NationStates Jolt Archive

I've heard numerous stories about people being harassed and assaulted because they didn't believe in God. Ouside of the realm of Politics, are there any instances of the Atheists doing the bullying on some poor Christian kid?
I've never heard one.

Well, unless you count here...

I don't think atheists are prevalent enough for that to be a problem. However, I bet if you look in places like North Korea, Vietnam, or Russia during the Soviet era you'd find plenty of examples of atheist brutality against young adults and children by other kids. Or, you could just look at government policy...just because it's adults doing it doesn't make it any less heinous.

Now, there are atheists who are verbally abusive, but most of those militant types tend to be adults. Irrational faith tends to produce negative consequences no matter what the religion is.

I've heard numerous stories about people being harassed and assaulted because they didn't believe in God. Ouside of the realm of Politics, are there any instances of the Atheists doing the bullying on some poor Christian kid?
I've never heard one.I guess folks who do not really believe are in the vast majority worldwide. Christian kids on the other side always have an aura of ignorance and low intelligence. I think it's a good thing if Christian kids get bullied, so they might start using their own heads instead of just following their respective indoctrinators.

My school, being all "progressive" and shit, tends to have mostly athiests, and yes, most kids who are Christian get at least some shit for their beliefs. Many religious people are considered to be slightly less logical. My best friend is a catholic republican (:rolleyes:) and I don't get into religion or politics with him, but he will get into fights in order to get people to lay off of him and let him believe what he believes.

My school, being all "progressive" and shit, tends to have mostly athiests, and yes, most kids who are Christian get at least some shit for their beliefs. Many religious people are considered to be slightly less logical. My best friend is a catholic republican (:rolleyes:) and I don't get into religion or politics with him, but he will get into fights in order to get people to lay off of him and let him believe what he believes.

He'll become violent to escape criticism of his beliefs?

That does not present a particularly favourable impression of his religion.

He'll become violent to escape criticism of his beliefs?

That does not present a particularly favourable impression of his religion.Yeah, damn republicanism.

Many religious people are considered to be slightly less logical

Which is funny, because their beliefs are ultimately just as "illogical" as the people who believe in God. Of course, they seem to forget that religion is not a scientific hypothesis and it ultimately boils down to faith no matter what side of the issue you stand on. Logic has its place in the empirical world, while faith is the realm of the supernatural world.

If you're going to claim to be progressive, act like it. Freethought means freethought in which all viewpoints are examined and analyzed.

The only time I've seen atheists bullying folks is on the Internet. *shrug*

Yeah, damn republicanism.

I like you. :fluffle:

The only time I've seen atheists bullying folks is on the Internet. *shrug*

"Internet bullying" has to be one of the funniest things I've ever heard of! Bullying requires some form of physical coersion, which is impossible to achieve online. Avoiding someone online is simple, just /ignore or log out LOL!

Which is funny, because their beliefs are ultimately just as "illogical" as the people who believe in God. Of course, they seem to forget that religion is not a scientific hypothesis and it ultimately boils down to faith no matter what side of the issue you stand on. Logic has its place in the empirical world, while faith is the realm of the supernatural world.

If you're going to claim to be progressive, act like it. Freethought means freethought in which all viewpoints are examined and analyzed.

There is no "supernatural" world. This is apparently part of the problem.

ETA: I just noticed who I'm quoting. LOL we've been through this before, I'll just stop here and agree to disagree, okay? :)

"Internet bullying" has to be one of the funniest things I've ever heard of! Bullying requires some form of physical coersion, which is impossible to achieve online. Avoiding someone online is simple, just /ignore or log out LOL!

I'd say it's a lot funnier (and sadder) to know that there are people that actually try to bully others on the internet.

There is no "supernatural" world. This is apparently part of the problem.

It requires just as much, if not more, faith to say that as it does to say there is a supernatural world.

ETA: I just noticed who I'm quoting. LOL we've been through this before, I'll just stop here and agree to disagree, okay? :)

Of course. ;)

It requires just as much, if not more, faith to say that as it does to say there is a supernatural world.



Of course. ;)

I suppose you could say that I have faith that if something demonstrably exists, it is part of the natural world . . .

"Internet bullying" has to be one of the funniest things I've ever heard of! Bullying requires some form of physical coersion, which is impossible to achieve online. Avoiding someone online is simple, just /ignore or log out LOL!

Not quite. Verbal or written harassment certainly counts as bullying (in addition to being illegal in many cases), particularly if the harassment is done by someone with a lot of power in the victim's social group. If they have the power to ruin the person's social life or even part of it, that's really not funny.

What's funny and sad is that folks actually feel the need to bully other folks.

I suppose you could say that I have faith that if something demonstrably exists, it is part of the natural world . . .

That would fit the broadest definition of "nature", meaning that spiritual beliefs and the like are part of the natural world even though they may have different properties than physical matter. After all "The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing" doesn't specify what the physical characteristics of that thing are.

Of course, quantum theory makes it even weirder by blurring that line in a lot of ways. The kinds of things discovered there suggest that our conception of the "spiritual" is really a much more bizarre component of our reality than even the most detailed mythology could develop.

Yeah, damn republicanism.
Because all Republicans are violent, stupid and fanatically religious. Duh.

My friend, you need to get out more. Every single post that I have seen you make has been something like this; to wit: scornful, ill thought out, one-sided and somewhat rude. Admittedly, I haven't really read all of your posts, but seriously. The fact that you advocate bullying of Christian children as a form of 'changing their beliefs' is not only worthy of derision, it is rather alarming.

People have a right to believe what they will, it's called intellectual freedom. In theory, 'progressive' people ought to be tolerant of others, it's what progressivism is about. In my experience, progressives are as intolerant as anyone else, and should get off their high horses.

That leads me into what I actually was going to post about, before I felt the need to lecture :S.

At my school, the vast majority of students are agnostic or atheist (as am I) and tend to be rather scornful of those who aren't. Or rather, they're scornful of Christians. Jewish students, Buddhist students and others (we actually have lots of Buddhists thanks to our exchange program) are left alone, and if they aren't then the school immediately steps in. However, I have seen and taken part in the mocking-- I wouldn't call it bullying, exactly-- of several Christian students, a fact of which I am not proud. The fact is, neither my school nor the other students (who are quick to intervene in other cases of intolerance) have done anything about it.

It's pretty much the same with Republican students, who are mocked and harassed, not only by students but by some teachers as well. So yeah, it happens. Admittedly, I live in Seattle, Washington, so I'm not exactly typical. But still.

I've heard numerous stories about people being harassed and assaulted because they didn't believe in God. Ouside of the realm of Politics, are there any instances of the Atheists doing the bullying on some poor Christian kid?
I've never heard one.

At my high school I knew a lot of people who would mock you if you believed in a God, ESPECIALLY if you were a Christian. All my friends at my first college hated my religion (all atheists with some agnostics). I never experienced physical violence. Mostly a little verbal harassment and people looking down their noses.

Unlikely, it's usually the other way round with the extremist christians going after people who dont care, that in your face evangelicalism should be considered bullying quite frankly.

People who would actually call themselves atheists (or agnostics) rather than not caring and just not talking about it are somehow suspect to religious people. All of a sudden their liberal atheists who want to destroy christian family values, and have some secret agenda, you might as well turn the clock back to 1930's Germany and wear a black outfit and a crooked nose.

you might as well turn the clock back to 1930's Germany and wear a black outfit and a crooked nose.

So basically just dress as Gargamel.

Well... I can see where they might be coming from, having seen what could be considered bullying if one had a persecution complex as large as the one that fundies do.

At my school they are subjected to a thorough mocking when they do stupid shit, like protest the formation of the GSA at school, or get pissed when their charter is revoked because their "Body of Beleivers" only lets christians in. Many students will take part in mocking them when they do stupid shit because we feel that we are also under attack, and have been since this whole religious conservative thing happened. It doesn't hurt that they do obnoxious shit like standing outside of the school around the flagpole and praying loudly for our pour, condemned souls, and writing editorials in the school newspaper about why evolution is so stupid (drawing from the morons at the "Discovery Center", which is based nearby)

Sooo..... If you were looking for a reason to scream "Help! Help! I'm being opressed!", I can see claiming it was bullying. In my mind it's mocking the moronic, but I suppose I'm biased.

Not quite. Verbal or written harassment certainly counts as bullying (in addition to being illegal in many cases), particularly if the harassment is done by someone with a lot of power in the victim's social group. If they have the power to ruin the person's social life or even part of it, that's really not funny.

What's funny and sad is that folks actually feel the need to bully other folks.

Ruining a person's social life is against the law? I've often thought of bringing a class action suit against women, for reverse sexual harrassment . . .

Because all Republicans are violent, stupid and fanatically religious. Duh.

My friend, you need to get out more. Every single post that I have seen you make has been something like this; to wit: scornful, ill thought out, one-sided and somewhat rude. Admittedly, I haven't really read all of your posts, but seriously. The fact that you advocate bullying of Christian children as a form of 'changing their beliefs' is not only worthy of derision, it is rather alarming.

People have a right to believe what they will, it's called intellectual freedom. In theory, 'progressive' people ought to be tolerant of others, it's what progressivism is about. In my experience, progressives are as intolerant as anyone else, and should get off their high horses.



you just did exactly what he did to republicans, to him

meta-prejudice, one of the most invisible prejudices of em all:headbang:

I had an athiest teacher once who was pretty jerky to me, if he had gotten more information he could have been an ass for a good reason rather than making an issue of my faith. I wasn't the best example back then.

He seemed to attack Christians in class quite a bit.

I guess folks who do not really believe are in the vast majority worldwide. Christian kids on the other side always have an aura of ignorance and low intelligence. I think it's a good thing if Christian kids get bullied, so they might start using their own heads instead of just following their respective indoctrinators.
That's just stupid, and heartless. No child deserves to be bullied. Nor will bullying stop them being Christian. If anything it will strengthen their faith, for as Christ said, a sure sign of one's faith is their continued adherence in the face of persecution.

That's just stupid, and heartless. No child deserves to be bullied. Nor will bullying stop them being Christian. If anything it will strengthen their faith, for as Christ said, a sure sign of one's faith is their continued adherence in the face of persecution.That's rather a sign of continued defiance and thus of a certain lack of intelligence. Thank god most kids don't really care about the Christian god and all the stupid fuss the churches make in their attempts to indoctrinate kids even in schools. The future is much brighter without religious folks. ;) Face it, belief is a refusal to think. The world already has enough non-thinkers.

That's rather a sign of continued defiance and thus of a certain lack of intelligence. Thank god most kids don't really care about the Christian god and all the stupid fuss the churches make in their attempts to indoctrinate kids even in schools. The future is much brighter without religious folks. ;) Face it, belief is a refusal to think. The world already has enough non-thinkers.

I think you are the one who has been indoctrinated. ;)

People have a right to believe what they will, it's called intellectual freedom.In most cases the exercise of this freedom involves no intellect. :)

I think you are the one who has been indoctrinated. ;)By what? By looking at the current state of the planet without the distortion of mythical ideas? Look just how bad the situation is and how irreparable damaged the world already is. Do we really need folks who have their understanding of the world out of a very old book that's made up for the biggest part?

The world already has enough non-thinkers.

With some people though, it isn't a matter of 'not thinking' so much as needing something to believe in. I can respect that, personally. I don't think I count as a 'bullying atheist', because I mostly just enjoy arguing about it, to see if religious people *can* hold their own and prove their faith and such. I think the idea of a god is a bit ridiculous, but if it helps them get through life, then good for them, you know?

That's just stupid, and heartless. No child deserves to be bullied. Nor will bullying stop them being Christian.

I think (hope) that what they mean is challenging the kid's beliefs, not just taunting them for it, because taunting isn't going to make anyone actually *think* about what the taunter is saying, and sometimes the taunted would automatically assume the taunter is wrong. So they should be challenged, yes, to make them think, because blindly following anything, even (especially) a religion isn't good for anyone. But bullying wouldn't help.

By what? By looking at the current state of the planet without the distortion of mythical ideas? Look just how bad the situation is and how irreparable damaged the world already is. Do we really need folks who have their understanding of the world out of a very old book that's made up for the biggest part?

by your posts.

saying "<group> is stupid because they are stupid" is a sign of indoctrination.

in fact you can't even objectively prove your side so you aren't much better than Christians.

I think (hope) that what they mean is challenging the kid's beliefs, not just taunting them for it, because taunting isn't going to make anyone actually *think* about what the taunter is saying, and sometimes the taunted would automatically assume the taunter is wrong. So they should be challenged, yes, to make them think, because blindly following anything, even (especially) a religion isn't good for anyone. But bullying wouldn't help.
I doubt that many children are able to think deeply about their beliefs, or intelligently challenge those of other people.

BTW, welcome to the forum. You are better than 90% of newbies in that you did not use the gun smilies.

It's funny how so many liberals defend bullying when it's done to Christians.

Unfortunately stupid kids one day become stupid adults. The world just has no more use for such people, in fact they are a danger. They use up resources but do not contribute to the improvement of humankind and the rest of creation. The more stupid humans grow up the more other species will just disappear from the planet. It's that simple. This world cannot adapt to 6 billion humans, the majority of which has no understanding of the world at all, neither in a rough picture nor in the details. Religiousness is a clear sign of a lack of education. There is no future if we don't start to discard baseless assumptions (beliefs).

I doubt that many children are able to think deeply about their beliefs, or intelligently challenge those of other people.I'd say at 12 they should have reached the point where they could unmask most religious teachings as unfounded.

That's rather a sign of continued defiance and thus of a certain lack of intelligence. Thank god most kids don't really care about the Christian god and all the stupid fuss the churches make in their attempts to indoctrinate kids even in schools. The future is much brighter without religious folks. ;) Face it, belief is a refusal to think. The world already has enough non-thinkers.


Weird how you can talk negatively of my beliefs, and accuse me of being less intelligent for not believing as you do, but still thank my God for most kids not caring about a Christian God.

My bet is this...
You were raised in a Christian family, and as you got older, you thought rebellion would make you 'cool'. So you rebeled against a faith that you were raised with.

More importantly, though, is your concept of "Christian children being less intelligent than non-believers". Odd that Christian Europe flourished while other lands never could really compare to what Europe accomplished way back after the fall of Rome. Of course, since Christianity clearly shows stupidity, this wouldn't matter to you.

Unfortunately stupid kids one day become stupid adults. The world just has no more use for such people, in fact they are a danger. They use up resources but do not contribute to the improvement of humankind and the rest of creation. The more stupid humans grow up the more other species will just disappear from the planet. It's that simple. This world cannot adapt to 6 billion humans, the majority of which has no understanding of the world at all, neither in a rough picture nor in the details. Religiousness is a clear sign of a lack of education. There is no future if we don't start to discard baseless assumptions (beliefs).

and intolerant closeminded kids become intolerant closeminded adults, the world can not function well with these types of people running around, in fact they are dangerous, they try to force their own opinions on others, and when that doesn't work they resort to generalizing and attacking an entire group.... a free world can not flourish with people like that around.

Its funny how people who beleived in less rational things than Christians managed to do thrive and take over a good portion of the world, while inventing little things like, oh, I dont know, writing, paper, assorted math, and amazing ways of killing people.
Of course, Christians have their own fair share of inventions and ways of killing people, although they usualy arent as interesting as the good 'ol Assyrian 'Stab them with red hot spears until their insides cook then flay them alive starting from the fingers, then use their skin to cover our city walls' method.
Of course this is silly. Stabbing people with red hot spears RUINS the skin.

By what? By looking at the current state of the planet without the distortion of mythical ideas? Look just how bad the situation is and how irreparable damaged the world already is. Do we really need folks who have their understanding of the world out of a very old book that's made up for the biggest part?

Do we really need people who believe that one particular belief system explains everything, and anyone who disagrees with them is less intelligent?

You do know that atheist regimes were some of the most heinous destroyers of the environment and were some of the most oppressive governments on the face of the Earth, right? Frankly, I consider the teachings in books like the Bible and the Koran to have some serious merit; the key is to analyze them rationally and see how they work in action.

I also find it ironic that environmental devastation has coincided with the decline in religious belief and the enshrinement of materialism as the new God.

With some people though, it isn't a matter of 'not thinking' so much as needing something to believe in. I can respect that, personally. I don't think I count as a 'bullying atheist', because I mostly just enjoy arguing about it, to see if religious people *can* hold their own and prove their faith and such. I think the idea of a god is a bit ridiculous, but if it helps them get through life, then good for them, you know.

It's good you admit that your position is also a belief-based opinion and that nobody has a handle on "truth". From there, real and productive discussion can come and we can produce new ideas. Everybody needs to realize that human understanding is inherently limited and what we make of that limitation is the important thing.

We need more free thinkers on all sides of the discussion in order to move forward.

Unfortunately stupid kids one day become stupid adults. The world just has no more use for such people, in fact they are a danger. They use up resources but do not contribute to the improvement of humankind and the rest of creation. The more stupid humans grow up the more other species will just disappear from the planet. It's that simple. This world cannot adapt to 6 billion humans, the majority of which has no understanding of the world at all, neither in a rough picture nor in the details.

What condition do you think our environment would be in if we were to eschew materialism and greed and focus instead on personal development, personal happiness and aesthetic accomplishments? And isn't it interesting that that's exactly what religious beliefs tell us to do?

And, furthermore, why is improving humankind desirable? You do know there is no rational basis for that belief, right?

Religiousness is a clear sign of a lack of education. There is no future if we don't start to discard baseless assumptions (beliefs).

Well, then what of the religion of atheism? It's based entirely on baseless assumptions, namely the faith that God does not exist. Frankly, I guess I could say that atheism is also a clear sign of a lack of education, because the more and more I read the more I realize that dogmatic atheism is just as dangerous to freedom of thought and belief as any religious fundamentalism.

Do we really need people who believe that one particular belief system explains everything, and anyone who disagrees with them is less intelligent?

You do know that atheist regimes were some of the most heinous destroyers of the environment and were some of the most oppressive governments on the face of the Earth, right? Frankly, I consider the teachings in books like the Bible and the Koran to have some serious merit; the key is to analyze them rationally and see how they work in action.

I also find it ironic that environmental devastation has coincided with the decline in religious belief and the enshrinement of materialism as the new God.

Very well said

Well, then what of the religion of atheism?

What a nonsensical question. "What about the hair colour of baldness?" :rolleyes:

What condition do you think our environment would be in if we were to eschew materialism and greed and focus instead on personal development, personal happiness and aesthetic accomplishments?

What about human freedom?

What about human freedom?

Who says anyone is getting forced to follow those ideals?

Well, then what of the religion of atheism? It's based entirely on baseless assumptions, namely the faith that God does not exist. Frankly, I guess I could say that atheism is also a clear sign of a lack of education, because the more and more I read the more I realize that dogmatic atheism is just as dangerous to freedom of thought and belief as any religious fundamentalism.

Again, wrong. Atheism doesn't say "God definitely doesn't exist" in the same way as I say "The sun will rise tomorrow". Inductive reasoning. We're not throwing religion away, we're just asking you to give us proof (which you can't). You then ask us to prove God exists (which we can't) and call it a draw. Or dogma, if you're you.

But from where I stand, there's firmer ground under my feet in thinking like Voltaire than St Augustine.

Well, then what of the religion of atheism?

Atheism is not a religion.

It's based entirely on baseless assumptions, namely the faith that God does not exist.

To be an atheist requires only that one doesn't believe in God. Not that one has faith that God does not exist.

Frankly, I guess I could say that atheism is also a clear sign of a lack of education

You could say that, if you wanted to be an asshole about things.

Well, unless you count here...
:rolleyes:

Who says anyone is getting forced to follow those ideals?

They should be if necessary to avoid harm to others and the destruction of the environment, but that's beside the point.

My point was that human freedom, neglected so often by religions, is essential to "personal development, personal happiness and aesthetic accomplishments," and is valuable in its own right as well.

Again, wrong. Atheism doesn't say "God definitely doesn't exist" in the same way as I say "The sun will rise tomorrow". Inductive reasoning. We're not throwing religion away, we're just asking you to give us proof (which you can't). You then ask us to prove God exists (which we can't) and call it a draw. Or dogma, if you're you.

But from where I stand, there's firmer ground under my feet in thinking like Voltaire than St Augustine.

In the end it all boils down to weather the universe came out of nothing, or was forced into existence purposefully (or non purposefully) by a greater force. Each statement has no higher ground in scientific terms. so when anyone says I know for sure, they are saying a statement that requires faith.

Of course the situation is different with religion etc...

I've heard numerous stories about people being harassed and assaulted because they didn't believe in God. Ouside of the realm of Politics, are there any instances of the Atheists doing the bullying on some poor Christian kid?
I've never heard one.

Where have you heard these stories? I never heard them. Growing up, bullying was something the bullies did, it wasn't some religious/spiritual schism.

You could say that, if you wanted to be an asshole about things.
why is Vetalia called an asshole for making an intelligent point?:confused:

Atheists tend to be a bit more serious when they decide to "bully" people. Those of us with high school educations remember learning about Mao, his lovely invasion of tibet, Buddhist monks and nuns raped at gunpoint for believing, all in the name of a world free of religion.

Ignorant savages will continue to harm one another until we're all dead, it doesn't matter what foolish reasons they use to motivate themselves. "I believe in God, so you must die!" Is really no different at all from "I don't believe in God, so you must die!" It really isn't. Come on people... watch some south park, get some perspective... Do I really need to say this?

Ruining a person's social life is against the law? I've often thought of bringing a class action suit against women, for reverse sexual harrassment . . .

Why do you think libel and slander are illegal? They destroy a person's reputation and ruin their social life.

No comment on reverse sexual harassment. I'd rather not hijack the thread.

In the end it all boils down to weather the universe came out of nothing, or was forced into existence purposefully (or non purposefully) by a greater force. Each statement has no higher ground in scientific terms. so when anyone says I know for sure, they are saying a statement that requires faith.

Of course the situation is different with religion etc...

Except there is a higher ground. The whole "if there is a god, what created him, what was before him" inductive loop of complexity. Actually accepting God as the beginning of everything raises more obtuse questions than it answers.

And again - Atheists are not saying that they know for sure. That would be backwards, de-evolutionary, regressive mind-fuckery.

I've heard numerous stories about people being harassed and assaulted because they didn't believe in God. Ouside of the realm of Politics, are there any instances of the Atheists doing the bullying on some poor Christian kid?
I've never heard one.

Hmm... yeah.

I personally have recieved little flak for my faith, but that's partially because most of the "bullies" in my school concentrate more on my skin colour.

But I've heard members of some sect of sXe Hardliners talk about how they beat the sh*t out of Catholics (in addition to all the drunkies and, you know, people who have fun with their lives), in the name of the name of their Edge.

They should be if necessary to avoid harm to others and the destruction of the environment, but that's beside the point.

My point was that human freedom, neglected so often by religions, is essential to "personal development, personal happiness and aesthetic accomplishments," and is valuable in its own right as well.

I agree, no religion should ever be forced by anyone to anyone. Wether or not it helps out in the long run. However, it does't mean you can't promote a set of ideals that you think are helpful, advertise them if you will.

Except there is a higher ground. The whole "if there is a god, what created him, what was before him" inductive loop of complexity. Actually accepting God as the beginning of everything raises more obtuse questions than it answers.


Each situation creates an infinate amount of questions: "how can matter arise from nothing? etc..."


And again - Atheists are not saying that they know for sure. That would be backwards, de-evolutionary, regressive mind-fuckery.

Thats wishful thinking, there are many atheists, even on this board who will claim they know for certain.

I guess folks who do not really believe are in the vast majority worldwide. Christian kids on the other side always have an aura of ignorance and low intelligence. I think it's a good thing if Christian kids get bullied, so they might start using their own heads instead of just following their respective indoctrinators.

I'm a practically militant atheist. However, United Beleriand, you are speaking with almost indescribable ignorance. I attended Catholic school for 9 years and it was very rare that I met someone with 'an aura of ignorance' and 'low intelligence.' That is just a flat out totally untrue statement.

Unfortunately believers are in the VAST majority worldwide (Christianity ALONE boasts more than a billion followers).

There are many intelligent people who are Christians. There are even many intelligent people who are biblical literalists (although... I have trouble understanding how anyone intelligent could believe that b/s...).

I hate the intolerance and holier-than-thou attitude of some Christians, but it's YOUR sort of attitude that makes them act all 'wronged.' Please, don't make gross generalizations like that.

Secondly, have you ever been bullied for your beliefs before? Trust me, it doesn't make you 'think for yourself.' It just makes you want to shut about what you think, or join the crowd. That's peer pressure.

"Well, then what of the religion of atheism? It's based entirely on baseless assumptions, namely the faith that God does not exist. Frankly, I guess I could say that atheism is also a clear sign of a lack of education, because the more and more I read the more I realize that dogmatic atheism is just as dangerous to freedom of thought and belief as any religious fundamentalism."

As opposed to baseless assumptions that God does exist? Foolishness. It's not a religion. I don't affiliate myself with any other atheist.

I don't see any atheists flying planes into buildings; however, dogmatism of ANY kind is very destructive. You are right about that.

Atheism is not a religion.

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Atheism does this, the only difference is that it has faith that there is no God. It has its own set of beliefs, and does have its own moral code constructed according to either the beliefs of individuals or the beliefs of an organization or life stance.

To be an atheist requires only that one doesn't believe in God. Not that one has faith that God does not exist.

Well, if you don't know that God exists, how can you say that not believing in something whose existence is indeterminate is not faith? You're making a positive statement about something inherently unprovable, which requires faith.

God can't be logically proven, so in reality any definitive statement about its nature requires faith.

You could say that, if you wanted to be an asshole about things.

Why? You've got a faith-based system just like people who believe in God, so it's just a matter of turning those words against you. The other poster clearly said that religious beliefs are a sign of ignorance, and since atheism carries its own set of beliefs I merely made the logical conclusion that they are both signs of ignorance according to that standard.

Again, wrong. Atheism doesn't say "God definitely doesn't exist" in the same way as I say "The sun will rise tomorrow". Inductive reasoning. We're not throwing religion away, we're just asking you to give us proof (which you can't). You then ask us to prove God exists (which we can't) and call it a draw. Or dogma, if you're you.

Inductive reasoning is not a scientific method of reasoning and can't be logically justified. It's not any logically stronger to say "God does not exist" than to say "God does not exist"

The sun rising can be empirically verified according to direct observation or mathematical calculation. God's existence can't, so they're not even the same thing. One is a scientific hypothesis, the other is not.

God's existence can't be proven, so any definite stance is faith based.

But from where I stand, there's firmer ground under my feet in thinking like Voltaire than St Augustine.

You do know that Voltaire was a Deist, right? He believed in God, albeit not the personal God of the Christians.

Also, Voltaire had his own problems, especially racism and anti-Semitism. He has good ideas, but he is also not perfect and had views we would consider reprehensible today. No human being is the one source of truth.

Except there is a higher ground. The whole "if there is a god, what created him, what was before him" inductive loop of complexity. Actually accepting God as the beginning of everything raises more obtuse questions than it answers.

You run in to a regress problem no matter which way you argue. Logic cannot justify itself without running in to faith-based axioms as its justification.

Although the problem is that this debate invariably falls in to a false dichotomy of Abrahamic God vs. Atheism; what if the Greek interpretation was true, in which creation occurred spontaneously and the Gods emerged from that primal essence to create the physical universe? That partially solves the problem by saying the beginning was effectively a random phenomenon.

And again - Atheists are not saying that they know for sure. That would be backwards, de-evolutionary, regressive mind-fuckery.

Unfortunately, some of them act that way especially those who are prominent within that community.

It's funny how so many liberals defend bullying when it's done to Christians.
People were defending people bullying Christians?

It's been my experience that Christians like to bully each other. When I was in highschool, I was a Christian for a fair bit of my time there and I was treated horribly by other Christian girls (they didn't bully me much for my religious beliefs, except the one girl who called me a heretic because I expressed a thought that differed from her particular brand of Christainity)

People were defending people bullying Christians?

It's been my experience that Christians like to bully each other. When I was in highschool, I was a Christian for a fair bit of my time there and I was treated horribly by other Christian girls (they didn't bully me much for my religious beliefs, except the one girl who called me a heretic because I expressed a thought that differed from her particular brand of Christainity)

Where do you live?

More importantly, though, is your concept of "Christian children being less intelligent than non-believers". Odd that Christian Europe flourished while other lands never could really compare to what Europe accomplished way back after the fall of Rome. Of course, since Christianity clearly shows stupidity, this wouldn't matter to you.
Odd that Christian Europe didn't start to thrive until after the Church had been put in its place. Don't you remember what we call the time when Christianity really ruled Europe? The Dark ages?

People were defending people bullying Christians?

It's been my experience that Christians like to bully each other. When I was in highschool, I was a Christian for a fair bit of my time there and I was treated horribly by other Christian girls (they didn't bully me much for my religious beliefs, except the one girl who called me a heretic because I expressed a thought that differed from her particular brand of Christainity)

Uhhh... pretty much all high school girls bully each other, in my experience.

What about human freedom?

Isn't freedom a necessary part of happiness? I would say true happiness and freedom are totally intertwined; it is utterly impossible to achieve one without the other. You simply can't develop to potential without the freedom to do so.

After all, how can you find true happiness without the freedom to look for it?

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Atheism is a single, lack of belief, not a "set of beliefs." Atheism has no structure, or moral code, doesn't involve devotional or ritual observances, and has nothing to do with the cause, nature or purpose of the universe.

It's just this.

"Do you believe in God?"

"No."

Atheism does this, the only difference is that it has faith that there is no God.

Repeat that a whole lot, maybe it'll become true!

It has its own set of beliefs, and does have its own moral code constructed according to either the beliefs of individuals or the beliefs of an organization or life stance.

Uh, no it doesn't.

Now why is it always non-atheists trying to tell atheists what atheism is?

Well, if you don't know that God exists, how can you say that not believing in something whose existence is indeterminate is not faith? You're making a positive statement about something inherently unprovable, which requires faith.

Faith is a strong belief. Not believing in God can hardly be said to be a "belief," and you trying to insist it is a strong belief is just inane.


God can't be logically proven, so in reality any definitive statement about its nature requires faith.

"I don't believe in God" is a definitive statement about one's lack of belief, not about the nature of God.

Why?

Because saying people are "uneducated" based on their spiritual belief alone is unprovable by any statistic. It is patently untrue. So you insisting on it seems like an attempt to call people stupid for what they do not believe and nothing more - in other words, assholery.

You've got a faith-based system just like people who believe in God

I'm always amazed to learn more about myself every day, from people who don't know me, making stupid arguments on an internet forum.

The other poster clearly said that religious beliefs are a sign of ignorance

I am not that other poster and did not make that argument however "clearly" someone else made it.

and since atheism carries its own set of beliefs I merely made the logical conclusion that they are both signs of ignorance according to that standard.

Oh, so your entire argument is not only a strawman, it assumes anyone who is an atheist actually shares a hive mind and thus can be treated as one individual with regards to arguments.

You do know there is no rational basis for that belief, right?
There's no rational basis for ANY belief.

Where do you live?
Canada.

I wasn't bullied because of my religious beliefs though, I was bullied because a group of girls thought they were better than me. (Although the one girl did insult my particular religious beliefs...)

On another note, my best friends at the time were a wiccan and a satanist and we'd often have civil religious discussions with the atheist boy in our class and the muslim kids at lunch.

Uhhh... pretty much all high school girls bully each other, in my experience.
I didn't bully anyone.

There's no rational basis for ANY belief.

Exactly, Agnosticism pwns.

Odd that Christian Europe didn't start to thrive until after the Church had been put in its place. Don't you remember what we call the time when Christianity really ruled Europe? The Dark ages?

Pretty much. I think some of that was a product of the lack of education in the kingdoms that supplanted the Western Roman Empire as much as the Church ruling over them. After all, the Islamic world was more than capable of balancing science and faith and made huge strides in scientific progress during the period.

There's no rational basis for ANY belief.

Correct.

Isn't freedom a necessary part of happiness? I would say true happiness and freedom are totally intertwined; it is utterly impossible to achieve one without the other. You simply can't develop to potential without the freedom to do so.

After all, how can you find true happiness without the freedom to look for it?

Then you must not merely show that religions encourage personal development and happiness; you must show that they also encourage the freedom necessary for both.

I don't see that.

But I've heard members of some sect of sXe Hardliners talk about how they beat the sh*t out of Catholics (in addition to all the drunkies and, you know, people who have fun with their lives), in the name of the name of their Edge.
I hate sXe kids. If someone doesn't want to drink or do drugs, then whatever, I don't care. If they want to make a huge issue of it then they can go fuck themselves.

That being said, I've never heard anything about them being inherently violent.

Greater Trostia has put it eloquently. I agree.

But again - Atheism is not a system of faith. It is a recognition of uncertainty which sees certainty as an absurdity. Vetalia, you dig?

-snip-

What are all these wishy washy bullshit terms for atheism, they seem to resemble agnostic atheism more.

If you are an atheist, you are certain there is no God. Since that conclusion has no basis or proof, and that it is impossible to know, that assumption takes some sort of faith to believe it for certain.

Christians aren't lynched by athiests. They are looked down upon or insulted by them (And rightfully so), but never beaten up like athiests are.

Pretty much. I think some of that was a product of the lack of education in the kingdoms that supplanted the Western Roman Empire as much as the Church ruling over them. After all, the Islamic world was more than capable of balancing science and faith and made huge strides in scientific progress during the period.
Yeah, but still when you threaten everyone who comes up with a new scientific theory with torture, house arrest or even death because what they say doesn't agree with your holy book then you tend to kill development.

I didn't bully anyone.

You should; it's fun, and, in the case of high school girls, deliciously hinting at homoeroticism!

What are all these wishy washy bullshit terms for atheism, they seem to resemble agnostic atheism more.

If you are an atheist, you are certain there is no God. Since that conclusion has no basis or proof, and that it is impossible to know, that assumption takes some sort of faith to believe it for certain.
That's not how most atheists define themselves.

I'm dating a boy who defines himself as atheist, but he seems to hold pretty much the same ideas as I do and I'm agnostic.

I didn't bully anyone.

Good for you. I'll correct my statement: the vast majority of teenage girls bully each other. This isn't based on any religious lines - if you went to a Muslim school, you'd think Muslim girls bullied each other, an atheist school, that atheist girls bullied each other... etc. etc. etc. If there's bullying along religious lines, its because one religion is in the majority at that particular place.

You should; it's fun, and, in the case of high school girls, deliciously hinting at homoeroticism!
I don't think it's homoeroticism, apparently girls generally treat other girls poorly because it will generally free up more male attention for them.

Yeah, but still when you threaten everyone who comes up with a new scientific theory with torture, house arrest or even death because what they say doesn't agree with your holy book then you tend to kill development.

Those things were really more political rather then religious. The church and aristocracy were scared to loose their power, so anything that challenged their authority (especially the catholic church) needed to be silenced.

Of course this is very corrupt, but you cannot blame christian ideals for this sort of corruption.

Well, unless you count here...
That is exactly what I was going to say. :D

What are all these wishy washy bullshit terms for atheism, they seem to resemble agnostic atheism more.

If you are an atheist, you are certain there is no God. Since that conclusion has no basis or proof, and that it is impossible to know, that assumption takes some sort of faith to believe it for certain.

No. If you're an atheist, you're fairly sure there is no God. You're not certain. You base your reasoning on what we know, and so far we have seen no proof for the existence of any of man's gods.

Those things were really more political rather then religious. The church and aristocracy were scared to loose their power, so anything that challenged their authority (especially the catholic church) needed to be silenced.

Of course this is very corrupt, but you cannot blame christian ideals for this sort of corruption.
Oh, I'm not blaming the ideals, I'm definitely blaming the institutions and the general attitude. To some extent that sort of crap is still going on (though not with the death threats), you've got idiots trying to keep things like evolution out of biology classrooms. It's just fortunate that the modern loons don't have enough power to actually do it in most cases.

Of course this is very corrupt, but you cannot blame christian ideals for this sort of corruption.


Except you can. If you recognize the job of priest as a vocational calling, then position it in authority, it's open to abuse. Some would even say it was designed to be 'abused'. Why doesn't god call everybody instead of a few leaders?

Oh, I'm not blaming the ideals, I'm definitely blaming the institutions and the general attitude. To some extent that sort of crap is still going on (though not with the death threats), you've got idiots trying to keep things like evolution out of biology classrooms. It's just fortunate that the modern loons don't have enough power to actually do it in most cases.

Agreed.

I guess folks who do not really believe are in the vast majority worldwide. Christian kids on the other side always have an aura of ignorance and low intelligence. I think it's a good thing if Christian kids get bullied, so they might start using their own heads instead of just following their respective indoctrinators.
Perhaps you could use your vast intelligence and not make silly suggestions that approve of the bullying of other people. :p

No. If you're an atheist, you're fairly sure there is no God. You're not certain. You base your reasoning on what we know, and so far we have seen no proof for the existence of any of man's gods.

If you are uncertain, you are agnostic.

I don't think it's homoeroticism, apparently girls generally treat other girls poorly because it will generally free up more male attention for them.

I think it's a suppressed bisexuality alive in every human, but more especially those who are making a huge show of same-sex toughness, and especially in high school when everyone is full of hormones and just coming to grips with their sexuality as well as their place in the world. And women should settle everything with mud wrestling matches, that's my firm set of faith-based belief.

You're right that there is a competitive/egotism factor at play though. :p

Except you can. If you recognize the job of priest as a vocational calling, then position it in authority, it's open to abuse. Some would even say it was designed to be 'abused'. Why doesn't god call everybody instead of a few leaders?

Well thats one of the reasons why I disagree with catholicism, it gets rather political sometimes or authorative sometimes (which isn't the point of Christianity, it is not suppost to be political).

Atheism is a single, lack of belief, not a "set of beliefs." Atheism has no structure, or moral code, doesn't involve devotional or ritual observances, and has nothing to do with the cause, nature or purpose of the universe.

Also, what is the nature and purpose of the universe? You can't explain that in empirical terms, and so you can't validly claim there is no God on a logical or empirical basis, which means you are advancing the nonexistence of God on faith.

God can't be tested, and our knowledge of the universe is inherently limited. As a result, any definite statement made on the issue is faith based because it can't be justified logically.

It's just this.
"Do you believe in God?"

"No."
Repeat that a whole lot, maybe it'll become true!

That is a faith in itself. Any statement ultimately boils down to faith no matter what it is.

Uh, no it doesn't.

Now why is it always non-atheists trying to tell atheists what atheism is?

So, do you have morality and a philosophical position that both exist independent of atheism? Does your atheism have absolutely no affect on the rest of your beliefs?

Faith is a strong belief. Not believing in God can hardly be said to be a "belief," and you trying to insist it is a strong belief is just inane.

You're taking a stance on something that can't be empirically determined. As a result, you have faith in your particular stance on the issue.

'"I don't believe in God" is a definitive statement about one's lack of belief, not about the nature of God.

Disbelief is a belief in itself. Negative statements are beliefs just like positive ones, and the only logically valid position in this case is to be unsure due to lack of evidence either way. And even that has a fundamental, faith-based premise that being unsure is the most logically valid state.

Because saying people are "uneducated" based on their spiritual belief alone is unprovable by any statistic. It is patently untrue. So you insisting on it seems like an attempt to call people stupid for what they do not believe and nothing more - in other words, assholery.

I don't believe it's true. I'm using it against that poster to show how logically invalid and ridiculously generalizing that argument is.

I'm always amazed to learn more about myself every day, from people who don't know me, making stupid arguments on an internet forum.

I could say the same.

Oh, so your entire argument is not only a strawman, it assumes anyone who is an atheist actually shares a hive mind and thus can be treated as one individual with regards to arguments.

Do all atheists believe in either the nonexistence of God or that God does not exist? If so, they share a similar set of basic beliefs.

However, this argument is in itself a straw man because it somehow assumes saying that having a belief consistent with others automatically means you think the same. No two people think alike, no matter what their beliefs are.

If you are uncertain, you are agnostic.

No, you aren't.

Taking a position does not require certainty in the truth of that position.

If you are uncertain, you are agnostic.

This is getting ridiculous.

An agnostic believes ultimate truth is unknowable, ever.

An atheist believes that the truth can be known one day but, as of 2006, sees no evidence for God's existence, so cannot believe.

Savvy?

No. If you're an atheist, you're fairly sure there is no God. You're not certain. You base your reasoning on what we know, and so far we have seen no proof for the existence of any of man's gods.

That's either agnosticism or agnostic atheism. However, even those have problems because they assume that there is no proof of existence currently available for any of our current interpretations of God when in fact that can't be logically determined.

An atheist believes that the truth can be known one day but, as of 2006, sees no evidence for God's existence, so cannot believe.


Which is still a faith based position, because our knowledge of the truth will always be inherently limited by the impossibility of justifying axioms. It places faith in the idea that truth is knowable, which has the further complication of being a logically weak position to hold and which undermines the rationality that justifies negating God with current evidence.

However, this is agnostic atheism as opposed to explicit atheism.

Taking a position does not require certainty in the truth of that position.

Which does ultimately mean that your justification for that position is not logically justified, but rather taken on faith because the actual truth is unknowable.

The only time I've seen atheists bullying folks is on the Internet. *shrug*

Probably because they know that the majority is christian. Athiests are all bark, and no bite.
I do not excuse my fellow christians actions, I can just say, the people who try to follow the bible as it's written aren't those types of people. Blind faith isn't condoneable in any sense. You follow on studied faith. (And yes, it is ironic that my nation is a Theocracy that worships the goddess of fortune, funny, eh?)

That's rather a sign of continued defiance and thus of a certain lack of intelligence. Thank god most kids don't really care about the Christian god and all the stupid fuss the churches make in their attempts to indoctrinate kids even in schools. The future is much brighter without religious folks. ;) Face it, belief is a refusal to think. The world already has enough non-thinkers.
I enjoy your irony. :D

That's either agnosticism or agnostic atheism. However, even those have problems because they assume that there is no proof of existence currently available for any of our current interpretations of God when in fact that can't be logically determined.

Except by recreating the big bang. Or creating life from scratch. Or (on the converse) finding evidence of Jesus' miracles or having a second coming that everyone bears witness to.

Again, you misuse logic. Have you replied to my post in the other thread yet?

Then you must not merely show that religions encourage personal development and happiness; you must show that they also encourage the freedom necessary for both.

Well, here's a fundamental question: which religions do we include? I mean, Buddhism most definitely encourages personal development and happiness, but fundamentalist Islam or Christianity don't.

Perhaps we should rephrase it and say that religions should place personal happiness and freedom as their primary goals?

Which does ultimately mean that your justification for that position is not logically justified, but rather taken on faith because the actual truth is unknowable.

What does "unknowable" mean?

Also, what is the nature and purpose of the universe? You can't explain that in empirical terms, and so you can't validly claim there is no God on a logical or empirical basis, which means you are advancing the nonexistence of God on faith.

I'm not "advancing" anything. I don't believe in any God so far proposed. What exactly is so hard about this for you to understand?

As a result, any definite statement made on the issue is faith based because it can't be justified logically.

So would it be correct to say you have faith that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that therefore, your faith in the non-existence of the FSM constitutes a religion?

That is a faith in itself. Any statement ultimately boils down to faith no matter what it is.

Faith is

"belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof "

You're trying to broaden this definition to include, erm, everything. Nice try, but I like words to mean things.

So, do you have morality and a philosophical position that both exist independent of atheism? Does your atheism have absolutely no affect on the rest of your beliefs?

Strawman. The fact that my beliefs are intertwined reflects on the fact that I am a person, not the fact that one belief is somehow inherently, and generally, part of a "set" with each other. I don't believe rape is a good thing, are you going to say that's part of a "religion of atheism" just because I happen to be atheist?

You're taking a stance on something that can't be empirically determined. As a result, you have faith in your particular stance on the issue.

No. Belief =/= firm belief, regardless of empiracal determination. Please try a new argument.

Disbelief is a belief in itself. Negative statements are beliefs just like positive ones, and the only logically valid position in this case is to be unsure due to lack of evidence either way.

Belief and logical position are two separate things. I do not KNOW there is no God. I do not have FAITH in the NONEXISTENCE of God. I simply do not believe in a God. If you can't understand this I am going to assert that this constitutes proof you are uneducated with regards to the basic meanings of words in the English language.

I don't believe it's true. I'm using it against that poster to show how logically invalid and ridiculously generalizing that argument is.

I see - you couldn't argue against it yourself, so you're making other people argue it for you by acting like an asshole.

Do all atheists believe in either the nonexistence of God or that God does not exist? If so, they share a similar set of basic beliefs.

This is only one basic, negation of a specific belief. That is not a "set," and it is not a "religion."


However, this argument is in itself a straw man because it somehow assumes saying that having a belief consistent with others automatically means you think the same. No two people think alike, no matter what their beliefs are.

Thanks for recognizing this, so kindly start acting like you know this.

Perhaps we should rephrase it and say that religions should place personal happiness and freedom as their primary goals?

Then you must make a very different argument, and one that does not propose that the decline in religious belief in secular societies is responsible for the lack of progress in those areas.

Except by recreating the big bang. Or creating life from scratch. Or (on the converse) finding evidence of Jesus' miracles or having a second coming that everyone bears witness to.

We can't recreate the Big Bang. That would require us to know exactly when it happened and the exact state of the universe before it happened, both of which are impossible. Creation of life is different, but still hasn't gotten anywhere.

And even so, that assumes that God created the universe, which is only one interpretation of God's nature to begin with.

What does "unknowable" mean?

The justifications behind that statement can't be known due to the fact that axioms can't be justified by the system that they construct.

Exactly, Agnosticism pwns.
Agreed.

We can't recreate the Big Bang. That would require us to know exactly when it happened and the exact state of the universe before it happened, both of which are impossible. Creation of life is different, but still hasn't gotten anywhere.

And even so, that assumes that God created the universe, which is only one interpretation of God's nature to begin with.

Not impossible. Impossible for you in 2006, but not fundamentally impossible.

And why in blue blazes does that assume that god created the universe? You're a strange one.

Now please reply to my post in the other thread.

I'm not "advancing" anything. I don't believe in any God so far proposed. What exactly is so hard about this for you to understand?

So it's not that you don't believe in God, it's that you don't believe in the existence of God as proposed? Do you believe in God as a concept as opposed to a specific definition?

So would it be correct to say you have faith that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that therefore, your faith in the non-existence of the FSM constitutes a religion?

I don't know if the FSM exists, so I can't say whether or not I have faith in its existence. However, if I didn't believe in it and that belief had a comprehensive effect on my other beliefs, I could say that my disbelief is a religion.



Faith is

"belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof "

You're trying to broaden this definition to include, erm, everything. Nice try, but I like words to mean things.

"Firm belief in something for which there is no proof". You have no proof that God does not exist, nor do you have proof that any of the religions today are invalid, which means that your belief that none of the Gods yet conceived by man exist is based on faith.

Strawman. The fact that my beliefs are intertwined reflects on the fact that I am a person, not the fact that one belief is somehow inherently, and generally, part of a "set" with each other. I don't believe rape is a good thing, are you going to say that's part of a "religion of atheism" just because I happen to be atheist?

All of your beliefs affect each other; for example, it would make no sense for an atheist to say adultery is wrong because the Bible says so, and so all of your beliefs have to be logically cohesive with your atheism in order to function.

Also, where does the atheist get their moral code from, and does their atheism affect that moral code? If it does, then they have a cohesive set of beliefs built around atheism.

And, on the contrary: if a religion says homosexuality is wrong because God says it is, wouldn't your disbelief in God automatically provide you with justification for not believing that homosexuality is wrong?

No. Belief =/= firm belief, regardless of empiracal determination. Please try a new argument.

Define a firm belief and show how it specifically differs from a standard belief.

Belief and logical position are two separate things. I do not KNOW there is no God. I do not have FAITH in the NONEXISTENCE of God. I simply do not believe in a God. If you can't understand this I am going to assert that this constitutes proof you are uneducated with regards to the basic meanings of words in the English language.

So, you believe that God does not exist regardless of whether he actually does or does not? That requires faith, because you don't know if he exists yet are making a positive statement regardless.

I see - you couldn't argue against it yourself, so you're making other people argue it for you by acting like an asshole.

No, because it was a bullshit principle to begin with, and the easiest way to show its flaws was to turn it against the person who originally said it.

This is only one basic, negation of a specific belief. That is not a "set," and it is not a "religion."

Beliefs don't exist independently. They all affect each other in order to produce a cohesive stance.

Not impossible. Impossible for you in 2006, but not fundamentally impossible.

It requires us to know conditions before the universe existed, which is impossible according to current scientific knowledge about the theories that govern the universe. Also, the fundamental principles of quantum theory mean that the universe is probabilistic and its exact nature is inherently unknowable because of indeterminacy. If we can't know the nature of quanta, we can't reconstruct the universe on the kind of scale necessary to recreate the Big Bang.

However, assuming that it will be explained one day is still based on faith that it can and will be explained, and given that our very system of logic is in itself limited that seems pretty much impossible to do.

And why in blue blazes does that assume that god created the universe? You're a strange one.

What I mean is that demonstrating the Big Bang, even if it were possible, would have nothing to say about the existence of God. It would rule out God as creator of the universe, but not as a concept in and of itself.

Now please reply to my post in the other thread.

I'll need the page because these threads are getting confusing with all of the quote tags.

I have seen this website where Atheists are pretty much portrayed as evil. Worst of all: It's a children's site.

I have seen this website where Atheists are pretty much portrayed as evil. Worst of all: It's a children's site.

That's what irrationality will do to you. There's nothing more dangerous than silencing thought because of your particular religious persuasion.

I really believe more and more that the Golden Rule, empathy, and maximization of personal happiness are the fundamental truths of morality, and whether or not we believe in God as long as we follow those they will make us the best off.

"Internet bullying" has to be one of the funniest things I've ever heard of! Bullying requires some form of physical coersion, which is impossible to achieve online. Avoiding someone online is simple, just /ignore or log out LOL!
The same is said about sex vs. cyber sex.

I hate sXe kids. If someone doesn't want to drink or do drugs, then whatever, I don't care. If they want to make a huge issue of it then they can go fuck themselves.

That being said, I've never heard anything about them being inherently violent.

It isn't making a huge issue out of it, if you're a real Straightedger. I don't make an issue of it as long as I'm not asked. I'm sXe because of my agreement with a broader set of issues and arguments that the Straightedge movement happens to put foward.

I say the same thing about shitheads who decide that they don't like Straightedge without knowing anything about it.

Hardliners are an insane sect of retarded Skinhead/Straightedge hybrids who enforce their retarded philosophy by force. They aren't really punks, but they'd like to think they are.

I've heard numerous stories about people being harassed and assaulted because they didn't believe in God. Ouside of the realm of Politics, are there any instances of the Atheists doing the bullying on some poor Christian kid?
I've never heard one.
But then it's not bullying, it's forcing the truth. ;)

But then it's not bullying, it's forcing the truth. ;)
But, according to Christians, it's persecution. They haven't been persecuted for a hell of a long time. They want their turn again... ;)

What are all these wishy washy bullshit terms for atheism, they seem to resemble agnostic atheism more.

If you are an atheist, you are certain there is no God. Since that conclusion has no basis or proof, and that it is impossible to know, that assumption takes some sort of faith to believe it for certain.

Atheistic apologists always seek to claim the agnostic epistemological standpoint. I like to defend it, but then they just make up new terms for me and my agnosticism.

What I mean is that demonstrating the Big Bang, even if it were possible, would have nothing to say about the existence of God. It would rule out God as creator of the universe, but not as a concept in and of itself.

Nor does it rule out that God is a necessary cause for the big bang.

If you are uncertain, you are agnostic.
That's not true. I'm an agnostic who is certain that it is impossible to know whether a deity exists or not during this lifetime.

It isn't making a huge issue out of it, if you're a real Straightedger. I don't make an issue of it as long as I'm not asked. I'm sXe because of my agreement with a broader set of issues and arguments that the Straightedge movement happens to put foward.

I say the same thing about shitheads who decide that they don't like Straightedge without knowing anything about it.

Hardliners are an insane sect of retarded Skinhead/Straightedge hybrids who enforce their retarded philosophy by force. They aren't really punks, but they'd like to think they are.
I've only encountered one straight edge kid who wasn't a total douchebag about it before and he just kinda adopted the label because he'd had it with drugs. It's been my experience that a lot of the sXe kids have no idea what the hell they're talking about and they're basically trying to make never having an experience with drugs seem cooler than it is.
But I guess one could argue that those kids aren't straightedge, if no one's offering them drugs and they don't know how to find them then they're hardly avoiding drugs. Just like someone who can't get laid isn't doing anything special, they're just unable to find someone to fuck them.

I've heard numerous stories about people being harassed and assaulted because they didn't believe in God. Ouside of the realm of Politics, are there any instances of the Atheists doing the bullying on some poor Christian kid?
I've never heard one.

Probably, but not necessarily because of religion. Might very well just be a case of the atheist kid being bigger.

I've only encountered one straight edge kid who wasn't a total douchebag about it before and he just kinda adopted the label because he'd had it with drugs. It's been my experience that a lot of the sXe kids have no idea what the hell they're talking about and they're basically trying to make never having an experience with drugs seem cooler than it is.
But I guess one could argue that those kids aren't straightedge, if no one's offering them drugs and they don't know how to find them then they're hardly avoiding drugs. Just like someone who can't get laid isn't doing anything special, they're just unable to find someone to fuck them.

Meh. I'd say you know nothing about Straightedge. You can hardly subsist on a poorly-written Wikipedia article on the matter. I assure you that it is much more complex than not doing drugs, drinking, or having sex. It's a response to the idiocy and complacent conformism nascent in drug-based youth cultures, and a horrified response to the vapid and calculated apathy that had clouded the eyes of drug users around the DC scene.

TBH, Straight-edge was never meant to happen, but media attention turned it into a fiasco.

That said, I don't think that the facts really matter to most people on the subject, as it has almost always come down to a mutual tension that is based in an inability to understand that both sXe kids and non-sXe kids are right in their own way.

Also, Youth Group sXe is about as Edged as a rounded metal tube.

Basically, a good sXe says: "Hey, man. You do your thing, and as long as you don't confront me about mine, I won't make a stink about yours as an attack against you."

Odd that Christian Europe didn't start to thrive until after the Church had been put in its place. Don't you remember what we call the time when Christianity really ruled Europe? The Dark ages?

Laying the 'ignorance' of the so-called 'Dark Ages' (and generally historians use the term now to refer to the Early Medieval Age) at Christianity's doorstep is rather unfair.
Rather, the collapse of Roman civilisation, the adjustment of Europe to new cultures, populations and threats and the re-building of realms from a lower level of existence would have their impact on progress of technology and knowledge.
In any case, monasteries were primary in retaining much of the literate culture of Europe.

And as for the later Middle Ages? Many scholars (who were predominantly monks) devoted themselves to learning, both philosophical and scientific, without much problem. A brief glance in wikipedia at names such as Robert Grosseteste, Adelard of Bath, Roger Bacon, Nicolas Oresme or Jean Buridan to see the wealth of learning. But whilst looking at them, just remember the facilities and constructions of thought that were available for them, what concepts shaped their views of the world, time and existence (some factors I suppose). I'm sure that it differed hugely from ours - but to call this a product of a 'dark age' is unfair to the extreme.
What other advances were there? Off the top of my head, the construction of grand cathedrals is astounding, and still stuns today.

Also, look at the impact of the Black Death in the mid-1300s... it affected all sectors of European - and global - society and thought. In Europe, much thought and progress was stunted. Is this the fault of the Church?

And as for the charge that the Church supressed scientific progress in the middle ages... certainly, as Hydesland pointed out, this was often political rather than religious. After all, Copernicus was not censured over his heliocentrism. Whereas Galileo's battle over heliocentrism displayed intricate personal relations of power within the scientific community and the church i.e. he had opponents to his views in powerful positions... and of course, since much science was still conducted by religious orders such as the Jesuits, it did inevitably involve theology.

Nor does it rule out that God is a necessary cause for the big bang.

That's true. We simply can't know, so using science to investigate God is an impossible and futile effort.

That's true. We simply can't know, so using science to investigate God is an impossible and futile effort.

I have been aching to duke it out over agnosticism lately, but I can't get any biters.

I have bookmarked several unresponded to posts, so someone is going to get hammered eventually.

I have been aching to duke it out over agnosticism lately

What about it?

What about it?

What it is, what beliefs can qualify for it.

I get riled with theists and atheists claim to be agnostic.

I have been aching to duke it out over agnosticism lately, but I can't get any biters.

I have bookmarked several unresponded to posts, so someone is going to get hammered eventually.

One of the problems is that there is no cohesive definition of agnosticism.

For example, I'm an "agnostic" theist, in which I believe God exists but that his nature is currently unknown and uncertain. I'm also unsure whether or not that knowledge will become knowable at some point in the future. According to some definitions, this works and according to others it doesn't. I mean, either way it's a faith based decision but it's the use of agnostic that really becomes a sticky point.

It's agnostic in the sense that I don't know, but it's contradictory if you define agnosticism as something that is "not knowable". However, it does require a leap of faith regardless.

One of the problems is that there is no cohesive definition of agnosticism.

For example, I'm an "agnostic" theist, in which I believe God exists but that his nature is currently unknown and uncertain. I'm also unsure whether or not that knowledge will become knowable at some point in the future. According to some definitions, this works and according to others it doesn't. I mean, either way it's a faith based decision but it's the use of agnostic that really becomes a sticky point.

It's agnostic in the sense that I am unsure, but it's contradictory if you define agnosticism as something that is "not knowable".

It has been my point that if you define agnosticism as any degree of epistemological skepticism, then the term is effectively worthless.

It is either complete skepticism of knowledge of religion, or it is nothing.

It has been my point that if you define agnosticism as any degree of epistemological skepticism, then the term is effectively worthless.

Well, it's a tricky point because there really isn't a good term to describe a positive belief in a deity with the added caveat that that deity's nature is uncertain. For example, if you feel that there is strong evidence for a deity but that deity's nature is uncertain, how do you classify that? It's even tougher if you assume that current religious beliefs do not adequately explain that deity or its nature.

Its meaning changes. It is either complete skepticism of knowledge of religion, or it is nothing.

It's that changing definition that matters. Primarily, it stems from a lack of a good term, but it also contradicts the primary definition of agnosticism which is "without knowledge" as opposed to being unsure.

I'm an athiest and i don't give a damn what religion people are. Just aslong as they don't try and force them on me.

There have been a few times kids who think i'm gonna go to hell will get pissed at me because i don't belive in god. Out of all of my classes only me and 3 other kids are athiest.

Well, it's a tricky point because there really isn't a good term to describe a positive belief in a deity with the added caveat that that deity's nature is uncertain. For example, if you feel that there is strong evidence for a deity but that deity's nature is uncertain, how do you classify that? It's even tougher if you assume that current religious beliefs do not adequately explain that deity or its nature.

Why not deism?

And certainly unsuredness does not preclude one from being atheistic or theistic. Like I said, all are at least somewhat skeptical.

It's that changing definition that matters. Primarily, it stems from a lack of a good term, but it also contradicts the primary definition of agnosticism which is "without knowledge" as opposed to being unsure.

But if one of those definitions is practically useless, why should it even be considered a definition.

Why not deism?

Well, I'm tending towards deism, especially in regard to the nature of God since I consider him above rational description. I've been moving towards deism from agnosticism for a while now, so I imagine I will end up there. I still have to examine the idea's beliefs in depth before I commit to it, but it's a safe bet that I'm moving towards it in one form or another.

And certainly unsuredness does not preclude one from being atheistic or theistic. Like I said, all are at least somewhat skeptical.

No, it doesn't. And interestingly, skepticism tends to reinforce my beliefs rather than weaken them.

But if one of those definitions is practically useless, why should it even be considered a definition.

Well, we need something to define it with so that we can discuss it. It's primarily a limitation of terms more than anything.

Meh. I'd say you know nothing about Straightedge. You can hardly subsist on a poorly-written Wikipedia article on the matter. I assure you that it is much more complex than not doing drugs, drinking, or having sex.
Oh, I'm sorry if I don't investigate a movement where nearly every adherent I've encountered has been a total douchebag. Excuse me. All I know is that people like to credit Ian MacKaye with starting it and it sometimes makes me embarassed to listen to him.

Basically, a good sXe says: "Hey, man. You do your thing, and as long as you don't confront me about mine, I won't make a stink about yours as an attack against you."
Then tell that to the idiots I've encountered.

Plus you're being a huge jerk about it so I'm not even sure you're a good representative of the movement anyways.

Meh. I'd say you know nothing about http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11976980&postcount=267. You can hardly subsist on a poorly-written Wikipedia article on the matter. I assure you that it is much more complex than not doing drugs, drinking, or having sex. It's a response to the idiocy and complacent conformism nascent in drug-based youth cultures, and a horrified response to the vapid and calculated apathy that had clouded the eyes of drug users around the DC scene.

TBH, Straight-edge was never meant to happen, but media attention turned it into a fiasco.

That said, I don't think that the facts really matter to most people on the subject, as it has almost always come down to a mutual tension that is based in an inability to understand that both sXe kids and non-sXe kids are right in their own way.

Also, Youth Group sXe is about as Edged as a rounded metal tube.

Basically, a good sXe says: "Hey, man. You do your thing, and as long as you don't confront me about mine, I won't make a stink about yours as an attack against you."

And in the end is just another "In crowd" movement that ends up treating others that want to be different like shit.

You guys formed so that you would have support for your choice to not do drugs or drink or sex or other draws of the standard teenage life, that was alright. But when you start to see nothing but assholes and websites where people can post anonymously (and they do by the thousands) people who "broke the code" so they can be ostracized by the other strait edgers

I have seen it and I have had a brother go through being falsely "reported"

You know like most things the core movement is not necessarily a bad thing but when you involve angst social whore teenagers in anything (specially as the PRIMARY members of the movement) you are bound to have bad shit go down

And in the end is just another "In crowd" movement that ends up treating others that want to be different like shit.

Bullcrap. Those that do have violated the whole precept upon which punk was built. Straight Edge was a punk movement for independance, and it goes both ways.

You guys formed so that you would have support for your choice to not do drugs or drink or sex or other draws of the standard teenage life, that was alright. But when you start to see nothing but assholes and websites where people can post anonymously (and they do by the thousands) people who "broke the code" so they can be ostracized by the other strait edgers

A) No, Straight Edge was the product of a band who was writing about the anger that they felt towards being critiscised for not taking part in the drug culture around them. It then became the core of a Hardcore scene because of the ostracision of its members from a number of other groups. If anything, Straight Edge was a retreat from both a fear of corruption (a silly concept, perhaps, but not necessarily unwaranted, given the fickleness of teenage ideals) and a fear of assault (a regular event to this day).

B) FashionxCore and ScenexCore are not punk, and their social makeup means that the ironic libertarianism of Straight Edge is violated by their strict social order. Those people play at a social game which is an insult to the whole reactionary anti-culture of the punk movement. They are an insult to rejectionism. Straight Edge was, essentially, a reaction to the emptyness of the youth-lifestyle.

You know like most things the core movement is not necessarily a bad thing but when you involve angst social whore teenagers in anything (specially as the PRIMARY members of the movement) you are bound to have bad shit go down

Meh. Teenagers are easy to blame. I blame stupid people, since they transcend generation and age-group.

Oh, I'm sorry if I don't investigate a movement where nearly every adherent I've encountered has been a total douchebag. Excuse me. All I know is that people like to credit Ian MacKaye with starting it and it sometimes makes me embarassed to listen to him.

I would hold that it is your responsibility to know that which you critiscise before you attack it. Anything less is a miscarriage of inter-personal justice. MacKaye started it, albeit against his will, and so if you feel that a desire to be free of the blindness that has enfolded the traditional youth-culture in its attempt to flee the blindness of the adult culture is a cause for evil, you are fully justified in ignoring him.

I take him as he is and let the ideas he spawned stand aside, because putting an individual in a box is just artistic suicide.

Then tell that to the idiots I've encountered.

I do.

Plus you're being a huge jerk about it so I'm not even sure you're a good representative of the movement anyways.


Forgive me if I have offended you (perhaps, however, you might consider that you have offended me as well before you judge me harshly), but I don't wish to be anyone's representative or spokesman. I'm just person. Keep the verbal trap of representation away from me, thanks. *shrug*

I'm not here to change your way of life, I just wish that there was not a desire to attack me for mine. However, to this date, that continues to be the case. I wish I could simply blame it on people's desire not to be confronted about their addictions, but I have no proof of that, and so I must assume that I have somehow harmed them by refusing the way of life that terrifies me with its restrictions and invisible shackles.

I would hold that it is your responsibility to know that which you critiscise before you attack it. Anything less is a miscarriage of inter-personal justice.
To be fair, I said that I hated the kids who ran around acting like douchebags because they're like "Omg, I'm not going to drink or do drugs even though I couldn't get my hands on either if I wanted to." and I pointed out that I'd never heard of straight edge kids being violent before the previous poster mentioned it.

MacKaye started it, albeit against his will, and so if you feel that a desire to be free of the blindness that has enfolded the traditional youth-culture in its attempt to flee the blindness of the adult culture is a cause for evil, you are fully justified in ignoring him.

I take him as he is and let the ideas he spawned stand aside, because putting an individual in a box is just artistic suicide.
Yes, I do like Ian MacKaye and the bands he is/was in. I just get embarassed when people go about pointing out that he started the straightedge crap.

I do.
Good.

Forgive me if I have offended you (perhaps, however, you might consider that you have offended me as well before you judge me harshly), but I don't wish to be anyone's representative or spokesman. I'm just person. Keep the verbal trap of representation away from me, thanks. *shrug*
Ok, I pointed out that a lot of people who identify themselves with the same movement you do suck, that doesn't mean you suck. I didn't start thinking you sucked until you started getting all condescending with your "please, you don't know shit" approach.

I'm not here to change your way of life, I just wish that there was not a desire to attack me for mine. However, to this date, that continues to be the case. I wish I could simply blame it on people's desire not to be confronted about their addictions, but I have no proof of that, and so I must assume that I have somehow harmed them by refusing the way of life that terrifies me with its restrictions and invisible shackles.
I wasn't saying that I was trying to change your way of life either, but to say that I'm shackled by my refusal to abstain from alcohol (I'm well of age and certainly not addicted) or any drug experimentation is still rather condescending. I don't think any less of you because you abstain from such activities, I don't care as long as you're not an asshole about it.

A) No, Straight Edge was the product of a band who was writing about the anger that they felt towards being critiscised for not taking part in the drug culture around them. It then became the core of a Hardcore scene because of the ostracision of its members from a number of other groups. If anything, Straight Edge was a retreat from both a fear of corruption (a silly concept, perhaps, but not necessarily unwaranted, given the fickleness of teenage ideals) and a fear of assault (a regular event to this day).
Uh... no it wasn't. The song Straight Edge was written as an obituary for one of Ian MacKaye's friends and it's that song that seems to generally be refrenced for starting the movement.

Uh... no it wasn't. The song Straight Edge was written as an obituary for one of Ian MacKaye's friends and it's that song that seems to generally be refrenced for starting the movement.

Citing the book: Dance of Days: 2 Decades of Punk in our Nation's Capital for my answer.

Straight Edge was written as an in your face to all the people who took shots at MacKaye for not doing drugs. It was a declaration that while they could look down on him, he had the Straight Edge.

The song you are thinking of is either "Close the Door", written for his brother Alec's ex-Girlfriend who died of a Heroin overdose or "Past", which was written about the suicide of another friend.

To be fair, I said that I hated the kids who ran around acting like douchebags because they're like "Omg, I'm not going to drink or do drugs even though I couldn't get my hands on either if I wanted to." and I pointed out that I'd never heard of straight edge kids being violent before the previous poster mentioned it.

I'm sorry, then. I mistook you as saying that all people who were like that were douchebags.

Yes, I do like Ian MacKaye and the bands he is/was in. I just get embarassed when people go about pointing out that he started the straightedge crap.

Ironically, I like much of MacKaye's work, but Straight Edge is one of the few issues that I agree with him on. On a side note, I would still be more embarassed that he played benefits for the ALF than I would be about Straight Edge.

Ok, I pointed out that a lot of people who identify themselves with the same movement you do suck, that doesn't mean you suck. I didn't start thinking you sucked until you started getting all condescending with your "please, you don't know shit" approach.

Forgive me if I come across as arrogant, but I perceived you as first attacking me and then perpetrating falsehoods against me. I have done a great deal of research into Punk history, specifically the DC scene and Straight Edge, and so I probably am a bit arrogant about that.

I wasn't saying that I was trying to change your way of life either, but to say that I'm shackled by my refusal to abstain from alcohol (I'm well of age and certainly not addicted) or any drug experimentation is still rather condescending. I don't think any less of you because you abstain from such activities, I don't care as long as you're not an asshole about it.

I beleive that it is a shackle, or at least that it would be for me, and I greatly fear the effect of having it stilt my ability to think clearly. However, I do not see you as being any less for differing with me. I simply fear becoming that way myself (take it as a sign that I don't trust myself, if you will). I really don't care as no one comes along and pulls out hate against Straight Edge as a concept, which is what I mistook you for doing.

You know, to look at the US these days you would never have thought Europe went through an enlightenment.

The beauty of Atheism is that you aren't an organized group who gets together to talk about how bad people are who don't believe what you believe. So there aren't many organized groups of atheists to go bullying people.

You know, to look at the US these days you would never have thought Europe went through an enlightenment.

I take some offense at that statement. The Enlightenment, for all of its advancement was a drastically different thing here. Here it was a Neo-Classical thing which spent less time on the excesses of the Baroque (which didn't ever occur in the US) and much more time on the Romantic. We have our own set of social and political follies, and we are just as entitled (or, if you prefer, as "Enlightened") to our society as is Europe.

America, for all of its fundamentalist nature, has gained a cultural pragmatism from our isolation (de Toqueville talks about it, as does Webster) which has given us a very different means of doing right. It means that change happens differently, but that change does happen.

Atheism and Religion are essentially the same. Both require belief. An Atheist who says "I've never seen God therefore he doesn't exist" basically is saying, If I don't understand it it can't exist.

If people want to be 'intelecually' honest, they will look at both sides. Most, not all Atheists are actually anti-theists. they are against the concept of God, bot because it is logical (noone can logically say that God doesn't exist, unless they know everythign - then they'd be God-) but because there is somethign that happened to them, where 1 they wanted a god to interveine and he didn't or 2 they want to do what they want to do and don't want to be acountable to a higher power, as it where.

So there aren't many organized groups of atheists to go bullying people.
Forgetting communism?

You know, to look at the US these days you would never have thought Europe went through an enlightenment.

um.... the U.S. constitution is the result of the enlightenment. as is most of the modern conveniences. the enlightenment didn't try to eliminate religion per say (some factions did) but bring society out of the dictates of Supersticion. all in all the U.S.A (or any other western nation) is alot nicer to live in than most other places (for the average person)

I take some offense at that statement. The Enlightenment, for all of its advancement was a drastically different thing here. Here it was a Neo-Classical thing which spent less time on the excesses of the Baroque (which didn't ever occur in the US) and much more time on the Romantic. We have our own set of social and political follies, and we are just as entitled (or, if you prefer, as "Enlightened") to our society as is Europe.

America, for all of its fundamentalist nature, has gained a cultural pragmatism from our isolation (de Toqueville talks about it, as does Webster) which has given us a very different means of doing right. It means that change happens differently, but that change does happen.

Yeah that was a remarkably step for Europe, and indeed the world, so from my eyes it seems you colonists have just gone backwards from the greatest social change ever. I mean don't get me wrong, I dont think your all fundies and that you you used to be, I mean is Australia a country of brigands and criminals? Of course not.

Forgetting communism?

Communism and atheism don't have to be together. You can have one but not the other, you can have both, you can have neither. And there are far fewer US communist group members than there are church group members. So I organized athiests are much more rare.

Forgetting communism?

true. Comunism has in the last century killed many people. some say 100 million
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/product-description/0674076087

some say 170 million
http://www.matus1976.com/politics/politics_index_1.htm

some even say 250 million
http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1472.cfm


The main edict of Marx and Engel is that all religion must be eliminated....

even if comunism has only killed 100 million, that is more than all religious wars in history... combined. Unless you consider comunism a religion....

Yeah that was a remarkably step for Europe, and indeed the world, so from my eyes it seems you colonists have just gone backwards from the greatest social change ever. I mean don't get me wrong, I dont think your all fundies and that you you used to be, I mean is Australia a country of brigands and criminals? Of course not.

We didn't start as fundies either.

I am not of the opinion that much of the Enlightenment was all that value. Aside from the English Empiricists and Voltaire, the vast majority of Enlightenment thinkers strike me as being as dogmatic and silly as their pre and post Enlightenment counterparts.

Besides which, we avoided the Baroque and the Roccoco, which was well enough worth it, as they were the most self-important and pretentious of artistic and philosophical eras.

Bullcrap. Those that do have violated the whole precept upon which punk was built. Straight Edge was a punk movement for independance, and it goes both ways.


Yeah just like goth was a movement for independence and a retreat from normalcy

Same with the hippy movement and many other movements. Like any other movement it just became another group to join and be a member of

The draw to associate overcomes any group credo


snip


Meh. Teenagers are easy to blame. I blame stupid people, since they transcend generation and age-group.

True ... They just have a lesser ability to hide it, raw emotion is a powerful thing at that point in your life ...

Ironically, I like much of MacKaye's work, but Straight Edge is one of the few issues that I agree with him on. On a side note, I would still be more embarassed that he played benefits for the ALF than I would be about Straight Edge.
Yeah, no one seems to point out any ALF benefits though. Straight edge, however...

Forgive me if I come across as arrogant, but I perceived you as first attacking me and then perpetrating falsehoods against me. I have done a great deal of research into Punk history, specifically the DC scene and Straight Edge, and so I probably am a bit arrogant about that.
Ok, and not everyone who likes punk looks into its history and when you talk to people in a condescending manner it makes you seem like an ass as well as a total snob.

I beleive that it is a shackle, or at least that it would be for me, and I greatly fear the effect of having it stilt my ability to think clearly.
Wait, you're basing this on hypotheticals? You've never drank or anything like that?

I mean, whatever floats your boat, but chances are you'd be perfectly alright if you went out with some friends and had a pint or two.

Communism and atheism don't have to be together. You can have one but not the other, you can have both, you can have neither. And there are far fewer US communist group members than there are church group members. So I organized athiests are much more rare.


True. Very true. However religion doesn't 'have to kill either'

The Question was "do atheist ever bully non atheists?"
Yes. In Comunism. Amongst other places.

True. Very true. However religion doesn't 'have to kill either'

The Question was "do atheist ever bully non atheists?"
Yes. In Comunism. Amongst other places.

I know that religion doesn't have to kill. Neither do atheism or communism.

We didn't start as fundies either.
If I'm not mistaken, weren't the puritans pretty much fundies?

Communism and atheism don't have to be together. You can have one but not the other, you can have both, you can have neither. And there are far fewer US communist group members than there are church group members. So I organized athiests are much more rare.
Organized athiesism is much more rare indeed, but the fact that there are exceptions, and communism is a major one.

True. Very true. However religion doesn't 'have to kill either'

The Question was "do atheist ever bully non atheists?"
Yes. In Comunism. Amongst other places.
I don't think it's bullying when governments do it. It seems to become a case of oppression more than anything then.

Of course it isn't even a case of atheism being the oppressive force there...

Yeah just like goth was a movement for independence and a retreat from normalcy

Same with the hippy movement and many other movements. Like any other movement it just became another group to join and be a member of

The draw to associate overcomes any group credo

Subculture, for all of its many obvious flaws, still remains better than the other options. Culture itself is everything that Subculture collapses into, and a lack of culture (as attractive as I find it) means a loss of the ability to make great advances.

That said, yes, Punk is, for all intents and purposes, truly dead and the whole issue is merely academic, because sXe has been swallowed by Emptyveemo and Youth Groups.

True ... They just have a lesser ability to hide it, raw emotion is a powerful thing at that point in your life ...

Raw emotion, when harnessed, can be a powerfully good thing. I truly beleive it comes down to an ability to use the rage and angst productively.

I don't think it's bullying when governments do it. It seems to become a case of oppression more than anything then.
Yes, but civilians in such religion free regimes as in Stalinism, there were many instances of citizens reporting neighbors for practicing Judiaism for instance.

Subculture, for all of its many obvious flaws, still remains better than the other options. Culture itself is everything that Subculture collapses into, and a lack of culture (as attractive as I find it) means a loss of the ability to make great advances.

That said, yes, Punk is, for all intents and purposes, truly dead and the whole issue is merely academic, because sXe has been swallowed by Emptyveemo and Youth Groups.



Raw emotion, when harnessed, can be a powerfully good thing. I truly beleive it comes down to an ability to use the rage and angst productively.
True but just like anything your ability to control it is developing at that stage ... powerful good if you can manage to keep it on track.

Yes, but civilians in such religion free regimes as in Stalinism, there were many instances of citizens reporting neighbors for practicing Judiaism for instance.

Yeah people are dicks ...

I don't think it's bullying when governments do it. It seems to become a case of oppression more than anything then.

Well, unless you also consider that those regimes had huge networks of civilian informants and children were indoctrinated in schools to take an antireligious, atheist stance. These countries sought to create a society hostile to religion at all levels; it wasn't just the state but rather many members of society that were bullying religious people.

Yeah, no one seems to point out any ALF benefits though. Straight edge, however...

Well the ALF thing wasn't as easy to sensationalize, so the music press couldn't sell it as well.

Ok, and not everyone who likes punk looks into its history and when you talk to people in a condescending manner it makes you seem like an ass as well as a total snob.

I know, I'm just a geek, and like most geeks, I get involved in my subject of interest to the point where I alienate others.

Wait, you're basing this on hypotheticals? You've never drank or anything like that?

I've never drank. Ever. Never will either. However, that's an academic issue, as my family has such a strong alchohol allergy that even if I wanted to drink, I couldn't.

I mean, whatever floats your boat, but chances are you'd be perfectly alright if you went out with some friends and had a pint or two.

Eh. I'm a control freak. Sad but true.

I know that religion doesn't have to kill. Neither do atheism or communism.

The question of this forum is do atheist bully?

Comunism, a, not all form of atheism has done more bullying than any other organized group.


By the By, Hitler to was an atheist. His views on human evelution led him to conclude the arian race was evolving towards telepethy and that other races where in the way of their 'evelutionary purity.' while Hitler was sort of Catholic, and he used the church for his political gains, He was also quite outspoken about his atheism.

So the 4 biggest bullies (Stalin50 million dead, Mao100 million (ish), Pot Poll (cambodia) (6million) and Hitler (6 million) where all atheists....

Yes I'd say there are organized atheist bullies.....

I don't think it's bullying when governments do it. It seems to become a case of oppression more than anything then.

Of course it isn't even a case of atheism being the oppressive force there...

um... atheism was to comunism what Christianity was to the crusades.

Well in the first world atheists and agnostics are all minority groups, depending of course if apathetic individuals are counted or not. So in a sweeping statement on a major scale bullying by atheists on non-atheists does not exist majorly, but of course minor incidents will exist but I am sure this thread does not exist for such small circumstances.

Only country I can think of is the DPRK, and that is just pure speculation and conjecture, even more so in China which is now embracing religious groups, and Cuba which has been secular for quite a while, of course we all know that the whole Cuban dictatorship is a myth.

So in conclusion it doesnt exist in any significant proportion, no.

If I'm not mistaken, weren't the puritans pretty much fundies?

The Puritans were a small portion of the origional colonies. While the Mass. Bay colony and the Plymouth Bay colony were both fundamentalist havens, the Congregationalists were not the only group there. The vast majority of the colonies were royal or private colonies which were more concerned with business than with God.

The question of this forum is do atheist bully?

Comunism, a, not all form of atheism has done more bullying than any other organized group.


By the By, Hitler to was an atheist. His views on human evelution led him to conclude the arian race was evolving towards telepethy and that other races where in the way of their 'evelutionary purity.' while Hitler was sort of Catholic, and he used the church for his political gains, He was also quite outspoken about his atheism.

So the 4 biggest bullies (Stalin50 million dead, Mao100 million (ish), Pot Poll (cambodia) (6million) and Hitler (6 million) where all atheists....

Yes I'd say there are organized atheist bullies.....

The question was :

"Ouside of the realm of Politics, are there any instances of the Atheists doing the bullying on some poor Christian kid?
I've never heard one."

So outside of politics there aren't many organizations

The Puritans were a small portion of the origional colonies. While the Mass. Bay colony and the Plymouth Bay colony were both fundamentalist havens, the Congregationalists were not the only group there. The vast majority of the colonies were royal or private colonies which were more concerned with business than with God.

Um... most of the colonists came to escape religious persicution.

there where quakers, shakers, puritans, baptists, huterites, menonites, catholics (from protestant areas) protestants (from catholic areas) Jewsm, Amish..... shall I contionue????

So outside of politics there aren't many organizations

Usually, the bullying is verbal, and it's mostly done by adults (Richard Dawkins springs to mind on that one). It's probably because there aren't that many atheist kids and a lot of them are in a minority to begin with.

Um... most of the colonists came to escape religious persicution.

Nope. Most of them came to escape poverty and to exploit the resources of Virginia. Or they came without a choice to live in Georgia (a giant debtor's prison).

there where quakers, shakers, puritans, baptists, huterites, menonites, catholics (from protestant areas) protestants (from catholic areas) Jewsm, Amish..... shall I contionue????

Still not a majority of the population coming over. Lots of tiny groups. Besides which, the Quakers beleived in religious freedoms that would make moderate fundies spit nails, the Shakers didn't exist, they Baptists were Congregationalists, the huterites were so tiny they were irrelevants, the menonites didn't come over til later.

The others were not necessarily fundies.

And the Amish came much later.

The question was :

"Ouside of the realm of Politics, are there any instances of the Atheists doing the bullying on some poor Christian kid?
I've never heard one."

So outside of politics there aren't many organizations

not unless you consider those trying to stop 1 peoples right to pray in School, 2 peoples right to wear religious jewlery in school 3 peoples right to wear t shirts with religious slogans 4 peoples right to talk about their ideas 5 peoples right to cary religious material in schools 6 teachers and prophesors mocking, 7 etc etc.

1 peoples right to pray in School,
2 peoples right to wear religious jewlery in school
3 peoples right to wear t shirts with religious slogans
4 peoples right to talk about their ideas
5 peoples right to cary religious material in schools
6 teachers and prophesors mocking,
7 etc etc.

1. You have the right to pray in school. You just can't force me to.
2, 3, & 5 are contrived issues created for political gain.
6. Is a rarity and one that most atheists oppose as strongly as fundies.
4. Is an outright lie.

most people believe in God.


I think this is undesputed (if you are smart)


So most people don't bully people because they believe in God.

Columbine was a example of this though, where the schooters singled out the religious kids.

most people believe in creationism, or intelligent design (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml). however schools don't teach this. most people want it taught. Here the minority does bully. if you look at the above link, 2 thirds wand creationism taught.... but it isn't. Who's the Bully?

most people believe in God.


I think this is undesputed (if you are smart)


So most people don't bully people because they believe in God.

Columbine was a example of this though, where the schooters singled out the religious kids.

most people believe in creationism, or intelligent design (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml). however schools don't teach this. most people want it taught. Here the minority does bully. if you look at the above link, 2 thirds wand creationism taught.... but it isn't. Who's the Bully?

most people believe in God.


I think this is undesputed (if you are smart)


So most people don't bully people because they believe in God.

Columbine was a example of this though, where the schooters singled out the religious kids.

most people believe in creationism, or intelligent design (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml). however schools don't teach this. most people want it taught. Here the minority does bully. if you look at the above link, 2 thirds wand creationism taught.... but it isn't. Who's the Bully?

Which is funny, because their beliefs are ultimately just as "illogical" as the people who believe in God. Of course, they seem to forget that religion is not a scientific hypothesis and it ultimately boils down to faith no matter what side of the issue you stand on. Logic has its place in the empirical world, while faith is the realm of the supernatural world.

If you're going to claim to be progressive, act like it. Freethought means freethought in which all viewpoints are examined and analyzed.

It takes 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000, etc. times more faith to believe that the universe came from nothing ACCIDENTALLY than it does to believe it came from nothing SUPERNATURALLY.

There are only FOUR possibilities:
1. It came from nothing ACCIDENTALLY.
2. It has ALWAYS been here.
3. It is NOT here; it is an ILLUSION.
4. It came from nothing SUPERNATURALLY.

The chances of #1 happening are approximately 1 in a googolplex to its own power (a number which, if all humanity that ever has been or ever will be until the end of time worked on writing it down, would take literally FOREVER to write)

The Laws of Thermodynamics ("There is always entropy (unusable energy) in a closed system")disprove #2, for if it had ALWAYS been here, it would have become a shapeless gray mush over a googolplex of years ago

#3 is the hallucination of a drug-addict, an insane lunatic, or a lawyer or college professor (lol); no sane person would take #3 seriously. You may say to me, "How do you KNOW the universe is here and not an illusion, Mr. Smarty-Pants?" My response is: How do you know you're breathing, or reading this?

Atheists reject #4 due to emotional panic, i.e. they don't want to stand before God and give account of themselves to Him, so they pretend He doesn't exist, and hide behind one of the other three options, but they WILL stand before Him and give account of themselves to Him, and if they don't like it, that's THEIR problem!

The only sane, logical, mathematically (or perhaps "statistically" is the word I'm looking for) feasible conclusion is #4: IT CAME FROM NOTHING SUPERNATURALLY.

It takes 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000, etc. times more faith to believe that the universe came from nothing ACCIDENTALLY than it does to believe it came from nothing SUPERNATURALLY.
Not really.

If you understand anything about the physics... it makes sense.

most people believe in creationism, or intelligent design (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml). however schools don't teach this. most people want it taught. Here the minority does bully. if you look at the above link, 2 thirds wand creationism taught.... but it isn't. Who's the Bully?

Christian fundies want magic to be taught in science class. Teach magic religious explainations in religion/social sciences classes. Science classes are no place to discuss magic sky faeries and their role in universe creation, earth creation or man's evolution.

It takes 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000, etc. times more faith to believe that the universe came from nothing ACCIDENTALLY than it does to believe it came from nothing SUPERNATURALLY

Well, technically probability is no barrier to an event occurring. It could happen even if it is highly unlikely. However, the point is that there is no knowable scientific justification for why the Big Bang occurred because it would require us to either recreate the initial event or to observe something that happened before the universe came in to existence, which is impossible barring a way to subvert the laws of physics as well as determine the exact size of the universe as opposed to just the physical universe. We can't know what the origin of the universe is because we exist inside of it to begin with, and our observational powers are limited to what we can observe; the only way to overcome that is FTL travel, and that is as of yet impossible. Even so, you'd run in to a mess of problems in regard to relativity...

Nor can science explain for what purpose it occurred; however, that isn't the realm of science to begin with and it should have nothing to say on the matter. Purpose is an entirely different situation altogether.

And even if we could recreate the Big Bang it means nothing about the existence of God. After all, it's entirely possible that God is necessary for it to happen rather than actually causing it to happen. He becomes the reason for as opposed to the cause. We do not know exactly how God is involved, nor do we know what his exact nature is; God is incomprehensible to mankind except in the most limited human senses.

Not really.

If you understand anything about the physics... it makes sense.
Thank God for physics huh. :)

It takes 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000, etc. times more faith to believe that the universe came from nothing ACCIDENTALLY than it does to believe it came from nothing SUPERNATURALLY.

There are only FOUR possibilities:
1. It came from nothing ACCIDENTALLY.
2. It has ALWAYS been here.
3. It is NOT here; it is an ILLUSION.
4. It came from nothing SUPERNATURALLY.

The chances of #1 happening are approximately 1 in a googolplex to its own power (a number which, if all humanity that ever has been or ever will be until the end of time worked on writing it down, would take literally FOREVER to write)

The Laws of Thermodynamics ("There is always entropy (unusable energy) in a closed system")disprove #2, for if it had ALWAYS been here, it would have become a shapeless gray mush over a googolplex of years ago

The fallacy here is that you have yet to demonstrate a source for God, and so the Supernatural is still #1. So the only options are a quantum explanation for 2 or 3.

That and your science is contrived pseudo-science. Stick to the philosophical side, please.

The fallacy here is that you have yet to demonstrate a source for God, and so the Supernatural is still #1. So the only options are a quantum explanation for 2 or 3.

But that assumes God has to have a source, which is only true if the laws of this universe apply to God. If God is eternal, he requires no creator, and, as a corollary, if God exists outside of the laws of this universe he not only does not require a creator but there would be no objective moment of his creation anyway because time would be nonexistent in his realm. How can you have a moment of creation without time?

An interesting idea is that the ancient Greeks believed that existence arose spontaneously and the Gods emerged from the primordial Chaos to shape the universe we live in today. It's interesting because it's an idea bold enough to say that the Gods emerged spontaneously from nothing and then they proceeded to shape the universe from there.

It sort of solves that problem, albeit only in that particular interpretation.

most people believe in God.


I think this is undesputed (if you are smart)

Oh the irony...


So most people don't bully people because they believe in God.

Erm... No. Nice little peice of idealism. You have yet to respond to my previous disproofs, you know.

Columbine was a example of this though, where the schooters singled out the religious kids.

Another nice little pop-culture invention.

most people believe in creationism, or intelligent design (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml). however schools don't teach this. most people want it taught. Here the minority does bully. if you look at the above link, 2 thirds wand creationism taught.... but it isn't. Who's the Bully?

It isn't bullying to demand that only science be taught in science classrooms. ID is pseudo-scientific, and it has no place in a proper science classroom. Moreover, the vast majority of scientists accept evolution. Evolution is one of the strongest, most well-tested theories we have, because of the public trial it has faced. Also, you need to be aware that science isn't about what people want to beleive, it is about what is, and so public polls are basically irrelevant.

Well, actually the ancient Greeks believed that existence arose spontaneously and the Gods emerged from the primordial Chaos to shape the universe we live in today. It's interesting because it's an idea bold enough to say that the Gods emerged spontaneously from nothing and then they proceeded to shape the universe from there.

It sort of solves that problem, albeit only in that particular interpretation.


And it still falls back on his option one.

And it still falls back on his option one.

Which again falls back to the fact that science cannot disprove God no matter what. It's a totally different concept that science simply can't touch. Which, of course, brings us back to the beginning of the entire debate that has been the basis for argument since mankind first develop beliefs about God. Using science to argue God is futile; I mean, I see the beauty of the natural world as evidence for God, but I don't use science to try and prove that because that isn't its purpose. It simply can't be proven and it is more of a philosophical and aesthetic concept than an objective one.

Make of it what you will and go from there, since there is no proof that can persuade people either way. It's literally a case of "for the believer, no proof is necessary, and for the skeptic no proof is enough"...there's just no definitive proof and it boils down to faith either way,

Which again falls back to the fact that science cannot disprove God no matter what. It's a totally different concept that science simply can't touch. Which, of course, brings us back to the beginning of the entire debate that has been the basis for argument since mankind first develop beliefs about God. Using science to argue God is futile; I mean, I see the beauty of the natural world as evidence for God, but I don't use science to try and prove that because that isn't its purpose. It simply can't be proven and it is more of a philosophical and aesthetic concept than an objective one.

Make of it what you will and go from there, since there is no proof that can persuade people either way. It's literally a case of "for the believer, no proof is necessary, and for the skeptic no proof is enough"...there's just no definitive proof and it boils down to faith either way,

Oh, I agree in entirety, I just tire of seeing Theists abuse accepted science and Atheists declare that a lack of conclusion was a conclusion.

I am, and always have been, at best, uncaring regarding the God figure. I figure that to be moral, I must be free, and that therefore, to be good, I must act as if there were no God, whether or not there was one.

Thank God for physics huh. :)
If by god you mean the Invisible Pink Unicorn, then yes.

Oh, I agree in entirety, I just tire of seeing Theists abuse accepted science and Atheists declare that a lack of conclusion was a conclusion.

Same with me. I tend to let things be, but I do step in whenever a theist or atheist crosses the line and begins to interfere with things they shouldn't be.

I am, and always have been, at best, uncaring regarding the God figure. I figure that to be moral, I must be free, and that therefore, to be good, I must act as if there were no God, whether or not there was one.

I would say nontheism is the best position to hold if you don't want to commit. You could also go agnostic, but nontheism goes even farther by simply holding no position on the issue. And it's not a bad position, considering the Buddha was nontheist and he seemed to have turned out okay.

I do believe that freedom is the fundamental underpinning of morality.. How can we discover moral truths without the freedom to look in to them? Of course, I believe that such freedom is ultimately God-given, but freedom still plays in either way. A truly good God would make his universe free, because that would represent the ultimate act of selflessness.

I believe God gives us the freedom to be, because without that we could neither truly appreciate him nor discover the truths that underly this reality.

I would say nontheism is the best position to hold if you don't want to commit. You could also go agnostic, but nontheism goes even farther by simply holding no position on the issue. And it's not a bad position, considering the Buddha was nontheist and he seemed to have turned out okay.

I do believe that freedom is the fundamental underpinning of morality.. How can we discover moral truths without the freedom to look in to them? Of course, I believe that such freedom is ultimately God-given, but freedom still plays in either way. A truly good God would make his universe free, because that would represent the ultimate act of selflessness.

I believe God gives us the freedom to be, because without that we could neither truly appreciate him nor discover the truths that underly this reality.

Hmm.... I hadn't heard the term non-theism applied to what I thought before, but it may fit. I don't see it as a refusal to commit, but rather a commitment to trying to make it through on my own two legs.

For me, anyway, the concept is that accepting the guidance of any supernatural or "perfect" moral being is, in fact, submitting to lose one's own morals. If one does so, they cannot truly objectively view these morals. That puts them in the position of being able to do unintentional harm because of moral apathy. In fact, doing good because you are told to go out and do good is not doing good. It is only doing good if you choose to do it from your own free will.

Hmm.... I hadn't heard the term non-theism applied to what I thought before, but it may fit. I don't see it as a refusal to commit, but rather a commitment to trying to make it through on my own two legs.

What I mean is that you simply don't consider it and focus on what and who is here right now rather than speculating about the supernatural. It's the most practical side of the issue, devoting your energy to the world as it is rather than debating about the supernatural particulars.

For me, anyway, the concept is that accepting the guidance of any supernatural or "perfect" moral being is, in fact, submitting to lose one's own morals. If one does so, they cannot truly objectively view these morals. That puts them in the position of being able to do unintentional harm because of moral apathy. In fact, doing good because you are told to go out and do good is not doing good. It is only doing good if you choose to do it from your own free will.

And I would say God, if he exists, would feel the same way. He is probably so much more than we conceive that he sees petty focus on submission and worship to be a grievous waste of our freedom and ability to reason. I would say the very fact that this universe is not physically deterministic is a pretty good sign that freedom of choice is a fundamental principle behind everything, no matter where or who it originated from.

So, live good and live honestly, and I'd say you'll turn out okay no matter what happens in the end.

If by god you mean the Invisible Pink Unicorn, then yes.
The IPU is responsible for physics? Yeah okay. :rolleyes:

God. Our Creator and master of the Universe. That God. :)

The IPU is responsible for physics? Yeah okay. :rolleyes:

God. Our Creator and master of the Universe. That God. :)

The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Our Creator and master of the Universe. That mythical being. :)

The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Our Creator and master of the Universe. That mythical being. :)
May you enjoy your man made creation, while I enjoy God's creations. :)

May you enjoy your man made creation, while I enjoy God's creations. :)

You overlook one thing, all gods are man's creation. The very concept of god is nothing more then a man-made creation, a meme we pass along generation to generation.

No, it doesn't. And interestingly, skepticism tends to reinforce my beliefs rather than weaken them.

How is that?

The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Our Creator and master of the Universe. That mythical being. :)

Pfft Eris>FSM>IPU

But that assumes God has to have a source, which is only true if the laws of this universe apply to God. If God is eternal, he requires no creator, and, as a corollary, if God exists outside of the laws of this universe he not only does not require a creator but there would be no objective moment of his creation anyway because time would be nonexistent in his realm. How can you have a moment of creation without time?

An interesting idea is that the ancient Greeks believed that existence arose spontaneously and the Gods emerged from the primordial Chaos to shape the universe we live in today. It's interesting because it's an idea bold enough to say that the Gods emerged spontaneously from nothing and then they proceeded to shape the universe from there.

It sort of solves that problem, albeit only in that particular interpretation.

And if the universe is eternal it also requires no creator, by the same argument. There's no escaping the infinite regress if you're arguing that if something exists, it was created.

That's not true. I'm an agnostic who is certain that it is impossible to know whether a deity exists or not during this lifetime.

Are you certain you aren't uncertain? :p
Yes, there are (at least) two types of agnostic, the one awaiting proof, and the one convinced we cannot know. All I did was describe the first, (I hope) I didn't exclude the second. ;)

That's true. We simply can't know, so using science to investigate God is an impossible and futile effort.

I won't believe that until we make a sustained, well-funded effort to do so.

This is getting ridiculous.

An agnostic believes ultimate truth is unknowable, ever.

An atheist believes that the truth can be known one day but, as of 2006, sees no evidence for God's existence, so cannot believe.

Savvy?

I disagree with your definitions.

I won't believe that until we make a sustained, well-funded effort to do so.

Well, here's a problem: What is "God"?

There is no answer for that that will enable you to begin a scientific investigation in to its existence. There's an infinite number of starting conditions that would make an experiment impossible.

And if the universe is eternal it also requires no creator, by the same argument. There's no escaping the infinite regress if you're arguing that if something exists, it was created.

Pretty much. The only problem is that there is no way to obtain observational evidence for an infinitely oscillating universe; unlike God, which is a nonscientific idea the oscillating universe is, forcing the person who claims it to develop a scientific model to justify it.

And, of course, it still doesn't rule out God as an enabler of those processes instead of a creator.

Pretty much. The only problem is that there is no way to obtain observational evidence for an infinitely oscillating universe; unlike God, which is a nonscientific idea the oscillating universe is, forcing the person who claims it to develop a scientific model to justify it.

And, of course, it still doesn't rule out God as an enabler of those processes instead of a creator.

No, the infinite regress doesn't disallow God, it just defeats the argument that the universe must have a creator ;)

Well, here's a problem: What is "God"?

There is no answer for that that will enable you to begin a scientific investigation in to its existence. There's an infinite number of starting conditions that would make an experiment impossible.

I agree that we're nowhere near ready to begin such investigations, however I dislike the use of the word "impossible," given the implicit finallity of the word.

No, the infinite regress doesn't disallow God, it just defeats the argument that the universe must have a creator ;)

Well, not if you were to say that the Gods were created spontaneously from chaos and then created the universe. I mean, that's what the Greeks though and it does avoid regress by outright saying creation of the Gods was spontaneous.

I re-read the OP twice to make sure I read correctly.

So is this yet another attempt to paint Christians (or religious people in general) of oppresion against those poor noble atheists who only want to be able to live without religion.

Spend a couple years in a suburban public school in the USA, and make sure people know you're a Christian, then come back here and tell us all about how those poor atheists suffer at the hands of the evil zealots.

Christians take a lot of crap from atheists, just one look at a board like this one will show you both extremes. Not just Christians, mind you... Creationists as a sub-category, pro-life people (not all of whom are Christians), etc. Let them show their belief in a thread on a board like this one, not even aggressively, and watch them get shouted down.

And the shout-downs are usually rationalized with a phrase like "you can believe what you want as long as you don't push your belief on me." Which is a perfectly reasonable sentence, as far as it goes, but sometimes "pushing your religion" seems to be defined as any act that even remotely demonstrates that you believe in something where an atheist can see you do it.

/rant

I agree that we're nowhere near ready to begin such investigations, however I dislike the use of the word "impossible," given the implicit finallity of the word.

Well, it runs in to two huge problems: the infinite number of starting conditions and lack of falsifiability. Technically, if it can't be falsified it most likely wouldn't even be considered a scientific theory and would probably border on pseudoscience. You would have to have a way to test an infinite number of starting conditions, an infinite number of forms, and you would have to develop an infinite number of ways to observe and experiment to find if God exists.

It's the "infinite" part that makes me feel it is impossible. Even replicating the experiment would require an infinite number of tests in and of itself.

I re-read the OP twice to make sure I read correctly.

So is this yet another attempt to paint Christians (or religious people in general) of oppresion against those poor noble atheists who only want to be able to live without religion.

Spend a couple years in a suburban public school in the USA, and make sure people know you're a Christian, then come back here and tell us all about how those poor atheists suffer at the hands of the evil zealots.

Christians take a lot of crap from atheists, just one look at a board like this one will show you both extremes. Not just Christians, mind you... Creationists as a sub-category, pro-life people (not all of whom are Christians), etc. Let them show their belief in a thread on a board like this one, not even aggressively, and watch them get shouted down.

And the shout-downs are usually rationalized with a phrase like "you can believe what you want as long as you don't push your belief on me." Which is a perfectly reasonable sentence, as far as it goes, but sometimes "pushing your religion" seems to be defined as any act that even remotely demonstrates that you believe in something where an atheist can see you do it.

/rant
Yeah all 10 percent of the population really bullies you other 90 percent around :rolleyes:

I am not entirely sure I even knew what an atheist was back in high school and coming from a catholic elementary school and being an active catholic at that time I never heard one word against me based on my religion
Not one

Well, it runs in to two huge problems: the infinite number of starting conditions and lack of falsifiability. Technically, if it can't be falsified it most likely wouldn't even be considered a scientific theory and would probably border on pseudoscience.

You would have to have a way to test an infinite number of starting conditions, an infinite number of forms, and you would have to develop an infinite number of ways to observe and experiment to find if God exists.

It's the "infinite" part that makes me feel it is impossible.

We've got a start on transfinite mathematics (thanks, Georg!), so all is not hopeless, though I doubt I'll live to see anything conclusive ;)

We've got a start on transfinite mathematics (thanks, Georg!), so all is not hopeless, though I doubt I'll live to see anything conclusive ;)

That's true. I imagine it would still require you to show that the number of starting conditions are transfinite as opposed to infinite, but it could be a place to start.

Of course, you still run in to problems like the fact that we don't know if there are other intelligent civilizations with religious beliefs and things like that. There are still a ton of other conditions that would need to be established in addition to the properties of God itself.

But if someone wants to give it a shot, go ahead. I'd rather they try and succeed or fail than never give it an attempt at all.

Yeah all 10 percent of the population really bullies you other 90 percent around :rolleyes:

I am not entirely sure I even knew what an atheist was back in high school and coming from a catholic elementary school and being an active catholic at that time I never heard one word against me based on my religion
Not one

Then your experiences were much better than many I've observed, including some of my own.

The reason I'm passionate about this is the maddening irony that most atheists tend to be very avid proponents of a live and let live philosophy, and talk a lot about respecting each other, and yet they just don't understand:

To Christians, symbolism like the cross, events like the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection and many other things hold a very deep and sacred meaning. It's deep on a level that can only be compared to love in its intensity and meaning. Christians know that atheists don't feel that way, and believe it or not, don't expect them to, it really is quite alright.

And yet, even within "intellectual" debate, I've seen some atheists refer to these things in some of the most derisive terms imaginable. It's hurtful. It's unnecessary. Yet it's part and parcel of any such debate. This is not how you live and let live.

Remember a few years ago when there was a big controversey surrounding the work of some artist wherin a crucifix was submerged in a container of urine? Christians were outraged, and yet portrayed as unreasonable zealots. Imagine this: I take a photograph, or a special posession owned by the person you love most in the world and I urinate on it. How would you feel? Be honest. Don't post back and say that wouldn't upset you.

But this sort of thing happends frequently. non-Christians use some of the deepest and ost sacred symbols of Christianity as a joke and a punchline, and then play the victim at the first opportunity.

By the way, thanks for trying to distort what I said rather than just understand my post. 90% vs 10% has nothing to do with the focus of my reply, which in turn answered the OP challenge that there were NO instances of atheists bullying Christians.

That's true. I imagine it would still require you to show that the number of starting conditions are transfinite as opposed to infinite, but it could be a place to start.

Of course, you still run in to problems like the fact that we don't know if there are other intelligent civilizations with religious beliefs and things like that. There are still a ton of other conditions that would need to be established in addition to the properties of God itself.

But if someone wants to give it a shot, go ahead. I'd rather they try and succeed or fail than never give it an attempt at all.

Okay, here's where I get kinda woogie woogie. That's why we're here, really, isn't it? Isn't our curiosity humanity's defining trait?

Then your experiences were much better than many I've observed, including some of my own.

The reason I'm passionate about this is the maddening irony that most atheists tend to be very avid proponents of a live and let live philosophy, and talk a lot about respecting each other, and yet they just don't understand:

To Christians, symbolism like the cross, events like the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection and many other things hold a very deep and sacred meaning. It's deep on a level that can only be compared to love in its intensity and meaning. Christians know that atheists don't feel that way, and believe it or not, don't expect them to, it really is quite alright.

And yet, even within "intellectual" debate, I've seen some atheists refer to these things in some of the most derisive terms imaginable. It's hurtful. It's unnecessary. Yet it's part and parcel of any such debate. This is not how you live and let live.

Remember a few years ago when there was a big controversey surrounding the work of some artist wherin a crucifix was submerged in a container of urine? Christians were outraged, and yet portrayed as unreasonable zealots. Imagine this: I take a photograph, or a special posession owned by the person you love most in the world and I urinate on it. How would you feel? Be honest. Don't post back and say that wouldn't upset you.

But this sort of thing happends frequently. non-Christians use some of the deepest and ost sacred symbols of Christianity as a joke and a punchline, and then play the victim at the first opportunity.

By the way, thanks for trying to distort what I said rather than just understand my post. 90% vs 10% has nothing to do with the focus of my reply, which in turn answered the OP challenge that there were NO instances of atheists bullying Christians.
Most of us atheists are "Live and let live" in the respect that there should be no forced rules accepting or banning religous practice or belief.

That does not mean you have the right to not be offended nor do we have the responsability to actually respect your religion.

You have the right to practice your religion just as much as I have the right to say what I think about it weather it is hurtful to you or not

I usually try to be better then that but I do not feel it should be required

Most of us atheists are "Live and let live" in the respect that there should be no forced rules accepting or banning religous practice or belief.

That does not mean you have the right to not be offended nor do we have the responsability to actually respect your religion.

You have the right to practice your religion just as much as I have the right to say what I think about it weather it is hurtful to you or not

I usually try to be better then that but I do not feel it should be required

Fair enough.

But by the same token, and if that is indeed your philosophy then I'm sure you would agree, that if you choose to express your opinions in a manner that lacks respect for others, then you waive your right to cry foul later.

Which is what, IMHO the OP was setting up to do.

Okay, here's where I get kinda woogie woogie. That's why we're here, really, isn't it? Isn't our curiosity humanity's defining trait?

It really is. I'm curious too; given the amount of strangeness that things like superstring theory and quantum theory contain, I would say that any discovery about God is going to be absolutely mind-blowing if we can pull it off. I mean, if this universe is this weird with what we know now, who even knows what will be discovered in the future?

So, give it a shot...hopefully, you'll get somewhere with it.

It really is. I'm curious too; given the amount of strangeness that things like superstring theory and quantum theory contain, I would say that any discovery about God is going to be absolutely mind-blowing if we can pull it off. I mean, if this universe is this weird with what we know now, who even knows what will be discovered in the future?

So, give it a shot...hopefully, you'll get somewhere with it.

This is OT, but is there any way we could tag our arguments as an example of how to disagree civilly? Because I'm sure neither of us has changed the other's mind, but we've never flamed, either. Thank you for being such a gentleman!

Fair enough.

But by the same token, and if that is indeed your philosophy then I'm sure you would agree, that if you choose to express your opinions in a manner that lacks respect for others, then you waive your right to cry foul later.

Which is what, IMHO the OP was setting up to do.

Maybe but I dont know his intentions or political philosophy ... I am rather social libertarian my views on it does not retrict his right to "cry foul"

You overlook one thing, all gods are man's creation. The very concept of god is nothing more then a man-made creation, a meme we pass along generation to generation.
Well, there are more people passing along that there is a God then those that say there is not. Not that I am swayed by the simple majority, I am swayed by the magnificence of His universe, and the God sense within. :)

Maybe but I dont know his intentions or political philosophy ... I am rather social libertarian my views on it does not retrict his right to "cry foul"

I'm not talking about civil rights. Don't try to confuse the issue. I'm talking about the kind of thing that impacts your credibility.

You want the freedom to be nasty whenever you feel like it? Fine. there it is. I'm Libertarian too. But if you cry foul later, you reveal yourself to be full of it.

I'm not talking about civil rights. Don't try to confuse the issue. I'm talking about the kind of thing that impacts your credibility.

You want the freedom to be nasty whenever you feel like it? Fine. there it is. I'm Libertarian too. But if you cry foul later, you reveal yourself to be full of it.

Me yes sure ... but You were referencing back to the OP's right to cry fowl (and be full of it) MY views on the manner don't effect his "Full of it"ness

Well, there are more people passing along that there is a God then those that say there is not. Not that I am swayed by the simple majority, I am swayed by the magnificence of His universe, and the God sense within. :)

I like that.

You know, it's interesting when you see people debating the existence of God and it usually boils down to why the person of faith believes in the first place. It's a favorite tactic used by the Atheist debators because on some lefel it goes beyond simple math and science. It boils down to Faith, and the feeling that comes when the Spirit testifies to you.

It's like being in love. You can't prove you are, or that anyone is. You just know, and only you can know for sure. So I guess if there's no God then there is no love, either.

Me yes sure ... but You were referencing back to the OP's right to cry fowl (and be full of it) MY views on the manner don't effect his "Full of it"ness

Well my referencing back to the OP in that one was an afterthought. My comments apply to everybody and I feel the OP is an example. You and I seem to agree. I'd like to hear from the OP.

It's like being in love. You can't prove you are, or that anyone is. You just know, and only you can know for sure.

Actually, if we stopped listening to silly poets and actually decided to define "love" it wouldn't be all that dificult to prove.

I like that.

You know, it's interesting when you see people debating the existence of God and it usually boils down to why the person of faith believes in the first place. It's a favorite tactic used by the Atheist debators because on some lefel it goes beyond simple math and science. It boils down to Faith, and the feeling that comes when the Spirit testifies to you.

It's like being in love. You can't prove you are, or that anyone is. You just know, and only you can know for sure. So I guess if there's no God then there is no love, either.
It is all about love and faith. It is about casting aside the hate and the fears so that one may rejoice in life the way God meant for us to do. :)

Actually, if we stopped listening to silly poets and actually decided to define "love" it wouldn't be all that dificult to prove.

Ok I'm listening. Go.

It's like being in love. You can't prove you are, or that anyone is. You just know, and only you can know for sure. So I guess if there's no God then there is no love, either.It's not like being in love. There's no point in proving to yourself that you are anyway. It's more like trying to prove that someone else is in love with you. There's no way of knowing. "You just know" doesn't exist. God also has nothing to do with love at all. There's no god needed for love.

It is all about love and faith. It is about casting aside the hate and the fears so that one may rejoice in life the way God meant for us to do. :)

Amen.

It's not like being in love. There's no point in proving to yourself that you are anyway. It's more like trying to prove that someone else is in love with you. There's no way of knowing. "You just know" doesn't exist. God also has nothing to do with love at all. There's no god needed for love.

Of course there is. What is love, truly, without the spiritual connection? Without it, there's nothing but mating and biology and survival.

You know when you love someone, when you're in love with someone, but y uo can't describe or prove it to someone who hasn't experienced it for themselves, and once someone HAS had that experience, they know forever what it means. True faith in God is like that. If you've never felt it, it can't be explained. Once you have, it changes you forever.

Understand; there's a difference between knowledge or belief, and Faith. If I tell you I drive a blue car, you believe me (or not) because you have no reason to think I'd mislead you. If you actually SEE my car, you have knowledge that I drive a blue car.

Faith is not like either. Faith is when your heart has been touched by the Spirit, and the truth of it comes to younot through any of the 5 senses through which you gather knowledge... it comes at you on another level entirely.

I can't prove it to you because I can only reach you through some combination of your 5 senses. Only God can reach you otherwise.

Of course there is. What is love, truly, without the spiritual connection? Without it, there's nothing but mating and biology and survival.

You know when you love someone, when you're in love with someone, but y uo can't describe or prove it to someone who hasn't experienced it for themselves, and once someone HAS had that experience, they know forever what it means. True faith in God is like that. If you've never felt it, it can't be explained. Once you have, it changes you forever.

Or like having an arm amputated.

Of course there is. What is love, truly, without the spiritual connection? Without it, there's nothing but mating and biology and survival.

You know when you love someone, when you're in love with someone, but y uo can't describe or prove it to someone who hasn't experienced it for themselves, and once someone HAS had that experience, they know forever what it means. True faith in God is like that. If you've never felt it, it can't be explained. Once you have, it changes you forever.

Understand; there's a difference between knowledge or belief, and Faith. If I tell you I drive a blue car, you believe me (or not) because you have no reason to think I'd mislead you. If you actually SEE my car, you have knowledge that I drive a blue car.

Faith is not like either. Faith is when your heart has been touched by the Spirit, and the truth of it comes to younot through any of the 5 senses through which you gather knowledge... it comes at you on another level entirely.

I can't prove it to you because I can only reach you through some combination of your 5 senses. Only God can reach you otherwise.As if.

It's not like being in love. There's no point in proving to yourself that you are anyway. It's more like trying to prove that someone else is in love with you. There's no way of knowing. "You just know" doesn't exist. God also has nothing to do with love at all. There's no god needed for love.

Love is inherently subjective and undefinable; it's one of those qualia that any attempt to explain ultimately fails to really convey the feeling to others.

Is God needed for love? Not in the literal sense, although we have no idea if the actual concept of love in and of itself requires God. There's a difference between love as coming from God and love existing because of God. The former is not necessary and the second is indeterminate because it's possible that love does come from God but we simply don't perceive it as such.

It's not like being in love. There's no point in proving to yourself that you are anyway. It's more like trying to prove that someone else is in love with you. There's no way of knowing. "You just know" doesn't exist. God also has nothing to do with love at all. There's no god needed for love.

Love is inherently subjective and undefinable; it's one of those qualia that any attempt to explain ultimately fails to really convey the feeling to others.

Is God needed for love? Not in the literal sense, although we have no idea if the actual concept of love in and of itself requires God. There's a difference between love as coming from God and love existing because of God. The former is not necessary and the second is indeterminate because it's possible that love does come from God but we simply don't perceive it as such.