NationStates Jolt Archive

I notice that Peep has chosen to ignore completely my comments. Why?

Because I find them correct and I wished neither to add nor retract from them.

I take exception to the idea (which has been advanced before on this forum) that somehow religion is only for people who can't handle reality without it. Is that what you're saying, or are you only talking about some cases?



Of course.



The Princess Bride: Most quotable movie... ever.

My personal favorite:

"There's a shortage of perfect breasts in the world. It would be a shame to damage yours."
1)only some cases (actually just one case peeps and only from the way he was talking about it as if his belief was his own personal security blanket.)
2)SWEET :D
3)
I'll call the brute squad!
I'm on the brute squad.
You are the Brute Squad!

no To the pain!

Ha! I knew you were bluffing!

Actually I poisoned them both.

orderless clear and tasteless must be ____ (<--- insert name here)

I'm an atheist, and I hate that people automatically assume I hate Christians. Most of my friends are Christians. I'm fine with that. What I have a problem with is people who shove religion in my face, or look down on me because I haven't been "saved."

Don't feel too badly. You're not alone. Protestants do it to a lot of people, not just Atheists. Seems I did a rant on that recently in a thread...

1)only some cases (actually just one case peeps and only from the way he was talking about it as if his belief was his own personal security blanket.)
2)SWEET :D
3)
I'll call the brute squad!
I'm on the brute squad.
You are the Brute Squad!

no To the pain!

Ha! I knew you were bluffing!

Actually I poisoned them both.

orderless clear and tasteless must be ____ (<--- insert name here)

Iocane! (sp?)

Yes! awesome! :D

1)funny cause the way your acting . . .
2)don't give me that Peep you made a statement saying that ALL theist are in Someway able to understand All Atheist but that the reverse is not true. Yet again someone religious claims that they are in some way better and supports it by say "you couldn't possibly understand why! I just am!"
3)I disagree and thats not all you said in anyway. also are you capable of understanding why I don't?
4)bull. Your claims are that you are superior. Don't try to back out of it now peep your doing so well.

1)Meh if thats the way you see it.
2)lie, re-read what I actualy did write.
3)See number 1
4)See number 1

Hello. I am a mystic. Please explain to me why I cling to my religion for sentimental reasons, how my beliefs are responsible for atrocities, or why I would want you to be tentative in discussing my beliefs.

I might point out that my opinions would also have had me burnt at the stake in times past, so forgive me if I do not show any sympathy for your imagined persecution at the hands of theists.

A mystic is generally a person who is moved by the comforting and vaguely transportative nature of fairy tales and barbarically poetic sentiment. If you are comforted by such things it is because the true nature of life is somehow unsatisfying and probably slightly alienating to you. Your mysticism is a primitive bed time story which lulls you and numbs you to reality.

The persecution is not imagined, it is contemporary, Sharia courts in Saudi Arabia and Iran regularly execute gay people, doctors are shot by christian fanatics in front of their children in the U.S.A., people all over the world live blighted miserable lives because of the followers of irrational superstition. Again why should i care to treat these superstitions with anything but contempt?

Thank you i don't need english lessons, redundant is exactly the word i meant to use.

Religion is the polar oposite of reason,

Again, if you understand what "opposite" means, you know that this is nonsensical.

Religion isn't the polar opposite of reason, any more than religion is the polar opposite of candyfloss.

Religion can be quite reasonable. It can also be utterly unreasonable. Like a great many human inventions, I should think.


those who are perceptive enough to use reason in their every day lives and yet still cling to religion cannot be being entirely honest with themselves.

Sure they can. I know lots of agnostic theists, and they're all completely reasonable and honest with themselves.

Many theists aren't honest or reasonable, sure, but don't blame their theism for that.


Generally they do so for sentimental reasons. This would be perfectly fine if the religions they cling to were not so massively culpable of dreadfull crimes and atrocities. It is not ignorant to hold this opinion, and why should i be so tentative toward persons who believe i will burn forever in hell?

I haven't suggested that you be "tentative." I simply think you should be honest and reasonable, even if your opponents are not.

You'll notice that I'm quite flagrantly insulting toward a great many people. Almost everybody, in point of fact. Yet I can also be a reasonable and honest person while being a great big flaming asshat. You can, too!


I might point out that my opinions would have had me burnt at the stake in times past, so forgive me if i do not show a false reverence for beliefs i see as criminal and destructive.

Oh boo fucking hoo for you.

I'm a non-hetero atheist childless female scientist of gypsy descent who likes to fuck outside the sanctity of marriage. The human mind is not able to grasp the enormity of the number of times I would have been burnt as a witch.

So?

Don't you like feeling superior? I know I do. Well, the best way to get to feel superior is to BE superior. Be better than the people who you argue against.


Oh and if my behaviour were being dictated by the lowest common denominator of religion i would be out bombing abortion clinics, butchering the children of heretics and infidels and oppressing millions of people with my wicked morbid obsessions. As it is i am posting my perfectly reasonable opinions in an online forum and being castigated for it.
Eeeew, now you're sounding like a whining theist.

You're not being castigated for sharing your "perfectly reasonable opinions." You choose to share your opinions in an open forum, and people choose to respond. Shock of shocks, not everybody thinks you're right! *GASP*

Get over it.

Perhaps you, with your theist's superior powers of understanding, can explain to my why I should bother continuing to converse with you, if you're going to simply ignore anything you don't like?

Bwahahah I like you Bottle, but you do make me laugh sometiomes. Go and re-read what I decided to ignore form your post and you'll notice it was irrelevant rubbish tyring to be mildly insulting. So yeah I guess I choose to ignore that, is that a bad thing now in Bottle land?

Bwahahah I like you Bottle, but you do make me laugh sometiomes. Go and re-read what I decided to ignore form your post and you'll notice it was irrelevant rubbish tyring to be mildly insulting. So yeah I guess I choose to ignore that, is that a bad thing now in Bottle land?
Why are you still talking?

Please ignore me!

2)lie, re-read what I actualy did write.


I did. Thats what you said.

The religions don't do this but rather the people use their religion as an excuse to do this.

But hey every single atrocity and war and anything bad that has happened is because of religion.



You might but then what would be the point, it is like saying that all English are evil because in times past they traded slaves.

Nothing like punishing the sins of the father onto the son hey.

Englishmen do not believe that slavery is a part of the natural order anymore ( at least in the main ) and yet people of religion still continue to believe that their bizarre ideas guarantee them a place in some imagined afterlife.
And No where have i said that all atrocities ever committed were the fault of religion, i have pointed out that religion is a mechanism by which all that is most dreadfull in humanity can be excused and amplified with the excuse that an invisible entity desires it.

As for Blouman's points about treating religious persons with kid gloves, again why? Most will be smugly glad that i am burning in hell for all time after my death while they and their friends in hypocracy bathe in the reflected magnificence of an imaginary (though evil) god.

A mystic is generally a person who is moved by the comforting and vaguely transportative nature of fairy tales and barbarically poetic sentiment. If you are comforted by such things it is because the true nature of life is somehow unsatisfying and probably slightly alienating to you. Your mysticism is a primitive bed time story which lulls you and numbs you to reality.

This does not answer my questions. It justs describes your rmisconception of mysticism.

The persecution is not imagined, it is contemporary, Sharia courts in Saudi Arabia and Iran regularly execute gay people, doctors are shot by christian fanatics in front of their children in the U.S.A., people all over the world live blighted miserable lives because of the followers of irrational superstition. Again why should i care to treat these superstitions with anything but contempt?

I didn't know you were a gay Saudi providing abortions or doing stem cell research. Oh wait, you're not. Sorry. No oppression for you.

You are contradicting yourself Peep.

If, as you admit is true, belief and absence of belief are reflections of deep personality traits, then if my personality is such that I am a non believer, then even if I understood belief I would not automatically be a believer now, would I?

I think to truely understand why a person, any person belives in God, one must have the same belife. If you do not have such a belife then you do not truely understand.

I can understand for example why people are racist, but not truely. It is truer to say that I can rationalise this belife structure so that it kinda makes sense to me.

That isn't truely understanding it though is it, it is merley working that belief into a way that I can try to understand.

So I can understand it, I can't rationalise it, it still makes no sense to me. This is what I am talking about.

How can you understand my belife in God, not the belife it's self, but why I believe as I do, to you it makes no sense.

I've seen it time after time on these boards. A discussion about religion automatically turns into Christians/Muslims/Jew/anyone-who-has-theistic-views being complete idiots who know absolutely nothing? Do you seriously not see the good things religion brings? Do you not have the capacity to see beyond your own nose? If you met me in real life, you would find me an intelligent, educated man, and automatically think "He has to be like me, Atheist!" Well guess what? I'm not. I believe in God as the creator of our universe. I believe he sent Jesus Christ as his only son to save our sorry skins from eternal damnation. So try going to church a few times and see what good you hate.

As an atheist myself, I really don't have a problem with someone's religious views. I also know plenty of christians/muslims/jews/insert-theism-here in real life and find them to be intelligent (infact, these people tend to make up the main body of what I consider friends).

The problem comes when religious people think that their religion gives them exemption from criticism. That is simply not the case. If a grown man told me that he still believes in Santa Claus, his state of mind is something that should be examined.

In all actually, I don't really care if he really believes in Santa or not. But what if he's trying to push laws into place that make the worship or recognition of Santa Claus a mandate? What if he wants to replace curriculum in schools with "Santaism?" What if he believes that anyone that doesn't believe in Santa is eternally cursed and should be regarded as second class being?

The problems most atheists and nonbelievers have with believers is not the belief itself (its still silly, but that's a subjective point). The problem stems from what that belief can cause. Religion may bring good things, but it has never brought anything that couldn't be supplied from another source. I myself go to a Unitarian church every week, where most of its visitors are nonbelievers. There are a bundle of secular organizations out in the world that provide charity to the needy. There are many support groups, services, and communities that are "atheistic" by their own nature.

On the other hand, religion has caused many problems. It has been (and still is) a common fuel for wars. It causes segregation and an "us versus them" mentality. It makes mandates and has ordered lives to be taken when they're not followed or when they're disputed. It ask for a piety that defies rational thinking. It's allowed the spread of racism, disease, and sexism. It's counter-progressive and smothers science when science threatens its dogma. Sure, there are plenty of other sources of such evil, but they all use the same bullying tactics to achieve the same ends.

Personal beliefs is one thing, organized religion and dogma is another. Any person can have any silly belief they want and to some degree, they are even allowed to convince others of those same beliefs. But that stops as soon as it become decree and they start imposing themselves on others personal and private lives. It is also by no means, exempt from criticism. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but everyone is also entitled to their opinion on an opinion.

For the same reason that I despise the evils of religion, I would also never agree with an individual who tries to take someone's right to personal beliefs away. I can't speak for all atheists/agnostics/non-believers but the majority I have met are pretty laid back when it comes to others beliefs. It only becomes a problem when that belief wants to push us around. Yes, we do think theistic beliefs are silly, but there are plenty of philosophical, scientific, and rational reasons that are separate from the main issue and arguments on those grounds are a matter of opinion.

I personally think that believing in god is a waste of time. I've never heard any logical reason to do so and my world tends to function pretty much the same with no belief as it did when I had some belief (I was never a strong believer). But if your life functions better with a certain belief, go for it. If that belief is what gets you up in the morning, more power to you. Just keep in mind that that mentality is no more deserving of any more respect than someone else' contrasting mentality and you have no right to force others to work by it.

Again, if you understand what "opposite" means, you know that this is nonsensical.

Religion isn't the polar opposite of reason, any more than religion is the polar opposite of candyfloss.

Religion can be quite reasonable. It can also be utterly unreasonable. Like a great many human inventions, I should think.


Sure they can. I know lots of agnostic theists, and they're all completely reasonable and honest with themselves.

Many theists aren't honest or reasonable, sure, but don't blame their theism for that.


I haven't suggested that you be "tentative." I simply think you should be honest and reasonable, even if your opponents are not.

You'll notice that I'm quite flagrantly insulting toward a great many people. Almost everybody, in point of fact. Yet I can also be a reasonable and honest person while being a great big flaming asshat. You can, too!


Oh boo fucking hoo for you.

I'm a non-hetero atheist childless female scientist of gypsy descent who likes to fuck outside the sanctity of marriage. The human mind is not able to grasp the enormity of the number of times I would have been burnt as a witch.

So?

Don't you like feeling superior? I know I do. Well, the best way to get to feel superior is to BE superior. Be better than the people who you argue against.


Eeeew, now you're sounding like a whining theist.

You're not being castigated for sharing your "perfectly reasonable opinions." You choose to share your opinions in an open forum, and people choose to respond. Shock of shocks, not everybody thinks you're right! *GASP*

Get over it.


I'm certainly not in any way discomforted by the fact that others dissagree with me that was not my point, my point was i'm already superior to persons of religion because i'm not responsible for the suffering of millions of people and that i will dispute with them in words and could not justify murdering or persecuting them on the basis of my beliefs while they could.

Englishmen do not believe that slavery is a part of the natural order anymore ( at least in the main ) and yet people of religion still continue to believe that their bizarre ideas guarantee them a place in some imagined afterlife.

Christians do not believe that such things as the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition (Oh I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition, etc) is proper (at least in the main)

And No where have i said that all atrocities ever committed were the fault of religion, i have pointed out that religion is a mechanism by which all that is most dreadfull in humanity can be excused and amplified with the excuse that an invisible entity desires it.

Never said you did mate,

As for Blouman's points about treating religious persons with kid gloves, again why? Most will be smugly glad that i am burning in hell for all time after my death while they and their friends in hypocracy bathe in the reflected magnificence of an imaginary (though evil) god.

Now this is the second time you have said I have said something. Can you please show me where I have said these things? Now I am not saying I haven't said them in this thread (maybe I did about 10 pages ago and due to the port I can't remember) but please can you just show me man, Lord give me strength.

How can something be both imaginary and evil?

I'm certainly not in any way discomforted by the fact that others dissagree with me that was not my point, my point was i'm already superior to persons of religion because i'm not responsible for the suffering of millions of people and that i will dispute with them in words and could not justify murdering or persecuting them on the basis of my beliefs while they could.

I didn't know that the Christians alive today were the ones that carried out these atrocities. Are they immortal? Why was I not informed earlier :rolleyes: As I said mate nothing like punishing the sons for the sins of the father.

I'm certainly not in any way discomforted by the fact that others dissagree with me that was not my point, my point was i'm already superior to persons of religion because i'm not responsible for the suffering of millions of people

Being religious doesn't make somebody responsible for all the shitty things that religious people have ever done.

After all, there have been atheists who did shitty things, too, yet I'm guessing you wouldn't appreciate being told that you are responsible for everything bad that has ever been done by a godless person.


and that i will dispute with them in words and could not justify murdering or persecuting them on the basis of my beliefs while they could.
Chill the fuck out, dude. Most religious people don't want you dead. They don't want to murder you or persecute you. They don't CARE about you that much. They're just going through their lives trying to get shit done with a minimum of discomfort.

Yes, there are some religious people who are spectacular assholes. Give those people all the shit you want. I know I do. But don't make the mistake of assuming that RELIGIOSITY is what's making them act like assholes. Plenty of people are religious without being assholes about it.

This does not answer my questions. It justs describes your rmisconception of mysticism.



I didn't know you were a gay Saudi providing abortions or doing stem cell research. Oh wait, you're not. Sorry. No oppression for you.

You have no idea who i am, what makes you imagine either that these are they only kinds of crime commited by religious people or that i could not be a victim of them?

You may be krassly self satisfied with your own position of freedom from persecution but i happen to feel that all humans are deserving of decent treatment.

I don't hate religious people. I love them.

Sometimes, for hours on end.

LMFAO. I'll have to use that line sometime. :D

The persecution is not imagined, it is contemporary, Sharia courts in Saudi Arabia and Iran regularly execute gay people, doctors are shot by christian fanatics in front of their children in the U.S.A., people all over the world live blighted miserable lives because of the followers of irrational superstition. Again why should i care to treat these superstitions with anything but contempt?

Because for hundreds of years, Christians, Muslims, Jews, gays, blacks, Anglo-saxons, Hu-tus, shiites, etc. have all been persecuted at one point or another by someone else. Persecution happens because people want it to happen. Religion is just the excuse they use. If religion weren't around, they would just admit the real reason, which is usually money or politics. Crusades? Money and politics. Holocaust? Money and politics. Modern persecution of gays? Money and politics. But people like to feel good about themselves so they justify it with religion.

For example, climatologists who are skeptical about carbon emissions being the cause of Global Warming lose their jobs and receive death threats. Persecution in the name of rational, atheistic science.

Honest or not, that's precisely what he's claiming.

He claims that he is able to understand the atheist's perspective without ever having experienced it, but that an atheist cannot understand the theist's perspective, even though many atheists are former theists.


Rubbish, rubbish and again rubbish. Man it's sooo funny,when you harp on about how funny it is when people tell you what you are thinking, and them go right ahead and do the same. Classic!

What I claim is that when it comes to belife in God, atheists will never be able to understand why we belive.

I also made the claim that whilst this is true, it is not true the other way around. I can certianly comprehend most science, art or anything else which has reason and logic behind it, as I think most of us can yes?

You know you can prove me wrong, by simply answering my question, I have already put it to yourself and a few others and supprise, not a one of you attempted an answer, kinda prooves my point huh!

*snip*

Oh Bottle, you say it with so much more class than me. May I be your apprentice so I may learn from the master? (I snipped your post in reply to Urgench btw)

Religion has to be justified... but so does Atheism. In the midst of all the discusson, some people feel to passionately about what they believe, hence the underhanded comments and the immature name-calling.

I find it odd that intellectual fora such as this easily deteriorate into such exchanges...

That is because it is not an intelectual forum, you you hairy ape you!:wink:

Because for hundreds of years, Christians, Muslims, Jews, gays, blacks, Anglo-saxons, Hu-tus, shiites, etc. have all been persecuted at one point or another by someone else. Persecution happens because people want it to happen. Religion is just the excuse they use. If religion weren't around, they would just admit the real reason, which is usually money or politics. Crusades? Money and politics. Holocaust? Money and politics. Modern persecution of gays? Money and politics. But people like to feel good about themselves so they justify it with religion.

For example, climatologists who are skeptical about carbon emissions being the cause of Global Warming lose their jobs and receive death threats. Persecution in the name of rational, atheistic science.

That is exactly my point, religion may be used to excuse human depravity because it is a depraved concept. I would rather live in a world where people were forced to admit their reasons for what they do, instead of one where people dress it up in grissly superstition.

I find it odd that intellectual fora such as this easily deteriorate into such exchanges...

Clearly you have not spent much time on NSG. Here it's not a question of if, it's a question of how many pages and who starts it.

You have no idea who i am, what makes you imagine either that these are they only kinds of crime commited by religious people or that i could not be a victim of them?

You may be krassly self satisfied with your own position of freedom from persecution but i happen to feel that all humans are deserving of decent treatment.

How does my religion persecute anyone?

That is exactly my point, religion may be used to excuse human depravity because it is a depraved concept. I would rather live in a world where people were forced to admit their reasons for what they do, instead of one where people dress it up in grissly superstition.

So it is not the atrocities that you are against it is the reasons people use to justify them I see, I see.

Oh Bottle, you say it with so much more class than me. May I be your apprentice so I may learn from the master? (I snipped your post in reply to Urgench btw)

Is an apprentice anything like an intern? Because I could really use somebody to fetch me coffee and do my research for me while I play Minesweeper all day.

I can Imagine a world with some great being to follow. Can you bear to imagine one without? Without that crutch to lean on?

Why do I need a crutch? I can walk just fine by myself, thanks!
And frankly I don't think it's my imagination that there's no great being to follow, I think it's your imagination that there is one.

But I don't hate you for that :)

I did. Thats what you said.

Show me!

That is exactly my point, religion may be used to excuse human depravity because it is a depraved concept. I would rather live in a world where people were forced to admit their reasons for what they do, instead of one where people dress it up in grissly superstition.

You're missing my point. Religion isn't at fault, people are. It's not the religion's fault that it's used as an excuse. You seem to forget that religion is also the excuse for doing a lot of good things, that are not done for money or politics but are done solely for religious reasons.

Is an apprentice anything like an intern? Because I could really use somebody to fetch me coffee and do my research for me while I play Minesweeper all day.

And with no pay I presume too, yes I see your little game Bottle.

:D

Why are you still talking?

Please ignore me!

Meh so you choose to give up, and not answer my questions. *shrug* fine.

And with no pay I presume too, yes I see your little game Bottle.

:D
What an outrageous insinuation!

Naturally, you shall be well paid with my overwhelming good regard and the abounding sense of self-worth that comes from an honest day's work.

I take it with two creams and a sugar, mind you, and god help you if it's tepid.

What an outrageous insinuation!

Naturally, you shall be well paid with my overwhelming good regard and the abounding sense of self-worth that comes from an honest day's work.

I take it with two creams and a sugar, mind you, and god help you if it's tepid.

LMAO

Two creams, one sugar got it.

You're missing my point. Religion isn't at fault, people are. It's not the religion's fault that it's used as an excuse. You seem to forget that religion is also the excuse for doing a lot of good things, that are not done for money or politics but are done solely for religious reasons.

I hope you'll forgive me for saying so, but I think that's a huge double standard.

Whenever somebody does something bad in the name of religion, it must have been for some other reason, not really for religion.

But whenever somebody does something good in the name of religion, then it clearly actually was for religion, and not for some other reason.

Seems unjustifiable to me.

I didn't know that the Christians alive today were the ones that carried out these atrocities. Are they immortal? Why was I not informed earlier :rolleyes: As I said mate nothing like punishing the sons for the sins of the father.

Being a member or supporter of an organisation which has committed crimes does make you culpable, witness the Neurenberg tribunals or the maxi trials of italian mafiosi. And again these are not only past atrocities but current ones aswell.

I hope you'll forgive me for saying so, but I think that's a huge double standard.

Whenever somebody does something bad in the name of religion, it must have been for some other reason, not really for religion.

But whenever somebody does something good in the name of religion, then it clearly actually was for religion, and not for some other reason.

Seems unjustifiable to me.


Quite.

I hope you'll forgive me for saying so, but I think that's a huge double standard.

Whenever somebody does something bad in the name of religion, it must have been for some other reason, not really for religion.

But whenever somebody does something good in the name of religion, then it clearly actually was for religion, and not for some other reason.

Seems unjustifiable to me.

And you're correct. As usual, reality is more complicated than our descriptions of it.

Sometimes, some people do good things for religious reasons.
Sometimes, some people do bad things for religious reasons.
Sometimes, some people do good things for non-religious reasons.
Sometimes, some people do bad things for non-religous reasons.
Sometimes, some people do bad things for non-religous reasons, but claim it is for religious reasons.
I don't think I've ever heard of people doing good things for non-religious reasons, and then claiming it was for religious reasons, but I'm sure someone has done it at some time. I don't think it happens often enough to merit debate.

Being a member or supporter of an organisation which has committed crimes does make you culpable, witness the Neurenberg tribunals or the maxi trials of italian mafiosi. And again these are not only past atrocities but current ones aswell.

So lets pick up Himmler's grand children and execute them at dawn.

Or maybe we should lock those Victorian Police Force cops up because a few of their superiors were involved in illegal activities

I hope you'll forgive me for saying so, but I think that's a huge double standard.

Whenever somebody does something bad in the name of religion, it must have been for some other reason, not really for religion.

But whenever somebody does something good in the name of religion, then it clearly actually was for religion, and not for some other reason.

Seems unjustifiable to me.

I agree.

If somebody does something shitty and claims they did it because God told them to, I don't blame God. I blame the person.

If somebody does something terrific and claims they did it because God told them to, I don't credit God. I credit the person.

Some people say their faith inspires them. That's fine. Good for them. Maybe your faith inspired you to do something terrific, but at the end of the day it's not your faith that did a damn thing. You did it. Faith didn't paint that picture...YOU DID!

Two people can have the same faith, but one is inspired to do something beautiful and the other is inspired to do something terrible. I guess you could say that I view faith as a "direction-less force." Faith tends to influence people's actions, and the stronger the faith the stronger the influence, but the DIRECTION in which that force is directed depends on the individual.

You're missing my point. Religion isn't at fault, people are. It's not the religion's fault that it's used as an excuse. You seem to forget that religion is also the excuse for doing a lot of good things, that are not done for money or politics but are done solely for religious reasons.

Of course i am against the atrocities themselves, i believe we would have had far fewer without the toxic leaven of religion in the mix. And the good acts done in the name of religion are equally if not more terrible since they prop up the hypocracy of a morally bankrupt organisation.

Of course i am against the atrocities themselves, i believe we would have had far fewer without the toxic leaven of religion in the mix. And the good acts done in the name of religion are equally if not more terrible since they prop up the hypocracy of a morally bankrupt organisation.

Yeah. If those Jews hadn't had their religion, they would never have shoved those six million Nazis into death camps.

Oh, wait...

I agree with OP. I am atheist and at times I am much ashamed of other atheists attitude toward Christians. We're supposed to be the open minded ones here.

Why do I need a crutch? I can walk just fine by myself, thanks!
And frankly I don't think it's my imagination that there's no great being to follow, I think it's your imagination that there is one.

But I don't hate you for that :)

:) awesome . . .but wait can you repeat that again slowly "And frankly I don't think it's my imagination that there's no great being to follow, I think it's your imagination that there is one" . . .I dont . .. understand . . .:(

I agree with OP. I am atheist
So you hate religious people, then?

What I claim is that when it comes to belife in God, atheists will never be able to understand why we belive.

And neither, it seems, can the believers themselves.

Example: many believers cite an epiphany as their reason to believe. They just one day felt the presence of something greater, a revelation if you will.
We now know that such feelings are a form of epileptic seizure, and can even induce them with a machine. As such, citing an epiphany as a reason to believe is the same as citing any other known malfunction of the brain as a reason to believe. That seems to not make any sense - a brainmalfunction is not something to put your faith in.

Can you make it sensible ?

So lets pick up Himmler's grand children and execute them at dawn.

Or maybe we should lock those Victorian Police Force cops up because a few of their superiors were involved in illegal activities


that is patently absurd, the grand children of Himmler may not share his beliefs, but in germany they sensibly prosecute individuals who do share himmler's beliefs now

And you're correct. As usual, reality is more complicated than our descriptions of it.

Sometimes, some people do good things for religious reasons.
Sometimes, some people do bad things for religious reasons.
Sometimes, some people do good things for non-religious reasons.
Sometimes, some people do bad things for non-religous reasons.
Sometimes, some people do bad things for non-religous reasons, but claim it is for religious reasons.
I don't think I've ever heard of people doing good things for non-religious reasons, and then claiming it was for religious reasons, but I'm sure someone has done it at some time. I don't think it happens often enough to merit debate.
agreed
And urgench If I didn't know better I'd say you were religious and trying to make atheist look like idiots. . . seriously dude your not helping us at all and your looking like an idiot. Quit while your ahead.

Yeah. If those Jews hadn't had their religion, they would never have shoved those six million Nazis into death camps.

Oh, wait...

GODWIN'S LAW. /THREAD

Of course i am against the atrocities themselves, i believe we would have had far fewer without the toxic leaven of religion in the mix. And the good acts done in the name of religion are equally if not more terrible since they prop up the hypocracy of a morally bankrupt organisation.

The way to stop atrocities is to stop the real reason for them, not the excuse. Without religion, there would just be other excuses.

I hope you'll forgive me for saying so, but I think that's a huge double standard.

Whenever somebody does something bad in the name of religion, it must have been for some other reason, not really for religion.

But whenever somebody does something good in the name of religion, then it clearly actually was for religion, and not for some other reason.

Seems unjustifiable to me.

I never said all good things done in the name of religion were actually done for the religion. Nor did I say that all bad things done in the name of religion were not actually done for the religion.

Yeah. If those Jews hadn't had their religion, they would never have shoved those six million Nazis into death camps.

Oh, wait...

No, no you have it the wrong way around, if those Jews didn't have their religion they would never have been placed into the concentration camps.

See Hitler was right it was the Jews fault.

I don't think I've ever heard of people doing good things for non-religious reasons, and then claiming it was for religious reasons, but I'm sure someone has done it at some time. I don't think it happens often enough to merit debate.

Donating money to a church to gain political favor from its members, but you tell them it's because you're so pious, not because you want to get into their political pants.

And neither, it seems, can the believers themselves.

Example: many believers cite an epiphany as their reason to believe. They just one day felt the presence of something greater, a revelation if you will.
We now know that such feelings are a form of epileptic seizure, and can even induce them with a machine. As such, citing an epiphany as a reason to believe is the same as citing any other known malfunction of the brain as a reason to believe. That seems to not make any sense - a brainmalfunction is not something to put your faith in.

Can you make it sensible ?
I'm surprised we haven't heard from any believers who find his attitude insulting.

After all, it's kind of presumptuous to insist that you completely understand another believer's perspective without even having spoken to them, simply because you also are a believer. Or to claim that you, an utter stranger, understand their beliefs better than, say, their atheist brother does. Or...well, you see where I'm going with this.

that is patently absurd, the grand children of Himmler may not share his beliefs, but in germany they sensibly prosecute individuals who do share himmler's beliefs now

I know that was not correct in what you were saying in regards to Himmler's grand children.

But my friend what about the other sentence I placed there? Or did you conveniently not see it

And neither, it seems, can the believers themselves.

Example: many believers cite an epiphany as their reason to believe. They just one day felt the presence of something greater, a revelation if you will.
We now know that such feelings are a form of epileptic seizure, and can even induce them with a machine. As such, citing an epiphany as a reason to believe is the same as citing any other known malfunction of the brain as a reason to believe. That seems to not make any sense - a brainmalfunction is not something to put your faith in.

Can you make it sensible ?

Personal witness and testimony is acceptable in a court of law to condemn a person of a crime. Why should it not be acceptable to justify a personal belief in religion?

I'm surprised we haven't heard from any believers who find his attitude insulting.

After all, it's kind of presumptuous to insist that you completely understand another believer's perspective without even having spoken to them, simply because you also are a believer. Or to claim that you, an utter stranger, understand their beliefs better than, say, their atheist brother does. Or...well, you see where I'm going with this.

Oh shush. If the Intelligent Design debate has thought us anything, it is that there are only two views in existence in this world: that everything is the result of natural selection and evolution or that the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism created everything with His noodly appendage.

Every other view can be ignored and dismissed. All believers are therefor exactly the same.

Example: many believers cite an epiphany as their reason to believe. They just one day felt the presence of something greater, a revelation if you will.
We now know that such feelings are a form of epileptic seizure, and can even induce them with a machine. As such, citing an epiphany as a reason to believe is the same as citing any other known malfunction of the brain as a reason to believe. That seems to not make any sense - a brainmalfunction is not something to put your faith in.

Can you make it sensible ?

As one of those people who has these experiences, and who has looked at the literature that attempts to correlate them, I find this theory to be lacking. Many of the hallucinations described by such people seem more like drug induced hallucinations rather than the experiences I have had. Moreover, they don't seem to make a distinction between numinous experiences and mystical ones, even though different parts of the brain are affected.

But, for the sake of argument, let us accept that many religious hallucinations are a product of brain malfunctions. That does not prove that all mystical revelations are a product of brain malfunctions.

agreed
And urgench If I didn't know better I'd say you were religious and trying to make atheist look like idiots. . . seriously dude your not helping us at all and your looking like an idiot. Quit while your ahead.

How dare you? i speak for myself, and do not speak for others. I do not share your foolish idea that religion is not responsible for it's own crimes so i wouldn't be seeking to help you in any way. I think for myself as should everyone, if it is idiotic to dissagree with your pernicious group think, religion corrollary then so be it.

Incidentally i have to go pick my sister up from the airport so i wont be posting any more in any case.

And neither, it seems, can the believers themselves.

Example: many believers cite an epiphany as their reason to believe. They just one day felt the presence of something greater, a revelation if you will.
We now know that such feelings are a form of epileptic seizure, and can even induce them with a machine. As such, citing an epiphany as a reason to believe is the same as citing any other known malfunction of the brain as a reason to believe. That seems to not make any sense - a brainmalfunction is not something to put your faith in.

Can you make it sensible ?

No I can't and that is the kernal of what I say. Until you can understand how one can put faith in the unreasonable then you can't understand the religious mind.

I belive in God despite it's unreasonbleness, can you explain that, or understand why I do?

Personal witness and testimony is acceptable in a court of law to condemn a person of a crime. Why should it not be acceptable to justify a personal belief in religion?

Because it is not admissable if it can be shown that the persons brain was not functioning correctly at the time. A testimony given about things that happened when you were drunk, high, tripping or having a seizure tend to be not admissable in court, even though those testimonies could be accurate.

Epiphanies fall in this category. They exist, they feel great and they prove exactly nothing.

But, for the sake of argument, let us accept that many religious hallucinations are a product of brain malfunctions. That does not prove that all mystical revelations are a product of brain malfunctions.

Correct. Nor does it prove that God is not behind those brainmalfunctions.

However, it does mean that believing because you had an epiphany is silly. If you had an epiphany and several other things it might become less silly.

Incidentally i have to go pick my sister up from the airport so i wont be posting any more in any case.

Aww, and we were just starting to get along too.

In any case I am off to bed I am tired and I need to get some sleep before the daylight breaks. So goodnight NSG have a pleasant time.

Until you can understand how one can put faith in the unreasonable then you can't understand the religious mind.

I belive in God despite it's unreasonbleness, can you explain that, or understand why I do?

Are you implying that an Atheist cannot understand anything that is not reasonable?

I'm surprised we haven't heard from any believers who find his attitude insulting.

After all, it's kind of presumptuous to insist that you completely understand another believer's perspective without even having spoken to them, simply because you also are a believer. Or to claim that you, an utter stranger, understand their beliefs better than, say, their atheist brother does. Or...well, you see where I'm going with this.

I'm not supprised that you refuse to talk to me but instead seem content to goad others into giving me a ribbing.

I never said any of that, if you belive that I did please show me, otherwise, I'll assume that is what you own mind added or inturprted my words to mean.

I know what I said, and I know what I meant by it, are you really trying to put words in my mouth?

No, no you have it the wrong way around, if those Jews didn't have their religion they would never have been placed into the concentration camps.

See Hitler was right it was the Jews fault.

The Holocaust is hardly an oportunity to make flippant and frankly offensive comments. If you could be bothered to read what i have actually said instead of putting your disgusting words in my mouth you would see i was making the point that religion is an leaven of hatred, European christian anti-semitism is the direct ancestor of german Nazi beliefs about the destruction of judaism. Go and read a history book.

Are you implying that an Atheist cannot understand anythin that is not reasonable?

No I am saying that in the matters of belife in God an athesist cannot understand.

Because it is not admissable if it can be shown that the persons brain was not functioning correctly at the time. A testimony given about things that happened when you were drunk, high, tripping or aving a seizure tend to be not admissable in court, even though those testimonies could be accurate.

Epiphanies fall in this category. They exist, they feel great and they prove exactly nothing.

a sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience.

That doesn't sound like a seizure to me, that sounds like understanding and incite that arrived quickly. Regardless, not all religious belief is based on an epiphany: some people come to believe over time.

Besides all that, you cannot possibly prove that every epiphany is the result of a malfunctioning brain, especially because at a certain point one can argue that it's a malfunction to disregard religion (and in fact once upon a time, they did argue that exact idea).

I'm not saying religion is false or true. But disregarding it on the basis of unreliable witnesses is as stupid as someone claiming that Holocaust never happened because of unreliable witnesses.

:) awesome . . .but wait can you repeat that again slowly "And frankly I don't think it's my imagination that there's no great being to follow, I think it's your imagination that there is one" . . .I dont . .. understand . . .:(

I'm not sure what it is you don't understand...
your original post: "I can Imagine a world with some great being to follow. Can you bear to imagine one without? Without that crutch to lean on?"

So you imagine a world with a great being. The great being is in your imagination. You're imagining things, and I'm not (imagining those things).

No I am saying that in the matters of belife in God an athesist cannot understand.

Dude, don't take this personally, but it's been bugging me for the last like, three pages: belief.

Dude, don't take this personally, but it's been bugging me for the last like, three pages: belief.

Heheh yeah sorry about that I can't speil, but shit you know what I meant huh!

Do really atheists hate religious people...? I mean, surely there are MANY atheists who hate religious people, like there are MANY religious people who hate atheists. But does it make it a general rule, appliable to everybody...?
Religion is a very dangerous thing. Religion is a bond between the natural world -where men live and from which they are a part- with some preter-natural, over-natural beings, values and principles. You may discuss, agree, contradict or make a pact with both-side concesions with another part which is on the same level as you are (a man with another man, a party with another party, a country with another country...). But you can't do that with a deity or his/her/its supposed comandments and revelations, because by definition, he/she/it is OVER Nature, over you. Deities don't make bargains, men do.

Therefore the inherent danger of religion and of religious people WHO think that what their particular belief is, MUST be the good for everybody else. Their conception of family, justice, happiness, evil, relationship, etc... IS THE ONLY ONE accepted by their deity. Are they going to bargain with him/her/it? No, they are going to accept it without discussion, and try to impose it on the rest of the world. For them it is not enoguh not to abort, they must ban abortion for EVERYBODY. For them, it is not enough not to marry some person of the same gender, they must ban EVERYBODY of doing it. For them, it is not enough to abstain from pig, wine or sex, they MUST IMPOSE on others the same abstentions...

Therefore, I don't hate religions neither religious people. But I keep a very attentive eye on them, I mistrust them and I am disposed to fight them if they try to impose their views on other people. In our Western civilization, it was necessary a long process of Enlightenment and Revolutions to put religious people in their private places and separate their institutions (churches) from the common public institutions (States). It was a long and hard way to separate concepts like "sin" from "crime". I am not disposed to have them mingled again. Not at all. I'll fight to avoid it. If you call it "hate", you're wrong. You may continue believing in the Church of the Holy Salad and pray to the Blessed Tomato Ghost. But never try to transform your religious beliefs into civil laws.

No I am saying that in the matters of belife in God an athesist cannot understand.

And the reason why an atheist cannot understand is?

Heheh yeah sorry about that I can't speil, but shit you know what I meant huh!

Spell, damnit, spell! And put a comma after "meant" and a question mark at the end.

And the reason why an atheist cannot understand is?

Well if you can answer this one question then perhaps I'll recant.

Why do I belive in God even though I know it is unreasonable to do so? If you don't know me, then replace me with somebody that you do know.

Well if you can answer this one question then perhaps I'll recant.

Why do I belive in God even though I know it is unreasonable to do so? If you don't know me, then replace me with somebody that you do know.

So you are asking me to apply reason to the unreasonable.. :rolleyes:

You believe in God because you choose to believe in God.

That doesn't sound like a seizure to me, that sounds like understanding and incite that arrived quickly.
The people with fancy medical degrees tend to disagree ;)

Regardless, not all religious belief is based on an epiphany: some people come to believe over time.

Of course. Which is why the epiphany was merely an example of the fact that many believers do not actually know what they believe or believe for silly/incorrect reasons. I never claimed that every single believer on this planet believes due to an epiphany.

I'm not saying religion is false or true. But disregarding it on the basis of unreliable witnesses is as stupid as someone claiming that Holocaust never happened because of unreliable witnesses.

Incorrect. If all witnesses and pieces of evidence concerning the holocaust were unreliable we should at the very least doubt the holocaust. There is no stupidity there.

Fortunately (or unfortunately when one considers what we are talking about) there exists plenty of reliable evidence that shows the atrocities really did occur.

Spell, damnit, spell! And put a comma after "meant" and a question mark at the end.

Sorry about the missing comma, my bad, but it was not a question, it was a statement.

So you are asking me to apply reason to the unreasonable.. :rolleyes:

You believe in God because you choose to believe in God.

Yeah of course but why?

The top ten reasons to be an atheist:

10. No religious rock music and their creepy crowds of eyes-closed sexless weirdos.
9. The freedom to enjoy reality for its own sake; the garden is beautiful enough without there having to be faeries dancing in it.
8. The ability to sleep in on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays.
7. No scripture to constantly refer to for lack of a better idea.
6. Guilt-free exposure to all of life's simple pleasures.
5. Rampant, magnificent sex -- with or without commitment; it's your choice.
4. No rejection of facts to support erroneous beliefs.
3. The ability to have theological discussions without offending anyone.
2. No creepy, bi-polar, voyeuristic, intrusive, and ultimately abusive sky parent to deal with.
1. Even if we're wrong, we won't be disappointed.

So... why would anyone want to be religious?

Spell, damnit, spell! And put a comma after "meant" and a question mark at the end.

Says the person who mixed up "incite" with "insight"? Come on.

Yeah of course but why?

Okay, because it makes you feel all warm and good inside maybe? Seriously I do not get the point of this question.

Okay, because it makes you feel all warm and good inside maybe? Seriously I do not get the point of this question.

Annnd that's the point!

I'm not sure what it is you don't understand...
your original post: "I can Imagine a world with some great being to follow. Can you bear to imagine one without? Without that crutch to lean on?"

So you imagine a world with a great being. The great being is in your imagination. You're imagining things, and I'm not (imagining those things).

rrrr I think you may have misunderstood. Peep claimed that atheists could not comprehend what he believed . . .I was just refuting that . .. I don't actually believe in god . . .

Annnd that's the point!

That believing in God makes you feel good inside? Or that I don't get the point of you asking me why you choose to believe in God?

rrrr I think you may have misunderstood. Peep claimed that atheists could not comprehend what he believed . . .I was just refuting that . .. I don't actually believe in god . . .

No Peeps, claimed that atheist cannot comprehend why we belive.

No I am saying that in the matters of belife in God an athesist cannot understand.

wait just a minute here.
I love cheese. I really love it. Without cheese, what's the point in living?
Say you don't love cheese, you think it's a disgusting food, but you adore eggplant and I think it's gross. Are you incapable of understanding my love for cheese? am I incapable of understanding your adoration of eggplant?

Aside from the fact that no person can fully understand the experience of another (and that goes for two atheists or two religious folks as well as one of each), the argument that people who have chosen not to believe in God CAN'T understand belief in God simply doesn't make sense to me. As many other posters have noted, lots of atheists have come to that position after rejecting their previous belief in God.

Isla Techno, you claim to be a devote Christian but you fail to recognize some basic teachings, it is not the way of the Jesus to throw out the holier than though rhetoric that you have been spouting off, and to this point I cite Matthew 6. In it Jesus calls for people like you to be subtle and gracious in your faith, and from the looks of it, you have been dangling your faith on the street corner with no real evidence of it in your intolerant posting.

Please, if you are going to claim Jesus as your savior, follow his teachings, otherwise, stop posting and giving the faith a bad name.

That believing in God makes you feel good inside? Or that I don't get the point of you asking me why you choose to believe in God?

That you don't get the point is the point.

Yes it's true that my faith makes me feel happy, and sometimes warm inside, but none of these are the reasons for my faith.

Simply put I belive in God because Gods existance is undeniably true, I belive because it is what I belive that God wishes me to do.

Now do you understand?

It is no more true to say all atheists hate religious people than to say all priests are pedophiles, or other such generalizations about religious people.

Maybe atheists don't all hate religion. Maybe its just you.

Harsh. I'm not saying unfair, but defintietly harsh.

;)

I deny that god exists. Therefore his existence is not undeniably true.

and thats about enough . .. This is just getting ridiculous. .. talk bout rhetoric.

That you don't get the point is the point.

Yes it's true that my faith makes me feel happy, and sometimes warm inside, but none of these are the reasons for my faith.

Simply put I belive in God because Gods existance is undeniably true, I belive because it is what I belive that God wishes me to do.

Now do you understand?

Yeah I do understand, but I fail to see how an atheist could not understand such a simple notion just because he/she is an atheist. ;)

I considered atheism, but realized things are too complex and perfect, that a God must be involved. I do have a problem with religion because it prevents some people from asking questions, and provides a crutch for others. And don't get me started on the 'i believe in God/Allah because I don't want to go to hell'. I guess my problem is less with religion then with ignorance.

:rolleyes:Atheist may appear to hate religious people, because atheists are mentally quite insecure and are self-centred.

As a result, they are quite jealous of religious people, and yet are quite content with people like themselves.

Finally, they are too lazy to learn about people and their faith and/ or are in denial, instead, they think their belief system is 'best' -escapists they are.

They're sad really!:(

I like you. :)

You're funny.

I my experience, when atheists are young, they can exhibit antagonism toward religion because they see it everywhere and are bombarded by friends, family and just plain people with assumptions that everyone believes the same way -- or should. I grew from seeking confrontation with believers to only confronting them when confronted, to just letting them be.

Why? Well, just like the saying "there's no arguing with crazy", there's also no arguing with a deeply ingrained faith. I began to understand that most people take some kind of comfort in religion as a constant in their lives. Who am I, as someone who doesn't take that kind of comfort to deny it to others by acting like a prick whenever the subject comes up?

The line for me now is only drawn when those who believe start taking actions designed to make laws or policies for everyone based solely on what they believe -- as if we were all somehow supposed to believe the same thing.

I don't hate religious people, and never really did. When I was young, I failed to take others' points of view into account. Now that I do, I do not seek confrontation, and only speak out when religious assumptions infringe upon others' rights or in some other way try to get an unhealthy mob mentality going. I believe in karma, so the more benefit of the doubt I can give, the more will be returned.

I think what needs to be addressed here is the definition of "hate" as those who feel themselves "persecuted" perceive it. The sand-buried devout are often genuinely unaware of the effects their actions, assumptions and words can have on those who do not share their beliefs. To them, it's only natural that everyone thinks like they do. But not all those who have faith are that religious. I have met many people of deep and abiding faith who wouldn't proselytize for all the gold in the Vatican.

So I guess my point is that sweeping generalizations are not usually beneficial to either the maker or the generalized. Not all religious people are annoying, and neither are all atheists. You will know who is whom by sitting back, watching, and listening. Make your decisions about how best to proceed only after you've got enough information.

[/sermon]

<snip>
I'm a non-hetero atheist childless female scientist of gypsy descent who likes to fuck outside the sanctity of marriage. The human mind is not able to grasp the enormity of the number of times I would have been burnt as a witch.
<snip>


I'm so tempted to sig this...

I'm certainly not in any way discomforted by the fact that others dissagree with me that was not my point, my point was i'm already superior to persons of religion because i'm not responsible for the suffering of millions of people and that i will dispute with them in words and could not justify murdering or persecuting them on the basis of my beliefs while they could.

This attitude right here is the reason I've been refraining from dueling with this individual. Such a person is either

A)Completely convinced of this nonsense or
B)Is so insecure and desperate to believe it

that no amount of reason is going to make a single iota of difference here.

Is an apprentice anything like an intern? Because I could really use somebody to fetch me coffee and do my research for me while I post on NSG all day.

Fixed. :tongue:

I'm surprised we haven't heard from any believers who find his attitude insulting.

After all, it's kind of presumptuous to insist that you completely understand another believer's perspective without even having spoken to them, simply because you also are a believer. Or to claim that you, an utter stranger, understand their beliefs better than, say, their atheist brother does. Or...well, you see where I'm going with this.

I didn't reply because, similar to Urgench, such a person has already completely made up their mind and to respond would only draw more attention to them. It is an insulting attitude, and if I pointed to a study somewhere that produced a result that I could somehow interpret as a proof of God's existence people would be all over me like white on rice, justifiably, because as someone else here pointed out, proof that a similar experience can SOMETIMES be attributable to lab conditions is not proof that it is always due to mundane sources any more than I could prove the reverse.

Maybe my skin is just too thick after a couple years on here to be much phased by such nonsense anymore ;)

Isla Techno, you claim to be a devote Christian but you fail to recognize some basic teachings, it is not the way of the Jesus to throw out the holier than though rhetoric that you have been spouting off, and to this point I cite Matthew 6. In it Jesus calls for people like you to be subtle and gracious in your faith, and from the looks of it, you have been dangling your faith on the street corner with no real evidence of it in your intolerant posting.

Please, if you are going to claim Jesus as your savior, follow his teachings, otherwise, stop posting and giving the faith a bad name.

Judge not, lest ye yourself be judged?

Mote, meet plank.

Judge not, lest ye yourself be judged?

Mote, meet plank.

I am just beginning to grow weary (here and in the real world) of those who claim to know the word of god and make it up as they go along without a basis in the Good Book.

I am just beginning to grow weary (here and in the real world) of those who claim to know the word of god and make it up as they go along without a basis in the Good Book.

Don't even get me started...

god now were into sci fi . .. oh boy

as too the rest . . .Life is too perfect? whats that about?????
and how exactly is the existence of god indisputable. Even if there is a god which one or ones? Can anybody prove god exists?

And finally. Religious people aren't dumb or credulous just because they are religious nor are Atheists entirely incapable of understanding why/how a theist believes nor of morals despite the fact that they don't get them from a god. Sweeping generalizations are idiotic no matter who's making them.

I see. It has to do with your limited definition of what a theist is. I would think that valung independence over security is what separates the curious mind from the complacent one. One can be a curious and inquisitive theist.

I believe in a deity because it seems to be the most rational explanation for the experiences I have observed.

Hardly a limited definition of what a theist is. I explicitly invoked two distinct concepts of theist in my response. There are many more.

However I do not agree with you that valuing independence over security has anything to do with the difference between o curious and complacent mind. One can be thoroughly curious and inquisitive and still prefer to be able to delegate responsibility to others, which is essentially what security is about.

One can also be complacent but at the same time accept full responsibility.

The use of an external, unobserved, unverifiable, self aware, omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent entity to explain your experiences may be convenient, but it is hardly rational. It would be more rational to simply accept that you can not explain your experiences with your current knowledge. That is unless rational has a different meaning for you of course.

I am just beginning to grow weary (here and in the real world) of those who claim to know the word of god and make it up as they go along without a basis in the Good Book.

which book? Who's version which god? What are you talking about?

which book? Who's version which god? What the hell are you talking about?

The Holy Bible.

The one that Isla Techno claims as his savior, Jesus Christ.

Please see the rest of the thread.

Don't even get me started...

Wow, I think this is the first thread that we may agree in.

which book? Who's version which god? What the hell are you talking about?
Why the Necronomicron and Cthulhu, duh!!

Wow, I think this is the first thread that we may agree in.

Had to happen sooner or later ;)

Had to happen sooner or later ;)

True. :fluffle:s

Why the Necronomicron and Cthulhu, duh!!

of course . . .I shoulda guessed!

I am just beginning to grow weary (here and in the real world) of those who claim to know the word of god and make it up as they go along without a basis in the Good Book.

Then your responsibility, as I've read it, is to forgive them their sins, as yours are forgiven, right? You no more have the corner on Truth than anyone else. It's that presumption that gets the atheists riled up.

I think to truely understand why a person, any person belives in God, one must have the same belife. If you do not have such a belife then you do not truely understand.

I can understand for example why people are racist, but not truely. It is truer to say that I can rationalise this belife structure so that it kinda makes sense to me.

That isn't truely understanding it though is it, it is merley working that belief into a way that I can try to understand.

So I can understand it, I can't rationalise it, it still makes no sense to me. This is what I am talking about.

How can you understand my belife in God, not the belife it's self, but why I believe as I do, to you it makes no sense.

Fair enough, but by the same token you likewise have no access to the true belief structure of the atheist. In this sense you no more understand the atheist than the atheist understands you.

You can imagine what it might be like to not believe in a God, but that is as valid as imagining what it was like to be a Roman centurion. Pure imagination based on some general outlines and some factual knowledge. Nothing guarantees that what you imagine is anywhere even close to what it is really like.

Not all Atheists 'hate' religious people. It is the forceful and often intolerant ones that do. The reason the Atheists on the message boards are so 'hateful' is that they are the ones who have very strong opinions on religion. Your point about 'all' Atheists hating religion is as intolerant as claiming that 'all' religious people hate atheists because a bunch of fundamentalist preachers do

As one of those people who has these experiences, and who has looked at the literature that attempts to correlate them, I find this theory to be lacking. Many of the hallucinations described by such people seem more like drug induced hallucinations rather than the experiences I have had. Moreover, they don't seem to make a distinction between numinous experiences and mystical ones, even though different parts of the brain are affected.

But, for the sake of argument, let us accept that many religious hallucinations are a product of brain malfunctions. That does not prove that all mystical revelations are a product of brain malfunctions.
You made a leap in there that isn't necessary.

So what if "religious experiences" are neurologically "seizures"?

That doesn't necessarily mean that they are "malfunctions." Couldn't it be that this is simply the physical manifestation of God contacting humans? I mean, we know there's a burst of activity in the brain when a human receives communication from another human, so why is it so nutty to think that our brains might show a massive burst of activity if a super-powerful being communicated with us?

Not that I'm saying I think this is the case, necessarily, I'm just saying that you don't have to assume that this kind of work is an insult to religious belief.

Talkin' 'bout Necronomicon:

http://www.fredvanlente.com/cthulhutract/pages/index.html

http://www.geocities.com/tribhis/cthulhutract.html

I bet most of ya already know that, but jolly good it is.

You belive it to be condesending, but it is not. You can of course have knowledge on what we belive, you can of course study what we study, you cannot unless you belive yourself, comprehend any reasons why we belive as we do.

When we try to explain it, you don't get it, you find it unreasonble, illogical, and you fail to understand. Not condesending, just fact.

"When you understand why you do not believe in other gods, then you will understand why I don't believe in yours."

-- Stephen F. Roberts

Meditate on it.

You made a leap in there that isn't necessary.

So what if "religious experiences" are neurologically "seizures"?

That doesn't necessarily mean that they are "malfunctions." Couldn't it be that this is simply the physical manifestation of God contacting humans? I mean, we know there's a burst of activity in the brain when a human receives communication from another human, so why is it so nutty to think that our brains might show a massive burst of activity if a super-powerful being communicated with us?

Not that I'm saying I think this is the case, necessarily, I'm just saying that you don't have to assume that this kind of work is an insult to religious belief.

This makes sense...

...no... mustn't... agree... with... Bottle... must.....

BURN THE WITCH! BURN THE HERETIC!

Actually no... don't do that. She quotes Princess Bride. :D

So you are asking me to apply reason to the unreasonable.. :rolleyes:

You believe in God because you choose to believe in God.
It's not much of a stumper, really, is it?

I know exactly why my partner used to believe in God, at least as much as I can know why anybody thinks anything, because we've talked about it at great length.

I suppose it's possible he's lying, but that's true of absolutely any subject, and no believer is going to be any better equipped to recognize that than I am.

I know why my maybe-inlaws believe in God, again because we've talked about it at great length. I'd say I understand why they believe in God far better than I understand why they like veal so damn much.

I don't find it any harder to understand why a person believes in God than it is to understand why they prefer a certain kind of music, or why they are inspired by a particular view of the ocean, or why their secret fantasy is to be a trapeze artist. Just because I don't share a person's feelings doesn't mean I can't empathize and understand where they're coming from...IF I trouble myself to get to know them.

Furthermore, I don't automatically understand somebody's feelings just because I share their interests. I love videogames, but that doesn't mean I magically understand all videogame lovers everywhere. Indeed, I've found that I profoundly disagree with many videogame enthusiasts, and even that we like videogames for entirely OPPOSITE reasons!

This is one of the reasons I think it's so silly to claim that one believer is going to be better at understanding another believer simply because they both believe in God.

"When you understand why you do not believe in other gods, then you will understand why I don't believe in yours."

-- Stephen F. Roberts

Meditate on it.

This comment always strikes me as being kind of like, "When you understand why you don't like cauliflower, then you will understand why I don't like broccoli."

This makes sense...

...no... mustn't... agree... with... Bottle... must.....

BURN THE WITCH! BURN THE HERETIC!

I have this fabulous image of a robot wearing a priest's collar, going:

*Sputter* *Fizzle* *Spark*

DOES! NOT! COMPUTE!

:D

Actually no... don't do that. She quotes Princess Bride. :D
Lo, and the people were brought together in harmony at last, saying unto each other, "Let us rejoice and tweasure our wuv, tru wuv, foweva and eva..."

This comment always strikes me as being kind of like, "When you understand why you don't like cauliflower, then you will understand why I don't like broccoli."
Well, it's closer to, "When you understand why you don't like cauliflower, then you will understand why I don't like cauliflower AND broccoli."

I like to dwell more on the things we have in common. For instance, every believer on this forum shares with me the lack of belief in an infinite number of faiths and gods!

*humming* 'cmon people now, smile on your brother...*hum*

No I am saying that in the matters of belife in God an athesist cannot understand.

WHat about Atheists that were once theists?

Wouldn't they be even better qualified than 'mere' theists?

I have this fabulous image of a robot wearing a priest's collar, going:

*Sputter* *Fizzle* *Spark*

DOES! NOT! COMPUTE!

:D


And somehow THAT image sounds like exactly the sort of thing I'd expect to find in one of the Dark Tower books by Stephen King...

(Anyone who has read them will understand ;) )


Lo, and the people were brought together in harmony at last, saying unto each other, "Let us rejoice and tweasure our wuv, tru wuv, foweva and eva..."

1. And so it came to pass that from that day forward, whenever two opponents did meet one another,
2. verily to do battle and duel, on the forums and on the threads
3. and in the posts and the quotes
4. yea, even unto the rebuttals and the premises
5. verily did they meet one to another, after having climbed the Cliffs of Insanity
6. yea, by rope did they climb, and they did sit together and talk of many things
7. of 6 fingered men, of swords and of revenge
8. yea even of dead fathers did they speak
9. and together did they utter the litany of battle, even unto one another did they speak it.
10. and they spake unto each other using these words:
11. Hello, My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
12. And there was much rejoicing.

Well, it's closer to, "When you understand why you don't like cauliflower, then you will understand why I don't like cauliflower AND broccoli."

I like to dwell more on the things we have in common. For instance, every believer on this forum shares with me the lack of belief in an infinite number of faiths and gods!

*humming* 'cmon people now, smile on your brother...*hum*

Oh I believe in an infinite number of faiths and gods - well I would if the universe were either infinite or eternal. That is not to say that I believe that any of these gods are real. The faiths obviously can be, as they have very real effects on the followers of the faiths. Yes there are definitely faiths out there.

Haha, mate only having a bit of fun with ya.

I figured.

:hail:Details... DETAILS!!! :hail:

I had an interesting thought...

You know how, at least with Christians, there is this insatiable urge to "save" the atheist and other "non-believers" from hell. I have to wonder, don't these Christians want heaven all to themselves? After all, the earth is getting crowded. Wouldn't they rather have a nice little place where there are fewer people?

This comment always strikes me as being kind of like, "When you understand why you don't like cauliflower, then you will understand why I don't like broccoli."

Isn't it more accurately, "When you understand why you don't like cauliflower, then you will understand why I don't like cauliflower"?
Belief in a deity is belief in a deity, no matter which deity it is.
Lack of belief in *any* deity, atheism, is logically similar to lack of belief in a specific deity (God, say, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

I don't hate religious peoples, some of them are even my friends.

But I despise religion.

It's not because a tool was usefull for the society long time ago that it still need to be used...I mean, is there any army in the world who still use spears and swords for standard combat operations ?

Well, it's quite the same with religion and mass control.

This comment always strikes me as being kind of like, "When you understand why you don't like cauliflower, then you will understand why I don't like broccoli."

It's that whole 'we're all atheists... I'm just more inclusive than you' concept. But, I see what you mean. :)

I figured.

:hail:Details... DETAILS!!! :hail:

I had an interesting thought...

You know how, at least with Christians, there is this insatiable urge to "save" the atheist and other "non-believers" from hell. I have to wonder, don't these Christians want heaven all to themselves? After all, the earth is getting crowded. Wouldn't they rather have a nice little place where there are fewer people?
Heaven, as I understand it, is supposed to be perfect, so one assumes that crowding wouldn't be an issue.

What I find somewhat more surprising is the number of atheists who insist that religion is the opiate of the masses...and then try to talk religious people OUT of being religious.

I mean, if religion keeps people docile and doped up, then that's less competition for you to have to worry about.

If religion actually worked like an opiate, I doubt many atheists would bitch about religiosity. Usually we get bitchiest when religion is working more like a bad crank binge.

1. And so it came to pass that from that day forward, whenever two opponents did meet one another,
2. verily to do battle and duel, on the forums and on the threads
3. and in the posts and the quotes
4. yea, even unto the rebuttals and the premises
5. verily did they meet one to another, after having climbed the Cliffs of Insanity
6. yea, by rope did they climb, and they did sit together and talk of many things
7. of 6 fingered men, of swords and of revenge
8. yea even of dead fathers did they speak
9. and together did they utter the litany of battle, even unto one another did they speak it.
10. and they spake unto each other using these words:
11. Hello, My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
12. And there was much rejoicing.

On this, if nothing else, we must agree. :)

Heaven, as I understand it, is supposed to be perfect, so one assumes that crowding wouldn't be an issue.

What I find somewhat more surprising is the number of atheists who insist that religion is the opiate of the masses...and then try to talk religious people OUT of being religious.

I mean, if religion keeps people docile and doped up, then that's less competition for you to have to worry about.

If religion actually worked like an opiate, I doubt many atheists would bitch about religiosity. Usually we get bitchiest when religion is working more like a bad crank binge.

Perhaps some atheists wants to help, or perhaps some of them don't see the world as a mass battle everyone against everyone style ?

Or perhaps because religious peoples keep doing ultra-shit with the world ?

Or perhaps religion is used in most of the countries as an effective tool for stopping peoples accessing their basic rights ?

I wonder...

On this, if nothing else, we must agree. :)

Roger that. :wink:

Well, it's closer to, "When you understand why you don't like cauliflower, then you will understand why I don't like cauliflower AND broccoli."

There's always another analogy!! hehe

I like to dwell more on the things we have in common. For instance, every believer on this forum shares with me the lack of belief in an infinite number of faiths and gods!

*humming* 'cmon people now, smile on your brother...*hum*

hehe. Maybe. Of course, there is also the viewpoint that all "gods" are the same - that human beings simply perceive them differently.

Isn't it more accurately, "When you understand why you don't like cauliflower, then you will understand why I don't like cauliflower"?

Not really. I suppose it might be something like, "When you understand why you don't like cauliflower, then you'll understand why I don't like vegetables."

Belief in a deity is belief in a deity, no matter which deity it is.

Yes. And liking a vegetable is liking a vegetable, no matter what vegetable it is. But there are different flavors...

Lack of belief in *any* deity, atheism, is logically similar to lack of belief in a specific deity (God, say, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

That all depends on the personal experiences of the person with the lack of belief.

Perhaps some atheists wants to help, or perhaps some of them don't see the world as a mass battle everyone against everyone style ?

Now you're talking crazy.


Or perhaps because religious peoples keep doing ultra-shit with the world ?

Or perhaps religion is used in most of the countries as an effective tool for stopping peoples accessing their basic rights ?

I wonder...
Ugh, cynicism.

Today, I would rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and right.

Not really. I suppose it might be something like, "When you understand why you don't like cauliflower, then you'll understand why I don't like vegetables."

You're right. That's a better analogy than mine.


That all depends on the personal experiences of the person with the lack of belief.
How are personal experiences relevant to logical similarity? Personal experiences may be relevant to lack of belief in a specific deity, but that in no way negates the logical similarity between lack of belief in a specific deity and lack of belief in all deities.

How are personal experiences relevant to logical similarity? Personal experiences may be relevant to lack of belief in a specific deity, but that in no way negates the logical similarity between lack of belief in a specific deity and lack of belief in all deities.

I'm not sure how you're looking at it.

If an atheist has no experiences that would lead them to believe in a deity, while a theist has no experiences to lead them to believe in a particular deity, the logical process is similar.

But if the point you were making was that a person who can logically reject one idea of a deity should also logically reject all such ideas, I'd have to disagree. There's too much play for personal experiences that differ.

Correct. Nor does it prove that God is not behind those brainmalfunctions.

However, it does mean that believing because you had an epiphany is silly. If you had an epiphany and several other things it might become less silly.

Why is it silly? I don't understand why you think that basing one's beliefs on experiences is silly. Do you think all empirical observation is silly, or just those experiences that you cannot explain?

Hardly a limited definition of what a theist is. I explicitly invoked two distinct concepts of theist in my response. There are many more.

However I do not agree with you that valuing independence over security has anything to do with the difference between o curious and complacent mind. One can be thoroughly curious and inquisitive and still prefer to be able to delegate responsibility to others, which is essentially what security is about.

One can also be complacent but at the same time accept full responsibility.

The use of an external, unobserved, unverifiable, self aware, omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent entity to explain your experiences may be convenient, but it is hardly rational. It would be more rational to simply accept that you can not explain your experiences with your current knowledge. That is unless rational has a different meaning for you of course.

I wonder what kind of a theist you think I am. I mean, other than one who values security over independence.

I guess you mean that I want to delegate responsibility to others.

Whatever. You seem to have a lot of opinions about me and other theists like me.

I'm going to assume that you think I believe in an external, unobserved, unverifiable, self aware, omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent entity.

So far, there is not a single thing in all of this that accurately describes me.

I think your characterisation of theists and atheists is wrong.

You made a leap in there that isn't necessary.

So what if "religious experiences" are neurologically "seizures"?

That doesn't necessarily mean that they are "malfunctions." Couldn't it be that this is simply the physical manifestation of God contacting humans? I mean, we know there's a burst of activity in the brain when a human receives communication from another human, so why is it so nutty to think that our brains might show a massive burst of activity if a super-powerful being communicated with us?

Not that I'm saying I think this is the case, necessarily, I'm just saying that you don't have to assume that this kind of work is an insult to religious belief.

This is the idea of secondary causes. The idea that god causes the conditions that causes the brain to 'malfunction' that causes the experience. I'm not so sure I believe this either. But it has a logic to it. When I look at Sinuhue, I get a mental charge in my brain that is associated with erotic joy. But while the neurological processes did cause the feeling, we would never claim that the feeling didn't exist, nor would it suggest that Sinuhue, the inspiration for the feeling, does not exist.

I'm not sure how you're looking at it.

If an atheist has no experiences that would lead them to believe in a deity, while a theist has no experiences to lead them to believe in a particular deity, the logical process is similar.

But if the point you were making was that a person who can logically reject one idea of a deity should also logically reject all such ideas, I'd have to disagree. There's too much play for personal experiences that differ.

I'm not saying they should, I'm saying they could. I wouldn't presume to say what any person should do with respect to their spiritual life. What I'm saying is that the experience of rejecting The Flying Spaghetti Monster as the ultimate source of moral authority is logically similar to rejecting the God of Christian theology or the Mohammed of Islamic theology. Or rejecting ALL deities as the ultimate source of moral authority.

I wonder what kind of a theist you think I am. I mean, other than one who values security over independence.

I guess you mean that I want to delegate responsibility to others.

Whatever. You seem to have a lot of opinions about me and other theists like me.

I'm going to assume that you think I believe in an external, unobserved, unverifiable, self aware, omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent entity.

So far, there is not a single thing in all of this that accurately describes me.

I think your characterisation of theists and atheists is wrong.


I have no idea what type of theist you are, except that
1. you are probably human,
2. You write and read English
3. You have some means of transmitting your ideas onto this forum.

I am also going to assume that you believe in some kind of supernatural entity, the existence of which explains those observations that you can not otherwise explain.

If this is not the case then either
a. you are using theist in a very singular manner
or
b. you are a liar.

My characterisation of you is based on the above items - in what respect is it wrong?

My characterisation of myself is 100% accurate - as is yours of yourself. I am an atheist so my characterisation of an atheist as being like myself is also 100% accurate. You may quibble with my view of theists, but not with my view of atheists (specifically of myself).

I figured.

:hail:Details... DETAILS!!! :hail:

I had an interesting thought...

You know how, at least with Christians, there is this insatiable urge to "save" the atheist and other "non-believers" from hell. I have to wonder, don't these Christians want heaven all to themselves? After all, the earth is getting crowded. Wouldn't they rather have a nice little place where there are fewer people?

Christians who read this topic, please don't try to "save" me. Jehovah fears me so much he has a severe panic attack whenever he thinks of me, so having me in heaven would cause chaos. >_>

I am an atheist so my characterisation of an atheist as being like myself is also 100% accurate. You may quibble with my view of theists, but not with my view of atheists (specifically of myself).

Isn't that an inductive fallacy? i.e.
Premise: Having just arrived in Ohio, I saw a white squirrel. (I am an atheist, and my view of myself is accurate)
Conclusion: All Ohio Squirrels are white. (Therefore, my view of all atheists is accurate)
Fallacy: While there are many, many squirrels in Ohio, the white ones are very rare. (The premise that your view of yourself, an atheist, implies that all atheists are like yourself does not provide enough support for your conclusion that no one can quibble with your view of atheists)

I have no idea what type of theist you are, except that
1. you are probably human,
2. You write and read English
3. You have some means of transmitting your ideas onto this forum.

I am also going to assume that you believe in some kind of supernatural entity, the existence of which explains those observations that you can not otherwise explain.

If this is not the case then either
a. you are using theist in a very singular manner
or
b. you are a liar.

My characterisation of you is based on the above items - in what respect is it wrong?

My characterisation of myself is 100% accurate - as is yours of yourself. I am an atheist so my characterisation of an atheist as being like myself is also 100% accurate. You may quibble with my view of theists, but not with my view of atheists (specifically of myself).

I'm not going to go back and piece together our whole dialogue. Suffice it to say that I do not value security over independence.

It's true that you have no idea of what kind of a theist I am. This is why I wondered why you could make such generalisations about theists. Fortunately, this post of yours that I am replying to seems to have been stripped of such generalisations. Now we can begin the discussion.

You seem to be associating a fondness for security (i.e. a willingness to delegate responsibility) to those theists who believe in a god that is more or less like the Judeo-Christian model. Am I correct? While this belief of yours does have some logic, counter-examples such as liberation theology and the prevalence of individual rights in predominantly Christian nations seems to suggest otherwise.

Also, theists such as myself, who have a radically different concept of god from the one you described, would not fit into your conception of 'security loving' theists at all, would we?

Isn't that an inductive fallacy? i.e.
Premise: Having just arrived in Ohio, I saw a white squirrel. (I am an atheist, and my view of myself is accurate)
Conclusion: All Ohio Squirrels are white. (Therefore, my view of all atheists is accurate)
Fallacy: While there are many, many squirrels in Ohio, the white ones are very rare. (The premise that your view of yourself, an atheist, implies that all atheists are like yourself does not provide enough support for your conclusion that no one can quibble with your view of atheists)

It would be were I to be claiming that all atheists are like me. I have not claimed this, nor would I.

What I do claim is that at least some atheists are like me. Which logically is the same as not all atheists are unlike me.

Having seen the white Ohio squirrel I can justifiably claim (if my perception is to be taken as grounds for justifiable belief) that not all Ohio squirrels are not white. :tongue:

I'm not going to go back and piece together our whole dialogue. Suffice it to say that I do not value security over independence.

It's true that you have no idea of what kind of a theist I am. This is why I wondered why you could make such generalisations about theists. Fortunately, this post of yours that I am replying to seems to have been stripped of such generalisations. Now we can begin the discussion.

You seem to be associating a fondness for security (i.e. a willingness to delegate responsibility) to those theists who believe in a god that is more or less like the Judeo-Christian model. Am I correct? While this belief of yours does have some logic, counter-examples such as liberation theology and the prevalence of individual rights in predominantly Christian nations seems to suggest otherwise.

Also, theists such as myself, who have a radically different concept of god from the one you described, would not fit into your conception of 'security loving' theists at all, would we?

Could you please expound on your radically different conception of God.

Liberation theology makes the individual responsible to God directly, as such it is a step toward independence, however it still places God as the fountainhead of all values and morals. With those values and morals being interpreted and explained by the clericy. It promises independence but delivers servitude to values imposed from outside, a false independence if there ever were one. (I live in Brazil - I have seen all too well the effects of liberation theology).

Individual rights are irrelevant to this discussion. Whether you desire security or independence you still desire the rights to be yourself.

Yes I am addressing primarily the Judeo-Christian model, with this extended of course to cover Islam. I do not address these views to Buddhist or Zen like religions, but these are, from my very limited knowledge of them, more philosophies than religions.

Pleas note that I am not criticising in any way the desire for security, I am simply noting that the deep motivations that prompt individuals to follow a judeo-christian religion or an atheist path appear to me to be related to these fundamental differences in personality.

"Well guess what? I'm not. I believe in God as the creator of our universe. I believe he sent Jesus Christ as his only son to save our sorry skins from eternal damnation. So try going to church a few times and see what good you hate."

This is known as "answering your own question".

This is a historic event, I agree with Grave n idle.

This view of God pretty much sums up as:

1. God creates Man, does sucky job, as not one lives up to expectations.
2. God is so totally disgusted in every last one of his creations that he sentences all to eternal torture.
3. God decides to give them an out: create/incarnate himself as the one perfect being, then torture HIM to death. After that, it will be Okay to overlook the flaws in the Humans, right?

I don't buy it. I hold God to a higher ethical standard. If He says I'm not good enough for Heaven, well then, He's right, I'm not- He isthe Omniscient one, after all. And If I am judged undeserving, I am unwilling to accept the torture and execution of an innocent bystander in my place. That would be far more abominable than anything I have ever done. The only decent, honorable, ethical thing to do would be to accept what He thinks I deserve.

Instead, I hold to this: We are the creations of God. Our skins are not "sorry". In all of the universe that we have seen thus far, we are the only sentient, self-aware, abstract symbolic thinking beings that exist. If not unique in God's universe, then, we are exceedingly rare, and to so casually dismiss one of His most remarkable creations as "sorry" is a callous and near-blasphemous act. We are what we are meant to be, some of us better, some of us worse, and God allowed us to Evolve into thinking creatures for a reason.

My characterisation of myself is 100% accurate - as is yours of yourself. I am an atheist so my characterisation of an atheist as being like myself is also 100% accurate. You may quibble with my view of theists, but not with my view of atheists (specifically of myself).

Actually, I've noticed people almost never have an accurate characterization of themselves, only that which they aspire to be.

nice to see we all have so much free time to make this thread so large in so little time :)

"Well guess what? I'm not. I believe in God as the creator of our universe. I believe he sent Jesus Christ as his only son to save our sorry skins from eternal damnation. So try going to church a few times and see what good you hate."



This is a historic event, I agree with Grave n idle.

This view of God pretty much sums up as:

1. God creates Man, does sucky job, as not one lives up to expectations.
2. God is so totally disgusted in every last one of his creations that he sentences all to eternal torture.
3. God decides to give them an out: create/incarnate himself as the one perfect being, then torture HIM to death. After that, it will be Okay to overlook the flaws in the Humans, right?

I don't buy it. I hold God to a higher ethical standard. If He says I'm not good enough for Heaven, well then, He's right, I'm not- He isthe Omniscient one, after all. And If I am judged undeserving, I am unwilling to accept the torture and execution of an innocent bystander in my place. That would be far more abominable than anything I have ever done. The only decent, honorable, ethical thing to do would be to accept what He thinks I deserve.

Instead, I hold to this: We are the creations of God. Our skins are not "sorry". In all of the universe that we have seen thus far, we are the only sentient, self-aware, abstract symbolic thinking beings that exist. If not unique in God's universe, then, we are exceedingly rare, and to so casually dismiss one of His most remarkable creations as "sorry" is a callous and near-blasphemous act. We are what we are meant to be, some of us better, some of us worse, and God allowed us to Evolve into thinking creatures for a reason.

Which is precisely what makes the Calvinist philosophy unviable, IMHO.

Heaven, as I understand it, is supposed to be perfect, so one assumes that crowding wouldn't be an issue.

What I find somewhat more surprising is the number of atheists who insist that religion is the opiate of the masses...and then try to talk religious people OUT of being religious.

I mean, if religion keeps people docile and doped up, then that's less competition for you to have to worry about.

If religion actually worked like an opiate, I doubt many atheists would bitch about religiosity. Usually we get bitchiest when religion is working more like a bad crank binge.

Or a virus -- which is the problem with the docility argument. It's all well and good until someone with an ulterior motive decides to steer the docile flock into abridging the rights of any number of those not in the same flock.

BTW, the better quote (IMO) regarding atheism, and I can't remember who penned it, is this one: "We're both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you."

I figured.

:hail:Details... DETAILS!!! :hail:

I had an interesting thought...

You know how, at least with Christians, there is this insatiable urge to "save" the atheist and other "non-believers" from hell. I have to wonder, don't these Christians want heaven all to themselves? After all, the earth is getting crowded. Wouldn't they rather have a nice little place where there are fewer people?

This would be selfish and unchristian, after all, heaven is for those who care about others. If christians preach, it is because they (we...) believe they are doing good to the other person. Sure, one might preach out of a sense of superiority from believing he's right and the other is wrong, but these aren't (or shouldn't be) the majority.

(And actually, that would be no different from an atheist "preaching" atheism to the christian. He might genuinely care for what the christian believes[unlikely if not a friend/family], or he might just be reaffirming his supposed rightful beliefs to the other. In other words, being a bigot just as a christian can be.)


Or a virus -- which is the problem with the docility argument. It's all well and good until someone with an ulterior motive decides to steer the docile flock into abridging the rights of any number of those not in the same flock.
God gave everyone free will for them to choose their own path. If some pull their strings in politics, they're violating this, and thus are wrong.

Says the person who mixed up "incite" with "insight"? Come on.

I'm on Hydrocodone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocodone), Celebrex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrex), Amoxicillin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoxicillin), and Zyrtec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyrtec) right now (wisdom teeth FTW). Cut me some slack.

The people with fancy medical degrees tend to disagree ;)

People or person?

Of course. Which is why the epiphany was merely an example of the fact that many believers do not actually know what they believe or believe for silly/incorrect reasons. I never claimed that every single believer on this planet believes due to an epiphany.

People have their own reasons for believing in God or gods, just as you have your own reason for not believing.

For perspective, think of how obvious to you it is that no god exists: now imagine if it were that obvious that a god did exist.

Incorrect. If all witnesses and pieces of evidence concerning the holocaust were unreliable we should at the very least doubt the holocaust. There is no stupidity there.

You cannot possibly hope to show that every person who believes in God or gods is unreliable.

Fortunately (or unfortunately when one considers what we are talking about) there exists plenty of reliable evidence that shows the atrocities really did occur.

Did you witness it? No, I'm not a Holocaust denier, but I am making a point: you don't know. You trust the reliability of those that did witness it. Theists trust the reliability of their own senses and the countless others that believe in a god.

The top ten reasons to be an atheist:

10. No religious rock music and their creepy crowds of closed-eyed, sexless weirdos.
9. The freedom to enjoy reality for its own sake; the garden is beautiful enough without there having to be faeries dancing in it.
8. The ability to sleep in on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays.
7. No scripture to constantly refer to for lack of a better idea.
6. Guilt-free exposure to all of life's simple pleasures.
5. Rampant, magnificent sex -- with or without commitment; it's your choice.
4. No rejection of facts to support beliefs.
3. The ability to have theological discussions without getting offended.
2. No creepy, bi-polar, voyeuristic, intrusive, and ultimately abusive sky parent to deal with.
1. Even if we're wrong, we won't be disappointed.

I'm on Hydrocodone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocodone), Celebrex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrex), Amoxicillin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoxicillin), and Zyrtec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyrtec) right now (wisdom teeth FTW). Cut me some slack.

Glad to! Once you stop castigating everyone else for the same reason. You can't shred someone for spelling, make a howling error yourself, and expect not to be pot-kettled.

My advice (which is worth less than the photons it takes to convey) would be to leave off the criticism unless grammar is the subject or it's so bad that comprehension is affected.

Medication isn't an excuse for being aggressively hypocritical.

Could you please expound on your radically different conception of God.

Liberation theology makes the individual responsible to God directly, as such it is a step toward independence, however it still places God as the fountainhead of all values and morals. With those values and morals being interpreted and explained by the clericy. It promises independence but delivers servitude to values imposed from outside, a false independence if there ever were one. (I live in Brazil - I have seen all too well the effects of liberation theology).

Individual rights are irrelevant to this discussion. Whether you desire security or independence you still desire the rights to be yourself.

Yes I am addressing primarily the Judeo-Christian model, with this extended of course to cover Islam. I do not address these views to Buddhist or Zen like religions, but these are, from my very limited knowledge of them, more philosophies than religions.

Pleas note that I am not criticising in any way the desire for security, I am simply noting that the deep motivations that prompt individuals to follow a judeo-christian religion or an atheist path appear to me to be related to these fundamental differences in personality.

I believe in an immanent, constantly observed, self aware (but not in any way comprehensible to humanity), potent but not omnipotent, of limited omniscience, and often but not always benevolent, entity.

I believe in the immanence because that is what I experienced in my mystical revelations. If god is immanent, then all our observations must necessarily be of god. If god is immanent, then god is self-aware because we are, but also because animals are, and it would also be logical to assume that god is self aware in a way that only a being that is all beings at once can be self aware.

If god is omnipotent or omniscient or omnibenevolent, free will is simply an illusion. yet we all live our lives as if it were real. Either all my experience of existence is an illusion, or god does not have omnipotence and omniscience or omnibenevolence.

Now, do you see why I don't buy that my theism is indicative of preferring security over independence?

I believe everyone has the right to be wrong, if they so choose.

I believe in an immanent, constantly observed, self aware (but not in any way comprehensible to humanity), potent but not omnipotent, of limited omniscience, and often but not always benevolent, entity.

I believe in the immanence because that is what I experienced in my mystical revelations. If god is immanent, then all our observations must necessarily be of god. If god is immanent, then god is self-aware because we are, but also because animals are, and it would also be logical to assume that god is self aware in a way that only a being that is all beings at once can be self aware.

If god is omnipotent or omniscient or omnibenevolent, free will is simply an illusion. yet we all live our lives as if it were real. Either all my experience of existence is an illusion, or god does not have omnipotence and omniscience or omnibenevolence.

Now, do you see why I don't buy that my theism is indicative of preferring security over independence?

I could see that if I could call your belief set theism. I can't however recognise what you describe as theism, nor would most theists that I know of recognise it as such.

What you define is a being that is immanent, but other than that has no quality or property that would define it as a god. You simply believe in a necessary entity. That entity plays no role in creation or guidance of the universe, plays no role in determining moral values etc. etc.

Glad to! Once you stop castigating everyone else for the same reason. You can't shred someone for spelling, make a howling error yourself, and expect not to be pot-kettled.

My advice (which is worth less than the photons it takes to convey) would be to leave off the criticism unless grammar is the subject or it's so bad that comprehension is affected.

Medication isn't an excuse for being aggressively hypocritical.

Sure it is. And I don't shred people for bad spelling and the occasional grammar mistake. I shred people for repeatedly spelling the same words wrong despite constant exposure to the correct spelling, glaringly obvious grammar mistakes that anyone who actually cares would know better than to make, and when it is obvious that the person is completely apathetic about correctly using the English language.

I made a mistake. That happens. But here's the difference: when I harp on people it's because I know they want to make a good point and influence the opinions of others on NSG. I really couldn't care less if I make a good point or not, and I really couldn't care less what NSG's opinion is.

You'll notice that this time when I harped on the guy, I did it because he made the same mistake several times, and I thought it would help his case if he made sure to spell correctly. The second post on the matter was obviously my dry sense of sarcasm.

Sure it is. And I don't shred people for bad spelling and the occasional grammar mistake. I shred people for repeatedly spelling the same words wrong despite constant exposure to the correct spelling, glaringly obvious grammar mistakes that anyone who actually cares would know better than to make, and when it is obvious that the person is completely apathetic about correctly using the English language.

I made a mistake. That happens. But here's the difference: when I harp on people it's because I know they want to make a good point and influence the opinions of others on NSG. I really couldn't care less if I make a good point or not, and I really couldn't care less what NSG's opinion is.

You'll notice that this time when I harped on the guy, I did it because he made the same mistake several times, and I thought it would help his case if he made sure to spell correctly. The second post on the matter was obviously my dry sense of sarcasm.

Fair enough. It's your windmill, your horse, and your lance. Enjoy!

Fair enough. It's your windmill, your horse, and your lance. Enjoy!

Give me some credit: I spelled "incite" correctly.

Fair enough. It's your windmill, your horse, and your lance. Enjoy!

Intangelon, please, if you would be so kind as to not compare Rhyno with Don Quijote. You're not doing any justice to the knight of La Mancha. Respect where respect is due, mate!


;)

I could see that if I could call your belief set theism. I can't however recognise what you describe as theism, nor would most theists that I know of recognise it as such.

What you define is a being that is immanent, but other than that has no quality or property that would define it as a god. You simply believe in a necessary entity. That entity plays no role in creation or guidance of the universe, plays no role in determining moral values etc. etc.

That's not quite correct. Such a belief system does provide a moral compass. And it does not say one way or the other whether or not god initially created the universe. I would go into more detail, but I have to go.

Intangelon, please, if you would be so kind as to not compare Rhyno with Don Quijote. You're not doing any justice to the knight of La Mancha. Respect where respect is due, mate!


;)

I know, right? That was a terrible book.

I know, right? That was a terrible book.

Mayhaps you wish to die?

Mayhaps you wish to die?

Only if I get to chill with Virgo and Homer in Dante's Inferno.

That's not quite correct. Such a belief system does provide a moral compass. And it does not say one way or the other whether or not god initially created the universe. I would go into more detail, but I have to go.

OK. When you have time I would like to see how it provides a moral compass, and how this, if it is the case, is not transferring responsibility for deciding what is right and wrong from yourself as an individual to some external source.

I could see that if I could call your belief set theism. I can't however recognise what you describe as theism, nor would most theists that I know of recognise it as such.

What you define is a being that is immanent, but other than that has no quality or property that would define it as a god. .

Incorrect: AB's mystical standpoint is virtually the dictionary definition of pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism).

Note the suffix -theism.

Incorrect: AB's mystical standpoint is virtually the dictionary definition of pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism).

Note the suffix -theism.

huh????

My (AB)mystical standpoint is Atheism - note the suffix -theism

GOG's position is nothing like pantheism. Pantheism defines that there is a collection of deities, more than one at least, which have direct impact on the daily lives of non deities. GOG does not get anywhere close to this by my understanding, but I am sure he will be happy to resolve this difference of opinion when he returns.

whooooooooooops!

Sorry, typed the wrong name, bit knackered, I meant giift-of-god.

EDIT: I just checked again in case I had a narcoleptic wikipedia episode; pantheistic is definitely god-in-nature-whole-universe type thing. You are thinking of Pandeistic, which can be a subset of pantheism (I'm thinking Hinduism where multiple deities are aspects of the one pan-deity which is also the immanent universe).

May be controversial, as deist and theist have different roots but supposedly both mean 'god'.

Not another debate on dead language semantics! :0

*sleeps*

BURN THE WITCH! BURN THE HERETIC!

SUFFER NOT THE XENOS TO LIVE!!!

Wait, that's something else... never mind.

Give me some credit: I spelled "incite" correctly.

No credit. Wrong word. I'd dropped this (indicated by my saying "fair enough"). Is it your wish to continue? It is not mine.

Intangelon, please, if you would be so kind as to not compare Rhyno with Don Quijote. You're not doing any justice to the knight of La Mancha. Respect where respect is due, mate!


;)

Uh...neither Cervantes nor Spain owns the patent on the tilting and windmills analogy, sorry. I'm respecting the "knight of la Mancha" as much as he deserves: he's remembered past death in a figure of speech. To give something like that to the world, translated across barriers of all kinds, well, that's about as much respect as one can get without curing something or inventing/discovering some world-altering thing.

By the way, you're adorable when you're fiercely nationalistic. ;)

Uh...neither Cervantes nor Spain owns the patent on the tilting and windmills analogy, sorry. I'm respecting the "knight of la Mancha" as much as he deserves: he's remembered past death in a figure of speech. To give something like that to the world, translated across barriers of all kinds, well, that's about as much respect as one can get without curing something or inventing/discovering some world-altering thing.

By the way, you're adorable when you're fiercely nationalistic. ;)

Oh, I´m incredibly proud that Cervantes´s work broke the language barrier and El Quijote is a world heritage figure now. I was just joking about your comparison of Rhyno´s delusions (and believe me, he has many) and word confusions with Don Quijote´s. LOL!:p

Thanks for the compliment, darling. ;)

No credit. Wrong word. I'd dropped this (indicated by my saying "fair enough"). Is it your wish to continue? It is not mine.

You should know by now that I beat every dead horse for as long as my stick holds up.

We do not either automatically hate religious people nor automatically assume people like you are athiest. We only hate the people who are constantly trying to convert us. And it is very annoying when people say "well I'm very sorry you will go to hell, but don't worry, I will pray for you." What part of not believing in god to you not understand?:mad:

I know I personally do not hate all religious people, and I am about as anti-theist as you can be. I hate what religion does to people, but I (usually) do not hate the person themselves.

Religion is in blatant opposition to logic and reason. People who believe it simply haven't used their logic to its full extent. I try to help them with their logic whenever I can, but I do so in a polite and courteous way. I usually simply logic out their argument, and have them realize on their own that it makes no sense. At that point, I back off, and let them decide between the logical and the illogical.

The people I DO hate are those that try to force their illogical beliefs on myself or others. Freedom of religion, as well as freedom FROM religion. Religion should never enter the public sphere - but you can believe whatever you want in private, however ridiculous it may seem to everyone else.

This would be selfish and unchristian, after all, heaven is for those who care about others. If christians preach, it is because they (we...) believe they are doing good to the other person. Sure, one might preach out of a sense of superiority from believing he's right and the other is wrong, but these aren't (or shouldn't be) the majority.

I have bolded the part that stands out the most in mind.

This is another reason I hate religion (not religious people mind you). Religion says that you need to believe in a certain thing, do a certain thing or not yet if you don't follow you're not getting into heaven even if you are a good person who cares about others.

After all, if heaven was for those who care about others, why should it matter what we believe? Why would our souls need to be save if we were good people yet did things that were amoral?

SUFFER NOT THE XENOS TO LIVE!!!

Wait, that's something else... never mind.

40k references for the win.

I think it's coz atheist hate ppl who don't agree with what they say, which of course makes them hypocrites since they usually say that about religious ppl, i see it all the time.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b161/P3Shinobi/1192392913251.jpg

It's not so much "religious people" that atheists hate, I think it's the fact that they rub their opinions in other people's face in spite of the fact that believing in a Great Dude in the Sky shows no sense of logic and that these "religious people" often take circular and illogical arguements to prove a point which can't be proven e.g. "It's in the Bible/Torah/other religious text, therefore it must be true." Of course it's in the "insert religious text" it was created by people who believe this version of the truth and are trying to teach people how to live their lives. Often also they use symbols from that religion to prove a point, same case applies. Often they argue that 'if you don't believe my version of the truth then you are doomed to spend all eternity in hell'. If that's the case then we are all essentially doomed to hell because we will never know what version of the 'truth' is the correct one. They could all be wrong and all be right. In this way they try to suppress change or difference because they cannot understand it. Religious wars, witch-hunts, killing early scientists and intelligent people because it didn't live up to their religious texts. I grew up in a devoutly Catholic family. My grandmother is a lovely woman and habitually says her prayers, listens to Mass on the radio, goes to church. Fantastic woman, prayer makes sense to her. She couldn't live without it. However, when I was young and went to Mass I would often find that people that would act the saint in church, saying their prayers and acting the part. When they came out they would gossip and backstab each other. I asked a priest to explain the Genesis story and other texts. I attended Methodist and Protestant services. Talked to Mormons, street preachers and Jehovah's witnesses. I read texts from other religions; Buddhism and Islam. I've tried everything to believe. To be honest some of the things they told me where fantastic. I would love to see in the future some philosophical amalgamation of all these different religions; interpret the texts, sort of take all the "best bits", see what fits together and so on. Maybe that way we could stop all the bickering about who's right and wrong. Let's face it they all believe in some version of right/wrong, heaven/hell the Great Dude Above and the Even Bigger B**tard Below. I have nothing against religion, I often use some of the phrases myself, I just hate it when people try to rub religion in your face. And by the way, your obviously free to ignore this speil yourself.

I think it's coz atheist hate ppl who don't agree with what they say, which of course makes them hypocrites since they usually say that about religious ppl, i see it all the time.

I can't say I hate theists in general. I certainly can't stand idiots who can't type for shit, though.

Oh, and it's "people" and "because," for fuck's sake.

I don't hate believers. I hate it when they try to shove their unsubstantiated beliefs down my throat.

You know, it's really funny, when I lived in California I had JWs, Mormons, and a lovely variety of Christian, pseudo-Christian and self-styled Christian believers descending on my home in waves at all hours. I've moved to Colorado Springs, considered by some to be the the buckle on the Bible belt, and I've only had one Christian come by. All he wanted to do was extend an invitation to attend his church. No pressure, no "if you don't believe, you're going to Hell," no attempts at proselytizing. That was a year ago. No one's come by since.

So try going to church a few times and see what good you hate.

What makes you think they haven't been to church many times? What makes you think they didn't see evil at church?

The biggest problem with your post is that you seem to think that atheists must either agree with you, or they must not have experience with Christianity. This is a flawed assumption.

the topic question is nonsense. no one, that i know of, in their right mind, loves being harrassed and hassled. nor did any revealer of organized beliefs themselves prefer the company of fanatics to that of athiests and agnostics.

=^^=
.../\...

The top ten reasons to be an atheist:

10. No religious rock music and their creepy crowds of eyes-closed sexless weirdos.
9. The freedom to enjoy reality for its own sake; the garden is beautiful enough without there having to be faeries dancing in it.
8. The ability to sleep in on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays.
7. No scripture to constantly refer to for lack of a better idea.
6. Guilt-free exposure to all of life's simple pleasures.
5. Rampant, magnificent sex -- with or without commitment; it's your choice.
4. No rejection of facts to support erroneous beliefs.
3. The ability to have theological discussions without offending anyone.
2. No creepy, bi-polar, voyeuristic, intrusive, and ultimately abusive sky parent to deal with.
1. Even if we're wrong, we won't be disappointed.

So... why would anyone want to be religious?

Oh oh let me do the list, as a Christian.

10. Check (Never have listened to it, except maybe for James Brown when watching The Blues Brothers)

9. Check

8. Triple Check (I am looking forward to sleeping in this weekend) Actually I should take the check away from Friday as I do have to get up early. Why? Because I have a 8:00 Tutorial (I know I hate it but it was the best time for me)

7. Check

6. Check

5. Check (Though it has been a couple of months now)

4. Now this is the sticking point after all I reject facts to support my belief that Sir Robert Menzies is one of the best Prime Ministers Australia has ever had.

3. Check, I have so plenty of times, I presume you mean discussions where we don't go you are a bloody moron because you do/don't believe in God.

2. Check

1. Mega Check, cause if I am wrong then there is no way I can be disappointed.

I figured.

:hail:Details... DETAILS!!! :hail:

Yeah I know oops.

Since you have posted the "hail details" in two separate posts I will join you

:hail::hail::hail: DETAILS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know how, at least with Christians, there is this insatiable urge to "save" the atheist and other "non-believers" from hell. I have to wonder, don't these Christians want heaven all to themselves? After all, the earth is getting crowded. Wouldn't they rather have a nice little place where there are fewer people?

That's why I stopped doing it years ago :wink: Nah never have never will.

The line for me now is only drawn when those who believe start taking actions designed to make laws or policies for everyone based solely on what they believe -- as if we were all somehow supposed to believe the same thing.

The only problem I have with this is that regardless of what we are talking about all laws are designed for this reason.

We may be discussing if Poker machines should be allowed in the country. There will be people who believe that they shouldn't be and will attempt to get these machines banned, and vice-versa.

So you see while these might not be religious beliefs the fact of the matter is that all those people who want the government to pass laws and make policy are really just trying to pass their beliefs onto others.

i've never met an atheist who hates religious people. (I'm atheist and I know quite a few.)

I've met many bigoted religious people.

"When you understand why you do not believe in other gods, then you will understand why I don't believe in yours."

-- Stephen F. Roberts

Meditate on it.

Yeah that's a good quote, don't quite know why you put it there? I of course belive that all Gods are one and the same, so I do in fact belive in other Gods. Or perhaps it is truer to say that I belive that all veiws of God are just differing views of the one.

Why do Atheists hate religious people?

They don't. Well, the overwhelmingly vast majority of them don't.

Do we??

WHat about Atheists that were once theists?

Wouldn't they be even better qualified than 'mere' theists?

No you are just not getting it. It's a reasoning thing. If by your reasoning you come to the conclusion that it is more likely that God does not exist, then it is that God does, then wether you once belived or not does not matter.

Its about being propered to suspened your critical reasoning, to decied to belive in spite of what is reasonable to belive or not.

If I said to you I belive that the moon is made of cheese, why would you think that I held such a belife?

I recon,you'd go with the standard 'he's clearly mad' yet if I am not mad, if this one belife is all of the signs pointing to some madness that I exhibited, what then would you think are the reasons for my belife?

Why I ask this question is to find wether you will know my reaosns, or wether you will instead try to rationalise my belife to your own mind. Declaring me mad, or deluded is not a reason, it can though be other peoples rationalisations. Do you get what I mean?

i've never met an atheist who hates religious people. (I'm atheist and I know quite a few.)

I've met many bigoted religious people.

Lucky you, but then I have met people from both sides of the fence.

Lucky you, but then I have met people from both sides of the fence.

In fairness, I've known many wonderful religious people. I know some arsehole atheists. Maybe I'm one. That's for others to decide. It's just that I haven't ever met a fundamentalist atheist.

I mean, have you ever met an atheist who declares that you will suffer eternal damnation for your beliefs? Have you ever met an atheist who says you should die because of your beliefs?

In fairness, I've known many wonderful religious people. I know some arsehole atheists. Maybe I'm one. That's for others to decide. It's just that I haven't ever met a fundamentalist atheist.

I mean, have you ever met an atheist who declares that you will suffer eternal damnation for your beliefs? Have you ever met an atheist who says you should die because of your beliefs?

Oh well mate I thought we were talking about people who hates someone for their beliefs as I said I have met these people those who are religious and those who are atheist.

As for the rest of your post, what was the point it had nothing to do if someone hated someone else because they were religious.

i've never met an atheist who hates religious people. (I'm atheist and I know quite a few.)

I've met many bigoted religious people.

precisely my experience as well. this whole thread is more brainwashing to hide the simple reality of whose's ox is actually being gored and who'se isn't.

=^^=
.../\...

how many theists out there have the same beliefs as their parents? (about 83% in Britain apparently) if christianity is so right than how is it that if you were born in the middle east you'd be just as dogmatic a muslim (insert any place and faith for same effect)? If any one was true it would spring up everywhere, and if people truly were making the decision for themselves we'd have an insane amount of multiculturalism.

The vast majority of religious people out there belief what they do because of indoctrination. This brainwashing of children before they have a chance to make reasoned decisions is evil and it often sticks in there for life. It sickens me that religious schools exist and as I saw in a newspaper ad the other day, offer "faith-centered" education. I myself was a part of it. School, chapel devotions, youth camps, the hillsong conference! The songs still pop up in my head! AAARGH! At the age of 16 I was able to realize it was all bull, then again I never have been much of a conformist.

well actually the're all the same true or otherwise as they all ultimately come form the same place, i.e. someone picked by big, friendly and invisible every thousand years or so, to be channelled by.

i have no problem with that (however much fanatics who don't really know thier own faith but insist everyone else should subscribe to it might deny this).

u.e's post inspired me to mention one thing that ought to be pretty obvious:

most people who identify themselves with whatever belief happens to be dominant where they live, i don't care if its christianity, islam, buddhism, or whatever else, do so, whether they realize this is their subconscous motivation or not, to avoid being socially and economically discriminated against. (i.e. to get hired and get layed, or at least stand at least an average chance of doing so)

=^^=
.../\...

Yeah I know oops.

Since you have posted the "hail details" in two separate posts I will join you

:hail::hail::hail: DETAILS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bwahahahaha! The power of suggestion is powerful! :D

:hail: :hail: :hail: We love details... DETAILS!!

That's why I stopped doing it years ago :wink: Nah never have never will.

No traffic jams...ever! :D

Bwahahahaha! The power of suggestion is powerful! :D

:hail: :hail: :hail: We love details... DETAILS!!

:D

No traffic jams...ever! :D

Now that is heaven :wink:

You know I might just use that line of thought the next time a Mormon pops around for a quick chat.

No you are just not getting it. It's a reasoning thing. If by your reasoning you come to the conclusion that it is more likely that God does not exist, then it is that God does, then wether you once belived or not does not matter.

Its about being propered to suspened your critical reasoning, to decied to belive in spite of what is reasonable to belive or not.

If I said to you I belive that the moon is made of cheese, why would you think that I held such a belife?

I recon,you'd go with the standard 'he's clearly mad' yet if I am not mad, if this one belife is all of the signs pointing to some madness that I exhibited, what then would you think are the reasons for my belife?

Why I ask this question is to find wether you will know my reaosns, or wether you will instead try to rationalise my belife to your own mind. Declaring me mad, or deluded is not a reason, it can though be other peoples rationalisations. Do you get what I mean?

The problem I'm having with your example is that it is demonstrably not true. We have little pieces of moon we can go to and check, not cheese. There are people we can talk to that have been there and ask if it's cheese, and it's not. So if you persist in the belief that the moon is cheese despite the insurmountable evidence that it is in fact not, then it would have to point to a delusion, willful blindness, or just outright stupidity. As such, I don't think it's the metaphor you really want to go with.

Yeah that's a good quote, don't quite know why you put it there? I of course belive that all Gods are one and the same, so I do in fact belive in other Gods. Or perhaps it is truer to say that I belive that all veiws of God are just differing views of the one.

Did you meditate on it?

Here's what you said:

"You can of course have knowledge on what we belive, you can of course study what we study, you cannot unless you belive yourself, comprehend any reasons why we belive as we do. "

You say you 'believe that all gods are one and the same'... which means you don't actually BELIEVE all those religions. Where religions are mutually exclusive - or where there is an inbuilt dichotomy - obviously all those gods can't be the same one. To say they are - shows you don't BELIEVE them.

You can study what other people believe. You can have knowledge of what they believe - but you can't comprehend why they believe as they do.

No you are just not getting it. It's a reasoning thing. If by your reasoning you come to the conclusion that it is more likely that God does not exist, then it is that God does, then wether you once belived or not does not matter.

Its about being propered to suspened your critical reasoning, to decied to belive in spite of what is reasonable to belive or not.

If I said to you I belive that the moon is made of cheese, why would you think that I held such a belife?

I recon,you'd go with the standard 'he's clearly mad' yet if I am not mad, if this one belife is all of the signs pointing to some madness that I exhibited, what then would you think are the reasons for my belife?

Why I ask this question is to find wether you will know my reaosns, or wether you will instead try to rationalise my belife to your own mind. Declaring me mad, or deluded is not a reason, it can though be other peoples rationalisations. Do you get what I mean?

If - by your logic - the believer is somehow able to conceptualise something that is beyond the non-believer, then someone who has BEEN a believer AND a non-believer MUST, logically, be able to conceptualise something that is beyond both 'mere' believers and 'mere' non-believers.

You somehow believe that being able to 'believe' (how do you say it? "being propered to suspened your critical reasoning, to decied to belive in spite of what is reasonable to belive or not") is a superior state? That it is preferable to be able to ignore evidence? That's a new argument, if so - I've never encounetred that particular angle before - logically speaking, that would suggest that the LESS evidence you have, and the further you diverge from it - the 'better' your ability to comprehend religion.

On the other point: If you honestly believed that the moon was made of cheese, I wouldn't think you were mad, I'd think you were an idiot. The evidence is material, this isn't a question of faith.

If - by your logic - the believer is somehow able to conceptualise something that is beyond the non-believer, then someone who has BEEN a believer AND a non-believer MUST, logically, be able to conceptualise something that is beyond both 'mere' believers and 'mere' non-believers.

You somehow believe that being able to 'believe' (how do you say it? "being propered to suspened your critical reasoning, to decied to belive in spite of what is reasonable to belive or not") is a superior state? That it is preferable to be able to ignore evidence? That's a new argument, if so - I've never encounetred that particular angle before - logically speaking, that would suggest that the LESS evidence you have, and the further you diverge from it - the 'better' your ability to comprehend religion.

On the other point: If you honestly believed that the moon was made of cheese, I wouldn't think you were mad, I'd think you were an idiot. The evidence is material, this isn't a question of faith.

Bwhahaha, so you don't get in then do you, to you I'm just an idiot! Go on people tell me agian how wrong I am, and yet prove to me my intitial point was right over and over again.

No I don't belive I said anything about a superior state, I belive I said quite a lot about a lack of undestanding. Also I must remind you that I am talking just about belife in God.

You also mention logic, and this is at the heart of my claim. I'm talking about not applying logic, and using only faith.

Bwhahaha, so you don't get in then do you, to you I'm just an idiot! Go on people tell me agian how wrong I am, and yet prove to me my intitial point was right over and over again.

No I don't belive I said anything about a superior state, I belive I said quite a lot about a lack of undestanding. Also I must remind you that I am talking just about belife in God.

You also mention logic, and this is at the heart of my claim. I'm talking about not applying logic, and using only faith.

Blind faith?

Bwhahaha, so you don't get in then do you, to you I'm just an idiot!


If you're seriously arguing that the moon is made of cheese? In the face of actual physical evidence?

I'm not thinking it would be much of a stretch.


Go on people tell me agian how wrong I am, and yet prove to me my intitial point was right over and over again.


That the moon isn't made of cheese? Okay - you're very wrong.

What is the point you think I'm proving?


No I don't belive I said anything about a superior state, I belive I said quite a lot about a lack of undestanding.


I believe you said that Atheists 'lack' the understanding that the religious have.

Although - somehow - those who have been both Atheists AND religious... you still think have that lack?

Hard to tell - you avoid the issue.


Also I must remind you that I am talking just about belife in God.


What's that supposed to mean? That only those who believe in the 'god' of the New Testament have this special ability that atheists lack?

Sounds like you trying to wriggle out of the fact that I just showed you that YOU have the exact same 'hole' when it comes to other faiths, that you claim atheists have, when it comes to yours.


You also mention logic, and this is at the heart of my claim. I'm talking about not applying logic, and using only faith.

Which Atheists can't understand?

I understand belieiving only with faith. I did believe only with faith.

I no longer believe, but I still understand it.

Your argument is bullshit.

Bwhahaha, so you don't get in then do you, to you I'm just an idiot! Go on people tell me agian how wrong I am, and yet prove to me my intitial point was right over and over again.

No I don't belive I said anything about a superior state, I belive I said quite a lot about a lack of undestanding. Also I must remind you that I am talking just about belife in God.

You also mention logic, and this is at the heart of my claim. I'm talking about not applying logic, and using only faith.

Correct me if I'm wrong, you are basically saying that people who cannot understand anything beyond logic cannot understand why you choose to believe in god, because belief/faith in god is essentially illogical and beyond logic.

I don't think that there are such human beings who can't understand anything beyond logic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, you are basically saying that people who cannot understand anything beyond logic cannot understand why you choose to believe in god, because belief/faith in god is essentially illogical and beyond logic.

I don't think that there are such human beings who can't understand anything beyond logic.

Yes there are. People in Peep's position who for some reason are impervious to logic.

Do you seriously not see the good things religion brings?
There was actually a great debate on this very subject at FreedomFest this year. Christopher Hitchens (athiest) absolutely dismantled Dinesh D'Souza (Catholic).

This is probably the only time I will ever agree with Christopher Hitchens.

Not only does religion cause tremendous harm, but the beliefs on which religion is based are evidence of overwhelming irrationality on the part of the faithful.

Furthermore, how is it God and Jesus get to forgive me for my sins? Shouldn't it be the people I've wronged whose forgiveness I should seek? This vicarious redemption strikes me as a fundamentally immoral concept.

There was actually a great debate on this very subject at FreedomFest this year. Christopher Hitchens (athiest) absolutely dismantled Dinesh D'Souza (Catholic).

This is probably the only time I will ever agree with Christopher Hitchens.

Not only does religion cause tremendous harm, but the beliefs on which religion is based are evidence of overwhelming irrationality on the part of the faithful.

Furthermore, how is it God and Jesus get to forgive me for my sins? Shouldn't it be the people I've wronged whose forgiveness I should seek? This vicarious redemption strikes me as a fundamentally immoral concept.

That reminds me of my main problem with the Jesus story.

It sounds like the biggest case of scapegoating I've ever heard of.

Correct me if I'm wrong, you are basically saying that people who cannot understand anything beyond logic cannot understand why you choose to believe in god, because belief/faith in god is essentially illogical and beyond logic.

Yes! That is basicly what I am saying, but more like, if you apply logic to all that you think or brlive then of course you cannot understand why somebody would belive an ilogical thing. Instead you proclaim then mad, deficeint in some way, or deluded.


I don't think that there are such human beings who can't understand anything beyond logic.

Then you are wrong, and again show that what I say is true.

Yes there are. People in Peep's position who for some reason are impervious to logic.

Meh I'm sure there are some people out there like that, not I though. I'll say it again just so you are clear about it, I am talking only about a belife in the existance of God.

This is the only illogical thing in my life.

What a great read that was.

31 pages of mindless drivel interspersed with a few gems (from both sides of the divide i might add).

Just goes to show how divided people can be when confronted by virtually any "religious" question.

Thankfully in todays multimedia and communication dominated world, the myths and folklore of the past is being dismantled and shown for what they were....just made up. The popularity of "factual-based" programmes on TV are an indication of this trend (Discovery Channel wont be telling you that God exists). There are whole waves of young(er) people that are more informed and tend to factfind before jumping to conclusions (even if it is a quick wiki...not the most accurate but certainly better than nothing).
Attendances in churches are continuing to fall...you can't tempt a young person with hallow and false promise, they don't care. You don't need to state what religion you are before taking a job anymore...and so its importance has fallen below being a smoker or being overweight.

Long story cut short:
Foolz have been pushing stuff on each other since forever. Be it Left or Right wing politicals, Religion and Atheism, or Loving or Hating Marmite.

There's no point of trying to tell them to cool down, as this thread has proved, the OP even if he didn't mean it has fueled this fire. Someone should start a "Can't we all just get along?" thread.

Long story cut short:
Foolz have been pushing stuff on each other since forever. Be it Left or Right wing politicals, Religion and Atheism, or Loving or Hating Marmite.

There's no point of trying to tell them to cool down, as this thread has proved, the OP even if he didn't mean it has fueled this fire. Someone should start a "Can't we all just get along?" thread.

Heh I'm sure that has been done before, but the short answer is no.

That reminds me of my main problem with the Jesus story.

It sounds like the biggest case of scapegoating I've ever heard of.
Yeah, I almost feel like laughing when some Christian tries to tell me the "good news" about how Jesus died for my sins.

Even if it were possible for another person to die for my sins (which I don't believe it is), I wouldn't ever want them to do so. I believe that would be profoundly immoral. It absolutely would not be "good news" if somebody died in a misguided attempt to pay for my sins. That would be tragic and depressing, because not only did they try to do something deeply immoral, but they failed to accomplish their goal and they died in the process.

Long story cut short:
Foolz have been pushing stuff on each other since forever. Be it Left or Right wing politicals, Religion and Atheism, or Loving or Hating Marmite.

There's no point of trying to tell them to cool down, as this thread has proved, the OP even if he didn't mean it has fueled this fire. Someone should start a "Can't we all just get along?" thread.
Why are you so bothered by conflict?

It's an internet forum, kids, it can't bite you.

Yes, people get passionate, people get worked up, people fight over ideology and social goals and fundamental values. Um...good?!

If somebody is trying to force me, at gunpoint or by law or whatever, to practice their religion, then THAT is "pushing stuff on me." If somebody is having a heated discussion on an internet forum, nothing is being pushed on me or on anybody else. You don't have to read it, so they only person "pushing" you is you.

Yeah, I almost feel like laughing when some Christian tries to tell me the "good news" about how Jesus died for my sins.

Even if it were possible for another person to die for my sins (which I don't believe it is), I wouldn't ever want them to do so. I believe that would be profoundly immoral. It absolutely would not be "good news" if somebody died in a misguided attempt to pay for my sins. That would be tragic and depressing, because not only did they try to do something deeply immoral, but they failed to accomplish their goal and they died in the process.

Just a question Bottle, can you tell me how it is immoral?

Just a question Bottle, can you tell me how it is immoral?
Not addressed to me, but...
Scapegoating?

Not addressed to me, but...
Scapegoating?

Yes but how?

After all it doesn't excuse the person for doing it and doesn't make what they did any better.

I remember having a discussion at least something similar to this about it, and I don't know how close this is to the mark or not it may be way off.

But the way I explained it I said that while your 'sins' may be forgiven doesn't mean it was right for them to do nor will it be right in the future. Similar to how you may forgive your son/daughter/better half for something they may have done wrong, that doesn't mean it was alright for them to do it still condones the act. My son has lied to me before, I have forgiven him for it it doesn't mean that it suddenly became right for him to lie to me but it is still forgiven, and I still love my son despite the him lying to me.

As I say that may be no where near what your getting at.

Yes but how?

After all it doesn't excuse the person for doing it and doesn't make what they did any better.

I remember having a discussion at least something similar to this about it, and I don't know how close this is to the mark or not it may be way off.

But the way I explained it I said that while your 'sins' may be forgiven doesn't mean it was right for them to do nor will it be right in the future. Similar to how you may forgive your son/daughter/better half for something they may have done wrong, that doesn't mean it was alright for them to do it still condones the act. My son has lied to me before, I have forgiven him for it it doesn't mean that it suddenly became right for him to lie to me but it is still forgiven, and I still love my son despite the him lying to me.

As I say that may be no where near what your getting at.

Okay. Say your son lies to you. What if you took a baseball bat and smacked your daughter in the face, and then turned to your son and said "see, now I can forgive you," despite the fact that your daughter had done nothing wrong? Would that not be wrong for you to do?

Not addressed to me, but...
Scapegoating?

On a somewhat relevant etymological note, the word scapegoat comes from the Judaic practice of Yom Kippur:

Main Entry:
1scape·goat Listen to the pronunciation of 1scapegoat
Pronunciation:
\ˈskāp-ˌgōt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
1scape; intended as translation of Hebrew ʽazāzēl (probably name of a demon), as if ʽēz 'ōzēl goat that departs—Lev 16:8(Authorized Version)
Date:
1530

1: a goat upon whose head are symbolically placed the sins of the people after which he is sent into the wilderness in the biblical ceremony for Yom Kippur
2 a: one that bears the blame for others b: one that is the object of irrational hostility

So, when you say that Jesus was treated as a scapegoat, you are actually understating the fact. He is the scapegoat, in fact, the only one that matters. Obviously, when the Jesus myth was constructed, this aspect was brought over from Judaism.

However, many Christians do not see Jesus as a scapegoat. Many do, because of the mythological simplicity of the tale, but people also believe things like trickle-down theory and that Republicans are for small government: people believe what is easier. Intelligent Christians realise that such a characterisation of Jesus removes the moral obligation from the believer and hoists it onto a dead Jew, which is inconsistent with the rest of Jesus' message of personal responsibility. It would be more logical to see Jesus as an example of perfect moral behaviour than as a sacrificial goat.

Just a question Bottle, can you tell me how it is immoral?
Others have pretty well addressed this.

It is immoral, in my opinion, to hold somebody else responsible for my actions, for two reasons:

First, it's wrong to hold them responsible for something they aren't responsible for, and second, it's wrong not to hold me responsible for something I am responsible for.

Okay. Say your son lies to you. What if you took a baseball bat and smacked your daughter in the face, and then turned to your son and said "see, now I can forgive you," despite the fact that your daughter had done nothing wrong? Would that not be wrong for you to do?

Sorry can you explain that in reference to the Bible?

Maybe I am trying to explain something completely different, maybe it was when how if you do something God forgives you, which doesn't make it right.

Sorry can you explain that in reference to the Bible?

Maybe I am trying to explain something completely different, maybe it was when how if you do something God forgives you, which doesn't make it right.

They want to know why god considers it moral to punish someone else (Jesus) for your sins, instead of you.

Others have pretty well addressed this.

It is immoral, in my opinion, to hold somebody else responsible for my actions, for two reasons:

First, it's wrong to hold them responsible for something they aren't responsible for, and second, it's wrong not to hold me responsible for something I am responsible for.

Yes OK, but you are still responsible for your actions.

Second in regards to your first point, yes OK and that is fair enough, but if they wanted to take responsibility for it? So is that immoral for Jesus to do that or immoral for other people to accept him as responsible for their actions?

I think you may mean the second (of course I may be wrong), if you mean the first can you explain how Jesus is immoral wanting to take responsibility for other peoples actions.

They want to know why god considers it moral to punish someone else (Jesus) for your sins, instead of you.

Oh ok, yes now I understand, which is the only reason I was asking so I could understand their viewpoint. If Jesus wanted to take responsibility?

I think Bottle said it was a helpless exercise, which is a lot like other for lack of a better word noble exercises which hasn't really done anything to help the situation. Jesus may have just been a do-gooder, you know those people who wants to help but either does nothing or makes things worse.

Yes OK, but you are still responsible for your actions.

Not if somebody else "died for my sins."

Of course, according to Christianity the "sin" in question isn't even my sin, it's Original Sin, a sin which I didn't commit but which I am (supposedly) answerable for just by virtue of being human.

In other words, I'm assigned a "sin" that isn't mine, and then told that somebody else died so that I wouldn't have to be held responsible for a sin I didn't commit.


Second in regards to your first point, yes OK and that is fair enough, but if they wanted to take responsibility for it?

Still immoral.


So is that immoral for Jesus to do that or immoral for other people to accept him as responsible for their actions?

Both. If Jesus actually believed that he had the authority to "die for my sins," then he was wrong. He did not have that authority and it would be profoundly arrogant for him to claim that he did. It would also be immoral for him to think that he could take away any portion of my responsibility for my own sins.

It is also immoral of anybody else to claim that Jesus could/did take any portion of my responsibility for my sins upon himself.


I think you may mean the second (of course I may be wrong), if you mean the first can you explain how it is immoral for Jesus to take responsibility for other peoples actions.
Well, it's rude and arrogant, frankly.

He can't take responsibility for my actions, in my view, because it simply doesn't work that way. He can CLAIM that he's taking responsibility for my actions, but he can't actually take any responsibility whatsoever for my actions because he has absolutely no authority to do so. At best, it's an empty (if well-intentioned) boast.

Meh I'm sure there are some people out there like that, not I though. I'll say it again just so you are clear about it, I am talking only about a belife in the existance of God.

This is the only illogical thing in my life.

But that doesn't change the fact that you seem to think that Atheist don't understand faith. You're forgetting that Atheists were once children as well and we had very active imaginations. We weren't born thinking about reality, we had to learn to think like that. We believed in all sorts of things like imaginary friends, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy. It took faith. Atheists understand faith just fine but we aren't taken in by it.

I think Bottle said it was a helpless exercise, which is a lot like other for lack of a better word noble exercises which hasn't really done anything to help the situation. Jesus may have just been a do-gooder, you know those people who wants to help but either does nothing or makes things worse.
Basically, yeah.

Jesus might have had very nice intentions, but his act of "self-sacrifice" was empty in my eyes. If anything, it has a net negative effect because it promotes the wacky idea that one person can be held responsible for another person's sins, which I believe is an immoral idea.

Reading absolutely nothing else in this thread:

Because they try and shove their shit down our throats. Sort of like a weird Japanese porno.

Not if somebody else "died for my sins."

Of course, according to Christianity the "sin" in question isn't even my sin, it's Original Sin, a sin which I didn't commit but which I am (supposedly) answerable for just by virtue of being human.

In other words, I'm assigned a "sin" that isn't mine, and then told that somebody else died so that I wouldn't have to be held responsible for a sin I didn't commit.

So if the sin isn't yours how are you meant to be responsible for it.

Still immoral.


Both. If Jesus actually believed that he had the authority to "die for my sins," then he was wrong. He did not have that authority and it would be profoundly arrogant for him to claim that he did. It would also be immoral for him to think that he could take away any portion of my responsibility for my own sins.

Immoral or misguided?

It is also immoral of anybody else to claim that Jesus could/did take any portion of my responsibility for my sins upon himself.

This I cannot fault.

Well, it's rude and arrogant, frankly.

He can't take responsibility for my actions, in my view, because it simply doesn't work that way. He can CLAIM that he's taking responsibility for my actions, but he can't actually take any responsibility whatsoever for my actions because he has absolutely no authority to do so. At best, it's an empty (if well-intentioned) boast.

Again Immoral or misguided?

Basically, yeah.

Jesus might have had very nice intentions, but his act of "self-sacrifice" was empty in my eyes. If anything, it has a net negative effect because it promotes the wacky idea that one person can be held responsible for another person's sins, which I believe is an immoral idea.

So just like a do-gooder than :wink:

As I say I can't fault that it means that because of it, that any responsibility is taken away from me and the only reason I asked was because I didn't understand your position.

Reading absolutely nothing else in this thread:

Because they try and shove their shit down our throats. Sort of like a weird Japanese porno.

Leave Japanese p0rno out of this! What did it ever do to you??

Leave Japanese p0rno out of this! What did it ever do to you??

I still wake up most nights, thinking; "what if my girlfriend does have tentacles coming out of her vagina" :eek2:

Basically, yeah.

Jesus might have had very nice intentions, but his act of "self-sacrifice" was empty in my eyes. If anything, it has a net negative effect because it promotes the wacky idea that one person can be held responsible for another person's sins, which I believe is an immoral idea.

I think it has alot to do with the weird emphasis many Christian groups place on the crucifixion. We are constantly inundated with the idea that Christ's sacrifice was his death. This is somewhat logical if we look at it in terms of a bunch of manipulative men trying to consolidate a power base by inspiring guilt (and expiation of said guilt through obedience) in the community.

However, this is a limited and illogical view of the Jesus myth. If we see Jesus' life as the supreme sacrifice, we get a different picture. Jesus was a perfect person and therefore was able to align his will to god's will completely. Consequently, his every living moment was a sacrifice of his will for the purpose of living god's will on earth. He never had a chance to just drink beer and laugh, or have sex with his wife, or play with his kids, or get mad at his relatives, or do any of the many simple things that we take for granted everyday. According to this interpretation, Jesus gave up all of this so that we may know how to transform our own lives in a similar, though imperfect, manner.

Mind you, this was the premise of Kazantzakis' novel The Last Temptation of Christ, which was banned by the Catholic Church in 1964, so it isn't too orthodox a view.

I still wake up most nights, thinking; "what if my girlfriend does have tentacles coming out of her vagina" :eek2:

Just ignore the tentacles and let them work. Gourdy won't hurt you! ;)

But that doesn't change the fact that you seem to think that Atheist don't understand faith. You're forgetting that Atheists were once children as well and we had very active imaginations. We weren't born thinking about reality, we had to learn to think like that. We believed in all sorts of things like imaginary friends, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy. It took faith. Atheists understand faith just fine but we aren't taken in by it.

Again that is not what I have said. Atheists cannot understand how it is that I can belive in God even though I can also admit that it is unreasonable to do so.

So, avoiding an intrinsically dogmatic construct and developing one's own secular system of ethics is not wanting to take our own initiative?


This is a phenomenal response.:D

I suppose that depends who you ask and/or whose version of God. See, even though people claim to worship a One True God, and even though they claim that their God is the same God as your God despite the fact that their God is a dick and your God is an asshole, I am not willing to accept that we all worship the same God.

Or if that's too confusing, God is like the Joker. Comparing the Catholic God with the Jewish God with the Goofballian God is like comparing Heath Ledger's Joker to Jack Nicholson's Joker to Cesar Romero's Joker. Just because they have the same source and inspiration doesn't make them the same character.

Just be careful which God you call a dick, because some of them will kick your ass!

I think this is the first God ---> Batman movies reference I have seen !

I think this is the first God ---> Batman movies reference I have seen !

http://superosity.com/comics/sup20080723.gif

The Joker is God, Batman is Satan... where are the Christians condemning the movie ;) ?

I still wake up most nights, thinking; "what if my girlfriend does have tentacles coming out of her vagina" :eek2:

It's ok, Lapse. They have a cream for that, now.

Again that is not what I have said. Atheists cannot understand how it is that I can belive in God even though I can also admit that it is unreasonable to do so.

They understand - they just don't beleive what you do.

You still keep overlooking that an Atheist can have BEEN a believer.

Because "religious people" have lost the plot.

Little story: This past Sunday, 5:00 PM, over 100 degrees and dripping with humidity, the wife and I transporting a sick cat to the big city for emergency surgery, 50 miles from home in a small town smack in the middle of the Bible Belt when our car breaks down. So...no air condition (the gas station/grocery w/ the conspicuous Christian Business Association sticker on the door wouldn't let us in with the cat because the "health department could take our license"), the cat dying, the wife in tears, and three different tow-truck operators tell me they can't help because they are "on their way to church."

Small sample size, but what are the odds?

If "religious people" were more concerned about themselves, the people standing next to them and the folks standing up at the front and less interested in other people's sex-lives, where they are and are not allowed to advertise their beliefs and what atheists think of them, the rest of us might be a little more understanding of their professed positions.

If there is a heaven and there is a God and he/she is omniscient and just, then the first people to be admitted must be non-theists who treat their fellow man with kindness and love without the motivation of an angry god or the fear of hell. You'd think that being kind and decent would be a pretty easy trick with the fires of hell creeping up behind you, but so many theists seem to have a real struggle with it.

We finally did get help, but no, the cat did not survive.

They understand - they just don't beleive what you do.

You still keep overlooking that an Atheist can have BEEN a believer.

Nope it's not a case of beliving as I do. Well that sort of comes into it, and I have not over looked that at all I have adressed that one.

Let me try to make it a little clearer.

You are an atheist Grave?

Nope it's not a case of beliving as I do. Well that sort of comes into it, and I have not over looked that at all I have adressed that one.

Let me try to make it a little clearer.

You are an atheist Grave?
Why don't you tell us whether he is or not.

After all, you assert that atheists are unable to understand certain things, so obviously you should be able to tell if a person is an atheist based on how well they understand. I'm sure that if, for instance, somebody were to create a puppet nation and make a variety of insightful comments on religion, you'd be able to tell us whether or not the poster was actually an atheist in real life based on whether or not s/he has the "understanding" you speak of.

Why don't you tell us whether he is or not.

After all, you assert that atheists are unable to understand certain things, so obviously you should be able to tell if a person is an atheist based on how well they understand. I'm sure that if, for instance, somebody were to create a puppet nation and make a variety of insightful comments on religion, you'd be able to tell us whether or not the poster was actually an atheist in real life based on whether or not s/he has the "understanding" you speak of.

You are quite mad you know. I said that atheists cannot understand why we belive as we do, that is all. So I have no idea where you are digging the rest of your fantasy from?

I said that atheists cannot understand why we belive as we do, that is all.

Why? What is this defining factor that is supposed to defy understanding by atheists.

You've said they can't, but you've not yet shown the why. It's hard to understand something when you don't even know what it is you're supposed to understand no?

You are quite mad you know.

Pointless insult, save it.


I said that atheists cannot understand why we belive as we do, that is all. So I have no idea where you are digging the rest of your fantasy from?
And I said, "you assert that atheists are unable to understand certain things, so obviously you should be able to tell if a person is an atheist based on how well they understand."

So you say, "atheists cannot understand why we believe as we do." I say, "you assert that atheists are unable to understand certain things." Please, explain to me how what I said is "fantasy" or in any way a mis-characterization of your claims.

Are you going to assert that when you say atheists can't understand why you believe what you believe, that does not, in fact, mean that you are saying atheists cannot understand certain things?

Wait, let me guess: yes, you are.

At any rate, my challenge stands. Let's have several posters, some theist and some atheist, post their understandings of why you believe what you believe. Then you can tell us which of the posters are theists and which are atheists based on their understanding.

Why? What is this defining factor that is supposed to defy understanding by atheists.

You've said they can't, but you've not yet shown the why. It's hard to understand something when you don't even know what it is you're supposed to understand no?
Because he says so, and because you're crazy/stupid/whatever and just can't understand the brilliance of his insight.

Or something.

I dunno, I've kinda stopped caring and am just poking at this with a stick at this point.

Let's try another tactic, though:

Can I get a show of hands from religious believers who think that Peep is better able to understand why they believe what they believe than, say, one of the learned atheists in this thread?

So, 34 pages later, do we know why atheists hate religious people?

In fairness to Peepelonia, In a lot of 'Does God exist?' themed threads a lot of Atheists like to comment on how they just can't understand why people feel the need to believe in such things.