NationStates Jolt Archive

There seems to be a large number of athiests who extremely dislike anyone who shows the slightest inkling towards being religious, while many religious seem to despise the atheist (i say they need to be shown the light somehow, but thats another post). So, where do you stand?

Note: Not sure where agnostic counts, maybe other?

I only look down on them if I'm taller.

This poll is horribly skewed.

I think athiests are going to hell, but I don't hate them.

Note: Not sure where agnostic counts, maybe other?
GAAAAAAAAH.

Okay. Look. "Atheist" and "religious" are not opposites. Atheist is the inverse of theist. Agnostic is outside both of these terms; it is possible to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

I'm pretty much an atheist, but that doesn't mean I necessarily look down on religious people. There are lots of really intelligent and gifted people who are religious and I'm friends with a lot of them. I only look down on and mock the really stupid ones--young earthers and creationists for instance. I'm merciless toward them.

This poll is horribly skewed.

I think athiests are going to hell, but I don't hate them.

Its still kind of offensive when you tell an entire group of people they are going to hell.

i'm an atheist and i don't mind the religious. as long as they don't talk to me about their religion cuz then i just start thinking they are poor, misguided fools. and i lose some respect for them as human beings.

Its still kind of offensive when you tell an entire group of people they are going to hell.
More importantly, how valuable is it to say, "I don't hate atheists, I just worship a God who plans to send them all to a torture dimension for the rest of eternity." Personally, I would rather somebody just come right out and say they hate me, instead of insisting they don't hate me while simultaneously kissing the ass of some dude who is gonna torture me forever and ever.

I only look down on the religious people who want their ways to be taught to the young. It's not fair to indoctrinate early.

i'm an atheist and i don't mind the religious. as long as they don't talk to me about their religion cuz then i just start thinking they are poor, misguided fools. and i lose some respect for them as human beings.
Passive aggressive looking down. :D

I'm strongly atheist, and I don't have anything against believers, as long as they don't try to impose their belief upon others.

I do think religions are a dangerous thing, than very easily leads to fanatism and irrational behaviors, and that it's used to control the masses all around the world. I totally agree with Marx on religions.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

But once again, I don't have anything against believers, I've a lot of respect for many of them.

What percentage of the global population is atheist?

Surely enough, those who buck the trend by insisting that there ain't no supernatural agency whatsoever, and have the gall to dispute the consensus opinion, are in the position of the single dissenting juryman who swears that he never met 11 such obstinate fellows.

Maybe if the religious people would realize that if the athiests go to hell, then in the afterlife, they will not need to deal with them, then they would leave them alone in this life. Nah, that'd be too easy.

More importantly, how valuable is it to say, "I don't hate atheists, I just worship a God who plans to send them all to a torture dimension for the rest of eternity." Personally, I would rather somebody just come right out and say they hate me, instead of insisting they don't hate me while simultaneously kissing the ass of some dude who is gonna torture me forever and ever.
I agree--come at me from in front instead of doing this kissy-face "I'll pray for your soul" bullshit.

Maybe if the religious people would realize that if the athiests go to hell, then in the afterlife, they will not need to deal with them, then they would leave them alone in this life. Nah, that'd be too easy.
Yeah; but the reason they can't do that is because they care for others.

Meh I believe that we should all just live the way we want to live our lives, and just be happy. Just let God and Jesus sort it out at the end.

Yeah; but the reason they can't do that is because they care for others.

You call what they do caring?

Its still kind of offensive when you tell an entire group of people they are going to hell.


So?

Would you rather offend someone by telling them they're going to fall off a cliff or just let them fall of the cliff? (hint, if you hate them you'd probably choose the second option because it's easier).

I only look down on the religious people who want their ways to be taught to the young. It's not fair to indoctrinate early.

Ah, but otherwise it doesn't work!

More importantly, how valuable is it to say, "I don't hate atheists, I just worship a God who plans to send them all to a torture dimension for the rest of eternity." Personally, I would rather somebody just come right out and say they hate me, instead of insisting they don't hate me while simultaneously kissing the ass of some dude who is gonna torture me forever and ever.
why must it be black and white? either I hate you or I agree with everything you do and love you?

I don't hate anyone. Why suddenly due to my beliefs does it mean that I have to hate you?

So?

Would you rather offend someone by telling them they're going to fall off a cliff or just let them fall of the cliff? (hint, if you hate them you'd probably choose the second option because it's easier).

I'd rather not preemtively offend someone at all. I thought Jesus would feel the same as I do but I guess not...

I am religiously atheist and look down on God.

(You figure that one out)

I'm an atheist and my attitude to theists (mono or poly) is that if they leave me to my beliefs in peace then I will do likewise with respect to them.

Where the problem arises is when some of them start trying to push their God(s) on me. Then I counter attack. Jehova's witnesses can be good for a couple of hours entertainment if I am in the right mood.

I am religiously atheist and look down on God.

(You figure that one out)
:D

I did not vote in my own poll for starters. I know its skewed, but, having only so many options, I couldn't account for all overlaps. I also chose purpously inflamatory poll options to interject the slightest bit of humor somewhere in there. That is why I put multiple options in there, though, if I were to re-poll, I might say "I am religious/theist and I have a negative inclination towards atheists, etc."

Though, as I always liked, there are no atheists in fox holes.

So?

Would you rather offend someone by telling them they're going to fall off a cliff or just let them fall of the cliff? (hint, if you hate them you'd probably choose the second option because it's easier).

If they want to fall off the cliff, what business is it of yours to judge them for it?
You can think that they are stupid, you can have your opinion, but why do you have to push this opinion on them. They are happy, and if they live happily and die happily, then that is their choice.

If they are unhappy they may come and ask you why you are smiling. Then you have every right to answer their questions. But until they ask, keep your nose out of their lives.

I'm an atheist and my attitude to theists (mono or poly) is that if they leave me to my beliefs in peace then I will do likewise with respect to them.

Where the problem arises is when some of them start trying to push their God(s) on me. Then I counter attack. Jehova's witnesses can be good for a couple of hours entertainment if I am in the right mood.
The only problem there is the atheist's unwillingness to listen. How is explaining beliefs an 'attack' on a person who has no beliefs?

This poll is horribly skewed.

I think athiests are going to hell, but I don't hate them.

Do you really think your Allmighty, Loving and Good god is going to send me to eternal suffer, because his followers have been so lame in their attempts to convince me? I don't get this.

Other. I am a non-religious atheist and my opinion of theists and other religious people depends on the individual in question.

I'd rather not preemtively offend someone at all. I thought Jesus would feel the same as I do but I guess not...

Jesus offended tons of people, why do you think they killed him?

why must it be black and white? either I hate you or I agree with everything you do and love you?

I am quite capable of putting words into my own mouth, and do not need your help in doing so. But thanks anyhow.


I don't hate anyone. Why suddenly due to my beliefs does it mean that I have to hate you?
IF you believe that it is appropriate for you to worship a God that will send me to burn in Hell, then I believe your feelings are hateful. That's an IF, mind you, and if you don't happen to believe that then what I said clearly does not apply to you.

I assume the best about other people, so I assume that you are not going to go around worshipping a God that you believe is cruel and irrational. Thus, if you are worshipping this God, you must believe His actions are just and rational. Thus, you must believe it is just and rational for me to be sent to Hell, otherwise you wouldn't be worshipping a God who plans to do this. I think that it is hateful for a person to believe that I deserve ETERNAL TORTURE.

The only problem there is the atheist's unwillingness to listen. How is explaining beliefs an 'attack' on a person who has no beliefs?

Why should you push your beliefs on them. Where is the respect for that person?

Explain if you are asked, fine. Do not come knocking on my door to explain your beliefs to me. I don't do that to you.

Additionally an Atheist does have beliefs, usually included in these is one that holds religion to be a waste of time at best. So you want that I come to your door and tell you that your beliefs are wrong?

why must it be black and white? either I hate you or I agree with everything you do and love you?

I don't hate anyone. Why suddenly due to my beliefs does it mean that I have to hate you?
Speaking only for myself here--my problem is with those christians that Bottle described, not with all christians. It's the absolutist nature of that form of Christianity that bothers me--either you're with us or you're against us. I didn't like it when Bush said it, and I don't like it when religious people say it. It's the height of arrogance, this idea that there's a single truth and that if you don't latch onto it, then you're going to be tortured for eternity. Whether you perceive it as hating others or not, that's the way it comes off to non-believers or even those who believe differently.

Why should you push your beliefs on them. Where is the respect for that person?

EWxplain if you are asked, fine. Do not come knocking on my door to explain your vbeliefs to me. I don't do that to you.

Additionally an Atheist does have beliefs, usually included in these is one that holds religion to be a waste of time at best. So you want that I come to your door and tell you that your beliefs are wrong?


Ain't that exactly what you are doing?

Ain't that exactly what you are doing?

No. I was asked. Try looking at the original post here.
This forum is also a public space. It is not your private world. If you don't want to read what I post, don't read it. I am not imposing on you.

Do you really think your Allmighty, Loving and Good god is going to send me to eternal suffer, because his followers have been so lame in their attempts to convince me? I don't get this.

Obviously, it's not that simple. If you're really interested, IM (spryhunchback32) or something.

If you just want an argument: Yes, God is going to damn all athiests to hell because they were too stupid to realize that he exists.

Ain't that exactly what you are doing?
Um...no. Unless he's knocking at your door right now.

Maybe you meant, "Ain't that figuratively what you are doing?"

If you just want an argument: Yes, God is going to damn all athiests to hell because they were too stupid to realize that he exists.
And can we all see how this might come across as hateful?

"Atheists are stupid, and therefore God is going to send them to Hell to be tortured for the rest of forever. And I think that's totally reasonable. But I don't hate atheists, or anything."

I am quite capable of putting words into my own mouth, and do not need your help in doing so. But thanks anyhow.
She wasn't putting words in your mouth, she was repeating what she heard you say. It may not be what you meant to say, but it's what was heard.

I think athiests are going to hell, but I don't hate them.

Actually .... chances are more likely you're going to hell for one of two things:

1] Claiming to believe you know who's going to hell and, thus, knowing the mind of God.

2] Doing a lousy job at making sure atheists convert to your way. Hell is chock full of people who didn't meet quota.

I would suggest this: Don't deal in absolutes. You do not know who is and who is not going to hell, who is and who is not saved, who is and who is not going to spend eternity picking fruit on the slave planet, etc.

Tend to the mote in your own eye.

Personally, I believe that, when we die, we will see how much God truly loves us. If we lead a life of service (to a degree) and believed in him (if you do serve, you did what he wanted and were influenced by him, whether you know it or not) you will be close to him and able to respond to this love. If you did not serve your fellow man or did not believe in him (again, which shows you rejected his grace somewhere along the line), you will too know how much God loves you, but be unable to respond. And that will be hell.

She wasn't putting words in your mouth, she was repeating what she heard you say. It may not be what you meant to say, but it's what was heard.
Um, regardless of what they "heard" me say, the response put words in my mouth. It is possible for somebody to both misunderstand AND put words into someone else's mouth. Nowhere did I state that it was "black and white," nor that the person in question must either hate me or agree with everything I do. Those were words put into my mouth by somebody who lept to a false conclusion. It's not my fault they were too quick on the trigger.

Yeah; but the reason they can't do that is because they care for others.

They don't care for the person, they only care that each non-believer is one less person to contribute money to pay for their churches.

No. I was asked. Try looking at the original post here.

I meant in general.
Why the need of this tiny global minority to out themselves?
They could just have kept their traps shut.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Mind you, I'm strongly in favour of treating atheism as though it were a religious view ( which it is ).
This would then prohibit the Government from doing anything that was widely seen as favouring atheism.
( Government ought to be agnostic - refusing to nod to any metaphysical viewpoint. But I digress. )

Additionally an Atheist does have beliefs, usually included in these is one that holds religion to be a waste of time at best. So you want that I come to your door and tell you that your beliefs are wrong?
Does that make them wrong?

What I mean is, are you so insecure in your beliefs that someone telling you that their beliefs are 'right' has more weight with you than your own beliefs? In my opinion, that is the only way their talking to you could be considered an 'attack', if it threatens to change your belief system.

And can we all see how this might come across as hateful?

"Atheists are stupid, and therefore God is going to send them to Hell to be tortured for the rest of forever. And I think that's totally reasonable. But I don't hate atheists, or anything."

There was a reason I prefaced that with "if you just want to get into an argument"

Actually .... chances are more likely you're going to hell for one of two things:

1] Claiming to believe you know who's going to hell and, thus, knowing the mind of God.

2] Doing a lousy job at making sure atheists convert to your way. Hell is chock full of people who didn't meet quota.

I would suggest this: Don't deal in absolutes. You do not know who is and who is not going to hell, who is and who is not saved, who is and who is not going to spend eternity picking fruit on the slave planet, etc.

Tend to the mote in your own eye.


How beautiful, a moral judgement saying that moral judgements are wrong.

There seems to be a large number of athiests who extremely dislike anyone who shows the slightest inkling towards being religious, while many religious seem to despise the atheist (i say they need to be shown the light somehow, but thats another post). So, where do you stand?

Note: Not sure where agnostic counts, maybe other?

Actually I don't look down on the religious as much as I have paranoid fear and anger toward them.

I know that some of the Patriarchal religions are extremely good at growing. They are superior replicating memes with a few thousand years of solid track record.

I fear that they will inflitrate the scientific, technological and heathcare/social care industries and people will be too blind/ambivalent/divided/complacent to notice. They will then use the language of science and technology to further the growth of their group.

There was a reason I prefaced that with "if you just want to get into an argument"
I don't think I understand what you are saying.

I think the beliefs I described are hateful, no matter what the context. Stating that you believe somebody deserves to be tortured for all eternity is, in my opinion, pretty hateful. Hell, I wouldn't wish that fate even on people I passionately hate. I don't see how this belief is any less hateful in a "non-argument" context.

Um, regardless of what they "heard" me say, the response put words in my mouth. It is possible for somebody to both misunderstand AND put words into someone else's mouth. Nowhere did I state that it was "black and white," nor that the person in question must either hate me or agree with everything I do. Those were words put into my mouth by somebody who lept to a false conclusion. It's not my fault they were too quick on the trigger.
No, she stated it was black and white.

I don't think I understand what you are saying.

I think the beliefs I described are hateful, no matter what the context. Stating that you believe somebody deserves to be tortured for all eternity is, in my opinion, pretty hateful. Hell, I wouldn't wish that fate even on people I passionately hate. I don't see how this belief is any less hateful in a "non-argument" context.

Short Answer: I don't "wish" for anyone to go to hell. ever. I wish that it could be any other way, but the only way I can make that happen is to warn people. I've said this on another thread, but telling someone they're about to fall off a cliff isn't an insult if they really are about to fall off a cliff.

No, she stated it was black and white.
?

Nothing inherintly wrong with religions interfering with science. Afterall, Christians are almost always fully behind adult stemcell research, which has proven to be MORE effective then embryonic research. Even if you are against religion in general, would it be fair to say that it, at the very least, contributes to society (in the form of an alternate viewpoint)?

Short Answer: I don't "wish" for anyone to go to hell. ever. I wish that it could be any other way, but the only way I can make that happen is to warn people. I've said this on another thread, but telling someone they're about to fall off a cliff isn't an insult if they really are about to fall off a cliff.
A better analogy is that somebody is about to be pushed over a cliff. You feel you should warn them, but also that you should worship the person who is about to push them over the cliff. You also feel that they deserve to fall off the cliff if they don't join you in worshipping the person who's about to push them off the cliff.

This poll is horribly skewed.On this we agree. I'm an atheist and I don't mind religious people per se, but I do mind, and look down upon, those that proselytise at others. It's a bit of a jump from "they are backwater hicks" to "I don't mind them".

Nothing inherintly wrong with religions interfering with science. Afterall, Christians are almost always fully behind adult stemcell research, which has proven to be MORE effective then embryonic research. Even if you are against religion in general, would it be fair to say that it, at the very least, contributes to society (in the form of an alternate viewpoint)?

thank you.

Short Answer: I don't "wish" for anyone to go to hell. ever. I wish that it could be any other way, but the only way I can make that happen is to warn people. I've said this on another thread, but telling someone they're about to fall off a cliff isn't an insult if they really are about to fall off a cliff.
So what it comes down to is that you're willing--nay, eager--to worship a god that would torture people for eternity simply for expressing the free will that you claim your god provided for them. Can you see how some of us mght find that belief system more than a little offensive?

Nothing inherintly wrong with religions interfering with science. Afterall, Christians are almost always fully behind adult stemcell research, which has proven to be MORE effective then embryonic research. Even if you are against religion in general, would it be fair to say that it, at the very least, contributes to society (in the form of an alternate viewpoint)?

More effective? Are you authoritative on this?

As for the religion's contribution to society, I think it is as effective as using a time-bomb as a clock.

Short Answer: I don't "wish" for anyone to go to hell. ever. I wish that it could be any other way, but the only way I can make that happen is to warn people. I've said this on another thread, but telling someone they're about to fall off a cliff isn't an insult if they really are about to fall off a cliff.

Do you think that atheists deserve to be sent to hell for eternity?

Obviously, it's not that simple. If you're really interested, IM (spryhunchback32) or something.

If you just want an argument: Yes, God is going to damn all athiests to hell because they were too stupid to realize that he exists.

But he created everything, no? He created my ancestros, and by that he created me. I'm his picture. I'm what he made me to be. How can he judge me for being what he made me to be?

More effective? Sure?
Positive, I've done quite a bit of research into the subject. Adult Stem Cells have recently been proven to be as potent as embryonic stem cells, and are being used to treat many diseases and conditions (The primary one being the scar tissue in heart attack victims). And the Catholic Church has been behind this kind of research since day 1.

Nothing inherintly wrong with religions interfering with science.

I think there's a problem with ANYBODY "interfering" with science. There's nothing wrong with Christians participating in science, any more than there's a problem with anybody else participating in science, but science suffers whenever a religious or political agenda interferes with honest research.


Afterall, Christians are almost always fully behind adult stemcell research, which has proven to be MORE effective then embryonic research.

There are two wrong things in this sentence.

First of all, many Christians are opposed to ALL stem cell research. Many Christians support adult stem cell research, and there are plenty who also support embryonic stem cell research. Generalizing the way you did is simply inaccurate.

Second, adult stem cell research is more useful for some purposes, and less useful for others. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Also, adult stem cell research has currently provide more concrete benefits largely because embryonic stem cell research isn't allowed to progress at the same pace. You can't pass a bunch of laws blocking embryonic stem cell research, and the complain that it's not producing enough results.


Even if you are against religion in general, would it be fair to say that it, at the very least, contributes to society (in the form of an alternate viewpoint)?
Of course religion contributes to society, particularly if you consider any alternate view point to be a contribution. Under that definition, I doubt anybody could deny that religious contributes. (Of course, under that definition, the KKK also contributes as much as religion.) I think religious organizations certainly contribute, and are certainly helpful to many people. I didn't think that was the issue at hand, though.

How beautiful, a moral judgement saying that moral judgements are wrong.

Where is the moral aspect of the judgement. All he did was show you how, by your own rules, the judgement you were making was flawed.

If you don't play the game, you are not bound by the rules.

Do you think that atheists deserve to be sent to hell for eternity?



I'm not him but... I would not entirely discount the possibility.

Not for atheism perse - but for non-conformism, for failing to rub blue mud into their bellybutton when everyone else is rubbing blue mud into their bellybutton.

Though, as I always liked, there are no atheists in fox holes.

You know, that quote always makes me think that atheists are smart enough not to get sent to war, and theists aren't.

So what it comes down to is that you're willing--nay, eager--to worship a god that would torture people for eternity simply for expressing the free will that you claim your god provided for them. Can you see how some of us mght find that belief system more than a little offensive?

Yes, I understand how you could percieve it as offensive. If I didn't I would obviously be an idiot, since you do find it offensive.

There's no need, by the way, to straw-man my position. I am aware of what I believe and of the fact that offends people without you making it sound like I believe something that I don't.

If your only point is that I will offend people, point taken.

If, however, you are suggesting that I should change what I believe because it is offensive then we have a problem.

Positive, I've done quite a bit of research into the subject. Adult Stem Cells have recently been proven to be as potent as embryonic stem cells,

What do you mean by "potent"?


and are being used to treat many diseases and conditions (The primary one being the scar tissue in heart attack victims).

There is no reason why embryonic stem cells could not be used for the same purpose. The fact that adult stem cell also can be used for this doesn't mean either type of stem cell is "better" than the other. It just means that adult stem cells are, indeed, useful (and really freaking cool!).

Adult stem cells are certainly very powerful and potentially useful tools. However, they have some limitations that embryonic cells do not have. Each may be better for certain situations. I don't want to get too technical, but I can expand on this later if y'all want.


And the Catholic Church has been behind this kind of research since day 1.
Catholic Church =/= "Christians" in general. Many Christians are not Catholic.

Where is the moral aspect of the judgement. All he did was show you how, by your own rules, the judgement you were making was flawed.

If you don't play the game, you are not bound by the rules.

No he didn't. He made up his own rules and suggested that there is some pre-existing framework on which we ought to consider all moral judgements.

It's not fair to make up rules and then insist you are immune to them.

There's no need, by the way, to straw-man my position. I am aware of what I believe and of the fact that offends people without you making it sound like I believe something that I don't.

I don't see where he "straw-manned" your position. Can you explain?

There are no laws blatantly prohibiting research into embryonic stem cell research. There are just laws restricing what can be done with federal funding, which is nothing new. If there really was something to be had with embryonic stem cells, there would be no shortage of private funding.

I have nothing against your average religious person, and I have had interesting theological debates with some of my more religious friends, but...

...I cannot stand the judgemental variety in the least. If some random tells me i'm going to hell, i'll usually bite back, i'm afraid.

You know, that quote always makes me think that atheists are smart enough not to get sent to war, and theists aren't.


Which is a way of saying that atheists are unpatriotic, ie. they don't put Country before Self.

Which, in an American context means: atheism is unamerican.

*laughing*

Do you think that atheists deserve to be sent to hell for eternity?

Short answer: Yes. Actually, I think we all do.

Speaking only for myself here--my problem is with those christians that Bottle described, not with all christians. It's the absolutist nature of that form of Christianity that bothers me--either you're with us or you're against us. I didn't like it when Bush said it, and I don't like it when religious people say it. It's the height of arrogance, this idea that there's a single truth and that if you don't latch onto it, then you're going to be tortured for eternity. Whether you perceive it as hating others or not, that's the way it comes off to non-believers or even those who believe differently.
thank you for explaining.

All I can say is I believe what I believe and if I believe that it is the truth, then I can't go back an retro fit it so that others will think it's more pleasant to hear.

No he didn't. He made up his own rules and suggested that there is some pre-existing framework on which we ought to consider all moral judgements.

It's not fair to make up rules and then insist you are immune to them.

Well if you don't want to see it, then you won't. Have a nice day.

I have nothing against your average religious person, and I have had interesting theological debates with some of my more religious friends, but...

...I cannot stand the judgemental variety in the least. If some random tells me i'm going to hell, i'll usually bite back, i'm afraid.

If you're about to fall off a cliff and someone tells you you're about to fall off, do you "bite back" at them too?

I don't see where he "straw-manned" your position. Can you explain?

He rephrased it in a way to make it sound more offensive than it normally would be.

If you're about to fall off a cliff and someone tells you you're about to fall off, do you "bite back" at them too?

Sure, if I have reason to believe that i'm many miles away from any such terrain feature.

Well if you don't want to see it, then you won't. Have a nice day.

No. I understand the argument. I was merely pointing out that it is self-contradictory.

It's not a question of "seeing it".

Oh, I hope you have a nice day too. (genuinely)

Yes, I understand how you could percieve it as offensive. If I didn't I would obviously be an idiot, since you do find it offensive.

There's no need, by the way, to straw-man my position. I am aware of what I believe and of the fact that offends people without you making it sound like I believe something that I don't.

If your only point is that I will offend people, point taken.

If, however, you are suggesting that I should change what I believe because it is offensive then we have a problem.
Nah, if you were going to change, it ought to be because your belief system is inconsistent. Either God is the personification of love, or he's a torturing bastard, according to the dichotomies set up by the christian belief system, but he can't be both, not logically.

Sure, if I have reason to believe that i'm many miles away from any such terrain feature.

Noting that I started with "If you are about to fall off a cliff..."

So, you "bite back" at someone not because of whether they are right or wrong but only because you precieve that they are wrong and are not open to alternative (in this case correct) points of view?

Nah, if you were going to change, it ought to be because your belief system is inconsistent. Either God is the personification of love, or he's a torturing bastard, according to the dichotomies set up by the christian belief system, but he can't be both, not logically.

In which case I won't change, because my belief system is not logically inconsistent.

You are merely making a statement while either unaware of or ignoring all of the facts.

thank you for explaining.

All I can say is I believe what I believe and if I believe that it is the truth, then I can't go back an retro fit it so that others will think it's more pleasant to hear.
No, but you can challenge your belief systems by using the brain God gave you. A lot of people have, and they've subsequently rejected the idea of a torturung, vengeful God, all the while retaining their belief in a loving, caring, nurturing one.

Jesus offended tons of people, why do you think they killed him?

So is this your justification for being offensive?

Well if you don't want to see it, then you won't. Have a nice day.


A quick glance at the census data for the UK in 2001 told me that the total of atheists + selfdeclared theists + non-stated religions equaled summat like 15%. Which means that atheists are indeed a tiny minority.

Which makes a compelling reason to tell 'em: have a nice day. In some other country, since you refuse to conform to OUR majority-values.

Noting that I started with "If you are about to fall off a cliff..."

So, you "bite back" at someone not because of whether they are right or wrong but only because you precieve that they are wrong and are not open to alternative (in this case correct) points of view?

No, I don't think you understand-

I'm perfectly open to hearing alternative points of view and rationally discussing them.

However, I am not open to hostile attacks upon my current beliefs.

In any case, I am more of an agnostic than an atheist.

The whole "you'll go to hell" argument doesn't work on people who don't believe in the existence of hell.

The whole "you'll go to hell" argument doesn't work on people who don't believe in the existence of hell.
Exactly, it's just extremely annoying.

In which case I won't change, because my belief system is not logically inconsistent.

You are merely making a statement while either unaware of or ignoring all of the facts.
Don't change then. I stopped being an evangelist when I stopped being a believer. But realize that what we would be debating here cannot in the greatest stretch of meaning be described as "facts."

So is this your justification for being offensive?

Not insomuch that it compels me to be offensive, but it does allow me to be "offensive" without worrying too much about it.

Don't change then. I stopped being an evangelist when I stopped being a believer. But realize that what we would be debating here cannot in the greatest stretch of meaning be described as "facts."

which "what we would be debating here" are you talking about?

Positive, I've done quite a bit of research into the subject. Adult Stem Cells have recently been proven to be as potent as embryonic stem cells, and are being used to treat many diseases and conditions (The primary one being the scar tissue in heart attack victims). And the Catholic Church has been behind this kind of research since day 1.

AS cells have issues with proliferation rates and differentiation potential. There are many applications that ES cells would be more useful for.

Back to the issue, it frightens me that the religious are aware of the power of science and tech, thus are sending people to inflitrate and control the scientific endeavor for their benefit. What with nuclear weapons as the weapons of the "Christian soldier" and Discovery Institute sending people to do PhDs just to gain ammo for the destruction of "atheistic" science.

I fear that scientists may not decisive, fanatical or glib enough in oratorical skills to reverse this infection.

Then I met Bottle. ;)

Oh my.

By the way, anyone here who doesn't believe in the giant headless three-headed monkey called Muffy will go to hell. You'd better believe it or you're gonna burn!

What percentage of the global population is atheist?

Surely enough, those who buck the trend by insisting that there ain't no supernatural agency whatsoever, and have the gall to dispute the consensus opinion, are in the position of the single dissenting juryman who swears that he never met 11 such obstinate fellows.

Being right is more important than being popular.

No, I don't think you understand-

I'm perfectly open to hearing alternative points of view and rationally discussing them.

However, I am not open to hostile attacks upon my current beliefs.

In any case, I am more of an agnostic than an atheist.

Is there a non-hostile way for me to tell you "you're about to fall off a cliff"?

Not insomuch that it compels me to be offensive, but it does allow me to be "offensive" without worrying too much about it.

And thats why atheists look down upon the religious.

And thats why atheists look down upon the religious.

Because I value truth more than I value being inoffensive?

Being right is more important than being popular.

But being the majority trumps everything.

Therefore, debate about who is right is irrelevant.

( proof of point: the endless debates about merits of atheism vz theism never have resulted in blocs of NS-ers changing their views. And let me make it clear: politocosocially, I'm an agnostic in strong favour of Conformism. )

*snip*
Mind you, I'm strongly in favour of treating atheism as though it were a religious view ( which it is ).
This would then prohibit the Government from doing anything that was widely seen as favouring atheism.
( Government ought to be agnostic - refusing to nod to any metaphysical viewpoint. But I digress. )

No it isn't. Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview. Atheism is confined to one factor: the existence or non-existence of a deity.

Atheists do not have a specific program, set of rituals, code of ethics etc. There is no way a government CAN "favor" atheists except by not allowing theists to force their worldview on everyone. Atheists develop their own moral and ethical codes without resorting to religious views. And they do not argue for legislation based on their group's moral code, because there IS no group moral code. Indeed, atheists tend never argue for things as a group at all, rather individuals in a particular political movement may or may not be atheists.

An agnostic government would be fine, if you define agnostic in this case to mean "indifferent to and completely separated from the existence of god". I think most atheists would find a government that did not bow to metaphysical viewpoints to be very good thing.

Being right is more important than being popular.

Well said.

which "what we would be debating here" are you talking about?
Well, anything to do with religious belief, in the large view, but in a more precise way of speaking, the inconsistency between a god that is supposed to be the personification of love and who yet turns over souls to be tortured for eternity.

There is no fact in religious belief--only faith and philosophy.

Because I value truth more than I value being inoffensive?

If you look down upon others, chances are they will look down upon you. Not only that, you believe your faith is truth. Even moreso, you insult and condemn while hiding behind God, something you cant even prove real or even prove that he wants you to be doing what you are doing, as a reason.

Because I value truth more than I value being inoffensive?

Because as part of the Borg collective, you believe you are empowered with your God's infinite power and can attack anyone or crush any dissent with inpunity.

A quick glance at the census data for the UK in 2001 told me that the total of atheists + selfdeclared theists + non-stated religions equaled summat like 15%. Which means that atheists are indeed a tiny minority.

Which makes a compelling reason to tell 'em: have a nice day. In some other country, since you refuse to conform to OUR majority-values.

So what are the other 85% then if they are not atheists nor theists?

Beliefs are not democratic. I really don't give a shit what the majority believe. I believe what I believe. I leave others to their beliefs in peace, unless they impose themselves on me in this respect. I have no reason to comply to the majority values in this.

Do you support a football team? If not then you are in the wrong by your argument as the majority do. If you do then you are still wrong by your argument as whatever team you support, the majority do not.

Have a nice day.

Well, I think religion is the low-point of humanity. It is illogical, with the only purpose to ensnare the weak of mind. Fortunately Christianity is on the decline in Europe, especially England, so I'm relatively happy. *grins*

I do look down on the religious, but in the same way I would someone who is a junkie. Nothing personal, you just prefer wrapping yourself up in a blanket in some way or another and shielding yourself from reality.

No it isn't. Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview. Atheism is confined to one factor: the existence or non-existence of a deity.

Atheists do not have a specific program, set of rituals, code of ethics etc. There is no way a government CAN "favor" atheists except by not allowing theists to force their worldview on everyone. Atheists develop their own moral and ethical codes without resorting to religious views. And they do not argue for legislation based on their group's moral code, because there IS no group moral code. Indeed, atheists tend never argue for things as a group at all, rather individuals in a particular political movement may or may not be atheists.

An agnostic government would be fine, if you define agnostic in this case to mean "indifferent to and completely separated from the existence of god". I think most atheists would find a government that did not bow to metaphysical viewpoints to be very good thing.

My program isn't about getting academic definitions ( I could not care less ) but about creating a society in which EVERYONE has to keep the big trap shut.
I don't mind people having religion or not - I mind them being unable to keep it private.

Furthermore, I consider a ( professed ) lack of metaphysics metaphysics as well. Unless you wish to claim that atheists have no code of ethics or morals whatsoever.

Well, anything to do with religious belief, in the large view, but in a more precise way of speaking, the inconsistency between a god that is supposed to be the personification of love and who yet turns over souls to be tortured for eternity.

There is no fact in religious belief--only faith and philosophy.

The claim that a philosophy is logically consistent is a fact which can be proven either true or false.

So what are the other 85% then if they are not atheists nor theists?

Beliefs are not democratic. I really don't give a shit what the majority believe. I believe what I believe. I leave others to their beliefs in peace, unless they impose themselves on me in this respect. I have no reason to comply to the majority values in this.

Do you support a football team? If not then you are in the wrong by your argument as the majority do. If you do then you are still wrong by your argument as whatever team you support, the majority do not.

Have a nice day.

I forgot - you had already left our Green and Pleasant Land.

Adieu! The day is lovely indeed!

If you look down upon others, chances are they will look down upon you. Not only that, you believe your faith is truth. Even moreso, you insult and condemn while hiding behind God, something you cant even prove real or even prove that he wants you to be doing what you are doing, as a reason.

When did we decide that I look down on others?

I believe as an emperical and proveable fact that they are in mortal danger, but that in no way implies that I look down upon them or consider them inferior mentally or otherwise anymore than I consider a man in a burning house to be "inferior"

Well, I think religion is the low-point of humanity. It is illogical, with the only purpose to ensnare the weak of mind. Fortunately Christianity is on the decline in Europe, especially England, so I'm relatively happy. *grins*

I do look down on the religious, but in the same way I would someone who is a junkie. Nothing personal, you just prefer wrapping yourself up in a blanket in some way or another and shielding yourself from reality.


...and I'm the one accused of looking down on others.

Most of what you've just said I could just as easily say about athiests.

The claim that a philosophy is logically consistent is a fact which can be proven either true or false.
A philosophy perhaps--not yours, unless you're going to do it here and now.

I am an atheist and I don't have any problem with theists. I do of course disagree when they try to spead their belief to others.

I think all missionary work is wrong.

I think teaching children that there is a god when they are young so that they will be less inclined to question it later in life is wrong.

The problem I have with religion in general is that I consider it one of the most dangerous things that Man has invented. Alongside Nationalism.

Both allow for the creation of Zealots. These are individuals who are convinced that ANY action is justified in the name of their God/Country. These are the people that strap bombs to themselves and walk into markets. These are the people that bomb towns of innocent civilians.

And of course there is nothing more dangerous than when the God/Country are the same thing.

If you're about to fall off a cliff and someone tells you you're about to fall off, do you "bite back" at them too?

If the cliff exists entirely in the imagination of the person who is telling me about it, I would probably get annoyed if that person kept preaching about it, yes.

And just because lots of people BELIEVE that there is a cliff doesn't change the terrain of this lovely meadow that I live on. Folks who would rather cling to the edge of a cliff and watch some bully throw people over and worship the bully rather than climb up off the imaginary cliff, walk away from the bully and join me in the meadow are welcome to it. I am going back to picking flowers and sharing my picnic with my friends.

A philosophy perhaps--not yours, unless you're going to do it here and now.


So you believe that my philosophy is logically inconsistant and I believe that it is.

Good. In that case we have an argument.

It would probably be best to start a new thread entitled "logical consistancy of a benevolent God with eternal damnation" because otherwise this could get a bit messy.

I think I'll try it.

When did we decide that I look down on others?

I believe as an emperical and proveable fact that they are in mortal danger, but that in no way implies that I look down upon them or consider them inferior mentally or otherwise anymore than I consider a man in a burning house to be "inferior"

Oh yeah telling a bunch of people they are going to Hell really makes them feel good about themselves, even if they dont believe in that hell.

Provable fact that they are in mortal danger? Is God talking to you?

Not believing in God is HARDLY similar to being in a burning house.

If God thought we were all in mortal danger, dont you think he would say something? maybe have another son to tell us to repent? I dont know, more plagues maybe?

I am an atheist and I don't have any problem with theists. I do of course disagree when they try to spead their belief to others.

I think all missionary work is wrong.

I think teaching children that there is a god when they are young so that they will be less inclined to question it later in life is wrong.

The problem I have with religion in general is that I consider it one of the most dangerous things that Man has invented. Alongside Nationalism.

Both allow for the creation of Zealots. These are individuals who are convinced that ANY action is justified in the name of their God/Country. These are the people that strap bombs to themselves and walk into markets. These are the people that bomb towns of innocent civilians.

And of course there is nothing more dangerous than when the God/Country are the same thing.


Would you obey a summons of your Country?
That's how I define a good citizen: by his patriotism, not by his religion.
And I've met worthless traitors, pacifists and cowards among men of all religious beliefs, including atheism. Without much in the way of correlation between patriotism and religion, at least not in England.

I am an atheist and I don't have any problem with theists. I do of course disagree when they try to spead their belief to others.

I think all missionary work is wrong.

I think teaching children that there is a god when they are young so that they will be less inclined to question it later in life is wrong.

The problem I have with religion in general is that I consider it one of the most dangerous things that Man has invented. Alongside Nationalism.

Both allow for the creation of Zealots. These are individuals who are convinced that ANY action is justified in the name of their God/Country. These are the people that strap bombs to themselves and walk into markets. These are the people that bomb towns of innocent civilians.

And of course there is nothing more dangerous than when the God/Country are the same thing.


Would you obey a summons of your Country?
That's how I define a good citizen: by his patriotism, not by his religion.
And I've met worthless traitors, pacifists and cowards among men of all religious beliefs, including atheism. Without much in the way of correlation between patriotism and religion, at least not in England.

I am an atheist and I don't have any problem with theists. I do of course disagree when they try to spead their belief to others.

I think all missionary work is wrong.

I think teaching children that there is a god when they are young so that they will be less inclined to question it later in life is wrong.

The problem I have with religion in general is that I consider it one of the most dangerous things that Man has invented. Alongside Nationalism.

Both allow for the creation of Zealots. These are individuals who are convinced that ANY action is justified in the name of their God/Country. These are the people that strap bombs to themselves and walk into markets. These are the people that bomb towns of innocent civilians.

And of course there is nothing more dangerous than when the God/Country are the same thing.

Welcome to NS General. Good first post. :)

Oh yeah telling a bunch of people they are going to Hell really makes them feel good about themselves, even if they dont believe in that hell.

I didn't say it would make them feel good, I said that I don't look down on them.

Provable fact that they are in mortal danger? Is God talking to you?

Short answer: you're not going to like this. Yes.

Not believing in God is HARDLY similar to being in a burning house.

How so?

If God thought we were all in mortal danger, dont you think he would say something? maybe have another son to tell us to repent? I dont know, more plagues maybe?

Let's see.. Katrina, global warming, 9/11....

If the cliff exists entirely in the imagination of the person who is telling me about it, I would probably get annoyed if that person kept preaching about it, yes.

And just because lots of people BELIEVE that there is a cliff doesn't change the terrain of this lovely meadow that I live on. Folks who would rather cling to the edge of a cliff and watch some bully throw people over and worship the bully rather than climb up off the imaginary cliff, walk away from the bully and join me in the meadow are welcome to it. I am going back to picking flowers and sharing my picnic with my friends.

No. A real cliff. If there really was a cliff, would you be offended if someone told you so?

Natural, explainable disasters. Not the work of a magical being.

Believing in God is akin to believing in dragons and the lochness monster- except there is more proof of the lochness monster...

My program isn't about getting academic definitions ( I could not care less ) but about creating a society in which EVERYONE has to keep the big trap shut.
I don't mind people having religion or not - I mind them being unable to keep it private.

Well, all I can speak to is America at this point... and we have a little thing called freedom of speech, which lets everyone have the right to spew about everything, most of the time. What we DON'T allow is any one religious group to legislate for everyone else, which is as it should be.

Furthermore, I consider a ( professed ) lack of metaphysics metaphysics as well.

How is a lack of metaphysics metaphysics??? That is like saying "Being broke is having a lot of money." How is the absence of belief the same as belief?

Unless you wish to claim that atheists have no code of ethics or morals whatsoever.

Far from it, atheists DO have codes of ethics... but not a UNIFIED GROUP code. They are individuals, and behave as such. EVERYONE has a code of some sort which they follow, even those whose codes we would see as evil and corrupt. And we all live under a (hopefully ethical) code of laws, which we have deemed to the best we can do. When it can be demonstrated that the laws are outdated, unethical and wrong, we change them. And everyone gets to give opinions on those changes, but the laws must be laid out to favor all, not just a particular group.

Let's see.. Katrina, global warming, 9/11....

Too bad Katrina, global warming, and 9/11 probably killed people with similar beliefs as you. Too bad no disaster has killed me yet. I guess God is all about the collateral damage, as long as he gets the "bad guys."

Natural, explainable disasters. Not the work of a magical being.

Believing in God is akin to believing in dragons and the lochness monster- except there is more proof of the lochness monster...

So, you want a sign but it has to be something that has never happened before?

Is there a non-hostile way for me to tell you "you're about to fall off a cliff"?

Not really, is there a non-hostile way for me to tell you that you're wasting your life and going to rot - perhaps "already fallen off"? Because you'd be offended by that, right? Now consider that next time you tell someone that doesn't subscribe to your moral code that they're going to hell.

(my actual beliefs are not that strong, in fact, I generally could care less what your religious beliefs are and how they effect your life - but think about it from that point of view.)

I don't want a sign lol. I never asked for a sign. I said that those are all explainable with science.

Still, I don't expect you to understand the concept.

So, you want a sign but it has to be something that has never happened before?
Well God is supposed to be all powerful right? If God existed and were all powerful, he could simply write it on the sky in plain English if he wanted.

Not really, is there a non-hostile way for me to tell you that you're wasting your life and going to rot - perhaps "already fallen off"? Because you'd be offended by that, right? Now consider that next time you tell someone that doesn't subscribe to your moral code that they're going to hell.

(my actual beliefs are not that strong, in fact, I generally could care less what your religious beliefs are and how they effect your life - but think about it from that point of view.)

So, in effect, if I wish to save your life than I must offend you.

(my actual beliefs really are this strong. I do care.)

No. A real cliff. If there really was a cliff, would you be offended if someone told you so?

Apples and oranges. A real cliff does not compare to your perception of what the afterlife might be. You BELIEVE that it is a real cliff, but that does not make it so. So your comparison fails.

If I were somehow standing on a real cliff, yes, I would appreciate it if someone said "Watch out!" But your afterlife is not a real cliff. I am NOT standing on the edge of it. It is imaginary, pretend, all in your head, however you would like me to state it. Believe it as hard as you like, but your pretend is not going to make it real in my world. And I am not playing that game with you, I am here in the real world, doing my own thing and enjoying my life.

As such, if you feel COMPELLED to tell me about it, you should preface your thoughts with "I believe this to be true..." and, after you have mentioned it once, if I am not interested in playing your make believe game, let it go. Or be prepared for me to be annoyed with you.

Isn't a natural disaster just us getting in the way of nature and not necessarily the act of a vengeful God? An earthquake positioned below a city kills people, but is a result of having a liquid core and a solid crust. A hurricane may seem disastrous, but is a way of reducing excess heat in the atmosphere.

So, in effect, if I wish to save your life than I must offend you.

(my actual beliefs really are this strong. I do care.)

Well if I were to tell you that believing in a god is an unhealthy lifestyle, would you be offended? Would it be OK for me to think "Im only trying to save his life?" Would you even consider a single word I have said?

Mer des Ennuis, those are clearly a sign from God.

So, in effect, if I wish to save your life than I must offend you.

(my actual beliefs really are this strong. I do care.)

My belief is that you're not actually saving my life, you're instead aiming to force me to abide by what you see as "moral" and "just", which I happen to vehemently disagree with. You need to accept that not everyone, in fact, the majority of people worldwide, do not adhere to your particular system. You need to respect others without resorting to intolerance disguised as charity, otherwise we get into a pointless circle of hate as we vainly attempt to figure out who is wrong and who is right; not an easy task with the thousands of different belief systems out there.

Don't think I haven't read the Bible either, because I have. I am well aware of your religion, and I simply disagree with it. If I wish to change my belief system in the future, I am perfectly capable of doing so. I do not need someone to guide or force me to.

Natural, explainable disasters. Not the work of a magical being.

Believing in God is akin to believing in dragons and the lochness monster- except there is more proof of the lochness monster...


I don't belive that is true. Put it this way, you and me and all of humanity evolved from single celled organisims eventualy right up to humans.

As we evoluved certian traits where weeded out as being no good, and certian traits strenghtend to enable us to take advantage over our terrian and furthour our species.

The process of evolution eliminates that which we don't need, and makes sure that 'only the strong survives'

Then why if we do not need it, does a belief in God still exist, why has evolution not weeded it out? If it is still there in our heads, and rest asurred it is, if there are some people born with the relgious brain(as I belive it to be) then why?

I know a fair bit about religion and what I know tells me that to get to God is not an easy thing to do, and although I am not Christian, at least the Bible puts a number on the ammount of souls that will make it. I mean how easy is it going to be for anybody beliver or not to volunterly give up free will and surrender it to Gods will? Not a lot.

Well if I were to tell you that believing in a god is an unhealthy lifestyle, would you be offended? Would it be OK for me to think "Im only trying to save his life?" Would you even consider a single word I have said?

My point exactly.

GAAAAAAAAH.

Okay. Look. "Atheist" and "religious" are not opposites. Atheist is the inverse of theist. Agnostic is outside both of these terms; it is possible to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

Ahhh..Thank you thank you thank you! :fluffle:

It's just one of those things I needed to hear. Continue with your conversation.

When did we decide that I look down on others?

I believe as an emperical and proveable fact that they are in mortal danger, but that in no way implies that I look down upon them or consider them inferior mentally or otherwise anymore than I consider a man in a burning house to be "inferior"


Empirical and provable? OK... go ahead and prove it empirically.

Well God is supposed to be all powerful right? If God existed and were all powerful, he could simply write it on the sky in plain English if he wanted.


Or perhaps Hebrew!

Or perhaps Hebrew!

Sorry the correct language is Aramaic.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the New Testament in Greek (with the possible exception of the Gospel According to Matthew, which may have been originally written in Aramaic).


Its still kind of offensive when you tell an entire group of people they are going to hell.
Perhaps so, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

Sorry the correct language is Aramaic.

Shit I guess that realy depends on what religion you are huh!?:rolleyes:

Then why if we do not need it, does a belief in God still exist, why has evolution not weeded it out? If it is still there in our heads, and rest asurred it is, if there are some people born with the relgious brain(as I belive it to be) then why?

Evolution doesn't happen overnight. Atheism is already way up in comparisson to one hudnred years ago. Another three-four hundred years and religion with hopefully be extinct.

Evolution doesn't happen overnight. Atheism is already way up in comparisson to one hudnred years ago. Another three-four hundred years and religion with hopefully be extinct.

I wish I could share your optimistic appraisal. Religion can infiltrate and subvert any aspect of rational inquiry. It's a tough meme.

I don't belive that is true. Put it this way, you and me and all of humanity evolved from single celled organisims eventualy right up to humans.

As we evoluved certian traits where weeded out as being no good, and certian traits strenghtend to enable us to take advantage over our terrian and furthour our species.

The process of evolution eliminates that which we don't need, and makes sure that 'only the strong survives'

Then why if we do not need it, does a belief in God still exist, why has evolution not weeded it out? If it is still there in our heads, and rest asurred it is, if there are some people born with the relgious brain(as I belive it to be) then why?

I know a fair bit about religion and what I know tells me that to get to God is not an easy thing to do, and although I am not Christian, at least the Bible puts a number on the ammount of souls that will make it. I mean how easy is it going to be for anybody beliver or not to volunterly give up free will and surrender it to Gods will? Not a lot.

Well, it's not something solely genetic, and there are societal benefits to believing...We had, what? 43 protestant Presidents and one Catholic?

Evolution doesn't happen overnight. Atheism is already way up in comparisson to one hudnred years ago. Another three-four hundred years and religion with hopefully be extinct.


Ohhh cheers, now I can put my mind at rest, many thanks for the answer. So we have only had religion since the dawn of man, and you recon we'll be rid of it in 3-4 hundred years then?

Well, it's not something solely genetic, and there are societal benefits to believing...We had, what? 43 protestant Presidents and one Catholic?

Because atheism will cost votes in the American south, places like Texas. Also, because atheists have been in short supply until as recently as say 30 years ago...

Ohhh cheers, now I can put my mind at rest, many thanks for the answer. So we have only had religion since the dawn of man, and you recon we'll be rid of it in 3-4 hundred years then?

Yep. Were you thinking otherwise? Religion is unnecessary and can join the appendix- shrivelled and useless. Half way there already, heh.

I'm a strong agnostic, and I look down on both Atheists and Theists.

I don't see how either of them holds a reasonable position.

Probably because religion makes as much sense as the tooth fairy?

Because atheism will cost votes in the American south, places like Texas. Also, because atheists have been in short supply until as recently as say 30 years ago...

No kidding...I'm pretty sure we're below Communists on what people want in a president...Wait...Would a communist want to be president?

Then why if we do not need it, does a belief in God still exist, why has evolution not weeded it out? If it is still there in our heads, and rest asurred it is, if there are some people born with the relgious brain(as I belive it to be) then why?

Well, if you want to make a sociological process equal evolution, we can, (although they are not the same)...

Consider the "evolution" of religion. Primative cave dwellers apparently worshipped animals. Greeks worshipped a pantheon of gods who mostly represented unexplainable natural phenomena. We have "evolved" away from that to a point where, for the most part, the major religions have only one god each, and that god, for the most part, looks like a souped up version of a human. Perhaps we ARE heading towards doing away with religion eventually, who knows?

I'm a strong agnostic, and I look down on both Atheists and Theists.

I don't see how either of them holds a reasonable position.

*twitch* Gotdang...Look, You're probably an Agnostic Atheist. Agnosticism is not a middle ground to Theism and Atheism, it's a different type of philosohpy.

No kidding...I'm pretty sure we're below Communists on what people want in a president...Wait...Would a communist want to be president?
I'm not American, but I think I remember reading that atheists are below every other kind of minority.

I'm not American, but I think I remember reading that atheists are below every other kind of minority.

Well that says quite a bit about America. There will likely be a black or female president before there is an atheist president.

As I mentioned before, as a true atheist, I cannot help but look down upon the religious in the same manner as I do drug addicts.

Yep. Were you thinking otherwise? Religion is unnecessary and can join the appendix- shrivelled and useless. Half way there already, heh.


Shit man I was being sarcastic. I'm very religious, but i realise it is all about me getting to God, I really couldn't give a monkeys what you all do I have enough problems with me own. Heh What being holyeir than thou and all that! I'm a selfish religious man, and that is how it should be. All these religous freaks trying to convert you to their ways, what the!?! Why why are you doing that and not looking after your own souls then?

Religion BTW is subjective, if you feel it unnecessary fine I can't argue with your subjectivity, but I of course find it to have masive value and necessity in my life.

Thus adding support to my comments that religion is nothing but protection for those who lack strength to handle life realistically.

Well, if you want to make a sociological process equal evolution, we can, (although they are not the same)...

Consider the "evolution" of religion. Primative cave dwellers apparently worshipped animals. Greeks worshipped a pantheon of gods who mostly represented unexplainable natural phenomena. We have "evolved" away from that to a point where, for the most part, the major religions have only one god each, and that god, for the most part, looks like a souped up version of a human. Perhaps we ARE heading towards doing away with religion eventually, who knows?


You don't think that religion is in the brain, nor the genes then? Homosexualality is also a choice with no genetic basis? You are firmly in the nurture camp of the nature vs nurture argument then?

All of our sociological process, as you say, come ultimatly from the grey matter in our heads, which via a process of evolution has changed into what it is today. Racism, it's in the head, in our brains, it may have evolved out of our fears of other tribes(I dunno) but consider, some people are racist and some are not. We can't help it, some are built/born one way and others a differant way. Why is that then do you think?

Thus adding support to my comments that religion is nothing but protection for those who lack strength to handle life realistically.

No, that would be cocaine.

I doubt I would be able to torture anyone, even if they were a rapist or murderer I just wouldn't feel right.

Religious people seem to beleive God (an all loving being) is going to put millions/billions of good people or souls through agony for all eternity because we haven't given him unquestioning obediance. I'm sorry not even Hitler or Stalin was that bad...

*twitch* Gotdang...Look, You're probably an Agnostic Atheist. Agnosticism is not a middle ground to Theism and Atheism, it's a different type of philosohpy.


Okay here we go again.

Atheist - Somebody who catagoricly denies the existance of God

Agnostic- Somebody who admist to just not knowing if their is a God or not, but is prepeared to belive either way given proof.

Logicaly speaking an agnostic has a better grasp of reality and basis their 'belife structure' more around logics than theists or atheists who both belive one way or another without proof.

No, that would be cocaine.

And in turn, adding support for my reason for looking down on everyone religious.

Religion is exactly like drugs. People use both to escape reality and help them through times of strife because they cannot face up to the realities of life with their own strength (Or rather, lack thereof.)

Thus adding support to my comments that religion is nothing but protection for those who lack strength to handle life realistically.


Ahahhahhah and the uninformed and fundie behaviuor goes on. You don't know me, nor of my faith, nor of my thought processes. Yet because you cannot understand why people have faith you, fear the unknown and attack, as do we all.

And in turn, adding support for my reason for looking down on everyone religious.

Religion is exactly like drugs. People use both to escape reality and help them through times of strife because they cannot face up to the realities of life with their own strength (Or rather, lack thereof.)


Wait.


You look down on people who use drugs too?

I doubt I would be able to torture anyone, even if they were a rapist or murderer I just wouldn't feel right.

Religious people seem to beleive God (an all loving being) is going to put millions/billions of good people or souls through agony for all eternity because we haven't given him unquestioning obediance. I'm sorry not even Hitler or Stalin was that bad...

Again that all depends on what religin you are. Mine don't belive that at all.

Actually I can understand having faith perfectly. I from time to time lapse into my absolute faith, absolute belief, that luck favours me. Never in my life have I not landed on my feet, and so why not belief it? Other than the fact I have the intelligence and willpower to resist the concept that there is a physical force that favours me and is going out of its way to help me...

So I can believe your faith, I just cannot accept it in the same way I cannot accept drug addiction in any form.

Okay here we go again.

Atheist - Somebody who catagoricly denies the existance of God

Agnostic- Somebody who admist to just not knowing if their is a God or not, but is prepeared to belive either way given proof.

Logicaly speaking an agnostic has a better grasp of reality and basis their 'belife structure' more around logics than theists or atheists who both belive one way or another without proof.

Damn. No. An Athiest is someone who is not a Theist. Which is why that litte prefix is there. You do know how "A-" works right? And Agnostic has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in a god, but is believing it's not possible to prove one way or the other.

Wait.


You look down on people who use drugs too?


Please tell me you're joking.

Isn't a natural disaster just us getting in the way of nature and not necessarily the act of a vengeful God? An earthquake positioned below a city kills people, but is a result of having a liquid core and a solid crust. A hurricane may seem disastrous, but is a way of reducing excess heat in the atmosphere.

And you beleive (a perfect) God made this world in which heat needs to be reduced in the atmosphere. Could you not concieve of a world in which earthquakes/hurricanes (or crazy random explosions) don't need to exist - if so this God could have made such a world since he of course he created the laws of science. Therefore God made a specifically flawed world in which innocent people will uneccessarily die through no falut of their own or man.

And you beleive (a perfect) God made this world in which heat needs to be reduced in the atmosphere. Could you not concieve of a world in which earthquakes/hurricanes (or crazy random explosions) don't need to exist - if so this God could have made such a world since he of course he created the laws of science. Therefore God made a specifically flawed world in which innocent people will uneccessarily die through no falut of their own or man.

Or, you know, God just messed up.

Again that all depends on what religin you are. Mine don't belive that at all.

Another problem with relgion. People are inconsistent. Some say beleive in Jesus or you will go to hell. Others say pray 5 times a day or you'll go to hell.

Then of course others put in more carrot, and say obey our rules and you'll just go to heaven or be with God, others won't be punished they'll just miss out. (which in absolute terms is not much different to saying other people will suffer in comparison).

Or, you know, God just messed up.

He so did not. Porn exists and continues to grow. Chocolates are made by the shiploads. Interstellar travel is not possible yet, but have faith my friend.

God of Porn and Chocolate welcomes all believers and non-believers!

'Cept Porn/Chocolate-haters. They are punished to a week of nutrasweet, "I can't believe it's not butter" and non-alcoholic beers.

And you beleive (a perfect) God made this world in which heat needs to be reduced in the atmosphere. Could you not concieve of a world in which earthquakes/hurricanes (or crazy random explosions) don't need to exist - if so this God could have made such a world since he of course he created the laws of science. Therefore God made a specifically flawed world in which innocent people will uneccessarily die through no falut of their own or man.

Not neccesarily, natural disasters are traditionally associated with the overall decay of the perfect natural order of things as a result of original sin.

Actually national disasters are traditionally associated with disturbed spirits of nature- far more accurate and older than Judeo/Christian/Islamic beliefs.

You don't think that religion is in the brain, nor the genes then? Homosexualality is also a choice with no genetic basis? You are firmly in the nurture camp of the nature vs nurture argument then?

All of our sociological process, as you say, come ultimatly from the grey matter in our heads, which via a process of evolution has changed into what it is today. Racism, it's in the head, in our brains, it may have evolved out of our fears of other tribes(I dunno) but consider, some people are racist and some are not. We can't help it, some are built/born one way and others a differant way. Why is that then do you think?

I don't think religion is in the genes, I think it is learned behavior. I don't KNOW that any studies have been done to prove it, but I would strongly lean towards the guess that it is like political activism, something that one learns at some point along the way, either from one's upbringing, or as a protest against that upbringing. I think that children raised to believe that the universe is a wonderful, vast and unknown playground to explore and that we are doing so bit by bit won't have any uneducated NEED to invent gods to explain things we haven't gotten to yet, which is where I think the invention of gods came from in the first place. Simply because it is a pervasive learned behavior does not indicate that it is a genetic trait.

Racism, too, is learned behavior. My grandfather was a racist, my mother made a conscious choice that her children would not be, and told him he was not allowed to bring any of that behavior into our presence. As a result, and through her teaching and care, we learned that racism is wrong. If it were somehow genetic, one would think that it would not be removed in two (well, one really, my mother was not a racist) generation.

Homosexuality IS genetically based. Children who were raised with no knowledge of the possibility of homosexuality still managed to turn out homosexual. There are proven genetic and environmental links, and the thing nurture provides is the opportunity for someone who is already attracted to members of their own sex to express that attraction without fear. If it were strictly nurture, then no child of a conservative fundamentalist would ever become a homosexual, and we know they do. Likewise, statistically MORE children raised by homosexual parents would turn out to be homosexual, but, in fact, the percentages remain the same for both sets of children.

Where does, "I'm religious and I'm marrying an atheist," go? It seems like "don't mind them that much" doesn't quite fit it...

*Applaudes Upper Botswavia* Huzzah Sir.

You go under the: "Im religious but about as orthodox as [insert witty comparisson here]."

*Applaudes Upper Botswavia* Huzzah Sir.

Madame. But thanks for the kudos.

:)

Ah my mistake dear lady. *Applaudes*

Not neccesarily, natural disasters are traditionally associated with the overall decay of the perfect natural order of things as a result of original sin.

You give humans too much credit. Are you really arguing things like volcanic erruptions or earthquakes are the result of human sin?

Not neccesarily, natural disasters are traditionally associated with the overall decay of the perfect natural order of things as a result of original sin.

Are you trying to tell me that my brother's roof collapsed in a hurricane last year because some naked chick in a garden a really long time ago decided that perhaps she could be better than the stupid lump of mud that she was pulled out of and ate an apple???

I am still waiting for the empirical proof you claimed some few pages back... and if you have proof of this one, I would LOVE to hear it.

You go under the: "Im religious but about as orthodox as [insert witty comparisson here]."

You say that as if it is a bad thing. "Orthodoxy" would suggest "follows what some other human being says without questioning it." As far as I'm concerned, that wouldn't really be religious belief, so much as faith in whatever human beings determined the doctrine.

Actually I don't. Unorthodoxy is better than orthodoxy. Know what is better? Atheism.

Are you trying to tell me that my brother's roof collapsed in a hurricane last year because some naked chick in a garden a really long time ago decided that perhaps she could be better than the stupid lump of mud that she was pulled out of and ate an apple???

I am still waiting for the empirical proof you claimed some few pages back... and if you have proof of this one, I would LOVE to hear it.Actually, fun fact. The Bible never states what fruit it is that Eve eats. But ya know, the apple being a pagan symbol has really nothing to do with it...

While I don't really have a problem against religion persay, I find that the monotheistic religions are the ones that have caused the most problems, and make the least sense.

God is perfect. And all good. But there's sin. But God didn't create sin. But he gave free will so people could create it. And it goes on like this...

I'm liking most of this discussion, but it has nothing to do with how I'm interperting the polls. I might have to do another study in the near future.

My idea of heaven and hell, since, if you read the bible, God does love the world, is that heaven is knowing how much God loves you and responding (i've had it phrased as "God giving you a big hug for all eternity") where as hell is being unable to respond with the full knowledge of that love.

For some reason I have the ending of Time/Breathe and Keep Talking stuck in my head.

Actually, fun fact. The Bible never states what fruit it is that Eve eats. But ya know, the apple being a pagan symbol has really nothing to do with it...

Makes sense... I don't know if the apple is native to ancient middle eastern horticulture, but if not, it would be extremely odd for it to be mentioned in this context originally, but as a pagan symbol much more sense for it to have been added to the story in more recent translations.

Thanks for the interesting thought.

Just want to throw this in: Mankind had the choice: eat the fruit of knowledge (and here is the important part) of good and evil, or eat the fruit of eternal life. While mankind did (according to this metaphor) had the choice of eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge, or the permissible fruit of eternal life, and, sadly for us, we apparently chose the former.

Shit I guess that realy depends on what religion you are huh!?:rolleyes:

I was being sarcastic.

It seems to me if you are religious and believe that those who do not believe in God are damned...You are not very religious

:)

My idea of heaven and hell, since, if you read the bible, God does love the world, is that heaven is knowing how much God loves you and responding (i've had it phrased as "God giving you a big hug for all eternity") where as hell is being unable to respond with the full knowledge of that love.


Interesting interpretation. But where does that leave atheists who don't have "full knowledge of that love"? With no knowledge, and unable to respond, would they just not have any afterlife at all, which is what they believe anyway?

And if that is the way it really works, wouldn't it be kinder to atheists to NOT tell them, so they wouldn't be stuck with going to hell just because they KNEW about it but didn't want it?

I'm liking most of this discussion, but it has nothing to do with how I'm interperting the polls. I might have to do another study in the near future.

My idea of heaven and hell, since, if you read the bible, God does love the world, is that heaven is knowing how much God loves you and responding (i've had it phrased as "God giving you a big hug for all eternity") where as hell is being unable to respond with the full knowledge of that love.

For some reason I have the ending of Time/Breathe and Keep Talking stuck in my head.Ha, I like that. "God gives you a big hus for all eternity"

Well, eternal lake of fire is a little different than not being able to respond to the full lvoe of God. By that reasoning, hell would be the exact same as life on Earth should you not follow Christianity.

Actually there were two trees that were banned to humanity. The Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. A fruit from one granted knowledge, a fruit from the other, immortality. Humanity has been supposedly kept from Eden to prevent them eating the fruit of the Tree of Life and thus become gods themselves.

Just want to throw this in: Mankind had the choice: eat the fruit of knowledge (and here is the important part) of good and evil, or eat the fruit of eternal life. While mankind did (according to this metaphor) had the choice of eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge, or the permissible fruit of eternal life, and, sadly for us, we apparently chose the former.

Sadly? Not at all! Triumphantly, I would say!

Consider... if Eve had chosen eternal life for herself, there she would be, she and Adam, to this day, dumb as posts (fence posts!). You and I would never have happened. Free will would have been a huge and painful practical joke, and God would have been just a petty dictator.

If God put us in the garden, and gave us the curiosity to explore and know the world, and then punished us for taking the choice to use that gift, I would say that God needs a serious attitude adjustment. Far too many of the supposed offenses we are guilty of and going to be punished for revolve around using the supposed gifts God gave us (brains, hearts and free will). If parents had a child and said "here is a room full of toys for you," then beat the child for playing with the toys, we might find that objectionable, don't you think? How is it less so when a god does the same thing?

Actually there were two trees that were banned to humanity. The Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. A fruit from one granted knowledge, a fruit from the other, immortality. Humanity has been supposedly kept from Eden to prevent them eating the fruit of the Tree of Life and thus become gods themselves.
Do you have the verse for that, because I don't remember that all at

Sadly? Not at all! Triumphantly, I would say!

Consider... if Eve had chosen eternal life for herself, there she would be, she and Adam, to this day, dumb as posts (fence posts!). You and I would never have happened. Free will would have been a huge and painful practical joke, and God would have been just a petty dictator.

If God put us in the garden, and gave us the curiosity to explore and know the world, and then punished us for taking the choice to use that gift, I would say that God needs a serious attitude adjustment. Far too many of the supposed offenses we are guilty of and going to be punished for revolve around using the supposed gifts God gave us (brains, hearts and free will). If parents had a child and said "here is a room full of toys for you," then beat the child for playing with the toys, we might find that objectionable, don't you think? How is it less so when a god does the same thing?
Actually, to gain Godly status, Adam and Eve would have needed to eat from two trees. Knowledge and Life. I found the passage that talks about it.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:22;&version=31;

It seems to me if you are religious and believe that those who do not believe in God are damned...You are not very religious

:)

Define "damned". Hell, as far as I (and most of Scripture) am concerned is simply separation from God. Do I believe that those who have willfully rejected God will continue to be separated from God? Probably, unless at some point they decide not to reject God.


Just want to throw this in: Mankind had the choice: eat the fruit of knowledge (and here is the important part) of good and evil, or eat the fruit of eternal life. While mankind did (according to this metaphor) had the choice of eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge, or the permissible fruit of eternal life, and, sadly for us, we apparently chose the former.

Hmmm.

Personally, I think the whole thing was a big metaphor to describe and explain human beings being separated from most of the animal kingdom by our understanding of responsibility. With knowledge comes responsibility, and much as adults often look at children, who have no responsibility and little knowledge, and wish for a return to that "innocence", I think the ancient Hebrews felt that their knowledge of responsibility for their actions was a burden. And since it was a burden, and made them aware of their suffering, the suffering they caused others, etc., they felt that they must have done something "wrong" to acquire it.

Ha, I like that. "God gives you a big hus for all eternity"

Well, eternal lake of fire is a little different than not being able to respond to the full lvoe of God. By that reasoning, hell would be the exact same as life on Earth should you not follow Christianity.


Wow, if hell is exactly the same as life on earth, that sounds fine to me. I LIKE life on earth! I am enjoying it to no end. I have problems, sure, everyone does, but overall, things here are pretty spiffy, and if I got to do some more of this after I died, well, that would be swell!

So not following Christianity gets me a good life here, and not being able to respond to the full love of some mythical umpire who is making up rules I don't agree with anyway gets me to continue it, what the heck would be the bonus of being a Christian anyway? Any description of heaven I have ever read sounds pretty dull by comparison.

It seems to me if you are religious and believe that those who do not believe in God are damned...You are not very religious

:)
...Any reason behind that? That's kinda one of the tenets of the religion itself.

Genesis 3:22-23

Yahweh God said, 'The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must be prevented from reaching out his hand to take from the tree of life, lest he eat from it and also live forever!' Therefore Yahweh God sent him away from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

I follow Buddhism, an atheistic religion.

Wow, if hell is exactly the same as life on earth, that sounds fine to me. I LIKE life on earth! I am enjoying it to no end. I have problems, sure, everyone does, but overall, things here are pretty spiffy, and if I got to do some more of this after I died, well, that would be swell!

So not following Christianity gets me a good life here, and not being able to respond to the full love of some mythical umpire who is making up rules I don't agree with anyway gets me to continue it, what the heck would be the bonus of being a Christian anyway? Any description of heaven I have ever read sounds pretty dull by comparison.
Hey, that's not according to me, I was just responding to the other person. here, have some descriptions of hell

Malachi 4:1

"Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire," says the LORD Almighty. "Not a root or a branch will be left to them.

Matthew 13:42

They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I follow Buddhism, an atheistic religion.
Debateable. Buddhism has the goal of Nirvana, which could be considered a pantheistic World Spirit, and doesn't exclude the possibiblity of deities.

Actually, to gain Godly status, Adam and Eve would have needed to eat from two trees. Knowledge and Life. I found the passage that talks about it.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:22;&version=31;

The quote is short, I will repost here.

22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

First, I didn't say Adam and Eve were going to be gods, I would think that Eve CHOSE to be human and use her human potential by picking knowledge over eternal life. And if she had gotten eternal life, then been denied knowledge, then they would still be sitting there in the garden, living forever, but wasting all the other marvelous gifts. So Eve should be honored for her choice, not vilified for it.

As an aside... who is this "us" that the LORD God was talking to in this passage? And as a second aside, it is interesting that although it was Eve who was the FIRST one to get smart, God didn't seem to mind it until Adam got smart too. Hmmmm... never mind... both of these points are meaningless... please ignore them.

Damn. No. An Athiest is someone who is not a Theist. Which is why that litte prefix is there. You do know how "A-" works right? And Agnostic has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in a god, but is believing it's not possible to prove one way or the other.

And since when is English etymologically consistent?

Athiesm is the belief that there is no God. Check any credible English dictionary. But look again at the structure of the word. It's an -ism, just like theism. Theism is the belief in the existence of a God. Atheism is the belief in the absence of a God.

It's really quite simple.

I'm not religious. I am, however, vaguely theist, in a sort of hinduish/buddhist way.

There are ways in which I look down on some of both the Religious people and Atheists. Whenever either group tries to proclaim the benefit of their own stance and spread it as part of a social program, I will get mightily pissed off. Whenever your ideas themselves encourage social dominance, I will take no hesitation in pulling it to pieces.

Generally, however, you can have whatever ideas you like, and all the power to you for it.

The quote is short, I will repost here.

22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

First, I didn't say Adam and Eve were going to be gods, I would think that Eve CHOSE to be human and use her human potential by picking knowledge over eternal life. And if she had gotten eternal life, then been denied knowledge, then they would still be sitting there in the garden, living forever, but wasting all the other marvelous gifts. So Eve should be honored for her choice, not vilified for it.

As an aside... who is this "us" that the LORD God was talking to in this passage? And as a second aside, it is interesting that although it was Eve who was the FIRST one to get smart, God didn't seem to mind it until Adam got smart too. Hmmmm... never mind... both of these points are meaningless... please ignore them.
Really? it seems to me more like the serpent going "Hey, eat that fruit and you'll be closer to God!" and Even going along with him.

The who "us" thing is an issue with the Hebrew. God is refered to in two different way. Singular, with "He Who is He Who is He" and plural with "Elohim" I'm to sure of the significance of this, but I think that it comes into play for the two creations of man.

And since when is English etymologically consistent?

Athiesm is the belief that there is no God. Check any credible English dictionary. But look again at the structure of the word. It's an -ism, just like theism. Theism is the belief in the existence of a God. Atheism is the belief in the absence of a God.

It's really quite simple.
But is a negative belief still a belief? This is one of those thorny little issues that really have no point in resolving as they mean the same thing.

Amusingly enought though, you can apply the etymology to agnostic. a -without gnostic - knowledge gained throguh association.

By that logic, an agnostic would be someone who would not be sure of God as they had not had any experience with God.

But is a negative belief still a belief? This is one of those thorny little issues that really have no point in resolving as they mean the same thing.

Amusingly enought though, you can apply the etymology to agnostic. a -without gnostic - knowledge gained throguh association.

By that logic, an agnostic would be someone who would not be sure of God as they had not had any experience with God.

In which case religion is pointless and true faith impossible. Hense the Atheists win ,.. :)

In which case religion is pointless and true faith impossible. Hense the Atheists win ,.. :)
...How? You just made a jump that I completely missed. How do we go from the definition of atheist and agnostic to religion sucks?

Oh for the love of...

Eve was tricked into eating the Fruit of Knowledge by the Snake, which was then cursed by god. Whilst eating, she gave some to Adam. They were both then cursed, Eve by being told she would suffer pain in child birth, and Adam by being made to till the land for his food.

They were both cast out of Eden to;

A) Prevent either of them, or their off-spring, from ever eating the Fruit of Life, and thus becoming elevated to God-hood.

B) Punish them (or more specifically allow Adam to carry out his punishment).

ok... i voted 'other' because even though I would call myself a christian, and believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God, I do not think of myself as 'religious'
actually i feel sorry for both the 'religious' and the 'atheists'
I also hate that this forum has become like pretty much every other 'religious' one and become a 'lets all rip into christianity.
there are many other religions that we could be discussing, and yes I do think that both atheism and religion are misguided. atheism and religion are guilty of arrogance in claiming to know everything and discounting all other forms of belief.
my get out is that i do not see my christianity as a religion. where christianity has become religious and legalistic, and especially when it has become entrenched in society and politics it has given rise to terrible and dangerous things, eg crusades and spanish inquisition to look at historical examples...
but true fundamental christianity, based on the teachings of Jesus does not give you a basis for hating anyone. in fact christians are commanded to love one another and everyone! ok, this doesn't work out 100% of the time because people are crap and do selfish things!
the way i see it, christianity and all mainstream religions when they become entrenched in culture and tradition lose their focus and become exploited!
if christians would stop focussing on their 'christianity' and actually remember that we are not part of a religion, but a relationship with a living and loving God... then maybe we wouldn't provoke such a bad reaction from all you angry atheists and whoever else...
i'm sure there are plenty of lovely atheists too... nationstates just seems to be full of the angry ones!
oh, in answer to the comments about 'indoctrinating children'... well why not tell your children your beliefs? everyone does it, and what is so terrible about passing on what you believe to your children. they will be molded by something, and wouldn't you rather have some say and guidance rather than just letting mtv and the disney channel tell your kids what to think and do?

Oh for the love of...

Eve was tricked into eating the Fruit of Knowledge by the Snake, which was then cursed by god. Whilst eating, she gave some to Adam. They were both then cursed, Eve by being told she would suffer pain in child birth, and Adam by being made to till the land for his food.

They were both cast out of Eden to;

A) Prevent either of them, or their off-spring, from ever eating the Fruit of Life, and thus becoming elevated to God-hood.

B) Punish them (or more specifically allow Adam to carry out his punishment).

Yep. I still maintain we are all better off for it, no matter how the story is told.

Uh... We atheists actually have some sanity behind our viewpoints. We aren't claiming a mythical, all power being is watching over us. Nor do we elevate a carpenter who died over two thousand years ago to the status of Godhood.

If you want to pity someone, pity the blindly religious, the religious and the theistic agnostic. Effectively, those whom are unable to accept reality and thus try to escape it with nice little fairy-tales.

ok... i voted 'other' because even though I would call myself a christian, and believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God, I do not think of myself as 'religious'
actually i feel sorry for both the 'religious' and the 'atheists'
I also hate that this forum has become like pretty much every other 'religious' one and become a 'lets all rip into christianity.
there are many other religions that we could be discussing, and yes I do think that both atheism and religion are misguided. atheism and religion are guilty of arrogance in claiming to know everything and discounting all other forms of belief.
my get out is that i do not see my christianity as a religion. where christianity has become religious and legalistic, and especially when it has become entrenched in society and politics it has given rise to terrible and dangerous things, eg crusades and spanish inquisition to look at historical examples...
but true fundamental christianity, based on the teachings of Jesus does not give you a basis for hating anyone. in fact christians are commanded to love one another and everyone! ok, this doesn't work out 100% of the time because people are crap and do selfish things!
the way i see it, christianity and all mainstream religions when they become entrenched in culture and tradition lose their focus and become exploited!
if christians would stop focussing on their 'christianity' and actually remember that we are not part of a religion, but a relationship with a living and loving God... then maybe we wouldn't provoke such a bad reaction from all you angry atheists and whoever else...
i'm sure there are plenty of lovely atheists too... nationstates just seems to be full of the angry ones!
oh, in answer to the comments about 'indoctrinating children'... well why not tell your children your beliefs? everyone does it, and what is so terrible about passing on what you believe to your children. they will be molded by something, and wouldn't you rather have some say and guidance rather than just letting mtv and the disney channel tell your kids what to think and do?
Well said. It seems that today's Christianity has become closer to the following of the OT God, with a nod to Jesus whenever people want to scare the non-believers.

I personally don't have much of a problem with most of Jesus' teaching, but the worship of an all-good creator God holds some intrinsic problems.

Yep. I still maintain we are all better off for it, no matter how the story is told.

I maintain it is a lovely little story and should be added to bedtime literature for children, before being discounted as a work of fiction.

I maintain it is a lovely little story and should be added to bedtime literature for children, before being discounted as a work of fiction.
What's wrong with stories? It sounds like you have an active dislike of fiction, the way the past couple of posts have been phrased.

On the contrary, I adore fiction. I'm the sort who tends to pile and stack books than place them on a book case.

My statements instead are against the belief in the bible as a work of non-fiction.

Uh... We atheists actually have some sanity behind our viewpoints. We aren't claiming a mythical, all power being is watching over us. Nor do we elevate a carpenter who died over two thousand years ago to the status of Godhood.

If you want to pity someone, pity the blindly religious, the religious and the theistic agnostic. Effectively, those whom are unable to accept reality and thus try to escape it with nice little fairy-tales.
That's a little unfair. There are many intelligent religous people who have honestly considered their faiths. There are atheists that are just as bad, who will easily bash any religion for the simple reason of "because that's impossible, duh!"

Bottom line is, that you really can't disproove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

I maintain it is a lovely little story and should be added to bedtime literature for children, before being discounted as a work of fiction.
Because Sodom and Gommorah is clearly a wonderful little story perfectly suited for small children...

Melanch, we cannot disprove the existence of Santa-Clause or the Easter Bunny. Does that mean we should erect buildings to honour them and convert people to the worship of them?

Because Sodom and Gommorah is clearly a wonderful little story perfectly suited for small children...

I was being patronising.

*snip*
if christians would stop focussing on their 'christianity' and actually remember that we are not part of a religion, but a relationship with a living and loving God... then maybe we wouldn't provoke such a bad reaction from all you angry atheists and whoever else...
i'm sure there are plenty of lovely atheists too... nationstates just seems to be full of the angry ones!
oh, in answer to the comments about 'indoctrinating children'... well why not tell your children your beliefs? everyone does it, and what is so terrible about passing on what you believe to your children. they will be molded by something, and wouldn't you rather have some say and guidance rather than just letting mtv and the disney channel tell your kids what to think and do?

I agree, it does tend to end up Christians v. Atheists when this sort of discussion comes up, but that may be because those are the people who respond. If a significant Muslim population here were concerned about the issue of Atheism, I imagine that it might become a more three way discussion. Likewise any other religion. But what happens is that the folks who hold a particular set of beliefs come to discuss/defend them, and other beliefs do get ignored, but without someone bringing them up, there is not going to be any discussion about them.

I think there are a lovely bunch of atheists here on NS! And a lovely bunch of theists too! Sometimes some of us get carried away and passionate, but that does not negate the fact that we are nice people, it merely means we are passionate ones. And sometimes, it does get ugly, but such is life.

There is no reason not to raise your children to believe what you believe. A more honest way of behaving, however, might be to tell your children "this is what I believe and there are other beliefs too." Much like your concerns about this sort of thread only dealing with one set of beliefs, perhaps it would be better to educate children about various religions, and let them pick.

The truth is, my father is a minister (now retired). He and my mother raised all of us with their ideals about good and bad, and taught us about their beliefs on religion. They also said "you are free to hold whatever beliefs work for you, so long as you KNOW why you believe what you do." They encouraged us to explore and learn about other religions. As a result, one sister is now Catholic, one is pretty much still a member of Dad's church, my brother is quite spiritual but not very religious at all, and me... well, that would take more time than I have to explain. And my parents were always supportive of all of us. At the time when I stopped going to church, they understood, and did not ever dun me for it.

So indoctrination is bad. Teaching and allowing children to grow and make their own choices is good.

On the contrary, I adore fiction. I'm the sort who tends to pile and stack books than place them on a book case.

My statements instead are against the belief in the bible as a work of non-fiction.
Same here, but Theist Agnostics are (almost by definition) usually the kind to treat mythologies (including Scriptural ones) as fiction with neat messages. What's wrong with that?

I am an atheist, but I am a devout worshiper of myself. I pity those who do not worship me as the all powerful and almighty ruler of the universe. Some people are just pathetic.

I maintain it is a lovely little story and should be added to bedtime literature for children, before being discounted as a work of fiction.

Well, of COURSE there is that!

But as allegory goes, it works fairly nicely.

Melanch, we cannot disprove the existence of Santa-Clause or the Easter Bunny. Does that mean we should erect buildings to honour them and convert people to the worship of them?
Come now, there's a difference honouring the figure that brings chocolate, and the figure that is your supposed creator.

Come now, there's a difference honouring the figure that brings chocolate, and the figure that is your supposed creator.
Yup. People might regret being made, but -nobody- regrets chocolate. ^^

Come now, there's a difference honouring the figure that brings chocolate, and the figure that is your supposed creator.

No. There isn't. There is absolutely no difference. The two are EXACTLY the same, and I am not being in the least bit sarcastic. How would you feel if the Church of Easter Bunny arose? You would think they were taking the absolute piss, but they might be serious and honestly believe. That is religion; absurd ideas followed by idealists who cannot accept some potentially harsh truths.

Come now, there's a difference honouring the figure that brings chocolate, and the figure that is your supposed creator.

Well, the choclate is a heck of a lot better than this here creation, but if you're looking for similarities...FSM FTW!

This poll is horribly skewed.

I think athiests are going to hell, but I don't hate them.

Hell is for people like Hitler etc..., Heck, Hitler might have repented and been saved and gone to heaven, but I highly doubt it. I think it's more complex than dying and going straight to heaven or hell. There's probably more to it.

Well if you don't want to see it, then you won't. Have a nice day.
So if you want to see it, you will?

I'm neither. I'm spiritual (with Christian leanings, but I don't belong to a religious denomination) and I look down only at atheists and religious people who 'know it all.'
To those who are open minded enough to have civil discussions, and are willing to listen to other points of view, I have no complaints. :)

I'm a Christian. I don't see any reason to look down on people who believe something different than I do, that seems like kind of a silly thing to base your opinion of someone on.

Hell is for people like Hitler etc..., Heck, Hitler might have repented and been saved and gone to heaven, but I highly doubt it. I think it's more complex than dying and going straight to heaven or hell. There's probably more to it.


Yeah, God runs a bureaucracy. You have to queue up for few millenia, reaching Saint Peter frequently only to be told that your 2AA form for admission has been redirected to the Punishment and Pain division by mistake.

Not straight forward at all and, in some ways, far worse than Hell.

Personally, I believe that if you are stupid enough to believe such a place as Hell exists, then you deserve to go there for conjouring up such a ridiculous idea.

Damn. No. An Athiest is someone who is not a Theist. Which is why that litte prefix is there. You do know how "A-" works right? And Agnostic has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in a god, but is believing it's not possible to prove one way or the other.

Sorry and that differs from my post how?

I'm an agnostic atheist ( I suppose), and I only look down upon religious people who look down upon me. It usually ends with us jumping up and down until someone gets a ladder, then that person wins and I move on.

Another problem with relgion. People are inconsistent. Some say beleive in Jesus or you will go to hell. Others say pray 5 times a day or you'll go to hell.

Then of course others put in more carrot, and say obey our rules and you'll just go to heaven or be with God, others won't be punished they'll just miss out. (which in absolute terms is not much different to saying other people will suffer in comparison).


Yeah and that makes about as much sense as saying you know the problem with car mechanics, they are inconsistent some say you need to fix the engine while others say no mate it's difffernat model of car, I only know how to fix broom handles. Come on man be realisitic so there is only one way to make a steak sandwhich then?

I don't think religion is in the genes, I think it is learned behavior. I don't KNOW that any studies have been done to prove it, but I would strongly lean towards the guess that it is like political activism, something that one learns at some point along the way, either from one's upbringing, or as a protest against that upbringing. I think that children raised to believe that the universe is a wonderful, vast and unknown playground to explore and that we are doing so bit by bit won't have any uneducated NEED to invent gods to explain things we haven't gotten to yet, which is where I think the invention of gods came from in the first place. Simply because it is a pervasive learned behavior does not indicate that it is a genetic trait.

Racism, too, is learned behavior. My grandfather was a racist, my mother made a conscious choice that her children would not be, and told him he was not allowed to bring any of that behavior into our presence. As a result, and through her teaching and care, we learned that racism is wrong. If it were somehow genetic, one would think that it would not be removed in two (well, one really, my mother was not a racist) generation.

Homosexuality IS genetically based. Children who were raised with no knowledge of the possibility of homosexuality still managed to turn out homosexual. There are proven genetic and environmental links, and the thing nurture provides is the opportunity for someone who is already attracted to members of their own sex to express that attraction without fear. If it were strictly nurture, then no child of a conservative fundamentalist would ever become a homosexual, and we know they do. Likewise, statistically MORE children raised by homosexual parents would turn out to be homosexual, but, in fact, the percentages remain the same for both sets of children.


I'll not deny the strength of learned behaviour but nor should you underestimate genetics and what they do to our minds. They have been many, and I mean many twins studies where identical twins growing up apart are like minded not only in the way they dress or wear their hair but the ideals and principles they hold also. Our genes I belive are very instrumental in the way in which we shape our wolrd view and it is well know that people with certian genes are more likely to order their ideas in this way rather than the other. Yes to a degree all sorts of behavior is learned and cultural, but the differance in our genes means that some people are more prone or suscepible to certian modes and methods of thought.

I personaly believe nurture has very little to do with our upbringing. Learned behavior really has more to do with what you know rather than who you are.

I was being sarcastic.
Heh so was I note the :rolleyes:

I am an atheist and I don't have any problem with theists. I do of course disagree when they try to spead their belief to others.

I think all missionary work is wrong.

I think teaching children that there is a god when they are young so that they will be less inclined to question it later in life is wrong.

The problem I have with religion in general is that I consider it one of the most dangerous things that Man has invented. Alongside Nationalism.

Both allow for the creation of Zealots. These are individuals who are convinced that ANY action is justified in the name of their God/Country. These are the people that strap bombs to themselves and walk into markets. These are the people that bomb towns of innocent civilians.

And of course there is nothing more dangerous than when the God/Country are the same thing.

Would you obey a summons of your Country?
That's how I define a good citizen: by his patriotism, not by his religion.
And I've met worthless traitors, pacifists and cowards among men of all religious beliefs, including atheism. Without much in the way of correlation between patriotism and religion, at least not in England.

I would indeed answer the call of my country. I would NOT however obey commands that I felt were wrong. Some may call them "Crimes Against Humanity" but I would hate to say that those would encompass all of the actions that I would not be prepared to do.

But is a negative belief still a belief? This is one of those thorny little issues that really have no point in resolving as they mean the same thing.

Amusingly enought though, you can apply the etymology to agnostic. a -without gnostic - knowledge gained throguh association.

By that logic, an agnostic would be someone who would not be sure of God as they had not had any experience with God.


Yeah bu t it is not a negative beilfe is it, it is a belief that there is no God, and that is exactly what an agnostic is, somebody who admits to not knowing, becuase of no proof. remeber the only proof of God is personal experiance.

In all seriousness, yes.

And I have no problem admitting that many religious people annoy me.
Just got a point where the minority ruined it all for most religions.

I agree, it does tend to end up Christians v. Atheists when this sort of discussion comes up, but that may be because those are the people who respond. If a significant Muslim population here were concerned about the issue of Atheism, I imagine that it might become a more three way discussion. Likewise any other religion. But what happens is that the folks who hold a particular set of beliefs come to discuss/defend them, and other beliefs do get ignored, but without someone bringing them up, there is not going to be any discussion about them.

I think there are a lovely bunch of atheists here on NS! And a lovely bunch of theists too! Sometimes some of us get carried away and passionate, but that does not negate the fact that we are nice people, it merely means we are passionate ones. And sometimes, it does get ugly, but such is life.

There is no reason not to raise your children to believe what you believe. A more honest way of behaving, however, might be to tell your children "this is what I believe and there are other beliefs too." Much like your concerns about this sort of thread only dealing with one set of beliefs, perhaps it would be better to educate children about various religions, and let them pick.

The truth is, my father is a minister (now retired). He and my mother raised all of us with their ideals about good and bad, and taught us about their beliefs on religion. They also said "you are free to hold whatever beliefs work for you, so long as you KNOW why you believe what you do." They encouraged us to explore and learn about other religions. As a result, one sister is now Catholic, one is pretty much still a member of Dad's church, my brother is quite spiritual but not very religious at all, and me... well, that would take more time than I have to explain. And my parents were always supportive of all of us. At the time when I stopped going to church, they understood, and did not ever dun me for it.

So indoctrination is bad. Teaching and allowing children to grow and make their own choices is good.


What if I want to indoctrinate my children into the school of anit racist thought? Is that bad?

What if I want to indoctrinate my children into the school of anit racist thought? Is that bad?

most likely.

Human beings have educated their children in their respective religions pretty much since the dawn of man. I see nothing wrong with this.

most likely.


heh you jest surly so to teach my kids not to be racist is bad?

remeber the only proof of God is personal experiance.

Does that even qualify as proof? Surely you could have been imagining things?
Can you prove otherwise?

And I dont look dont on religious types, as long as they hold reasonable beliefs. If they believe in 6 day creationism, I feel free to think them a moron, for example. If they thing homosexuality/sex outside marriage/being a woman/limping is a sin, then I also think them a moron.

If they dont... then I can accept their belief in a higher power.

heh you jest surly so to teach my kids not to be racist is bad?

teaching your children at all is bad

When a child reaches age 12, place them in a wooden box. Feed them daily
through a knot-hole and when they reach the age of 16, plug up the hole."

--attributed to Mark Twain.