NationStates Jolt Archive

Who is worse?

Them. The other side. The other side is always worse.

Anyone who thinks that either of them are a good idea.

Next please. >_>

I haven't met a violently atheist individual yet. That is, one who believes that religious people are a lesser breed destined for extermination.

Met people from all sorts of religions who were like that.

The Christian Fundamentalists. Those people are crazy! Did you hear about that thing they had on TBN the other day? What was it called?... I don't remember, but still, I fear for the country. *shiver*

I've never heard of "militant atheists". Do they exist?

What does militant mean in the first place???

I don't want to deal with either, because in both cases, you're wrong, they're right, and they'll possibly harm/maim/tar and feather you if you disagree.

I don't need to be ridiculed for my beliefs, but I don't need faith shoved down my throat either.

In conclusion: leave me alone, dammit, I'm trying to watch CSI.

You know, an Athiest who rants on about how Religion is a mental illness and all that stuff.

I've met people like that. *shudders*

militant atheists

btw: can we get a poll?

You might as well ask:
What was worse, the inquisition or the gulags?
Anybody who picks one over the other is just biased and ignorant.

I've never heard of "militant atheists". Do they exist?Yeah, them, the Radical Buddhists and the Aggressive Agnostics are having a big get-together in the annual "Blow the hell out of Jesus Day" festivities next Thursday.

You might as well ask:
What was worse, the inquisition or the gulags?
Anybody who picks one over the other is just biased and ignorant.


Well I'm sorry for being biased and ignorant. :)

I've never heard of "militant atheists". Do they exist?
Nazis, revolutionary communists.

btw: can we get a poll?

How?

How?

I'm not exaclty sure...

Christian fundamentalis's. In fact religious fundamentalists in general, they tend to all be nuts.

Christian fundamentalis's. In fact religious fundamentalists in general, they tend to all be nuts.

I so agree with you. They scare me to death..

You might as well ask:
What was worse, the inquisition or the gulags?
Anybody who picks one over the other is just biased and ignorant.
In terms of loss of life, the gulags were far worse (I am atheist BTW).

Nazis, revolutionary communists.
Hitler was a Catholic.

Hitler was a Catholic.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0054/0054_01.asp

We're all gonna DIE!!!!!

Christian fundamentalists are worse, because they seek to impose their morals on others and thereby restrict civil rights. Militant atheists usually want more civil liberties and freedom from oppression.

I've never heard of "militant atheists". Do they exist?

most communist governments; ie the surrent opression of the Catholic Church in china

Militant atheists usually want more civil liberties and freedom from oppression.

well by definition militant atheists would seek to impose their beliefs on others there by restricting what many consider the most important civil liverty

Hitler was a Catholic.
Then why the heck did one million Polish Catholics die in the holocaust?
Also, Hitler wasn’t the only Nazi. Many were atheists.
I heard an interview with a former SS officer on the History channel once.
He said, “We believed there was no god, but Providence had given us the Fuhrer”

Christian fundamentalis's. In fact religious fundamentalists in general, they tend to all be nuts.Does religious fundementalists include militant atheists? Some of those folks were wacked, burning churchs, kidnapping children and all that. Anyway didn't the League of Millitant Atheists die off before the Second World War?

As for Hitler he was born Catholic and by some definitions was a Catholic (not in conformance with the church) but he explicitly rejected Cathololicism and Christianity and was formally excommunicated in 1930 along with all Catholic Nazis.

I hate fundamental christians

ya know what'd be funny? if laveyan satanists gained gov't control all these militant christians would shit themselves

I hate fundamental christians

ya know what'd be funny? if laveyan satanists gained gov't control all these militant christians would shit themselves
Oppression is hilarious isn’t it. :rolleyes:

Oppression is hilarious isn’t it. :rolleyes:
they'd shit themselves at seeing all their stereotypes about satanists collapse around them

Christian Fundamentalists, or any fundamentalist (Islamic, Hindu, Pagan, est.).

Also, the communists where ideologues (their Atheism was secondary). The Nazi's had pervasive spiritialist/Pagan beliefs (as well as Lutheran anti-Semitism). I consider Ideologues to be just as harmful to humanity as fundamentalists.

I've yet to hear of a pagan fundie nor a hindu one you've roused my curiosity could you list some examples

I don't know of any Pagan fundies, but apparently the Hindu fundies have been causing a stir in India. I cannot be assed to look anything up, but I recall at least Mosgue being destroyed and a riot at the screening of The Passion of The Christ.

Fundamentalists. Militant Atheists can be reasoned with, because their beliefs stem from conclusions they derived from facts and other such things, whereas religious fundamentalists stem from unshakeable belief, and no amount of persuading will change their courses of action.

Being an atheist, though, I must admit that I am not sure how to go about about being militant about it.

Athiests are motivated by FAITH not fact. You have to have faith that human knowledge is so expansive that it can rule out the divine. An awful lot of it since the range of uman knowledge is constantly expanding thus proving that the bulk is unknown. A committed atheist lives in a world of blind faith more virulent than any religious person who merely accepts a handful of unproven assumtions.

Howabout a Compassionate Agnostic? :p

I think both groups should just give me my damned country back and go toddle off to Antarctica and Australia respectfully and nuke each other.

They both think their crap tastes like chocolate ice cream.

Christian Fundamantalists are definately the worst, but militant anybody is bad too. I think the really millitant ones in this country are the Christian Fundamentalist, fighting their oil crusade in Iraq. Athiest simply means the lack of belief in a higher power. I know athiests that have better morals than Christians (Jesus himself would be shocked at some of the things they do in his name).

[QUOTE=Kaisemicia]Fundamentalists. Militant Atheists can be reasoned with, because their beliefs stem from conclusions they derived from facts and other such things, whereas religious fundamentalists stem from unshakeable belief, and no amount of persuading will change their courses of action.

True. Very true. Athiests use logic, Religious Fundamentalists use ignorance and arrogance, making them much the worst of the two.

Nazis, revolutionary communists.

The Nazis weren't atheists. They were superstitous (holy grail, pendulumn crap) nihilists.

The Nazis weren't atheists. They were superstitous (holy grail, pendulumn crap) nihilists.
I wouldn't call them nihilists. To a nihilist, nothing ultimately matters. The Nazis did not seem to have this belief.

True. Very true. Athiests use logic, Religious Fundamentalists use ignorance and arrogance, making them much the worst of the two.

Oh, i've met plenty of arrogant and ignorant aetheists as well. Both groups should be bound and gagged.

I wouldn't call them nihilists. To a nihilist, nothing ultimately matters.

But they are amazing bowlers.

I wouldn't call them nihilists. To a nihilist, nothing ultimately matters. The Nazis did not seem to have this belief.

When the ending (of the NS regime) draw near, Hitler didn't give a good goddamn about his "Volk". If there is one "believe" that one can attribute to the Nazis, then it's "belief in destruction".

When the ending (of the NS regime) draw near, Hitler didn't give a good goddamn about his "Volk". If there is one "believe" that one can attribute to the Nazis, then it's "belief in destruction".

True--didn't he even blame the 'German people' for the war's failure before killing himself?

True--didn't he even blame the 'German people' for the war's failure before killing himself?

Fundamentalist anything is a worry, at least militant aethiests don't represent a danger...except to fundamentalists

Fundamentalist anything is a worry, at least militant aethiests don't represent a danger...except to fundamentalists

I'm not a fundamentalist, and I've been threatened by one, simply because I believe in God and wouldn't agree with him. I'm a casual christian, approve of gay marriage, gambling, porn, etc, but they still fight me.

Atheism: The state of not believing the divine. This doesn't rule out belief in religion, or other supernatural things/superstitions.

In my mind, you have to at least be prepared to commit civil disobediance/civil unrest, to be labeled militant. Not nessecarily the use of violence, but at the very least you have to be willing to use force, and be prepared to defy law(s) to further your agenda.

I can't think of any sort of atheists, who've ever done that. Not because they were atheists anyway (no, the bloody commies didn't murder people or invade countries just because of gods, or the lack of them).

Athiests are motivated by FAITH not fact. You have to have faith that human knowledge is so expansive that it can rule out the divine. An awful lot of it since the range of uman knowledge is constantly expanding thus proving that the bulk is unknown.

Is that so? Where exactly is the indication, in the collective knowledge of mankind, that there might be something divine at work?
Also, do you think Atheists would disbeliefe divinity, if there was just the slightest indication there might be something divine out there? If you do, please explain exactly how you arrived at that conclusion.

An awful lot is known to us humans. For example, while we don't positively know how life came about, we do have plenty of explanations that doesn't require god. As per common sense, it's not plausible to think something divine is at work, if it doesn't need to be there, and we don't have any reason to suspect it is there.
We know no kind of all-encompassing observations can be made, since we've found out that observing a system makes you a part of the system, and thus changes how it unfolds. That kind of knowledge is a pretty good argument for not believing in the divine. Truely, if something divine really did exist, it couldn't possibly be anything like what human religions describe.
There just isn't much room for the divine in this universe. Nor is there any reason to think there is anything divine.

Unless you think human emotion, fantasy, and old moral tales are somehow more credible than actual observation of the universe you inhabit.

Believing, or even entertaining the notion, of the divine, seems like wishful thinking to me. There's no reasonable argument for not being an Atheist. And that's why I am one. I have nothing against the concept of divinity, but outside the world of fiction, I fail to see how it can ever be relevant or applicable to anything.

A committed atheist lives in a world of blind faith more virulent than any religious person who merely accepts a handful of unproven assumtions.

What? No really, what? How can one be a commited Atheist (I assume you're not talking about mental patients?)?
I'll pretend you're talking about me for a moment. How exactly do I live in a world of blind faith? I'm not the one entertaining fantastical ideas of magical entities, though I know there's no reason to do so.
The bit about unproven assumptions I can't even comprehend. Are you saying it's somehow possible to prove anything regarding the divine?

...If so, then why the FUCK haven't you told the world sooner?! Just imagine all the silly religious squabbles you could've settled! All the lives you'd save!

I'm not a fundamentalist, and I've been threatened by one, simply because I believe in God and wouldn't agree with him. I'm a casual christian, approve of gay marriage, gambling, porn, etc, but they still fight me.
Welcome to my world.

That's exactly why I fight the "Christian" stereotype that a lot of these threads seem to produce. No offense to "the opposition" of sorts, but a lot of times as soon as I say I'm Christian, they assume I'm a gun-toting right wing whackjob.

And I'm just, I mean I'm just.....not. Okay, you guys? I'm not.

Simonist']Welcome to my world.

That's exactly why I fight the "Christian" stereotype that a lot of these threads seem to produce. No offense to "the opposition" of sorts, but a lot of times as soon as I say I'm Christian, they assume I'm a gun-toting right wing whackjob.

And I'm just, I mean I'm just.....not. Okay, you guys? I'm not.

Yeah, it's like our meer existence threatens them in some way. My best friend is a Satanist. He doesn't even care that I'm a Christian. Why am I a threat to y'all?

I know I have friends that are satanists,wiccans and christians (I don't label myself as one religion but satanism makes a lotta sense to me)

Simonist']That's exactly why I fight the "Christian" stereotype that a lot of these threads seem to produce. No offense to "the opposition" of sorts, but a lot of times as soon as I say I'm Christian, they assume I'm a gun-toting right wing whackjob.
Yea... It's easy to get carried away. Problem is when there really are "gun-toting right wing whackjob's" in the world, one easily get's overly defensive or antagonistic. And since their religion is what motivates their disregard for other's right to be whoever they want, their religion is what gets attacked.

It's just too bad for all the perfectly normal believers, that the extremists can't call themselves something else. I sometimes sounds like I think all christians are Pat Robertsons. I honestly don't believe anything of the sort. I don't care what people belief, as long as they feel the same way.

Yea... It's easy to get carried away. Problem is when there really are "gun-toting right wing whackjob's" in the world, one easily get's overly defensive or antagonistic. And since their religion is what motivates their disregard for other's right to be whoever they want, their religion is what gets attacked.
Most Christians I know don't refer to those guys as Christians. When you get that far off from the true Christian ideal set across by Jesus, then it's time to wake up and re-label....

Simonist']Most Christians I know don't refer to those guys as Christians. When you get that far off from the true Christian ideal set across by Jesus, then it's time to wake up and re-label....
I completely agree. I can imagine Christians on this forum - there seem to be a regular army of Atheists around here - regularly feel the hatred from both 'fellow Christians" and Atheists. My sympathis mate. It feel pretty nasty to be sidelined with the fundies. Apologies in advance if I ever accidentially do that.

I just read something in my sociology book that might concern this thread...

As mankind evolved, we developed manys ways of explaining and defining our world. Each deined in three stages...

Theological Stage: Imagination dominated as the principle of understanding. People interpreted events in the terms of good and evil beings.

Metaphysical Stage: Observation of specific events rather than specualtion as to the nature of general events.Through the power of the mind and application of accepted principals could derive logical explinations of real world phenomena.

Positivistic Stage: Complex social and cultural developments could be created and sustained only by the kind of understanding generated by the adoption of scientific method

After reading this I'm coming closer and closer to siding with atheists who, for the most part, adopt reason and logic rather than faith and belief. Take it anyway you want, just thought this passage might benifit the thread and stir up some new debate.

I'm not a fundamentalist, and I've been threatened by one, simply because I believe in God and wouldn't agree with him. I'm a casual christian, approve of gay marriage, gambling, porn, etc, but they still fight me.


I couldn't agree more fundamentalists are fucked, I'm sorry if my post was interpreted to the contrary

The former. Words are worse than weapons...usually!

A committed atheist lives in a world of blind faith more virulent than any religious person who merely accepts a handful of unproven assumtions.

I'm not sure what sort of atheist you are running into, as I have never seen any of that stripe and it indeed goes against one of the definitions of atheism.

Having not been raised religious--a harsher individual might say indoctrinated, but let's be nice for a moment--I sought to resolve whether god and religion had any sense to my mind.

I examined the arguments at hand, but could find no factual evidence to support the claims. Thus, I decided it unwise to support a belief that I couldn't even justify without relying on emotions or a variation of, 'it is just what I think' or intuition.

I suspect a good many atheists are the same way. It is not a blind faith but a rejection of blind faith by rational examination of the issues, trying to support them with facts, and finding it insufficient. The entire idea of atheism is, at its root, choosing rationalism or scientific evidence over the unverifiable.

Atheism: The state of not believing the divine. This doesn't rule out belief in religion, or other supernatural things/superstitions.

True, though I would argue one most often times follows the other. If one does not believe in the divine, then religions have no leg to stand on, as their entire authority rests on the principle of a higher power. Without the divine, they are just another misguided organisation, making it silly to subscribe to one. Why join a Flat-Earth Society if one thinks the world is round?

I do not believe in god, so prayer is just as superstitious to me as knocking on wood--thus eliminating a belief in the supernatural/superstitious as well.

True, though I would argue one most often times follows the other. If one does not believe in the divine, then religions have no leg to stand on, as their entire authority rests on the principle of a higher power. Without the divine, they are just another misguided organisation, making it silly to subscribe to one. Why join a Flat-Earth Society if one thinks the world is round?

I do not believe in god, so prayer is just as superstitious to me as knocking on wood--thus eliminating a belief in the supernatural/superstitious as well.
I completely agree. None the less, it wasn't always so. Back when science walked hand in hand with mysticism/religion, plenty of the more renowned thinkers were Atheists, yet believed in their local religion or some other supernatural concept. That's why the label was invented.

These days it's hard to even relate to how people percieved the world back then, but it's probably safe to assume most a-religious or anti-religious people back then, would have been so out of spite, not reason.

It is not a blind faith but a rejection of blind faith by rational examination of the issues, trying to support them with facts, and finding it insufficient. The entire idea of atheism is, at its root, choosing rationalism or scientific evidence over the unverifiable.

Ah, but stuff that was thought to be a fact are proved wrong every day. And some stuff not verified previously is made fact. So why trust in a system that is always changing and drifts with the wind? And if all you have to look forward to is dirt or ash when you die, then most will be afraid of death. I'm not.

The way I see it, if I'm wrong about heaven, then it doesn't really matter. If I'm right, then all the better. Whereas if I was an aetheist, most Christians would say I'd go to hell if I didn't believe in Jesus and there was an afterlife.

Me, I don't really care. I'm actually looking forward to dying, though not any time soon. I wanna have kids first (well for my wife to have em anyway, if I ever get one). But yeah, I think death would be a great adventure.

Ah, but stuff that was thought to be a fact are proved wrong every day. And some stuff not verified previously is made fact. So why trust in a system that is always changing and drifts with the wind? And if all you have to look forward to is dirt or ash when you die, then most will be afraid of death. I'm not.

The way I see it, if I'm wrong about heaven, then it doesn't really matter. If I'm right, then all the better. Whereas if I was an aetheist, most Christians would say I'd go to hell if I didn't believe in Jesus and there was an afterlife.

Me, I don't really care. I'm actually looking forward to dying, though not any time soon. I wanna have kids first (well for my wife to have em anyway, if I ever get one). But yeah, I think death would be a great adventure.

Exactly the ability to adapt and change has brought humans this far and is our greatest achievement. So why believe in an archaic system that is outdated, easily corrupted, and for the most part illogical?

What's the difference between Santa Claus and Heaven? Theological beliefes that use the imagination rather than logic to explain an unknown circumstance.

If you hold death above living then your religion needs to change something...

So why trust in a system that is always changing and drifts with the wind?

That reminds me of ..

THE CHURCH: All right, folks, every aspect of the Bible, from Adam and Eve to the Revelations, is absolutely true and literal. Always has been, always will be.
[some time passes]
THE CHURCH: OK, so when we said every aspect of the Bible was absolutely true and literal, we meant that some of it was actually metaphor. But, you know, that stuff about Jesus and the pope's infallibility? Absolutely true and literal.
[some more time passes]
THE CHURCH: OK, remember when we said everything but a bit of it was literally true, and only a small bit metaphor? Well, uh, we meant a lot of it was metaphor. Except that stuff about Jesus, for some reason that is 100% true and literal, even though the track record on eternal truth isn't holding up as well as we thought ..

All explanations use the logic of the person explaining it at the time. Thus, religion is technicly based off of logic. just not today's logic.

I hate stereotypes. I hate it when people think I'm a gun-slinging, gay shoot'n, illogical dumbass nutjob all because I was raised Christian. I don't go around thinking that satanists are baby-eating cultists or that Muslims are terrorists. I don't think blacks are criminals or that Asians are nerdy kung-fu masters. Stereotypes led to Islamic terrorism. Stereotypes led to the holocaust and WWII. Stereotypes led to slavery and the Jim Crow laws. Stereotypes even led to the Japanese internments during WWII. Those are a few examples of bad stereotyping. What good was there. I say that militant Atheism sounds worse, because of the word militant. When I think of militant, I think of violence because militant is similar to military, which is the government organization that kills the enemy to keep the enemy from killing us.

Exactly the ability to adapt and change has brought humans this far and is our greatest achievement. So why believe in an archaic system that is outdated, easily corrupted, and for the most part illogical?

What's the difference between Santa Claus and Heaven? Theological beliefes that use the imagination rather than logic to explain an unknown circumstance.

If you hold death above living then your religion needs to change something...

Exactly. In 1000 years, scientists have learned volumes about creation and the universe. In 1000 years theologions still know exactly what they used to about the existence of god: jack shit.

That reminds me of ..

THE CHURCH: All right, folks, every aspect of the Bible, from Adam and Eve to the Revelations, is absolutely true and literal. Always has been, always will be.
[some time passes]
THE CHURCH: OK, so when we said every aspect of the Bible was absolutely true and literal, we meant that some of it was actually metaphor. But, you know, that stuff about Jesus and the pope's infallibility? Absolutely true and literal.
[some more time passes]
THE CHURCH: OK, remember when we said everything but a bit of it was literally true, and only a small bit metaphor? Well, uh, we meant a lot of it was metaphor. Except that stuff about Jesus, for some reason that is 100% true and literal, even though the track record on eternal truth isn't holding up as well as we thought ..


And you are assuming I believe in the church. All I have to do to be a Christian is to believe Jesus died for me and I am a sinner. Nothing more. I don't have to go to church for believe in their rules.

Enough stereotypes.

Exactly. In 1000 years, scientists have learned volumes about creation and the universe. In 1000 years theologions still know exactly what they used to about the existence of god: jack shit.

And here we have an example of an angry aetheist who refuses to let people have beliefs other than it's own. Really, you do it just to piss people off.
I wouldn't be suprised if aetheists really do plan on gutting all who are Christian someday.

And here we have an example of an angry aetheist who refuses to let people have beliefs other than it's own. Really, you do it just to piss people off.
I wouldn't be suprised if aetheists really do plan on gutting all who are Christian someday.

And here we have an example of a frustrated christian lashing out by throwing out a nice stereotype. Good job.

Atheists do not call out for the destruction of religion, however they recognize the benifits of a logical and modern existance.

woot 3,000 posts :D

And here we have an example of an angry aetheist who refuses to let people have beliefs other than it's own. Really, you do it just to piss people off.
I wouldn't be suprised if aetheists really do plan on gutting all who are Christian someday.
Yet whether you agree or disagree with his wording, you cannot deny his statement is true.
Incidentially, he didn't in any way tell you to change your belief.

And you are assuming I believe in the church. All I have to do to be a Christian is to believe Jesus died for me and I am a sinner. Nothing more. I don't have to go to church for believe in their rules.

Enough stereotypes.


Don't forget that you have to share that faith!!!!

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Also:
11These things command and teach.

And here we have an example of a frustrated christian lashing out by throwing out a nice stereotype. Good job.

Atheists do not call out for the destruction of religion, however they recognize the benifits of a logical and modern existance.

woot 3,000 posts :D

Just giving back what I got. And no, you don't have an example of a frustrated Christian. You have an example of an angry son-of-a-pastor here, who doesn't even go to church.

I dislike having my beliefs attacked just because someone can't believe in something he can't see. Mostly all fundis and aetheists I've met just like to bitch and moan at every damned thing under the sun. I'm a moderate christian and I'm f*cking proud of it. Learn to live with me. I ain't goin' nowhere.

Don't forget that you have to share that faith!!!!

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Also:
11These things command and teach.

I'm a baptist. In my denomination, all we have to do is believe.

Just giving back what I got. And no, you don't have an example of a frustrated Christian. You have an example of an angry son-of-a-pastor here, who doesn't even go to church.

I dislike having my beliefs attacked just because someone can't believe in something he can't see. Mostly all fundis and aetheists I've met just like to bitch and moan at every damned thing under the sun. I'm a moderate christian and I'm f*cking proud of it. Learn to live with me. I ain't goin' nowhere.

True and I can understand that, no one likes having their beliefs drawn into question, but if you don't go to church and simply believe in it then you may have more in common with an aethiest than you know.

I'm an Agnostic Centrist, I'm going anywhere but closer to the middle of the road. I'm happy to see that you're proud of your beliefs.

Yet whether you agree or disagree with his wording, you cannot deny his statement is true.
Incidentially, he didn't in any way tell you to change your belief.

His statement wasn't true, because science has been rewritten so many times that it's never right. At one time we believed that dinosaurs lived with cavemen. At one time, scientists thought the earth was flat.

Why do you live? For science? Sounds kinda boring to me. I'll take my approach. I live life to see how many near perfect moments I can get. That's partly due to being raised a Christian. If I wasn't raised a Christian, I'd have committed suicide in 8th grade. Do aetheists oppose suicide? If so, why?

True and I can understand that, no one likes having their beliefs drawn into question, but if you don't go to church and simply believe in it then you may have more in common with an aethiest than you know.

I'd stay Christian just to say I wasn't an aethist. After all, who wants to do what everyone else is doing? Aetheism is growing. Why do people need me to give up my beliefs, when they've got thousands dropping theirs each day?

And why only attack at christians. I don't see aetheists challenging Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, and agnostics... Nor do I see them attacking Satanism, which IS different.

Satanism, depending on what type of it you follow, is basically you admitting there is a God, but choosing to deny to follow him.

His statement wasn't true, because science has been rewritten so many times that it's never right.
I can't even begin to express how wrong that statement is.

At one time we believed that dinosaurs lived with cavemen.
Scientists never did. The only people who did where religious nutjobs.

His statement wasn't true, because science has been rewritten so many times that it's never right. At one time we believed that dinosaurs lived with cavemen. At one time, scientists thought the earth was flat.

Why do you live? For science? Sounds kinda boring to me. I'll take my approach. I live life to see how many near perfect moments I can get. That's partly due to being raised a Christian. If I wasn't raised a Christian, I'd have committed suicide in 8th grade. Do aetheists oppose suicide? If so, why?

Things that are "written" in science are the laws that haven't been disproven or rewritten since they were created. Rational and logical scientists never thought those things. Religion propogated and heavily enforced "scientific" ideas to back their beliefs. "Flat Earth, Geocentrism, Earth is 10,000 years old."

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the problems go away. I oppose suicide because I view every person as a benifit to society. One of the things I live by is the phrase:

"I'll go to enternal hell to make earth a paradise"

Satanism, depending on what type of it you follow, is basically you admitting there is a God, but choosing to deny to follow him.
You know nothing of Satanism. It is an atheistic system. It only uses Satan as a metaphor. Don't claim to know something when you don't.

Scientists never did. The only people who did where religious nutjobs.

Um, no, before archeology was a mainstream science occupation, we found bones to humans and to dinosaurs. No one had the idea that the lower you go in the ground, the older it was until later.

You're dealing with absolution here. The ONLY people who did? Give me a break.

You know nothing of Satanism. It is an atheistic system. It only uses Satan as a metaphor. Don't claim to know something when you don't.

Dude, you're just trying to pick a fight now. It depends on if you go with LeVay Satanism or one of the other numerous branches of it.

Um, no, before archeology was a mainstream science occupation, we found bones to humans and to dinosaurs. No one had the idea that the lower you go in the ground, the older it was until later.

Archaeology. Archaeology? Archaeology?!

You're just making things up now, aren't you.

Archaeology. Archaeology? Archaeology?!

You're just making things up now, aren't you.

Yeah, archealogy. You know, that science where you study old bones that you dig up?

Dude, you get worked up a lot for someone who's just calling me a liar.

Dude, you're just trying to pick a fight now.
You don't have a good track record with that yourself.

It depends on if you go with LeVay Satanism or one of the other numerous branches of it.
Every other branch of Satanism is dead. Not only are they dead, but they've been dead for years, if they ever even truly existed.

This is a couple steps from a mudslinging contest...

If you disagree there's no need to call the other one ignorant, simply back up your side while disproving the other.

Personally this is an interesting thread and I don't want to see it ruined.

Yeah, archealogy. You know, that science where you study old bones that you dig up?
That isn't archaeology. That's paleontology. There's a damned big difference.

You don't have a good track record with that yourself.


Every other branch of Satanism is dead. Not only are they dead, but they've been dead for years, if they ever even truly existed.


I admit I don't have a good track record on that.

And about every other branch of Satanism being dead. To quote a political figure.... "There you go again..."

More absolutism. Tell me, when did you become omnipitant? I didn't know you knew what every person in the world believed.

I'm laughing at you here, because only fools are positive.

I may not know everything under the sun, but then again, who wants to be a self-righteous know-it-all?

That isn't archaeology. That's paleontology. There's a damned big difference.

Ah darn. Yeah. Sorry. I made a mistake. My mistake.

The reason atheists become angry is because Christians don't want to be left alone and believe--they want to push their beliefs on everyone else by making laws and calling any move that doesn't explicitly support their agenda as an example of the 'heathen liberals persecuting people of faith', as this whole Justice Sunday and Moral Majority/Christian Coalition show. Though, one hastens to add that 'people of faith' means Christians--I doubt one will see any Hindus invited to Justice Sunday.

Seriously, guys--Christians have had it easy since Constantine, and have ardent Christians dominating our government, so let's stop this 'we're so persecuted' act.

His statement wasn't true, because science has been rewritten so many times that it's never right. At one time we believed that dinosaurs lived with cavemen. At one time, scientists thought the earth was flat.

The bit you quoted and objected to was (paraphrasing) "Science have evolved steadily for a 1000 years. Belief have not".
At most you can say that belief have changed somewhat, and mostly have because of science. But that's being pedantic, if you ask me. Maybe his statement isn't 100% accurate, but it pretty much nailed it regardless.

Why do you live? For science? Sounds kinda boring to me. I'll take my approach. I live life to see how many near perfect moments I can get. That's partly due to being raised a Christian. If I wasn't raised a Christian, I'd have committed suicide in 8th grade. Do aetheists oppose suicide? If so, why?
Why I live?! What sort of weird question is that?

Ok, apart from your obvious lack of understanding, we're not that different. I live to be free, to have a positive impact on my surroundings, and to have a good time. Basically, I live for love, laughs, and to make the world a better place for the ones who'll inherit it.

It sounds like you think everyone but Christians are nihilists, am I right? If so, perhaps you should try to get to know some of your fellow humans, because that's incredibly far from reality.

The only thing Atheists have in common, is disbelief in divinity. Nothing else. Personally I think everyone capable of making an informed decision, has as much right to end their life as they have to go on living. I fail to see what gives me the right to prevent some miserable person from ending it all. Though I think it's completely unethical to accept people commiting suicide, if their reason for doing it can be resolved.

But you should not expect any other Atheist to feel the same way. We are a diverse bunch. Some are fascists, some the opposite. Some believe in nature religions & spirits, others don't.

Now, when you say "Fundamentalists", do you mean the extremist Protestant sect that focuses on proselytizing and picketing funerals of homosexuals or those that hold onto fundamental beliefs of the written Word of God and accept it as Truth?

The reason atheists become angry is because Christians don't want to be left alone and believe--they want to push their beliefs on everyone else by making laws and calling any move that doesn't explicitly support their agenda as an example of the 'heathen liberals persecuting people of faith', as this whole Justice Sunday and Moral Majority/Christian Coalition show. Though, one hastens to add that 'people of faith' means Christians--I doubt one will see any Hindus invited to Justice Sunday.

Seriously, guys--Christians have had it easy since Constantine, and have ardent Christians dominating our government, so let's stop this 'we're so persecuted' act.

Really, could have fooled this Christian. I've fought AGAINST making laws against gay marriage, porn, and that stuff. Only think I fight against really is making the Bible illegal to carry into school and abortion after the 5th month.

Neither of those are due to religion either. The Bible is a book, as long as it isn't being taught in class, what's the problem? As for abortion, I think that after the 4th month, it's a living human being, even if it IS inside a woman, and even after that, I give another month.

So I don't see why aetheists have to speak as if we are all the same. That's what angers me. Aetheists seem to see everyone as a group. Not as individuals. Maybe due to the old communist belief in aetheism, but I'm not sure.

But if we want to be "stupid people", why do you care? I have no problem with the aetheist who doesn't try to convert me, just as I believe aetheists should have no problem with Christians who don't try to convert them.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the supernatural. It doesn't define any other aspect of one's life. Religious fundamentalism totally defines a person and governs their life.

Really, could have fooled this Christian. I've fought AGAINST making laws against gay marriage, porn, and that stuff. Only think I fight against really is making the Bible illegal to carry into school and abortion after the 5th month.

Ah, but you are an exception, in that the majority of Christian faiths are quite opposed to those ideas, and most see part of 'being a good christian' as following the precepts of their brand of faith--i.e., being against the above.

Why I live?! What sort of weird question is that?

Just was wondering actually. I have a bad view of the world right now, mostly due to message boards and people (including me) just wanting to bitch and moan about every little thing.

Ok, apart from your obvious lack of understanding, we're not that different. I live to be free, to have a positive impact on my surroundings, and to have a good time. Basically, I live for love, laughs, and to make the world a better place for the ones who'll inherit it.

It sounds like you think everyone but Christians are nihilists, am I right? If so, perhaps you should try to get to know some of your fellow humans, because that's incredibly far from reality.

The only thing Atheists have in common, is disbelief in divinity. Nothing else. Personally I think everyone capable of making an informed decision, has as much right to end their life as they have to go on living. I fail to see what gives me the right to prevent some miserable person from ending it all. Though I think it's completely unethical to accept people commiting suicide, if their reason for doing it can be resolved.

But you should not expect any other Atheist to feel the same way. We are a diverse bunch. Some are fascists, some the opposite. Some believe in nature religions & spirits, others don't.

I just don't see why atheists, like the prudish Christian majority before them, have to be so smug and pompous in their conversion tactics. If that's the way atheists are for the most part, it doesn't strike me as something I want to be. I'm an apathetic person for the most part. I stick to myself. I don't usually force my views on others. I hate it when people do that to me, because I don't do it to them. I'm a private person who believes that peoples' beliefs are their own, and should be respected. When I get attacked just for belonging to a group, I picture the person on the other computer as a Prince Prospero type or a conservative talk show host. I get angry quick as a result. It's not something I have much control over. I see it as a challenge, and when they just keep picking at everything I say, I want to get violent.

I know that there are many divisions in the world, and divisions within those divisions and so-on. One person here has denied that. Saying such things as "there's only 1 form of Satanism" or that "religious wackos" are always to blame. When you hear that that person is an atheist, it doesn't make you have a favorable view of them, just as I believe fundis saying that atheists are evil and immoral makes atheists view Christians in a bad way.

I have no problem with the aetheist who doesn't try to convert me, just as I believe aetheists should have no problem with Christians who don't try to convert them.

I really should consolodate posts.

Anyway, as I said earlier, Christians as a group want to pass laws that affect me even if I am not converted or believe. From an August 1987 press conference:

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush Sr: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Really, could have fooled this Christian. I've fought AGAINST making laws against gay marriage, porn, and that stuff. Only think I fight against really is making the Bible illegal to carry into school and abortion after the 5th month.

Neither of those are due to religion either. The Bible is a book, as long as it isn't being taught in class, what's the problem? As for abortion, I think that after the 4th month, it's a living human being, even if it IS inside a woman, and even after that, I give another month.

So I don't see why aetheists have to speak as if we are all the same. That's what angers me. Aetheists seem to see everyone as a group. Not as individuals. Maybe due to the old communist belief in aetheism, but I'm not sure.

But if we want to be "stupid people", why do you care? I have no problem with the aetheist who doesn't try to convert me, just as I believe aetheists should have no problem with Christians who don't try to convert them.
Mate.. You've made a ton of blanket statements about Atheists. And not even any that are true. What kind of reaction did you expect? Reading your posts here aren't much different than reading how fundies like NR call the lot of us amoral.

If you do not wish to be associated with that crowd, perhaps you should accept that we atheists ARE different. we have no common cultural or ethical background. Bunching us together is no different than stating all humans are exactly alike.

You should also realize that while a statement like "religion stands still" may be offensive to you for some reason, it objectively looks true. If things like that bothers you, you should either explain people why, or perhaps get some very dark sunglasses.

Also, attacking science for being everchanging is completely absurd, and is yet another of the things fundies often uses to attack Atheists. The method doesn't change. Our knowledge grows and we refine & invent tools. Which propels us and our societies forward & teaches us things about the universe we're part of. Attacking that will make people think you're ... Well... Way, way out there.

Really, that stone & glass house thing applies to you just as everyone else

Ah, but you are an exception, in that the majority of Christian faiths are quite opposed to those ideas, and most see part of 'being a good christian' as following the precepts of their brand of faith--i.e., being against the above.

Hmm... Groups that aren't.

Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
United Church of Christ
Episcopal Church
Society of Friends
Disciples of Christ
Metropolitan Community Churches

Headed towards a wider acceptance...

United Methodist Church
Presbyterian Church


Majority, yes.... But that is changing. It's only that the Southern Baptists and the pentacostals have the loudest voices.

I really should consolodate posts.

Anyway, as I said earlier, Christians as a group want to pass laws that affect me even if I am not converted or believe. From an August 1987 press conference:

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush Sr: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

And what do you want me to do about it? Most Christians don't even like me! I'm not a conservative! I was 2 years old when that comment was made! I oppose those types of comments too.

How can y'all expect me to accept that there are many types of aetheists, when you paint ME in with the weirdo fundis?

Nazis, revolutionary communists.


Um... Hitler frequently stated that he was doing GOD's will.

Also, attacking science for being everchanging is completely absurd, and is yet another of the things fundies often uses to attack Atheists. The method doesn't change. Our knowledge grows and we refine & invent tools. Which propels us and our societies forward & teaches us things about the universe we're part of. Attacking that will make people think you're ... Well... Way, way out there.

Actually, my point was that religion has changed just as science has changed.

You do realize that there was originally no concept of hell until the Greeks brought it in? There was originally no heaven either. It was Sheol. Sheol was where everyone went, good or bad.

I'm saying that sure, some denominations (many actually) are behind the times. They take a long time to catch up. But have you even noticed the ones that agree with science 100%, like the United Church of Christ and the Lutheran Church?

This is a two way deal here. If I'm attacked by an atheist, I don't take it well. If I was an atheist, I wouldn't take being attacked by a Christian well. So what's our problem? I'm basically just saying that I want to be able to believe what I want without being called an idiot for doing it. I don't call atheists idiots, so why call me one?

Um... Hitler frequently stated that he was doing GOD's will.

Well, he wasn't exactly a shining example of sanity either.

okay, in my opinion, Christian Fundamentalists are power-crazy or deluded. They're living in a fantasy world.
I haven't heard of a militant atheist. I am an atheist who would no sooner cut off one of my limbs than give my life to Christ.

I'd stay Christian just to say I wasn't an aethist. After all, who wants to do what everyone else is doing? Aetheism is growing. Why do people need me to give up my beliefs, when they've got thousands dropping theirs each day?

And why only attack at christians. I don't see aetheists challenging Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, and agnostics... Nor do I see them attacking Satanism, which IS different.

Satanism, depending on what type of it you follow, is basically you admitting there is a God, but choosing to deny to follow him.
Actually, I think you have the roles reversed. Atheists are a minority, and have universally been trampled on throughout history (no, not by the damn commies).

And we still are. We may form a majority on this forum, but that doesn't reflect our societies at all. The entire western world shares a common Christian culture, and many places athesists are still regarded as social pariahs. That Atheists have become plentiful enuff to start challenging this, may seem like an attack to you, but if that's the case, perhaps you need to try looking a bit more objectively on it. It's not an attack, it's self defence. I can somewhat understand it may be unpleasant for the oppression to be put in it's place, but I hope you can appreciate it's not about the beliefs of Christians, as much as it's about the right not to be drowned in that religion.

The reason why you don't see Atheists attack Islam or Muslims, is that in the countries where that's the prevailing religion, any dissidents will be in for a world of hurt. So most people just pretend they aren't atheists there.

Hindus again is a different case. They have no problem with Atheism (in general), so there's no grounds for animosity. Compare it with racist segregation vs. no segregation. When there is none, there's nothing to bitch about. When there is segregation, all the people of the wrong colour are miserable. Maybe your Christian sociaty could learn something from the Hindu's about religious (and non-religious) tolerance.

The great conspiracy to turn all Christians into atheists, is not real. Noone really cares what your personal beliefs are, or whether you go to church or not. PEople only start giving a damn when you do something that conflicts with what they're doing. If your church condemns homo's and says men shouldn't be allowed to kiss in public, well then people will fight back. It's really rather simple.
Christianity (and the other monotheisms) seem to be the only ones who have a problem with letting people mind their own business. Not implying the Christians themselves are like that, but the institution is.

okay, in my opinion, Christian Fundamentalists are power-crazy or deluded. They're living in a fantasy world.
I haven't heard of a militant atheist. I am an atheist who would no sooner cut off one of my limbs than give my life to Christ.

Sweet. I'm a Christian, but not a fundi. Nice to know ya. Lets do lunch sometime.

Well, he wasn't exactly a shining example of sanity either.
yeah, i know seriously. that guy should take a chill pill

Sweet. I'm a Christian, but not a fundi. Nice to know ya. Lets do lunch sometime.
okay, sure.

yeah, i can't find uginin's stupid quote about satanism,
but satanism is a religion that does not condemn any kind of god, but rather believes that people are they're own gods, and should make their own decisions.

uginin
no offense, but u kinda sound like a fundi 2 me.

explain why ur not.

Actually, I think you have the roles reversed. Atheists are a minority, and have universally been trampled on throughout history (no, not by the damn commies).
Um, actually, I know you aren't a majority. I mean that sometime soon you will be. The internet is basically an aetheist majority, and message boards convert people every day to aetheism.

Maybe your Christian sociaty could learn something from the Hindu's about religious (and non-religious) tolerance. MY Christian society? You're lumping us all together? Did you not read where I put that some denominations are moving towards acceptance in great strides? And those are some big denominations too. There is no big Christian society just like you put it to me that there is no great atheist society. I conceed to that. But why do insist that I'm a part of all of this oppressive claptrap?

The great conspiracy to turn all Christians into atheists, is not real. Noone really cares what your personal beliefs are, or whether you go to church or not. PEople only start giving a damn when you do something that conflicts with what they're doing. If your church condemns homo's and says men shouldn't be allowed to kiss in public, well then people will fight back. It's really rather simple.
Christianity (and the other monotheisms) seem to be the only ones who have a problem with letting people mind their own business. Not implying the Christians themselves are like that, but the institution is.

The institution is called the Church. I don't believe in organized religion for the most part. I find it rude and insulting. Also, are you telling me that there are no people in the whole world who are atheist and dislike gays? I'm sure there are.

What this all comes down to is not really religion I think, but is more deep setted... in political theory.

I'm a moderate with libertarian leanings. Most see Christians as hardline conservatives and atheists as hardline liberals. That's the fault. We all are different, and grouping people in this way is faulty. But what can we do, eh?

uginin
no offense, but u kinda sound like a fundi 2 me.

explain why ur not.

I'm a supporter of gay marriage, I don't go to church regularly, I look at porn a lot, my best friend is a agnostic, I don't find the Bible to be inerrant, I'm a moderate politically, I dispise Pat Robertson, and I am pretty much a pervert.

I can go farther if you need me to.

Well sir, since I am a fundamentalist Christian I would have to say that athiests as a whole are not bad folks but the militant ones (I'd describe them as the ones who constantly mock people of faith and tell people of faith they are wrong) are nasty business. Surely they all are loved by God but personally I'd avoid them if I could because I have my proof God exists and loves. :)

Well sir, since I am a fundamentalist Christian I would have to say that athiests as a whole are not bad folks but the militant ones (I'd describe them as the ones who constantly mock people of faith and tell people of faith they are wrong) are nasty business. Surely they all are loved by God but personally I'd avoid them if I could because I have my proof God exists and loves. :)

Yeah, maybe if this board would work on taking people as individuals instead of groups we'd be better off, but that's not how we were brought up. Everything has to be easily catagorized.

Maybe Christian loonies are more rare than I thought. Still it would be nice to see here who does and does not support Pat Robertson's agenda who calls themself a Christian and lives in america. As it seems to me other nations such as the UK, France, Germany, etc are not as threatened by the right wing loonies as America is.

To me it seems a little less than half and half

To me it seems that most of those who voted for Bush voted for Bush becuase he is a religous nutcase and most of those who voted for carry voted for Kerry becuase Bush is a religous nutcase.

Than again I could be wrong.

Maybe your Christian sociaty could learn something from the Hindu's about religious (and non-religious) tolerance.
MY Christian society? You're lumping us all together? Did you not read where I put that some denominations are moving towards acceptance in great strides? And those are some big denominations too. There is no big Christian society just like you put it to me that there is no great atheist society. I conceed to that. But why do insist that I'm a part of all of this oppressive claptrap?

Actually, I answered before I saw that post. Anyway, if you're from some random country on the western hemisphere of planet Earth, there's every chance you're in a 'Big Christian Society'. Doubly so if you're American (which you are, right?). Christianity is our cultural heritage in these parts, and while I don't have a problem with that, I see no reason why we shouldn't act accordingly, and make room for the people who actually inhabit our societies, instead of just Christians. American Muslims don't feel challenged or attacked by Atheism. They don't because Islam isn't institutionalised througout your society. On the contrary, they too have to put up with a lot of abuse from the dominat religion.

I didn't mean to imply you partake in any form of discrimination. You say you don't, so I'll assume you don't. I didn't say all of Christianity or any average Christian actively do anything to prevent Atheists from living free from prejudice. As I remember, I explicitly stated that isn't nessecarily the case at all.
It's the social structure/culture that does those things (and the fundies), not the religion in itself.

Of course, any change will easily feel as an attack on your religion, because it is an attack on the way the institutions work in the society. The important thing to note is that it isn't an attack on you or your religion. It's only an attack on your institution's role in society.




The great conspiracy to turn all Christians into atheists, is not real. Noone really cares what your personal beliefs are, or whether you go to church or not. PEople only start giving a damn when you do something that conflicts with what they're doing. If your church condemns homo's and says men shouldn't be allowed to kiss in public, well then people will fight back. It's really rather simple.
Christianity (and the other monotheisms) seem to be the only ones who have a problem with letting people mind their own business. Not implying the Christians themselves are like that, but the institution is.


The institution is called the Church. I don't believe in organized religion for the most part. I find it rude and insulting. Also, are you telling me that there are no people in the whole world who are atheist and dislike gays? I'm sure there are.

What this all comes down to is not really religion I think, but is more deep setted... in political theory.

I'm a moderate with libertarian leanings. Most see Christians as hardline conservatives and atheists as hardline liberals. That's the fault. We all are different, and grouping people in this way is faulty. But what can we do, eh?

The homo example was just an example. When a Christian gay is ostricised by his own religion, I bet he feels pissed off too. Likewise, I know for a fact that a number of Atheists in these parts have a major problem with both homos & forigners. However, it's irellevant to what I was saying.

The example was to demonstrate that your religion as a whole, regularly attacks the basic rights & fredoms of tons of people. Atheism is just another one of the things that gets trampled, only the atheists are getting numerous enuff to do something about it.

I'm sure you're right about the underlying political motivation. The church is often the bastion of rightwingers, just like Atheism often is for leftwingers. So politics are hard to keep out of it. Objectively speaking though, atheist initivs against Christian public practices & the like, have nothing to do with politics, it's only about making room for all of us, isntead of just some of us.

Maybe Christian loonies are more rare than I thought. Still it would be nice to see here who does and does not support Pat Robertson's agenda who calls themself a Christian and lives in america. As it seems to me other nations such as the UK, France, Germany, etc are not as threatened by the right wing loonies as America is.

Ah, but you're not entirely right. The rightwing over here aren't quite as extreme as the American one. And unlike in the US, noone wants religion mixed up in politics. Even the organised religions here think secular politics is a good idea.
We have religious extremists too, but they can't really get a say in politics anywhere, because people avoid them like the plaugue.

To me it seems a little less than half and half

To me it seems that most of those who voted for Bush voted for Bush becuase he is a religous nutcase and most of those who voted for carry voted for Kerry becuase Bush is a religous nutcase.

Than again I could be wrong.
Interesting conclusion... I wonder how many really voted for that reason?

His statement wasn't true, because science has been rewritten so many times that it's never right. At one time we believed that dinosaurs lived with cavemen. At one time, scientists thought the earth was flat.

Why do you live? For science? Sounds kinda boring to me. I'll take my approach. I live life to see how many near perfect moments I can get. That's partly due to being raised a Christian. If I wasn't raised a Christian, I'd have committed suicide in 8th grade. Do aetheists oppose suicide? If so, why?

First of all, it's Atheist, not aetheist (aetheist is not a word).

Concerning your question on suicide, that is similar to the question asked by the character of Saotome in the anime Boogiepop Phantom. He discovers a dead rabbit, probably killed by a cat. He then asks his friend Moto, "Why do they bother to live, their just going to die anyway?" Moto later asks the same question of humanity.

We humans are conscious beings in a nonconscious nihilistic universe. Our existence is absurd. The question of why we should not kill ourselves is asked in the short essay The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus. I suggest you read it.

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/sisyphus.htm


If I wasn't raised a Christian, I'd have committed suicide in 8th grade.


I myself have considered suicide on several occasions and even went so far as to determine the least painful way to go about it (bleeding ones self in the bath tub). I however did not kill myself nor after thinking about it do I intend to. Concerning Saotome's and Moto's question, I have my own answer, "Why hasten an outcome that is already inevitable". We are all going to die and cease to exist anyway, why not give life a chance and throw the dice? Just because the only purpose and meaning in life is that which we conscious being create for ourselves, that does not mean we should reject it.

One of my objections to religion is that it is ultimately nihilistic. In rejecting the real world around us and physical existence along with it, religion results in an apathy toward life and a poisoning of the human being. It is the will to nothingness. It is living this life for a nonexistent afterlife, becoming less of an individual, suppressing ones happieness and imposing similar views upon others (thus ruining their chances to get all they can out of life).

That is one of my objections...

The example was to demonstrate that your religion as a whole, regularly attacks the basic rights & fredoms of tons of people. Atheism is just another one of the things that gets trampled, only the atheists are getting numerous enuff to do something about it.

I'm sure you're right about the underlying political motivation. The church is often the bastion of rightwingers, just like Atheism often is for leftwingers. So politics are hard to keep out of it. Objectively speaking though, atheist initivs against Christian public practices & the like, have nothing to do with politics, it's only about making room for all of us, isntead of just some of us.

But it ISN'T my religion as a whole. It's the generation. There was a poll done last year or so for middle school christians. They are a much more tolerant bunch than baby boomer born-agains are. Most agreed with sex before marriage and half agreed with gay marriage. It's just that the Victorian era Christians were heavily into abolition and protest. Before then it was going out a bit and most were apathetic. The Victorian time brought in this new ferver, and it's been here ever since. But religion isn't the same as the church. The church is the organization, whereas religion is the belief system.

It's like I'm sitting here with people saying that I'm with those mean intolerant people, and those people saying I'm a heathen and immoral. What do you all want from me? Leave me alone people! I ain't done nothing to you.

Amestria']
One of my objections to religion is that it is ultimately nihilistic. In rejecting the real world around us and physical existence along with it, religion results in an apathy toward life and a poisoning of the human being. It is the will to nothingness. It is living this life for a nonexistent afterlife, becoming less of an individual, suppressing ones happieness and imposing similar views upon others (thus ruining their chances to get all they can out of life).

That is one of my objections...

You made an assumption. An assumption that your life has to be based on every single piece of scripture or something.

The ultimate reason I didn't commit suicide was not the thought of going to hell. It was my biggest wish. I want to have a son. Yeah, sounds weird for that to be someone in 8th grade's wish, but I never had a little brother, and it was too late by then, and so I wanted a son later on in life. It's what I live for now, and I guess you could equate god reasoning with me with being my conscience, and that's fine. I was having a verbal exchange in my head, and I sort of made a deal with my concience/god.

I don't live my life sinlessly. It's impossible to do so. I watch porn, I curse, I have thoughts of sex with random people I pass by...

I live life to see how many next to perfect moments I can have. So far my best were watching Almost Famous and Dazed and Confused for the first time.

i wonder if a point should be made to refer to christians who cannot spell 'atheist' as 'christains'

i wonder if a point should be made to refer to christians who cannot spell 'atheist' as 'christains'

I corrected my spelling in the middle of the last page. Do you guys not have lives and have to pick at every damned little thing?

If message boards cause that, then I can't imagine anyone wanting to be alive in 20 years when people do that IRL.

But it ISN'T my religion as a whole. It's the generation. There was a poll done last year or so for middle school christians. They are a much more tolerant bunch than baby boomer born-agains are. Most agreed with sex before marriage and half agreed with gay marriage. It's just that the Victorian era Christians were heavily into abolition and protest. Before then it was going out a bit and most were apathetic. The Victorian time brought in this new ferver, and it's been here ever since. But religion isn't the same as the church. The church is the organization, whereas religion is the belief system.

It's like I'm sitting here with people saying that I'm with those mean intolerant people, and those people saying I'm a heathen and immoral. What do you all want from me? Leave me alone people! I ain't done nothing to you.
How do this contradict what I wrote?
Summing up...
Religion: I think it's silly, but it's none of my concern.
Religious people: Don't give a toss, unless they try to tell me how to live.
Institionalized religion, penetrating all of society: A major pain, as it prevents various minorities from doing what they want.

Seems to me like we agree. So what do you complain about?

Seems to me like we agree. So what do you complain about?

Happens when you have insomnia and have been up 48 hours... Plus, I wasn't continuing the arguement. I was clarifying. Trying to make sure you understood what I was saying, because as you can see, I'm not very good at communicating.

Trying to make sure you understood what I was saying, because as you can see, I'm not very good at communicating.

Urge...to..quote...war movie....too..greeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaat!

Happens when you have insomnia and have been up 48 hours... Plus, I wasn't continuing the arguement. I was clarifying. Trying to make sure you understood what I was saying, because as you can see, I'm not very good at communicating.
Oh.. Well me too (only 30-some though) & me either, in that order. Good luck falling asleep.

Urge...to..quote...war movie....too..greeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaat!

Well, as long as it isn't "What is your major malfunction numbnuts?!?!", do it.

Good luck falling asleep.

Thanks. Maybe I'll watch Annie Hall, and then I can.

You made an assumption. An assumption that your life has to be based on every single piece of scripture or something.


No I attacked that assumption (and all the literalists/dominationists who hold it). I simply am pointing out that one does not have to base ones life on the scriptures what-so-ever. It's perfectly alright if you disagree with me, Atheists don't convert people...


The ultimate reason I didn't commit suicide was not the thought of going to hell. It was my biggest wish. I want to have a son. Yeah, sounds weird for that to be someone in 8th grade's wish, but I never had a little brother, and it was too late by then, and so I wanted a son later on in life. It's what I live for now, and I guess you could equate god reasoning with me with being my conscience, and that's fine. I was having a verbal exchange in my head, and I sort of made a deal with my concience/god.



Thats not weird, I myself want to get married and have a daughter, continuing my family (among other things). It is quite natural...


I don't live my life sinlessly. It's impossible to do so. I watch porn, I curse, I have thoughts of sex with random people I pass by...

I live life to see how many next to perfect moments I can have. So far my best were watching Almost Famous and Dazed and Confused for the first time.

Some advice, sin does not exist. You will lead a more full-filling life if you throw aside that out-dated concept...

Amestria']Some advice, sin does not exist. You will lead a more full-filling life if you throw aside that out-dated concept...

I thought you said atheists don't convert people...

And why does it matter if I believe in sin or not when I don't really care about it?

I don't want a fulfilling life. I want to run my life my way, without people giving me suggestions as to how to live it.

I've yet to hear of a pagan fundie nor a hindu one you've roused my curiosity could you list some examples

In India there is the BJP party, founded on the principles of Hindu Nationalism. It was founded and controled by a group of religous fundamentalists whose stated goal is "Hinduizing" India. This party and it's affiliates (India's a multi-party Democracy) have encoraged and even assisted in the massacre of thousands of innocent Muslim men, women, and children and the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands from their neighborhoods and towns in the state of Gujarat in 2002. They (during their time in power) led India to the brink of war with Pakistan three times (such a war would certainly have resulted in the use of Nuclear weapons). Hindu pressure groups are also responsible for some of their insane laws, like those which hold the monkey and cow up as sacred animals (no one can hurt them, which is why cows block roads and monkeys swarm the capital building).

Thank goodness the Congress Party and the Communists are back in power. Stability, peace and secularism have been restored.


Because Paganism is polytheistic, whenever they came into conflict with a differing set of gods, they could simply be assorbed into the pantheon without much difficulty. Thus instances of intolerence and religous conflict where less overt. Still, in the Classical world the gods of the City (greece), Empire (Rome), or tribe (barbarians) were the gods of the State. Not worshipping or dishonoring the gods was believed to weaken the State and was thus punished harshly, as many Atheists, sceptics, and Monotheists found out the hard way (primarly during the later periods of the Roman Empire, when the Empires decline was blamed upon losing the favor of the gods).

The Pagans of old are not to be confused with todays Neo-Pagan's, which primarly are proggressive, varied and peaceful (I'm sure theres at least one wacked out group among them, there always is, but if there indeed is it is so small as to escape notice).

Extremist Christians (or people of any religion, I won't say 'fundamentalist', since it's misleading) and Extremist (read: Militant) Atheists are both nutjobs of the highest, and equal, calibre.

Niether are respectful to anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow view of the world, and both make a habit of trying to "shove their beliefs down your throat".

Extremist Christians (I'll use them as an example, since they're pretty prevalent in Western society), will, if you do not share their beliefs, tell you that you are going to hell, are 'evil' and 'corrupt' for not sharing their beliefs, and will generally make of point of being an ass to you. All whether you asked them their opinion or not.

Extremist Atheists will make a point of mocking anyone who is religious, who doesn't conform to their narrow view of what 'Atheism' should be, will tell you are 'blind' or 'stupid' for having faith, condemn religon for being responsible for all the evils of the world and generally make asses of themselves. Also whether you actually asked them their opinion or not.

They both suck and their sucktitude is only matched by the sucktitude of the other.

I thought you said atheists don't convert people...


We don't, we just point out the truth of the physical world and leave the individual to decide for himself/herself (the individual is after all the moral center of the universe). In the meantime we go about attempting to build a better human existence and move our society forward...


And why does it matter if I believe in sin or not when I don't really care about it?


Thats for you to decide?


I don't want a fulfilling life. I want to run my life my way, without people giving me suggestions as to how to live it.

One will never escape suggestions (nothing wrong with suggesting, its telling people how to live their lives which is at the root of most problems). When I said full-filling life, I meant a life that was happy, joyous and free. Sounds like we both want that (for ourselves and everyone else), we just disagree on the means. To each his own... :D

Is that so? Where exactly is the indication, in the collective knowledge of mankind, that there might be something divine at work?
Also, do you think Atheists would disbeliefe divinity, if there was just the slightest indication there might be something divine out there? If you do, please explain exactly how you arrived at that conclusion.
>>The lack of evidence is not a disproval. There is no evidence to conclude that there is such a thing as a Unified Feild Theory. This does not disprove it's possibility. To say that the lack of evidence of the divine disproves the possibility of the divine is an act of faith.

An awful lot is known to us humans. For example, while we don't positively know how life came about, we do have plenty of explanations that doesn't require god. As per common sense, it's not plausible to think something divine is at work, if it doesn't need to be there, and we don't have any reason to suspect it is there.
We know no kind of all-encompassing observations can be made, since we've found out that observing a system makes you a part of the system, and thus changes how it unfolds. That kind of knowledge is a pretty good argument for not believing in the divine. Truely, if something divine really did exist, it couldn't possibly be anything like what human religions describe.
There just isn't much room for the divine in this universe. Nor is there any reason to think there is anything divine.
>>I an willing to bet my life, my soul, and the woman I hold dear that the quantity of information humanity does not possess is much larger than the ammount they do possess. This leaves the possibility of a divine rather high. At what point did I claim that any particular religion could identify it?

Unless you think human emotion, fantasy, and old moral tales are somehow more credible than actual observation of the universe you inhabit.
>>I never made that claim.

Believing, or even entertaining the notion, of the divine, seems like wishful thinking to me. There's no reasonable argument for not being an Atheist. And that's why I am one. I have nothing against the concept of divinity, but outside the world of fiction, I fail to see how it can ever be relevant or applicable to anything.
>>There is no reasonablle argument for being an atheist either. That's why I am agnostic.

What? No really, what? How can one be a commited Atheist (I assume you're not talking about mental patients?)?
I'll pretend you're talking about me for a moment. How exactly do I live in a world of blind faith? I'm not the one entertaining fantastical ideas of magical entities, though I know there's no reason to do so.
The bit about unproven assumptions I can't even comprehend. Are you saying it's somehow possible to prove anything regarding the divine?

...If so, then why the FUCK haven't you told the world sooner?! Just imagine all the silly religious squabbles you could've settled! All the lives you'd save!
>>You live in a state of blind faith in that you claimyou can prove a negative due to the mere lack of positive evidence. If it was suggested to Galleleo that there was a moon Charon scircling the planet Pluto I am sure he would deny htat there was evidence. Being a rational intellegent being I would hope that he was humble enough to admit that he could not prove there was not. So you on an act of FAITH claim that becausesomething is unproven it is therefore impossible. That is faith.

Christian fundamentalists are worse, because they seek to impose their morals on others and thereby restrict civil rights. Militant atheists usually want more civil liberties and freedom from oppression.


So, when an atheist decides that my child can't sing a "religious" song or quote a scripture in class, is that imposing his will on my child and restricting my child's civil liberties, or not?

I will tell you that I am a conservative Christian, not a "fundamentalist" in the sense brought about by Fallwell and Robertson (whom I wish would find other religions to give a bad name). I believe the Bible to be true and fact. I don't believe I can legislate your morality, any more than I believe you should be able to legislate my religion (which by the way is what the 1st ammendment really meant, ie, keep government out of religion and religion out of government).

So, when an atheist decides that my child can't sing a "religious" song or quote a scripture in class, is that imposing his will on my child and restricting my child's civil liberties, or not?


Your child is free to quote the scriptures and sing "religious songs" in church, at home, in the car, in the park, and just about everywhere else under the sun... Publically funded schools should be free of religous content outside of History and Philosophy classes. I don't want my tax money going towards indoctrination and the promotion of conflict (whenever religion is entered into the picture in a non-objective way it is sure to piss people off). This applies not only to Christians but to Hindus, Buddhists, Neo-Pagans, Jews, Muslems, est.

Amestria']Your child is free to quote the scriptures and sing "religious songs" in church, at home, in the car, in the park, and just about everywhere else under the sun... Publically funded schools should be free of religous content outside of History and Philosophy classes. I don't want my tax money going towards indoctrination and the promotion of conflict (whenever religion is entered into the picture in a non-objective way it is sure to piss people off). This applies not only to Christians but to Hindus, Buddhists, Neo-Pagans, Jews, Muslems, est.


So by the same token, it would then be also wrong for a child to publicly debunk religion in school too? Such as when another child tells mine that all Christians are idiots, and religion is stupid. Should that child be punished for expressing anti-social behavior?

Amestria']Your child is free to quote the scriptures and sing "religious songs" in church, at home, in the car, in the park, and just about everywhere else under the sun... Publically funded schools should be free of religous content outside of History and Philosophy classes. I don't want my tax money going towards indoctrination and the promotion of conflict (whenever religion is entered into the picture in a non-objective way it is sure to piss people off). This applies not only to Christians but to Hindus, Buddhists, Neo-Pagans, Jews, Muslems, est.

I wonder though, does it apply to children raised as Atheists as well? I'm not an expert on the American public school system, so I'm not certain.

Are 'atheist kids' prevented from singing 'anti-religion' songs (they do exist, though they're mostly modern songs)? Are they prevented from standing up in class and saying "your scripture is wrong, there is no god"? Are teachers prevented from preaching science over religion (ie, "There is no god, science has found no evidence," etc. etc.) or are they told to stay away from religion altogether (unless in a History of Philosophy class, as you said)?

Not endorsing either way, I'm just curious as to how it works over there.

I must say, Im not quite sure If Ive ever met a truly "militant" athiest, but Ive met some unyielding ones.
Im biased, I suppose, but the Fundementalist Christian is far worse.

The Fundie thinks that not only are his beliefs better than yours, but that everyone would benefit from his Gods laws and wishes.
This is why they hate abortion..becuase thier God seems to be against it, and therefore, you shouldnt do it, regardless of wether you give a whit about thier God or not.

Thats pretty much intolerability right there.

I may not believe in God, but Im not about to demand that you dont either.
Converting someone to athiesm doesnt happen, the most I ever try to achieve, is making the christian see other points of view, in regards to thier own religion, and maybe get them to look outside thier own dogma.

Its not easy, since sadly, most christians dont know how to do that.

So by the same token, it would then be also wrong for a child to publicly debunk religion in school too? Such as when another child tells mine that all Christians are idiots, and religion is stupid. Should that child be punished for expressing anti-social behavior?

Details, details? What was the context? Was it in class or during free-time? If in class, what was the class studing? How did religion come up in the conversation?

I wonder though, does it apply to children raised as Atheists as well? I'm not an expert on the American public school system, so I'm not certain.

Are 'atheist kids' prevented from singing 'anti-religion' songs (they do exist, though they're mostly modern songs)? Are they prevented from standing up in class and saying "your scripture is wrong, there is no god"? Are teachers prevented from preaching science over religion (ie, "There is no god, science has found no evidence," etc. etc.) or are they told to stay away from religion altogether (unless in a History of Philosophy class, as you said)?

Not endorsing either way, I'm just curious as to how it works over there.


I dont think Ive ever heard a kid sing an anti-religious song in school.
If one were to..Im sure any teacher, would ask them to stop for risk of offending anyone.

I cant think of too many songs like that, that would be sung in a classroom anyway.

Well, as long as it isn't "What is your major malfunction numbnuts?!?!", do it.

Actually, it was "what we have here is a failure to communicate."

That's what I was getting at, really. You say that a Christian can NEVER sing a religious song or quote scripture at school since that would be a violation of the separation of church and state but the minute a reverse example is given showing outright anti religious behavior details details

That's what I was getting at, really. You say that a Christian can NEVER sing a religious song or quote scripture at school since that would be a violation of the separation of church and state but the minute a reverse example is given showing outright anti religious behavior details details


Well...if you think about it, Christmas songs are sung all the time in America in schools every year...when was the last time you ever heard an "athiest" song in a school?

I dont think Ive ever heard a kid sing an anti-religious song in school.
If one were to..Im sure any teacher, would ask them to stop for risk of offending anyone.

I cant think of too many songs like that, that would be sung in a classroom anyway.

True enough, but then, I can't think of any religious songs that would be sung in a classrom outside of a religious school. Public schools are usually too varied in the religions of their students. But perhaps that's because those songs aren't permitted to be sung in public schools (and I only attended public schools, here in Australia,)

Also, what about time outside of class? I've heard (don't know about the veracity, though) of students being prevented from expressing their religion in school over in the States, even outside of class (like getting together at lunch time and having a little choir session). Does that happen?

I wonder though, does it apply to children raised as Atheists as well? I'm not an expert on the American public school system, so I'm not certain.

Are 'atheist kids' prevented from singing 'anti-religion' songs (they do exist, though they're mostly modern songs)? Are they prevented from standing up in class and saying "your scripture is wrong, there is no god"? Are teachers prevented from preaching science over religion (ie, "There is no god, science has found no evidence," etc. etc.) or are they told to stay away from religion altogether (unless in a History of Philosophy class, as you said)?

Not endorsing either way, I'm just curious as to how it works over there.

(I assume were talking about high school)

In Science class the teachers teach science, nothing else.

In classes that it is not relevent it should not come up.

In history/philosophy the issue of religion is relevent. For example there was an essay and debate on the role of religion in human development (everyone got to express their opinons in a worthwile exorcise). Religion also indirectly came up in a discussion on the origions of human rights (whether god decreeded them or not).

Concerning free time (when the school is not being used as a school) the students are free to discuss matters privately and hold American Atheist meetings or a Bible studies (what-ever).

Personally I think chrstian fundamentalists are worse, simply because they don't think for themselves, they are controlled by the church(priests, popes, etc ). Whereas atheists (or militant atheists such as myself) have no one to tell them what to do, they are not a movement in the traditional sense, what makes them more harmless.
Any religious fundamentalists can be extremely dangerous (see: every religious war) And yes, that does include buddhists

True enough, but then, I can't think of any religious songs that would be sung in a classrom outside of a religious school. Public schools are usually too varied in the religions of their students. But perhaps that's because those songs aren't permitted to be sung in public schools (and I only attended public schools, here in Australia,)

Lots o christmas songs have Jesus in them.

Also, what about time outside of class? I've heard (don't know about the veracity, though) of students being prevented from expressing their religion in school over in the States, even outside of class (like getting together at lunch time and having a little choir session). Does that happen?

Once in a while, and its usually a clique of people who all might go to the same church or something.
As long as they dont bother anyone, no one seems to care.

However, students are not told they must pray in public schools.
If students wish to pray in class, they are required to do it silently, and to themselves.
Again, the "whatever..as long as your not bothering anyone" rule applies.

OK - I apologise now for jumping in without reading all 10 pages, so if this point has already been made then sorry for the duplication.

I consider myself a Christian Fundamentalist because I hold to fundamental beliefs about Christianity. In the past, being a fundamentalist was seen as a good thing. Maybe there's a difference between US and UK definitions here. (I'm a Brit.)

However, I am not a militant Christian. Militant means "A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party." Being aggressive really doesn't seem to tie in with a fundamental Christian faith to me. I get the impression you are all confusing fundamentalist Christians with militant Christians, which I personally find offensive. The assumption in the few posts I have read is that all fundamentalists are wacko's who go round beating up on others for not agreeing. That's just a plain ignorant assumption. It's perfectly possible, and i would argue more common, to find fundamentalist Christians who don't feel the need to beat other people over the head all the time. You've all got brains, you can all make your own minds up.

So if your question had been 'militant Christians or militant atheists?', then I'd have said they're both as bad as each other. But since you asked the one you did, then I consider militant anythings worse than fundamentalist anythings.

That's what I was getting at, really. You say that a Christian can NEVER sing a religious song or quote scripture at school since that would be a violation of the separation of church and state but the minute a reverse example is given showing outright anti religious behavior details details

Look when I was in High School (a while ago) I was told between classes by a fellow student that "God was coming". I laughed it off and thought nothing more, you don't see me crying discrimination over a little interaction!

The issue is preventing religion from becoming entangled in classes which it does not belong, interfering with the functioning of the school, and creating a defacto religous establishment (by say a majority of the students preaching Christianity or Islam or the Church of SubGenius)...

Lots o christmas songs have Jesus in them.


Good point. I didn't remember those. They were never sung in my school, though. There were Christmas services where the class would go to one of the local churches for the morning, and they would be sung there, but there was never any obligation to go. I personally, always declined the excursion and stayed at school doing nothing (and good times they were too)


Once in a while, and its usually a clique of people who all might go to the same church or something.
As long as they dont bother anyone, no one seems to care.

However, students are not told they must pray in public schools.
If students wish to pray in class, they are required to do it silently, and to themselves.
Again, the "whatever..as long as your not bothering anyone" rule applies.

Sounds good to me.

Personally I think chrstian fundamentalists are worse, simply because they don't think for themselves

No, not true. I think for myself all the time and have the beliefs I have because I've thought about it, not because someone else has told me to. Please stop making such massive and inaccurate generalisations.

Again, the "whatever..as long as your not bothering anyone" rule applies.

Exactly :D

No, not true. I think for myself all the time and have the beliefs I have because I've thought about it, not because someone else has told me to. Please stop making such massive and inaccurate generalisations.


were you raised as a christian?

You know, an Athiest who rants on about how Religion is a mental illness and all that stuff.

Ahh, like Sigmund Freud. Gotcha.

I definitely prefer him to any religious fundamentalist I have ever met.

Amestria']Exactly :D


So..given that...

Its unfortunate that some christians arent willing to return the sentiment.
I have heard of occasions when a parent is upset becuase thier child wasnt allowed to hand out religious tracts at school, and complained that this action infringed on thier beliefs.

Amestria'](I assume were talking about high school)

In Science class the teachers teach science, nothing else.

In classes that it is not relevent it should not come up.

In history/philosophy the issue of religion is relevent. For example there was an essay and debate on the role of religion in human development (everyone got to express their opinons in a worthwile exorcise). Religion also indirectly came up in a discussion on the origions of human rights (whether god decreeded them or not).

Concerning free time (when the school is not being used as a school) the students are free to discuss matters privately and hold American Atheist meetings or a Bible studies (what-ever).

All sounds good to me, then.

I remember that one of my high school science teachers occasionally went on tirades about God not existing, faith being irrational and all that. I found myself having to side with the vocal Christian students (how THAT pained me at the time) in complaining about it. Science classes are no place for religion, whether teaching it (as some of the more hard-line Christian elements in the US seem to want) or teaching that it is 'wrong'.

Yes I was, but... (anything I say after this point will be irrelevant to most people as they'll just jump up and down and go 'see! see! you were brainwashed and indoctrinated :rolleyes: )

... I would describe it more as 'raised by Christians'. My parents never forced me to go to church, never forced me to believe in God, and always encouraged me to think for myself. When I made a commitment as a Christian it was because I had thought long and hard about it and accepted Christianity as true.

I had long and plentiful discussion with atheists, agnostics and people of other religions while at university, and live and work in an environment with very few other Christians in it. There have been many times when I have assessed my beliefs and reconsidered them, and there have been many more times when I have been challenged to do so and found that my beliefs stand up perfectly well thank you. My faith continually develops as I learn more and experience more, but the fundamentals stay the same - hence fundamentalist.

A committed atheist lives in a world of blind faith more virulent than any religious person who merely accepts a handful of unproven assumtions.

I don't see how that can be possible, since the atheist lives with only one unproven conclusion: God does not exist.

Moreover, while the atheist's conclusion is unproven, in the strict sense of the word, he/she seems to be very reasonable in refusing to believe in something for which there is utterly no evidence.

The average religious person also seems to be very reasonable in choosing to believe in something for which there is no countervailing evidence, but the characteristics of which are, for lack of evidence, rather obscure. That is, the today's religious individual believes in God, but refuses to be especially particular about the details of this God that human knowledge cannot know.

The religious fundamentalist, on the other hand, not only chooses to believe that God exists, but also that a set of ancient books pretty much nail down the characteristics of God, what he does and does not want, and the precise details of his actions in human creation (even when these directly contradict with scientific evidence).

I have yet to meet an unreasonable atheist, and I know a great many religious people who are quite reasonable in their beliefs.

But religious fundamentalism is a very dangerous sort of nonsense.

All sounds good to me, then.

I remember that one of my high school science teachers occasionally went on tirades about God not existing, faith being irrational and all that. I found myself having to side with the vocal Christian students (how THAT pained me at the time) in complaining about it. Science classes are no place for religion, whether teaching it (as some of the more hard-line Christian elements in the US seem to want) or teaching that it is 'wrong'.

This one time when my mother was attending school (back before the Supreme Court ordered the schools secularized and the schools were still being desegrigated) there was this class with this crazy theacer. He would hand out bibles between classes and sat all the students with a Jewish sounding name (such as my mother) at one table.

Yes I was, but.


Well I dont wanna start that old arguement right now, but when you said you were taught to think for yourself, do you think that contradicts what the Church taught you?

I mean, most of the faiths im familiar with all pretty much require full acceptance of its teachings.
Therefore, Im wondering how you believe you came to the conclusion, while being taught about your beliefs?

Im not saying you have swallowed everything they told you to, but how exactly, did you formulate such a system, while being indoctrinated?

I guess what I really mean is, while you certainly have your own idea of what your faith is to you, I dont believe you were totally free to believe what you wanted to, since you were brought up as a christian.
I say this, becuase I was raised Lutheran, and was told more or less what I should think about religion from that church as well.

I think instead, you have chosen to accept those teachings as truth.
Theres a big difference.

Yes I was, but... (anything I say after this point will be irrelevant to most people as they'll just jump up and down and go 'see! see! you were brainwashed and indoctrinated :rolleyes: )

... I would describe it more as 'raised by Christians'. My parents never forced me to go to church, never forced me to believe in God, and always encouraged me to think for myself. When I made a commitment as a Christian it was because I had thought long and hard about it and accepted Christianity as true.

I had long and plentiful discussion with atheists, agnostics and people of other religions while at university, and live and work in an environment with very few other Christians in it. There have been many times when I have assessed my beliefs and reconsidered them, and there have been many more times when I have been challenged to do so and found that my beliefs stand up perfectly well thank you. My faith continually develops as I learn more and experience more, but the fundamentals stay the same - hence fundamentalist.

Sounds fair enough to me. Although it seems like eveyones definitions of "fundamental christian" differs. Even within the christian community. So what would you personally describe as your christian "fundamentals"?

My personal opinion on this reflects a lot of other people on this thread. Militant attitudes of either are bad. I identify more with the militant atheists but thats just personal bias. And, none-the-less, they annoy me just as much as the fundie christians.

Militant Atheist?
You've made that term up, there's no such thing.

I think the term you mean is Radical atheist, who is an atheist that 'really means it'.

Well I dont wanna start that old arguement right now, but when you said you were taught to think for yourself, do you think that contradicts what the Church taught you?
I mean, most of the faiths im familiar with all pretty much require full acceptance of its teachings.
...
I guess what I really mean is, while you certainly have your own idea of what your faith is to you, I dont believe you were totally free to believe what you wanted to, since you were brought up as a christian.
I say this, becuase I was raised Lutheran, and was told more or less what I should think about religion from that church as well.


If I'm honest, I learned very little of what I believe through my church (Methodist Church - the British flavour). The church has always struck me more as a social club for many of its members - although perhaps I do them a disservice - and it was very rare to hear a sermon other than 'be nice to people, God loves everyone, everything's lovely etc.' which was no real basis for a belief system. I learned most of what I believe by seeing the way adults around me acted (parents, their friends, teachers etc.) and asking questions of those whose actions seemed honest and trustworthy. Not all were Christians but many were.

I have no problem in agreeing that being brought up by Christians means I was more exposed to Christian belief than other beliefs as I grew up. There are doubtless many beliefs of which I have never heard and equally doubtless, it is less likely that I would be a Christian now had I been born and raised somewhere like Iran or India (as random examples).

So to that extent, my upbringing had a large part in determining my current state of belief. But who's doesn't? We are all moulded by our nurture. What we then do is take those things we are exposed to and assess them for their integrity. I can't say how I would be if I had been raised differently, and neither can anyone else, but that doesn't change the fact that I now have a brain and am capable of considering the evidence before me and making informed decisions.

I find all this particularly interesting now I have two sons of my own. It is so tempting to teach them 'this is right, this is wrong' because I want them to be Christians too. But I know I need to teach them 'this is what I believe, this is what others believe', because otherwise their 'faith' will not be faith at all but indoctrination. All I can do is pray that they grow up knowing God, but at the end of the day it will be their decisions.

Amestria']This one time when my mother was attending school (back before the Supreme Court ordered the schools secularized and the schools were still being desegrigated) there was this class with this crazy theacer. He would hand out bibles between classes and sat all the students with a Jewish sounding name (such as my mother) at one table.

Yuck. That guy was crap, no two ways about it.

Militant Atheist?
You've made that term up, there's no such thing.

I think the term you mean is Radical atheist, who is an atheist that 'really means it'.

There are definitely 'militant' atheists. The way I see it, a 'militant atheist' is an atheist who seems to make it their personal mission in life to go around telling people religion is stupid, responsible for all the ills of the world, and that atheism is the only possible 'right' way to believe. They go to churches with the express purpose of telling people that their religion is stupid and irrational, and if someone mentions their faith, the militant atheist will immediately mock them for having that faith. Maybe 'militant' isn't technically correct, but with the meaning it carries when it's thrown around these days, it fits.

They do exist, I even know a few.

.

I have no problem in agreeing that being brought up by Christians means I was more exposed to Christian belief than other beliefs as I grew up. There are doubtless many beliefs of which I have never heard and equally doubtless, it is less likely that I would be a Christian now had I been born and raised somewhere like Iran or India (as random examples).

Agreed. So, would you say that more children whos parents are christians, will have children who are christians as well, thatn athiests, and thier children?



So to that extent, my upbringing had a large part in determining my current state of belief. But who's doesn't?

Well, I can only speak for myself.
My mother is an athiest, but she raised me Lutheran, as she was raised.
Ironically enough, I too, became an athiest, but only after having been raised as the polar opposite.
So, in a sense, my upbringing, had little to do with my spiritual beliefs.



but that doesn't change the fact that I now have a brain and am capable of considering the evidence before me and making informed decisions.

Never do I question the intelligence of any christian, becuase they believe.
I merely suggest that those decisions are made with a mind that has an instilled desire for those answers, to have a single solution.

I find all this particularly interesting now I have two sons of my own. It is so tempting to teach them 'this is right, this is wrong' because I want them to be Christians too. But I know I need to teach them 'this is what I believe, this is what others believe', because otherwise their 'faith' will not be faith at all but indoctrination. All I can do is pray that they grow up knowing God, but at the end of the day it will be their decisions.

Well played, Christian.

Any fundamentalism is nonsense and dangerous, be it religious or not. Nothing is absolute and all we are discussing are theories, which cannot be proven either way (at least at this stage of human development). The trouble is that various forms of fundamentalism are being perpetuated by Governements in their desire to support their "right" to rule. Lenin did that at the beginning of the 20th century, Hitler tried it in the 30s, Mao perfected it in the 40s, Castro lives it since the 50s and and G. W. Bush is trying it again it today.
Nah, leave me out, I believe in the big fat flying spagetty spider, who is the origin of all life
:fluffle:

Sounds fair enough to me. Although it seems like eveyones definitions of "fundamental christian" differs. Even within the christian community. So what would you personally describe as your christian "fundamentals"?

I would describe the fundamentals of Christianity as being:
- God is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator of the universe. Arguing over big bangs, evolution etc. doesn't change this, if you still acknowledge Him as the supreme being. (Incidentally, I don't consider Creationism as a fundamental. Creation, ID, Evolution are all aspects of HOW we came to be here. 'God' answers the 'why?')
- Mankind was designed by Him, to worship Him and love Him. Quick answer to the meaning of life there. What this means is, to be in relationship with Him. (Quick aside: Why did He allow us to rebel and become sinful? Simple answer - is the unquestioning obedience given by a microwave or toaster the same as the love given by a wife or husband? Sounds superficial I know, but my point is, if we were programmed to unquestioningly love God, would it really be love? Love has to be a conscious decision, given freely as a gift. God gave us free-will and choice, because without it our love would mean nothing.)
- Mankind became sinful causing a blockage in our relationship with God - i.e. we became separated from God.
- Jesus Christ was God's answer to the separation. God became man, lived amongst us, and was crucified as the perfect sacrifice for our sinfulness. i can go into more depth about why it was necessary for Jesus to be the sacrifice if you wish.
- After three days, Jesus rose from the dead, breaking the power of death and sin over us, and ascended back into heaven.
- Acceptance of the forgiveness for our sins offered to us by God through the death of Jesus is the only way to restore our relationship with God. This is why Jesus is the only way to God. The restoration of our relationship with Him has nothing to do with being good, being nice, doing nice things or generally being a top bloke. That misses the problem and therefore the solution. The problem is: we are all sinful and separated from God. The solution: accept Jesus as Lord and acknowledge his sacrifice in our place.
- The Holy Spirit is a part of God which can indwell us and is the outworking of the restoration of our unobstructed relationship with God.

Did I miss anything? Oh yes. The virgin birth. the point being that Jesus was not descended from a human father, therefore was not of the fallen line of Adam (for want of a better phrase - literal belief in Adam and Eve is not a fundamental in my eyes) and therefore was worthy to be the sacrifice that he came to earth to be.

Anything else I missed?

]Is that so? Where exactly is the indication, in the collective knowledge of mankind, that there might be something divine at work?
Also, do you think Atheists would disbelieve divinity, if there was just the slightest indication there might be something divine out there? If you do, please explain exactly how you arrived at that conclusion.

>>The lack of evidence is not a disproval. There is no evidence to conclude that there is such a thing as a Unified Feild Theory. This does not disprove it's possibility. To say that the lack of evidence of the divine disproves the possibility of the divine is an act of faith.

Do you seriously entertain the idea that invisible, pink unicorns run about in deserted countrysides?
If the answer is no, then are you not an Aunicornist? And is there any major difference between your disbelief and that of an Atheist?

Lack of evidence for or against something, means little. However, no evidence at all, is usually a good indication. Thus I disbelieve the concept of divinity. There's plenty of indications that it's a man-made concept, and there's not so much as a hint that it's anything else. Common sense makes me disbelieve it for that reason. I don't believe every work of fiction I read either, though I would have a damn hard time proving they weren't real.


An awful lot is known to us humans. For example, while we don't positively know how life came about, we do have plenty of explanations that doesn't require god. As per common sense, it's not plausible to think something divine is at work, if it doesn't need to be there, and we don't have any reason to suspect it is there.
We know no kind of all-encompassing observations can be made, since we've found out that observing a system makes you a part of the system, and thus changes how it unfolds. That kind of knowledge is a pretty good argument for not believing in the divine. Truely, if something divine really did exist, it couldn't possibly be anything like what human religions describe.
There just isn't much room for the divine in this universe. Nor is there any reason to think there is anything divine.

>>I an willing to bet my life, my soul, and the woman I hold dear that the quantity of information humanity does not possess is much larger than the ammount they do possess. This leaves the possibility of a divine rather high. At what point did I claim that any particular religion could identify it?

I don't think it's wise to gamble with your loved ones...
Anyway, how does a lack of knowledge about something increase the chance of it being real? Changing the perspective a bit: How do my lack of knowledge about New York increase my chance of being right, if I claim there's a particular shop, on a particular address?
Or giving it more biblical proportions: There's Dragons on the Northpole.

Neither are claims I know for sure, and barring freak accidents of epic proportions, I'll never verify either. How does that increase the chance of me being right?

Also, considering that our knowledge is rapidely increasing, and that we every year learn more about our world, than the sum of human knowledge was at the time the Bible was rewritten, and we only find explanations that defies our ideas about the divine, what makes you think it's reasonable to assume there's knowledge to be obtained that can somehow cast light on the divinity thing?

If you were wagering your loved ones on that, I think they'd be wise to look for greener pastures.

[Quote=The Similized world]
Unless you think human emotion, fantasy, and old moral tales are somehow more credible than actual observation of the universe you inhabit.

>>I never made that claim.

My bad then... Can't remember the context.



[Quote=The Similized world]
Believing, or even entertaining the notion, of the divine, seems like wishful thinking to me. There's no reasonable argument for not being an Atheist. And that's why I am one. I have nothing against the concept of divinity, but outside the world of fiction, I fail to see how it can ever be relevant or applicable to anything.

>>There is no reasonablle argument for being an atheist either. That's why I am agnostic.

I pretty much dealt with this above. Even considering something unprovable demands a judgment call, or conjecture if you wish. I fail to see how Agnosticism exempts you from making one. It's no different from believing or disbelieving.
I think it's plausible divinity, and all of religion, the supernatural and whatever other magic people fancy, is created by us. Without spending half my sleep deprived stopur trying to explain the details, I think there's a pretty good case to be made for religion being wishful thinking. Obviously you disagree.

[Quote=The Similized world]
What? No really, what? How can one be a commited Atheist (I assume you're not talking about mental patients?)?
I'll pretend you're talking about me for a moment. How exactly do I live in a world of blind faith? I'm not the one entertaining fantastical ideas of magical entities, though I know there's no reason to do so.
The bit about unproven assumptions I can't even comprehend. Are you saying it's somehow possible to prove anything regarding the divine?

...If so, then why the FUCK haven't you told the world sooner?! Just imagine all the silly religious squabbles you could've settled! All the lives you'd save!

>>You live in a state of blind faith in that you claimyou can prove a negative due to the mere lack of positive evidence. If it was suggested to Galleleo that there was a moon Charon scircling the planet Pluto I am sure he would deny htat there was evidence. Being a rational intellegent being I would hope that he was humble enough to admit that he could not prove there was not. So you on an act of FAITH claim that becausesomething is unproven it is therefore impossible. That is faith.
We get number of topic and seggestion to bring the Torrents in our site . and we try our best to make it work with IPB how ever that we Find the best way to bring torrents with the VB so at the first we think to Open a new forum but some of our Staff seggestion to make everything in one website So know We are Going to convert To VB please post your Seggestion here how do u feel ..about this converted

Warning IF we did the Converted .. everyone should Rest their password .. the user that use Vaild email .. should go right away know to Correct their email so later they dont find any problem when they trying to rest their password..

Ok... Summery time again

Religion isn't plausible, because there's no need for it anywhere, it's not observable, and it serves no purpose.
Religion can't be outright dismissed, exactly because it's non-falsifiable. So what would a reasonable assumption be? That religion is real, because some people say so, or that religion is real only to them, because they want it to be, and sometimes need it to be?
Is it plausible or implausible that religion/the divine/whatever is real then?

I don't think so. I've never heard an argument making religion and similar ideas seem plausible. I've heard plenty of the opposite. So I disbelieve it. No, of course I'm not 110% sure, only 99.9999999% or so. And yes, I think it's unreasonable to come to any other conclusion. But I'm not gonna hold it against you.

Christians: Shit happened, and will happened again.

Islam : If shit happens, it is the will of Allah.

Buddists: If shit happens, it is an illusion.

Zen Buddists: What is the sound of shit happening?

Athiests: There is no shit.

Agnostics : We dont know if shit happens.

Jehovah's Witnesses: Knock Knock...SHIT HAPPENS!

Christian Fundies: That shit happened exactly as written.

Catholicism: Shit happened, and you are personally responsible for it.

Agreed. So, would you say that more children whos parents are christians, will have children who are christians as well, thatn athiests, and thier children?

Porbably not, because I think peer pressure makes it harder these days for a child to grow through their teenage years holding onto an untrendy and unpopular belief. I don't know how many come back to it later though. basically, it's more fashionable to be atheist these days (actually let me correct that - it's more fashionable to not be bothered either way these days).

Well, I can only speak for myself.
My mother is an athiest, but she raised me Lutheran, as she was raised.
Ironically enough, I too, became an athiest, but only after having been raised as the polar opposite.
So, in a sense, my upbringing, had little to do with my spiritual beliefs.

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps your exposure to the 'polar opposite' made it easier to swing to the other end of the spectrum? You can get further if you have something to kick off against.

Never do I question the intelligence of any christian, becuase they believe.

No, I know. I've debated with you before and know you are someone who enters into intelligent debate.

I would describe the fundamentals of Christianity as being:
<snip>
Anything else I missed?

Seems to cover everything pretty well for me. Was mainly trying to determine your spin on fundamentalism. Whether holding to the true fundamentals of christianity, or being the 'fire and brimstone' - everyone else will burn in hell - god created the world in 6 literal days - evolution = evilution etc. style christian.

Not really wanting to debate any of the points you've made as they work for you and you dont seem the type who has to preach your beliefs and practice intolerance. Hence there would be nothing positive to gain in debating any of it. Good luck to you :)

Christians: Shit happened, and will happened again.

Islam : If shit happens, it is the will of Allah.

Buddists: If shit happens, it is an illusion.

Zen Buddists: What is the sound of shit happening?

Athiests: There is no shit.

Agnostics : We dont know if shit happens.

Jehovah's Witnesses: Knock Knock...SHIT HAPPENS!

Christian Fundies: That shit happened exactly as written.

Catholicism: Shit happened, and you are personally responsible for it.


Militant Atheist: There is no shit. Oh, and YOU'RE STUPID!

Militant Atheist: There is no shit. Oh, and YOU'RE STUPID!


NS Christian Poster : "you cant prove that shit DIDNT happen."

NS Athiest Poster : "You cant prove it DID!"

Porbably not, because I think peer pressure makes it harder these days for a child to grow through their teenage years holding onto an untrendy and unpopular belief. I don't know how many come back to it later though. basically, it's more fashionable to be atheist these days (actually let me correct that - it's more fashionable to not be bothered either way these days).

Oops. Misunderstood your question I think. I thought you were asking would more children with Christian parents be Christian, than children with atheist parents be atheist? But I think you asked about both being Christian. In that case, yes probably, because they'll hear a more sympathetic viewpoint of Christianity. But my original answer still stands as relevant though.

NS Christian Poster : "you cant prove that shit DIDNT happen."

NS Athiest Poster : "You cant prove it DID!"

Xeropa : Don't any of you have any work to do? :D

NS Christian Poster : "you cant prove that shit DIDNT happen."

NS Athiest Poster : "You cant prove it DID!"

Hah! So true, so true.

What about LaVeyan Satanists?

"We are shit. We smell good. And we're going to smear ourselves on whatever we want."

Who is worse?
Both are essentially fundamentalist. Theres no real difference. One threatens fire and brimstone, the other screams of rampant superstition and stupidity.

Porbably not, because I think peer pressure makes it harder these days for a child to grow through their teenage years holding onto an untrendy and unpopular belief. I don't know how many come back to it later though. basically, it's more fashionable to be atheist these days (actually let me correct that - it's more fashionable to not be bothered either way these days).

I think it varies from town to town, but the trendy thing does seem to be spirutual neutrality, as you say.



Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps your exposure to the 'polar opposite' made it easier to swing to the other end of the spectrum? You can get further if you have something to kick off against.

You know, Ive never thought about it like that.
My own discoveries came after very intense introspections after different events, and it seems as though becuase of the way I was taught, my tendencies would have been to seek an answer within my faith, but the answers recieved, werent enough to satisfy me.
Thus, athiesm, became the only logical choice.




No, I know. I've debated with you before and know you are someone who enters into intelligent debate.

Thank you. You as well.
But before I start looking too saintly, Ive been known to get riled, and intelligence goes out the wayside, in favor of good ol sarcastic ranting.
Once in a blue moon, ya know....

NS Neo Pagan: Our shit happened in an entirely different way than yours.

Christians: Shit happened, and will happened again.

Islam : If shit happens, it is the will of Allah.

Buddists: If shit happens, it is an illusion.

Zen Buddists: What is the sound of shit happening?

Athiests: There is no shit.

Agnostics : We dont know if shit happens.

Jehovah's Witnesses: Knock Knock...SHIT HAPPENS!

Christian Fundies: That shit happened exactly as written.

Catholicism: Shit happened, and you are personally responsible for it.
Mormons: Shit happens again and again and again…
;) and yes I know the proper ones don't do polygamy

Religion isn't plausible, because there's no need for it anywhere, it's not observable, and it serves no purpose.
Religion can't be outright dismissed, exactly because it's non-falsifiable. So what would a reasonable assumption be? That religion is real, because some people say so, or that religion is real only to them, because they want it to be, and sometimes need it to be?
Is it plausible or implausible that religion/the divine/whatever is real then?

I don't think so. I've never heard an argument making religion and similar ideas seem plausible. I've heard plenty of the opposite. So I disbelieve it. No, of course I'm not 110% sure, only 99.9999999% or so. And yes, I think it's unreasonable to come to any other conclusion. But I'm not gonna hold it against you.
Plausable within the Universe as far as it is known by man. This is an extremely small samplingof what is out there. Given the incomplete nature of the information on which you base your assumptions; 99.9999999% surity is quite a leap of faith!

Hinduism: The Shit is there because you Shat earlier.

Hippy Buddhism: Whoa, dude, have some of this shit.

Radical Islam: Shit for the heretics!

Confucianism: There's the Shit. Have a guess why.

Taoism: It's okay: shit happens and it's perfectly natural.

Stalinist Atheism: Here's some shit. Clean it up. And don't ask questions.

Who is worse?

I am an atheist. I don't think I'm militant though. That would indicate that I try to convert. I don't know many atheists that try to convert people to atheism.

Christian Fundamentalists however, are constantly trying to get people to see things their way. They would be worse.

I am an atheist. I don't think I'm militant though. That would indicate that I try to convert. I don't know many atheists that try to convert people to atheism.

Christian Fundamentalists however, are constantly trying to get people to see things their way. They would be worse. If that's your definition of militant atheist, then I know quite a few of them.

Your mom :eek:

it's a tie - can't stand either group. come on people, take a deep breath and get over yourself. leave me alone and i'll leave you alone.

Are young Christians or atheists, on average, more "militant" or "fundamentalist" than their elders? It might be the idealism of the young… at least, SOME young. Stupid fecking chavs. *ahem*

I haven't met a violently atheist individual yet. That is, one who believes that religious people are a lesser breed destined for extermination.
.

Ever hear of Joe Stalin?

Christians: Shit happened, and will happened again.

Islam : If shit happens, it is the will of Allah.

Buddists: If shit happens, it is an illusion.

Zen Buddists: What is the sound of shit happening?

Athiests: There is no shit.

Agnostics : We dont know if shit happens.

Jehovah's Witnesses: Knock Knock...SHIT HAPPENS!

Christian Fundies: That shit happened exactly as written.

Catholicism: Shit happened, and you are personally responsible for it.
Isn't it usually 'Atheism: No Shit."?

Cthulhuism: Oh shit. Oh shit. Oh shit.

Hinduism: The Shit is there because you Shat earlier.

Hippy Buddhism: Whoa, dude, have some of this shit.

Radical Islam: Shit for the heretics!

Confucianism: There's the Shit. Have a guess why.

Taoism: It's okay: shit happens and it's perfectly natural.

Stalinist Atheism: Here's some shit. Clean it up. And don't ask questions.

Luporian Agnostism: We're all going to shit, just keep it private.

Good point. I didn't remember those. They were never sung in my school, though. There were Christmas services where the class would go to one of the local churches for the morning, and they would be sung there, but there was never any obligation to go. I personally, always declined the excursion and stayed at school doing nothing (and good times they were too)



Sounds good to me.

I went to a public high school in the middle of nowhere with only 300 people in it. We were not allowed to call it Christmas break even. It was winter break. Most there were Christians too. Schools don't even want you using the word, because it has "christ" in it. Only Christmas songs we could sing in school choir and such were songs like Rudolph and such.

NS Christian Poster : "you cant prove that shit DIDNT happen."

NS Athiest Poster : "You cant prove it DID!"


NS moderate Christian: "I gotta go take a shit now."

Are young Christians or atheists, on average, more "militant" or "fundamentalist" than their elders? It might be the idealism of the young… at least, SOME young. Stupid fecking chavs. *ahem*

Nope. According to a recent poll, they are more liberal in their Christianity.
http://www.greenbergresearch.com/publications/reports/rebootreport.pdf

Nope. According to a recent poll, they are more liberal in their Christianity.
http://www.greenbergresearch.com/publications/reports/rebootreport.pdf I suppose it depends on what you mean by liberal. I mean, I'm … let's say… traditional in my Catholic views, but politically speaking I'm a lot more liberal than lots of people.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by liberal. I mean, I'm … let's say… traditional in my Catholic views, but politically speaking I'm a lot more liberal than lots of people.

I mean liberal in Christian teachings. They have friends of other beliefs or nonbelief, and basically think people should be left alone to do as they please religionwise.

I mean liberal in Christian teachings. They have friends of other beliefs or nonbelief, and basically think people should be left alone to do as they please religionwise. In that case I'm liberal :) . It's quite hard to avoid atheists you know, not that I'd want to. However, people don't leave ME alone religionwise - well some of my friends don't. Those long maths lessons were really tiring…