NationStates Jolt Archive

I beg NSG's forgiveness for creating another religion-themed thread, but I assure you that it is of a different context. I do not think adding this post to existing threads will do any good.

I absolutely hate to single out a particular group of people, but I address this question to the atheists of the board who have recently made it abundantly clear of their beliefs in threads like "Good Friday" (which was recently split due to hijacking) and "Why are you Christian?".

I ask why you are so combatative. This may simply be my perception, but when I am reading these threads, it seems terribly similar to "missionary work": "You are wrong", "This is why you are wrong." "This is why I'm right", etc. etc. It seem terrible similar to the preachers of the past who went into unknown lands and attempted to convert the masses.

I'm not so certain how I can explain this further, but what I want to know is...why do you feel it necessary to preach in threads that have even a semblance of "religiousity" (or whatever it is), and, like "Good Friday", aren't even addressing whether or not religion is good or God exists.

Now, I don't profess to be particularly religious. I believe in God and that is the extent of it. And I see the value in good debate, but whenever it seems we put an atheist and a believer in the same room together they can't discuss their beliefs together in a constructive manner. Hell, even the Newsweek interview this week between Rick Warren (a pastor) and Sam Hariss (A writer and atheist), that was professed as "calm", seemed anything but. Hariss' words seemed so judgemental to my ears that I found myself siding with the Warren...a Souther Baptist Minister who completely discounts the theory of evolution...I rarely side with those kind of guys.

That's all I have to say. I am TERRIBLY sorry if I sound confrontational, or have made generalizations, as neither were my intent. I'd just like to start some dialogue here.

ALSO: PLEASE this is NOT a thread on whether or not God exists, whether or not evolution is real. Just answer my question please.

Thank you.

For penance for creating another religious thread, I will now go eat...a cookie...yeah...

*away!*

*Pats Bolol on the head*

Religion is bad, and as most things that spring from ignorance its ideas need to be fought ceaselessly, lest people get the idea that they make any sort of sense should there be silence as they are aired.

*Pats Bolol on the head*

...

I understand. I'm atheist, and I try not to be an asshat to the religious people on this board. But the trolls who hide behind a facade of religion, they get on my nerves. So, I agree with you as an atheist.

Religious holidays tend to lead to threads about religion, as religious posters want to talk about their holiday and/or the forum atheists want to talk about why they don't celebrate said holiday. This effect is amplified in the case of religious holidays like Good Friday that have not been heavily commercialized - when Christmas and Easter come around, at least people can talk about the modern, secularized commercial holiday rather than the religious origins of the holiday.

Religion is bad, and as most things that spring from ignorance its ideas need to be fought ceaselessly, lest people get the idea that they make any sort of sense should there be silence as they are aired.

Treating others as you want to be treated is obviously a "bad thing" in your mind?

Religion is bad, and as most things that spring from ignorance its ideas need to be fought ceaselessly, lest people get the idea that they make any sort of sense should there be silence as they are aired.

That is precisely the kind of thing he was talking about.

That is precisely the kind of thing he was talking about.

Yeah...

Religion is bad


Funny that you believe in right and wrong. Rather irrational for an atheist if you ask me.


its ideas need to be fought ceaselessly


How fundamentalist of you.

That is precisely the kind of thing he was talking about.

And I still don't see why I should recant, or pretend that things are different.

And I still don't see why I should recant.

You don't have to. It's your choice.

Funny that you believe in right and wrong. Rather irrational for an atheist if you ask me.

I didn't ask you, since I am familiar with the analytical "quality" of your answers.

How fundamentalist of you.

How flawed of you, yet again...

You don't have to. It's your choice.

So what is the point of the thread, then? He wanted an answer, he got one. Now you see people bitching that he did.

So what is the point of the thread, then? He wanted an answer, he got one. Now you see people bitching that he did.

Maybe it was your unsavory tone.

Because I am tired of saying its alright, There are a great many religious people and posters I immensely respect and I am glad they derive some happiness from the ideas.

But I am tired of the faceless masses that fuck with my life in the name of their religion, it is frustrating to say the least

Now I have stayed out of the attack fests completely because I have not yet reached that level of frustration ... but it is close some days. Live and let live works if you are on a relitivly equal basis but I am tired of letting live when the status quo is to be treated like a second rate citizen because of morals the Christian religion pushes

He's asking precisely why you think there is a need to convince people to be atheists. By the way you're now acting in a way "holier-than-thou" typical of the hated priests of religion.

Maybe it was your unsavory tone.

Do not confuse blunt directness and lack of bullshit "politeness" with ill will.

I didn't ask you, since I am familiar with the analytical "quality" of your answers.


But I am in my right to reply.


How flawed of you, yet again...

In what way?

He's asking precisely why you think there is a need to convince people to be atheists.

I already wrote "religion is bad". Tada!

Forgive the interuption, but while I was looking through screenshots, I had an epiphany...

An athiest butting into the conversation of a group of believers and preaching their beliefs, AND vice-versa...is exactly the same as a Halo fanboy invading the Legend of Zelda message boards...

I hate to diminish the "profoundness" of the argument...but it makes sense.

But I am in my right to reply.

Indeed you are, but your rhetorical devices need a lot of work.

In what way?

Oh, myriads.

Treating others as you want to be treated is obviously a "bad thing" in your mind?

and THIS is the exact sort of thing that inspires so much negativity against religion. The smug sense of superiority that causes one to believe that morality can only be found through religion. That those of us who are non religious are immoral bastards who have no sense of right and wrong because we don't believe god said so.

and THIS is the exact sort of thing that inspires so much negativity against religion. The smug sense of superiority that causes one to believe that morality can only be found through religion.

Didn't say that it could only be found through religion.
That those of us who are non religious are immoral bastards who have no sense of right and wrong because we don't believe god said so.

Ahem. I didn't say that either.

Figments of your small imagination, I suppose.

I was merely pointing out that not all of religion is bad.

Ok?

Because I am tired of saying its alright, There are a great many religious people and posters I immensely respect and I am glad they derive some happiness from the ideas.

But I am tired of the faceless masses that fuck with my life in the name of their religion, it is frustrating to say the least

Now I have stayed out of the attack fests completely because I have not yet reached that level of frustration ... but it is close some days. Live and let live works if you are on a relitivly equal basis but I am tired of letting live when the status quo is to be treated like a second rate citizen because of morals the Christian religion pushes

Yes. Thank you.

Respect must be a two-way deal.

This is all getting into a "Its us against them" sort of thing. Can't we get along regardless of religion?

Apparently, Fassingen cannot.

This is all getting into a "Its us against them" sort of thing. Can't we get along regardless of religion?

Figments of your small imagination, I suppose.

DAGH! NO!

No hyperbole and insulting in this thread today, okay comrade?

Religious holidays tend to lead to threads about religion, as religious posters want to talk about their holiday and/or the forum atheists want to talk about why they don't celebrate said holiday. This effect is amplified in the case of religious holidays like Good Friday that have not been heavily commercialized - when Christmas and Easter come around, at least people can talk about the modern, secularized commercial holiday rather than the religious origins of the holiday.
We could talk about the pagan origins of Easter...?

He's asking precisely why you think there is a need to convince people to be atheists.

I am curious as to why you believe that one voicing an opinion about his belief that there is no god is somehow trying to "convince" people to be an atheist.

If I believe a religion is wrong and I state that I believe that religion is wrong, I am not trying to convert you, I'm not trying to convince you to give it up. I am stating my opinion.

Much as when someone asks what they are doing for easter and talks about how he will be going to church he is stating that he believes in god.

The idea that any time an atheist/agnostic speaks of his views he is trying to "convince" someone is ludicrus.

He's asking precisely why you think there is a need to convince people to be atheists. By the way you're now acting in a way "holier-than-thou" typical of the hated priests of religion.

Because right now the religious are the majority in my country and as such use their religion as a means of oppression of me and my kind.

Like I said before there are plenty of religious people I totally respect, but in the end if we don't start standing up for our ideals they are going to continue using their fairytale to justify things. I would be just as frustrated if the majority of the people out there believed in a magic pink unicorn and used its suposed teachings to justify bigotry as well

Yes in the ideal world we would be able to pick out the nice people that believe and the bigots that use it to justify things but this is not an ideal world and if they continue to use their religion to justify the horrid things that they have and do justify then I will attack the basis of their reasoning

We could talk about the pagan origins of Easter...?

I would love to. History is very facinating. I'm intrigued how the practices of a Pagan faith translate into a monotheistic one.

I was merely pointing out that not all of religion is bad.

Ok?

I never said ALL of it was bad. I do however believe that anything good about religion can be found absent that religion.

So while there are good things about religion, I don't really feel there's anything INHERENTLY good about religion, anything good about religion that can not be found through another source.

I am curious as to why you believe that one voicing an opinion about his belief that there is a god is somehow trying to "convince" people to be an Christian.

If I believe a religion is correct and I state that I believe that religion is correct, I am not trying to convert you, I'm not trying to convince you to give up atheism. I am stating my opinion.

Much as when someone asks what they are doing on Friday and talks about how he will be going to a bar to drink and pick up women for sex he's not going to collect money for the Widows' and Orphans' Fund.

The idea that any time a religious person speaks of his views he is trying to "convince" someone is ludicrous.

Yes. Thank you.

Respect must be a two-way deal.

I agree, but it is hard to post an argument consistently that has all the exceptions of the "good" people that I respect

I hope they understand that I am not trying to take them down but if their religion is being used by a massive amount of people to justify horrid things I WILL question that religion as it is the basis of their reasoning. If that hurts some of the good believers I am sorry but it happens

I never said ALL of it was bad. I do however believe that anything good about religion can be found absent that religion.

So while there are good things about religion, I don't really feel there's anything INHERENTLY good about religion, anything good about religion that can not be found through another source.

Fassingen said "Religion is bad". Therefore, he was the one I was answering.

Indeed you are, but your rhetorical devices need a lot of work.



Oh, myriads.

Ok Fass. Can I ask you if you think that being religious is inherently bad? Or just that the religious institutions are bad?

I'd like to remind everyone here that this is a board which has become a home for debate, which can sometimes become heated.

This leads some of you to believe something BAD is going on when a christian and an athiest are talking about their ideas and why they believe in them, why they don't believe other ones.

That's incorrect.

This is progress. This is connection. This is communication. This is education.

There can never be enough of this.

I would love to. History is very facinating. I'm intrigued how the practices of a Pagan faith translate into a monotheistic one.
Well, there are many aspects from various religions.

First of all, spring generally had fertility festivals and the like, which is why we have things like the bunny and eggs for Easter, bunnies are rather.. uh... fertile.. and eggs bring new life.

Then you have the whole bit where there are pagan saviour deities that are described to be pretty similar in function to Jesus who predate this mythology by hundreds or thousands of years.

Fassingen said "Religion is bad". Therefore, he was the one I was answering.

yes, but something can still be bad even if certain components are good. Especially when, as I said, those good components are not indicative of religion in and of itself.

I'd like to remind everyone here that this is a board which has become a home for debate, which can sometimes become heated.

This leads some of you to believe something BAD is going on when a christian and an athiest are talking about their ideas and why they believe in them, why they don't believe other ones.

That's incorrect.

This is progress. This is connection. This is communication. This is education.

There can never be enough of this.

As stated, debate = good.

Hyperbole and insulting beliefs = not so much.

yes, but something can still be bad even if certain components are good. Especially when, as I said, those good components are not indicative of religion in and of itself.

I ask the same question to you:

Do you believe that being religious is inherently bad? Or just that religious institutions are inherently bad?

Ok Fass. Can I ask you if you think that being religious is inherently bad? Or just that the religious institutions are bad?

Yes, you seemingly can, but you should probably be asking me if you may. To answer your questions: yes.

Now, I don't profess to be particularly religious. I believe in God and that is the extent of it. And I see the value in good debate, but whenever it seems we put an atheist and a believer in the same room together they can't discuss their beliefs together in a constructive manner. Hell, even the Newsweek interview this week between Rick Warren (a pastor) and Sam Hariss (A writer and atheist), that was professed as "calm", seemed anything but. Hariss' words seemed so judgemental to my ears that I found myself siding with the Warren...a Souther Baptist Minister who completely discounts the theory of evolution...I rarely side with those kind of guys.

It is very difficult for an atheist (an explicit one, anyways) and a theist to discuss religion in a constructive manner. This is because they come from such fundamentally different viewpoints. When the starting axioms are so very different, it is almost impossible to come to a consensus. In truth, religious discussions need to begin with a set of starting axioms that will define that particular conversation. It may be as simple as, "Assume there is a God," or, "Assume there is no God." There may be further descriptors added in. But without that common starting point, you aren't going to see much constructive discussion.

yes, but something can still be bad even if certain components are good. Especially when, as I said, those good components are not indicative of religion in and of itself.

The golden rule is a central tenet of Christianity. It's not like it's some ancillary idea.

There are many causes in the world - some of which are non-religious. All have had those who abuse and distort the cause for their own ends.

Christianity is no exception (in fact, religion is no exception).

Atheists have killed in the name of their cause as well (think about the fate of millions executed by implementors of state Communism who often killed people merely because they refused to abandon their religious beliefs).

I ask why you are so combatative.
We didn't start it. I know that sounds a bit schoolyard-ish, but bear with me. Atheists are one of the few groups left who are acceptable to bash, largely because we're such a minority--we're about 10% of the population in the US. In a recent poll, atheists ranked dead last in presidential electability, below gays, Mormons, and three-time-divorcees. So we're a little defensive.

And yet we've found our voice, and we're speaking out. That makes us combative somehow, when "people of faith" not only speak out all the time, but openly denigrate us and each other over what seem to be to us non-believers trivial matters of dogma. But they're not combative. Bit of a double standard there.

All we're really asking for--in terms of the public discourse--is for our arguments to be given equal respect. But that's not going to happen in a vacuum. We have to demand that respect, and if that means getting combative, so be it. Think of our combative attitude as the religious equivalent of the march on Selma or gay pride parades. We're here. We don't believe. Get used to it.

To answer your questions: yes.

Yes to Both?

We didn't start it. I know that sounds a bit schoolyard-ish, but bear with me. Atheists are one of the few groups left who are acceptable to bash, largely because we're such a minority--we're about 10% of the population in the US. In a recent poll, atheists ranked dead last in presidential electability, below gays, Mormons, and three-time-divorcees. So we're a little defensive.

And yet we've found our voice, and we're speaking out. That makes us combative somehow, when "people of faith" not only speak out all the time, but openly denigrate us and each other over what seem to be to us non-believers trivial matters of dogma. But they're not combative. Bit of a double standard there.

All we're really asking for--in terms of the public discourse--is for our arguments to be given equal respect. But that's not going to happen in a vacuum. We have to demand that respect, and if that means getting combative, so be it. Think of our combative attitude as the religious equivalent of the march on Selma or gay pride parades. We're here. We don't believe. Get used to it.

This is fine in the USA, but in NSG you are hardly being opressed. Nor in europe, where I would say atheists or agnostics are the majority.

Religion is bad, and as most things that spring from ignorance its ideas need to be fought ceaselessly, lest people get the idea that they make any sort of sense should there be silence as they are aired.q f t

the world does not need people who utter their beliefs (which are always personal and have no universal relevance, anyways). we non-abrahamic folks are just sick of "god is this" and "god is that", and "god wants you to do this and that", without ever bothering to offer something substantial. all we ever hear is "belief", but no knowledge. belief is the interpolation of missing information out of individual fantasy. just as children may do it. and most of it is completely pointless as those who utter it have not even understood the information they are using to built their beliefs.

Yes to Both?

The latter is sprung from the former, so "fruit of the poisonous tree" and all that is in play.

As stated, debate = good.

Hyperbole and insulting beliefs = not so much.

Agree to an extent but when debating I share my opinions, I try not to be purposefully insulting but sometimes people are insulted

That happens in debate and is not necessarily a bad thing

SO I would add an exception to your rule there PURPOSEFULLY insulting beliefs.

The latter is sprung from the former, so "fruit of the poisonous tree" and all that is in play.

So what exactly is inherently bad about being religious?

We didn't start it. I know that sounds a bit schoolyard-ish, but bear with me. Atheists are one of the few groups left who are acceptable to bash, largely because we're such a minority--we're about 10% of the population in the US. In a recent poll, atheists ranked dead last in presidential electability, below gays, Mormons, and three-time-divorcees. So we're a little defensive.

And yet we've found our voice, and we're speaking out. That makes us combative somehow, when "people of faith" not only speak out all the time, but openly denigrate us and each other over what seem to be to us non-believers trivial matters of dogma. But they're not combative. Bit of a double standard there.

All we're really asking for--in terms of the public discourse--is for our arguments to be given equal respect. But that's not going to happen in a vacuum. We have to demand that respect, and if that means getting combative, so be it. Think of our combative attitude as the religious equivalent of the march on Selma or gay pride parades. We're here. We don't believe. Get used to it.

I have bore with ye, and found ye to be wise.

This is fine in the USA, but in NSG you are hardly being opressed. Nor in europe, where I would say atheists or agnostics are the majority.

So we should just shut up and go away in a place like this? It's because we have places like this, where we can feel free to express ourselves and find solidarity with others who agree with us that we're better able to express ourselves in more hostile environments.

We didn't start it. I know that sounds a bit schoolyard-ish, but bear with me. Atheists are one of the few groups left who are acceptable to bash, largely because we're such a minority--we're about 10% of the population in the US. In a recent poll, atheists ranked dead last in presidential electability, below gays, Mormons, and three-time-divorcees. So we're a little defensive.

And yet we've found our voice, and we're speaking out. That makes us combative somehow, when "people of faith" not only speak out all the time, but openly denigrate us and each other over what seem to be to us non-believers trivial matters of dogma. But they're not combative. Bit of a double standard there.

All we're really asking for--in terms of the public discourse--is for our arguments to be given equal respect. But that's not going to happen in a vacuum. We have to demand that respect, and if that means getting combative, so be it. Think of our combative attitude as the religious equivalent of the march on Selma or gay pride parades. We're here. We don't believe. Get used to it.Come to Europe. ;) And let the puritan offspring have the US..

So what exactly is inherently bad about being religious?

Voluntary self-delusion.

Agree to an extent but when debating I share my opinions, I try not to be purposefully insulting but sometimes people are insulted

That happens in debate and is not necessarily a bad thing

SO I would add an exception to your rule there PURPOSEFULLY insulting beliefs.

Ach, that would make sense. Sometimes a person can be insulted inadvertantly (which is why I make it so clear that that is not my intentions in my threads), but those who do it deliberately have no excuse.

SO!

Debate = Good

DELIBERATE hyperbole and insults = No

As stated, debate = good.

Hyperbole and insulting beliefs = not so much.

That just comes with it, unfortunately, but I believe the good to outweigh the negative in this situation.

Voluntary self-delusion.

You mean like advocating revolution to impose state Communism, and then believing that you have to shoot all the teachers in town?

Come to Europe. ;) And let the puritan offspring have the US..

*smacks self*

So we should just shut up and go away in a place like this? It's because we have places like this, where we can feel free to express ourselves and find solidarity with others who agree with us that we're better able to express ourselves in more hostile environments.

Well that doesn't justify simply attacking religious folk (which a lot of people do on this forum).

Ach, that would make sense. Sometimes a person can be insulted inadvertantly (which is why I make it so clear that that is not my intentions in my threads), but those who do it deliberately have no excuse.

SO!

Debate = Good

DELIBERATE hyperbole and insults = No

When it comes to religion/atheism there is never level headed debate.

When it comes to religion/atheism there is never level headed debate.

That is what I hope we could have addressed in this thread...but it appears to have already degraded.

Well that doesn't justify simply attacking religious folk (which a lot of people do on this forum).

Well, with a few rare exceptions, I don't generally see a lot of that happening, unless religious belief is at the basis of the conversation. Simply calling a religious person stupid without any other context is flaming, and if it were reported, a mod would no doubt intervene. But where's the line? If we're talking about an issue like abortion or same-sex marriage for instance, religious belief comes into play, and is therefore fair game for attack. Being religious is not a "get out of criticism" card, no matter how deeply felt your beliefs are.

You mean like advocating revolution to impose state Communism, and then believing that you have to shoot all the teachers in town?

What does communism have to do with the price of saffron on the streets of Mogadishu?

Voluntary self-delusion.

Oh, I've also heard fundamentalists use that very term to describe the irreligious.


Also...headbutter. Sounds funny.

Okay, I'm AFK for a while now. Gots things to do.
Please keep it civil.

What does communism have to do with the price of saffron on the streets of Mogadishu?

Communists are merely atheists who subscribe to a groupthink (The Party!) and subordinate their individuality to a greater cause. They even kill religious people merely for being religious.

You know, stamp out religion at all costs.

I can't see any difference between that, and the evils that were perpetrated in the name of religion. It sounds the same to me.

Oh, I've also heard fundamentalists use that very term to describe the irreligious.


Also...headbutter. Sounds funny.

Thank you. I try.

*out*

Communists are merely atheists who subscribe to a groupthink (The Party!) and subordinate their individuality to a greater cause. They even kill religious people merely for being religious.

You know, stamp out religion at all costs.

I can't see any difference between that, and the evils that were perpetrated in the name of religion. It sounds the same to me.

Again, what does that have to do with the specific gravity of fermented herring on the islands in the Stockholm archipelago?

Oh, I've also heard fundamentalists use that very term to describe the irreligious.

Well, you listen to them, so I don't know whom to impugn.

Again, what does that have to do with the specific gravity of fermented herring on the islands in the Stockholm archipelago?

Because you said "religion is bad". Well, for most of the same reasons, "atheism is bad".

So you'll have to find something else to believe or not believe in.

Because you said "religion is bad". Well, for most of the same reasons, "atheism is bad".

So you'll have to find something else to believe or not believe in.

For hopefully the last time, religion=/=atheism. They are nothing alike.

Well, you listen to them, so I don't know whom to impugn.

I know who to impugn, you.

You're acting like the fat asshole who stands in the middle of campus, shouting at random students as they pass by. Shrieking that we're going to hell because of sodomy, sluttery, popery or whatnot. Screaming that we're victims of "voluntary self delusion". Shrill, pompus, self righteous, irritating and intolerant of other peoples beliefs and opinions.

Grow a pair and learn to live in a world where people have different beliefs than you.

You're just like this SOB.

When it comes to religion/atheism there is never level headed debate.

I certainly don't think this is true.

I've been in a number of very civilised debates about religion, with people I very much respect on NSG... at least half of which are of a (very) different religious orinetation to myself.

Does the whole thread alwasy remain un-hijacked, and free of trolling by interlopers? Of course not... this is a very open forum. But the debate itself can be very level-headed.

Because you said "religion is bad". Well, for most of the same reasons, "atheism is bad".

Wow, all this nonsensical off-topicness from you and for what? For it to be made of such fail. And I was hoping to find out why the Royal Estates had so neglected to spruce Drottningholm up in an art deco style instead of sticking with such faggy gustavianism.

Communists are merely atheists who subscribe to a groupthink (The Party!) and subordinate their individuality to a greater cause. They even kill religious people merely for being religious.

You know, stamp out religion at all costs.

I can't see any difference between that, and the evils that were perpetrated in the name of religion. It sounds the same to me.

You were doing okay until the fourth word.

Communists are not automatically Atheistic. You are confusing the appearance of some 'communist' societies, with what 'communism' would actually 'mean'.

Voluntary self-delusion.

Assuming thats what it is, what is inherently wrong about that?

I know who to impugn, you.

You're acting like the fat asshole who stands in the middle of campus, shouting at random students as they pass by. Shrieking that we're going to hell because of sodomy, sluttery, popery or whatnot. Screaming that we're victims of "voluntary self delusion". Shrill, pompus, self righteous, irritating and intolerant of other peoples beliefs and opinions.

Grow a pair and learn to live in a world where people have different beliefs than you.

You're just like this SOB.

the difference between them and fass? Fass doesn't tell anyone they're going to hell.

the difference between them and fass? Fass doesn't tell anyone they're going to hell.

That's irrelevant. What matters is the total lack of respect that they both show to individuals with other belief structures from their own.

I know who to impugn, you.

Whom, honey, whom... and I'd even helped you with it!

intolerant of other peoples beliefs and opinions.

Ah, you're another one of that lot that seems to think tolerance = no criticism or ridicule of ideas. Honey, just because I think your ideas shit and I tell you that they are the shit they are doesn't mean I want to preclude you from being able to have them. It just means your ideas are shit. So, you grow a pair and realise that they are.

That's irrelevant. What matters is the total lack of respect that they both show to individuals with other belief structures from their own.

I don't need to respect shit.

You were doing okay until the fourth word.

Communists are not automatically Atheistic. You are confusing the appearance of some 'communist' societies, with what 'communism' would actually 'mean'.After all Christianity is a very communist grouping. Hence the word communion :D no kidding.

I think another part of the problem is that because these worldviews are diametrically opposed, it leads to side effects that tend to cascade like a snowball. For example:

Debater Religious: "Religion is true"
Debater Atheist: "Religion is a fairytale."

Right there the debate is doomed. By saying religion is a fairytale not only has the second debater insulted the first, but he has indicated a completely closed mind. This leads to frustration on the part of the first, since it is clear that no dialogue is possible. Where does that lead next? Usually something like this:

Debater Religious: "You're being rude and closed-minded."
Debater Atheist: "I have a right to express my opinion any way I want."

This is now a more heated debate because suddenly we're bringing in ideas of free speech and oppression, which at this stage of the game have noting to do with any premise raised. The second debater is being borderline paranoid in characterizing the first person's objections as somehow an effort to exert control, when in reality it's just a matter of staying civil and debating open-minded (Because let's admit that if your'e closed minded then truly debate is not possible and devolves into childish argument.)

Another problem:

Debater Atheist: "I don't believe in the Bible/Koran/Torah."
Debater Religious: "If you don't believe in the Bible/Koran/Torah you're going to hell."

This is the Religious debater failing to realize that this argument is utterly non-persuasive and inflammatory. The second debater is not only trying to prove something using a source that is at the center of the debate. He's also arrogantly presuming to judge the spiritual condition of the first debater, which can only lead to defensiveness and aggravation. Where does this lead?

Debater Atheist: "Prove it's a valid source."
Debater Religious: "Well Archaeolgists have shown...."

This is now a thread hijack. Archaeology can't prove anything one way or another firstly because it's open to interpretation, and secondly because in matters of faith archaeology is a poor basis for belief. In this, the Religious debater has gone out on a limb that WILL break and fall off.

Ultimately, no dialogue can exist unless both sides sincerely try to see it from the other's point of view, which will lead to an interesting discussion but must inevitably lead to an agreement to disagree, assuming both sides are firmly entrenched.

THAT is the kind of religious debate I'd like to be a part of. Open minds.

I don't need to respect shit.

Of course you do. Otherwise you're only wasting your time posting on a thread unless your objective is just to throw verbal jabs at people.

Generally I only join those threads when somebody makes a point which I disagree with (in the Good Friday thread it was the claim that only Christianity gets any criticism). I try to disagree in a civil and non-confrontational way and I don't jump on people who aren't looking for an argument.

Ah, you're another one of that lot that seems to think tolerance = no criticism or ridicule of ideas. Honey, just because I think your ideas shit and I tell you that they are the shit they are doesn't mean I want to preclude you from being able to have them. It just means your ideas are shit. So, you grow a pair and realise that they are.

There's a difference between criticism and being a total ass, which is precisely what you are.

There's a difference between criticism and being a total ass, which is precisely what you are.

And you seem to think that I for some reason would give a shit, which is silly, really.

After all Christianity is a very communist grouping. Hence the word communion :D no kidding.

I was actually reading, just a few days ago, about Christian communist collectives in the US. (Yes, even here in the US...)

THAT is the kind of religious debate I'd like to be a part of. Open minds.

Agreed, though in religious debates there's this little thing called "dogma" that might interfere with open-mindedness.

I don't need to respect shit.

Then why bother to attempt to discuss? Or do you just show up to hurl insults because you get your jollies from it?

You are pretty sick.

Debater Religious: "Religion is true"
Debater Atheist: "Religion is a fairytale."

Right there the debate is doomed. By saying religion is a fairytale not only has the second debater insulted the first, but he has indicated a completely closed mind. Excuse me, but the "Debater Religious" has already insulted the "Debater Atheist" at this point, and has indicated a completely closed mind. Claiming religion to be true is the clear demonstration that no discussion is intended at all, it's just the usual religious drooling.

I was actually reading, just a few days ago, about Christian communist collectives in the US. (Yes, even here in the US...)But I really didn't mean such, um, phenomena...

Then why bother to attempt to discuss? Or do you just show up to hurl insults because you get your jollies from it?

You are pretty sick.

I'm loving the irony here. It's hypocrilicious, yum!

Assuming thats what it is, what is inherently wrong about that?

Thought I would bump this post so fass could reply.

I think another part of the problem is that because these worldviews are diametrically opposed, it leads to side effects that tend to cascade like a snowball. For example:

Debater Religious: "Religion is true"
Debater Atheist: "Religion is a fairytale."

Right there the debate is doomed. By saying religion is a fairytale not only has the second debater insulted the first, but he has indicated a completely closed mind. This leads to frustration on the part of the first, since it is clear that no dialogue is possible.

Nice works... mind if I throw a spanner in them?

Wasn't the "Debater Religious" insulting the second debater by saying religion was 'true'? Isn't his tacit assertion that 'religion is true' equally as closed-minded as the person who says 'religion is a fairytale'?

Nice works... mind if I throw a spanner in them?

Wasn't the "Debater Religious" insulting the second debater by saying religion was 'true'? Isn't his tacit assertion that 'religion is true' equally as closed-minded as the person who says 'religion is a fairytale'?Hey hey, is there an echo, or what? ;)

I think another part of the problem is that because these worldviews are diametrically opposed, it leads to side effects that tend to cascade like a snowball. For example:

Debater Religious: "Religion is true"
Debater Atheist: "Religion is a fairytale."

Right there the debate is doomed. By saying religion is a fairytale not only has the second debater insulted the first, but he has indicated a completely closed mind. This leads to frustration on the part of the first, since it is clear that no dialogue is possible. Where does that lead next? Usually something like this:

Debater Religious: "You're being rude and closed-minded."
Debater Atheist: "I have a right to express my opinion any way I want."

This is now a more heated debate because suddenly we're bringing in ideas of free speech and oppression, which at this stage of the game have noting to do with any premise raised. The second debater is being borderline paranoid in characterizing the first person's objections as somehow an effort to exert control, when in reality it's just a matter of staying civil and debating open-minded (Because let's admit that if your'e closed minded then truly debate is not possible and devolves into childish argument.)

Although I generally agree with the point you're making, I don't see how calling religion a fairy tale is any more close minded than saying religion is true, it's simply a more flowery way of saying "religion is false". I personally try to avoid describing religion as a fairy-tale because it can be seen as insulting the intelligence of those who believe it (which certainly isn't conducive to a debate).

I'd say that it doesn't matter whether or not the two debaters have completely opposed view points as long as they're willing to argue based on evidence and not simply dismiss the opposing view a priori.

THAT is the kind of religious debate I'd like to be a part of. Open minds.

I'll drink to that.

But I really didn't mean such, um, phenomena...

You were talking more about the appearance of 'communistic' tendencies within religion, yes? Especially the (sometimes claimed) communistic message of Jesus, and the communistic implications of a truly Biblical 'church'?

I actually had a debate running on here at one point, that was dedicated to whether or not Christians 'should be' communists. :)

Hey hey, is there an echo, or what? ;)

Stop copying my words before I've finished posting them. :)

Some of Jesus' teachings may be slightly socialist, but they definately don't propose forced socialism and economic equality. So it's not communist.

Hey hey, is there an echo, or what? ;)

Yeah, I posted the same before I realised that I'd been beaten to it (twice).

I'm loving the irony here. It's hypocrilicious, yum!

Rather, it isn't.



Bah, why the bit about communism? I mean, this is a thread about headbutter, ain't it?

You were talking more about the appearance of 'communistic' tendencies within religion, yes? Especially the (sometimes claimed) communistic message of Jesus, and the communistic implications of a truly Biblical 'church'?

I actually had a debate running on here at one point, that was dedicated to whether or not Christians 'should be' communists.Yes, but there is a difference between communism as such (in the literal meaning if you will) and communism as most people think of it (as a form of society that leads to corruption in almost no time).

Then why bother to attempt to discuss? Or do you just show up to hurl insults because you get your jollies from it?

You are pretty sick.

Just ignore him, he's a troll.

Bah, why the bit about communism? I mean, this is a thread about headbutter, ain't it?

Well Lenin's forehead is pretty large. I've seen it up close in person!

You don't know what 'communist' means, do you?

Lets not start this again.

Some of Jesus' teachings may be slightly socialist, but they definately don't propose forced socialism and economic equality. So it's not communist.

You don't know what 'communist' means, do you?

I love how quickly this thread has turned into slanging match between theists and atheists. Takes most threads until page 10 :p

Debater Atheist: "Prove it's a valid source."
Debater Religious: "Well Archaeolgists have shown...."

This is now a thread hijack. Archaeology can't prove anything one way or another firstly because it's open to interpretation, and secondly because in matters of faith archaeology is a poor basis for belief. In this, the Religious debater has gone out on a limb that WILL break and fall off.

Ultimately, no dialogue can exist unless both sides sincerely try to see it from the other's point of view, which will lead to an interesting discussion but must inevitably lead to an agreement to disagree, assuming both sides are firmly entrenched.

THAT is the kind of religious debate I'd like to be a part of. Open minds.There's a problem with your example here--and please don't take this as a personal attack, because it isn't. In my experience, the Debater atheist is more likely to pull out the archaeology card because it supports his/her position more than it does the Biblical believer's position. Bible believers have to pick and choose in order to make their book fit the archaeology, and that means there's a serious weakness in their argument.

The key problem in any debate of this kind--and I'm going to be Christianity specific here--generally comes in if the religious person believes in the inerrancy of the Bible. If that's the starting point, then there can't be a reasonable discussion, simply because one group is starting from a position of magical thinking. If you want to have a discussion about the core principles in Jesus' message, on the other hand, believers and non-believers can talk quite nicely and can often find lots of common ground. But the belief that the Bible is absolute fact makes such a conversation impossible.

You don't know what 'communist' means, do you?

I'm not talking about your version of communism, or communalism as I would call it. I'm talking about marxist communism, which a lot of people seem to think Jesus approved of.

Well Lenin's forehead is pretty large. I've seen it up close in person!

So that's how they keep him looking so youthful and spritely...

*rubs chin*

Yes, but there is a difference between communism as such (in the literal meaning if you will) and communism as most people think of it (as a form of society that leads to corruption in almost no time).

Communism is an economic model. Some have proposed systems of government around it - but one is then talking about an idea based on communism... not 'communism' itself... one particular 'model' that merely features communism.

If people are going to assert that communism is atheistic, they should really spend a minute or two researching their claim.

Communism is an economic model. Some have proposed systems of government around it - but one is then talking about an idea based on communism... not 'communism' itself... one particular 'model' that merely features communism.

If people are going to assert that communism is atheistic, they should really spend a minute or two researching their claim.Economic models are always social models as economy unfortunately has a considerable impact on social structure. I was referring more to the whole "sharing" and "common property" aspect.

Bah, why the bit about communism? I mean, this is a thread about headbutter, ain't it?Yeah, but that became boring. You know, we non-devout folks like to move on...

If people are going to assert that communism is atheistic, they should really spend a minute or two researching their claim.

Probably because of that Marxist notion about religion being the opium for the masses or something.

Some people might think Jesus was a Marxist... but that's not what we were discussing. We were discussing a 'pure' concept of communism... and I think that's a lot easier to attribute to Jesus than Marxism would be.

Well I can't really think of any references that Jesus made about the commune.

I'm not talking about your version of communism, or communalism as I would call it. I'm talking about marxist communism, which a lot of people seem to think Jesus approved of.

It isn't 'my' version of communism. It is communism.

'Marxism' is a structure based on communism... Marxism is not the definition of communism.

Some people might think Jesus was a Marxist... but that's not what we were discussing. We were discussing a 'pure' concept of communism... and I think that's a lot easier to attribute to Jesus than Marxism would be.

I understand. I'm Christian, and I try not to be an asshat to the non-religious people on this board. But the trolls who hide behind a facade of atheism, they get on my nerves. So, I agree with you as a Christian.

:D

Well said, Johnny.

What is headbutter anyways? I'd best figure that out, now that I've decided to become the forum headbutter merchant.

Two Groschen a pound!

But I am tired of the faceless masses that fuck with my life in the name of their religion, it is frustrating to say the least

How in the world does what anyone else believes affect you? That seems like one huge persecution complex there.

How in the world does what anyone else believes affect you? That seems like one huge persecution complex there.

*cough* Bush *cough*

and THIS is the exact sort of thing that inspires so much negativity against religion. The smug sense of superiority that causes one to believe that morality can only be found through religion. That those of us who are non religious are immoral bastards who have no sense of right and wrong because we don't believe god said so.


Someone says "Religion is bad"
Another person says, "Why is it bad? It tells us to be nice."
That translates to you as smug superiority?
If a remark like, "it tells us to be nice to each other" which would seem to count as a reason for religion not to be bad triggers this kind of reaction, that has more to do with your perception being faulty and less to do with what was said.

When it comes to religion/atheism there is never level headed debate.

There you would be mistaken, I have had plenty of level headed debate with thoes like Smukee Depubs and a tone of others that I can not think of right now

How in the world does what anyone else believes affect you? That seems like one huge persecution complex there.We are just at the beginning of a evangelical wave, and Christian fundamentalists are already messing with school systems and with politics in the US. Do you support that?

We are just at the beginning of a evangelical wave, and Christian fundamentalists are already messing with school systems and with politics in the US. Do you support that?

What is headbutter, goddamit?!?!?!?!?!

Someone says "Religion is bad"
Another person says, "Why is it bad? It tells us to be nice."
That translates to you as smug superiority?
If a remark like, "it tells us to be nice to each other" which would seem to count as a reason for religion not to be bad triggers this kind of reaction, that has more to do with your perception being faulty and less to do with what was said.unfortunately religion does not only tell people to be nice, it also tells people who and what and how god is, and what is a right life and what is a wrong life, and what conduct is desirable by their respective god.

The golden rule is a central tenet of Christianity

The Golden Rule exists in some form in MANY religions and philosophies -- so why its mention should be seen as something bad mystifies me.

http://www.inquiringminds.org/newsletter/0504/golden-rule.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

http://kvc.minbuza.nl/uk/archive/report/chapter1_3.html

What is headbutter, goddamit?!?!?!?!?!Stop trolling.

How in the world does what anyone else believes affect you? That seems like one huge persecution complex there.

Because their beliefs motivate actions ... if you think it is just a persecution complex try to have a legal marriage with someone of the same sex ... oh wait...

I would absolutely agree with you if beliefs remained in that realm but they motivate action and the actions being taken based on those beliefs (at least some of them) I find reprehensible, as such I will continue to point out what I feel are flaws in both the belief that motivates and the actual actions.

q f t

the world does not need people who utter their beliefs (which are always personal and have no universal relevance, anyways).
Was that a belief you just uttered?

How in the world does what anyone else believes affect you? That seems like one huge persecution complex there.

Don't be fatuous, Kat. If there were only personal beliefs at stake here, it wouldn't be an issue. It's that too many people out there--and this spans all religions--feel it necessary to impose their beliefs on others in the form of laws and the like that causes all these problems.

I ask why you are so combatative.

I don't know. Maybe they get sick of being called evil sinners by the countless thousands of Christian evangelists that latch on to every living human being they can find - and not just on the streets every time they go shopping, but even in their homes as the maniacs crusade from door to door with their leaflets of bile and their messages of spite. Or perhaps it is the other kind of evangelists who rub them the wrong way - the kind who try to impose their beliefs through legislation.

I personally don't bother. I'm of the minority (for either side) that recognises that it's completely useless arguing about religion, and it didn't take the utterly endless and pointless arguments of the internet to convince me of that. But I can certainly understand why some atheists may be combative, as I've been on the receiving end of Christian hate on multiple occasions, and it does start to anger you after a while.

How in the world does what anyone else believes affect you? That seems like one huge persecution complex there.

It affects us when those beliefs lead to actions. To focus purely on the UK the majority of state schools are now pushing religion of some kind on the pupils, and the government has created a new wave of schools which are state funded but have the right to reject any children who aren't members the schools religion. This is not only unfair to the children of atheists, it is also encouraging segregation and hampering integration, leading to more tension in society. What's more, the government is now planning to hand welfare distribution over to religious charities without any kind of oversight, inevitably leading to discrimination against atheists.

If religion was to remain a purely private affair then I'd be happy to leave it alone, but once it enters the public domain and begins to affect others then it should be subject to the same analysis and criticism as any other ideology.

Probably because of that Marxist notion about religion being the opium for the masses or something.

Marxism =/= communism.

So we should just shut up and go away in a place like this? It's because we have places like this, where we can feel free to express ourselves and find solidarity with others who agree with us that we're better able to express ourselves in more hostile environments.

I would think that you should know by now that I respect what you say, and would not want you to shut up -- but I cannot deny that there is a great deal of hostility and ridicule in many threads.

The massive hijack of the, "So what are you doing for Good Friday and Easter" thread would be a good example.

Some people said, "Nothing, I don't believe." Fine and well.
Someone said that if Christ came back, he'd murder him.

See the difference?

How in the world does what anyone else believes affect you? That seems like one huge persecution complex there.

Shall we ignore Sunday-trading laws, just for a start?

Stop trolling.

There's a difference between spamming and trolling. What I'm doing is spamming. Trolling, dearie, is when one puts out intentionally inflammatory arguments, just to pick a fight. What I'm doing is bouncing about making really, really stupid and irrelevant jokes, which is far more akin to spamming.

I think another part of the problem is that because these worldviews are diametrically opposed, it leads to side effects that tend to cascade like a snowball. For example:

Debater Religious: "Religion is true"
Debater Atheist: "Religion is a fairytale."

Right there the debate is doomed. By saying religion is a fairytale not only has the second debater insulted the first, but he has indicated a completely closed mind. This leads to frustration on the part of the first, since it is clear that no dialogue is possible. Where does that lead next? Usually something like this:

Debater Religious: "You're being rude and closed-minded."
Debater Atheist: "I have a right to express my opinion any way I want."

This is now a more heated debate because suddenly we're bringing in ideas of free speech and oppression, which at this stage of the game have noting to do with any premise raised. The second debater is being borderline paranoid in characterizing the first person's objections as somehow an effort to exert control, when in reality it's just a matter of staying civil and debating open-minded (Because let's admit that if your'e closed minded then truly debate is not possible and devolves into childish argument.)

Another problem:

Debater Atheist: "I don't believe in the Bible/Koran/Torah."
Debater Religious: "If you don't believe in the Bible/Koran/Torah you're going to hell."

This is the Religious debater failing to realize that this argument is utterly non-persuasive and inflammatory. The second debater is not only trying to prove something using a source that is at the center of the debate. He's also arrogantly presuming to judge the spiritual condition of the first debater, which can only lead to defensiveness and aggravation. Where does this lead?

Debater Atheist: "Prove it's a valid source."
Debater Religious: "Well Archaeolgists have shown...."

This is now a thread hijack. Archaeology can't prove anything one way or another firstly because it's open to interpretation, and secondly because in matters of faith archaeology is a poor basis for belief. In this, the Religious debater has gone out on a limb that WILL break and fall off.

Ultimately, no dialogue can exist unless both sides sincerely try to see it from the other's point of view, which will lead to an interesting discussion but must inevitably lead to an agreement to disagree, assuming both sides are firmly entrenched.

THAT is the kind of religious debate I'd like to be a part of. Open minds.

Hi again, Bret.

I disagree that the athiest has done something wrong when saying religion is a fairytale. It's his point of view - it's his belief.

The athiest feels just as insulted when he is told religion is true - it's an insult to his intelligence and his worldview. With a religious person, there is no open mind, and no dialogue is possible, because there's little to no hard evidence to tangle with, and therefore the christian can always respond with "Well I just believe it to be so", regardless of argument, because his is a stance of faith.

Well I can't really think of any references that Jesus made about the commune.

His message certainly advocates putting the greater good before personal gain, rails against the concept of acquisition of personal property, encourages people to work together, and instructs us to all 'serve' one another.

He might not use the literal phrasing 'the means of production should be in the hands of the producer', but a lot of what he says works well in that context.

I don't know. Maybe they get sick of being called evil sinners by the countless thousands of Christian evangelists that latch on to every living human being they can find - and not just on the streets every time they go shopping, but even in their homes as the maniacs crusade from door to door with their leaflets of bile and their messages of spite. Or perhaps it is the other kind of evangelists who rub them the wrong way - the kind who try to impose their beliefs through legislation.

I personally don't bother. I'm of the minority (for either side) that recognises that it's completely useless arguing about religion, and it didn't take the utterly endless and pointless arguments of the internet to convince me of that. But I can certainly understand why some atheists may be combative, as I've been on the receiving end of Christian hate on multiple occasions, and it does start to anger you after a while.

Neo-B puppet?

Then stop spamming, love. :)

Can do dearie!

Have a pleasant evenin'.

There's a difference between spamming and trolling. What I'm doing is spamming. Trolling, dearie, is when one puts out intentionally inflammatory arguments, just to pick a fight. What I'm doing is bouncing about making really, really stupid and irrelevant jokes, which is far more akin to spamming.Then stop spamming, love. :) rather answer my question (although I didn't address you)

Agreed, though in religious debates there's this little thing called "dogma" that might interfere with open-mindedness.

I think that depends on the individuals.

We are just at the beginning of a evangelical wave, and Christian fundamentalists are already messing with school systems and with politics in the US. Do you support that?

I don't see it as an evangelical wave, and Christian fundamentalists are TRYING to mess with school systems. And they will fail at it, because of that darned freedom of religion bit of the Constitution called the first amendment.

But I'm curious as to why you've asked me this given that I've already pointed out to you on other threads that I think ID is bollocks, that I'm quite well acquainted with science, and that I understand and believe in Darwin and the theory of evolution.

Hi again, Bret.

I disagree that the athiest has done something wrong when saying religion is a fairytale. It's his point of view - it's his belief.

The athiest feels just as insulted when he is told religion is true - it's an insult to his intelligence and his worldview. With a religious person, there is no open mind, and no dialogue is possible, because there's little to no hard evidence to tangle with, and therefore the christian can always respond with "Well I just believe it to be so", regardless of argument, because his is a stance of faith.

Hi again, Szanth.

Well that's basically what I mean when I say ultimiately it's going to boil down to agreeing to disagree. The worldview of the religious side is one where the existence of God is a given, just as the worldview of the atheist side is one where the nonexistence of God is a given. That's really the crux of it since those are two "unprovable" yet diametrically opposing premises.

The reason I put unprovable in quotes is that to the atheist, it's perfectly possible to prove the non-existence of God just as to the believer, it's perfectly possible to prove God's existence. Th eproblem is being able to prove it to the satisfaction of the opponent.

I don't see it as an evangelical wave, and Christian fundamentalists are TRYING to mess with school systems. And they will fail at it, because of that darned freedom of religion bit of the Constitution called the first amendment.

But I'm curious as to why you've asked me this given that I've already pointed out to you on other threads that I think ID is bollocks, that I'm quite well acquainted with science, and that I understand and believe in Darwin and the theory of evolution.

Thanks for saving me the keystrokes.

To claim that there is a "rising wave" is more than a mite bit alarmist. It's happened before, and it was easily contained by existing structures.

unfortunately religion does not only tell people to be nice, it also tells people who and what and how god is, and what is a right life and what is a wrong life, and what conduct is desirable by their respective god.

Oh.
So, in other words, no religious person could ever disagree with what they are told about god and their religion, no philosophy has ever attempted to designate what is correct behavior, and the conduct set out as preferable in a religion is immediately of no worth.

Neo-B puppet?

I have no puppets.

And even if I did, I'd thank you to refer to them as 'muppets.':p

I think that depends on the individuals.and on how fundamental the dogma is, such as "god exists" or "jesus is the son of god". there is not much room for debate there, either you believe or you don't. and if you don't, all subsequent disputes about details of god or jesus become somewhat pointless.

Alright, I’m going to take a shot at this…

Here we go!

Atheist is bad, and as most things that spring from ignorance its ideas need to be fought ceaselessly, lest people get the idea that they make any sort of sense should there be silence as they are aired. I see no reason why I should be even the slightest bit respectful of people’s differences, or pretend that things are different. What is the point of this, then? I’ve already told you the truth, “Atheist is bad.” Tada! I can’t possible be wrong, if I don’t actually say anything substantial. However, don’t confuse blunt directness and lack of bullshit “politeness” with ill will. Of course because there are myriad flaws to this ridiculous belief, doesn’t mean I have to be even the least bit considerate of anyone else’s opinion. Obviously, anyone who disagrees with me is tainted by the same flaws of the subject at hand. This voluntary self-delusion is inherently bad, regardless of what it has wrought.

Make no mistake; don’t confuse my criticism or ridicule of this idea as intolerant. Just because I think the ideas are shit and I tell you that they are shit doesn’t mean I want to preclude you from being able to have them. It just means your ideas are shit. So, you grow a pair and realize that they are. I don’t need to respect shit.

/em Fass

…

O_o

Wow, I really DO come across as a senseless, ignorant, repugnant asshole. Fancy that.

*goes to wash self thoroughly*

Because their beliefs motivate actions ... if you think it is just a persecution complex try to have a legal marriage with someone of the same sex ... oh wait...

I would absolutely agree with you if beliefs remained in that realm but they motivate action and the actions being taken based on those beliefs (at least some of them) I find reprehensible, as such I will continue to point out what I feel are flaws in both the belief that motivates and the actual actions.

And yet, you can -- here in the US -- because the local law was struck down as unconstutitional. I find it hilariously ironic that Massachusetts -- which was started as a Puritan colony -- is the one that's stepped up to the plate and said, "Nope, marriage and religion are not the same thing."

Need I also remind you of the abject failure of the attempt to change the constitution in order to define marriage as being between two opposite-gender partners?

Check my post history. I'm religious and yet have long been arguing for same sex marriage.

I would think that you should know by now that I respect what you say, and would not want you to shut up -- but I cannot deny that there is a great deal of hostility and ridicule in many threads.

The massive hijack of the, "So what are you doing for Good Friday and Easter" thread would be a good example.

Some people said, "Nothing, I don't believe." Fine and well.
Someone said that if Christ came back, he'd murder him.

See the difference?
Sure. But let's not act like the hostility and ridicule goes just one way either. NSG is more atheist friendly than most places, but look at what atheists face in the outside world.

Neo-B puppet?

I registered first - he's the puppet! I can't help it if people try to make a sequel out of me!

We could talk about the pagan origins of Easter...?

... and Christmas, for that matter. (See Saturnalia.) Silly me for forgetting those (not so) minor details. It's funny to see the Christians sputter about that. :)

Referring to first page: Religion is actually good, because it gives people hope. Religion has set down values and the laws that we use today because they are fair and just. (Well not really Islam, but other religions, like Christianity and Judaism) An Atheist told me that Religious people lived up to 4 years longer than Atheists. Well, I'm not sure thats true, but it does make sense. Atheists really don't have any hope. Religion gives people hope and love. So I don't see why Atheists have to bash us for our beliefs, because frankly, that's just stupid. But it is the same with Protestant Christians, they need to stop forcing their beliefs on Atheists.

Shall we ignore Sunday-trading laws, just for a start?

*shrug* That's not universal, and in fact the law changed to make opening shops in the UK on Sunday legal back in 1984.

I've never had a problem buying things on Sundays, or going to the movies, museums, etc. here either.

And yet, you can -- here in the US -- because the local law was struck down as unconstutitional. I find it hilariously ironic that Massachusetts -- which was started as a Puritan colony -- is the one that's stepped up to the plate and said, "Nope, marriage and religion are not the same thing."

That's actually not quite what Goodridge said..

The case, rather, created a clear seperation from religious marriages, and civil marriages. It did not say, at all, that marriage was not a religious act, but it said that the state confers benefits for marriage regardless of what religion, if any, the marriage was performed under. It basically broke marriage into two components, but certainly did not say marriage was not a religious concept.

Atheists really don't have any hope.

see that? Right there.

Referring to first page: Religion is actually good, because it gives people hope. Religion has set down values and the laws that we use today because they are fair and just. (Well not really Islam, but other religions, like Christianity and Judaism) An Atheist told me that Religious people lived up to 4 years longer than Atheists. Well, I'm not sure thats true, but it does make sense. Atheists really don't have any hope. Religion gives people hope and love. So I don't see why Atheists have to bash us for our beliefs, because frankly, that's just stupid. But it is the same with Protestant Christians, they need to stop forcing their beliefs on Atheists.

1) As an Atheist, I don't see why I am being deprived of 'hope'...?

2) Maybe 'hope' can be a bad thing? People 'hoping' for an afterlife might make decisions in this life that are bad... people that are expecting an imminent intervention might do things, here and now, that are destructive.

As an example - my mother-in-law says there is no point worrying about the environment, possible extinctions, the threat of Global Warming... because Jesus is coming back soon, so it won't matter.

'Hope' isn't always a positive.

As an example - my mother-in-law says there is no point worrying about the environment, possible extinctions, the threat of Global Warming... because Jesus is coming back soon, so it won't matter.

'Hope' isn't always a positive.

That kind of hope is dangerous, and reflects a wholesale disregard for what is happening around you.

While hope is not always inherently positive (personally, I don't think hoping a person will die is a good thing), but I know that hope can be very powerful. I keep saying that my belief in God helped me when I was facing surgery, and gave me hope for a positive turnout...because it did.

and on how fundamental the dogma is, such as "god exists" or "jesus is the son of god". there is not much room for debate there, either you believe or you don't. and if you don't, all subsequent disputes about details of god or jesus become somewhat pointless.

Would you not agree that the inverse is also true? If one asserts that "there is no God" then that has the same effect... but if I labeled that as 'dogma' I'd be skinned alive for it.

*shrug* That's not universal, and in fact the law changed to make opening shops in the UK on Sunday legal back in 1984.

I've never had a problem buying things on Sundays, or going to the movies, museums, etc. here either.

'Shops opening' isn't the same as 'Sunday-trading laws'... although it is part of the equation.

Also - surely you must acknowledge that... if it was 'made legal' in 1984... it wasn't legal before then, yes?

Also (again), I have been prevented from buying wine in Wal-Mart specifically because of religious-inspired Sunday-trading law.

*shrug* That's not universal, and in fact the law changed to make opening shops in the UK on Sunday legal back in 1984.

I've never had a problem buying things on Sundays, or going to the movies, museums, etc. here either.

We're sort of halfway there...It's kind of weird at the moment. You can go out and get drunk at pubs all you want, but you can't play bingo.

Sure. But let's not act like the hostility and ridicule goes just one way either. NSG is more atheist friendly than most places, but look at what atheists face in the outside world.

My point is that in this world, there is hostility brought on by no more than someone wishing someone well on a celebration they both adhere to, with the utmost vitriol and disrespect, and a hijack to boot.

In other words: it ain't helping the attacked see why their assumptions about the attackers are not true. If people wanted to convince, they could and should discuss, not make remarks like I'm going to cook me up a huge steak, take it into church and eat it in front of the Christians who are fasting. (another gem from earlier today).

That's not expressing belief. That's being a prick.

That kind of hope is dangerous, and reflects a wholesale disregard for what is happening around you.

While hope is not always inherently positive (personally, I don't think hoping a person will die is a good thing), but I know that hope can be very powerful. I keep saying that my belief in God helped me when I was facing surgery, and gave me hope for a positive turnout...because it did.

I don't know. I hoped for a positive turnout when I faced surgery.. but I have (at least) one less god than you. That's my point - I don't see an implicit connection specifically between 'religion' and 'hope'.

Also - a thought - how many people put up with crappy lives for themselves, their families, their neighbours, their societies.... because they 'hope' for something in a life yet to come, so they are willing to gamble this one?

Would you not agree that the inverse is also true? If one asserts that "there is no God" then that has the same effect... but if I labeled that as 'dogma' I'd be skinned alive for it.?? pardon? i have not understood what you were pointing out.
the universe is observable, god is not.

I don't know. I hoped for a positive turnout when I faced surgery.. but I have (at least) one less god than you. That's my point - I don't see an implicit connection specifically between 'religion' and 'hope'.

Also - a thought - how many people put up with crappy lives for themselves, their families, their neighbours, their societies.... because they 'hope' for something in a life yet to come, so they are willing to gamble this one?

We all create our own hope. I just happened to look toward faith.

And to respond to your though: that is also very dangerous. One can hope, but one must also do their part to make it happen. For me, before the surgery I took time to learn all about my procedure before heading into the OR, understood the risks, and how long it would take me to recover. Hope can help, but YOU need to make it happen.

So my advice to the guy with the shitty neighbors: move out, get away from it. I don't profess that one must suffer in this world to please the almighty...and I don't think He will blame you either.

I don't think there is a commandment stating "Thou shalt put up with fuckwits".

That's actually not quite what Goodridge said..

The case, rather, created a clear seperation from religious marriages, and civil marriages. It did not say, at all, that marriage was not a religious act, but it said that the state confers benefits for marriage regardless of what religion, if any, the marriage was performed under. It basically broke marriage into two components, but certainly did not say marriage was not a religious concept.

Well, if anyone believes that two separate marriages do not exist, they are clearly not very informed.

At least in the US, there is the civil ceremony which is the one defined legally, and the religious ceremony -- which still needs the civil in order to be "legal".

That's not expressing belief. That's being a prick.

And there are pricks of all races, creeds, religions and nationalities. It doesn't mean that the non religious are pricks, you found a prick or two that happen to not be religious, what about it?

'Shops opening' isn't the same as 'Sunday-trading laws'... although it is part of the equation.

Also - surely you must acknowledge that... if it was 'made legal' in 1984... it wasn't legal before then, yes?

Also (again), I have been prevented from buying wine in Wal-Mart specifically because of religious-inspired Sunday-trading law.

Indeed, but it proves the point that changes away from religiosity are in fact happening.

Chik-Fil-a chooses not to open on Sundays -- but that's the store policy and not the law.

I don't know. I hoped for a positive turnout when I faced surgery.. but I have (at least) one less god than you. That's my point - I don't see an implicit connection specifically between 'religion' and 'hope'.

Also - a thought - how many people put up with crappy lives for themselves, their families, their neighbours, their societies.... because they 'hope' for something in a life yet to come, so they are willing to gamble this one?

Quite a few, but then there are those who are better able to deal with the problems and disasters in their lives because by having an 'eternal' perspective they can keep from succumbing to despair.

Mind you - I'm not suggesting that an atheist is devoid of hope. Obviously that isn't the case. I'm only evaluating the relative merits of keeping a religious context vs. not, limited exclusively to the world we're in now sans afterlife.

My point is that in this world, there is hostility brought on by no more than someone wishing someone well on a celebration they both adhere to, with the utmost vitriol and disrespect, and a hijack to boot.

In other words: it ain't helping the attacked see why their assumptions about the attackers are not true. If people wanted to convince, they could and should discuss, not make remarks like I'm going to cook me up a huge steak, take it into church and eat it in front of the Christians who are fasting. (another gem from earlier today).

That's not expressing belief. That's being a prick.

Wait...did someone actually do that?

And there are pricks of all races, creeds, religions and nationalities. It doesn't mean that the non religious are pricks, you found a prick or two that happen to not be religious, what about it?

Please keep up. The Nazz was talking about the hostility atheists face in the world, and I was talking about the same hostility atheists hand out.

My point is that in this world, there is hostility brought on by no more than someone wishing someone well on a celebration they both adhere to, with the utmost vitriol and disrespect, and a hijack to boot.

In other words: it ain't helping the attacked see why their assumptions about the attackers are not true. If people wanted to convince, they could and should discuss, not make remarks like I'm going to cook me up a huge steak, take it into church and eat it in front of the Christians who are fasting. (another gem from earlier today).

That's not expressing belief. That's being a prick.Pumping well-wishing for Good Friday into an internet forum is not just well-wishing. It is a public display of pride in faith.

Pumping well-wishing for Good Friday into an internet forum is not just well-wishing. It is a public display of pride in faith.

How so? Can I not say "HAPPY GOOD FRIDAY!" to a guy who observes the holiday?

It's not pride, I'm just trying to be polite. Friendly. Y'know?

At least in the US, there is the civil ceremony which is the one defined legally, and the religious ceremony -- which still needs the civil in order to be "legal".

um, there is no need to get a civil ceremony for a religious wedding to be valid...

Pumping well-wishing for Good Friday into an internet forum is not just well-wishing. It is a public display of pride in faith.

Well fuck a duck! And you've not been making a public display of pride in atheism!

?? pardon? i have not understood what you were pointing out.
the universe is observable, god is not.

What I'm saying is that if it's dogmatic to assert God's existence then it's equally dogmatic to categorically deny it.

And your last statement is a good example of the worldview situation. Your assertion is that God is not observable. A believer would assert that He is. It's all in the worldview.

Referring to first page: Religion is actually good, because it gives people hope. Religion has set down values and the laws that we use today because they are fair and just. (Well not really Islam, but other religions, like Christianity and Judaism) An Atheist told me that Religious people lived up to 4 years longer than Atheists. Well, I'm not sure thats true, but it does make sense. Atheists really don't have any hope. Religion gives people hope and love. So I don't see why Atheists have to bash us for our beliefs, because frankly, that's just stupid. But it is the same with Protestant Christians, they need to stop forcing their beliefs on Atheists.

And this is what pisses atheists off. Stop saying "atheists have no hope" or we lack any semblance of morality. Stop using godless as an insult. Don't equivocate atheism with communism.

It's that type of attitude that causes atheists to lash out against religion.

um, there is no need to get a civil ceremony for a religious wedding to be valid...

So you don't need a piece of paper from the state that says you're married? No license necessary?

Pumping well-wishing for Good Friday into an internet forum is not just well-wishing. It is a public display of pride in faith.

Yes, but how does that harm you? Is there someone standng over your shoulder forcing you to click on and comment in said thread? Because if there is, you've got bigger problems to deal with.

Later, folks, I have to pack up the car and do some driving....

Later, folks, I have to pack up the car and do some driving....

Glad you could join us comrade!

So you don't need a piece of paper from the state that says you're married? No license necessary?

Not for the religious aspect no, you and your faith can call the partnership anything they damn well please

In the legalistic sense absolutely you need a license, not in the religious sense though. The two do not HAVE to be tied together they just are in this country.

So you don't need a piece of paper from the state that says you're married? No license necessary?

I didn't say license, I said ceremony.

What I'm saying is that if it's dogmatic to assert God's existence then it's equally dogmatic to categorically deny it.

It's not the same, and the refusal of believers to acknowledge this is another source of anger between the two groups. Atheists typically say that there is no proof of God. There is a difference, albeit a subtle one, between saying that and saying "there is no god." The second might be considered dogmatic. The first simply states that there is no evidence, and because of that, no reason to believe there is one. In other words, were empirical evidence to be produced about the existence of a god or gods, the atheist would then reexamine his position. See the difference?

It's not the same, and the refusal of believers to acknowledge this is another source of anger between the two groups. Atheists typically say that there is no proof of God. There is a difference, albeit a subtle one, between saying that and saying "there is no god." The second might be considered dogmatic. The first simply states that there is no evidence, and because of that, no reason to believe there is one. In other words, were empirical evidence to be produced about the existence of a god or gods, the atheist would then reexamine his position. See the difference?

We agree. Because what I referred to is the assertion of God's existence. I haven't mentioned evidence.

What I'm saying is that if it's dogmatic to assert God's existence then it's equally dogmatic to categorically deny it.no. the lack of a specific belief is neither a doctrine nor a dogma.

And your last statement is a good example of the worldview situation. Your assertion is that God is not observable. A believer would assert that He is. It's all in the worldview.So you are saying that god is as observable as the universe? Have a god-telescope?

It's not the same, and the refusal of believers to acknowledge this is another source of anger between the two groups. Atheists typically say that there is no proof of God. There is a difference, albeit a subtle one, between saying that and saying "there is no god." The second might be considered dogmatic. The first simply states that there is no evidence, and because of that, no reason to believe there is one. In other words, were empirical evidence to be produced about the existence of a god or gods, the atheist would then reexamine his position. See the difference?

And there we also find the meaning behind faith. I personally have experienced no miracles, have seen no angels, or seen a weeping Virgin Mary that I didn't think was a hoax, but I believe in my heart that there is something greater than us.

There may be no evidence, but there is faith.

And thank you Nazz for clarifying the two positions.

It's not the same, and the refusal of believers to acknowledge this is another source of anger between the two groups. Atheists typically say that there is no proof of God. There is a difference, albeit a subtle one, between saying that and saying "there is no god." The second might be considered dogmatic. The first simply states that there is no evidence, and because of that, no reason to believe there is one. In other words, were empirical evidence to be produced about the existence of a god or gods, the atheist would then reexamine his position. See the difference?

This is where people might get confused... as well as the source of quite a few comebacks from the religious side:

"Are there any empirical proof that God doesn't exist?"

Pointless, yet fun to observe, this is my opinion on religious debates.

no. the lack of a specific belief is neither a doctrine nor a dogma.

Ah, but that's different, isn't it? You're talking about a lack of belief where I'm talking about a very real and specific belief, namely, that there is no God.

Isn't an agnostic someone who has no specific belief? Just making sure I understand the terminology.


So you are saying that god is as observable as the universe? Have a god-telescope?

A believer would absolutely assert that God is observable, either directly or indirectly. Not with a telescope, but by other means. Now, a non-believer (to include atheists or those who believe in some other unrelated religion) might dispute those observations, or the interpretation of them, but that gets back to the issue of worldview.

And there we also find the meaning behind faith. I personally have experienced no miracles, have seen no angels, or seen a weeping Virgin Mary that I didn't think was a hoax, but I believe in my heart that there is something greater than us.

There may be no evidence, but there is faith.

And thank you Nazz for clarifying the two positions.

And that is fine the problem is when people use the specifics of that religion to justify what I feel as disgusting actions ... not that others do not use other motivations as well but Christianity seems to be a common one in the USA

And that is fine the problem is when people use the specifics of that religion to justify what I feel as disgusting actions ... not that others do not use other motivations as well but Christianity seems to be a common one in the USA

Aye, Christianity does tend to make an uproar in the US, but its always the same group among them, the Jimmy Swagarts, the Jerry Falwells the Pat Robertsons, y'know.

Guys like this will milk their so call principles until the end of time to keep in power.

And with that, I'm off to help with the Good Friday grocery sale!

*leaves ala the end of "The Hulk"*

This is where people might get confused... as well as the source of quite a few comebacks from the religious side:

"Are there any empirical proof that God doesn't exist?"

Pointless, yet fun to observe, this is my opinion on religious debates.

Well, for a start the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, if somebody says that God exists then the onus is on them to prove, or at least to support, that claim.

There isn't any 'proof' that God doesn't exist but there's plenty of evidence:

1. Most natural phenomena were originally assumed to be directly caused by God/s. For example, the Sun rose because it was being pushed by a giant dung beetle (Egyptians), the alternation between summer and winter is due to the abduction of Persephone by Hades (Greeks), and lightning is a manifestation of God's/the Gods' wrath (just about everyone). The history of science shows any number of 'divine phenomena' which were later shown to have natural causes, but there isn't even one instance where a natural explanation has been replaced with a divine one. That's one piece of evidence for naturalism (and therefore for atheism).

2. Just about every religion has a creation myth of some kind; all of which have been shown to be wrong. This isn't proof that religion is false, because these stories can be read allegorically, but the fact that they're so staggeringly wrong and were seen as literal until it was shown otherwise makes this another piece of evidence for naturalism.

3. On a similar note, most claims made by religions are unfalsifiable, but on the rare occasions when they make empirical claims these are usually wrong. For example, Mormonism claims that native Americans are descended from Hebrews, DNA testing has shown this to be false; the global flood was falsified by geology etc. Strike three for naturalism.

I'll leave it at that for now to avoid spamming the thread with my gibbering. :p

Please bear in mind that I don't see any of these as being especially strong evidence for the non-existence of God (God's existence is compatible with all of them), only that these pieces of evidence make the non-existence of God more likely.

Many people that enjoy discussing religion have thought a lot about religion, and they believe that the conclusion they come to is univsersally applicable.

It is the right thing to do to convince other people that you are right, if you believe that doing so will lead that person to a happier, more productive life.

Well, for a start the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, if somebody says that God exists then the onus is on them to prove, or at least to support, that claim.

There isn't any 'proof' that God doesn't exist but there's plenty of evidence:

1. Most natural phenomena were originally assumed to be directly caused by God/s. For example, the Sun rose because it was being pushed by a giant dung beetle (Egyptians), the alternation between summer and winter is due to the abduction of Persephone by Hades (Greeks), and lightning is a manifestation of God's/the Gods' wrath (just about everyone). The history of science shows any number of 'divine phenomena' which were later shown to have natural causes, but there isn't even one instance where a natural explanation has been replaced with a divine one. That's one piece of evidence for naturalism (and therefore for atheism).

2. Just about every religion has a creation myth of some kind; all of which have been shown to be wrong. This isn't proof that religion is false, because these stories can be read allegorically, but the fact that they're so staggeringly wrong and were seen as literal until it was shown otherwise makes this another piece of evidence for naturalism.

3. On a similar note, most claims made by religions are unfalsifiable, but on the rare occasions when they make empirical claims these are usually wrong. For example, Mormonism claims that native Americans are descended from Hebrews, DNA testing has shown this to be false; the global flood was falsified by geology etc. Strike three for naturalism.

I'll leave it at that for now to avoid spamming the thread with my gibbering. :p

Please bear in mind that I don't see any of these as being especially strong evidence for the non-existence of God (God's existence is compatible with all of them), only that these pieces of evidence make the non-existence of God more likely....especially the non-existence of the biblical god.

and qft

Ah, but that's different, isn't it? You're talking about a lack of belief where I'm talking about a very real and specific belief, namely, that there is no God.


That's only one type of Atheism. My experience suggests most Atheists are Implicit Atheists - they lack belief... rather than believing in a lack. (Those would be Explicit Atheists).


Isn't an agnostic someone who has no specific belief? Just making sure I understand the terminology.


No.

An Agnostic is someone who believe it to be impossinle to [b]know[/i] if there is a god or gods. He or she can still believe... or not believe.


A believer would absolutely assert that God is observable, either directly or indirectly. Not with a telescope, but by other means. Now, a non-believer (to include atheists or those who believe in some other unrelated religion) might dispute those observations, or the interpretation of them, but that gets back to the issue of worldview.

The difference would be that I can show you the world, you can't show me your god.

An Agnostic is someone who believe it to be impossible to know if there is a god or gods. He or she can still believe... or not believe.


Thats not true for all agnostics.

Thats not true for all agnostics.
One will often choose to identify with the Atheists or the Agnostics solely on the basis of whether or not he/she wishes to antagonise the Religious. Such is the nature of such identities.

The difference would be that I can show you the world, you can't show me your god.

To be fair, you can't show me what you see of the world. I cannot share in your perception of it. We may see entirely different things when we look at the world.


Thats not true for all agnostics.

That is the very definition of the word. Saying it isn't true for all of them is like answering, "That isn't true of all theists," when one says, "Theists believe in a god or gods."

Thats not true for all agnostics.

Etymologically, it is.

Some people call themselves Agnostic, when they actually would be better described as Implicit Atheists... they don't accept the suggested ideas for god, but they don't count it out.

While they MIGHT be agnostic also... that position as a matter of BELIEF, is the Implicit Atheist position.

To be fair, you can't show me what you see of the world. I cannot share in your perception of it. We may see entirely different things when we look at the world.


Oh, this is absolutely true!

However - I can still show 'my' world to you... I just can't be 100% sure you see it as I do...

I'll grant, it is possible you might be standing there pointing to God, and I'm just not 'sharing your perception' - but that actually fits where I started... you can't show your god to me.

(The point I'm trying to make is that we might have subjective disagreement over the nature of objective things... but a 'god' you can see while I can't... is a subjective thing....)

Etymologically, it is.

Some people call themselves Agnostic, when they actually would be better described as Implicit Atheists... they don't accept the suggested ideas for god, but they don't count it out.

While they MIGHT be agnostic also... that position as a matter of BELIEF, is the Implicit Atheist position.
Well, if they call themselves it and they are accepted as such by other Agnostics, then aren't they?

One will often choose to identify with the Atheists or the Agnostics solely on the basis of whether or not he/she wishes to antagonise the Religious. Such is the nature of such identities.

Rather egotistic to think that people label THEMSELFS based on angagonising the Religous

To be fair, you can't show me what you see of the world. I cannot share in your perception of it. We may see entirely different things when we look at the world. That depends. Blue is still blue for everyone. How one perceives blue, might be different, however. And shapes are the same shapes for everyone, except if your retina or cornea are damaged.
The ways in which perception of the world can differ individually are in fact limited. What you are talking about is rather the interpretation of that perception.

Well, if they call themselves it and they are accepted as such by other Agnostics, then aren't they?

Let me just point out the little fly in your ointment.

They call themselves 'Agnostic', and are accepted as such by other people that also call themselves 'Agnostic'.

I'm an Implicit Atheist. I've taken the time to find out what my position is technically called. I am also Agnostic (While I don't believe any of the evidence for gods, I'm not ruling gods out... but I don't think we can ever KNOW for sure). I don't 'accept' people as 'Agnostic' unless I see that their position is Agnostic.

That's only one type of Atheism. My experience suggests most Atheists are Implicit Atheists - they lack belief... rather than believing in a lack. (Those would be Explicit Atheists).

Alright.


No.

An Agnostic is someone who believe it to be impossinle to [b]know[/i] if there is a god or gods. He or she can still believe... or not believe.

Thanks


The difference would be that I can show you the world, you can't show me your god.

But again, this is a difference in worldview. I would assert that I CAN demonstrate His presence. The issue is whether or not I could do so to your satisfaction, which is what makes it an issue of worldview. The inverse is also true. Just as your worldview might make it impossible for me to show you God (to your satisfaction) my worldview might make it easily unlikely that you could show me something to prove He does not exist (to MY satisfaction)

You and I both probably have an arsenal of proofs for our respective point of view that are persuasive only to those who share our worldview.

An important disctinction has to be made though. Having an opposing worldview doesn't mean that one ignores evidence. What it means is their interpretation of such evidence is the difference.

That depends. Blue is still blue for everyone. How one perceives blue, might be different, however. And shapes are the same shapes for everyone, except if your retina or cornea are damaged.
The ways in which perception of the world can differ individually are in fact limited. What you are talking about is rather the interpretation of that perception.

We cannot separate the interpretation of the perception from the perception itself. If you were to be transported into my brain somehow, what looks like blue to you might suddenly look yellow. But we were both raised calling it blue, so it is, even if we mentally perceive it very differently. The same is true for shapes, etc. "Blue is blue for everyone," not because we all necessarily perceive it the same (we don't know - so we might), but because we were all brought up referring to a certain spectrum of color as "blue".

We can map out how the eye gets images and how those images are transported to the brain. But what we cannot do is see how that information is translated in the mind of another - what they, as a person, actually perceive.

By that same token, what one person perceives as the divine - what they, in their own personal experience believe to be the guidance/touch/etc. of a god or gods - may be perceived entirely differently by another person. Or, that other person may have experiences so different that it isn't a matter of perception, but is instead a matter of personal experience.

But again, this is a difference in worldview. I would assert that I CAN demonstrate His presence. The issue is whether or not I could do so to your satisfaction, which is what makes it an issue of worldview. The inverse is also true. Just as your worldview might make it impossible for me to show you God (to your satisfaction) my worldview might make it easily unlikely that you could show me something to prove He does not exist (to MY satisfaction)

You and I both probably have an arsenal of proofs for our respective point of view that are persuasive only to those who share our worldview.

An important disctinction has to be made though. Having an opposing worldview doesn't mean that one ignores evidence. What it means is their interpretation of such evidence is the difference.

I wouldn't try to prove 'he doesn't exist'. That would be illogical. Besides, the burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic.

The point isn't about ignoring evidence - it is about whether the specific evidence can even be presented for debate.

Here is the world - I can see it. You can see it. We might see it differently, since we are different people with (perhaps) different perspectives.

Here is your god.... I can't see it. Your evidence is entirely subjective - it can't be realistically communicated to someone who isn't subjectively in agreement with you.

No, I can't be arsed to read 14 pages of thread :p
But I will pop in to say, "Why all the religious headbuttery? Because people are buttheads!" :D

I would assert that I CAN demonstrate His presence. The issue is whether or not I could do so to your satisfaction, which is what makes it an issue of worldview. so you cannot actually demonstrate it perceivable for all?
just try it and show the world right here right now. we will then decide if that satisfies us. ;)

The difference would be that I can show you the world, you can't show me your god.

I used to use this argument, until one kind soul pointed to his shotgun and offered to make the introductions :eek:

Funny that you believe in right and wrong. Rather irrational for an atheist if you ask me.

There is a right and wrong but most of them are gray areas.

And religion really isn't that good for the world. *nod*

We cannot separate the interpretation of the perception from the perception itself. If you were to be transported into my brain somehow, what looks like blue to you might suddenly look yellow. But we were both raised calling it blue, so it is, even if we mentally perceive it very differently. The same is true for shapes, etc. "Blue is blue for everyone," not because we all necessarily perceive it the same (we don't know - so we might), but because we were all brought up referring to a certain spectrum of color as "blue".

We can map out how the eye gets images and how those images are transported to the brain. But what we cannot do is see how that information is translated in the mind of another - what they, as a person, actually perceive. There are some physical properties to perception that limit the way different persons perceive things differently. Vision is limited by geometry and by properties of light. Hearing is limited by the properties of sound waves in air. etc. And the information that is transported to the brain is a result of the sensory input. A square in my mind is just as square as it is in yours, and a circle remains a circle, etc. If I perceive blue what you perceive as yellow then what I perceive as green is orange for you. If I identify a note higher than a second one then you will perceive them equally in their relation to one another. So our perceptions might be shifted, but not completely dissimilar.

By that same token, what one person perceives as the divine - what they, in their own personal experience believe to be the guidance/touch/etc. of a god or gods - may be perceived entirely differently by another person. Or, that other person may have experiences so different that it isn't a matter of perception, but is instead a matter of personal experience.The perception of the "divine" is not at all rooted in any perception of your respective environment. There is no sensory input in such "experiences". This interaction happens exclusively within your mind, which makes it impossible to compare such experiences at all, although they might indeed be limited by brain functionality.

*snipped*

Some of us are agnostics merely intent on questioning belief and finding out why people believe.
Some of us are philosophers who are intent on discussing this subject and finding some sort of truth or else merely to exercise one's mind.
Some of us are thoughtless atheists whose conviction that God does not exist is no more worthy to be taken seriously than the thoughtless theists.
Some of us are more thoughtful atheists who have some grounds for their beliefs and are courteous and tolerant of theists.
Some of us are thoughtless theists who are no better than the thoughtless atheists.
Some of us are more intelligent theists merely wishing to defend their beliefs against thoughtless attacks and engage in intelligent debate.

I'm in categories one and two, I think (and therefore I am :p).

Ilaer

There is a right and wrong but most of them are gray areas.

And religion really isn't that good for the world. *nod*

I agree on the first point but I would ask you to prove the second (on my thread or something; I wouldn't want a thread-jack here but I approve of one on one of my own if the mods don't mind).

Ilaer

Let me just point out the little fly in your ointment.

They call themselves 'Agnostic', and are accepted as such by other people that also call themselves 'Agnostic'.

I'm an Implicit Atheist. I've taken the time to find out what my position is technically called. I am also Agnostic (While I don't believe any of the evidence for gods, I'm not ruling gods out... but I don't think we can ever KNOW for sure). I don't 'accept' people as 'Agnostic' unless I see that their position is Agnostic.
I suspect my response will be somewhat familiar to you, as I've made the exact point in reference to Atheism, God and Christianity on these boards a couple of times.

Agnosticism, as with any collective identity, is both a word and a name. Whether or not the word is conventionally well defined at present, the name refers precisely to that group that consciously identify with it, and the word is flexibile in its meaning as conventional understanding changes (often as a result of the group who identify with it). Take, appropriately, Sophism (hey, I have no delusions of how my own argument is perceived here). Sophos is the Greek word for Wise, so logically Sophism should be the study or practice of wisdom. And yet, as a result of the behaviour of the "Sophists", it has come to mean a kind of argument that appeals to convention or authority at the expense of logical validity.

The conventional understanding of what a word means is greatly shaped by those who seize that word as a name for themselves. The more influential the bearer, the more the word can be twisted from its original meaning. It's pure Sophistry, but it's how identification works, logic be damned.

That is the very definition of the word. Saying it isn't true for all of them is like answering, "That isn't true of all theists," when one says, "Theists believe in a god or gods."

So what do you call someone who doesn't know for sure if there is a god or not, but believes it is possibe to know sometime in the future?

So what do you call someone who doesn't know for sure if there is a god or not, but believes it is possibe to know sometime in the future?
Whatever they want.

*Shrug*

So what do you call someone who doesn't know for sure if there is a god or not, but believes it is possibe to know sometime in the future?

Weak agnosticism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnostic)

Weak agnosticism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnostic)

meh, it's still agnosticicism.

meh, it's still agnosticicism.

You asked for a specific delineation of agnosticism. DO NOT LIGHTLY DISMISS MY ANSWER.:p

Some of us are agnostics merely intent on questioning belief and finding out why people believe.
Some of us are philosophers who are intent on discussing this subject and finding some sort of truth or else merely to exercise one's mind.
Some of us are thoughtless atheists whose conviction that God does not exist is no more worthy to be taken seriously than the thoughtless theists.
Some of us are more thoughtful atheists who have some grounds for their beliefs and are courteous and tolerant of theists.
Some of us are thoughtless theists who are no better than the thoughtless atheists.
Some of us are more intelligent theists merely wishing to defend their beliefs against thoughtless attacks and engage in intelligent debate.

I'm in categories one and two, I think (and therefore I am :p).

Ilaer

Most of us are just argumentative sorts who don't want to get on with the work we're supposed to be doing.

I was actually reading, just a few days ago, about Christian communist collectives in the US. (Yes, even here in the US...)

Mormons supported communistic collectives in a way, but after some of them failed for various reasons were disbanded.

Linky. (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/doctrines/consecration/united_eom.htm)

There are some physical properties to perception that limit the way different persons perceive things differently. Vision is limited by geometry and by properties of light. Hearing is limited by the properties of sound waves in air. etc. And the information that is transported to the brain is a result of the sensory input. A square in my mind is just as square as it is in yours, and a circle remains a circle, etc. If I perceive blue what you perceive as yellow then what I perceive as green is orange for you. If I identify a note higher than a second one then you will perceive them equally in their relation to one another. So our perceptions might be shifted, but not completely dissimilar.

You can't measure that, so you can't know it. You don't know what "yellow" looks like within my mind. Yes, we would both be looking at the same color, but how I perceive it may be entirely different from how you see it. The mechanisms are the same, but that doesn't mean it "looks" the same within my mind as it does within yours - and there is no way to know.

The perception of the "divine" is not at all rooted in any perception of your respective environment. There is no sensory input in such "experiences".

How do you know?

This interaction happens exclusively within your mind, which makes it impossible to compare such experiences at all, although they might indeed be limited by brain functionality.

Are you sure? You believe it happens exclusively within the mind, but it may not. And if the input is supernatural, we have no way of measuring it. It would appear, from empirical measurement, to be derived completely from firing of the neurons, with no external source.


So what do you call someone who doesn't know for sure if there is a god or not, but believes it is possibe to know sometime in the future?

An implicit atheist who is not also agnostic.

Why all the religious headbuttery?

Headbuttery?

Are you talking about butting someone else's head or placing your head up
your own butt? It's a big distinction. Initially, I figured you meant butting
heads, but the similarity to the term "Asshattery", has left me wondering...

Could "headbuttery" be the new "Asshattery"? If so, then you've definately
got a fresh new word there, that I know I will use often. I could also be
missing the mark completely... perhaps "headbutter" is some esoteric term
like "Santorum" or "Smegma".

In that case, Headbutter would be pretty disgusting. "Headbuttery" would
NOT be a desirable adjective for say... popcorn. In fact, Headbutter is
probably the best argument in favor of circumcision.

Strange time for this topic to come up. A few weeks ago some door-to-door proselytizers came by, hoping I would convert and join their church. I told them I wasn't religious, and they professed deep pity.

"Well, that's a shame, because god is real," they said.
I said, "Well, I suppose I'll find out."
To which they replied, "I hope not."

Not really sure what "I hope not" is supposed to mean. They realize their god is a dick and don't wish a meeting on me? They hope I live forever? Either way, they left, and I figured that was the end of it. But, lo and behold, today I find a little packet on my door handle. Inside is a book, not a pamphlet, a 125 page book called Fifty Reasons why Jesus came to Die. Packaged with it was a two page pamphlet telling me "What to do now that you've accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior," as well as yet another invitation to their church (as though a lack of reading material was what had stopped the conversion before). Maybe I'm supposed to write them a book report? I'm somewhat tempted to do so, deconstructing all the bullshit arguments within (and even a cursory glance shows the "arguments" to be just that--the typical bullshit). Hell, even the back of the book proclaims it to be a disgusting little tome, asking "Not fifty causes, but fifty purposes--in answer to the most important question that each of us must face: What did God achieve for sinners like us in sending his Son to die?"

Anyway. This is the first time I've ever had a three-week-later, passive-agressive followup recruitment drive at my house, especially in book form. Usually they just leave, then come back to the neighborhood many months later, forgetting that I sent them away the first time...and the second and third. They're pretty relentless (they're southern baptist, if that tells you anything).

Now, just who is trying to push their beliefs on whom, again?

As an aside...why can't they ever be some attractive woman my age, rather than some creepy, crusty old fart? Don't they know that, even with religion, sex sells?

Headbuttery?

Are you talking about butting someone else's head or placing your head up
your own butt? It's a big distinction. Initially, I figured you meant butting
heads, but the similarity to the term "Asshattery", has left me wondering...

Could "headbuttery" be the new "Asshattery"? If so, then you've definately
got a fresh new word there, that I know I will use often. I could also be
missing the mark completely... perhaps "headbutter" is some esoteric term
like "Santorum" or "Smegma".

In that case, Headbutter would be pretty disgusting. "Headbuttery" would
NOT be a desirable adjective for say... popcorn. In fact, Headbutter is
probably the best argument in favor of circumcision.

The word is similar to "asshattery" or other terms that end in "...ery".

HEADBUTT: VERB
To "headbutt" someone else
To get into conflict with another person or group (metaphorical)

HEADBUTTERY:
The state of conflict between two people or groups on the opposing ends of an issue.

I should probably patent this word in my signature now...

The word is similar to "asshattery" or other terms that end in "...ery".

HEADBUTT: VERB
To "headbutt" someone else
To get into conflict with another person or group (metaphorical)

HEADBUTTERY:
The state of conflict between two people or groups on the opposing ends of an issue.

I should probably patent this word in my signature now...

asshattery is a dandy word.

asshattery is a dandy word.

Agreed. I also like Buttpiracy.

The word, I mean.

Not the actual... You know.

asshattery is a dandy word.

Ach, it is. But I think it has been in use for several years now.

Agreed. I also like Buttpiracy.

The word, I mean.

Not the actual... You know.

You mean...you don't like it...you know...in...err...

*flees to go to sleep*