could simply have faith, "believe" in science.
-
Bronk, I guess you didn't read my atheist/agnostic definition above. I state exactly why you're mistaken, I'm not asserting to _know_ anything. Atheist agnostic, remember? So, try again.
-
Here's an interesting take on theism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
Looks like you might fall into the weak athiest category by profession Chairboy, not so sure about practice though.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Mmm, I gotta disagree a bit on that Bronk. Most athiests I've met tend to believe pretty firmly in science and mathematics.
It's the entire idea of "burden of proof". If you believe in an idea, prove it. It's that simple. You can prove n+1=3 therfore n=2. You can prove neo-darwinism by looking at fossils, genetics, iteration studies, or macroevolution in process (hawthorn fly). In fact, there's even a computer software suite that designs objects by generating hundreds of permutations, tests them, and mashes the best traits together with code-based natural selection. Creates a new generation based on that and repeats. The nickname for it is the "idea machine". It's faster, more effecient, and gets better results than human engineers. It holds 3 patents.
If you choose to have faith in something, more power to you. I'm a skeptic at heart. I simply want information to be provable in repeated experimentation & peer review. Then, it becomes more than faith, more than an idea... it's fact. If you want to say, well, God invented natural selection. Okay, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. It's up to you to prove that he did, in a fashion repeatable by others.
Lemme shorten it for you.. prove it one way or the other.
You can't, you say I have to prove it I say disprove it.
Now we can all stand around pointing fingers.
I don't know if there is or isn't a god.
But I am not going to bash a persons beliefs unless they intrude on another's.
Which you are doing by saying prove it while you can't disprove it.
Ohh and see moot's point.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by moot
Indy, that's not sufficient. Those people could simply have faith, "believe" in science.
Why wouldn't it? Given the ambition/time/money/resources neccessary, you can reproduce any experiments to prove or dis-prove the result. Science 101, I can take a cup of water, reduce its temperature, and watch it freeze. It doesn't matter what you, I, or anybody else thinks or believes.
Take that cup of water, give it to a Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Athiest, Politician, HO dweeb, or Stalinist, if they all do the same experiment, and they all get the same result. It is then a provable truth, and not based on faith.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Why wouldn't it? Given the ambition/time/money/resources neccessary, you can reproduce any experiments to prove or dis-prove the result. Science 101, I can take a cup of water, reduce its temperature, and watch it freeze. It doesn't matter what you, I, or anybody else thinks or believes.
Take that cup of water, give it to a Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Athiest, Politician, HO dweeb, or Stalinist, if they all do the same experiment, and they all get the same result. It is then a provable truth, and not based on faith.
We could argue this for a long time but what were once "facts" have been ongoingly disproven for many centuries. When you unknowingly have incomplete knowledge your repeatable experiments may not be revealing the truth that you think they do. Just because she floats doesn't guarantee she's a witch. ;)
-
ag·nos·tic
n.
a.One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b.One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If ya don't commit ya cant be wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a·the·ist
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sound convinced they are correct without proof of being correct. HYPOCRITICAL
Bronk
Edit: Hows that for a definition?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Bronk, I guess you didn't read my atheist/agnostic definition above. I state exactly why you're mistaken, I'm not asserting to _know_ anything. Atheist agnostic, remember? So, try again.
By definition you are agnostic.
So why take offence when..
Originally posted by lazs2
I have no respect for athiests. Their very belief is a hypocracy that I can not ignore.
He is not talking about you.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I state exactly why you're mistaken, I'm not asserting to _know_ anything. Atheist agnostic, remember? So, try again.
You're a confirmed combination "NO/JUST DON'T KNOW" guy?
:lol
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You've based your belief system on something that is not proven?
Proven to my satisfaction. I have stated that.
Arguments for the existence of God have failed under scrutiny and logic (again, as I see it), hence the "faith" label.
The lack of my being able to see oxygen with my own eyes doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It has been proven to my satisfaction.
Green men from Mars I state with equal confidence that they do not exist. It has not been proven that they do. Faith is believing that they do exist. If a Green Men From Mars believer wants me to accept it as fact, then they will have to prove it to me. If they say "Prove to me they don't exist!", I'll say, "No thanks, that is your faith, have at it. I'll accept my truths and facts, you accept yours."
I aknowledge that when dealing with a faith based system, it is rather foolish to argue on a fact based level (so call me the fool sometimes).
Now those arguments of faith fall apart under scrutiny.
Creationism (uh-oh, another 1000 post thread right there only to get locked in the end).
Evolution (see above).
Offspring mutation (I mean if we all come from the same relatives)?
Flooding all of Earth killing off all life outside of Noah's Ark by raining constantly for 40 days/nights. Really?
How old is the Earth?
Our solar system?
Our Universe?
Parting of the Red Sea?
That's a start.
I don't have an agenda to kill off any religion as it is faith based in the belief of something existing.
Interesting some of the "Agnostics" on this BBS. You claim that you don't see the proof either way of God's existance, so it is a possibility of the Atheist being right. There is only one truth. We all choose what we accept it as is.
-
Yer making a big leap assuming 'god' is a christian. ;)
I await proof of diety, divinity, and little green men from mars.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Personally I have no idea if there is or isn't a supreme being.
Bronk
So you admit that I, as an Atheist, might very well be correct that there is no God/Supreme Being?
For you to deny even the possibility of my belief being right, puts you out of the "I have no idea if there is or isn't a supreme being." camp.
edit..oops, changed a word...
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Yer making a big leap assuming 'god' is a christian. ;)
I await proof of diety, divinity, and little green men from mars.
Naw, I'm playing the odds ;)
BTW, the proof will never be put forward as they can't do so.
The moment it does, is the moment it no longer is faith, but now becomes fact.
-
Originally posted by moot
Holden, I'll be impressed if you manage to make that particular point understood..
I'd actually be impressed for a true Agnostic to admit that the Atheist might be right.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Technically then both sides are hypocritical. Because neither can prove or disprove .
Ohh and I Bow to your Omniscient SaburoS since it's proven in YOUR book it must be correct.
Bronk
EDIT: When I say "I don't know" it means just that. There may or may not be a supreme being. That clear enough for you.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I'd actually be impressed for a true Agnostic to admit that the Atheist might be right.
The Atheist may very well be right but alas, there is no proof.
I'm happy to have impressed you.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Ohh and I Bow to your Omniscient SaburoS since it's proven in YOUR book it must be correct.
Bronk
About time you got it right! Hehe. :D
Uhm, actually...what book?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The Atheist may very well be right but alas, there is no proof.
I'm happy to have impressed you.
Almost there. You show your true "belief" hand by stating of no proof possible.
Atheists live in a fact based mindset, not a faith based one.
For one to believe in God, they must take it on faith, not facts.
For the Atheist to not believe in one, it is the lack of facts/proof that drive his belief.
What many are confusing here is that faith = belief. It is a faulty argument.
Burdon of proof is for those that say something exists. That has yet to be done with the Deity thing.
-
SaburoS I have no problem with admitting you might be correct.
How ever you have a problem with me saying you might be wrong.
Just like the religious have a problem with me saying they might wrong.
Pot... this is kettle.
Bronk
-
Bronk: I say that the Easter Bunny is a real, bipedal creature that walks around on easter and lays cadbury eggs for kids to find.
YOU prove that I'm wrong.
EDIT: Oh, sadness. You changed your mind after writing that you disagreed with the assertion that the burden off proof is on the person making the assertion, then deleted your post. Just to avoid any confusion, here's what you wrote:
Saburo wrote:
Burdon of proof is for those that say something exists.
Really where is this law written I'd like to read it.
Bronk[/b]
-
Thats how the damn things keep showing up .
:O :noid
Bronk
-
My problem with the scientific approach is this.
Take certain foods for example 1st there good for us. then they all of sudden there bad, but wait they're OK again.
We can't explain everything.
And yes I deleted my post I was getting to far to one side of the issue and it was dumb, and not though out. Ohh here is one for you chairboy. Prove to an abortion rights activist that life starts at conception. Or the right to lifer that it doesn't . Good friggin luck. They both are to busy in each others business.
Bronk
EDIT: Being agnostic I can admit that to being wrong. Can you?
-
Originally posted by Bronk
SaburoS I have no problem with admitting you might be correct.
How ever you have a problem with me saying you might be wrong.
Just like the religious have a problem with me saying they might wrong.
Pot... this is kettle.
Bronk
I could be wrong but I don't recall reading:
1) You actually posting that the Atheist might be right.
2) That the believers of God might be wrong.
I have stated that those with faith believe in God as a truth to them. Their faith is so strong that it is good enough to pass as a fact, a truth.
I respect others enough that I will not try to convert them out of their beliefs.
I will defend mine, when questioned though (like anyone else here my guess).
You were saying something about Pot-Kettle?
-
Originally posted by Bronk
EDIT: Being agnostic I can admit that to being wrong. Can you?
But in this case of faith, you don't believe you're wrong. EVERYONE here believes they are right, hence the arguing.
-
SuburoS I'm new to posting to this discussion so let me tell you my view.
I am agnostic I don't know if god/ gods can or can't be proven.
To me this means Atheist might be right/wrong. Religious might be right/wrong. I don't know.
I don't know if i can make it any simpler.
But in this case of faith, you don't believe you're wrong. EVERYONE here believes they are right, hence the arguing.
How can i be right/wrong if i don't know.
Believe me I can see the atheist side but can't embrace it. Why because I am not all knowing.
I see the religious side but can't embrace that. Because of some of the horrific things done in the name of god/gods.
You can tell me I'm a fence sitter if you want. But when both sides have good/bad qualities I choose neither.
Bronk
-
I think this thread proves that athiests can't be trusted... they are either lying to us or lying to themselves...
either way... not people you want to have to trust.
they somehow are unable to see how their faith based belief is the same as any other faith based belief.
They can't prove there is no god... they can't explain life and the universe and creation and they can't explain why every human group from the beggining of time has had a god.
If god is a credible and possible explantion for so many things then it is up to them to prove it is not possible or to come up with a better explantion or.... to be agnostic and scientific on the subjedt... to do otherwise is to have an agenda and/or be lying and therefore... not to be trusted... they let their emotions get in the way of clear thinking and won't admit it.
lazs
-
Bronk,
Why do you lump all into one?
Yes there have been attrocities commited in the name of religion, but so have there been by nonreligious reasons.
There has been so much good done by the religion, by the truly religious, that to overlook the good because of the bad is not really fair to those following the true, righteous path.
If you believe in God or Supreme Being, please do not fear what others may think due to perceived association of some wrongdoings.
It matters not whether the idea of God can or cannot be proven. All that matters is if you believe.
I have too many friends that have had to "fall" back on their religious beliefs to help them out of desperate situations, so I know the value of what good religion can do.
I admit to not believing in God or possible existance. My participation is due to the fact I don't like having my character/honor questioned/attacked by those that know nothing about me. This has nothing to do of what other's think about God. I have and will always agree in their right to believe in their faith as truth to them.
This thread started out as Atheists the least trusted.
As an Atheist, I take exception to that.
Fair enough?
-
No lazs, it is you that cannot differentiate the difference of burdon of proof using facts against faith. It will never be resolved.
Is it possible that I am right about the nonexistance of God?
To say "no" or "yes" to the question involves a paradox.
So which is it?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Interesting some of the "Agnostics" on this BBS. You claim that you don't see the proof either way of God's existance, so it is a possibility of the Atheist being right. There is only one truth. We all choose what we accept it as is.
And if you accept the one truth to be one way or the other on the existance of god, you have taken an illogical step. A leap of faith as it were.
If you do not take that step and prefer to stop at the logical conclusion of the argument, that is the concept is unproven, then you choose an agnostic viewpoint.
It is intresting parallel that exist between your statement "There is only one truth" and the theologian professing his is the "one true faith"
In physics, there are times when there seem to be several truths. The concept of wave particle duality says that photons work like a waves, yet they work like particles, yet they work like waves. 2 truths apparently both correct.
Thru which of the two slits does the photon pass? Why the single photon passed thru both slits simultaneously.
-
So is it faith in God that it happens or will science eventually find the answer?
One truth. Some haven't been found yet. We will in time provided we survive as a human species.
-
Lazs, I respect your right to have religious beliefs. It's my opinion that it's not the place of any man to tell another what he may or may not think. I'm saddened that you do not share this conviction, and that you question my character and call me a liar because I don't agree with you.
Bronk: How could I be wrong? I have a _lack of belief_ about god, as in, I fail to believe that he exists. How can a lack of a belief be wrong? The most you can say is that it's just... missing.
I wrote in an earlier message the technical differentiation between the terms atheist and agnostic and how they are actually two sides of a coin, not opposed to each other. If you wish to challenge my assertions, then just do so directly please instead of just saying "you are dishonest" or whatnot.
-
Of course it is possible that you are correct in your faith.... I simply have my own faith that contradicts yours.
The difference between us is that you will not admit that yours is a faith based belief much less.....the possibility that you are wrong...
If you do admit that there is that possibility that you are wrong then there is indeed a paradox but..... it is not mine...
the expression "hoisted on your own petard" comes to mind.
The intolerance is the key to not being trusted along with the inability to admit you have a strange faith based belief.
If you claim that you believe in god but only because of personal faith.... No problem.... If you profess a lack of faith and say that you are agnostic on the subject.... no problem...
But if you say that you are just being logical and that athiesm is not faith based, well..... then you have a problem.
Whenever someone says they are an athiest my first reaction it to laugh at the whole paradox of the thing.... my next reaction is to not trust em.. My last is to dismiss them as not being serious thinkers.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
One truth. Some haven't been found yet. We will in time provided we survive as a human species.
You say "one truth", yet the very next word is plural.:)
-
Chair, you don't believe that there is a god.
What proof do you have that you are correct? None.
So you're taking your position on "faith" that you are correct.
It's funny itself and funnier that you don't see it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You say "one truth", yet the very next word is plural.:)
Sure. Most issues are different. I believe there to be only one truth for each. Case by case basis.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Thru which of the two slits does the photon pass? Why the single photon passed thru both slits simultaneously.
Only Holden could EVER get away with talkin dirty in a thread on faith and religion.
:aok
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
...snip....
Now those arguments of faith fall apart under scrutiny.
Creationism (uh-oh, another 1000 post thread right there only to get locked in the end).
Evolution (see above).
Offspring mutation (I mean if we all come from the same relatives)?
Flooding all of Earth killing off all life outside of Noah's Ark by raining constantly for 40 days/nights. Really?
How old is the Earth?
Our solar system?
Our Universe?
Parting of the Red Sea?
That's a start.
....snip...
Saburo, just a thought, hopefully directed to an open mind.
it seems to me that you are trying to disprove something by at first assuming it does not exist; That in essence claims of supernatural activity cannot be true because there can't be anything that transcends the natural world we observe.
Here's what I mean.
I'd like to do a thought experiment...and lets leave the word "god" out. Instead, purely for the sake of the thought experiment, lets imagine a transdimensional entity that exists in a hgher dimensional state than our own. This entity would seem "god-like" to us, being a couple orders of magnitude more advanced than the first european explorers appeared to stone age new worlders.
Take that being that exists in the 6th dimension or something, and allow it to interact with our 3 dimensional world. Its very presence would strain the 3D universe we live in; and if it acted on this universe, IT WOULD APPEAR INEXPLICABLE BY ANY NATURAL LAW of our existance - -almost by definition. And those explicable, but extradimensional, interactions would look every bit like miracles.
So if you posit that such a being existed, would miracles be any big deal at all???
Now, a step further. Imagine how incomprehensible our world would seem to something truly 2 dimensional, that has no framework to understand the concept of "depth". Or, closer to home, imagine describing a sunset to a man born blind? How could you even start? Even if you did an OK job, could it even appraoch the reality?
Take that idea and apply it to our 6th Dimensional visitor. Would you really expect everything that entity told us about itself and the dimensional existance beyond our own, to be completely straightforward and direct? In fact, I'd argue that any such explanation for what's beyond our universe had BETTER stretch our minds some, because if it doesnt it begins to sound suspiciously like an invention from within this framework.
Now I'm not going to claim that this makes any proof of anything I believe, because of course it doesn't. But your implication, that people of faith must in essence turn their minds off to reality, does not bear scrutiny.
There are certainly those who never get past "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me." Some figuratively plug their ears and hum to drown out what doesnt fit what they want to believe.
But the fact that many you see do not operate on the same cognitive plane as you DOES NOT mean that faith itself is ignorance. I'd challenge you to honestly wrestle with the deep thought of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, or G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy. If you're up to it, dive into the philosophical works of Augustine of Hippo -- though his intellect so far exceeds my capacity that I needed support materials (like a Augustinian philosophy lecture series -- from a secular college, btw) to grasp the depth of what he was saying.
-
Originally posted by lazs2 I think this thread proves that athiests can't be trusted... they are either lying to us or lying to themselves...
either way... not people you want to have to trust.
Fallacious argument. Thrustworthiness as nothing to do with the group(s) you belong too. Everyone makes their own decision regarding truth.
They can't prove there is no god... they can't explain life and the universe and creation and they can't explain why every human group from the beggining of time has had a god.
Since humans are psychologically similar it seems logical to me that they used similar means to explain similar things in different societies.
There is also this problem : If god created the universe, who created god ?
they somehow are unable to see how their faith based belief is the same as any other faith based belief.
I am no more right then anyone else, I simply believe what I see.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Only Holden could EVER get away with talkin dirty in a thread on faith and religion.
:aok
:rofl :rofl
-
Science has the theory of evolution which is nearing completion in the sense that more and more aspects of it are supported by proof, gained everyday with every research project.
Creationism has... nothing
If you thumpers are right and atheism is faith based, it sure is a far less stupid and far-fetched one than the creationist religions, but I digress...
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
Fallacious argument. Thrustworthiness as nothing to do with the group(s) you belong too. Everyone makes their own decision regarding truth.
Since humans are psychologically similar it seems logical to me that they used similar means to explain similar things in different societies.
There is also this problem : If god created the universe, who created god ?
I am no more right then anyone else, I simply believe what I see.
Whoa, there's nothing simple about believing what you see. Everything you "see" is filtered by your understanding, beliefs, and expectations. When you "look" you are seeing through the lens of your past and no two people see anything exactly the same way.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Whoa, there's nothing simple about believing what you see. Everything you "see" is filtered by your understanding, beliefs, and expectations. When you "look" you are seeing through the lens of your past and no two people see anything exactly the same way.
Not only that you do not see things as they are, but only as it was a little while ago. Due to the speed of light being finite, the photons striking your retina strike at a specific time after they left the observed object.
Observers travelling at large velocities will find that distances and times are distorted ("dilated") in accordance with the Lorentz transforms; however, the transforms distort times and distances in such a way that the speed of light remains constant. A person travelling near the speed of light would also find that colours of lights ahead were blue shifted and of those behind were redshifted.
If information could travel faster than c in one reference frame, causality would be violated: in some other reference frames, the information would be received before it had been sent, so the 'cause' could be observed after the 'effect'. Due to special relativity's time dilation, the ratio between an external observer's perceived time and the time perceived by an observer moving closer and closer to the speed of light approaches zero. If something could move faster than light, this ratio would not be a real number. Such a violation of causality has never been observed.
To put it another way, information propagates to and from a point from regions defined by a light cone. The interval AB in the diagram to the right is 'time-like' (that is, there is a frame of reference in which event A and event B occur at the same location in space, separated only by their occurring at different times, and if A precedes B in that frame then A precedes B in all frames: there is no frame of reference in which event A and event B occur simultaneously). Thus, it is hypothetically possible for matter (or information) to travel from A to B, so there can be a causal relationship (with A the 'cause' and B the 'effect').
So I agree, it is not simple.
-
Ok. Can yah do a 'Carl Sagan Voice? I defy anyone here to attempt to read that aloud while doing Carl Sagan without breaking out in fits of laughter before yah get to the third paragraph.
double dog dare yah!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You still haven't identified why you feel it's a hypocracy. You just keep repeating that it's "wrong headed". Can you clarify where the hypocracy is?
OK question... did you post this prior to the 2 post by laz just above this one?
Because IMHO he answered you in those post.
If you did read them then please read them again.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Bronk, I guess you didn't read my atheist/agnostic definition above. I state exactly why you're mistaken, I'm not asserting to _know_ anything. Atheist agnostic, remember? So, try again.
So because you were requested to supply proof of, or where the heck you came up with, YOUR definition. And thus far you have NOT done so.
Then your definition is something you made up? And is therefore only believed by YOU?
-
While I cannot disprove there is a 'god' I can disprove there is NOT a christian god based on statements made in christian teachings, ie creationism versus the age of the earth, evolution etc, the great flood etc.
Now, either the bible is wrong, or you're worshipping a false god.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lazs, I respect your right to have religious beliefs. It's my opinion that it's not the place of any man to tell another what he may or may not think. I'm saddened that you do not share this conviction, and that you question my character and call me a liar because I don't agree with you.
Bronk: How could I be wrong? I have a _lack of belief_ about god, as in, I fail to believe that he exists. How can a lack of a belief be wrong? The most you can say is that it's just... missing.
I wrote in an earlier message the technical differentiation between the terms atheist and agnostic and how they are actually two sides of a coin, not opposed to each other. If you wish to challenge my assertions, then just do so directly please instead of just saying "you are dishonest" or whatnot.
I am of the opinion that laz does share the viewpoint that it is not one persons place to tell another person what to believe. Therefore your being saddened seems odd? As I'm pretty sure laz has stated as much in other threads that I'm pretty sure you have read.
Perhaps laz questions you because of the TECHNIQUE you use in dealing with this issue?
As to Bronk........ why should he agree with your Technical differentiation..... definition.
Technical differentiation .... definition? Where did that technical differentiation.... definition come from?
YOU? It is YOUR Technical differentiation ....definition?
AGAIN Please provide proof of YOUR Technical differentiation.... definition and where it comes from.
-
So I'm the only one required to submit proof? Gotcha.
-
You were the one claiming the definitions you posted . So yes prove them.
Bronk
Edit: Now who was it that said the burden of proof was on the one making the claim?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
While I cannot disprove there is a 'god' I can disprove there is NOT a christian god based on statements made in christian teachings, ie creationism versus the age of the earth, evolution etc, the great flood etc.
Now, either the bible is wrong, or you're worshipping a false god.
Hardly. Not all christians subscribe to the same idea of how creation came about or that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I'll take it a step further though, you can't prove there wasn't a great flood and while I think the currently acccepted theories of evolution are indeed possible, many people accept these theories as fact but they are really accepting a great deal on faith.
The core of Chistianity is little more than believing in the virgin birth of Jesus and the need of his sacrifice for the remission of our sins. I think much else is subject to interpretation.
-
Originally posted by lukster
The core of Chistianity is little more than believing in the virgin birth of Jesus and the need of his sacrifice for the remission of our sins. I think much else is subject to interpretation.
So when push comes to shove you can pick and choose which parts of the bible you believe, or if cornered its an 'interpretation' issue? and as long as you repent and accept jesus the minute before you snuff it chances are you'll get thru the pearly gates?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
So I'm the only one required to submit proof? Gotcha.
You got NOTHING SIR!
It is not I that puts forth such words, such claims as to how things are or how things are defined/differentiated.
It was you that put forward a definition/differentiation claim that I, for one, can't recall seeing before.
It is you that keeps reffering to that claim as if it's the GOSPEL!
And IMHO you APPEAR to be doing what YOU SEEM to do in other such cases. You APPEAR to be trying to weasel your way out of the situation without giving a direct answer, or for that matter any answer, AGAIN. This SEEMS like it occurs in your replys very frequently within these threads? So much so that, at least with me, your credabilty has suffered greatly!
It's very simple YOU have made a claim of how things are.
I have said OH? REALLY? I would like to see the source of that claim.
Others appear to be begining to ask the same question.
SOOOO basically you lack agreement from at least me on the words you put forth regarding a definition/differentiation.
NOW, you gonna prove your words come from somewhere other then your own mind, or ......?
If you can not, or will not, then laz's argument, IMHO, stand even taller then before. For it will then APPEAR that rather then speaking within common definitions used by most people within, what... a polite society? a standard society? or a whatever society ( i used so many societies in hopes the society ploy used earlier won't be used AGAIN to try to weasel out of answering ), then perhaps you have made up your own definition. A definition possibly designed to MISLEAD?
A little side note: one of my college prof. used disinformation etc. to mislead. I could do an whole thread on that person. The book used in that course was pretty much made up of disinformation. But that's another story.
SOOOO as laz has, rather politely IMHO, put it....... how does one trust someone that makes stuff up as they go along?
This of course may SADDEN you again. OH? REALLY? Perhaps you should cheer up instead!
You now have a chance to ............. ?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
So when push comes to shove you can pick and choose which parts of the bible you believe, or if cornered its an 'interpretation' issue? and as long as you repent and accept jesus the minute before you snuff it chances are you'll get thru the pearly gates?
Pretty much. You seem to be implying that I have to submit to someone else's dogma for my faith to be valid?
-
Holden said (quite well)
"And if you accept the one truth to be one way or the other on the existance of god, you have taken an illogical step. A leap of faith as it were. "
yep... in a nutshell... a leap of faith. But why such a leap of faith? It is easy to see the motive and reasons for the believer in god.... it is easy to see the motives and thought process of the agnostic too..
it is the athiest that is the slippery one... The hidden agenda... the damage... the urge to be hip like their teachers... lots of things... none pretty.
so why shoul I trust em? look at em in this thread... they are pitiful... tap dancing at an alarming pace.... showing us their best moves and never showing us anything but BS.
If you can't even get someone to admit that faith based belief is a leap of faith...
"little green men from mars" whoever said that... does that mean if there is no martians or... if there are but they are not green or even little that no alien life exists?
If you can prove that one date in the bible is wrong does that mean that every religion... every person who has a god is.... wrong? What kind of scientific method... what kind of convoluted dishonest thinking is that?
I will never try to force my belief on you and will allways admit it is my belief and that I have no proof. The smug and dishonest athiest needs to act the same...
Till he does.... why should I trust him?
Also... wrag has pretty much pegged my position so..... It is probly not that I am so hard to understand but that some of those I am talking to have no ears for what I am saying.
lazs
-
10 Religious: There is a God, prove there's not!
20 Athiest: There is no god, prove that there is!
30 Agnostic: I'm the smartest, I know nothing!
goto 10
-
There's nothing slippery about it, I assumed you understood the definitions of the words. If you really don't, then here are other sources, randomly picked from google:
http://www.strange-loops.com/athwhatis.html
http://www.2think.org/hii/atheism.shtml
http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/agnovsath.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Are you seriously going to keep trying to attack my definition? There's nothing remarkable about it, it's just what anyone who studies the subject learns. I wasn't bothering to answer this because I didn't want to embarass anyone, but jeepers.
Now can we continue the conversation? I've given the educated definition to atheism vs. agnosticism, and it deals with just about all of your concerns. I guess the ball is firmly in your court.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the urge to be hip like their teachers...
A peculiar choice of words, coming from a religious person, a species so interwoven with the concept of indoctrination and unquestioning adoption of their leaders' dogma's...
Ah well, thank 'god' that religion is a dying phenomenon here, an archaic concept that only serves those who have nothing else as purpose (ref. the third world) or those that use it as a tool of power, moral superiority and means to control and steer the clueless masses (e.g. the US)
-
Originally posted by lazs2 it is the athiest that is the slippery one... The hidden agenda... the damage... the urge to be hip like their teachers... lots of things... none pretty.
so why shoul I trust em? look at em in this thread... they are pitiful... tap dancing at an alarming pace.... showing us their best moves and never showing us anything but BS.
If you can't even get someone to admit that faith based belief is a leap of faith...
If you can prove that one date in the bible is wrong does that mean that every religion... every person who has a god is.... wrong? What kind of scientific method... what kind of convoluted dishonest thinking is that?
I will never try to force my belief on you and will allways admit it is my belief and that I have no proof. The smug and dishonest athiest needs to act the same...
You're generalizing again lazsy. I'm an atheist and I'm not telling you what to believe, I did not show you any BS and I'm not dancing.
The bible is full of holes that indicate that it was written by ignorant men. Which prooves it is not the word of god, not god's non existence.
Besides, prooving the existence of god is not science's role. Science is tries to understanding the physical world, not a metaphysical one that may exist.
-
Lazs,
1) How has any Atheist here tried "to force their belief on you" or anyone else here?
I doubt anyone here is that weakminded to be swayed by the mere posting of one stating of what they think.
2) Is it possible that there is no God/Supreme Being?
I've asked that question yet you keep "tap dancing" around it.
As to the green men on Mars question, I've already specifically elaborated on it.
"It is probly not that I am so hard to understand but that some of those I am talking to have no ears for what I am saying. " - Look in the mirror, so quit being so "smug" about it.
The problem I see here is your need to group things in black and white.
You've tied in faith with equaling religion which is very "smug and dishonest" of you. Under your criteria, I'm not going to play that way.
For the record, yes, we all use faith on a daily basis.
I have faith that when I cross the street after looking both ways, I won't get hit by a car.
I have faith that when "my" sports team is doing well, they are going to win the championship.
I have faith that by my traveling the straight, righteous, and narrow path, that I won't get into trouble.
I have faith that when science, biology, and real world situations match, there is one "truth" in those specific applications.
I have faith that walking down the street, the force due to gravity won't all of a sudden fail me and I end up in the air.
I have faith that we need Oxygen, water, food, etc to live.
...even though proof exists to the above, I have faith in it.
My belief system is that I see no proof of God, therefore God doesn't exist.
Divine intervention? Nope.
The Lochness Monster? Nope.
Do I use faith that my logic and conclusions right? Sure do.
Is it a religion? Nope.
Notice the one important fact is that I am outlining my belief. I am not trying to convince others that they are wrong.
I do not feel threatened in my belief system just because the Agnostic, the Christian, the Catholic, the Muslim, etc., state their beliefs.
The funny thing is you get all up in arms, flailing away, for a phantom argument that you've created, all the while pointing fingers at those you are having a disagreement with.
So, lazs (I'm the honest one), is it possible that I could be right about there not being a God or Devine intervention?
If you are a true Agnostic, you'd have to say "Yes, it is possible."
To say "No." takes you out of the Agnostic camp.
Honest.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
So, lazs (I'm the honest one), is it possible that I could be right about there not being a God or Devine intervention?
If you are a true Agnostic, you'd have to say "Yes, it is possible."
To say "No." takes you out of the Agnostic camp.
Honest.
Hang on now, I think you're assuming too much. It's not just agnostics but also many who claim belief in God that know full well that they can't prove it and understand that it is possbile that they could be wrong. That's why it's called belief and faith.
Like I said before, your level of religiousity is likely directly proportionate to the certainty of your faith.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Hang on now, I think you're assuming too much. It's not just agnostics but also many who claim belief in God that know full well that they can't prove it and understand that it is possbile that they could be wrong. That's why it's called belief and faith.
Like I said before, your level of religiousity is likely directly proportionate to the certainty of your faith.
Bingo. I have no faith that God exists, therefore Atheism is not a religion.
Maybe we're getting somewhere finally. I doubt it though.
What is the opposite of a belief in God?
That there is no God.
One takes a leap of faith to belief in a God, the other refuses to take that leap of faith.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Because one takes that leap of faith, doesn't mean it is not the truth for them.
I believe that those that believe in God, do so with they're believing it as the truth. That's why I will never tell them that they are wrong for what they believe in.
All I can say is my beliefs are different in that case. I won't make that leap of faith.
Do you see where I'm coming from (finally)?
If you do, we move on, if not we keep dancing around and around in circles.
-
whoa... where did I say that I was a christian or that the bible is the only way a person can believe in god?
Where did I say that I had a religious leader that I followed or that one was needed to believe in god?
Again... my belief in god is my own. I freely admit that I have no proof and that it is only a leap of faith. I simply ask that you so called athiests do the same... admit that your belief that there is no god is a leap of faith.
How can you be trusted if you lie to us? You claim that you know there is no god but you don't really "know" you are guessing.
Are their aliens? are there ghosts? psychic powers? You don't know... I don't either... I am agnostic on those things. I am not even sure if there is a loch ness monster or green people were ever on mars.... I say I don't know.... you say...."yep.... none of those things exist cause no one has proved it"
boy is your face gonna be red someday.
nope.... to claim that you positively know that there is no god is to make a statement of faith....a "leap" of faith and... to declare an agenda.
I have no doubt that only the so called athiests on this board are still thinking that their tap dancing around this truth is fooling anyone at this point... It is even past semantics.... it is klinton saying "depends on what the defenistion of is...is" at this point.
so you got a grudge against god or religion or maybe god let your puppy die one time... maybe you just want to appear the hip rebel... that's all fine with me but admit it. or.... admit that you have a deep seated faith that there is no god and that your deep seated faith is....
A leap of faith.
lazs
-
and suibaru... no...you don't take a leap of faith about religion or aliens or whatever...
instead...you take a different leap of faith and say that they are not possible.
can we admit that and move on?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lukster
Hang on now, I think you're assuming too much. It's not just agnostics but also many who claim belief in God that know full well that they can't prove it and understand that it is possbile that they could be wrong. That's why it's called belief and faith.
I had to quote this separately and comment on it separately as I forgot to address it earlier.
I disagree. If they truly believed that they COULD be wrong, that would mean that I COULD be right. But this isn't the case here.
That is why some feel threatened when confronted with a belief system opposite of their own.
Most here believe in God and they do so feeling it is the truth, that it is real.
I actually agree with them in that they feel it is real and true....to them.
I can respect another having a belief system different than my own and am not out to insult others for their belief nor am I trying to change their's.
Can you say the same?
What I find troublesome and ugly is the continued mud slinging and labeling based solely on association.
I include some Atheists here in that group as well. Not conducive to a civilized discussion.
If you want to see more of my thoughts on this subject, check my post history or ask me more questions.
-
subaru... one group admits their faith based belief.... the other does not...
both beliefs are faith based...
Who would you trust when push came to shove? even for an opinion?
lazs
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I had to quote this separately and comment on it separately as I forgot to address it earlier.
I disagree. If they truly believed that they COULD be wrong, that would mean that I COULD be right. But this isn't the case here.
Are you presuming to tell me what I believe? I choose to believe in God but understand that I might be wrong which would make you right. Are you so blinded by your faith and prejudice that you won't accept what I am telling you?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
whoa... where did I say that I was a christian or that the bible is the only way a person can believe in god?
Where did I say that I had a religious leader that I followed or that one was needed to believe in god?
You've been quite clear on that. Kindly show me where I said you were or did the above? You won't find it cause I didn't. Yet even now you still create this phantom argument. You were saying something about honesty and lying?
Your face red yet?
I don't think you see nor realize it.
Originally posted by lazs2
Again... my belief in god is my own. I freely admit that I have no proof and that it is only a leap of faith. I simply ask that you so called athiests do the same... admit that your belief that there is no god is a leap of faith.
Why should I? I am not the one taking the leap of faith here. You admit that you cannot prove and that it is YOUR belief of god's existance.
Are you saying that the possibility of God's non-existance is... not possible?
Your very argument betrays your supposed unbias in the issue of God's existance.
Even now you still fail to realize that I, by not taking that same leap of faith you or anyone else that believes in God, ...is...not...the...same...th ing.
Originally posted by lazs2
How can you be trusted if you lie to us? You claim that you know there is no god but you don't really "know" you are guessing.
Again, you presume to be the all knowing, that there is no possibility of God not existing. Therefore, anyone that disagrees with that premise, must be lying. Anyone that hasn't taken that leap of faith in God's existence is wrong, as you argue that way.
Originally posted by lazs2
Are their aliens? are there ghosts? psychic powers? You don't know... I don't either... I am agnostic on those things. I am not even sure if there is a loch ness monster or green people were ever on mars.... I say I don't know.... you say...."yep.... none of those things exist cause no one has proved it"
How do you know what I know?
You like to keep making assumptions to fit the box of your 'argument'.
I was very specific about the possibilty of aliens existing AND the Green men from Mars issue. Too bad you didn't actually read it.
Kind of a dishonest way of having a discussion, eh?
Originally posted by lazs2
boy is your face gonna be red someday.
Again, you presume too much.
Kind of smug of you actually.
Originally posted by lazs2
nope.... to claim that you positively know that there is no god is to make a statement of faith....a "leap" of faith and... to declare an agenda.
Wrong.
I make that statement based on....well you reread what I've posted.
Are you that paranoid that you feel I have an "agenda"?
What agenda is this for you really have me puzzled here.
Don't tell me you belief system is that fragile that you cannot accept a different way of thinking of your own. Kind of sensitive of you actually.
Originally posted by lazs2
I have no doubt that only the so called athiests on this board are still thinking that their tap dancing around this truth is fooling anyone at this point... It is even past semantics.... it is klinton saying "depends on what the defenistion of is...is" at this point.
Again, you betray your supposed unbias.
My truth:
God has not been proven to exist for me, therefore God does not exist.
To state that I have to have a leap of faith to believe it is to make the assumption that God does exist, that I am wrong.
Originally posted by lazs2
so you got a grudge against god or religion or maybe god let your puppy die one time... maybe you just want to appear the hip rebel... that's all fine with me but admit it. or.... admit that you have a deep seated faith that there is no god and that your deep seated faith is....
A leap of faith.
lazs
Again, you presume too much.
I never lost a puppy or did I go through anything tramatic. I never was taught that there was a God so I never 'lost' a faith of their being a God's existance.
Call me the sceptic.
Rebel? That's funny. I dn't go around with signs indicating that I am an Atheist, nor do I try to 'convert' others out of their religious beliefs.
I'm fairly private but for your benefit:
I was married to a Catholic. We were together for 19 years, married for the last 9. See was practicing in that she always went to Mass, went to church, etc. Her uncle is now a Cardinal.
We all got along great. I didn't try to convert her, nor did she try to convert me. We ended out marriage for other reasons outside of religion.
I've got many good friends that are staunchly Christian. One even is trying to set me up with her Christian "sister".
Religion does not get thrown in the picture. We respect each other's right to our own views.
I have an employee where we have very good and thorough discussions about Christianity and Atheism. He's still staunchly Christian and I'm still staunchly Atheist (as it should be). We've never gotten into an argument either as we've respected the other's position.
So much for my "agenda" and my "grudge"
Are you red yet? I doubt it.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Are you presuming to tell me what I believe?
No.
It is ironic that there are those here that presume to know what I think and how I think. They cannot accept the fact that I reached a conclusion based on the facts as I see it.
Originally posted by lukster
I choose to believe in God but understand that I might be wrong which would make you right. Are you so blinded by your faith and prejudice that you won't accept what I am telling you?
If you are in fact saying that I COULD be right. Then we have no argument.
God does not exist for me. God exists for you. One takes a leap of faith, the other refuses to take that leap.
Fair enough?
-
I don't really think so Lazs. Science is provisional truth, not final truth. It's knowing you may very well be wrong, but going with the best, provable natural explanation somebody can come up with. I think what you see as the weakness of science, faith that it's the only correct answer, may just be unfounded. The very strength of science is that it can be proven wrong, and new provisional truths are found. All it requires is proof.
I don't see how knowing you may not be correct, and open to new, provable knoweldge makes you an untrustworthy zealot. Except, maybe, that proof must fit into the framework of science? Why shouldn't it though? That's the provisionally true, accepted way of explaining nature. Otherwise we wouldn't have any verifiable knowledge of phsyics, biology, etc, etc.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
subaru... one group admits their faith based belief.... the other does not...
Actually there are 3 groups here.
1) Pro God's existence. They believe it to be the truth. Leap of faith taken.
2) Not really sure. Maybe, maybe not. Leap of faith may or may not be taken.
3) God doesn't exist. They believe it to be the truth. Leap of faith not taken.
The last group doesn't take that leap of faith at all. They accept the facts as they see them.
Originally posted by lazs2
both beliefs are faith based...
See above.
Originally posted by lazs2
Who would you trust when push came to shove? even for an opinion?
lazs
The one who demostrated an ability to analyse a situation, act in an honest and fair manner, and not be so quick to finger point and blame things on others. The belief in God would not enter the picture.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
No.
It is ironic that there are those here that presume to know what I think and how I think. They cannot accept the fact that I reached a conclusion based on the facts as I see it.
If you are in fact saying that I COULD be right. Then we have no argument.
God does not exist for me. God exists for you. One takes a leap of faith, the other refuses to take that leap.
Fair enough?
I'll accept that provided you admit the possiblity that there might be a self aware intelligent being that created everything.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and suibaru... no...you don't take a leap of faith about religion or aliens or whatever...
instead...you take a different leap of faith and say that they are not possible.
Not entirely correct.
The possibilty of aliens (life forms from other solar systems similar to ours) existing I do agree with. (Had you even bothered what I typed in the other thread we were involved in, you would have known my position.)
Do I say that it is definite? No. No leap of faith there.
Originally posted by lazs2
You know, this is kind of like a pregnancy issue. Either is or isn't.
Either you take that leap of faith in believeing in God or you don't take that leap.
But that's not good enough for you is it?
Your preconceived notions just have to fit in your box.
No way could you be wrong for your argument falls apart under scrutiny if you were.
Originally posted by lazs2
can we admit that and move on?
lazs
For me to admit to something that I don't agree to would be dishonest of me.
-
It's really simple. To say I don't know if there is a god requires no faith. To say I know there is no god does.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I'll accept that provided you admit the possiblity that there might be a self aware intelligent being that created it.
Why should I?
I would no longer be an Atheist if I thought that possibility existed.
I would then become an Agnostic.
How about you just accept that I believe that your belief in God is the right one for you, that your leap of faith was taken and accepted?
I've never told my relatives or friends that they were wrong for their belief in God.
They've never questioned me to the extent that our relationships got worse.
If anything they became even more accepting of my being an Atheist when they found out the truth of what I was about.
How about you're respecting my right to my belief as I see it for me and stop feeling threatened by it.
I have no agenda. I concider myself an honorable and honest individual.
Too bad some others can't accept it.
There seems to be an agenda alright, but it is not I trying to carry it out.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
You've been quite clear on that. Kindly show me where I said you were or did the above? You won't find it cause I didn't. Yet even now you still create this phantom argument. You were saying something about honesty and lying?
Your face red yet?
I don't think you see nor realize it.
Why should I? I am not the one taking the leap of faith here. You admit that you cannot prove and that it is YOUR belief of god's existance.
Are you saying that the possibility of God's non-existance is... not possible?
Your very argument betrays your supposed unbias in the issue of God's existance.
Even now you still fail to realize that I, by not taking that same leap of faith you or anyone else that believes in God, ...is...not...the...same...th ing.
Again, you presume to be the all knowing, that there is no possibility of God not existing. Therefore, anyone that disagrees with that premise, must be lying. Anyone that hasn't taken that leap of faith in God's existence is wrong, as you argue that way.
How do you know what I know?
You like to keep making assumptions to fit the box of your 'argument'.
I was very specific about the possibilty of aliens existing AND the Green men from Mars issue. Too bad you didn't actually read it.
Kind of a dishonest way of having a discussion, eh?
Again, you presume too much.
Kind of smug of you actually.
Wrong.
I make that statement based on....well you reread what I've posted.
Are you that paranoid that you feel I have an "agenda"?
What agenda is this for you really have me puzzled here.
Don't tell me you belief system is that fragile that you cannot accept a different way of thinking of your own. Kind of sensitive of you actually.
Again, you betray your supposed unbias.
My truth:
God has not been proven to exist for me, therefore God does not exist.
To state that I have to have a leap of faith to believe it is to make the assumption that God does exist, that I am wrong.
Again, you presume too much.
I never lost a puppy or did I go through anything tramatic. I never was taught that there was a God so I never 'lost' a faith of their being a God's existance.
Call me the sceptic.
Rebel? That's funny. I dn't go around with signs indicating that I am an Atheist, nor do I try to 'convert' others out of their religious beliefs.
I'm fairly private but for your benefit:
I was married to a Catholic. We were together for 19 years, married for the last 9. See was practicing in that she always went to Mass, went to church, etc. Her uncle is now a Cardinal.
We all got along great. I didn't try to convert her, nor did she try to convert me. We ended out marriage for other reasons outside of religion.
I've got many good friends that are staunchly Christian. One even is trying to set me up with her Christian "sister".
Religion does not get thrown in the picture. We respect each other's right to our own views.
I have an employee where we have very good and thorough discussions about Christianity and Atheism. He's still staunchly Christian and I'm still staunchly Atheist (as it should be). We've never gotten into an argument either as we've respected the other's position.
So much for my "agenda" and my "grudge"
Are you red yet? I doubt it.
From what I've read of your post SaburoS I honestly don't think laz is refering to YOU!
-
Originally posted by lukster
It's really simple. To say I don't know if there is a god requires no faith. To say I know there is no god does.
Sorry, not quite that simple.
1) To believe in God is to take a leap of faith.
2) To not believe in God is to not take that leap of faith.
Agnostics, by their nature won't take a stand either way for they don't accept the explainations yet put forth. The moment they accept that there is a God is the moment they take that leap of faith and become a believer.
Agnostics are unsure. Might be, might not be. The moment thay take a stand one way or the other is when they no longer are Agnostic.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
While I cannot disprove there is a 'god' I can disprove there is NOT a christian god based on statements made in christian teachings, ie creationism versus the age of the earth, evolution etc, the great flood etc.
Now, either the bible is wrong, or you're worshipping a false god.
Vulcan, both in this and in your prior posts you're making absolutist statements despite having pretty limited understanding of christian texts and teachings. (I.E., your statements about the origin of the biblical canon sound more like polemic than reasoned opinion, and when confronted with data the issue kinda went away.)
Let me just address the age of the earth thing, since it seems to be a bugaboo for you.
In the original hebrew, I understand that the word "day" has a broader meaning, and is used for a block of time anywhere from 24 hours up. "Morning" actually means "beginning," and "evening" is "ending." So the literal translation would be close to "and the beginning and the ending were the first time period." That Hebrew text has traditionally been understood as it was translated to King James english as "the morning and the evening were the first day," and that could be the meaning -- but may not be. The idea that the earth was 6000 years old was FIRST proposed by a minister in the 1800s, based on adding together the lifespans of people named in the Bible; but this overlooked the fact that "son of" literally meant "came from," leaving open the possibility that generations were skipped in the reported geneologies (which had gaps anyway). The 6000 year thing is not an intrinsic, ancient christian teaching...
So there is not a "christian" doctrine for the earth's age, which is not surprising since the whole point of the Bible is God's relationship with humans. There are Christians who believe the earth is 6000 years old, and christians who believe it is MUCH older than that. The bible does say that the ultimate source of life was a creation act by God, not by spontaneous generation; and one could argue that spontaneous generation of life has yet to be proved in any way scientifically.
Evolution is a broad term, including micro and macro evolutionary changes. the bible says that animal life came about through God's direct action, and that life reproduced "after its kind." Natural selection, and even speciation within "kinds" (whatever they are) would be absolutely consistant with christian teaching.
-
Been giving some thought to how the thread has progressed. Want to make a worthwile contribution.
In my experience, faith is somewhat similar to falling in love. When not in love, one knows love exists. Even when bitter, one knows love exists. When one is "in love" then there exists a quantative differnce that might throw the experience into a different category, one of a difference in kind and not merely one of number. It has been somewhat similar for me. Despite my feelings. Despite my perceptions. Despite my ignorance. Love is a reality. The same is true of hate, fear, evil etc.
God exists too. His existence, character, and qualities are not contingent. Which is why analogy serves only so far. I am the contigent one. As far as proofs go to God existence, they are so abundant and profound that using them as assertions, evidence, or conclusive elements in an argument begs the question, "am I discussing this with an honest man?"
Best Wishes,
Hap
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Sorry, not quite that simple.
1) To believe in God is to take a leap of faith.
2) To not believe in God is to not take that leap of faith.
Agnostics, by their nature won't take a stand either way for they don't accept the explainations yet put forth. The moment they accept that there is a God is the moment they take that leap of faith and become a believer.
Agnostics are unsure. Might be, might not be. The moment thay take a stand one way or the other is when they no longer are Agnostic.
You say you do not believe in God. If you do not believe in God, do you believe in the non-existance of God? I think I read a post of yours that you do not.
If you do not believe one way or the other, you are agnostic, refusing to take a leap of faith either way.
-
Originally posted by Hap
...snip....
In my experience, faith is somewhat similar to falling in love. When not in love, one knows love exists. ...snip... Despite my feelings. Despite my perceptions. Despite my ignorance. Love is a reality. The same is true of hate, fear, evil etc.
...snip....
Best Wishes,
Hap
It is so wild that you came out with this idea -- which is far older than you may realize. I've been listening to a series of lectures thats one of those put out by the The Teaching Company ("more than 200 college level courses"....on everything from economics to history to music Here's the link (http://www.teach12.com/teach12.asp?ai=16281) ), on the philosophy of Augustine of Hippo.
Anyway, back in the 300 CE era Augustine used the same comparison....
-
Leap of faith is like diving into a large base to de-ack in a P51b.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
There's nothing slippery about it, I assumed you understood the definitions of the words. If you really don't, then here are other sources, randomly picked from google:
http://www.strange-loops.com/athwhatis.html
http://www.2think.org/hii/atheism.shtml
http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/agnovsath.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Are you seriously going to keep trying to attack my definition? There's nothing remarkable about it, it's just what anyone who studies the subject learns. I wasn't bothering to answer this because I didn't want to embarass anyone, but jeepers.
Now can we continue the conversation? I've given the educated definition to atheism vs. agnosticism, and it deals with just about all of your concerns. I guess the ball is firmly in your court.
You haven't embarrassed anyone IMHO.
Looked at em.
The 1st 3 are somones blogs. IMHO they don't count. Why? At the begining of one of the blogs the blogger expresses that contained within are the bloggers own thoughts.
The last 2, after having read them, are interesting.
I noticed in the atheism definition the nearly exact statement made by laz. Some atheist seem in agreement with laz in that Both Theism and Atheism MAY be considered a leap of faith.
I also notice there are atheist CHURCHS!
I also notice there is more then one definition of atheism. I see, mainly, that there SEEMS to be much argument about the definition of atheism even among atheist.
I'm not entirely sure these site support your definition/defferintiation Chairboy.
They seem to cast more of a haze over the subject rather then making anything clear cut.
Would you care to discuss how you arrived at your defferintiation statement?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Sorry, not quite that simple.
1) To believe in God is to take a leap of faith.
2) To not believe in God is to not take that leap of faith.
Agnostics, by their nature won't take a stand either way for they don't accept the explainations yet put forth. The moment they accept that there is a God is the moment they take that leap of faith and become a believer.
Agnostics are unsure. Might be, might not be. The moment thay take a stand one way or the other is when they no longer are Agnostic.
Perhaps you should go read the wikepedia definitions?
It appears that some Atheist agree with laz. Both believing and non-believing are a leap of faith.
The entire subject appears somewhat muddled IMHO. There doesn't appear to be agreement as to what an atheist is even among atheist????
AND there are ATHEIST CHURCHS??????
-
Sim, ty. Wasn't thinking of St. Augustine at the time. He does rock though!! I recollect reading the "Confessions" or parts thereof and just tossing it aside 4 years ago and denoucing it categorically.
I was home alone at the time, so why i wasted a perfectly good categorical denunciation when know one was around i dunno.
But two years ago, I read him again. ZOWIE! Like a riot in the heart.
hap
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Sorry, not quite that simple.
1) To believe in God is to take a leap of faith.
2) To not believe in God is to not take that leap of faith.
Agnostics, by their nature won't take a stand either way for they don't accept the explainations yet put forth. The moment they accept that there is a God is the moment they take that leap of faith and become a believer.
Agnostics are unsure. Might be, might not be. The moment thay take a stand one way or the other is when they no longer are Agnostic.
To believe in something that is not and perhaps cannot be proven is by definition faith. We're not talking about the easter bunny here. We have very real evidence that the Universe exists. If we can't at least agree on that point then this conversation is pointless.
There are those who believe that it was created by God, those who accept not knowing how it came to be, and those who believe that it was not created by God. Why is it so hard to see that only the middle position requires no faith?
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Vulcan, both in this and in your prior posts you're making absolutist statements despite having pretty limited understanding of christian texts and teachings. (I.E., your statements about the origin of the biblical canon sound more like polemic than reasoned opinion, and when confronted with data the issue kinda went away.)
Let me just address the age of the earth thing, since it seems to be a bugaboo for you.
In the original hebrew....
Again my point, when push comes to shove the bible on this particular subject should not be taken literally right?
So how many teachings in the bible shouldn't be taken literally?
And at what point should we cut off "assumptions made by ministers"? The 1800s? The 1600's? The 1200's? or the 3rd century?
How can you have faith in a religion whos core belief system is based on a text which is contradictory, obviously been contrived to political circumstances for the period, and interpretation has to be used so often to cover its glaring falicies?
-
Vulcan, again, I agree with you in part. Here's a link that might be handy.
http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm
hap
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Again my point, when push comes to shove the bible on this particular subject should not be taken literally right?
So how many teachings in the bible shouldn't be taken literally?
And at what point should we cut off "assumptions made by ministers"? The 1800s? The 1600's? The 1200's? or the 3rd century?
How can you have faith in a religion whos core belief system is based on a text which is contradictory, obviously been contrived to political circumstances for the period, and interpretation has to be used so often to cover its glaring falicies?
How can I have faith? That's a good question. For me it has been many very real personal experiences without which I would be agnostic. When you believe something to be true you don't automatically discard your belief because it may seem to be internally inconsistent. Rather, you examine your understanding of what you believe which I do continually.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You say you do not believe in God. If you do not believe in God, do you believe in the non-existance of God? I think I read a post of yours that you do not.
If you do not believe one way or the other, you are agnostic, refusing to take a leap of faith either way.
I do not believe that there is a God/Supreme Being.
-
Atheism (http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/atheism)
Agnosticism (http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Agnostic)
Agnostic Atheism (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Agnostic+atheism)
From the third link.
"While the concepts of atheism and agnosticism occasionally overlap, they are distinct because atheism is generally defined as a condition of being without theistic beliefs while agnosticism is usually defined as an absence of knowledge (or any claim of knowledge); therefore, an agnostic person may also be either an atheist, a theist, or one who endorses neither position.
The reason that people referring to themselves as agnostics prefer agnostic atheism might be that they tend to be familiar with epistemology and theory of justification. One such popular theory is Occam's Razor, which suggests that if there doesn't seem to be a need for God, then God most likely doesn't exist.
Also, one may hold a position of agnostic theism in which one disavows knowledge of God's existence, but chooses to believe in God in spite of this.
One of the most well-known agnostic atheists is Bertrand Russell."
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Atheism (http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/atheism)
Agnosticism (http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Agnostic)
Agnostic Atheism (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Agnostic+atheism)
From the third link.
"While the concepts of atheism and agnosticism occasionally overlap, they are distinct because atheism is generally defined as a condition of being without theistic beliefs while agnosticism is usually defined as an absence of knowledge (or any claim of knowledge); therefore, an agnostic person may also be either an atheist, a theist, or one who endorses neither position.
The reason that people referring to themselves as agnostics prefer agnostic atheism might be that they tend to be familiar with epistemology and theory of justification. One such popular theory is Occam's Razor, which suggests that if there doesn't seem to be a need for God, then God most likely doesn't exist.
Also, one may hold a position of agnostic theism in which one disavows knowledge of God's existence, but chooses to believe in God in spite of this.
One of the most well-known agnostic atheists is Bertrand Russell."
The 3rd link appears to be someones BLOG.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Perhaps you should go read the wikepedia definitions?
It appears that some Atheist agree with laz. Both believing and non-believing are a leap of faith.
The entire subject appears somewhat muddled IMHO. There doesn't appear to be agreement as to what an atheist is even among atheist????
AND there are ATHEIST CHURCHS??????
I tend to not trust Wikepedia as its definitions do not appear to be truly neutral.
Snipped the following direct from Wikepedia's own front page:
"snip~ articles are subject to change by nearly anyone."
"Because of its open nature, vandalism and inaccuracy are problems in Wikipedia."
"The status of Wikipedia as a reference work has been controversial, and it is both praised for its free distribution, free editing and wide range of topics and criticized for alleged systemic biases, preference of consensus to credentials, deficiencies in some topics, and lack of accountability and authority when compared with traditional encyclopedias."
Maybe because there truly isn't an official book of Atheism. Not surprising that there would be differences of opinion. Not uncommon of most groups.
Atheist Churches??!! That's gotta be a joke. What the heck do they do there?
-
Originally posted by lukster
To believe in something that is not and perhaps cannot be proven is by definition faith. We're not talking about the easter bunny here. We have very real evidence that the Universe exists. If we can't at least agree on that point then this conversation is pointless.
There are those who believe that it was created by God, those who accept not knowing how it came to be, and those who believe that it was not created by God. Why is it so hard to see that only the middle position requires no faith?
Because it's all about baseline core beliefs. You assert that to not believe in God just has to be a "leap of faith".
In all three viewpoints, we have faith that there is a universe. Notice that that faith is not religious based for we are not dealing with the existence of a God.
There are those who believe it was created by God (leap of faith). They hold this idea as the absolute truth and reject it as a random event.
There are those in the middle that have absolutely no real idea of how it came about. They haven't bought into the scientific explainations as it is not complete and not 100% absolute (No leap of faith). They may also believe that God may in fact have created the universe (leap of faith), but are unsure. They cannot prove either side.
There is the third group that because they didn't make the leap of faith in the existence of God/divine intervention, that there has to be an answer not involving God. In this case random energy/matter, antienergy-antimatter, etc. Does that third group have 100% certainty the exact beginnings of the universe? No, however because of the lack of faith in God's existence, they rule out divine intervention.
*****
atheism (ā`thē-ĭz'əm), denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism agnosticism (ăgnŏs`tĭsĭzəm), form of skepticism that holds that the existence of God cannot be logically proved or disproved. Among prominent agnostics have been Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, and T.
..... Click the link for more information. , which holds that the existence cannot be proved. The term atheism has been used as an accusation against all who attack established orthodoxy, as in the trial of Socrates. There were few avowed atheists from classical times until the 19th cent., when popular belief in a conflict between religion and science brought forth preachers of the gospel of atheism, such as Robert G. Ingersoll. There are today many individuals and groups professing atheism. The 20th cent. has seen many individuals and groups professing atheism, including Bertrand Russell Russell, Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3d Earl, 1872–1970, British philosopher, mathematician, and social reformer, b. Trelleck, Wales.
Life
The Early Years
Russell had a distinguished background: His grandfather Lord John Russell introduced the Reform Bill of 1832 and was twice prime minister; his parents were both prominent freethinkers; and his informal godfather was John Stuart Mill .
..... Click the link for more information. and Madalyn Murry O'Hair.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia® Copyright © 2005, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. http://www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/
-
Originally posted by wrag
The 3rd link appears to be someones BLOG.
they borrowed it from Wikepedia. I hadn't heard the term Agnostic Atheist before.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I tend to not trust Wikepedia as its definitions do not appear to be truly neutral.
Snipped the following direct from Wikepedia's own front page:
"snip~ articles are subject to change by nearly anyone."
"Because of its open nature, vandalism and inaccuracy are problems in Wikipedia."
"The status of Wikipedia as a reference work has been controversial, and it is both praised for its free distribution, free editing and wide range of topics and criticized for alleged systemic biases, preference of consensus to credentials, deficiencies in some topics, and lack of accountability and authority when compared with traditional encyclopedias."
Wikepedia is good for some things, such as covering topics that aren't in any dispute. However, for a topic as incindiary as Religion, it's basically useless.
It's commonplace, for example, for staffers in Washington to sit down with their laptops, then edit and smear the entries of political opponents over a bagel and latte.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
In all three viewpoints, we have faith that there is a universe.
I think we can safely say there is sustantial proof of the existance of the universe.
Faith
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
*****
atheism (ā`thē-ĭz'əm), denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism agnosticism (ăgnŏs`tĭsĭzəm), form of skepticism that holds that the existence of God cannot be logically proved or disproved.
[/b]
Your quote agrees with my stance. According to your link, Atheism denies the existance of God.
The absence of belief is much different from the belief in absence.
-
Originally posted by Nash
It's commonplace, for example, for staffers in Washington to sit down with their laptops, then edit and smear the entries of political opponents over a bagel and latte.
That'd be funny to go into a listing, like say for President Bush or John Kerry, and totally make up stuff out of thin air. Stupid things....like their favorite color, etc...
In fact, I'd laugh if you did that, then linked it for us :D
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
they borrowed it from Wikepedia. I hadn't heard the term Agnostic Atheist before.
And Hangtime got his definition: "neo-Democrat".... from Wikipedia, despite nobody else ever hearing the term before. My guess is that a double latte was involved.
Anyways, that's Wikipedia. Carry on.
-
Somebody had to come up with "neo-con" without anybody ever hearing it before... unless it was divinely created.
-
(do you really want to derail this?)
"Neocon" was coined and embraced by - you guessed it - neocons.
Neodemocrats is just absurd and out of left field.... and has nothing to do with any wing of the democratic party.
-
Originally posted by Nash
(do you really want to derail this?)
I was responding to something posted before.
Sorry, I didn't realise it was the second post in a branch line that was the switch.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The absence of belief is much different from the belief in absence.
That sums up what I've been trying to get across Holden, well said.
Saburo, if you use the phrase "random event" to describe the creation of the Universe you are essentially saying that it is an effect without cause. While I won't deny that this is a possibility, it is counter intuitive to our current understanding of the nature of the Universe.
I do recognize that some say humans see order and meaning where none actually exists because they need order in their lives. Supposing this is true, where does this need come from? Don't stop with one person's insecurity, or one person's need to control others, where do these needs come from? How and why did they develop from the primordial ooze?
To really understand your beliefs requires that you have a view (subject to change perhaps) of the very nature of all that exists (space/time). A philosophy that considers the nature of existence without including how it came be is incomplete imo.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Again my point, when push comes to shove the bible on this particular subject should not be taken literally right?
....snip....
I think we have a failure to communicate....
Re-read the post. I talked about literal meanings of the original text; no waffling involved.
There is a difference between nuance and rationalization; if a high schooler who gets newtonian physics gets corrected by someone who understands modern particle physics, the prof's "Well, not exactly...." isnt wiggling out of an answer, he's dealing with the topic at a level deeper than superficial appearance mught think was necessary.
-
this just gets sillier and sillier...
Now we find that allmost every defenition save one.... says that an athiest is someone who denies that the existence of god is possible.... these are from the sources the so called athiests are pointing us to.
Now... the tap dancers have pointed us to another form of athiesm.... a kinder, gentler form called (LOL) "agnostic athiesm" If that is true then you athiests here need to call yourself "agnostic athiests" right? Not really worthy of being real honest to god athiests huh?
And there is the rub... so long as it is cool and hip you can be an "athiest" but when someone points out that it is not only not very hip but kind of a dumb faith based cult.... you revert to a watered down version of athiesm that is distinguishable from agnostism only by the watered down athiests themselves.... everyone else has long since left the room (save the really cruel ones).
subaru... It was chair or some other that said something about my supposed religion and "leader". I was not speaking to you... the posts just came in pretty fast so.... no... my face is not red.
Sooo... are you big brave hip cult athiests or just some watered down "agnostic athiest" tap dancing around your agenda?
Why not be proud of athiesm if it is truly your belief (note that all defenitions of athiesm use the words "believe, belief or faith" in them) ?
Embrace your cult.... If you are shaky and have no faith.... don't say you are an athiest... it is insulting to the true believers of athiesm.... say that you are an agnostic or.... if the shock value is not good enough for you go to the less honest but more accurate "agnostic athiest".
Course... how cool does that sound? how rebelious and hip is "agnostic athiest"?? Sounds whimpy don't it? Certainly wouldn't want that.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Since you've stated "threads" and I am apart of some, care to point out where I, an Atheist, say anyone of religion is bad?
Or that all Atheists are good?
As a matter of fact, isn't your generalizing here the same thing you accuse Chairboy of?
That's a stretch to feel included, dontcha think? I said the threads Chairboy starts. And he's started quite a few. I really didn't notice how many you hopped on to help with. As such ... that's not generalization. As much as you desire to be a target. ;)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Agnostics don't have an apinion either way for they can't be sure to their satisfaction. They usually admit that if there is a God, there doesn't appear to be proof. If there were the proof they agreed on, that would make them a religious believer.
They can't say there isn't a God for they don't buy all the scientific "facts" as conclusive and they leave open the possibility of there being a God. If they truly didn't believe in a God existing, that would make them an Atheist.
Agnostics are the fence sitters of the maybe, maybe not. They don't truly "non-believe", that title goes to the Atheists.
I won't speak for others but myself. I refuse to believe something just because someone says so, especially if it defies logic (in my mind, of course).
If someone says God exists, I want proof.
Keep in mind (this bears repeating), I am in no way questioning anyone's faith in their religious beliefs. I find that religion is very important for those that believe to get through some very tough times. I have seen first hand how religion helps those that want and need it.
Don't confuse faith with religion. ;)
You realize that apparently you don't require proof that God doesn't exist. Therefore you have faith he doesn't. I support your right. Carry on. :D
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Lazs,
1) How has any Atheist here tried "to force their belief on you" or anyone else here?
How had a Christian done likewise? Relax. ;)
-
God hates long threads.
-
Once again, just shouting out to anyone who might listen (though I have no real expectations based on what's happened so far).
I'm not saying that god doesn't exist, I'm saying that I lack a belief that god exists. To believe something is a positive event, you have to actively believe it does or does not exist. I simply lack the belief.
1. I lack a belief that god exists.
2. I actively believe that the easter bunny does NOT exist.
Can you understand the difference?
-
A true athiest doesn't give a scat what others think about their choice. But we are amused at how non athiests tend to pigeonhole the lot of us.
It seems that making up stories and myopic observations then putting them to text, true or not, is an accepted MO.
So be it.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Once again, just shouting out to anyone who might listen (though I have no real expectations based on what's happened so far).
I'm not saying that god doesn't exist, I'm saying that I lack a belief that god exists. To believe something is a positive event, you have to actively believe it does or does not exist. I simply lack the belief.
1. I lack a belief that god exists.
2. I actively believe that the easter bunny does NOT exist.
Can you understand the difference?
Sure, you're not an Atheist, you're Agnostic.
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
A true athiest doesn't give a scat what others think about their choice. But we are amused at how non athiests tend to pigeonhole the lot of us.
It seems that making up stories and myopic observations then putting them to text, true or not, is an accepted MO.
So be it.
If only that were true. Then the Atheists wouldn't be on a firey crusade to eliminate every trace of religion from public life.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
How had a Christian done likewise? Relax. ;)
They do it all the time, they want me to recognise the existance of their god in our national anthem, they want me to swear by their god in court, and they regularly accuse me of being a bad person with the only validation of this being that I do not believe in their god.
-
Originally posted by lukster
If only that were true. Then the Atheists wouldn't be on a firey crusade to eliminate every trace of religion from public life.
The crusade is not what people think about our choice, but what those people try to force upon us that we do not believe in. Big difference.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Once again, just shouting out to anyone who might listen (though I have no real expectations based on what's happened so far).
I'm not saying that god doesn't exist, I'm saying that I lack a belief that god exists. To believe something is a positive event, you have to actively believe it does or does not exist. I simply lack the belief.
1. I lack a belief that god exists.
2. I actively believe that the easter bunny does NOT exist.
Can you understand the difference?
Can you?
To "lack a belief" that God exists is to believe that God doesn't exist. Without specific proof to back a claim any assertion is a belief. Then again, it's apparently more important to you to assert the differences than it is to me to understand your need to prove that it's ok for Atheism to assert itself as the only acceptable belief practice that the government of the U.S. can establish.
It's no more acceptable for the U.S. government to establish Atheism than it is any belief (or preferred declaration of lack of). And I still don't see the overt threat that the generic word God on money (or even the claim of trust in such) presents to practicing Atheists. Nor do I any depiction of anything regarding any belief on public grounds. But then, perhaps it was the subliminal text on greenbacks to forced me to believe that. ;)
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
A true athiest doesn't give a scat what others think about their choice. But we are amused at how non athiests tend to pigeonhole the lot of us.
It seems that making up stories and myopic observations then putting them to text, true or not, is an accepted MO.
So be it.
Accepted or not, Atheists are evidently not immune. ;)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
They do it all the time, they want me to recognise the existance of their god in our national anthem, they want me to swear by their god in court, and they regularly accuse me of being a bad person with the only validation of this being that I do not believe in their god.
Not in this thread. If you're seeing that I'm suspecting it's not nearly as "oppressive" or "prevalent" in your daily lifa as you're portraying, either. The NA seldom goes past the fist stanza at the ball games, courts routinely use a non religious oath to swear in witnesses now and I do believe both prayer and the pledge have been banned from public elementary, jr high and high schools so you're safe there too. And I haven't accused you of being bad once .... just hyper and assumptive. :)
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
A true athiest doesn't give a scat what others think about their choice. But we are amused at how non athiests tend to pigeonhole the lot of us.
It seems that making up stories and myopic observations then putting them to text, true or not, is an accepted MO.
So be it.
Actually some Atheists, like some members of any other group has that tendency to pigeonhole those of being different. It's all about shades of gray, not black and white. Most of us are guilty of that in some way or another.
-
Originally posted by wrag
From what I've read of your post SaburoS I honestly don't think laz is refering to YOU!
Since he hadn't addressed it specifically to anyone AND that he was commenting on the green men(people) from Mars, and the Lochness monster (my comments, not anyone else), I took it he was addressing me. Re-read the posts.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
this just gets sillier and sillier...
Now we find that allmost every defenition save one.... says that an athiest is someone who denies that the existence of god is possible.... these are from the sources the so called athiests are pointing us to.
Now... the tap dancers have pointed us to another form of athiesm.... a kinder, gentler form called (LOL) "agnostic athiesm" If that is true then you athiests here need to call yourself "agnostic athiests" right? Not really worthy of being real honest to god athiests huh?
And there is the rub... so long as it is cool and hip you can be an "athiest" but when someone points out that it is not only not very hip but kind of a dumb faith based cult.... you revert to a watered down version of athiesm that is distinguishable from agnostism only by the watered down athiests themselves.... everyone else has long since left the room (save the really cruel ones).
subaru... It was chair or some other that said something about my supposed religion and "leader". I was not speaking to you... the posts just came in pretty fast so.... no... my face is not red.
Sooo... are you big brave hip cult athiests or just some watered down "agnostic athiest" tap dancing around your agenda?
Why not be proud of athiesm if it is truly your belief (note that all defenitions of athiesm use the words "believe, belief or faith" in them) ?
Embrace your cult.... If you are shaky and have no faith.... don't say you are an athiest... it is insulting to the true believers of athiesm.... say that you are an agnostic or.... if the shock value is not good enough for you go to the less honest but more accurate "agnostic athiest".
Course... how cool does that sound? how rebelious and hip is "agnostic athiest"?? Sounds whimpy don't it? Certainly wouldn't want that.
lazs
Quit being dense.
In a nutshell:
I never made the leap of faith to:
1) Believe that God exists.
2) Believe that there is a God.
3) Believe the possibility of God's existance.
Therefore it is not a religion.
Once one believes the possibility of the existance of God, it starts to become religious.
You bring in terms like "agenda" and "cult", you care to actually explain it or are you going to continue to tap dance, waving your arms and pointing fingers?
You're coming across as rather sensitive and threatened about some Atheists. For what? Why do you fear?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
And I still don't see the overt threat that the generic word God on money (or even the claim of trust in such) presents to practicing Atheists. Nor do I any depiction of anything regarding any belief on public grounds. But then, perhaps it was the subliminal text on greenbacks to forced me to believe that. ;)
I agree with you.
I've already stated my reasons on the money issue as well regards to faith. Hey, as long as the money is good, then I'm okay with it. It is generic after all.
I've never felt threatened for my safety. Just hate for it to slip a bit where I'll have to start worrying. Slippery slope and all that.
I think the issue is religious objects on tax funded property. Crosses into the not so separate church/state issue.
Now does it bother you or does it not if religious icons are removed from tax supported properties?
We're not talking about private properties or religious sponsored properties.
-
Originally posted by lukster
If only that were true. Then the Atheists wouldn't be on a firey crusade to eliminate every trace of religion from public life.
I think to be accurate, it would have to be a fraction of the Atheists that wished that. Seems most groups have their fractional, radical element where the ends justify the means.
I can't peg timetables (too tired here) but I think the "radical" Atheist movement was more a response to the religious right's "radical" movement to force Creationism into the public school system.
-
It may be time for nuance again.
I'm strongly, 100% against government sponsored religion, and that was pretty clearly the constitutional intent -- remember, the founders remembered mandatory taxes supporting the Church of England.
Today, there are 2 imperatives.
1. On one hand, the I wouldn't want the State to endorse or support any particular faith.
2. On the other hand, people of faith deserve the same access and rights of expression as any other citizen.
Many people of faith feel the balance has shifted so far towards "separation" that their own rights of expression have been compromised.
And they're not being paranoid. For example, a few years ago the Supremes heard a case form Virginia, in which the only group refused rental of meeting space at a school was a religious one. Lots of other groups could rent, but the school was afraid of the pro-separation forces....and the result was unfair discrimination against people of faith. They were singled out and denied access simply BECAUSE they were religious. (Supreme court found in their favor, BTW)
So the pendulum has swung strongly towards separation in the last few decades, and only now is a more balanced position coming.
But because of the decades before, dont be surprised that religious folks are a bit salamanderly about the issues.
-
lol subaru... why would I "fear" your watrered down version of "athiest"?
you are not an athiest.... you are more of an agnostic. same for chair. you just think it sounds hip to call yourselves athiest.
you both say you lack the faith to believe in a god... you both admit that god is possible.
You are an agnostic. this thread has made you examine your beliefs and now you don't know how to back down sooooo..
you decide that their are all kinds of shades of athiests. You are the mild "agnostic" version.... pure tap dancing drivel. It isn't a shade of gray..
If you are an athiest then admit that you have made the leap of faith that it is not possible that a god exists.
People are telling you there is.... millions have claimed to see him over the years. Many feel him in themselves and around them. This is what you have to say is no possible or.... that you don't know.
It is not just a matter of "not making the leap of faith to believe in god" it is a matter of saying that millions of people are wrong and that the reason they are is because...... because you have made a leap of faith that there is no god.
An agnostic is one who has not made the leap of faith that there is a god.... He has also not made the leap of faith that there is no god.... He belives that it is possible either way.
you can't be such a wimp and have the stones to call yourself an athiest.
lazs
-
as for seperation of church and state....as simaril says...
Against the church of America.... no state sponsored church.... so far as the ten comandments statue in a courtroom paid for with taxes? it is a public building.... there are naked people statues in public buildings... if the majority of the taxpayers (who bought and fund the building) want something put there then I suppose it is allright. You can't please everyone soooo... vote on it on things out in public spending public funds.
Prayer in school? it's a stupid monopoly system paid for only by extorting taxes.... let each district (the taxpayers) vote on it. Better.... just hand out vouchers and everyone can go where ever they want. If a district wants prayer in their school... let those who would be offended abstain from it or just be quiet.
lazs
-
Lazs, why does your definition of Atheist trump ours? That might be the crux of the problem, that you and your kin disagree with those of us who identify ourselves as atheist on the definition of the term. I can understand that, but I don't follow why we're expected to accept your definition over the one we've learned through study.
Look at the word. A-theism. Lack of theism, theism = religious belief. It's not complicated.
-
that is your defenition not the real one... or at least... not a complete one... even if we take your truncated defenition....
any thinking on religion is.... religion. You are saying that you don't believe in god. that is a leap of faith on a religious matter. Every defenition that we have seen linked here to athiesm uses the word "believe" or "faith" in it to explain this "lack of belief" that you claim.
They all say that they believe that there is no god.
Let me just put it bluntly to ya...
Do you believe that it is possible that there is a god?
lazs
-
Not gonna be your monkey. I've anwered your questions in good faith, and I haven't tried to pigeonhole your religious beliefs. You can now sit on your perch and crow "Chairboy won't answer my question!" all you want, but the fact is, I'm not going to do tricks for you, because I don't think you're operating in good faith.
BTW, what's the name of your religion that believes in the non-existance of the Easter Bunny? Because that's essentially what you're saying. Also, you claimed in your earlier message that you felt the atheists should just lay back and enjoy it when it comes down to public funded religious observation (eg, 10 Commandments in the courthouse, state led prayer in Congress, etc). Would you feel the same way if the monument was a statue of Mohammed with his teachings? Same for, say, a satanist monument? Witchcraft? At what point do you say "Hold on a minute..."?
-
This entire thread boils down to the fact that no one here agrees on the definitions of the terms atheist and agnostic.
From what I've read online, this seems to be typical of most of the population and even the "experts" can't seem to find a consensus.
(http://kevinremde.members.winisp.net/images/beating_2Da_2Ddead_2Dhorse.gif)
-
chair.... I don't know if there is an easter bunny or not but the people who made it up admited that they did. Don't know if there is some bunny somewhere who messes with eggs.... pretty sure I have seen bunnies tho. I believe that there are bunnies.
not asking you to do tricks....simply answer the question...
Do you admit that it is possible that there is a god? It's not a trick question.
I have answered every question put to me so why is it that the "athiests" can't?
I have admited a belief in god and admitted that it is indeed a personal leap of faith. I don't throw it into your face.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
any thinking on religion is.... religion.
You would like that wouldn't you. That would make it inherently impossible for science to further discard the principles on which religion is based or for politics or judiciary systems to legislate or make policy where religion is involved.
Ridiculous statement...
-
sandie... I believe that you are correct so far as it goes... I believe that there is no defenition of athiest because of the dishonesty of the cult.
the defenition should be simple. If you are an athiest then you BELIEVE that there is no possibility of a god. I can live with that kind of honest defenition.
What I can't live with is people calling themselves athiests and then ducking and dodgeing into and around it... sometimes being agnostic and sometimes athiest.
The question remains for the athiests on this board.
You athiests..... Do you believe that it is possible that a god exists?
Or... Do you believe that a god is impossible? either one answered will be fine.
lazs
-
How so thud? A belief based on faith is a religion.
How do you feel about ghosts and god and aliens and.... for chair.. the easter bunny? possible or not?
chair says that his athiesm is defined by a simple lack of belief in a god.... this is also a defenition for an agnostic is it not? How then, under chairs defenition, would agnostic and athiest differ?
so thud.... is it possible that there is a god?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Look at the word. A-theism. Lack of theism, theism = religious belief. It's not complicated.
So by extension, poly-theism means multiple beliefs in God and monotheism means a single belief in God, and that is clearly not the case.
According to Webster's,
Polytheism
Noun
1. Belief in multiple Gods.
Monotheism
Noun
1. Belief in a single God.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Now does it bother you or does it not if religious icons are removed from tax supported properties?
Maybe I'm being way too subtle when I imply that the "issue" doesn't bother me as much as those who seem to feel it's of utmost importance. If they're not there I don't feel compelled to contribute to one being put there. If they're there I don't feel compelled to contribute to their removal.
It's a ridiculous issue. Especially when there's issues of much more importance to deal with. :aok
-
It's a ridiculous issue. Especially when there's issues of much more importance to deal with.
Now, that's a fact; requiring not a bit of faith to wrap yer brains around.
-
Word games, twisting, twitching, weasling............
It just keeps going on and on.
Ain't gonna stop.
Think it's part of some peoples nature?
For EVERYONES records. I don't care if you believe in GOD, a god, many gods or if you believe no god or gods is possible.
Don't matter to me.
After all IMHO any such relationship or lack there of is between you and ????
I do however object to some of the methods/techniques I see being used.
Why? Because I see SOME being what appears to be IMHO dishonest with their words.
I see some doing everything they can to TWIST the words of others. And then do all they can to weasle out of the situation they put themselves in. Or they ignore it and hope it goes away.
Perhaps I good start is to find a deffinition that all agree upon? Thus far no one has put forth such?
How about this? A theist believes there IS a God (no doubts involved). A atheist believes there IS NO God (no doubts involved). A agnostic has doubts either way?
Religion = a system of beliefs? A set of rules to believe by?
So taking that laz would be a theist. NOTE he does not say he believes/agrees with any particular belief system ( this IMHO is where religion comes in ). Further, if memory serves me correctly, he isn't sure any belief systems has an exclusive right to claim they know the way God wants things.
I guess what I'm saying here is I do not consider laz a "religious" person. Yet I am aware laz believes there is a God. Do I have that part correct?
Now Chairboy, along with some others, has repeatedly stated he is an atheist. ( no doubts whatsoever there is NO god ) Do I have that part correct?
It is possible here I'm wasting my time. Let us see. (edited for spelling :( )
-
No, you do not have it right, wrag.
I lack theistic belief. I don't assert that god exists because I just don't have any context. If the white haired guy showed up shooting lightning bolts and saying "I am god" and made a good case for it, then i guess there's a god. But until then, I guess I don't really have an opinion. I'm lacking religious belief.
What is so hard to understand about this?
:beating head on table:
-
if i saw a white haired old dude with lightning flying outta his bellybutton i don't think the first thing that would come to mind would be 'ok, i stand corrected..'
probably more like 'i picked a heluva day to stop drinking'.
-
I'm a dyslexic athiest.
I most assuredly do not believe in dog.
RTR
-
(yeagds, I hope I posted this in the right thread this time, heh)
I gotta admit, Chairboy, that my thinking was that atheists believed that there was no god, and that agnostics just didn't know.
Yet I also believe in language, and note the exploitation and manipulation of it regularly.
Meriam Webster gives its definition of "apolitical" as such:
"having no interest or involvement in political affairs.."
And "ahistoric" as "not concerned with or related to history, historical development, or tradition."
It would seem to follow then that "Atheist" would mean not having an interest or concern with "theism" (the belief in the existence of a god or gods).
In other words, Atheism is merely a lack of theism - just like you say.
In fact, I'm not sure what word preceded by "a" constututes not only a lack of belief or interest in one thing, while at the same time being an expression of another belief....
.....except in the sole case of "atheism," for some reason, which Webster calls: " a disbelief in the existence of deity [or] the doctrine that there is no deity."
It's a weird thing.... and disconnected.
I mean, for another example, "amoral" is "being neither moral nor immoral." It's not one way or the other. It's just none of the above.
Yet they say atheism is one way.
I think MW have it wrong, and please stop banging your head against the wall, because you make perfect sense and you will only end up hurting yourself. :)
-
9 pages and nothing resolved. Guess we'll all just have to believe or have a lack of belief in whatever we want. In God we trust stays on the money for now and it isn't likely any politician looking to become president is going to announce his athiestic non-beliefs any time soon. I hereby offically declare the horse dead and properly beaten.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
:beating head on table:
Guessing you don't like people saying you believe there is no God. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Guessing you don't like people saying you believe there is no God. ;)
You're right, Arlo, I don't like people misrepresenting me.
-
Well, you did submit a cartoon that is supposed to be what Thomas Jefferson had in mind. Is Jefferson the end-all, be-all authority of athiesm in the US?
Les
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Well, you did submit a cartoon that is supposed to be what Thomas Jefferson had in mind. Is Jefferson the end-all, be-all authority of athiesm in the US?
I don't think so, why? He's one of the founding fathers of my country, and I think he said something relevant. Keep in mind, the original purpose of the thread was to discuss the confluence of religion, atheism, and government. The comic was relevant to that, but the thread drifted off course a bit. No worries, it's still a good conversation.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You're right, Arlo, I don't like people misrepresenting me.
And what, exactly ... pray tell ;) .... is the necessity of your pressing need to personally distinguish "belief in no God" with "no belief in God" again? Is it just to attempt to avoid the supposed pitfall of Atheism being legally considered one of many beliefs that all citizens in this nation are free to embrace (and therefore just as prone to the restrictions of Government establishing it over any other belief)? :D
Because if that's all, then I think it serves well to illustrate your mindset regarding this thread as well as any of the others you've started relating to such. For "belief in no God" and "no belief in God" are indeed equivalent statements linguistically, philosophically and practically. :aok
-
Maybe I can explain the difference some other way.
Question: Do you believe that my dog is smart?
If you answer yes, then you believe it's smart.
If you answer no, then you believe it is not smart.
But wait... you've never met my dog, I've never written anything about how smart or dumb it is here. Logically, you would not have an opinion. Is that the same as believing my dog is not smart? Of course not.
That, my friend, is the third option. "I do not have a belief as to how smart your dog is." Equally, I have no belief as to the existance of god.
-
depends on who yah ask.
I'd guess that a theist would consider any dog that's owned by an agnostic that thinks he's atheist to be pretty ****in stupid.
;)
-
I have a hard time when it comes to people who don't believe in God. Philosophically that is. I have experienced so many times when he helped me survive, there has to be a God.:D
Les
-
The postion, esp philosophically, Leslie is untenable. God is more real than myself. And I too, daily, experience his presence and providential care. Mysteries abound therin. What a wonder it all is. Amazing love.
hap
-
Alas, all my love is gone after 27 years of work with no regognition and little pay. I doubt you could last that long before you gave up. Then again, you probably aren't used to doing difficult things all the time, so have at it. I stay within my comfort zone most of the time.
You mention love. Show some.
Les
-
Arguing and faith are mutually exclusive.. what were you expecting?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
No, you do not have it right, wrag.
I lack theistic belief. I don't assert that god exists because I just don't have any context. If the white haired guy showed up shooting lightning bolts and saying "I am god" and made a good case for it, then i guess there's a god. But until then, I guess I don't really have an opinion. I'm lacking religious belief.
What is so hard to understand about this?
:beating head on table:
What is it about the me saying an atheist believes there is no god that you have a problem with?
That sure sounds to me like you have no theistic belief?
IMHO one can be theistic ( believe there is a god or something ) and NOT be religious. The 2 do NOT go hand and hand IMHO.
Further IMHO one can have a religious belief and NOT believe in any god but in umm.. say astrology, or a toss of the coin or ... something. Even going so far as to allow it to control their daily existance. Although I'm sure someone will claim the stars are their gods or the coin is their god or the luck of the draw or something.
People can and do believe in some odd things to the degree that it can become much like a relgion to them IMHO.
So my statement made considerable sense to me even if it didn't to you.
And what exactly makes you think the guy would have to have white hair? Isn't Buddha bald? Doesn't the greenman refered to by the druids have green hair?
And why lightining bolts? Why not beams of burning light? Or a fiery sword? Or geysers of nasty green snot for that matter?
Have you considered taking tylenol for that headache?
-
A good argument always wins. Not so, faith. People gamble big time with faith. But it's part of the big picture and is unarguable. Doesn't matter. If something is, it is. Believe in it or not. Maybe we'll find out one day. I'm sure it will be like nothing we thought of or could even imagine. On the good side.
Les
-
wrag has stated my position on god fairly well. I believe in god but am not religious.... some religion may be entirely correct but I am in no position to judge.
nash and chair.... lets say that chair and, to some extent... subaru... are correct about the defenition of athiest... that it is simply someone who lacks belief in god....
How then would you define agnostic? And as arlo says.... why be so insistant on being an athiest.... would not agnostic do as well and be much more accurate?
I think that their are plenty of hard core athiests that would be insulted by your watering down of their belief because..... for most athiests... it is a VERY strong faith based belief that there is no god.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Maybe I can explain the difference some other way.
Question: Do you believe that my dog is smart?
If you answer yes, then you believe it's smart.
If you answer no, then you believe it is not smart.
But wait... you've never met my dog, I've never written anything about how smart or dumb it is here. Logically, you would not have an opinion. Is that the same as believing my dog is not smart? Of course not.
That, my friend, is the third option. "I do not have a belief as to how smart your dog is." Equally, I have no belief as to the existance of god.
Not saying, though it should, that my choice to believe your dog is or is not smart, without firsthand knowledge, is a belief. If I dwell upon such.
You've obviously dwelt upon the existance of God (as well as religion, in general). And that entails belief about things you lack first hand knowledge of yet feel compelled to express opinion on. For, indeed, you do have an opinion ... and you express it here. Often. If you really didn't have an opinion, you wouldn't be sharing it so much. Though expression of opinion is fine (within TOS guidelines*), if you don't mind opinion shared back* that doesn't always agree. If you're wanting to convince me about the superiority of Atheism over any other belief, the U.S. government's role in establishing Christianity as a state religion or their role in oppressing Atheists, guess you'll just have to try harder. Not that I think that's possible, but it's not working so far. ;)
("Slippery slope" my arse. Most of what militant Atheists have a cow over has been that way since long before they were hatched. And those "threats" managed not to actually threaten their "non-belief" nor their practice, freely and legally, thereof.):aok
-
Chairboy... sorry to do this mate but:
athiesm does not mean a lack of religious beliefs. Buddhists can be athiests. Buddha is not a god, superhuman, etc.
I not only do not believe in a god, I believe there is no possibility of one existing.
HOWEVER... this is not a leap of faith, I base this on:
- physical impossibilities, did time exist before the universe existed for example? (theres many more)
- inconsistancies in god definitions by religious sects which show a god to be a fantastical being (ie fantasy)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Chairboy... sorry to do this mate but:
athiesm does not mean a lack of religious beliefs. Buddhists can be athiests. Buddha is not a god, superhuman, etc.
I not only do not believe in a god, I believe there is no possibility of one existing.
HOWEVER... this is not a leap of faith, I base this on:
- physical impossibilities, did time exist before the universe existed for example? (theres many more)
- inconsistancies in god definitions by religious sects which show a god to be a fantastical being (ie fantasy)
A small point, an fyi, Vulcan does not create the same reaction in me as.......
Perhaps because IMHO Vulcan uses a different technque, applies a different approach, says what vulcan wishs to say and lacks the methods I find so upsetting in anothers post.
Vulcan.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
HOWEVER... this is not a leap of faith, I base this on: (other people's reasons for their beliefs)
Your choosing to not accept another's version of their belief in something that is not physically confirmable (nor deniable) based on their reasons not being concrete enough for you does not make your viewpoint something other than your own belief (more concrete). Therefore anyone's committed stance on the flavor of God or even his existance is indeed a leap of faith. This certainly seems to be a case of the only one's not leaping being the ones not committed. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Therefore anyone's committed stance on the flavor of God or even his existance is indeed a leap of faith.
Wintergreen.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Wintergreen.
I support your faith in your belief, brother. :)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Your choosing to not accept another's version of their belief in something that is not physically confirmable (nor deniable) based on their reasons not being concrete enough for you does not make your viewpoint something other than your own belief (more concrete). Therefore anyone's committed stance on the flavor of God or even his existance is indeed a leap of faith. This certainly seems to be a case of the only one's not leaping being the ones not committed. ;)
Do you believe in Vishnu? The abonimable snownam? Sasquatch? The tooth fairy? Unicorns? fire-breathing dragons? titans? Zeus even ;)
You opinion of what is faith is blinded by your own wish to promote your religion over logic.
To me your god is just another mythical creature. Not believing in him is no more a matter of faith than not believing on other mythical creature.
Perhaps it makes you insecure to know people can live good lives without attributing it to a mythical god or fear of heaven, hell and some final judgemnet?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Perhaps it makes you insecure to know people can live good lives without attributing it to a mythical god or fear of heaven, hell and some final judgemnet?
Insecure? Not me, just the opposite really. Of course my belief is that a caring God created all that is and so it really wouldn't be possible for you to live any kind of life at all, good or bad, had he not created you.
If there is in fact no realm of existence beyond our 5 senses, and all that we see somehow just is, without creation, then good and bad become relative terms. Though I find the concept of this less than satisfying it does not make me feel "insecure".
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
You opinion of what is faith is blinded by your own wish to promote your religion over logic.
To me your god is just another mythical creature. Not believing in him is no more a matter of faith than not believing on other mythical creature.
Perhaps it makes you insecure to know people can live good lives without attributing it to a mythical god or fear of heaven, hell and some final judgemnet?
I'm not the one exhibiting insecurity right now, however. You're as free to believe in what you can't prove (even the non-existance of) as any of the worshippers of any of the gods you've listed, mine included. I can accept that. Seems you can't. Doesn't make you as different as you'd like it to, which isn't as unfortunate as the deal you're making over it. That's about as logical as logic gets. When you feel like divorcing your own emotions and dealing with my assertions as logically, then show me. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I'm not the one exhibiting insecurity right now, however. You're as free to believe in what you can't prove (even the non-existance of) as any of the worshippers of any of the gods you've listed, mine included. I can accept that. Seems you can't. Doesn't make you as different as you'd like it to, which isn't as unfortunate as the deal you're making over it. That's about as logical as logic gets. When you feel like divorcing your own emotions and dealing with my assertions as logically, then show me. :D
If god exists may he strike me down...
..
..
..
..
..
nope, still here, I win.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
If god exists may he strike me down...
..
..
..
..
..
nope, still here, I win.
Give it 30-40 years. ;)
-
vulcan... I respect your beliefs but submit that they are only faith based beliefs.... you can't be sure that something does not exist based on lack of knowledge available to you unless you are doing it based on faith. At times in history allmost everything was impossible to understand.
It is just as easy to say that no scientific theiory is possible for creation. Does that mean that nothing exists?
Why is it more fantasical to think that god was eternal than to think that there has allways been matter?
Like I said tho... you are welcome to your belief. Many so called scientists did not believe that the atom existed either.
lazs
-
Personal opinion? Religion was created by men to explain things that other men did not understand. These men disguised their lack of understanding as gods and demons. For example, let's look at crops. Crops not growing? It was the work of the devil. Crops plentiful? It was God's blessing. Back before these folks knew of weather patterns, soil composition, growing seasons, photosynthesis, and other scientific doohickeys that explain why crops grow, the only way they could explain why their crops grew or didn't grow at all was through these higher beings. I believe that this is the basis of religion, men trying to explain things that they themselves do not understand. Being that many folks had their own ideas about which gods were responsible for what, the basis of all modern religions were founded through ignorance and lack of understanding. Know-it-alls with an agenda. I'm aware that this is probaby very wrong, being that I don't know a lot about the origin of each religion. I'm simply using a blanket statement to share my thoughts.
Religion exists today because there is no absolute truth to what is and what isn't. We have a lot of really solid ideas, but no absolute. There is no absolute to where man comes from, there is no absolute to where the Universe came from, there is no absolute to where we are going...there's simply ideas and theories. Religion, born out of ignornace and lack of knowledge, continues to thrive because there is still no knowledge. People rely on faith in a being that may or may not exist to give them meaning in their lives, to give them guidence and care when they need it and to give them comfort when everything goes wrong.
Now I want to make myself very clear when I say that I believe that people should be allowed to practice whatever faith they like. I make no judgements on anyone's character or otherwise based solely on what they think. I do not persecute and I do not look down on those that feel differently than I do. What you are about to read is my personal belief on the subject of God vs. No-God.
I, personally, have never seen an instance where a higher being has influenced life as we know it. I am full-blown agnostic. I do not know for a fact if their is a higher being responsible for this mess we call a world. I do not know for a fact that there is not a higher being responsible for this mess we call a world. But, at the same time, I don't care one way or the other. Knowing for a fact one way or another is not going to change my outlook on life, nor will it change how I live. Knowing the origin of the Universe and Man will not change how I live or act. I do not actively seek knowledge in matters such as these because I do not find them important to me. I'm more concerned with living my life, day by day, than I am with knowing if there is a God or not. My philosophy, in a nutshell, is "I'll let you believe what you want if you won't try to get me to believe it, too."
When I know, for a fact, that a God does or does not exist, I'll make my decision from there whether or not I want to believe in Him. Right now, since I do not know, I am not sure one way or another. I have no religion, and I don't care to have one. ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
vulcan... I respect your beliefs but submit that they are only faith based beliefs.... you can't be sure that something does not exist based on lack of knowledge available to you unless you are doing it based on faith. At times in history allmost everything was impossible to understand.
It is just as easy to say that no scientific theiory is possible for creation. Does that mean that nothing exists?
Why is it more fantasical to think that god was eternal than to think that there has allways been matter?
Like I said tho... you are welcome to your belief. Many so called scientists did not believe that the atom existed either.
lazs
Ermmm well actually theres plenty of proof god doesn't exist. For a start most mythologies including the bible have factual holes you could drive a bus through (queue christians and 'you can't take it literally' theme). Then theres the question of said superbeing existing in non-existance (ie before the universe existed).
-
not the point....the holes in the easter bunny myth do not mean that bunnies do not exist.
To believe that matter allways was is pretty far fetched too... where did it come from? something created... to believe that their allways way matter is just as much a stretch.... a leap of faith as to say that said eternal matter was a being.
I got no problem with texaces well thought out beliefs.... I have shared them myself in the past. If it were not for taking a leap of faith I would still think exactly as he does.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Ermmm well actually theres plenty of proof god doesn't exist. For a start most mythologies including the bible have factual holes you could drive a bus through
Isn't that just proof that the mythologies are wrong? Maybe God is a scientist.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
If god exists may he strike me down...
..
..
..
..
..
nope, still here, I win.
`
If God doesn't exist, may a meteor fall on me in the next 3 milliseconds.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
I'll give it another minute.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Nope ... guess it's a tie. :D
Now ... back to a logical discussion. :aok
You're really no different than a religious fundamentalist. You've just come to a different conclusion. You "know without a doubt" what requires faith to believe (existance and non-existance two sides of the same coin). And you can't even prove ... without a doubt ... otherwise. Seems to be the burr under your saddle in this discussion is just my recognizing it. I'm sure my telling you you're not different from any other flavor of "faithful" doesn't sit well, but sorry .... it's seems quite obvious.
You're faithful to your belief that God doesn't exist. Why be petulant about others recognizing your belief? :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
`
If God doesn't exist, may a meteor fall on me in the next 3 milliseconds.
`
`
I'll give it another minute.
`
`
Nope ... guess it's a tie. :D
Now ... back to a logical discussion. :aok
umm, if god doesn't exist who is going to make the meteor fall on you.
I think you've kind of proven my point for me, thanks.
-
If there is a God I don't think he'll obey orders, childish or otherwise, but I think you know that Vulcan.
-
Originally posted by lukster
If there is a God I don't think he'll obey orders, childish or otherwise, but I think you know that Vulcan.
It wasn't an order... it was a request ;)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
umm, if god doesn't exist who is going to make the meteor fall on you.
I think you've kind of proven my point for me, thanks.
Not really. You're still confused about proof versus lack thereof. Asking to be divinely zapped or crushed and not getting your wish (or getting it, for that matter) isn't empirical proof, as you've alluded your "knowledge without a doubt" origins of your Atheism to be based on. It's ok if your personal belief is Atheism. Really. It's allowed. ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
not the point....the holes in the easter bunny myth do not mean that bunnies do not exist.
It does mean bunnies intelligent enough to hide easter eggs, and bring kids candy doesn't exist though.
Originally posted by lazs2
To believe that matter allways was is pretty far fetched too... where did it come from? something created... to believe that their allways way matter is just as much a stretch.... a leap of faith as to say that said eternal matter was a being.
e=mc^2
Matter was energy. Did energy always exist? Dunno, but I can show demonstrable evidence on a daily basis that energy does exist.
I don't need to make up eternal gods, with the new quandry of explaining why they are exempt of cause, without even having demonstrable evidence of their existance to start with.
Quite less a stretch in my book.
"Eternal matter was a being" is undecipherable to me.
-
Originally posted by Booz
e=mc^2
Matter was energy. Did energy always exist? Dunno, but I can show demonstrable evidence on a daily basis that energy does exist.
I don't need to make up eternal gods.
Don't have to. Nor are you required to. :D
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
- Albert Einstein
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Don't have to. Nor are you required to. :D
Ah good, you dont see it as an equal strecth either then.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Not really. You're still confused about proof versus lack thereof. Asking to be divinely zapped or crushed and not getting your wish (or getting it, for that matter) isn't empirical proof, as you've alluded your "knowledge without a doubt" origins of your Atheism to be based on. It's ok if your personal belief is Atheism. Really. It's allowed. ;)
There is reasonable proof that your 'god' is a mere mythological being. And that doesn't require faith. That proof is:
- previous cases of gods that weren't
- inconsistancies in biblical stories now disproven by science
- fundamental physics issues surrounding the existance of a god (aka "do you believe in magic?")
-
Originally posted by Booz
Ah good, you dont see it as an equal strecth either then.
Assumptive ... and missing my point. But that's ok. ;)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
There is reasonable proof that your 'god' is a mere mythological being. And that doesn't require faith. That proof is:
- previous cases of gods that weren't
- inconsistancies in biblical stories now disproven by science
- fundamental physics issues surrounding the existance of a god (aka "do you believe in magic?")
That's not proof that there's no God. If you're gonna claim your adoption of Atheism is based on proven fact, you better learn what a proven fact is. You "proving" there is no God through inconsistancy in what others use as the basis for their belief is not proof of yours. It's your rationalization for your belief.
I know you don't get it. That's ok too. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
If you're gonna claim your adoption of Atheism is based on proven fact, you better learn what a proven fact is.
Wow, I adopted atheism? You mean I was born christian.
Who doesn't get it arlo?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nash and chair.... lets say that chair and, to some extent... subaru... are correct about the defenition of athiest... that it is simply someone who lacks belief in god....
How then would you define agnostic? - lazs
Not my problem.
Words are as elastic and manipulatable as Silly Putty. A flesh colored egg shaped mass of goo can suddenly transform itself into the Sunday Crossword if flattened and pressed right.
Just because someone examines the definition of "atheist," defying everyone else's expectations, does not mean that he has to then fill the vaccum created when it comes to the definition of "agnostic."
Atheist. A lack of a theism. Simple, no?
Sure, there's going to be some unease caused to people that need to catogorize, label, file and box... because it's gonna mess up their whole entire filing system.
But it's not going to be mine nor Chair's problem, trust me.
-
manipulatable
====
reminds me of something the great decider throw together :aok
-
Yeah? Maybe...
... except that "manipulatable" is one of those, you know, actual words.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Who doesn't get it arlo?
You. Now you're apparently gonna try to convince me you were born atheist and it wasn't a choice. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Assumptive ... and missing my point. But that's ok. ;)
I have to assume it based on the cute snip & reply you provided since, it failed to address anything in my post. What is your point?
-
Originally posted by Booz
It does mean bunnies intelligent enough to hide easter eggs, and bring kids candy doesn't exist though.
e=mc^2
Matter was energy. Did energy always exist? Dunno, but I can show demonstrable evidence on a daily basis that energy does exist.
I don't need to make up eternal gods, with the new quandry of explaining why they are exempt of cause, without even having demonstrable evidence of their existance to start with.
Quite less a stretch in my book.
"Eternal matter was a being" is undecipherable to me.
My belief is that the creator of space/time is probably not composed of the substance of his creation and is not confined to existence within space and time. What this existence must be like can only be imagined by us. However, I think it takes no more faith to believe that than it does to believe the Universe may have winked into existence from nothingness of it's own volition or that the Universe is and has forever been expanding and collapsing without beginning or end. This is my argument with those who claim to be Atheist while denying their faith.
-
Originally posted by lukster
My belief is that the creator of space/time is probably not composed of the substance of his creation and is not confined to existence within space and time. What this existence must be like can only be imagined by us.
So you believe in an imaginary being....
However, I think it takes no more faith to believe that than it does to believe the Universe may have winked into existence from nothingness of it's own volition or that the Universe is and has forever been expanding and collapsing without beginning or end. This is my argument with those who claim to be Atheist while denying their faith.
The latest observations discount the 'big crunch' theory. It appears that the universe is acellerating its expansion, so a cyclic universe seems to have been ruled out.
The big bang (or wink as you may put it) is a logical extrapolation of general relativity and pretty much makes mathematical sense until the collision of relativity and quantum theories. It is just a theory, and many are working on details within the theory.
Because quantum and relativity both accurately work now, but fail in the first moments, there is no roadmap to what happened prior to the collision of quantum and relativity so any thoughts for that time are pure speculation.
No faith involved.
-
nash... I know how much you like gray areas but... words must have meaning. Why is it important to distinguish between agnostic or athiest?
If both words have exactly the same meaning.... then a lot of athiests are left out in the cold. The hard core athiest who doesn't just lack a faith in god but has unshakeable faith that it is impossible for one to exist suddenly is marginalized to agnostic status.
There are two words... agnostic and athiest for a reason. As you can see here... the "athiests" here (weak as most are in their faith) do not want to be called "agnostic" no matter how much more accurate it is...
conversely... agnostics everywhere would not like to have the word go away and be replaced by the more in your face "athiest". It does not describe what they believe.
As for matter and creation etc... einstein and co are/were very smart. I think they realize(d) that they are only explaining how the toys in the box we were given work after said toys were created. At some point... there was a creation. No one can explain the first bit of whatever.
eternal or "allways was" is no easier to grasp if it is matter or if it is a being. It is beyond us.
pick your poison... thiest or athiest or.... don't pick and wait and see.... agnostic.
Just don't claim to be something you are not. Do not confuse not believing or, not believing literaly, the various religious stories with proof that no god could exist.
no easter bunny doesn't mean no bunny.... no easter bunny that coes every year and hides eggs at every house does not mean no bunny in all of time never hid an egg. Aliens may or may not exist... some who claim god does not exist aren't so sure about aliens or ghosts.... only difference in most cases is..... aliens and ghosts didn't let their puppy spot die.
lazs
-
That's not what I said and though I'm fairly certain you're just yanking my chain I'll correct you. I said that a being that exists "beyond" time and space can only be imagined. That's simply because it cannot be proven or even properly understood by a mind whose only experienced lies solely within the realm of space and time. There is concrete evidence that the Universe exists and I would suggest that even if the only "order" in the Universe is purely a perception by our minds then our minds are at least proof that order exists. Mustn't there be some force to bring order from chaos?
What if we are seeing only an infintesimal slice of reality. What we consider to be our Universe may be only an atom in a sea of atoms, both in terms we understand like space and time as well as other dimensions we haven't yet even imagined. We may be the single dimensional point trying to describe a three dimensional reality based on our observations. Bottom line is we don't know. Anyone saying differently does so on faith.
I'm still not being clear. I mean that the nature of God's existence can only be imagined. I believe his presence can be felt and understood.
-
Originally posted by lukster
What if we are seeing only an infintesimal slice of reality. What we consider to be our Universe may be only an atom in a sea of atoms, both in terms we understand like space and time as well as other dimensions we haven't yet even imagined.
String theory already imagines up to 26 dimensional space. How many fuggin dimensions do you want?
Since Quantum bizarreness describes atomic scale space and General Relativity describes big stuff, the big stuff ain't atoms. Stephen Hawkings
We could be a pocket universe in a multi-verse sea, there are 10^^500 possiblities.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
String theory already imagines up to 26 dimensional space. How many fuggin dimensions do you want?
We could be a pocket universe in a multi-verse sea, there are 10^^500 possiblities.
Can we agree that string theory isn't provable, at least by any methods available or even imaginable today? If the supposed fabric of our existence cannot be proven then belief in it's existence is based on faith.
Look, my argument isn't that scientists base their theories on faith, though I believe that many do. A true scientist will never cease to examine his beliefs. How can he when he knows that he doesn't even understand the fundamental nature of the fabric of his existence? To make the determination that there is no intelligent creator of time/space/? takes a huge leap of faith, imo.
-
String theory is an evolving set of ideas and there are many who are working on it throughout the world.
I would venture that there are none in the field who take it on faith, otherwise they wouldn't work on it: They would consider it finished.
-
Originally posted by lukster
To make the determination that there is no intelligent creator of time/space/? takes a huge leap of faith, imo.
Not more huge than believing that no super-creator created your god. If you accept the idea of one creator, you can't stop there and you'll have to accept that there is the possibility of an infinity of creator levels/generations.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Not more huge than believing that no super-creator created your god. If you accept the idea of one creator, you can't stop there and you'll have to accept that there is the possibility of an infinity of creator levels/generations.
I'll grant that it is possible but not that it follows logically. Our perception of time is what gives us the concept of beginning and end. Existence without time is difficult to perceive. I'll argue that God is infinite and therefore not divisible into separate creators.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I'll grant that it is possible but not that it follows logically.
sure it does
Originally posted by lukster
Our perception of time is what gives us the concept of beginning and end. Existence without time is difficult to perceive.
simple really, absolute lack of motion (not a particularly comfortable place to hide a god though)
Originally posted by lukster
I'll argue that God is infinite and therefore not divisible into separate creators.
there's whats illogical
-
Originally posted by Booz
sure it does
simple really, absolute lack of motion (not a particularly comfortable place to hide a god though)
there's whats illogical
You described space without time. You didn't describe intelliegnce without time which is what I meant by "existence".
BTW, I admitted to having faith in my first post in this thread.
-
After giving a bit more thought to your infinite creator proposition DeSelys I find it interesting. What do you mean exactly when you say that if there is a creator of time and space then it follows that there must be a creator of that creator ad infinitum? Wouldn't that imply that time and space weren't actually created by one God but that gods are created within time and space?
-
Originally posted by lukster
You described space without time. You didn't describe intelliegnce without time which is what I meant by "existence".
I'll need a lukster dictionary, I know those are real words...what is intelligence to you?
All examples of intelligence mankind has found involve chemical reations in the brain, synapses firing etc, we see it over and over again in all kinds of animals.We know additions of other chemicals can hamper/alter those reactions.... of course without time (motion) that can't happen.
-
Originally posted by Booz
I'll need a lukster dictionary, I know those are real words...what is intelligence to you?
All examples of intelligence mankind has found involve chemical reations in the brain, synapses firing etc, we see it over and over again in all kinds of animals.We know additions of other chemicals can hamper/alter those reactions.... of course without time (motion) that can't happen.
Trying to percieve of anything that exists not within our concept of space/time is, like I mentioned, difficult. The idea of motion and thus distance (or lack thereof) are relative only to our idea of space/time. Therein lies the difficulty.
By using the word intelligence I am admittedly attributing to God human traits which are undoubtedly incomplete if appropriate at all. Here's what I mean by it though. God is a being that purposely created all that is. That he may have "spoke" the Universe into existence, with it's many aspects we have yet to imagine, could have been very much like the "big bang theory" proposed by some scientists or which simply winked into existence by others. Or, our universe could be one of those one dimensional "strings", whose beginning (from our perspective) was simply the middle of an oscillation, relative to all of creation that is.
However, my faith comes in because I believe that God, difficult as it is to imagine, cares about people, individually. I have had experiences you might say I imagined simply because of my need. You might be right, I can't prove otherwise. I admit to having faith, I believe.
-
Please enjoy your faith, you have that right.
Just don't accuse me of faith if I just don't believe any of that?
-
Originally posted by Booz
and you won't accuse me of faith if I just don't believe any of that?
If you are aware of your existence and that of what you can observe yet believe that it was not created by an intelligent being then no, you are exercising faith.
This has gone in many circles, to paraphrase someone earlier in this thread, lack of belief in God is not the same thing as belief that there is no God. This may seem like a word play but it isn't.
-
Lukster: I appreciate the strengths of your convictions, but I think they may be misplaced when it comes to finding a faith-hole to put me into.
My lack of faith should not be seen as an attack on you or yours.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lukster: I appreciate the strengths of your convictions, but I think they may be misplaced when it comes to finding a faith-hole to put me into.
My lack of faith should not be seen as an attack on you or yours.
I don't see your faith as an attack on mine unless you are out there campaining to prevent me from exercising my faith in public. I know what I believe and why I believe it. No one's opinion is likely to affect me one way or the other though I am open to discussion on my beliefs.
-
Let's put it this way for those that believe in God (existance of God, whatever):
Is it possible that the Atheist could be right*?
Yes or no, then explaination is fine.
Here's where "honest" comes into play ;)
Added:
* That God does not exist. God is the entity made up by man.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I don't see your faith as an attack on mine unless you are out there campaining to prevent me from exercising my faith in public. I know what I believe and why I believe it. No one's opinion is likely to affect me one way or the other though I am open to discussion on my beliefs.
Exercising your belief in public on an individual basis, I'll never have a problem with.
It is when it becomes an organized event with perceived official govt backing that I see blurring the lines of Separation of Church and State.
That's a dangerous line to cross IMHO.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Let's put it this way for those that believe in God (existance of God, whatever):
Is it possible that the Atheist could be right?
Yes or no, then explaination is fine.
Here's where "honest" comes into play ;)
Faith means believing in something without proof. Do I believe there is God, yes. Do I understand that belief means I could be wrong? Of course. If that doesn't spell it out, yes, Atheist could be right in their belief that there is no God.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Exercising your belief in public on an individual basis, I'll never have a problem with.
It is when it becomes an organized event with perceived official govt backing that I see blurring the lines of Separation of Church and State.
That's a dangerous line to cross IMHO.
I agree. I do not want state supported religion. I do want state supported freedom to exercise religion.
-
You get that now, don't you?
Has the govt ever said you, on an individual basis, could not pray?
-
Do I understand that belief means I could be wrong?
There's no such thing as right or wrong, with regards to faith.
You're arguing the unarguable... No offense, but this thread is turning into a broken record.
Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat; even stoneage romans already knew it.
-
Originally posted by Booz
I have to assume it based on the cute snip & reply you provided since, it failed to address anything in my post. What is your point?
You mean you really couldn't see the relation between your claim that E=MC^2 proves there is no God and Einstein's quote? :aok
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
You get that now, don't you?
Has the govt ever said you, on an individual basis, could not pray?
Whens the last time it, on an individual basis, forced you to? Pretty sure it's not gonna become a threat anytime soon. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You mean you really couldn't see the relation between your claim that E=MC^2 proves there is no God and Einstein's quote? :aok
Uh, no, E=MC^2 answers where matter came from in response to Lasz's question I quoted. It wasn't a proof of no god.
as to Einstein's quote:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Source: from a 1954 letter to an atheist. (Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1981.)
-
Originally posted by Booz
Uh, no, E=MC^2 answers where matter came from...
Actually it only shows the equivalence of matter and energy. Origins are up to the reader.
-
Originally posted by Booz
Uh, no, E=MC^2 answers where matter came from in response to Lasz's question I quoted. It wasn't a proof of no god.
as to Einstein's quote:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious[/b] then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Source: from a 1954 letter to an atheist. (Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1981.) [/B]
Then you actually realize you've proven nothing, yourself. Very good.
It's well known and understood that Einstein wasn't a fan of religion. It's also well known that he had a spiritual side. So much for the continued confusion on the part of some Atheists between religion and faith. Context can only be appreciated when you can understand the difference. ;)
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity[/b]* does not lie through the fear of life[/b], and the fear of death[/b], and blind[/b] faith, but through striving after rational[/b] knowledge."
*spiritual discipline
- the misunderstood/understood Al Einstein, who's quotations so far listed sit quite well with me and my beliefs. Not sure how they all sit with your's but that's your business. :D
-
Maybe einstein didn't mean to be taken literraly ;)
-
subaru..... I replied to you.... Yes it is possible that there is no god. I believe that their is and freely admit that believeing so is a leap of faith.
you never replied tho..
Do you think it is possible that some kind of creator... some supreme being may exist?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lukster
After giving a bit more thought to your infinite creator proposition DeSelys I find it interesting. What do you mean exactly when you say that if there is a creator of time and space then it follows that there must be a creator of that creator ad infinitum? Wouldn't that imply that time and space weren't actually created by one God but that gods are created within time and space?
Actually, I'm not discussing your faith: it is yours and I have no business telling you what you should/shouldn't believe in.
My reasoning comes from your affirmation that scientists will have to believe in one of two possibilities: there is no creator (atheism) or there is one (Intelligent Design or any other religion...).
(a scientist can also be an agnostic which is, IMHO, the more honest way to try and understand the universe).
If ID is a philosophical answer as good as any other to the universe, life and everything ;), it contains its own new questions about the designer: where does it come from? Who or what created it? Believing in ID is, IMHO, just pushing the problem a bit further. If a scientist doesn't believe that the universe comes out of nowhere or has always existed, and he feels that there must be a creator behind it, he will be breaking his own logic if he accepts that this creator comes out of nowhere/has always existed.
And there lies the catch: a lot of people think that ID could be the link between science and religion. However, ID will displace the questions about the origin and the creation of the universe to the origin and the creation of god, which are not accepted as valid by most religions.
I hope that I'm clear enough.
-
I allowed for 3 possibilities from the beginning and made it clear that I thought only those that did not believe one way or the other regarding the existence of God are the only ones without faith in this matter.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
You get that now, don't you?
Has the govt ever said you, on an individual basis, could not pray?
Actually in some areas of the U.S. the schools have said as much.
Been law suites over it. The schools so far have lost but Yes there have been instances of people in authority insisting, and enforcing NO prayer in specific areas of America.
Some have concerns this is a growing thing. That it will only become more of a problem in the future.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Maybe einstein didn't mean to be taken literraly ;)
I've seen continued reference to literaly.
Perhaps you should ask the person that said it what was meant by it?
There may be more to the explaination then meets the eye?
-
Apparently I'm an absolutist - so I need to practise not taking things literally a bit.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
subaru..... I replied to you.... Yes it is possible that there is no god. I believe that their is and freely admit that believeing so is a leap of faith.
you never replied tho..
Do you think it is possible that some kind of creator... some supreme being may exist?
lazs
Ahh, missed it.
No. I already answered though. If I believed it were possible, I would then be Agnostic. I would have also taken a leap of faith.
Now for those that have taken that leap of faith, do I believe that a God, Creator, Supreme Being is real to them or is possible for them? Sure, if I take what they say on face value (why wouldn't I?)....but I've pretty much said that already.
So to conclude:
I am an Atheist.
I am not Agnostic.
I have not taken a leap of faith as I have never been convinced of there being a God in the first place.
It is good though that you admit that it is possible that we Atheists could be right.
Fair enough?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Ahh, missed it.
No. I already answered though. If I believed it were possible, I would then be Agnostic. I would have also taken a leap of faith.
Now for those that have taken that leap of faith, do I believe that a God, Creator, Supreme Being is real to them or is possible for them? Sure, if I take what they say on face value (why wouldn't I?)....but I've pretty much said that already.
So to conclude:
I am an Atheist.
I am not Agnostic.
I have not taken a leap of faith as I have never been convinced of there being a God in the first place.
It is good though that you admit that it is possible that we Atheists could be right.
Fair enough?
Fair? What does fairness have to do with it? You are very devout in your faith if you won't allow for the possibility you could be wrong. I'd go so far as to call that blind faith.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Actually in some areas of the U.S. the schools have said as much.
Been law suites over it. The schools so far have lost but Yes there have been instances of people in authority insisting, and enforcing NO prayer in specific areas of America.
Some have concerns this is a growing thing. That it will only become more of a problem in the future.
The schools are wrong as it is restricting free expression. Good thing the courts are seeing and ruling correctly.
You wouldn't have any links would you?
I'd definitely like to see where free religious expression has been banned (or attempted) on an individual basis. That is so wrong.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Fair? What does fairness have to do with it? You are very devout in your faith if you won't allow for the possibility you could be wrong. I'd go so far as to call that blind faith.
...and you would be wrong.
That's why in all honesty, you don't really believe it to possible that God could possibly not exist.
Your arguement gives it away.
My thoughts = God does not really exist, never has. The end.
You made a leap of faith, not I.
Now if you'd like to bring actual proof to the table, I'm all ears.
You won't do that though as you know you can't.
I've realized long ago that facts just can't be brought to the table when discussing faith. No one changes their mind, nor would I want you to change your mind in your belief in your God. No point to it.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
...and you would be wrong.
That's why in all honesty, you don't really believe it to possible that God could possibly not exist.
Your arguement gives it away.
My thoughts = God does not really exist, never has. The end.
You made a leap of faith, not I.
Now if you'd like to bring actual proof to the table, I'm all ears.
You won't do that though as you know you can't.
I've realized long ago that facts just can't be brought to the table when discussing faith. No one changes their mind, nor would I want you to change your mind in your belief in your God. No point to it.
huh?
Ok, I think i understand what you're saying, just not why you said it. You wanna believe you don't have faith in your beliefs that's your preogative. It's mine to tell you that you do. You don't have to listen of course.
BTW, your judgement of what I believe is very telling.
-
Originally posted by lukster
huh?
Ok, I think i understand what you're saying, just not why you said it. You wanna believe you don't have faith in your beliefs that's your preogative. It's mine to tell you that you do. You don't have to listen of course.
Faith is a belief unsupported by facts. Like I said very early in this thread, I'm a "show me" type.
I have no problem with others having a different belief structure than I.
I just don't like my character or honesty questioned on something that shouldn't be.
Notice I have yet to attack you or anyone else for their beliefs.
I have yet to question your character of honesty, even though I disagree with some of you.
Keep casting stones and judging others, though.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Faith is a belief unsupported by facts. Like I said very early in this thread, I'm a "show me" type.
I have no problem with others having a different belief structure than I.
I just don't like my character or honesty questioned on something that shouldn't be.
Notice I have yet to attack you or anyone else for their beliefs.
I have yet to question your character of honesty, even though I disagree with some of you.
Keep casting stones and judging others, though.
Actually you did call me a liar when you told me that I don't believe what I say I believe. I'm not telling you what you believe, I'm just telling you that belief in something you cannot prove is faith. You're contradicting yourself, not me.
-
Hmmm... aren't there some logic problems with proving a negative?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... aren't there some logic problems with proving a negative?
Indeed there are. You cannot prove a negative, at least in this case. This is why I say it takes faith to have an unshakable belief in that negative.
It's not always impossible to prove a "negative". For example, I might say that in a certain closed container there is no light, or at least no light measureable by a means I specify. I then might prove it by putting a light sensitive film in the container and measure the lack of light. Proving there is no God is not so simple. I'll consider any evidence put forth however.
-
been in an argument with a woman lately?
it's a ****ing female artform.
-
In other words... negative faith equates to faith in the negative.
I'm not sure that's true.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... aren't there some logic problems with proving a negative?
Saddam Hussein should be one hell of a lesson to those out there who don't at least try.
lol... sorry... (ignore me)
-
Originally posted by lukster
Indeed there are. You cannot prove a negative, at least in this case. This is why I say it takes faith to have an unshakable belief in that negative.
It's not always impossible to prove a "negative". For example, I might say that in a certain closed container there is no light, or at least no light measureable by a means I specify. I then might prove it by putting a light sensitive film in the container and measure the lack of light. Proving there is no God is not so simple. I'll consider any evidence put forth however.
Try playing minesweeper. It comes with windows.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Actually you did call me a liar when you told me that I don't believe what I say I believe. I'm not telling you what you believe, I'm just telling you that belief in something you cannot prove is faith. You're contradicting yourself, not me.
Not quite.
If you truly believe that it is a possibilty that God might not exist, then question me when I state my opinion to that effect, leads me to question your honesty.
Your baseline of logic contends that God exists, for to believe otherwise just has to be done with faith.
It'll never change it seems:
"I believe that you Atheists could possibly be right as my belief in God is based on faith, but....."
I've proven to myself that God/Supreme Being/divine intervention does not exist.
No leap of faith as I never had to:
1) Take a leap.
2) Take it on faith.
-
Originally posted by lukster
BTW, your judgement of what I believe is very telling.
It's not what you think though.
Example:
If Virginia wants to believe in a Santa Claus, how could I tell her she doesn't believe it? Why would I? Even though I know it not to be true, there's no point in it, nor would she necessarily believe me if I told her contrary to what she believed in.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
In other words... negative faith equates to faith in the negative.
I'm not sure that's true.
I'm sure you get it but some seem to think that to not believe in the possibility of God's existance is the polar opposite of the belief of God's existance.
Where is the neutral zero in their positive/negative belief system?
To the Atheist, the baseline zero is the nonexistance of God.
To believe in God's existance has to require a leap of faith somewhere other than the zero baseline.
To continue with our mindset, we don't leap to anywhere for in this question of God's existance, there is not a negative for it is our baseline.
To the believer of God's existance, their baseline zero is that God does exist.
In their mindset, those that do not believe have to take a leap of faith to not believe (the obvious, that of God's existance).
-
All semantics aside, the issue can be reduced to the following:
Religious mindset
- No proof of deity
+ ?
Non-religious mindset
- ?
+ No proof of deity
Not a very hard choice for a reasonable person, I'd say...
-
subaru said.... "If I believed it were possible, I would then be Agnostic."
well... that is bad news for most of the rest of the "athiests" here. they are now agnostics.
I admire you for your honesty and for your strong faith in something like athiesm. It seems a little peevish and strange to me but... your choice.
How do you feel about all these agnostics calling themselves athiests?
I also note that you are now avoiding "I believe" and the word "faith" when speaking of your unprovable faith in athiesm... the much more clever "my thoughts on" does not do anything to dispell the feeling that athiests are dishonest and slippery with an agenda tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
subaru said.... "If I believed it were possible, I would then be Agnostic."
well... that is bad news for most of the rest of the "athiests" here. they are now agnostics.
I admire you for your honesty and for your strong faith in something like athiesm. It seems a little peevish and strange to me but... your choice.
How do you feel about all these agnostics calling themselves athiests?
I also note that you are now avoiding "I believe" and the word "faith" when speaking of your unprovable faith in athiesm... the much more clever "my thoughts on" does not do anything to dispell the feeling that athiests are dishonest and slippery with an agenda tho.
lazs
Actually I don't care what one's belief or nonbelief when it comes to religion and or God. As long as it doesn't impact me negatively. I think that can be said for all of us here.
As to some Agnostics calling themselves Atheists seems to be about symantics of the definitions, not about a deliberate attempt to deceive. What would they have to gain or lose really?
It's not like say someone in position to hire another individual lying to that individual because that individual happens to be a minority, that he would not want that minority to be aroid to cause "trouble" just so said hiring individual can continue to say ceretain race sensitive commentary/jokes in his workplace. Now that would be dishonest, and promoting an agenda as well.
This "argument" you've created here is silly as to the character and honesty of individuals basing it on no other thanthe labels they choose to call themselves.
Maybe more important you should base it more on lying for personal gain or to try to destroy another's character.
...or do they cheat at things....do they break the laws...etc.
Again for true Atheists:
1) There is no faith involved.
2) What is my agenda again? (You've avoided this question. Maybe it is you with the agenda.)
Again, because you can't possibly really think that there is not a possibility of a God, it serves your purpose to call the nonfaith in something existing as a faith. It then lends support for your "agenda" of promoting God, or more specifically the negating the non-religious viewpoint(Atheism) in a Church and State argument. The "I've got to call Atheism a religion" argument serves the believers of God, not the Atheists.
You were saying something about honesty?
So I take it you really didn't mean it when you said it was possible that the Atheist could be right?
You're argument gives that away.
Well I have to go to work.
-
ahh... agenda... Agendas do not have to be huge.... "labels" the word you used not me... who is doing the labeling? certainly not me... I have not called you an athiest.
Athiest is a label... like it or not. it is a self inflicted one also... Agnostic simply means... "thank you for asking but I really have no opinion" Athiest is a label
To label yourself is and agenda. To label yourself as a christian is an agenda as well... the difference is the rub... and that difference is that the christian (for example) says that he "knows" that his god is such and such and exists and he knows this because of his faith.... He says words like "I have faith" and "I believe"...
The athiest says "I bellieve" and "yes it is possible there is a god" and then says that his athiesm is not faith based.... he realizes that "I believe" sounds pretty darn faith based so he turns to "my thoughts are" which is simply semantics for... "I believe"
If he were merely wondering (in a thoughtful kinda way) he would say "my thoughts are..... but I don't know for sure" and then be an agnostic.
I believe in a god but am not religious... I have no interest in labeling myself... I believe that the agnostic has no reason to label himself either except to differentiate himself from both the faith based thiest and the faith based athiest.
I also believe that most if not all of the athiests here on this board are really agnostics but that they think that calling themselves "athiest" had more impact and sounds cooler... an agenda so to speak.
So... both the real athiests and the fake agnostic ones here have an agenda. It has been proven to be a dishonest one. Agnostics avoid the (to them) fanatisism of both the thiest and the athiest.
It is either possible or not possible that their is a god. If you believe that it is not possible you are an athiest (a faith based belief with no proof). If you believe it is possible then you are an agnostic. This requires no faith at all and leaves the mind open to any future proof(s).
Both the thiest and athiest are close minded. Only one admits it tho. they are the honest ones... the other does not and they are.... dishonest..
lazs
-
I have to disagree with you lazs. Not all of those who believe in God are close minded though I'll admit that many are. There are obviously some that believe there is no God that are pretty close minded too.
My faith in what I believe is not open ended. I will die. I expect that my beliefs will be proven either true or not to me at that time. If I have any awareness after I die my faith will have proven true. If not, it was misplaced. Contrary to what Saburo thinks, I understand my faith and realize I could be wrong. I may simply cease to exist upon my death. I choose to believe otherwise. I also choose to believe in free will.
-
Great conversation so far. We're obviously not going to change each others minds, but I'm glad we can be mostly civil.
To inject a light note, I saw the following bumpersticker online and thought some of you might enjoy it:
(http://www.instantattitudes.com/gifs/bs128.gif)
-
Pretty funny. :lol
-
I think that bumper sticker is really good... it is funny because one... it is true.... no one can "know" and two... because, unlike thiests and athiests...
the agnostic is not in the least "militant" he is making fun of the milatantcy of bot the thiest and the athiest.
To the agnostic... both of the others are in his face.
lazs