NationStates Jolt Archive

I know that you're expecting another question from me, which tends to be how most of my posts end up. (I'm trying to quit, I swear!)

But anyway, I just wanted to get one little point cleared up for my benefit.

"Does NSG have a bone to pick with Religion?" Specifically Christianity is what I'm thinking of. Now, I understand that you all hate the ultra-right wingers (and rightly so) but the impression I've gotten from quite a few others is that this extends to religion in general.

So my question here would be then, would I--as a person with moderate-to-somewhat-conservative views be met with the same disdain? I ask because I want to get an idea of how lightly I need to tread to not get a flamewar started.

Sadly, mentioning it will start a flame war. I've found that most of NSG live by their words, but there's some folks whom mentioning religion (and Christianity in particular) is akin to waving a red cape in front of a bull.

You're not going to get it from me. I believe in God; it's not an organized religion, but it's a religious belief all the same.

as i understand it, your soul for a place in heaven. i'm keeping mine to myself though.

What's the deal with lampshades? If its a lamp, why do you want shade?

And what's the deal with homework? You're not working on your home!

"Does NSG have a bone to pick with Religion?"

Everyone in NSG? No.

Me in particular? Some days.

as i understand it, your soul for a place in heaven. i'm keeping mine to myself though.

Same here. Of course, I'd rather not die in the first place, but who knows?

you will get a flame war if you bring up

religion

abortion

gay marriage

feminism

the war in iraq

the war on terror

george bush

hillary clinton

and probably a few others that didnt spring right to my mind

the is no treading lightly in these topics.

So my question here would be then, would I--as a person with moderate-to-somewhat-conservative views be met with the same disdain?

Not by anyone worth thinking about. However, there are some who simply see religion as an obstacle to Communism, for example, or to "animal liberation." A vocal micro-minority, but usually well versed in slogans. :p

you will get a flame war if you bring up

religion

abortion

gay marriage

feminism

the war in iraq

the war on terror

george bush

hillary clinton

and probably a few others that didnt spring right to my mind

the is no treading lightly in these topics.


So true...So true.

I know that you're expecting another question from me, which tends to be how most of my posts end up. (I'm trying to quit, I swear!)

But anyway, I just wanted to get one little point cleared up for my benefit.

"Does NSG have a bone to pick with Religion?" Specifically Christianity is what I'm thinking of. Now, I understand that you all hate the ultra-right wingers (and rightly so) but the impression I've gotten from quite a few others is that this extends to religion in general.

So my question here would be then, would I--as a person with moderate-to-somewhat-conservative views be met with the same disdain? I ask because I want to get an idea of how lightly I need to tread to not get a flamewar started.

I don't disrespect the people. I disrespect the ideology. As long as you're a good guy, and don't try to shove your beliefs down my throat *cough*TheRedemptionArmy*cough* I'm gonna respect you.

My biggest problem with religion is the people who want to "share" theirs with me, as if, somehow, I would be happier doing things their way. I have my own set of beliefs, thank you. If I were interested in someone else's, I'd ask.

From what I've seen most of the radical anti-religious people base their arguements around some equally radical generalizations.
Fer 'instance, Ive learned that 'nearly all' Christians hate Muslims, because of the Crusades.
It is well known that all Christians follow the policies of the medieval Catholic church, of course.

For those that make the distinction between Catholics and Protestants, it seems that ALL Protestants come under the heading of Puritans, and we habitually kill Indians and steal their land.

No names, just what Ive seen.

EDIT:
Oh, and Xenu loves you, Anti-Social Darwinism ;)

EDIT:
Oh, and Xenu loves you, Anti-Social Darwinism ;)


I'm not asking.:p

We scare and anger the masses, sadly.

My biggest problem with religion is the people who want to "share" theirs with me, as if, somehow, I would be happier doing things their way. I have my own set of beliefs, thank you. If I were interested in someone else's, I'd ask.

That's one of the biggest problems. Also, there's the problem with dealing with whackjobs, but there's anti-religion whackjobs too like the commies.

That's one of the biggest problems. Also, there's the problem with dealing with whackjobs, but there's anti-religion whackjobs too like the commies.

Communism is, in many ways, like religion. They try to convert one. I don't like them either.

I actually get more problems from the "religious" around here than I do anyone else.

I don't really have a problem with religious people unless they're the type that think that they must foist their superior morality on others through legal means. See: most of the people that are anti-stem cells, anti-evolution, anti-gay, anti-free speech, anti-constitution, pro-war, pro-Bush, etc., etc., etc.

Not by anyone worth thinking about. However, there are some who simply see religion as an obstacle to Communism, for example, or to "animal liberation." A vocal micro-minority, but usually well versed in slogans. :p

animal liberation? most of the dharma religions have extremely good records with animal rights.

I hate religion soooo much. If someone tells me they are religious, I automatically think less of them. I have to use alot of restrain to tolerate religion. Christianity, Islam, Dao-ist, I think your an idiot. Oooo' wanna kill GOd!

There is no God! There never was a God! There never will be a God (unless future scientists invent him). Your all nuts for believing in this nonsense, gibberish, general lack of intellegence! AAAHHHHHHHH!

No FAith! Can't have faith, worthless. don't Beleive! can't ever happen. Bible is worthless. scripture is meaningless. Allah is a terrorist! hate religion sooo much. fundamentalists need to die! Abortion! Gay Marriage! Stem cellS! George buSH!!! goD Sux! just say no to religion, there is no way to heaven, there is no heaven! all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather.

I hate certain religious types for the same reason I hate certain athiests - when they have to remind me every other post about how their way of life is superior and you're an idiot if you believe in anything else.

I actually get more problems from the "religious" around here than I do anyone else.
As always, it's the extreams on either side that make the day so wonderful.

Maybe one day we can build a giant ark and ship them off somewhere to scream at each other forever while the rest of us sit back, relax, and enjoy the silence?

I hate certain religious types for the same reason I hate certain athiests - when they have to remind me every other post about how their way of life is superior and you're an idiot if you believe in anything else.

Oh its soo true, your an idiot! I am smarter than you because I am an atheist! bow down before your new lord! You are deaf and blind and born to follow. what you need is someone strong to guide you

No FAith! Can't have faith, worthless. don't Beleive! can't ever happen. Bible is worthless. scripture is meaningless. Allah is a terrorist! hate religion sooo much. fundamentalists need to die! Abortion! Gay Marriage! Stem cellS! George buSH!!! goD Sux! just say no to religion, there is no way to heaven, there is no heaven! all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather.

Oh its soo true, your an idiot! I am smarter than you because I am an atheist! bow down before your new lord! You are deaf and blind and born to follow. what you need is someone strong to guide you
Uh... ok. The atheist puppet answer to Jesussaves?

your an idiot!
El oh el.

El oh el.

Si Si, Habla Espanol? No me gusta Jesus Christos. Me gusta tacos!

...please tell me he realizes that 'el oh el' isn't Spanish...

...please tell me he realizes that 'el oh el' isn't Spanish...

See what you need to do is realize that

1) You were born an atheist and the only reason you believe in God is because someone told you to.

2) When you die, your body will rot in the ground. Any soul you had died with james brown! mm-mm-mm no he didn't;

3) You need to do a whole lot of acid. as soon as possible.


*swishes gasoline around in mouth and spits into lighter*
You have just been flamed!!!

I hate religion soooo much. If someone tells me they are religious, I automatically think less of them. I have to use alot of restrain to tolerate religion. Christianity, Islam, Dao-ist, I think your an idiot. Oooo' wanna kill GOd!

There is no God! There never was a God! There never will be a God (unless future scientists invent him). Your all nuts for believing in this nonsense, gibberish, general lack of intellegence! AAAHHHHHHHH!

No FAith! Can't have faith, worthless. don't Beleive! can't ever happen. Bible is worthless. scripture is meaningless. Allah is a terrorist! hate religion sooo much. fundamentalists need to die! Abortion! Gay Marriage! Stem cellS! George buSH!!! goD Sux! just say no to religion, there is no way to heaven, there is no heaven! all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
I'm really stuck at trying to decide if he's a bad pupet, a bad troll, or 12 years old.

Oh its soo true, your an idiot! I am smarter than you because I am an atheist! bow down before your new lord! You are deaf and blind and born to follow. what you need is someone strong to guide you

No FAith! Can't have faith, worthless. don't Beleive! can't ever happen. Bible is worthless. scripture is meaningless. Allah is a terrorist! hate religion sooo much. fundamentalists need to die! Abortion! Gay Marriage! Stem cellS! George buSH!!! goD Sux! just say no to religion, there is no way to heaven, there is no heaven! all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather.

When you realize that atheism is as much an act of faith as any belief in deity, then you might lay claim to some intelligence. The agnostic, who says that there is not enough evidence either way to state for certain that god(s) exist or not is far more intelligent than your writing indicates you are.

When you realize that atheism is as much an act of faith as any belief in deity, then you might lay claim to some intelligence. The agnostic, who says that there is not enough evidence either way to state for certain that god(s) exist or not is far more intelligent than your writing indicates you are.

Your right, faith is defined as the belief in things which cannot be proven. Its pretty much a given that we all have some faith. But agnosticism is as dumb as theism. There are a million ways to disprove God. want one? here ya

go...http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Schick/Can%20Science_and_existance_of_god.htm

want another one, here it is
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Schick/Can%20Science_and_existance_of_god.htm

Your right, faith is defined as the belief in things which cannot be proven. Its pretty much a given that we all have some faith. But agnosticism is as dumb as theism. There are a million ways to disprove God. want one? here ya

go...http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Schick/Can%20Science_and_existance_of_god.htm

want another one, here it is
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Schick/Can%20Science_and_existance_of_god.htm

They're both the same. Circular reasoning for the fuzzy minded.

~snip~ fundamentalists need to die! ~snip~
dear oh dear - wouldn't this make you an atheistic fundamentalist?

~snip~ all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather.

please don't desecrate Bill Hicks to support your intolerance

We scare and anger the masses, sadly.

Not the masses--atheists make up about 10% of the US population at best. And only some of you scare and anger us. I've got no real beef with groups like the UCC and the Unitarians, largely because they're not in your face about it and because they're not trying to enact their religious beliefs into law. Keep it out of the legal system and we're cool. Otherwise, we're gonna scrap.

dear oh dear - wouldn't this make you an atheistic fundamentalist?

In order to be a fundamentalist of any sort, there has to be a fundamental doctrine that has been strayed from and to which one wishes to return. Since there is no fundamental doctrine of atheism, and since no one has strayed from said non-existent doctrine, there can be no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. Atheists can be militant, and they can be assholes, but they cannot, by definition, be fundamentalist.

a whole lot of acid.
So THAT'S what you're on...

The agnostic, who says that there is not enough evidence either way to state for certain that god(s) exist or not is far more intelligent

we can't have enough evidence to state much of anything for certain. it's just our epistemic lot in life. but nobody jumps out the window rather than walking out the door because of that lack of evidence.

In order to be a fundamentalist of any sort, there has to be a fundamental doctrine that has been strayed from and to which one wishes to return. Since there is no fundamental doctrine of atheism, and since no one has strayed from said non-existent doctrine, there can be no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. Atheists can be militant, and they can be assholes, but they cannot, by definition, be fundamentalist.

fair point
i was referring to the absolutism of his statement "fundamentalists need to die!"
'extremist' then?

you will get a flame war if you bring up

religion

abortion

gay marriage

feminism

the war in iraq

the war on terror

george bush

hillary clinton

and probably a few others that didnt spring right to my mind

the is no treading lightly in these topics.

if it weren't for controversial topics none of us would be here...

we can't have enough evidence to state much of anything for certain. it's just our epistemic lot in life. but nobody jumps out the window rather than walking out the door because of that lack of evidence.

There's a substantial amount of solid evidence that indicates that jumping out the window might do one an injury. There is no solid evidence that indicates that believing or not believing in deity might do an injury. Given that, I will use doors rather than windows whenever possible. My belief in deity remains in question.

animal liberation? most of the dharma religions have extremely good records with animal rights.

Sure, it's usually western religion. The nuttiest of the animal nuts seem to love Lynn White.

fair point
i was referring to the absolutism of his statement "fundamentalists need to die!"
'extremist' then?

Extremist is at least in the ballpark, though it still presupposes a certain moderate dogma from which one has strayed into extreme ground. Part of the problem is that you're trying to use terms with religious connotations to describe something that is the antithesis of religion, and they just don't translate well. But extremist is a bit more acceptable than fundamentalist, because it's possible to be an extremist in political belief, for instance.

In order to be a fundamentalist of any sort, there has to be a fundamental doctrine that has been strayed from and to which one wishes to return. Since there is no fundamental doctrine of atheism, and since no one has strayed from said non-existent doctrine, there can be no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. Atheists can be militant, and they can be assholes, but they cannot, by definition, be fundamentalist.
Then, strictly speaking, there cannot be fundamentalist Christians because Christianity has been one 2,000 year-old argument about what the hell the fundamentals are in the first place. ;)

Of course personally I've always prefered unimaginative literalist idiots to fundamentalists, but that's just me.

Then, strictly speaking, there cannot be fundamentalist Christians because Christianity has been one 2,000 year-old argument about what the hell the fundamentals are in the first place. ;)

Of course personally I've always prefered unimaginative literalist idiots to fundamentalists, but that's just me.

Not really--and I know you're just picking a bit, but I'm going to run with this. The definition of fundamentalist in terms of christianity always comes back to a couple of basic propositions--the inerrance and infallibilty of scripture. That's the baseline that fundamentalists always return to. Now there's always debate over what exactly they're supposed to do with this supposedly inerrant and infallible book, because there's loads of contradictions and non sequiturs in there, which leads them to all pick and choose various portions and emphasize them over everything else (and of course, claim they have the one true understanding and everyone else is going to roast in hell). In short, the fundamentals are the same--it's just the understanding of them that's in question.

But in atheism, you don't have that baseline to return to. At best you have "there's no proof that a personal god exists, so I don't believe in one," but that's not much of a fundamental to believe in, to build a belief system around, or to stray very far from.

There's a substantial amount of solid evidence that indicates that jumping out the window might do one an injury.

no certainty at all though. and that's the point.

But in atheism, you don't have that baseline to return to. At best you have "there's no proof that a personal god exists, so I don't believe in one," but that's not much of a fundamental to believe in, to build a belief system around, or to stray very far from.

or it just means that every atheist is a fundamentalist by definition, as there really is only the one belief that you have to hold and if you stray from it you literally cease to be an atheist.

Not really--and I know you're just picking a bit, but I'm going to run with this. The definition of fundamentalist in terms of christianity always comes back to a couple of basic propositions--the inerrance and infallibilty of scripture. That's the baseline that fundamentalists always return to. Now there's always debate over what exactly they're supposed to do with this supposedly inerrant and infallible book, because there's loads of contradictions and non sequiturs in there, which leads them to all pick and choose various portions and emphasize them over everything else (and of course, claim they have the one true understanding and everyone else is going to roast in hell). In short, the fundamentals are the same--it's just the understanding of them that's in question.
That true of fundamentalists, but all Christians don't believe in the inerrance and infallibilty of scripture, and given the history of Christianity of arguing over just that, I'm not sure you can state that it is the baseline belief that you said needs to be returned to. Of course if fundamentalists are split off from main-stream Christanity and catagorized into a seperate religion, that would work.

But in atheism, you don't have that baseline to return to. At best you have "there's no proof that a personal god exists, so I don't believe in one," but that's not much of a fundamental to believe in, to build a belief system around, or to stray very far from.
I agree that fundamentalists is not the word I would use. Militant would be far better, possibly fanatic (Sadly, yes, I have met some fanatic atheists). At the end of the day though, I think it would be better to rank both sides as holders of deeply held, if unexamined, beliefs.

or it just means that every atheist is a fundamentalist by definition, as there really is only the one belief that you have to hold and if you stray from it you literally cease to be an atheist.

Well, not necessarily. There are a lot of different kinds of atheism out there; the only real thing you'd need to fall somewhere in that camp is a lack of belief in God.

But then again, that kind of "fundamentalism" is kind of a useless abstraction. I think the term "fundamentalist" is used more to correctly associate militant atheists with their religious counterparts than to refer to the content of their beliefs.

That true of fundamentalists, but all Christians don't believe in the inerrance and infallibilty of scripture, and given the history of Christianity of arguing over just that, I'm not sure you can state that it is the baseline belief that you said needs to be returned to. Of course if fundamentalists are split off from main-stream Christanity and catagorized into a seperate religion, that would work.That's who I was describing--fundamentalists. Most christians, if you surveyed them worldwide, would probably say that the Bible is not infallible. In fact, there are major churches that teach just that. It's only those who do believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible who I would consider fundamentalist.


I agree that fundamentalists is not the word I would use. Militant would be far better, possibly fanatic (Sadly, yes, I have met some fanatic atheists). At the end of the day though, I think it would be better to rank both sides as holders of deeply held, if unexamined, beliefs.
Oh yeah--there are certainly fanatic atheists. There are some abrasive ones, even some assholes. Dawkins certainly falls into the former category, and to some, the latter.

That's who I was describing--fundamentalists. Most christians, if you surveyed them worldwide, would probably say that the Bible is not infallible. In fact, there are major churches that teach just that. It's only those who do believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible who I would consider fundamentalist.
At which case I stand corrected.

Oh yeah--there are certainly fanatic atheists. There are some abrasive ones, even some assholes. Dawkins certainly falls into the former category, and to some, the latter.
One of these days I'd like to live in a world where people don't get so worked up over religion, or lact thereof, or the proper form of government, but tacos. I'm sure that such a world would indeed be a wondeful world because I can't imagine anyone actually being an asshole about tacos.

I think the term "fundamentalist" is used more to correctly associate militant atheists with their religious counterparts than to refer to the content of their beliefs.

but we have a perfectly good term for that already. might as well stick with it. makes things simpler for me as well - i can just add atheism to the list of things i'm militant about.

One of these days I'd like to live in a world where people don't get so worked up over religion, or lact thereof, or the proper form of government, but tacos. I'm sure that such a world would indeed be a wondeful world because I can't imagine anyone actually being an asshole about tacos.

Sadly, I am sure that somewhere in the world, someone is shrieking, "You put BLACK OLIVES in your TACOS?! What the hell is wrong with you? You'd have to be a complete moron to put OLIVES in tacos!"

I found this amusing: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=xtian+fundie

Note, this is not an attack against Christianity. Just fundies of said religion.

Sadly, I am sure that somewhere in the world, someone is shrieking, "You put BLACK OLIVES in your TACOS?! What the hell is wrong with you? You'd have to be a complete moron to put OLIVES in tacos!"
Possibly, but at least you can then eat said taco. Kinda hard to do that with governments or religions.

Possibly, but at least you can then eat said taco. Kinda hard to do that with governments or religions.

This is a very valid point.

Mmm, tacos. :)

My primary problem with religions in general is anti-evolutionism. As a biology major with a particular interest in evolutionary studies, this one strikes me as a personal insult. Then again, it's not exclusive to religion; I have the same problem with sociologists who keep spouting culture as the end-all, be-all without evidence to back themselves up...

There are a few people who frequent NSG who are hostile to all religion of any type. But, just like in the real world, they are the minority. In my experience, if you aren't trying to legislate your religion and you aren't being pushy about it, most people are going to have no problem with you. If you state your beliefs, expect them to be questioned and debated, but only a few here are likely to actually attack them.

My primary problem with religions in general is anti-evolutionism. As a biology major with a particular interest in evolutionary studies, this one strikes me as a personal insult. Then again, it's not exclusive to religion; I have the same problem with sociologists who keep spouting culture as the end-all, be-all without evidence to back themselves up...

In truth, most religious people have no problem whatsoever with evolutionary theory. Many credible biologists and other scientists, just like the rest of the population, are religious. There is a very vocal minority who speak out regularly against evolutionary theory. Most of the rest of us see no conflict between it and our religious beliefs.

The problem comes about when religious people will say that a deity is a necessity for life. And yes, there's a reason biology, as a science, tends to be less religious than any other scientific discipline: we can understand that this 'life' thing isn't by definition non-physical. (And as far as dualism, I've still yet to find any good philosophical basis for anything other than monism.)

God of the gaps is what pisses me off.

Speaking of gods of the gaps, the argument that a deity is necessary for any potentially valid moral system is another religious bit that irks me, when there's quite a few philosophers being ignored by such statements.

Many credible biologists and other scientists, just like the rest of the population, are religious.

though in significantly smaller percentages. and getting even smaller all the time.

I found this amusing: http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...m=xtian+fundie

Note, this is not an attack against Christianity. Just fundies of said religion.

:D
AWSOME! Just as a defence. I am religious and this is awsome. The last one is the bets of them all. SOme of the others are pretty good too.

The problem comes about when religious people will say that a deity is a necessity for life.

If that is their belief, why is it a problem? It's one thing if they are trying to teach it as science, but as long as it remains a personal belief, why do you care?

My studies of biology have only strengthened my faith in God - not because I think that God is an absolute necessity to explain it, but because biology is truly amazing and wonderful.

And yes, there's a reason biology, as a science, tends to be less religious than any other scientific discipline: we can understand that this 'life' thing isn't by definition non-physical. (And as far as dualism, I've still yet to find any good philosophical basis for anything other than monism.)

I've seen no evidence that biologists are any less likely to be religious, although I have seen evidence that we are less likely to subscribe to particular religious beliefs. Biologists, as a whole, are less likely to believe in a personal deity that regularly interferes in human affairs or to be a part of the more fundamentalist versions of religion. You are probably more likely to hear the phrase, "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual," from a biologist than you are in the general public - although I personally see no reason for the distinction.

God of the gaps is what pisses me off.

Indeed. And it bothers me on two counts. First of all, it is a viewpoint that can stifle scientific discovery - something I am most definitely opposed to. Second of all, it suggests that the person putting it forth is weak of faith - that they need absolute physical verification of their beliefs.

Speaking of gods of the gaps, the argument that a deity is necessary for any potentially valid moral system is another religious bit that irks me, when there's quite a few philosophers being ignored by such statements.

Indeed. They also ignore an awful lot of very moral people who believe in no deity.

though in significantly smaller percentages. and getting even smaller all the time.

I've seen no evidence of this. The most touted study did nothing to demonstrate that the scientists questioned were not religious. The study would have labeled many theists as atheists, because the questions were poorly worded. At most, it demonstrated that they are less likely to be members of organized religion or to believe in the most common views of the Abrahamic God. Eastern religions would not have been (and generally are not) covered in such a survey. Nor would deism.

The problem comes about when religious people will say that a deity is a necessity for life. And yes, there's a reason biology, as a science, tends to be less religious than any other scientific discipline: we can understand that this 'life' thing isn't by definition non-physical. (And as far as dualism, I've still yet to find any good philosophical basis for anything other than monism.)
So... in other words you're angry not that us religious people agree with evolution, but that we feel that somewhere along the way God was involved?

So from what I've gathered then, as long as I'm respectful and tolerant I should be OK for the most part, and that NSG hates--not religion--but crazy stupid people, right?

Because if that's so, then I can totally roll with that.

So from what I've gathered then, as long as I'm respectful and tolerant I should be OK for the most part, and that NSG hates--not religion--but crazy stupid people, right?

Because if that's so, then I can totally roll with that.

Yep, that's pretty much it. :)

I've seen no evidence of this. The most touted study did nothing to demonstrate that the scientists questioned were not religious. The study would have labeled many theists as atheists, because the questions were poorly worded. At most, it demonstrated that they are less likely to be members of organized religion or to believe in the most common views of the Abrahamic God. Eastern religions would not have been (and generally are not) covered in such a survey. Nor would deism.

so in other words, you have seen some evidence. at the very least, way different from average in the country.

and the ecklund survey from a couple years back found (http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=35422), "70.9 percent of biology professors, 67 percent of natural science professors and 62.2 percent of social science professors agreed with the statements, 'I do not believe in God,' or 'I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out.'"

When you realize that atheism is as much an act of faith as any belief in deity, then you might lay claim to some intelligence. The agnostic, who says that there is not enough evidence either way to state for certain that god(s) exist or not is far more intelligent than your writing indicates you are.

Not true. There's a good few hundred gods and supernatural beings you don't believe in. Zeus, Hera, Jupiter, Qetzacoautl, Mithra, Shivan, Vishnu, Aphrodite, First Man, Crom, the rainbow serpant, Gaia, Ra, Ganesh, Buddha. I just go one further. Explain why you disregard all the other gods, I'll explain why I disregard yours.

I suggest their is a being that steals socks, but is invisible to us all. There is no Proof it doesn't exist, so if you say it doesn't exist you are a non-sockist fanatic. See the problem here. The standard argument is the teacup orbiting Jupiter but I find that argument a bit dull. THe invisible sock theif monster is more credible.

I know that you're expecting another question from me, which tends to be how most of my posts end up. (I'm trying to quit, I swear!)

But anyway, I just wanted to get one little point cleared up for my benefit.

"Does NSG have a bone to pick with Religion?" Specifically Christianity is what I'm thinking of. Now, I understand that you all hate the ultra-right wingers (and rightly so) but the impression I've gotten from quite a few others is that this extends to religion in general.

So my question here would be then, would I--as a person with moderate-to-somewhat-conservative views be met with the same disdain? I ask because I want to get an idea of how lightly I need to tread to not get a flamewar started.

Depends... I think there are very few who would start flaming someone simply for saying he believed in god. There's always a few idiots around, I can't account for everyone really, but mostly that will be accepted without much ado. Ask Smukee if you don't believe me.

If, however, you start arguing your postion with that nice attitude some of your brethren in Christ love to display here, namely a sort of missionary, pitying arrogance, you can expect to get some sharp relies.

Oh, and eventually, all threads about religion will end up as a "God exists!" - "No he doesn't!" - shouting competition.

so in other words, you have seen some evidence. at the very least, way different from average in the country.

and the ecklund survey from a couple years back found (http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=35422), "70.9 percent of biology professors, 67 percent of natural science professors and 62.2 percent of social science professors agreed with the statements, 'I do not believe in God,' or 'I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out.'"

There is a VAST difference between those two statements, and I'd guess that the majority of those asked went for the second.
Most Christians even would tell you that they don't "know" that there is a god, they will tell you that they "believe" there is. And they will also tell you that there is no way to find out.
It's a very small minority of people who would actually claim they know there is a god and can prove it, too....

"Does NSG have a bone to pick with Religion?" Specifically Christianity is what I'm thinking of. Now, I understand that you all hate the ultra-right wingers (and rightly so) but the impression I've gotten from quite a few others is that this extends to religion in general.

I have a "bone to pick" with superstition and superstitious organizations, yes, particularly when they target children or my human rights.


So my question here would be then, would I--as a person with moderate-to-somewhat-conservative views be met with the same disdain? I ask because I want to get an idea of how lightly I need to tread to not get a flamewar started.
Don't worry about "treading lightly" to avoid flames. You'll probably flamed no matter what you do. Around here, mods generally do not blame the victim, unless you were very obviously trolling or provoking flames. Simply holding views that other people dislike is not going to get you into any trouble. Why, I do it all the time!

you will get a flame war if you bring up

religion

abortion

gay marriage

feminism

the war in iraq

the war on terror

george bush

hillary clinton

and probably a few others that didnt spring right to my mind

the is no treading lightly in these topics.

If an Iraqi feminist is impregnated by a religious American soldier (who was sent to Iraq by George Bush as part of the War on Terror) and she has an abortion, should she be allowed to marry Hillary Clinton? Discuss.

Well, I'm not a fan of religion at all, and I tend to surround myself around those who ever don't believe or believe but shut up about it (which i dont mind).

And I'm getting better at rising about arguing with the religiously-minded. So do, I don't a bone to pick with religion. :)

That said, it is just a means by which people ignore the real problems in their lives...

The problem comes about when religious people will say that a deity is a necessity for life. And yes, there's a reason biology, as a science, tends to be less religious than any other scientific discipline: we can understand that this 'life' thing isn't by definition non-physical. (And as far as dualism, I've still yet to find any good philosophical basis for anything other than monism.)

God can be a monist force; I don't see any reason why we must assume that "spiritual" properties are not in fact material in origin even if it is a property of matter far removed from the conventional ones we experience day to day.

There is a VAST difference between those two statements, and I'd guess that the majority of those asked went for the second.
Most Christians even would tell you that they don't "know" that there is a god, they will tell you that they "believe" there is. And they will also tell you that there is no way to find out.
It's a very small minority of people who would actually claim they know there is a god and can prove it, too....

most christians are agnostics? fascinating. and certainly wrong, according to all the surveys i've seen on the subject.

anyway, with the 'do not believe' responses, it was 41% for the biologists and 38% for the other natural scientists. which both make up more than half of the combined nos and don't knows.