The War Against Christianity

[articulett]

Wow, articulett, I agree with that. I think you're softening. ;) We'll make an apologist of you yet. :p

I don't think I've ever been as radical as alleged. I think people hear things that aren't there sometimes.... and I think it's because there is the subliminal underlying notion that we musn't stir up faith and the faithful-- and also, of course, the notion that atheists are evil, strident, shrill, militant, eat babies, etc.

But I will never be an apologist. :sulk: An apologist "covers for" religion unknowingly it seems-- the whole "faith is good" meme-- or at least, that it's harmless. I feel like they are the people on this forum running to derail threads to call people bad for daring to criticize faith...pretending they said "all religions" whenever they speak of religions in general. :p

Not all faiths are bad-- but all faiths do promote a way of thinking that is counter to reason. And most faiths also promote a kind of bigotry against nonbelievers--which they must do to "keep the faith". Yet most of the faithful are good people who have come to rely on or "need" their faith.
I would like to see more people understanding objective truths and less people believing that faith and feelings are methods of finding objective truths. (Heck, I get peeved when people can't seem to separate an opinion based claim from a fact based claim.)

[biomorph]

Wow, articulett, I agree with that. I think you're softening. ;) We'll make an apologist of you yet. :p

I doubt it, and don't you dare!:jaw-dropp

[articulett]

I doubt it, and don't you dare!:jaw-dropp

I will never ever relinquish my militant atheist crown.:broomstic

Besides... it's very good for my ego; I just pretend that I'm annoying people in the same manner as Dawkins and Hitchens. If the people who complain about me are the same people that complain about them, then I am honored to be pissing off the right people! I just tell myself that it's due to my eloquence, wittiness, and razor shop logic.

[kmortis]

I don't think I've ever been as radical as alleged. I think people hear things that aren't there sometimes.... and I think it's because there is the subliminal underlying notion that we musn't stir up faith and the faithful-- and also, of course, the notion that atheists are evil, strident, shrill, militant, eat babies, etc.

But I will never be an apologist. :sulk: An apologist "covers for" religion unknowingly it seems-- the whole "faith is good" meme-- or at least, that it's harmless. I feel like they are the people on this forum running to derail threads to call people bad for daring to criticize faith...pretending they said "all religions" whenever they speak of religions in general. :p

Not all faiths are bad-- but all faiths do promote a way of thinking that is counter to reason. And most faiths also promote a kind of bigotry against nonbelievers--which they must do to "keep the faith". Yet most of the faithful are good people who have come to rely on or "need" their faith.
I would like to see more people understanding objective truths and less people believing that faith and feelings are methods of finding objective truths. (Heck, I get peeved when people can't seem to separate an opinion based claim from a fact based claim.)

It's ok. I was just pulling your chain.





































You're already an apologist.
:duck:

[articulett]

:a2:

Don't you ever call me such a vile thing again, or I'll put you on ignore and talk about you behind your back.

[kmortis]

:a2:

Don't you ever call me such a vile thing again, or I'll put you on ignore and talk about you behind your back.

So, the only real change would you putting me on ignore? :p

Ok, ok, I take it back...stop hitting me...OWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW

[CFLarsen]

I will never ever relinquish my militant atheist crown.:broomstic

Besides... it's very good for my ego; I just pretend that I'm annoying people in the same manner as Dawkins and Hitchens. If the people who complain about me are the same people that complain about them, then I am honored to be pissing off the right people! I just tell myself that it's due to my eloquence, wittiness, and razor shop logic.

So, no evidence will persuade you to change your mind?

[Herzblut]

Zero. prove me otherwise smartypants.:cool:

I'm not making any claim to be proved.

If any evidence for gods existance can be demonstrated at a value greater than 0, then god must exist.

Otherwise gods existance is valued at 0, non existance
I'm afraid this is a classical fallacy called argument from ignorance, isn't it?

[articulett]

So, no evidence will persuade you to change your mind?

It depends on the source... Blowhards --nah... the more they criticize, the more it convinces me that it's because I'm Dawkinsesque. And it's not like they ever have evidence anyhow... just opinions, hyperbole, and tangents.

Of course,when the people I respect have encouraged me to tone it down, I do try. But the people who are peeved at me are also peeved at the posters I find funny and smart-- whereas, I find them ("the apologists") to be dopey, obnoxious, and generally ineffective in achieving any kind of dialogue-- They hear me saying things that aren't there and then I'm drawn into strawman battles regarding opinions and attempts to clarify what I actually said.

[kmortis]

It depends on the source... Blowhards --nah... the more they criticize, the more it convinces me that it's because I'm Dawkinsesque. And it's not like they ever have evidence anyhow... just opinions, hyperbole, and tangents.

I think it's cause they're jealous of your fat-cowness...:p

[articulett]

I think it's cause they're jealous of your fat-cowness...:p

Or my liberal hagginess.

That was funny... a chubby kid was calling me fat. He doesn't know how I look, but I'm not fat at all. It's always that way though, isn't it... the people running around critiquing others are often noticing faults in others that are more evident in themselves. And the funny thing is, they blow a gasket when it comes back to them--as if they have no clue that they started the volley of barbs.

I know I can be very biting. But, I don't think I've ever started it (but I admit to enjoying the exchange and keeping it going--when you get the blowhards pissed they self implode making for riotous fun. :zzw:)

[DARK LORD XENU]

FNORD why not just beat them upside the head whilst screaming "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU'D HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU" that A: Would have made them leave you alone and B: most likely would have converted them good! Also please explain what is this myth of a war on Christianity even though I consider to be a Catholic/Christian I find it hard to believe that there is a war on Cristianity why dont you go back to my Grandmothers country of Lebanon or in fact any other Arab speaking nation and ask what the Church has done to them over the years in fact why not ask any one of any religion apart from any form of Christianity about what the Church has done to them! The only threat Christianity and its variants face is from within itself meaning all of the different denominations cant go with out in fighting look at Ireland with the Catholics and Protastints that tore a country apart for years and again correct me if I'm wrong here but Catholics and Protastints are 2 sides to 1 religion same God same Jesus Christ same Bible 2 different views and 2 ways of worshiping and observing the same religion. In my opinion neither are wrong if both at least preach peace on Earth, turn the other cheeck and to love thy neighbour and all the basic Christian teachings then they are both as right as each other, Now FNORD please tell me what is the biggest threat to Christianity? Christianity in all its forms or everyone and everything else?

[tsg]

Well, I guess if Dawkins said it, we can take it on faith then? :p

I was only trying to clarify what Dawkins said. I didn't say it was necessarily right, nor did I say it was right because Dawkins said it. But if we are going to argue about whether Dawkins is right or not, we should at least be arguing about what Dawkins actually said.

I disagree with him. I think it's a rather large stretch to say that moderates and liberals encourage fundamentalists.

Dawkins doesn't say that either.

Speaking as a former fundy, they look down their noses at the more milquetoast members. "Pew warmers" or "C&E" Christians, I used to call them. They'd come on Christmas and Easter, or if they were really "devout" most Sundays. They come and get Holy for the Week. They didn't Gird Themselves with the Armour of God! They aren't out there Fighting against the Evil One.

Seriously, there are plenty of moderate and liberal theists who would love it if their own particular Buttheads for God were to disappear. Hell, there are some of the more conservative ones who'd like to see it too, it makes them all look bad. I'm sure that there are plenty of moderate Muslims who are ashamed of what the fundamentalists have done to what they see as Islam's good name.

Dawkins acknowledges this as well. In fact, it's the reason he makes the statement at all. What he's trying to impress on the moderates is that it is the practice of encouraging blind faith without evidence, the "faith is good" meme, that allows fundamentalists of every flavor to act in otherwise unacceptable ways. In other words, when you preach that belief in a god without question is a virtue, you shouldn't be terribly surprised when some people take it too far, especially when that preaching never once says "within reason."

It's the people who do kill in the "name of god", who shoot abortion doctors, who destroy property that need to be controlled. It's the actions, not the thoughts.

I don't disagree with this either. Dawkins isn't saying that the moderate believers are responsible for the actions of the fundamentalists. He's saying the faith the moderates encourage is the exact same faith the fundamentalists use to justify their actions, just taken to an extreme.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm afraid this is a classical fallacy called argument from ignorance, isn't it?

Nope. It has to do with burden of evidence. The claim "there is no god" which is a negative response to the claim "there is a god" carries no burden of evidence. This is because the claim "there is no god" would never have been made unless someone made the claim "there is a god." Since the claim "there is a god" has not been established to be true by any sense of objective reasoning, then the burden remains upon that claim.

[biomorph]

I'm not making any claim to be proved.

I'm afraid this is a classical fallacy called argument from ignorance, isn't it?

Yes you are, you asked for a value
the probability of gods existance IS zero. zilch, nada, nothing.
No its a classical argument from an uneducated (in maths) mind.

[biomorph]

I will never ever relinquish my militant atheist crown.:broomstic

Besides... it's very good for my ego; I just pretend that I'm annoying people in the same manner as Dawkins and Hitchens. If the people who complain about me are the same people that complain about them, then I am honored to be pissing off the right people! I just tell myself that it's due to my eloquence, wittiness, and razor shop logic.
I know you'll never relinquish your crown.
And I don't pretend.
The rest of your post I understand, but i'm unfamiliar with "razor shop logic", is that some new theory based on shopping? I hope so, I'm into retail therapy.

[articulett]

I know you'll never relinquish your crown.
And I don't pretend.
The rest of your post I understand, but i'm unfamiliar with "razor shop logic", is that some new theory based on shopping? I hope so, I'm into retail therapy.

I suspect I meant "razor sharp"-- but I'll go with shop... as in Little Shop of Horrors. And that's razor --as in Occam's. See how cleverly I can use my "razor shop" :o logic to make even my malapropisms make sense (at least to me...)

But if we are going to win this damn war on Christianity, I should probably learn to proofread and such, eh?

[biomorph]

So, no evidence will persuade you to change your mind?

If there was any evidence no doubt it would be taken into careful consideration, to be fair, I would have thought.

Unfortunately there has yet to be any.

If you have some, please share.

[biomorph]

I suspect I meant "razor sharp"-- but I'll go with shop... as in Little Shop of Horrors. And that's razor --as in Occam's. See how cleverly I can use my "razor shop" :o logic to make even my malapropisms make sense (at least to me...)

But if we are going to win this damn war on Christianity, I should probably learn to proofread and such, eh?

sorry, i thought you meant the leg shaving variety, !
You might not need to proof read after all, after reading the good book, most Xtians are technically illiterate.

:p

[articulett]

sorry, i thought you meant the leg shaving variety, !
You might not need to proof read after all, after reading the good book, most Xtians are technically illiterate.

:p

I've noticed that they tend to have problems in logic, grammar, and general sentence structure. I actually think Christian Hate Mail at is some of the funniest "literature" on this planet.

[SomeGuy]

I've noticed that they tend to have problems in logic, grammar, and general sentence structure. I actually think Christian Hate Mail at is some of the funniest "literature" on this planet.

Yeah, it's all laughs and chuckles untill someone blows up an abortion clinic...

[biomorph]

I've noticed that they tend to have problems in logic, grammar, and general sentence structure. I actually think Christian Hate Mail at is some of the funniest "literature" on this planet.

Oh, I'd better fish it out of the shredder, and re-file it under "humour" then........

[Herzblut]

Nope. It has to do with burden of evidence. The claim "there is no god" which is a negative response to the claim "there is a god" carries no burden of evidence. This is because the claim "there is no god" would never have been made unless someone made the claim "there is a god." Since the claim "there is a god" has not been established to be true by any sense of objective reasoning, then the burden remains upon that claim.
That's irrelevant. Let's assume that for a claim "G" no supporting evidence has been found. Anybody claiming "G" has to face the response that for "G" no evidence has been found. And that holding the belief "G" might be unjustified, by means of a plausible value judgment.

But there's no way to claim "not-G" in return , without accepting the burden of proof for "not-G" at the same time. Claiming "not-G" purely based on missing evidence of "G" is a fallacy.

[SomeGuy]

That's irrelevant. Let's assume that for a claim "G" no supporting evidence has been found. Anybody claiming "G" has to face the response that for "G" no evidence has been found. And that holding the belief "G" might be unjustified, by means of a plausible value judgment.

But there's no way to claim "not-G" in return , without accepting the burden of proof for "not-G" at the same time. Claiming "not-G" purely based on missing evidence of "G" is a fallacy.

No it's not, and you're Arguing from Personal Incredulity.

"not-X" is the natural logical position when faced with an unsubstansiated "X".

You assume it's a fallacy because you can't believe that it's so.

Thus: Argument from Personal Incredulity.

[biomorph]

That's irrelevant. Let's assume that for a claim "G" no supporting evidence has been found.
Yup follow you there ok..
Anybody claiming "G" has to face the response that for "G" no evidence has been found. And that holding the belief "G" might be unjustified, by means of a plausible value judgment.
Still with you.....

But there's no way to claim "not-G" in return , without accepting the burden of proof for "not-G" at the same time. Claiming "not-G" purely based on missing evidence of "G" is a fallacy.

The burden of proof you seem to be talking about does prove G's nonexistance. The claims made by the assertion that G exists are testable because the assertion defines G. Not only do the asserted claims fail the test of observational evidence, the evidence also provides an explanation as to the replacement mechanism making G a false and failed hypothesis......
Also the statment "missing evidence" assumes, to me , that there is evidence, but it is missing.
But its not missing. Its nonexistant. there is no evidence to miss.
This is tantamount to hoping there is some evidence,
but not having any.

This method is used often by some with the doubt that under the premise of "science doesn't know everything"
and "science cannot know everything".

But of course that is a retreating position in the face of the definition of G being disproved.

That retreat is ongoing as the evidence of neutral observation is not providing a definition of G. Its providing a positive definition of something else. Not G.

As G is defined by only non evidential assertion, not evidence from observation, then its easy to refute the defined value of G.

G is not "whatever i think up at the time" It is defined by its assertations of its proponants. It is therefore easy to refute, as the evidence says otherwise.

If you run out of fuel in the car, and your tank meter says zero, and your car stops working, the evidence supports the observation that you have run out of fuel.

So instead of taking it to the service shop for an oil change, you just fire some gas in there.

Ahaaa! the meter reads "not empty", and the car runs.

You may rightly say at that juncture, I ran out of fuel.

You have just proved a negative, ie the negative value of the fuel in your tank when the evidence says there is NONE.........Yes?

[Ryan O'Dine]

Well, as soon as I become a neurologist, I'll pass it along. :D

Actually, I posted a video clip of Dr. Ramachandran talking about it. I don't know if he's the one who discovered it, but he's the first one I heard about it from. I know that it was discovered by observing temporal lobe ecliptics while they were having a seizure. This paper (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web2/Eguae.html) says that it was Ramachandran who discovered it in 1997. I can't find anything else on the web.


Small correction. I don't know if Michael Persinger was the first to explore the links between religious experience and the temporal lobes, but he was doing it well before 1997.


As for this wonderful thread, I've recently been leaning toward something akin to Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of "Nonoverlapping Magisteria." Religion has no place in government, science, general education, and various other fields. Where it tries to dictate terms in those areas, it should be rebuffed fiercely. But where it intersects with art, literature, culture, and the exploration of human experience, it should be given a respectful berth.

I’d like to think it’s possible to be a pluralist without being an “enabler.”

[ImaginalDisc]

Small correction. I don't know if Michael Persinger was the first to explore the links between religious experience and the temporal lobes, but he was doing it well before 1997.


As for this wonderful thread, I've recently been leaning toward something akin to Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of "Nonoverlapping Magisteria." Religion has no place in government, science, general education, and various other fields. Where it tries to dictate terms in those areas, it should be rebuffed fiercely. But where it intersects with art, literature, culture, and the exploration of human experience, it should be given a respectful berth.

I’d like to think it’s possible to be a pluralist without being an “enabler.”

Why? What makes religion deserving of "a respectful berth?" If it isn't true, why bother with it?

[biomorph]

The only thing religion deserves in my book is more like a disrespectful kicking.
From my end of things, it deserves a place in the trash can. No where else.
I could supply more invective and condemnation, but I'm feeling kind.
Must be the medication kicking in, (at last!)

Aaahhhhhhhhhh..................................... .......

[Ryan O'Dine]

Why? What makes religion deserving of "a respectful berth?" If it isn't true, why bother with it?


Why be respectful of the culture of the Ecuadorian aboriginal Hoarani? They believe people can turn into jaguars. No respect for them! Let the oil companies have their way!

Why be respectful of art? Sometimes it depicts fairies. No respect for artists! Censorship all around!

If being "true" is the only reason you'd "bother" with something, I can only imagine you lead an incredibly dreary and colorless life. (No offense, I'm just trying to reduce your position to absurdity.)

[JoeEllison]

Why be respectful of the culture of the Ecuadorian aboriginal Hoarani? They believe people can turn into jaguars. No respect for them! Let the oil companies have their way!

Why be respectful of art? Sometimes it depicts fairies. No respect for artists! Censorship all around!

If being "true" is the only reason you'd "bother" with something, I can only imagine you lead an incredibly dreary and colorless life. (No offense, I'm just trying to reduce your position to absurdity.)Nice try, but your absurdity is incorrectly applied. Being "disrespectful" shouldn't be conflated with "destroying" or "banning".

And since when is reality "dreary and colorless"? People who believe that should blame their lack of imagination and curiosity, not reality.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Nice try, but your absurdity is incorrectly applied. Being "disrespectful" shouldn't be conflated with "destroying" or "banning".

Well, I didn't exactly conflate it with "destroying," or "banning" (the oil companies aren't out to destroy Hoarani culture, only ride roughshod over it. And censorship isn't banning.) And just to specify what I mean by respectful, it's allowing the other party to exist as it wishes so long as it doesn't "pick my pocket or break my leg" (or however Jefferson put it). In other words, live and let live.

And since when is reality "dreary and colorless"? People who believe that should blame their lack of imagination and curiosity, not reality.

You have a point. But my point was that ImaginalDisc's "If it isn't true, why bother with it?" leaves you not bothering with a heck of a lot of extremely interesting things.

[thaiboxerken]

That's irrelevant. Let's assume that for a claim "G" no supporting evidence has been found. Anybody claiming "G" has to face the response that for "G" no evidence has been found. And that holding the belief "G" might be unjustified, by means of a plausible value judgment.

But there's no way to claim "not-G" in return , without accepting the burden of proof for "not-G" at the same time. Claiming "not-G" purely based on missing evidence of "G" is a fallacy.

As Someguy said, you are simply wrong. The negative assertion "not-G' is entirely logical since the assertion "G" has not been established as factual. If, for example, G stood for gravity and I decided that gravity does not exist, the burden would be upon me because it has been established that gravity does exist.

Gods do not exist. I carry no burden of evidence in saying so.

[ImaginalDisc]

You have a point. But my point was that ImaginalDisc's "If it isn't true, why bother with it?" leaves you not bothering with a heck of a lot of extremely interesting things.

Hardly. Many things are not about truth, and are none the less worthwhile pastimes. While baseball is not a pursuit of truth, baseball is not antithetical to the pursuit of truth, as religion is. Religion invlolves arrogant pretenses towards knowledge, mystical nonsense, and pious mutterings. Religion pretends to have something to do with morality, meaning, and justice. Religion is not just some cheerful pastime, it aspires to be taken seriously.

As religion has nothing in it that should be taken seriously, it should be discarded as the archaic, superstitious worldview that it is, rather than preserved, as you would have us do.

[JoeEllison]

Well, I didn't exactly conflate it with "destroying," or "banning" (the oil companies aren't out to destroy Hoarani culture, only ride roughshod over it. And censorship isn't banning.) And just to specify what I mean by respectful, it's allowing the other party to exist as it wishes so long as it doesn't "pick my pocket or break my leg" (or however Jefferson put it). In other words, live and let live.There's nothing in "live and let live" that involves respect.

You have a point. But my point was that ImaginalDisc's "If it isn't true, why bother with it?" leaves you not bothering with a heck of a lot of extremely interesting things.Not really. It leaves you not bothering with a heck of a lot of NOTHING. :D

[Ryan O'Dine]

Hardly. Many things are not about truth, and are none the less worthwhile pastimes. While baseball is not a pursuit of truth, baseball is not antithetical to the pursuit of truth, as religion is. Religion invlolves arrogant pretenses towards knowledge, mystical nonsense, and pious mutterings. Religion pretends to have something to do with morality, meaning, and justice. Religion is not just some cheerful pastime, it aspires to be taken seriously.

As religion has nothing in it that should be taken seriously, it should be discarded as the archaic, superstitious worldview that it is, rather than preserved, as you would have us do.

I have a certain respect for what you're saying. I’m just not to the point of agreeing that it means religion should be intentionally discarded. For one thing, I think it’s fair to say that religions form subcultures -- that they’re more than just the sum of their supernatural claims. In a pluralistic society, there must be room for contradictory subcultures to coexist. Boundaries are necessary, and one can argue how tight they should be, but I think tolerance and pluralism ought to be given as much room to maneuver as possible.

I admit things can go too far. The evangelical influence on U.S. politics gives me no end of grief. I believe that, in that case, religion has overstepped its Magisterium. But if the choice is between ridding ourselves of religion altogether, and finding a way of coexisting with mutual tolerance, I think the latter is -- at very least -- a more achievable and therefore realistic goal than the former.


ETA: Oh, and I wouldn’t argue religion should be actively preserved. If it wants to find its own grave, I wouldn’t stand in the way.

[Ryan O'Dine]

There's nothing in "live and let live" that involves respect.

Yes, it certainly looks like my concept of "respect" is not universally held. I hope this doesn't keep anyone from understanding my arguments.

Not really. It leaves you not bothering with a heck of a lot of NOTHING. :D

Another confusion of terms. Is art "true"? If it can't be said to be "true," shouldn't ImaginalDisc discard it?

That's how I read him. He elaborated that he meant antithetical to truth, so I think we're back on the same page.

[JoeEllison]

I think we're getting bogged down in terminology.

[kmortis]

I think we're getting bogged down in terminology.

How do you define "terminology"? :p

[Tanstaafl]

When I say that thing on your head is a "hat", I am using "terminology".

[JoeEllison]

How do you define "terminology"? :p

Can a bog be squared? :rolleyes:

[kmortis]

When I say that thing on your head is a "hat", I am using "terminology".
What hat?
Can a bog be squared? :rolleyes:

Yes, but the process would kill you.

[Herzblut]

As Someguy said, you are simply wrong. The negative assertion "not-G' is entirely logical since the assertion "G" has not been established as factual. If, for example, G stood for gravity and I decided that gravity does not exist, the burden would be upon me because it has been established that gravity does exist.

First of all "gravity" is no assertion, it's a .. noun. And it's a false analogy. A better one might be G = "Dark matter exists" or "White holes exist".


Gods do not exist. I carry no burden of evidence in saying so.
There is no burden of evidence because there is no evidence to be expected, neither for nor against G. Belief what you want.

[BenBurch]

Yes, using logical fallacies to create the attacks. Vis:
All religions are evil
All religions are usless
All religious practices are child abuse



Can you provide one shred of proof that these are not 100% true?

I didn't think so.

[kmortis]

Can you provide one shred of proof that these are not 100% true?

I didn't think so.

Don't have to. Much like the old atheism/theism debate, it's the one with the positive argument (i.e. the one claiming "all religions are evil") that has to provide proof. I'm simply rejecting that claim.

[UnrepentantSinner]

There's nothing in "live and let live" that involves respect.

I realize there's been a semantic aspect to some recent posts here but wouldn't a "live and let live" attitude infer respecting the person, if not their positition/attitude/belief?

Can you provide one shred of proof that these are not 100% true?

I didn't think so.

Oh B.S. How about you prove that all religions are 100% evil, that all religions are 100% useless or that all religious practices are 100% child abuse rather than trying to shift the burden? Kmo has merely noted that these are the usual unsubstantiated claims by some here, you're the one who has stepped up the evidentiary level to "100%".

Instead of your smug "I didn't think so" remark, how about you put up or shut up?

[biomorph]

I realize there's been a semantic aspect to some recent posts here but wouldn't a "live and let live" attitude infer respecting the person, if not their positition/attitude/belief?


Well sort of, but there is a slight problem with the respect side of the deal.

The first problem is that people take their position/attitude/belief personally. This makes it hard to deal with the person on an objective level.

Unfortunately this is the nature of the animal one has to deal with.

If the afflicted could for once seperate the concept of their particular ideaology from themselves as a person, we would find it easier to get those sufferers to recognise the ridiculousness of the notions they decide to take up with.

With the godsquad this is hard work. The perceived nature of the ethos is that it is personal and global at the same time.

Clever stuff.

So in order to get these poor people to become less deluded you have to seperate them from their god.

You can see the semantic nightmare this could lead to, risking resorting to writing them off as people, when the objective is to write off only the erronious fallacy of the brainwashing they have received. Not the person as an individual.

In reality some tactics do resort to making the omlette by breaking eggs, but if possible it's prefererable to be kind and respect the person.

Its not always possible, thats all.

Its like sawing off a leg with gangrene and no anesthetic, it is going to hurt, but you know it'll be worth the pain.

If religion could be, by default, less personal, they'd be less insulted. But thats the nature of the thing they have embraced, so, so be it. They made their own bed, they can lie in it... :D

[kmortis]

Well sort of, but there is a slight problem with the respect side of the deal.

The first problem is that people take their position/attitude/belief personally. This makes it hard to deal with the person on an objective level.

Unfortunately this is the nature of the animal one has to deal with.

If the afflicted could for once seperate the concept of their particular ideaology from themselves as a person, we would find it easier to get those sufferers to recognise the ridiculousness of the notions they decide to take up with.

With the godsquad this is hard work. The perceived nature of the ethos is that it is personal and global at the same time.

Clever stuff.

So in order to get these poor people to become less deluded you have to seperate them from their god.

You can see the semantic nightmare this could lead to, risking resorting to writing them off as people, when the objective is to write off only the erronious fallacy of the brainwashing they have received. Not the person as an individual.

In reality some tactics do resort to making the omlette by breaking eggs, but if possible it's prefererable to be kind and respect the person.

Its not always possible, thats all.

Its like sawing off a leg with gangrene and no anesthetic, it is going to hurt, but you know it'll be worth the pain.

If religion could be, by default, less personal, they'd be less insulted. But thats the nature of the thing they have embraced, so, so be it. They made their own bed, they can lie in it... :D

1) Not all theists "personalize" their religion. Some are able to discuss it rationally without rancor. I've had at least two very pleasant conversations via email with people about their religious beliefs where we were able to discuss it without angering the other.

2) What you said can be said about any belief system, whether it's religion, politics or sport's team backing. There are some who can entertain opposing thoughts without causing much cognitive dissonance, and some who cannot. Painting all with the same brush isn't helpful.

3) You discuss the reactions of individuals and how they interpret their religion. That is a better place to discuss rather than making a monolithic Religion that you're trying to battle. When you make a singular entity out of something as varied and diverse as religion, you will never understand it and therefore never be able to effectively combat it.

[tsg]

Well sort of, but there is a slight problem with the respect side of the deal.

The first problem is that people take their position/attitude/belief personally. This makes it hard to deal with the person on an objective level.

Unfortunately this is the nature of the animal one has to deal with.

If the afflicted could for once seperate the concept of their particular ideaology from themselves as a person, we would find it easier to get those sufferers to recognise the ridiculousness of the notions they decide to take up with.

With the godsquad this is hard work. The perceived nature of the ethos is that it is personal and global at the same time.

Clever stuff.

So in order to get these poor people to become less deluded you have to seperate them from their god.

You can see the semantic nightmare this could lead to, risking resorting to writing them off as people, when the objective is to write off only the erronious fallacy of the brainwashing they have received. Not the person as an individual.

In reality some tactics do resort to making the omlette by breaking eggs, but if possible it's prefererable to be kind and respect the person.

Its not always possible, thats all.

Its like sawing off a leg with gangrene and no anesthetic, it is going to hurt, but you know it'll be worth the pain.

If religion could be, by default, less personal, they'd be less insulted. But thats the nature of the thing they have embraced, so, so be it. They made their own bed, they can lie in it... :D

For example, Kathy Griffin's "Suck it, Jesus" comment. Kathy Griffin didn't insult anyone except, possibly, Jesus. Many Christians took it personally. Whether it was her intent or not, I saw this as a perfect example of the desire for some Christians to have everyone else believe what they do. By condemning Griffin and taking offense for insulting Jesus, they are demanding that she hold their religious figure in the same high regard that they do. By taking that comment as a personal affront, they are saying that insulting their belief is insulting them. That is, frankly, their own problem. The solution is to not be offended.

I respect others' rights to believe whatever they hell they like. That doesn't mean I have to respect the belief any more than believing that people should be allowed to make their own decisions means I have to think their decisions are good ones. And I'm not going to refrain from criticizing that belief because of their irrational insistence that criticizing the belief is disrespecting them.

[biomorph]

1) Not all theists "personalize" their religion. Find me one that doesn't and I'll prove you wrong, well i'll give it my best shot. You may well be right, but I don't think so......Some are able to discuss it rationally without rancor. I've had at least two very pleasant conversations via email with people about their religious beliefs where we were able to discuss it without angering the other.
Me too, good for you. Now go out and do it in real life.
email is pretty impersonal, and IMO only counts for so much.

2) What you said can be said about any belief system, whether it's religion, politics or sport's team backing. There are some who can entertain opposing thoughts without causing much cognitive dissonance, and some who cannot. Painting all with the same brush isn't helpful.
Yes it is..... I'm talking about religion, tho thanks for the comparison with the others, which are not the same thing. However I appreciate your point.
3) You discuss the reactions of individuals and how they interpret their religion. That is a better place to discuss rather than making a monolithic Religion that you're trying to battle. When you make a singular entity out of something as varied and diverse as religion, you will never understand it and therefore never be able to effectively combat it.
Not so.
Religion is the same whatever the breed type or offshoot.
I cannot see the difference. Please expand, as i'm not sure what you mean there........diverse,? Nah. don't buy that...

Politics is my no.2 pet hate so i'm reserving equal invective for that one, matey. however we are discussing religion here, in general..

Sport, well you can take that how you want, i'm not that sport minded, but it has physical and tangible benefits. I'm not convinced that religion has such. Sport team supporters are something I have NO interest in either.

[kmortis]

Find me one that doesn't and I'll prove you wrong, well i'll give it my best shot. You may well be right, but I don't think so......Me too, good for you. Now go out and do it in real life.
email is pretty impersonal, and IMO only counts for so much.
I do, on an almost weekly basis. A goodly portion of the people I deal with at work know that I'm an atheist. We can actually joke about religion together, with ruffling their feathers. So far, I've yet to have anyone get offended by me or my point of view. I don't attack them, I will question them though.

Yes it is..... I'm talking about religion, tho thanks for the comparison with the others, which are not the same thing. However I appreciate your point.
Not so.
Religion is the same whatever the breed type or offshoot.
I cannot see the difference. Please expand, as i'm not sure what you mean there........diverse,? Nah. don't buy that...

Politics is my no.2 pet hate so i'm reserving equal invective for that one, matey. however we are discussing religion here, in general..

Sport, well you can take that how you want, i'm not that sport minded, but it has physical and tangible benefits. I'm not convinced that religion has such. Sport team supporters are something I have NO interest in either.

Ok, so how is lumping all religious beliefs in any way helpful to getting others to abandon their beliefs? If you treat all religions as if they are some brand of Christianity, you're going to just irritate people because you keep arguing against something they don't hold to be true. All religions are not the same. Islam is not Judaism is not Buddhism is not Taoism is not Christianity. Hell, different flavors of each of them aren't even the same. You start telling a Methodist that Christianity is wrong because "god doesn't heal amputees" they'll probably look at you like you have three heads because as a general rule, Methodists don't go in for faith healing to begin with. Try telling a Buddhist that religions are wrong because there's no evidence that god exists, there's an even chance that they'll agree that there isn't any evidence.

Also, not all adherents are equal. You have all kinds in every congregation. You're going to have the gamut from the moderate to the light-weight to the fanatic. And then every congregation is going to vary as well. Religion is not a singularity. About the only universal is that religions bring people together over a commonly held belief. If you do not understand what that belief is and how it relates to the community it's held in, you're not going to be effective in talking to them and convincing them whatever it is you want to convince them of.

Remember the first rule of diplomacy, your enemy never sees themselves as evil. the sooner you learn that and start modifying your rhetoric the sooner you'll start getting your point across.

[kmortis]

For example, Kathy Griffin's "Suck it, Jesus" comment. Kathy Griffin didn't insult anyone except, possibly, Jesus. Many Christians took it personally. Whether it was her intent or not, I saw this as a perfect example of the desire for some Christians to have everyone else believe what they do. By condemning Griffin and taking offense for insulting Jesus, they are demanding that she hold their religious figure in the same high regard that they do. By taking that comment as a personal affront, they are saying that insulting their belief is insulting them. That is, frankly, their own problem. The solution is to not be offended.

I respect others' rights to believe whatever they hell they like. That doesn't mean I have to respect the belief any more than believing that people should be allowed to make their own decisions means I have to think their decisions are good ones. And I'm not going to refrain from criticizing that belief because of their irrational insistence that criticizing the belief is disrespecting them.

Tolerance <> acceptance. You do not have to accept the Belief Systems (B.S.) of anyone else, just tolerate. Hell, argue with them, if you'd like, just don't vilify. It's the constant vilification that I've been railing against these past few days. I don't care if you don't like religion X or religion Y, just try not to vilify, try to understand that it's a person you're talking about, not a BS.


ETA: tsg, I wasn't meaning to imply that you were vilifying anyone, it was just a convenient place to touch off that particular point.

And yes, I am well aware that disagreement <> vilification. Calling them all "evil" on the other hand.

[tsg]

Tolerance <> acceptance. You do not have to accept the Belief Systems (B.S.) of anyone else, just tolerate. Hell, argue with them, if you'd like, just don't vilify. It's the constant vilification that I've been railing against these past few days. I don't care if you don't like religion X or religion Y, just try not to vilify, try to understand that it's a person you're talking about, not a BS.

I don't disagree. The point I was making is that there is a tendency among some of the religious to see criticism of the belief as an insult to the person, and, in some cases, a demand that it not be criticized out of "respect".

ETA: tsg, I wasn't meaning to imply that you were vilifying anyone, it was just a convenient place to touch off that particular point.

I understood.

And yes, I am well aware that disagreement <> vilification. Calling them all "evil" on the other hand.

In these cases, I try to avoid speaking about generalities (eg "religion") and focus on the particular behavior I find "evil". Invariably these arguments turn into one of semantics about what constitutes "religion", with one side presenting examples of quote-unquote religions that don't practice the behavior being discussed and the other dismissing them almost "no true scotsman"-like. On the other side there is a tendency among some to counter an argument made about religion "in general" as being fallacious because it isn't true in every case. Either way, focusing on the particular aspect I find objectionable cuts out a lot of the crap.

[kmortis]

I don't disagree. The point I was making is that there is a tendency among some of the religious to see criticism of the belief as an insult to the person, and, in some cases, a demand that it not be criticized out of "respect".

I understood.

In these cases, I try to avoid speaking about generalities (eg "religion") and focus on the particular behavior I find "evil". Invariably these arguments turn into one of semantics about what constitutes "religion", with one side presenting examples of quote-unquote religions that don't practice the behavior being discussed and the other dismissing them almost "no true scotsman"-like. On the other side there is a tendency among some to counter an argument made about religion "in general" as being fallacious because it isn't true in every case. Either way, focusing on the particular aspect I find objectionable cuts out a lot of the crap.

Wow...it almost sounds like we agree. That can't be.....


HERETIC!!!!!!

:D

[tsg]

Wow...it almost sounds like we agree. That can't be.....

Great. Now I have to go wash my brain.

HERETIC!!!!!!

:D

Splitter!

[biomorph]

I do, on an almost weekly basis. A goodly portion of the people I deal with at work know that I'm an atheist. We can actually joke about religion together, with ruffling their feathers. So far, I've yet to have anyone get offended by me or my point of view. I don't attack them, I will question them though.
I understand what you are saying here, and of course from experience you are right, the ones you personally deal with in that situation are like you say and act as you say. And i am mostly of that nature too. It depends on the other person I'm dealing with though, to some extent . This varies from the above example to agreeing to disagree. Also you state that you question them. Is it not understood that one of the basic and most foundational ideas behind the religion your guys practice is the sin of questioning the god they worship (note, I did not say all gods)?

Although a sociable banter is a methodology i prefer and love, even that can easliy, and is by many (maybe not the majority but a lot) regarded as a form, albeit mildly, of attack. This is regretable, and not, as you rightly state, universal.


Ok, so how is lumping all religious beliefs in any way helpful to getting others to abandon their beliefs?

Understanding the commonalities amongst, as you correctly state, a wide variety of religions (worldwide) is essential to finding a way of removing them, either with the host's approval or not. Preferably with.
Doing this gives one a common set of tools on which to perhaps build a more tailored response to the individual details, if needed. you know, foundational knowledge and all that.....
If you treat all religions as if they are some brand of Christianity, you're going to just irritate people because you keep arguing against something they don't hold to be true.See above... and i agree. (yes really)

All religions are not the same. Islam is not Judaism is not Buddhism is not Taoism is not Christianity. Hell, different flavors of each of them aren't even the same. You start telling a Methodist that Christianity is wrong because "god doesn't heal amputees" they'll probably look at you like you have three heads because as a general rule, Methodists don't go in for faith healing to begin with. Try telling a Buddhist that religions are wrong because there's no evidence that god exists, there's an even chance that they'll agree that there isn't any evidence.
True. recognising diversity is a scientific pursuit, it is not so prevelant in religion though is it. Recognition to most adherants means tolerance, this might be in practice the way that a lot of religions ensure their survival, however the actual teachings often proscribe the opposite.
Also, not all adherents are equal. You have all kinds in every congregation. You're going to have the gamut from the moderate to the light-weight to the fanatic. And then every congregation is going to vary as well. Religion is not a singularity. About the only universal is that religions bring people together over a commonly held belief. If you do not understand what that belief is and how it relates to the community it's held in, you're not going to be effective in talking to them and convincing them whatever it is you want to convince them of.
Yup totally agree.with the caveats i gave above included though

Remember the first rule of diplomacy, your enemy never sees themselves as evil. the sooner you learn that and start modifying your rhetoric the sooner you'll start getting your point across.

I do know it already really. I'm mentally questioning the conclusions you draw here based on a very small amount of exchanges we have had though.

I have sometimes got my point across, sometimes not. I am responsive to the other party generally, unless they refuse to cooperate or, then the gloves come off occasionally.

Look, I do respect the person, but respect for that person's belief is to me a different thing.
I see the occupancy, at a more global level, of a human's mind by a religion as an infection in an almost medical sense of the word. Clinical objectiveness is my ultimate strategy. The problems I've outlined in my previous post illustrate the difficulty in being so that could, and are, experienced by the perhaps more serious debunker. I can see you are questioning the more simplistic and seemingly generalist stratetgy I've portrayed here, and I can assure you there is more to it than that. If that's your point i again agree.
Attack the argument though, not the person. (sorry, isnt that what you're saying I should do? Maybe not.

[articulett]

I think it's fair for theists on this forum to expect their claims to be as scrutinized as any other supernatural claims-- or any other claims at all. It sounds like people think we should treat religion different than we treat Astrology or Dowsing or demon possession or homeopathy. And yet, there is no reason to give those claims special coddling, is there?

This is a skeptics forum... we are subject to all sorts of opinions of various woo who come here thinking we should respect their "beliefs" without ever respecting ours. Do those who expect respect for their beliefs give the same respect to non-believers. Is there a reason we should prop up delusional ideas? It sounds like people are really saying that we should treat some beliefs differently because the word "god" is attached or something-- that we should be softer with our approach... more welcoming or something. But they never say which exact beliefs those are or why. If it isn't true--why do we have to prop up the idea that it is... especially on a skeptics forum.

The fact is, no matter how sweet and genteel you are, theists get offended when you don't believe their woo. They have been taught to take your lack of belief personally and to notice what is wrong with non-believers rather than question their beliefs. Is fnord nicer because of his religion. If you cut and paste the most offensive or damaging thing an atheist has said on this forum--I guarantee you I will find something much more offensive by a theist.

But the bottom line is this--there is no good reason to treat some faiths with less scrutiny than we'd give Scientology or Astrology or Mormonism or Interesting Ian's nuttiness. If someone thinks that there is-- they must tell us which beliefs we should handle differently and how and why. No theist has to preach here... nobody has to believe anything-- an nobody needs to know what people believe. But if they put it up for scrutiny-- they should expect to have it treated the way we treat any woo.

[UnrepentantSinner]

This is a skeptics forum...

Not an atheist forum... something you seem to be unable to realize after all this time.

[biomorph]

Not an atheist forum... something you seem to be unable to realize after all this time.

If you are trying to seperate skeptic and atheism here, good luck. are you saying that atheistically skeptical persons here have to refrain from expressing that form of skeptisism here?

surely not.

[kmortis]

<snip lots of agreeing goodness>
Look, I do respect the person, but respect for that person's belief is to me a different thing.
I see the occupancy, at a more global level, of a human's mind by a religion as an infection in an almost medical sense of the word. Clinical objectiveness is my ultimate strategy. The problems I've outlined in my previous post illustrate the difficulty in being so that could, and are, experienced by the perhaps more serious debunker. I can see you are questioning the more simplistic and seemingly generalist stratetgy I've portrayed here, and I can assure you there is more to it than that. If that's your point i again agree.
Attack the argument though, not the person. (sorry, isnt that what you're saying I should do? Maybe not.

You're partially correct, I am rejecting the generalist strategy. I don't find it particularly helpful. The other idea that I'm trying to impart is the Dionysian ideal of acceptance of a person as opposed to the Apollian harshness of pure debunking. (yes, I am a Rush fan, why do you ask?) I'll never tell you not to debunk or challenge a claim, but there's a big difference between "Oh, that's total bull, let me show you how you're an idiot..." and "well, that may not be so, and here's why...". Granted, both paths might get you blank stares, but I've found that the later will at least not shut off further conversations about the topic.

Of course, you have to know your audience. I have a friend that if I tried the more gentle approach, he'd have me for lunch; but when I directly attack his position he will actually listen. He's a nutcase, though and I'd never base any general human interactions on him. Although, I will say he and I have had some of the more entertaining conversations over the years.

In any case, I'll say that (warning, statistics abuse to follow) 99% of the people here probably I do agree with their tactics. It's those vocal few that have me worried.

Who wants pancakes?

[kmortis]

If you are trying to seperate skeptic and atheism here, good luck. are you saying that atheistically skeptical persons here have to refrain from expressing that form of skeptisism here?

surely not.

I don't think he is. It appears that he's trying to remind you that the two terms are not mutually inclusive. You do not have to be an atheist to be a skeptic, and vice versa. There are plenty of skeptical theists out there. Just because there's a vocal group who thinks that the one leads to the other, doesn't make it true. It just makes it a No True Skeptic fallacy. ;)

[kmortis]

I think it's fair for theists on this forum to expect their claims to be as scrutinized as any other supernatural claims-- or any other claims at all. It sounds like people think we should treat religion different than we treat Astrology or Dowsing or demon possession or homeopathy. And yet, there is no reason to give those claims special coddling, is there?

This is a skeptics forum... we are subject to all sorts of opinions of various woo who come here thinking we should respect their "beliefs" without ever respecting ours. Do those who expect respect for their beliefs give the same respect to non-believers. Is there a reason we should prop up delusional ideas? It sounds like people are really saying that we should treat some beliefs differently because the word "god" is attached or something-- that we should be softer with our approach... more welcoming or something. But they never say which exact beliefs those are or why. If it isn't true--why do we have to prop up the idea that it is... especially on a skeptics forum.

The fact is, no matter how sweet and genteel you are, theists get offended when you don't believe their woo. They have been taught to take your lack of belief personally and to notice what is wrong with non-believers rather than question their beliefs. Is fnord nicer because of his religion. If you cut and paste the most offensive or damaging thing an atheist has said on this forum--I guarantee you I will find something much more offensive by a theist.

But the bottom line is this--there is no good reason to treat some faiths with less scrutiny than we'd give Scientology or Astrology or Mormonism or Interesting Ian's nuttiness. If someone thinks that there is-- they must tell us which beliefs we should handle differently and how and why. No theist has to preach here... nobody has to believe anything-- an nobody needs to know what people believe. But if they put it up for scrutiny-- they should expect to have it treated the way we treat any woo.

I think the Subgenius should get a pass. They have 'Frop (not a drug).

[articulett]

I don't think he is. It appears that he's trying to remind you that the two terms are not mutually inclusive. You do not have to be an atheist to be a skeptic, and vice versa. There are plenty of skeptical theists out there. Just because there's a vocal group who thinks that the one leads to the other, doesn't make it true. It just makes it a No True Skeptic fallacy. ;)

I think biomorph went out of her way to show the terms as not being mutually exclusive. However, most people who identify as skeptics also identify as atheists because when you apply skepticism to god beliefs (namely Occam's razor) you tend to find that all gods are on par with Mythological gods. There is not a logical or rational way one can come about a belief in god... and it seems like that there isn't even a good way to say this without getting people upset because most believers are sure that their particular god beliefs are rational. So when god is brought up on a skeptics forum... it becomes fodder for dissection just as all other claims.

Yes on Pancakes and yes Subgenii get a pass.

[Hawk one]

Articulett: Kmortis said "mutually inclusive, and as far as I can read the message, that was no typo. His post seems to make more sense that way, at least to me.

[articulett]

Articulett: Kmortis said "mutually inclusive, and as far as I can read the message, that was no typo. His post seems to make more sense that way, at least to me.

My bad.

[Hawk one]

Hey, no worries. "Mutually inclusive" is so seldomly used - first time I can recall seeing it - that I bet most people will first read it as "mutually exclusive" instead. ;)

[articulett]

Hey, no worries. "Mutually inclusive" is so seldomly used - first time I can recall seeing it - that I bet most people will first read it as "mutually exclusive" instead. ;)

I guess in terms of a Venn diagram there is a lot of overlap between skepticism and atheism. Atheism is a single position issue... a lack of beliefs in gods... skepticism is more general... but most skeptics do not give credence to supernatural claims. Kmortis was saying they two are not synonymous... and I agree. When most people are rationalists, then there won't need to be a word for someone who doesn't believe in gods any more than there needs to be a word for people who don't believe in astrology. I identify as a skeptic-- a rationalist... I don't believe in divine truths and I don't think those claiming to have accessed such deserve any deference or special consideration.

[kmortis]

I guess in terms of a Venn diagram there is a lot of overlap between skepticism and atheism. Atheism is a single position issue... a lack of beliefs in gods... skepticism is more general... but most skeptics do not give credence to supernatural claims. Kmortis was saying they two are not synonymous... and I agree. When most people are rationalists, then there won't need to be a word for someone who doesn't believe in gods any more than there needs to be a word for people who don't believe in astrology. I identify as a skeptic-- a rationalist... I don't believe in divine truths and I don't think those claiming to have accessed such deserve any deference or special consideration.

I'm KMortis, and I endorse this post.


Yeah, "mutually inclusive" isn't all that common. I figured though, that if there's a mutually exclusive, then, logically, there must be an inverse.

[Mobyseven]

Not an atheist forum... something you seem to be unable to realize after all this time.

That's not even the worst of it. Everytime I come on here, I am assaulted by the multitude of people who seem to think that this place is an amegalospodist forum. All the amegalospodists force their amegalospodist arguments on to me, unable to realise after all this time that megalospodism and skepticism are not mutually exclusive.

[articulett]

That's not even the worst of it. Everytime I come on here, I am assaulted by the multitude of people who seem to think that this place is an amegalospodist forum. All the amegalospodists force their amegalospodist arguments on to me, unable to realise after all this time that megalospodism and skepticism are not mutually exclusive.

Nor are they mutually "inclusive" :p
And I hear you... we're not an "I hate astrology forum" either... nor an "anti conspiracy theory" forum... and yet many members seem to treat these things as woo. Go figure?! Gee willikers, do skeptics have to be so damn skeptical about everything??

[biomorph]

You're partially correct, I am rejecting the generalist strategy. I don't find it particularly helpful. The other idea that I'm trying to impart is the Dionysian ideal of acceptance of a person as opposed to the Apollian harshness of pure debunking. (yes, I am a Rush fan, why do you ask?) I'll never tell you not to debunk or challenge a claim, but there's a big difference between "Oh, that's total bull, let me show you how you're an idiot..." and "well, that may not be so, and here's why...". Granted, both paths might get you blank stares, but I've found that the later will at least not shut off further conversations about the topic.

Of course, you have to know your audience. I have a friend that if I tried the more gentle approach, he'd have me for lunch; but when I directly attack his position he will actually listen. He's a nutcase, though and I'd never base any general human interactions on him. Although, I will say he and I have had some of the more entertaining conversations over the years.

In any case, I'll say that (warning, statistics abuse to follow) 99% of the people here probably I do agree with their tactics. It's those vocal few that have me worried.

Who wants pancakes?

I like rush too, but I don't recall bringing that up, maybe a typo.

I get your point here, I'm one of the "vocal few" that worry you I guess also.

What exactly concerns you over this? Do you think there is something to what i say? Is that your worry?

Or do you think some religious zealot is going to make me wear a bhurka (nevernevernevernever), or perhaps decapitate me?
Maybe I'm destined for Hell?

Perhaps you consider the direct approach I employ a little harsh on the believer?
Whats the worry there?

That I might be treading non too lightly on someone's feelings?

Oh, poor dears, there, there......

I detect your kindness and your tolerance of these issues, I used to be far more tolerant myself. I find that position less easy these days. thats all.

It occurs to me that you are possibly not understanding that religion as we know it here in the west is a campaign. An active process of converting the unconverted.

So we are not dealing with a passive "live and let live" belief here. Allowing any wriggle room gives such things room to expand. It needs to breed. It wants to infect not just the believers immediates, but everyone does it not?
I'm in a position of sociological defence. A large proportion of my fellow inhabitants around me are under the influence. Large and imposing features are erected in order to advertise the attractiveness of being a convert. It is pretty much inescapeable.

In this climate upsetting the above status quo is seen as unfair, but its gone unchallanged far too long IMO. That is why its as prevelant as it is.

that is why i take the stand i do. Can you understand that?

lemon only for me on the pancake please, I like a little bitterness........LoL:p

[UnrepentantSinner]

That's not even the worst of it. Everytime I come on here, I am assaulted by the multitude of people who seem to think that this place is an amegalospodist forum. All the amegalospodists force their amegalospodist arguments on to me, unable to realise after all this time that megalospodism and skepticism are not mutually exclusive.

Were you trying to be insipid or does it just happen naturally when commenting on this particular subject?

We did atacoism (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=375677&postcount=5) here three years before you joined. :rolleyes:

[UnrepentantSinner]

If you are trying to seperate skeptic and atheism here, good luck. are you saying that atheistically skeptical persons here have to refrain from expressing that form of skeptisism here?

surely not.

Ummm, I'm not quite sure how you got that from what I wrote. I am an atheist and a skeptic. I was just noting that this is a skeptics forum, not an atheist forum. Some around here seem to be confused (or perhaps suffering consternation) about that fact.

[biomorph]

Ummm, I'm not quite sure how you got that from what I wrote. I am an atheist and a skeptic. I was just noting that this is a skeptics forum, not an atheist forum. Some around here seem to be confused (or perhaps suffering consternation) about that fact.


So. please define what this forum is about then, as I've obviously (to you) missed the point.

I am far from confused. Except when i read what you wrote probably. of course, thats my problem.

could you be more specific?

[UnrepentantSinner]

If you are trying to seperate skeptic and atheism here, good luck. are you saying that atheistically skeptical persons here have to refrain from expressing that form of skeptisism here?

surely not.

Let me try again. Of course I am not. Express that sort of skepticism all the time. My point was that this is a forum for skeptics, be they religious or atheist and some around here don't like that fact.

So. please define what this forum is about then, as I've obviously (to you) missed the point.

At the top of this pages it reads James Randi Educational Foundation (not American Atheists or Freedom From Religion Foundation) and below that it reads "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way" (not the same with "unless you're religious then you're not welcome here you stupid woo, and we won't be friendly").

Non-skeptical religious people obviously deserve to be torn to shreds (see any thread started by DOC), but for some reason that "friendly" part still gets thrown out the window if the religious person is a skeptic.

[articulett]

So. please define what this forum is about then, as I've obviously (to you) missed the point.

I am far from confused. Except when i read what you wrote probably. of course, thats my problem.

could you be more specific?

Most people have him on ignore... he's a vigilante apologist who imagines his seniority gives him the right to tell vocal atheists to "tone it down". We have a few of them here.

(Hey, I'm flattered that you quoted me in your sig... Did I misspell "superfluous"?)

[biomorph]

Most people have him on ignore... he's a vigilante apologist who imagines his seniority gives him the right to tell vocal atheists to "tone it down". We have a few of them here.


Right gotcha, point taken.


(Hey, I'm flattered that you quoted me in your sig... Did I misspell "superfluous"?)

Yes , but i misspelled your name also (I put an e on the end), but ive corrected it since.

;)

[kmortis]

I like rush too, but I don't recall bringing that up, maybe a typo.

I get your point here, I'm one of the "vocal few" that worry you I guess also.

What exactly concerns you over this? Do you think there is something to what i say? Is that your worry?

Or do you think some religious zealot is going to make me wear a bhurka (nevernevernevernever), or perhaps decapitate me?
Maybe I'm destined for Hell?

Perhaps you consider the direct approach I employ a little harsh on the believer?
Whats the worry there?

That I might be treading non too lightly on someone's feelings?

Oh, poor dears, there, there......

I detect your kindness and your tolerance of these issues, I used to be far more tolerant myself. I find that position less easy these days. thats all.

It occurs to me that you are possibly not understanding that religion as we know it here in the west is a campaign. An active process of converting the unconverted.

So we are not dealing with a passive "live and let live" belief here. Allowing any wriggle room gives such things room to expand. It needs to breed. It wants to infect not just the believers immediates, but everyone does it not?
I'm in a position of sociological defence. A large proportion of my fellow inhabitants around me are under the influence. Large and imposing features are erected in order to advertise the attractiveness of being a convert. It is pretty much inescapeable.

In this climate upsetting the above status quo is seen as unfair, but its gone unchallanged far too long IMO. That is why its as prevelant as it is.

that is why i take the stand i do. Can you understand that?

lemon only for me on the pancake please, I like a little bitterness........LoL:p

Rush was referring to the whole Dionysus/Apollo thing. It's from Hemispheres. Oh, never mind, the reference was lost and unimportant.

I'm very well aware of the active conversion tactics going on. I used to be on the other side, I used to actively convert people. Or try to. I don't think I was ever terribly successful.

Believe it or not, I fully understand your stance. I just think that it's not an effective stance to take, if you want to have conversations as opposed to screaming matches. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, challenge all the falsifiable claims that anyone, woo, skeptic, religious, atheist or whatever brings up that you feel qualified to address.

I hope you are never forced to wear a burka. I don't see that as a real possibility here in the States, but I could see some of the equal rights legislation being turned back if the extreme Christians were to get in control...to protect the poor women. That's the man's job, after all.

I guess the question I think about is, do you react to all theists equally? In other words, if you were to find out someone was a Unitarian, do you react as vehemently to them as you would Fred Phelps? If so, can you see the reason why I call that into question? Is a Methodist equal to an al Queda member in your eyes?

[biomorph]

Rush was referring to the whole Dionysus/Apollo thing. It's from Hemispheres. Oh, never mind, the reference was lost and unimportant.

i'll check it out though, thanks for the clarification, I'm not that well read in that area.


I'm very well aware of the active conversion tactics going on. I used to be on the other side, I used to actively convert people. Or try to. I don't think I was ever terribly successful.

Believe it or not, I fully understand your stance. I just think that it's not an effective stance to take, if you want to have conversations as opposed to screaming matches. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, challenge all the falsifiable claims that anyone, woo, skeptic, religious, atheist or whatever brings up that you feel qualified to address.

I havn't started screaming yet, though some on doubt would differ on that.
My delivery may be direct, I may use striking adjectives to outline my opinion. I am no personal attacker though.


I hope you are never forced to wear a burka. I don't see that as a real possibility here in the States, but I could see some of the equal rights legislation being turned back if the extreme Christians were to get in control...to protect the poor women. That's the man's job, after all.
not sure what you mean here...........ah, I think i've got it, (*taking you off ignore*) as my sarcasm detectoro dial has a bent needle, set on max.

I guess the question I think about is, do you react to all theists equally? In other words, if you were to find out someone was a Unitarian, do you react as vehemently to them as you would Fred Phelps? If so, can you see the reason why I call that into question? Is a Methodist equal to an al Queda member in your eyes?

Good point, I'd try not to be too vehement with any of them.

Um, as for the methodist vs al queda, on a basic, foundational level yes.
On developing a discrete strategy for dealing with the particulars those ideologies, no.

I use a sort of hierachical method, and fine tune it to the task in hand individually.

[Ryan O'Dine]

...SNIP...
So we are not dealing with a passive "live and let live" belief here. Allowing any wriggle room gives such things room to expand. It needs to breed. It wants to infect not just the believers immediates, but everyone does it not?
SNIP...


This can be said of many things. Political beliefs, fashion, commercial products. Don't you yourself want everyone to think rationally? Wouldn't you want that idea to "breed," to "infect" everyone? A pluralistic society requires an open marketplace of such ideas.

Granted some are more controversial than others, some even dangerous. But the "live and let live" belief does not mean letting someone else's ideas trample you at will. It means allowing those ideas their breathing room up until they interfere with your right to live as you would.

Live and let live, in other words, is not a "passive" strategy. It's a way of marking the boundary between when to act and when to let slide. If religious belief in principle crosses that boundary for you, I'd argue your boundary is too constricted.

[kmortis]

i'll check it out though, thanks for the clarification, I'm not that well read in that area.


I havn't started screaming yet, though some on doubt would differ on that.
My delivery may be direct, I may use striking adjectives to outline my opinion. I am no personal attacker though.

not sure what you mean here...........ah, I think i've got it, (*taking you off ignore*) as my sarcasm detectoro dial has a bent needle, set on max.


Good point, I'd try not to be too vehement with any of them.

Um, as for the methodist vs al queda, on a basic, foundational level yes.
On developing a discrete strategy for dealing with the particulars those ideologies, no.

I use a sort of hierachical method, and fine tune it to the task in hand individually.

Yeah, sorry about that. I tend to be a touch sarcastic at times. My therapist says it's because I have sort of displaced anger. I think it's because most people are just morons. :)

The weird thing is, since I started into serious misanthropy, I've become more tolerant. Once you realize that all humans are horrible creatures, you can take that into account in dealing with them.

[biomorph]

This can be said of many things. Political beliefs, fashion, commercial products. Don't you yourself want everyone to think rationally? Wouldn't you want that idea to "breed," to "infect" everyone? A pluralistic society requires an open marketplace of such ideas. I'm not directing my opinion at anything other than religion, dragging some generalistic comparison into the discussion i feel is useful, but misplaced.


Granted some are more controversial than others, some even dangerous. But the "live and let live" belief does not mean letting someone else's ideas trample you at will. It means allowing those ideas their breathing room up until they interfere with your right to live as you would.
Religion does, in my opinion, trample on and interferes with many , many rights to "live as one would". Including mine on a regular basis, I might add.

Live and let live, in other words, is not a "passive" strategy. It's a way of marking the boundary between when to act and when to let slide. If religious belief in principle crosses that boundary for you, I'd argue your boundary is too constricted.It is a passive stratetgy, IMO as it removes the right to fight back at an expansionist, nonpassive ideology.

[biomorph]

Yeah, sorry about that. I tend to be a touch sarcastic at times. My therapist says it's because I have sort of displaced anger. I think it's because most people are just morons. :)

No worries, your sarcasm saved you, I almost thought you were serious there, for a brief mistaken moment......:eek:


The weird thing is, since I started into serious misanthropy, I've become more tolerant. Once you realize that all humans are horrible creatures, you can take that into account in dealing with them.

I never took you for misanthropic, well there's news.

I just see them as victims a lot of the time, and I can't dislike them for that, in my particular worldview.

As for my utter disbelief and reaction to belief, it comes from a pretty effective past destruction of my personal system of assuming anything, including some fundamentals about my own personal place in the world.
I fell back on the only thing i could rely on at the time, scientific fact and medical diagnosis..

For me the reliabilty of scientific evidence is now something i have to have, in order to make sense of my world. That may change in the future, but i can't see when, or how. If I do not get that type of reliability, my life, at a very fundamental level, becomes something I cannot base a sane existance on.

This might explain my resorting to reality as a foundation based on facts, and my inability to suspend my disbelief.....:)

i guess i might have some anger issues too..........:boggled:

[Ryan O'Dine]

I'm not directing my opinion at anything other than religion, dragging some generalistic comparison into the discussion i feel is useful, but misplaced.

My point does need work. I’m partly objecting to the implication that religion deserves very different treatment from, say, politics. Perhaps that is a different discussion. I'm trying to decide.

Religion does, in my opinion, trample on and interferes with many , many rights to "live as one would". Including mine on a regular basis, I might add.

I don't disagree. My argument revolves around the question of whether we should therefore remove religion entirely from society, or direct our energies toward fighting back on those occasions where it tramples the rights of others.

Suppose religion could exist without interfering with anyone else's rights. Would it be okay to let it exist freely then?

It is a passive stratetgy, IMO as it removes the right to fight back at an expansionist, nonpassive ideology.

My concept of "live and let live" doesn't only mean that I must do so, but that everyone else is similarly obliged. In those places where religion oversteps that obligation, we’re perfectly within our rights to fight back -- with extreme prejudice, as they say.

I'm advocating a mutual tolerance, in other words. Not surrender.

[kmortis]

No worries, your sarcasm saved you, I almost thought you were serious there, for a brief mistaken moment......:eek:
Yeah, general rule of thumb for interweb forums, if something confuses, re-read as if it were a joke and see if makes sense. That rule has saved me from making a total ass of myself more than twice.



I never took you for misanthropic, well there's news.

I just see them as victims a lot of the time, and I can't dislike them for that, in my particular worldview.

As for my utter disbelief and reaction to belief, it comes from a pretty effective past destruction of my personal system of assuming anything, including some fundamentals about my own personal place in the world.
I fell back on the only thing i could rely on at the time, scientific fact and medical diagnosis..

For me the reliabilty of scientific evidence is now something i have to have, in order to make sense of my world. That may change in the future, but i can't see when, or how. If I do not get that type of reliability, my life, at a very fundamental level, becomes something I cannot base a sane existance on.

This might explain my resorting to reality as a foundation based on facts, and my inability to suspend my disbelief.....:)

i guess i might have some anger issues too..........:boggled:

I'm only misanthropic every other day and alternating Thursdays. The other days I just hate people. ;)

As far as using scientific evidence as a basis for your world view, we're in total harmony there. It's taken me a long time, but I've managed to shake the last vestiges of my fundy past. Personally, I like that there isn't a god. To me it adds to the mystery. There's no longer that deus ex machina that can spring something on you. You might not understand why or how something happens, but you can be assured that it has a logical explanation., even if you can't immediately see it.

[kmortis]

My point does need work. I’m partly objecting to the implication that religion deserves very different treatment from, say, politics. Perhaps that is a different discussion. I'm trying to decide.



I don't disagree. My argument revolves around the question of whether we should therefore remove religion entirely from society, or direct our energies toward fighting back on those occasions where it tramples the rights of others.

Suppose religion could exist without interfering with anyone else's rights. Would it be okay to let it exist freely then?



My concept of "live and let live" doesn't only mean that I must do so, but that everyone else is similarly obliged. In those places where religion oversteps that obligation, we’re perfectly within our rights to fight back -- with extreme prejudice, as they say.

I'm advocating a mutual tolerance, in other words. Not surrender.
How do you enforce "live and let live"?

And yes, as far as I am concerned, there isn't much difference between religion and politics in what we're discussing. Both have caused great harm over the years, especially when they're combined. Both have illogical premises, and faulty reasoning built in.

[Ryan O'Dine]

How do you enforce "live and let live"?

Where your rights are being trampled, you take it to the law. Where there are no laws in place, you lobby for them. Where your representative does not represent you, you campaign for the other guy/gal.

Western democracies do a pretty good job of enforcing live and let live. Imperfect, by all means. But perfection is for idealists.

And yes, as far as I am concerned, there isn't much difference between religion and politics in what we're discussing. Both have caused great harm over the years, especially when they're combined. Both have illogical premises, and faulty reasoning built in.


As I understand biomorph (and others), this means that politics should be abolished.

[biomorph]

My point does need work. I’m partly objecting to the implication that religion deserves very different treatment from, say, politics. Perhaps that is a different discussion. I'm trying to decide.


I can see that, I think it is a different discussion, on a reality check basis really. When you've made your mind up , let me know.




I don't disagree. My argument revolves around the question of whether we should therefore remove religion entirely from society, or direct our energies toward fighting back on those occasions where it tramples the rights of others.

IMO directing our energies to fighting back when it tramples on the rights of others does mean with the aim of eventually getting rid of it altogether. It tramples on the rights of all its partakers, whether they are aware of it or not, I feel.
You seem to think the tiger can be tamed, I think history and current events speak otherwise. I respect your opinion to hold that view, I cannot hold that view myself however..

Suppose religion could exist without interfering with anyone else's rights. Would it be okay to let it exist freely then?

That, from my personal perspective, is an impossibilty. And if so, I'd have to see an example first, and offer it up to examination. Then I'd decide.

My concept of "live and let live" doesn't only mean that I must do so, but that everyone else is similarly obliged. In those places where religion oversteps that obligation, we’re perfectly within our rights to fight back -- with extreme prejudice, as they say.

I'm advocating a mutual tolerance, in other words. Not surrender.

Ah, mutual tolerance. that old and useful peacemaker.

I'm afraid that the most active converters will use that effectively to nullify ones defences.
the religious communtity knows full well how to deal with such , in their eyes, fencesitters.

[kmortis]

Where your rights are being trampled, you take it to the law. Where there are no laws in place, you lobby for them. Where your representative does not represent you, you campaign for the other guy/gal.

Western democracies do a pretty good job of enforcing live and let live. Imperfect, by all means. But perfection is for idealists.




As I understand biomorph (and others), this means that politics should be abolished.

Heehee...good luck on that. In fact, good luck on getting religions outlawed/abolished.

[kmortis]

I can see that, I think it is a different discussion, on a reality check basis really. When you've made your mind up , let me know.


IMO directing our energies to fighting back when it tramples on the rights of others does mean with the aim of eventually getting rid of it altogether. It tramples on the rights of all its partakers, whether they are aware of it or not, I feel.
You seem to think the tiger can be tamed, I think history and current events speak otherwise. I respect your opinion to hold that view, I cannot hold that view myself however..

That, from my personal perspective, is an impossibilty. And if so, I'd have to see an example first, and offer it up to examination. Then I'd decide.


Ah, mutual tolerance. that old and useful peacemaker.

I'm afraid that the most active converters will use that effectively to nullify ones defences.
the religious communtity knows full well how to deal with such , in their eyes, fencesitters.

Well, ya see, you "L&LL" for all the ones that follow the same. Then when you come across that jackass that abuses the system, you eject them from the tribe. Or smother them in peanut butter and leave them for a pack of wild dingos.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Suppose religion could exist without interfering with anyone else's rights. Would it be okay to let it exist freely then?
That, from my personal perspective, is an impossibilty. And if so, I'd have to see an example first, and offer it up to examination. Then I'd decide.

I'm glad you (sort of) asked. How about the Buddhists, Quakers, reform Jews, Amish, Unitarian Universalists, Baha’is, Pagans, Wiccans, etc., and all the mainstream Christians, Muslims and Hindus who are as mortified by the extremists in their religions as we are?

I can't help seeing your solution as a baby-with-the-bathwater kind of deal.


I'm afraid that the most active converters will use that effectively to nullify ones defences.
the religious communtity knows full well how to deal with such , in their eyes, fencesitters.


A genuine danger. It may be that our takes on the solution to that will never be reconciled.

Ah, well. Live and let live. ;)

[thaiboxerken]

Heehee...good luck on that. In fact, good luck on getting religions outlawed/abolished.

It won't happen, but that won't stop me from criticizing and attacking religion. ;)

[biomorph]

I'm glad you (sort of) asked. How about the Buddhists, Quakers, reform Jews, Amish, Unitarian Universalists, Baha’is, Pagans, Wiccans, etc., and all the mainstream Christians, Muslims and Hindus who are as mortified by the extremists in their religions as we are?

I can't help seeing your solution as a baby-with-the-bathwater kind of deal.


I can understand that, I really can. All the ones you mention do impinge on an indiduals right to lead a life they otherwise would without conversion IMO, but thats only IMO.
I am sure many are genuinely and sincerely distressed by the extremist's actions. I think its lesson hard learnt. Religion only goes so far.

Baby and bathwater? what baby? .:o

I feel for them, in their sorrow and disapointment. If they were not religious, the sorrow and torment would reserved possibly and rightly for all the victims of those actions, rather than also for the lament that the extremists of their own faith that caused such horror.


A genuine danger. It may be that our takes on the solution to that will never be reconciled.

Ah, well. Live and let live. ;)

They may well reconcile eventually, and if not, well l&ll (see I can do it!) it will be.

peace to you anyway my friend.

I have mine already

[biomorph]

Well, ya see, you "L&LL" for all the ones that follow the same. Then when you come across that jackass that abuses the system, you eject them from the tribe. Or smother them in peanut butter and leave them for a pack of wild dingos.

you're big on tribalism, and i like that.

Can i do the smothering, please please, my turn, my turn,........no i'm not allergic to nuts of the vegetative type.

only the others......:D

[articulett]

Believe it or not, I fully understand your stance. I just think that it's not an effective stance to take, if you want to have conversations as opposed to screaming matches. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, challenge all the falsifiable claims that anyone, woo, skeptic, religious, atheist or whatever brings up that you feel qualified to address.


Well tell us... what sort of things worked for you... what sort of things made you "evolve"? And by the way... you seem to be getting more feisty and losing your apologetic leanings more each day... (you will be on Unrepentant Sinners spit-list yet.)

I wish I'd have had adults prodding my thinking in this direction when I was younger... because it seemed that everyone sort of agreed that religion was good or that it had some truth so I figured some adults must know something--but I also couldn't figure out why scientists weren't testing the various gurus (ala the MDC) since our collective ETERNITIES were supposedly at stake... what could be more important than ETERNITY... it's not the kind of thing you want to take a chance on believing the wrong thing about.

The whole notion caused me incredible angst. And so I don't want to be the silent adult that keeps some other trusting person trapped in this nuttiness in an effort to please the right invisible guy by believing the right unbelievable story with the right amount of fervitude...

Although Fnord and others would like to see this as hostility towards religion or god-- I see it as a battle for truth. That's what needs to be emphasized. We need to teach people to ask "how do you know"? Why do you think you can exist without a brain when you know that brain damage greatly diminishes who a person is? Etc.

So, what is it that worked for you? Sometimes provoking people makes them think and look for reasons why they believe... and sometimes people are lead through rationality via that path-- former ministers who became atheists often do so because of something like this coupled with a passion for truth... for others, it's a slower gentler route... I couldn't make sense of religion... and science made ready sense... and eventually I realized I no longer believed... and that people who believed were always nebulous about what they believed.... and that was because to give a voice to whatever it is they believed was to sound like a woo, I suspect. Believers do sound "stupid" to me... brainwashed... cultist... the vocal ones, anyhow. Understanding genetics and evolution made me really understand how creationists are lying to themselves and others keeping people from knowing some things that humans are really privileged to know-- stuff like "you and your pet have a common ancestor back in time... and that the last common ancestor of dog, cats, and humans is the same for all dog, cats and humans...as we all trace the same steps backwards in time!" That's way more unifying than any religion--and way more marvelous. Shame on those who'd lie to keep people from learning this amazing fact.

My dislike of religion is because it keeps smart people ignorant and trusting people fearful while making some men terribly arrogant and judgmental and oppressive and divisive. Look at Fnord's posts. How many young people are growing up to be Fnord or DOC or Iamme or Plumjam? And religious people as well as stupid people (not mutually inclusive but a lot of overlap) spawn more and infect their spawn with their memes when they are young and trusting ruining their ability to think critically in the future.

It was hard work for me to work my way out of this... I hope to make it easier for others... So, what is it that worked for you?

[DARK LORD XENU]

Even though I agree with some of the argument Articulate put forward I just have 1 question for you Articulate.

How does the big bang theory and the theory of evolution make more sense on their own over God being in the equation some where?

Or in other words why does the big bang make more sense than Genesis and the story of creation?

[biomorph]

Even though I agree with some of the argument Articulate put forward I just have 1 question for you Articulate.

How does the big bang theory and the theory of evolution make more sense on their own over God being in the equation some where?

Or in other words why does the big bang make more sense than Genesis and the story of creation?

damn! i've run out of peanut butter...............

;)

[articulett]

This can be said of many things. Political beliefs, fashion, commercial products. Don't you yourself want everyone to think rationally? Wouldn't you want that idea to "breed," to "infect" everyone? A pluralistic society requires an open marketplace of such ideas.

Granted some are more controversial than others, some even dangerous. But the "live and let live" belief does not mean letting someone else's ideas trample you at will. It means allowing those ideas their breathing room up until they interfere with your right to live as you would.

Live and let live, in other words, is not a "passive" strategy. It's a way of marking the boundary between when to act and when to let slide. If religious belief in principle crosses that boundary for you, I'd argue your boundary is too constricted.

I think all of us "militant atheists" have a live and let live in our daily lives... but we also notice that when we are continually silent or deferent we are encouraging this idea that "faith is good"... and that is a dangerous idea... it can fester behind closed doors. Moreover, religious people start to feel entitled to rights they don't want to give non-believers or those who believe differently-- nativity displays on public property--10 commandments statues in courthouses, etc. It's insidious. Plus, no matter what you say bad about religion anywhere... there's a mad dash of people to silence you and pretend that you are damning ALL religion and that they are not all equally bad. We know that... but one can evolve into the other just by following the meme that "faith is good" or necessary for morality.... or the ticket to paradise. I don't want to support the notion that "faith is good" or a means of finding truth. I don't want to support this idea of an eternal soul that can suffer forever... it's manipulative... and hurts trusting people and intelligent minds. I don't want people thinking that other people or books or gurus have access to special divine truths that can only be found through subjective (and lazy) means-- like faith. I think truth is more important than faith and knowledge is equally available to everyone who has the brains to understand it.

It's a derail to pretend that those who think like me are lumping all religions in the same pot... we aren't-- but they all do claim to have divine truths and give adherents a sense of "knowingness" and imagined humility when neither is evident--plus it requires the very opposite of skepticism... it requires faith-- as though feelings and belief could lead to objective truths. It makes people subvert their own beliefs and will and moral leanings and imagine it comes from "on high". Yes, so many are harmless and even beneficial and comforting... yes, many people have come to need their faith... yes the moderates are better than the fundies-- but not to the fundies-- to the fundies the moderates are "less faithful"-- less saved-- and that is a rational position if one actually believes that faith is the key to salvation. Who wants to not have enough faith if it means that you get to live happily ever after?

And it ends up being hard to discuss these kinds of things because of the weird way people always change the conversation into this derail with the assumption that you are saying all religions are bad and evil. Most believers assume everyone is a believer--including me. You would never know by my actions that I'm an atheist... any more than you'd know that I don't believe in astrology. But on this forum, I assume that most people are atheists unless they want me to know otherwise. And religion needs no defenders--all religions have people willing to die for their faith... even atheists rush in to defend faith and demonize those who dare say anything bad about it. So many presumptions are made about those on this forum who speak like I do or Dawkins does or even the way Randi does. They hear radical invective when there is none and miss the far more offensive statements made by the few ardent theists who post here... or even the invectives and judgmental nastiness of some of the supposed non-theists who regular call people "god haters" and act like they are doing some "imagined" (always nebulous) damage to some "imagined" cause.

But the cause is truth--isn't it?... everything open for discussion and examination... no sacred cows. What is a fact and what is an opinion- What can be known with a high degree of certainty and what is an illusion or a fallacy in thinking-- what enhances human understanding and happiness and what decreases suffering, injustice, superstition, and oppression. How can we all know the amazing things that Scientists and magicians and neurologists and so forth are discovering about this world and humans and how we come to believe what we believe... how can we teach others... what is the value of critical thinking... what methods work best to raise up others and vanquish ignorance.

Lots of people feel that encouraging moderate type religions is the answer... to just pooh pooh the radicals and leave the nice ones alone. I leave all of them alone... until they infringe on me. But theists have a way of saying something that implies my agreement or that requires my deference or that vilifies my lack of belief-- even the "moderates". They do not give me the same freedom of opinion and speech that they take for themselves... they expect my silence while voicing their opinions loudly (see Unrepentant Sinner for example). On this forum, I don't like that people try to exhibit that same behavior. All of us experience it all the time in our real lives. I am not a radical or militant anything. I don't trod on anyone's rights... I respect peoples opinions to the same extent that they respect mine. And yet... even on a skeptics forum there's these vigilantes tsk tsking the nonbeliever or telling them to "tone it down" or accusing them of hurting some "cause" or implying that they are "militant" (ha!) and, always pretending that they are lumping all religion in the same boat and calling all religion equally bad or evil in order to avoid hearing what we are actually saying.

You are doing that. You are asking us to agree that some religions are better than others... we already agree-- but that diminishes our stronger belief that the "faith is good" meme is bad for humanity in general. It's a recipe for ignorance... the moderates encourage it's spread just as the radicals... and they give the radicals permission to say, "we are more faithful than you therefore we are better and more favored by god". Don't you see this? We're not destroying religion or bugging people... but we want no part of this paradigm... we want kids and other trusting people to question whether faith is a good way to know anything... whether anyone has a right to say they know what happens when we die. Silence and deference leads such people to trust that we agree with the paradigm... that everyone does. So, yes, many faiths are fine-- but the premise behind them--the sacred cow they support-- is dangerous. We can't get rid of it... but to us it always sounds like the apologists are asking us to prop it up. No thanks. I understand why people believe. I don't tell children that Santa is really their parents. But don't ask me to participate in the lie. I'm not doing anything militant by mocking religion on a skeptics forum and refusing to capitulate to this notion that we ought to support moderate faiths. I don't tell people in my real life they are stupid for having their beliefs or show hostility towards the faithful-- but I feel dishonest and a sense of revulsion when I'm asked to show deference or support for some faiths because they are more moderate than others. I don't support faith as a means of knowledge at all. I don't think the benefits of faith outweigh the harm it does to reasoning ability and the potential it has for abuse.

Sure, some people really feel that Peter Popoff heals them or that they are having religious ecstasy and communion with god... some people really feel their loved ones are watching over them and tweaking the laws of physics in their favor-- but I don't support the notion that this is respect-worthy because it makes people feel good.

[articulett]

Even though I agree with some of the argument Articulate put forward I just have 1 question for you Articulate.

How does the big bang theory and the theory of evolution make more sense on their own over God being in the equation some where?

Or in other words why does the big bang make more sense than Genesis and the story of creation?

God posits something more unknowable and complex than the big bang as the maker of the big bang... god basically puts "magic" as an answer to the questions we don't know... making it even less likely to ever find it out. What can any human know about an unknowable, invisible, undetectable, immeasurable god, after all.

If humans thought god made babies, they couldn't have made test tube babies or birth control pills and so forth... positing a "bigger unknowable" as an answer is never really an answer. It's a fake answer that feels good that never has to show any evidence in support of itself--just call those who question it "arrogant". Everything in science has to be supported by evidence... you can have gaps... but you can't fill the gaps with "magic" that can only be discovered by subjective means. Science like math is readily understandable no matter what language you speak... because the facts are the same for everyone.

I have a lot of understanding of science... as do most scientists... I understand how it works... you do too... if you fly in airplanes... or use the internet... you can thank science-- not prayers or magic or divinity. It's science that is responsible for all our real miracles and true knowledge--the amassing knowledge of mortals. Science is based on axioms... the very best explanation that fits the observed facts. We can say, "if this is true, then we should expect to see that"--and we do. But faith has no facts in support of it... it is all based on a very unsupportable assertion that some form of consciousness can exist (god, souls, thetans, angels, devils, engrams) that has no material brain. And then facts are retrofitted and selected to fit such beliefs. There is no real evidence to support this notion despite eons of humans believing variations on this thing just as there is no evidence to support that planetary alignment can affect human interactions. Not an iota of evidence! But we have lots of evidence as to why and how people believe come to believe such things... just as we understand why humans believed the earth to be flat and the center of the universe. We understand why we get it wrong... and science is the very best method of correcting those errors. Faith has no error correction mechanism... no evidence... no proof... it's the same as a myth or a fairytale or a delusion as far as the evidence is concerned... the same as beliefs humans had that have long been explained by more prosaic means.

But if people think that faith provides an answer... they cannot learn these facts. If people think that there are gods that need to be pleased to help crops grow... they aren't as open to irrigation techniques and other advancements of science and they are more prone to attribute a successful crop to the virgin they threw in a volcano last spring or the rain dance they did last week and failure of crop growth as gods being angered because of those damn secularists.

[DARK LORD XENU]

Fair point to make Articulatt and sorry for mispelling your name earlier.
I only asked the question because in my opinion the truth is smoe where in the gray area between say the Bible (or any other religion) and Science.

For example lets take the story of creation from the Bible and the theory of Evolution in my opinion the Bible expalins what God wanted to create and the Evolution explains how God may have gone about it.

Not to start an argument over this but thats my belief that Genesis and Evolution go hand in hand at least in some way to fill in gaps for the other.

[Mobyseven]

Were you trying to be insipid or does it just happen naturally when commenting on this particular subject?

We did atacoism (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=375677&postcount=5) here three years before you joined. :rolleyes:

You're forcing your amegalospodist agenda on me!

The point is this - of course JREF is not an atheist forum. It is not a theist forum. It is not an amegalospodist forum. It is not an aalien forum (I think I need to think that one through a bit more...) It is a skeptical forum.

Through application of skepticism, we are able to conclude to the highest standards of evidence we can set that aliens are not and have not been visiting Earth. Through application of skepticism we are able to conclude that bigfoot does not exist. And through application of skepticism we are able to conclude that god does not exist.

Certainly, there are skeptics who are also theists. But they are not being consistent - they are not applying skepticism to their belief in god. Certainly a great many of them claim to be applying skepticism to their belief in god, but when they have to be specific as to how they are doing that, the process they describe is not skepticism. Indeed, it is often faith based and irrational - the very antithesis of skepticism.

So while you are certainly free to point out that the JREF is a skeptical organisation and not an atheist organisation, understand that I am also free to point out that consistent application of skepticism inevitably leads to atheism, and that I am free to tell people who say otherwise that they are wrong, and also explain to them why they are wrong.

To ask otherwise is to grant god beliefs a special status that they don't deserve.

[thaiboxerken]

Not to start an argument over this but thats my belief that Genesis and Evolution go hand in hand at least in some way to fill in gaps for the other.

Genesis is scientifically absurd and contradicts what we know from observation of facts.

[-Fran-]

You're forcing your amegalospodist agenda on me!

The point is this - of course JREF is not an atheist forum. It is not a theist forum. It is not an amegalospodist forum. It is not an aalien forum (I think I need to think that one through a bit more...) It is a skeptical forum.

Through application of skepticism, we are able to conclude to the highest standards of evidence we can set that aliens are not and have not been visiting Earth. Through application of skepticism we are able to conclude that bigfoot does not exist. And through application of skepticism we are able to conclude that god does not exist.

Certainly, there are skeptics who are also theists. But they are not being consistent - they are not applying skepticism to their belief in god. Certainly a great many of them claim to be applying skepticism to their belief in god, but when they have to be specific as to how they are doing that, the process they describe is not skepticism. Indeed, it is often faith based and irrational - the very antithesis of skepticism.

So while you are certainly free to point out that the JREF is a skeptical organisation and not an atheist organisation, understand that I am also free to point out that consistent application of skepticism inevitably leads to atheism, and that I am free to tell people who say otherwise that they are wrong, and also explain to them why they are wrong.

To ask otherwise is to grant god beliefs a special status that they don't deserve.

Well said!

And it doesn't mean that a certain group of skeptics are "out to get" the skeptics who are also theists.

[kmortis]

Well tell us... what sort of things worked for you... what sort of things made you "evolve"? And by the way... you seem to be getting more feisty and losing your apologetic leanings more each day... (you will be on Unrepentant Sinners spit-list yet.)
Um...actually, I left the fold in a two-staged process. When I started college, I realized that most preachers don't make all that much money, so I decided to go into engineering. Secondly, and here's where the misanthropy kicks in, I realized that I'm not much of a people person, and most people are liying asshats.

I wish I'd have had adults prodding my thinking in this direction when I was younger... because it seemed that everyone sort of agreed that religion was good or that it had some truth so I figured some adults must know something--but I also couldn't figure out why scientists weren't testing the various gurus (ala the MDC) since our collective ETERNITIES were supposedly at stake... what could be more important than ETERNITY... it's not the kind of thing you want to take a chance on believing the wrong thing about.
Oh, how do I agree with this. With my own kids, I try to tell them straight up what I think. Luckily, Mama Mortis is a Unitarian so me endorsing atheism isn't a big deal.

The whole notion caused me incredible angst. And so I don't want to be the silent adult that keeps some other trusting person trapped in this nuttiness in an effort to please the right invisible guy by believing the right unbelievable story with the right amount of fervitude...

Although Fnord and others would like to see this as hostility towards religion or god-- I see it as a battle for truth. That's what needs to be emphasized. We need to teach people to ask "how do you know"? Why do you think you can exist without a brain when you know that brain damage greatly diminishes who a person is? Etc.
Fervitude?

I'll have to disagree with you about Fnord. I don't thin he's as strident as what some have made him out to be. I've read quite a few of the exchanges between him and other posters and I think there's a lot of talking across each other going on.

So, what is it that worked for you? Sometimes provoking people makes them think and look for reasons why they believe... and sometimes people are lead through rationality via that path-- former ministers who became atheists often do so because of something like this coupled with a passion for truth... for others, it's a slower gentler route... I couldn't make sense of religion... and science made ready sense... and eventually I realized I no longer believed... and that people who believed were always nebulous about what they believed.... and that was because to give a voice to whatever it is they believed was to sound like a woo, I suspect. Believers do sound "stupid" to me... brainwashed... cultist... the vocal ones, anyhow. Understanding genetics and evolution made me really understand how creationists are lying to themselves and others keeping people from knowing some things that humans are really privileged to know-- stuff like "you and your pet have a common ancestor back in time... and that the last common ancestor of dog, cats, and humans is the same for all dog, cats and humans...as we all trace the same steps backwards in time!" That's way more unifying than any religion--and way more marvelous. Shame on those who'd lie to keep people from learning this amazing fact.
Honestly, it wasn't any external argument that got me to leave. Just humans being humans, really.

My dislike of religion is because it keeps smart people ignorant and trusting people fearful while making some men terribly arrogant and judgmental and oppressive and divisive. Look at Fnord's posts. How many young people are growing up to be Fnord or DOC or Iamme or Plumjam? And religious people as well as stupid people (not mutually inclusive but a lot of overlap) spawn more and infect their spawn with their memes when they are young and trusting ruining their ability to think critically in the future.

It was hard work for me to work my way out of this... I hope to make it easier for others... So, what is it that worked for you?
I sincerely hope that this is where your journey ends. You never know though, you could start having temporal lobe seizures tomorrow and have a Road to Damascus conversion to Sikhism.

What about the smart people who are still smart even thought they're religious? Like Francis Miller or Hal?

[articulett]

Genesis is scientifically absurd and contradicts what we know from observation of facts.

Agreed... the genesis story does not fit the facts any better than the myriad of other creation stories that humans have created over the eons... plus it involves a talking snake and eternal damnation for eating from the "tree of knowledge" which is somehow "atoned for" by the later blood sacrifice of a god who impregnates a virgin without her consent to make a carnal copy of himself to have killed for some bizarro plan that only makes sense to him.

or to put it differently (and to offend fnord who frequently offends me):

[ThatSoundAgain]

I know you were asking Articulett, and that you have one answer, but if I may try my hand at both your posts here:

Even though I agree with some of the argument Articulate put forward I just have 1 question for you Articulate.

How does the big bang theory and the theory of evolution make more sense on their own over God being in the equation some where?

Or in other words why does the big bang make more sense than Genesis and the story of creation?

Parsimony. It's a principle, much used in science, that in essence means that the least complex explanation is preferable to the more complex.

"The universe exists, and seems to have been existing for the past 13.7 bio. years" is a less complex explanation than "First there was god, then (13.7 bio. years ago) he made the universe". The first explanation says something about one entity (the universe), the second has two (god and the universe).

Fair point to make Articulatt and sorry for mispelling your name earlier.
I only asked the question because in my opinion the truth is smoe where in the gray area between say the Bible (or any other religion) and Science.

For example lets take the story of creation from the Bible and the theory of Evolution in my opinion the Bible expalins what God wanted to create and the Evolution explains how God may have gone about it.

Not to start an argument over this but thats my belief that Genesis and Evolution go hand in hand at least in some way to fill in gaps for the other.

I'm tempted to say that genesis doesn't appear to bring much to the table. Less and less, in fact, as we find out more about the world.

[articulett]

U

I sincerely hope that this is where your journey ends. You never know though, you could start having temporal lobe seizures tomorrow and have a Road to Damascus conversion to Sikhism.

What about the smart people who are still smart even thought they're religious? Like Francis Miller or Hal?

Well, it much more often goes the other way. And Hal is a deist... having moved from the position from a more theistic view... I think Francis Collins might be good because people don't want their kids to learn about evolution if it's incompatible with religion... but it really does render the "original sin" thing on which Christianity is base completely unlikely. Collins doesn't have good evidence for his faith--it's more about showing that science can't disprove it and an argument from "design"... There's other former agnostics or unchurched people such as C.S. Lewis and Anthony Flew who are trotted out over and over-- but as people become more scientifically literate--gods and the role of gods gets more and more nebulous... but that's weird too... because religions teach that "faith" is a test... and those who don't believe are minions or tempters of Satan... and the like... The moderates or evolutionary theists give the more radical theists someone to feel "better than"--more faithful than... someone who agrees in the idea of divine truths...

And just as no one is likely to ever win the challenge... I am pretty darn sure as are an increasing majority of scientists that gods, ghosts, angels, demons, souls, etc. and other "magic" are common and fairly easily explained human illusions. I think it's wise to prepare people to live with that truth and to enjoy the fantastic things we humans have been able to learn and discover and know for sure... the real miracles... the fact that we are all related... we share a common ancestor back in time and behind that most recent common ancestor-- all our ancestors are the same. And we can prove it... and show how closely various life forms are related... because they all are... we figured out DNA... we are the first life forms on our planet who can actually know why and how we got here... nobody could before...they had to trust authority figures who trusted authority figures based on speculation, stories, delusions, myths, confirmation bias, and who knows what else-- because some answer felt better than no answer. But now we have real answers. And we can prove those answers to anyone who takes the time to learn the facts... just like we could teach calculus to anyone who could learn the foundational facts needed.

What is happening to gods is that they are getting murkier as humanity realizes how little we can no about such things even if there were such things... and if we can't know, how can we trust another who tells us they do? We can't. And the world needs to train our future leaders to work in this real word and not act like primitive superstitious people that our ancestors were. It's-- uncivilized... stupefying... Moderate and murky religions don't bug me-- but I don't endorse the notion that it is good to "believe" or to have "faith" in higher truths. The real heroes are mortals--people accumulating knowledge and taking it further and doing good without threats of punishment and promises of eternal rewards. We evolved to feel good to be of service to others... religion hijacks this and pretends it is the reason for our goodness... and that everything good is due to invisible gods and magic and luck and faith and belief when it's more due to science and hard work and accumulated knowledge and coincidence and perspective...

Sure, I'd rather most people be deists than theists... or educated on evolution while believing in specific (and unlikely) gods written about in primitive texts... and I prefer moderates and those who keep their faith discreet to those whose god wants them to proselytize and follow blindly-- but... I want no part of any of it... I don't want to protect it for people... I don't want to be made to feel bad because I think it's primitive and ignorance promoting.

To me... faith is on par with being drunk-- do what you want... but don't drive and don't make me pay for or applaud your liquor indulgence. If you're having a happy buzz... I might feel happy with you or wish that I had a buzz or something-- but that's about it. That's how I feel about belief. I feel like they are all as "true" or useful as Scientology--more or less. There is no evidence for me to give any theism more respect than drunkenness or Scientology or astrology.... I'm not openly hostile to any of those either... but when I react similar dismissive of such things I'm not vilified the way I am when I do so with "religion in general".

I don't disagree with your approach... I just don't like when people try to draft me into it... it's not me... I feel like I'm propping up a harmful delusion--the notion that faith is a means of knowledge or that it's good for something.

[DARK LORD XENU]

I know you were asking Articulett, and that you have one answer, but if I may try my hand at both your posts here:



Parsimony. It's a principle, much used in science, that in essence means that the least complex explanation is preferable to the more complex.

"The universe exists, and seems to have been existing for the past 13.7 bio. years" is a less complex explanation than "First there was god, then (13.7 bio. years ago) he made the universe". The first explanation says something about one entity (the universe), the second has two (god and the universe).



I'm tempted to say that genesis doesn't appear to bring much to the table. Less and less, in fact, as we find out more about the world.

Ok fair enough you do not share my beliefs thats cool.
All I mean is that in my opinion even the Bible cant always explain stuff like where we are from what we are made from etc at the same time Science still cant answer all the questions either.

Example one day before the invention of the pocket watch or the wrist watch one day there was an explosion at a metal factory and as all the debris fell back to earth some of the debris landed in just the right spot in just the right way to accidentally create the worlds first watch without any one or any thing putting it together but it just happened!
Now that sound absurd to me as well I'm sue it is just as absurd to the rest of you.
That is why to me the big bang and evolution ON THERE OWN doesn't make any sense to me personally.

Not trying to say your wrong I just disagree that everything in the universe just fell together the way it has without being put together by a creative God in some way whether it happened the way the Bible depicts it or not.

As far as we know all along God may have been trying to tell us through Gods prophets on Earth that Darwin was correct in that we come from monkeys but it was probaply only Darwin who was smart enough to understand it at the time.

[DARK LORD XENU]

In fact I now would like to pose the question that I posed Articulett earlier to everyone on this thread to explain why the big bang makes more sense than the book of Genesis.

I think this would be a good debate.

[articulett]

You've just used creationist strawman argument-- Paleys watch... watches look designed... it's a common theistic backwards way of looking at it. And it's not at all in line with what science thinks. I'm not going to waste time educating you on this, but there are great answers on this thread regarding that long debunked straw man. To understand it, you might to unbrainwash yourself from your religious indoctrination a bit--but it's worth understanding if it's not too late.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94834

[JoeEllison]

In fact I now would like to pose the question that I posed Articulett earlier to everyone on this thread to explain why the big bang makes more sense than the book of Genesis.

I think this would be a good debate.

Only a "good debate" if you're new to the Internet and/or still in high school. Otherwise, you might as well be taking the "flat earth" position in a debate. You have already lost, and a quick Google search will save you bunches of time.

[DARK LORD XENU]

You've just used creationist strawman argument-- Paleys watch... watches look designed... it's a common theistic backwards way of looking at it. And it's not at all in line with what science thinks. I'm not going to waste time educating you on this, but there are great answers on this thread regarding that long debunked straw man. To understand it, you might to unbrainwash yourself from your religious indoctrination a bit--but it's worth understanding if it's not too late.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94834

How do we know YOU have not been brainwashed?
The watch bit was just an example of what I meant also has science yet proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that God does not exist.
So please think carefully before trying to say others have been brainwashed just because they disagree with your beliefs.

[articulett]

In fact I now would like to pose the question that I posed Articulett earlier to everyone on this thread to explain why the big bang makes more sense than the book of Genesis.

I think this would be a good debate.


This has been answered more than sufficiently... and theists tend not to be able to register the answer anyhow... especially those without a common understanding of science and how science works. Genesis is like positing that aberrant behavior is caused by demon possession... science is like slow and steady accumulation of facts so that we understand more about how brain damage and chemicals and genetics and abuse correlate to aberrant behavior and thus address the problem in useful ways rather than exorcisms.

This kind of woo is discussed all over this forum--all the time and all over the web... any one who wants to know the answers can readily find it... but the people positing questions such as yourself--don't want the answers and can't hear them anyhow because they think they have the answer-- and the answer is the invisible entity that they've been indoctrinated to believe in. That IS NOT an answer. There is no evidence to support that as an answer. It's all argument from incredulity and insertion of god into the gaps. You should read more and comment less if you truly want the answers. You haven't offered up the amaziingly deep question you think you have... just a very tired old egotistical boring nothingness... like Iamme did here....

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102847

You have more to learn than you realize and less to teach than you think and there are people who will teach you if you are sincere in wanting to know the answers--but theists usually are not-- they are just sincere in wanting to prove their nebulous beliefs to be right via confirmation bias and semantics and faith. It's the same as Conspiracy theorists... just different woo.

[JoeEllison]

How do we know YOU have not been brainwashed?
The watch bit was just an example of what I meant also has science yet proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that God does not exist.
So please think carefully before trying to say others have been brainwashed just because they disagree with your beliefs.
Creationist illogic 101: can you prove without a shadow of a doubt that I'm not God? Can you absolutely prove that anything does not exist? Yes or no, don't dodge the question... or just admit that it is a silly position and we can move on.

[ThatSoundAgain]

Ok fair enough you do not share my beliefs thats cool.
All I mean is that in my opinion even the Bible cant always explain stuff like where we are from what we are made from etc at the same time Science still cant answer all the questions either.


Some, like me, prefer the answer "I don't know" to explanations that involve magic or otherwise seem implausible. In other words, no answer trumps any answer at all, if I don't find said answer satisfactory.


Example one day before the invention of the pocket watch or the wrist watch one day there was an explosion at a metal factory and as all the debris fell back to earth some of the debris landed in just the right spot in just the right way to accidentally create the worlds first watch without any one or any thing putting it together but it just happened!
Now that sound absurd to me as well I'm sue it is just as absurd to the rest of you.
That is why to me the big bang and evolution ON THERE OWN doesn't make any sense to me personally.


Watches don't self-replicate, so they're not a very good analogy to life as we know it. If you're talking about this planet, then take a look at how big the universe is, and that there are stars and planets in untold numbers. The surprising thing would be if there would not be a planet like ours - which we know can sustain life - somewhere.


Not trying to say your wrong I just disagree that everything in the universe just fell together the way it has without being put together by a creative God in some way whether it happened the way the Bible depicts it or not.


The stumbling block for me is that many of these arguments for theism just push the questions back further - if the objection is that the world is so complex that it needs a sentient creator, then surely that creator had to be even more complex and advanced. If so, then that creator would need an even more complex and powerful creator, and so on.

And hey, just for the record, call me wrong all you want, that's what discussion is implicitly all about. I only ask that you not be too disappointed if I'm not convinced by your arguments, and that you don't get nasty about it. I'll promise the same in turn.

[articulett]

How do we know YOU have not been brainwashed?
The watch bit was just an example of what I meant also has science yet proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that God does not exist.
So please think carefully before trying to say others have been brainwashed just because they disagree with your beliefs.

And science never will disprove god anymore than we will disprove fairies or disprove the existence of Zeus or disprove that the hijackers are having sex in heaven...

And most atheists thought pretty much like you at one time... a lot of theists too... but a basic education will allow you to see that whatever your beliefs are--they are no more verifiable than the Scientology or the beliefs you do not have...

Beliefs and opinions are one thing-- facts are another. 2+2=4 no matter what you believe or even if you never understood it... just as the earth was a sphere even as humans imagined it flat and no god stepped in to clue them in otherwise. Yes... your god might exist and so might Allah and so might thor or any number of pantheons... but so might engrams and thetans (scientology entities) and Xenu-- they are all invisible immeasurable and undetectable and none are more likely to be truer than any other. Not being able to understand how it could look so super duper amazing does not mean your invisible magic man is the answer... really. I'm not going to waste any more time on you because I will surely show why I find religion damaging and offensive.. it won't be pretty. I have tried to be nice--but you are as &quot;impervious&quot;, &quot;arrogant&quot;, and as &quot;naive&quot; as Iamme and many theists. I think you have been made stupid by your religion, and I'm glad I was able to think my way out before I became like you. You are luckier than you know to have stumbled across this forum where you can learn real facts like DNA... but only if you care about the truth that is objective and measurable and the same for everybody no matter what they believe. mcAq9bmCeR0 I guess you are a perfect example of why I think faith is bad... what is it good for and how has it made the world better for the people you inflict this on... where are the people made fabulous by faith? I just think it makes people like you... that depresses me. I mean how do you imagine you'd learn the facts if there really were no intelligent designer or if your bible was not inspired by any miraculous person at all-- how would the Muslim extremists learn or the Scientologists... what do you imagine would clue you in if you were wrong... It just seems like no amount of evidence or science or explanation is ever enough to dislodge whatever crazy faith people have managed to be indoctrinated with just so long as you also tell them that "faith is the key to salvation"-- it's... so... disturbing. You are as cultish or gullible sounding as those that you find cultish or wrong or believing in the wrong crazy things.

[Herzblut]

Only a "good debate" if you're new to the Internet and/or still in high school. Otherwise, you might as well be taking the "flat earth" position in a debate.
Well, in planning debates about new buildings, sports stadions, streets and so forth, the flat earth assertion is more or less prevalent. And you know what? In local maps, as well, flat earth is simply presumed!

You're right, that's all wrong and the curvature of the earth needs to be taken into account!

[DARK LORD XENU]

If I seemed like I was trying to be nasty I apologise.
BUT all these "answers" to me even though I understand what you all are trying to say BUT you have no convinced me at all.
In fact your sounding an awfull lot like some Christians I have known you start having a cry as soon as someone asks a question or offers a view thats not in the Bible.
The ONLY difference is hardcore Christians will point to the Bible saying everything in there is truth.
You lot are pointing to everything BUT the answer to my question as truth.
articulett your saying that I'm stupid and arrogant ow can you say that when you have not given me anything but arrogant bs that says me and any one who has faith in God are wrong evil arrogant idiots who cannot understand a basic scientific concept how do you know I'm not a scientist myself who just happens to believe in God

thatsoundagain sorry if I seemed nasty to you at all

joeellison if your God then I'm a mountain goat

[JoeEllison]

joeellison if your God then I'm a mountain goat

So, you understand why "you can't disprove it" is a foolish argument for your position?

[DARK LORD XENU]

Joe I was not trying to say that just because you cannot disprove God is my argument at all I was using that as a small part of it in the sense that it is wrong to say someone who believes in God is arrogant and stupid just because no one can prove or disprove the existance of God.

Same basic argument can be used on Aliens theory states that there has to be life some where in the universe but as yet E.T has not been found and the point I tried making is that just because God has not been proven through science to be real does not mean that there is no God.

Further as I said in my last post I never tried being nasty and if I have offended any of you I aplogise BUT I'm not going sit here and be told I'm arrogant and stupid for my beliefs.

[JoeEllison]

Joe I was not trying to say that just because you cannot disprove God is my argument at all I was using that as a small part of it in the sense that it is wrong to say someone who believes in God is arrogant and stupid just because no one can prove or disprove the existance of God.

Same basic argument can be used on Aliens theory states that there has to be life some where in the universe but as yet E.T has not been found and the point I tried making is that just because God has not been proven through science to be real does not mean that there is no God.

Further as I said in my last post I never tried being nasty and if I have offended any of you I aplogise BUT I'm not going sit here and be told I'm arrogant and stupid for my beliefs.You're certainly going to have to sit there and be told that you're dead wrong and not adding anything to anyone's knowledge... or you can leave. Those are your only choices. You haven't shown any insight or intelligence on this subject. You certainly haven't presented any idea that is new, interesting, or original.

You can't prove that I'm not God. Do you then accept that I am God? No?

Then why shouldn't you accept that saying "you can't disprove God" is a useless statement from you, that gives us no reason to accept your claims as worthy of consideration?

[SezMe]

Well, in planning debates about new buildings, sports stadions, streets and so forth, the flat earth assertion is more or less prevalent. And you know what? In local maps, as well, flat earth is simply presumed!

You're right, that's all wrong and the curvature of the earth needs to be taken into account!
Nominated for non sequitur of the year. Good luck, Herzblut.

[DARK LORD XENU]

Well Joe I may not have GRAND INTUITVIE INSIGHT like athiests are meant to but at the same I could turn it back onto you.

What have you offered up to convince me that the big bang makes more sense than genesis.

All I have gotten is the type of argument for asking why the big bang and atheism is more logical than believing in God.

Well I will admit those of us who do believe in God are not perfect and sure the Church has done some awfull stuff like the inquisition but at the same time most of us mean no harm.
Unfotunately science gave us stuff like the atomic bomb.

Also please tell me without a argument why does the big bang make more sense to YOU than the Bible.

No one here as actually told me that without a stupid argument.

Now ask yourself what caused the big bang? what created the earth you live on? All I asked is why is God NOT in the equation?

[JoeEllison]

*yawn*

Just one question: do you really think you have something new, original, or interesting to add to the discussion?

[articulett]

It's arrogant because you are claiming to know a magical secret of the universe via divine means or faith or feelings or whatever it is that causes you to believe in whatever magical things you believe in... It's arrogant the way Scientology is arrogant or that Sylvia Browne or Astrology or Joe's example that he is god is arrogant. iIt's arrogant the way someone who has a delusion that he really is getting revelations from god is arrogant... It posits an "objective truth" that you've obtained through subjective means... one that no amount of evidence can sway... it's the same kind of arrogance that made the hijackers sure that they were doing Allah's will... it's based on nothing... you are claiming to have a divine truth that is based on no more than all the divine truths you reject.

An atheists doesn't believe in divine truths... or certainly not that there's any reason to trust that you have them or that there's any way of teasing out whether your nebulous magical supernatural truth is more likely to be true than Tom Cruises or Maatorc's or all the conspiracy theorists. Is there? Is your whole magical story supported by the fact that you don't understand how things can seem to fit together so well? Why should we take you more seriously than all the other woo that come here...? why should we think you have some divine truth or intelligence or wisdom or anything at all to offer... why do you imagine we should be interested in your opinion, when you show no interest in people who take the time to really give you detailed answers to begin to answer the questions you ask... even as we know that you never wanted an answer--you just wanted to prop up your belief. I'm going to put you on ignore for the same reason I put plumjam on ignore. I'm sure if you say something useful or valuable, someone smart (who writes more legibly and coherently than you) will quote it... I see no reason to listen to your woo and pedantry and arrogance and judgment more than anyone else's. I can't imagine you have anything other than egocentrism and stupidity of faith to bring to the table on the subject or that your opinion is more valuable than people who are clearly much smarter, nicer, funnier, educated, scientifically literate, and more socially adept than you... friends... people I've grown to know and respect here.... because they are honest and smart and humble and really eager to help people learn in a way that you are too stupid to appreciate... because you believe that preaching and faith are good for something.

That's the meme I find so damaging and stupefying and arrogance promoting. Do you have any facts to support whatever fairytale you believe? Because scientists have lots of facts-- it's just that those who have a magical answer can't learn them because they'd rather believe in the truth in their head than to understand they may have been fooling themselves. I think everyone should look at you and plumjam and Iamme and DOC and Tai... and really wonder about what sort of world they are creating by pretending propping up the notion that faith is a good or a means to "higher truths".

See, Kmortis... this is on a skeptics forum... should this be treated differently than any other woo? Do you really want to be inadvertently propping up this kind of thinking in the name of tolerance... If faith is good... extreme faith is better, right? Ryan... and others who urge this coddling of religionists... can't you see that this is the result?... and increasingly stupid and arrogant and extreme versions of this in an effort to prove that they have the most faith and that they are the favorite of the right invisible guy? Shall we coddle the moderate astrology believers and conspiracy theorists and homeopaths too? Stupidity in our fellow humans coupled with arrogance can be very dangerous.

For women it tends to be oppressive and depressing and fear promoting--

For men it tends to give fuel to craziness allowing them to reinterpret it as righteousness.

It certainly doesn't fit well with critical thinking and there is no reason to defend it... even the moderate versions... if it's good for something, I think we can see and determine that for ourselves.

It's not a skeptics job to disprove woo or whatever magical invisible things or conspiracies people believe in... it's up to those believing in magic or supernatural or divine things to bring evidence to the table. We cannot prove to a delusional person that they are delusional. We can only show that there is no reason to suspect the voices they hear or the people they see or the things they believe have a basis in objective reality.

[JoeEllison]

I'm about to offer Joe's Ten Dollar Challenge... to anyone who can present a unique and novel argument for their particular bit of superstitious beliefs and/or "holy" book, that we haven't seen in a thread here in the last 6 months.

[joobz]

I'm about to offer Joe's Ten Dollar Challenge... to anyone who can present a unique and novel argument for their particular bit of superstitious beliefs and/or "holy" book, that we haven't seen in a thread here in the last 6 months.
I was told by my nipples that god is in alaska. I know this to be true because my poop was green.

[JoeEllison]

I was told by my nipples that god is in alaska. I know this to be true because my poop was green.

Sorry, that one was used today at 12:26 AM... :rolleyes:

You have to actually have an argument, not just a statement or description of what you saw the last time you picked mushrooms off of cow patties.

[articulett]

I was told by my nipples that god is in alaska. I know this to be true because my poop was green.

And since we cannot give you a good or convincing argument why this is incorrect or how god is not in Alaska, it must be true.

Hallelujah --this faith thing is fun!

[joobz]

Sorry, that one was used today at 12:26 AM... :rolleyes:

You have to actually have an argument, not just a statement or description of what you saw the last time you picked mushrooms off of cow patties.
OK, I shall amend my point

I was told by my nipples that god is in alaska. I know this to be true because my poop was green. Therefore, You're wrong.:p

[JoeEllison]

OK, I shall amend my point

I was told by my nipples that god is in alaska. I know this to be true because my poop was green. Therefore, You're wrong.:p

I'll have to take it to the judges... :cool:

This is certainly more entertaining than any of the "real" arguments that the god botherers come up with.

[Herzblut]

Nominated for non sequitur of the year. Good luck, Herzblut.
I pointed out that the flat earth hypothesis is a very valid one in many cases.

So, I'm not convinced you understood my post's intention to speak out on the stupidity of dogmatism.

[articulett]

I'll have to take it to the judges... :cool:

This is certainly more entertaining than any of the "real" arguments that the god botherers come up with.

You still have to explain why the big bang makes more sense than joobz argument in a way that makes sense to joobz or he wins. And the more he can convince himself and others to believe it... the more true it is in the land of woo . :tinfoil

[SezMe]

So, I'm not convinced you understood my post's intention to speak out on the stupidity of dogmatism.
I am thoroughly convinced that I do not understand your post's intention. Wanna try me again?

[Herzblut]

I am thoroughly convinced that I do not understand your post's intention.
So why didn't you ask me instead of giving a meaningless comment on it?

[articulett]

I am thoroughly convinced that I do not understand your post's intention. Wanna try me again?

I am thoroughly convinced that nobody understands Herzblut's intentions.

[SezMe]

So why didn't you ask me instead of giving a meaningless comment on it?
I'm gonna ignore the bait and simply hereby ask.

[kmortis]

See, Kmortis... this is on a skeptics forum... should this be treated differently than any other woo? Do you really want to be inadvertently propping up this kind of thinking in the name of tolerance... If faith is good... extreme faith is better, right? Ryan... and others who urge this coddling of religionists... can't you see that this is the result?... and increasingly stupid and arrogant and extreme versions of this in an effort to prove that they have the most faith and that they are the favorite of the right invisible guy? Shall we coddle the moderate astrology believers and conspiracy theorists and homeopaths too? Stupidity in our fellow humans coupled with arrogance can be very dangerous.
I never said it shouldn't be challenged. In fact, go look at a DOC thread, I was involved in addressing (at first) and then ridiculing him from the beginning. I've no issue with addressing "woo" or whatever you want to call it. However, remember DLX and DOC are not your normal theist. They are your normal obstinate and obdurate person, though.

[Ladewig]

Well I will admit those of us who do believe in God are not perfect and sure the Church has done some awfull stuff like the inquisition but at the same time most of us mean no harm.
Unfortunately science gave us stuff like the atomic bomb.



Wait. You're using the atomic bomb as an example of harm done by science? The atomic bomb was used to end one of the costliest and bloodiest wars in the history of the world. The technology that arose from the atomic bomb allows countries like France to generate over 75% of its power without burning fossil fuels. Atomic energy allows western democracies to be less dependent on oil-rich countries that are run by religious fundamentalists.

Furthermore, even if you think science does harm people, the vast, vast, vast majority of scientific progress has allowed people to live longer, better, safer, more comfortable, more knowledgeable, and more peaceful lives.

Please don't trot out the tired, old, and laughably weak argument that maybe religion has done bad things but science has done bad things too.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I think all of us "militant atheists" have a live and let live in our daily lives... but we also notice that when we are continually silent or deferent we are encouraging this idea that "faith is good"... and that is a dangerous idea... it can fester behind closed doors.

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I’m sure I’m not doing the best job delineating my position. Tolerance to me in no way implies silence, much less deference.

Moreover, religious people start to feel entitled to rights they don't want to give non-believers or those who believe differently-- nativity displays on public property--10 commandments statues in courthouses, etc. It's insidious.

Agreed. But is the answer to abolish all religion, as biomorph would like? Do you agree with her on that?

Plus, no matter what you say bad about religion anywhere... there's a mad dash of people to silence you and pretend that you are damning ALL religion and that they are not all equally bad. We know that... but one can evolve into the other just by following the meme that "faith is good" or necessary for morality.... or the ticket to paradise. I don't want to support the notion that "faith is good" or a means of finding truth. I don't want to support this idea of an eternal soul that can suffer forever... it's manipulative... and hurts trusting people and intelligent minds. I don't want people thinking that other people or books or gurus have access to special divine truths that can only be found through subjective (and lazy) means-- like faith. I think truth is more important than faith and knowledge is equally available to everyone who has the brains to understand it.

Again, tolerance does not imply support. In fact, if you have to work to tolerate something, the opposite is pretty well implied.

It's a derail to pretend that those who think like me are lumping all religions in the same pot... we aren't--

Yet biomorph’s (and others’) solution is to abolish all religion. Is that your solution?

but they all do claim to have divine truths and give adherents a sense of "knowingness" and imagined humility when neither is evident--plus it requires the very opposite of skepticism... it requires faith-- as though feelings and belief could lead to objective truths. It makes people subvert their own beliefs and will and moral leanings and imagine it comes from "on high". Yes, so many are harmless and even beneficial and comforting... yes, many people have come to need their faith... yes the moderates are better than the fundies-- but not to the fundies-- to the fundies the moderates are "less faithful"-- less saved-- and that is a rational position if one actually believes that faith is the key to salvation. Who wants to not have enough faith if it means that you get to live happily ever after?

And it ends up being hard to discuss these kinds of things because of the weird way people always change the conversation into this derail with the assumption that you are saying all religions are bad and evil.

It’s not an assumption. I’m reacting to the wish of at least one poster here who would have us abolish all religion.

Most believers assume everyone is a believer--including me. You would never know by my actions that I'm an atheist... any more than you'd know that I don't believe in astrology. But on this forum, I assume that most people are atheists unless they want me to know otherwise. And religion needs no defenders--all religions have people willing to die for their faith... even atheists rush in to defend faith and demonize those who dare say anything bad about it. So many presumptions are made about those on this forum who speak like I do or Dawkins does or even the way Randi does. They hear radical invective when there is none and miss the far more offensive statements made by the few ardent theists who post here... or even the invectives and judgmental nastiness of some of the supposed non-theists who regular call people "god haters" and act like they are doing some "imagined" (always nebulous) damage to some "imagined" cause.

I’m not defending religion. I’m defending a stance on how religion should be dealt with in a free and open democracy.

I -- a bleeding heart left wing liberal -- also believe Republicans should have a right to their beliefs. Does that make me a “defender” of Republicans? Lord, I hope not.


But the cause is truth--isn't it?... everything open for discussion and examination... no sacred cows. What is a fact and what is an opinion- What can be known with a high degree of certainty and what is an illusion or a fallacy in thinking-- what enhances human understanding and happiness and what decreases suffering, injustice, superstition, and oppression. How can we all know the amazing things that Scientists and magicians and neurologists and so forth are discovering about this world and humans and how we come to believe what we believe... how can we teach others... what is the value of critical thinking... what methods work best to raise up others and vanquish ignorance.

Lots of people feel that encouraging moderate type religions is the answer... to just pooh pooh the radicals and leave the nice ones alone. I leave all of them alone... until they infringe on me.

Thank you. My stance in a nutshell. Or should I now accuse you of “defending” religion?


But theists have a way of saying something that implies my agreement or that requires my deference or that vilifies my lack of belief-- even the "moderates". They do not give me the same freedom of opinion and speech that they take for themselves... they expect my silence while voicing their opinions loudly (see Unrepentant Sinner for example).

Is the solution to abolish religion? I’m actually still not clear if that’s what you feel.

On this forum, I don't like that people try to exhibit that same behavior. All of us experience it all the time in our real lives. I am not a radical or militant anything. I don't trod on anyone's rights... I respect peoples opinions to the same extent that they respect mine.

My stance in a nutshell. Otherwise known as “mutual tolerance.”


And yet... even on a skeptics forum there's these vigilantes tsk tsking the nonbeliever or telling them to "tone it down" or accusing them of hurting some "cause" or implying that they are "militant" (ha!) and, always pretending that they are lumping all religion in the same boat and calling all religion equally bad or evil in order to avoid hearing what we are actually saying.

You are doing that. You are asking us to agree that some religions are better than others... we already agree-- but that diminishes our stronger belief that the "faith is good" meme is bad for humanity in general.

Stuff and nonsense. My argument is neither for nor against religious belief, nor any religion in particular. Some religions reflexively respect the mutual "live and let live" contract I'd impose. That's the only criterion by which I'm judging any given religion here.

It's a recipe for ignorance... the moderates encourage it's spread just as the radicals... and they give the radicals permission to say, "we are more faithful than you therefore we are better and more favored by god". Don't you see this?

Yes. So we should therefore abolish all religion? Isn’t there a less drastic means of combating the problems religion represents? I’m still not clear on your stance here.

We're not destroying religion or bugging people...

biomorph and others want religion abolished. That’s what my arguments are reacting to.

but we want no part of this paradigm... we want kids and other trusting people to question whether faith is a good way to know anything... whether anyone has a right to say they know what happens when we die. Silence and deference leads such people to trust that we agree with the paradigm... that everyone does.

Just to repeat, “silence and deference” are a mischaracterization of my position. I hope that's clear now.

So, yes, many faiths are fine-- but the premise behind them--the sacred cow they support-- is dangerous. We can't get rid of it... but to us it always sounds like the apologists are asking us to prop it up. No thanks.

I’m no apoligist. I don’t want religion “propped up.” If it wants to dig its own grave, I’ll lend it a shovel, as I’ve mentioned before.

I understand why people believe. I don't tell children that Santa is really their parents. But don't ask me to participate in the lie. I'm not doing anything militant by mocking religion on a skeptics forum and refusing to capitulate to this notion that we ought to support moderate faiths.

I’m not supporting moderate faiths. They’re merely an example of religions with which one can typically coexist in a state of mutual tolerance (however grudging and uneasy, I might add.)

I don't tell people in my real life they are stupid for having their beliefs or show hostility towards the faithful-- but I feel dishonest and a sense of revulsion when I'm asked to show deference or support for some faiths because they are more moderate than others. I don't support faith as a means of knowledge at all. I don't think the benefits of faith outweigh the harm it does to reasoning ability and the potential it has for abuse.

Sure, some people really feel that Peter Popoff heals them or that they are having religious ecstasy and communion with god... some people really feel their loved ones are watching over them and tweaking the laws of physics in their favor-- but I don't support the notion that this is respect-worthy because it makes people feel good.

You can disrespect a religion and still tolerate it.

[Mister Earl]

I was stationed with a guy who I thought was borderline insane. He used to be something of a punk as a kid, apparently, but was "reborn" or whatever it is they call it. He'd read from the bible, in the barracks, LOUDLY. We'd all ignore him. It was kind of annoying, but nothing worth breaking a sweat, however. That ended the day he cornered me in the stairwell, and told me in no uncertain terms that if I didn't go with him to his church, RIGHT THAT MINUTE, that I would go to hell. Long story short, he went alone after I offered to sanctify his jaw for him. I got the feeling this guy had been voted "Most likely to get sucked up into a cult" in high school.

[Ladewig]

Also please tell me without a argument why does the big bang make more sense to YOU than the Bible.



Because the Bible contradicts itself, contains an amazing number of silly stories, offers no practical knowledge of how the world actually works, and pretty much paints God as a bipolar nut case who alternates between loving His creation and killing His creation.

Cain and Abel work equally hard to make a gift for God. God (who loves us as a father loves his own children) sees the gifts and tells Abel, "wow, what a great gift. I love it." God then tells Cain, "meh, whatever." One doesn't need to be omnipotent to see what was going to happen next.

[bignickel]

Also please tell me without a argument why does the big bang make more sense to YOU than the Bible.
Actually, it's the Bible vs. the Koran, vs. the Aztec creation stories, vs. the Olmec creation stories, vs. the Greek creation stories, vs. the various N. American Indian tribes' creation stories, vs. the Chinese creation stories, vs. Scientology creation stories, vs. the Nordic creation stories... etc.

...versus current scientific thought and evidence about the beginnings of the universe.


Once you guys have all figured out amongst yourselves which one of you is top dog for "creation story with the best evidence", then you can come back here to challenge science.

[biomorph]

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I’m sure I’m not doing the best job delineating my position. Tolerance to me in no way implies silence, much less deference.

So how would you define your type of tolerance?

If you are not silent, what would you say?
If you are not going to supply deference, what is the stance that one should take? what stance should I take?

I've stated my position, where are you coming from?

I am genuinely intrigued about this tolerance you think is good practice.

Maybe there is another way, and I would consider it, if you would care to enlighten me as to what it is.


Agreed. But is the answer to abolish all religion, as biomorph would like? Do you agree with her on that?



That is possible end game. If someone wishes to practice a religion, without inficting that on any other lifeform (family included), thats fine.



Again, tolerance does not imply support. In fact, if you have to work to tolerate something, the opposite is pretty well implied.

Again i'm not sure i follow you here. Tolerance does imply support I think. I could (but do not) tolerate the teaching of creationism in science class. Does that make it a wise strategy?
I could tolerate weeds in my garden? What chance do my flowers have? Same question, different subject.

Again, please, I need a more precise definition of the type of tolerance you envisage.
It might be worthwhile, after all.


Yet biomorph’s (and others’) solution is to abolish all religion. Is that your solution?

that is not what i actually said in the main. You also said that I would be banning politics. that is, on your part alone, an eronious view of my postion.

I expect a retraction, matey.


It’s not an assumption. I’m reacting to the wish of at least one poster here who would have us abolish all religion.
I’m not defending religion. I’m defending a stance on how religion should be dealt with in a free and open democracy.

I -- a bleeding heart left wing liberal -- also believe Republicans should have a right to their beliefs. Does that make me a “defender” of Republicans? Lord, I hope not.


since when has the major religions in the world responded to "openness and democracy"

God is not an elected official, after that its turtles all the way down is it not?

If Islam happened to be the main religion using sharia law in , say, 25yrs in your own country due to "natural" and "tolerant" practices by the citizens and the state.
ARE you going to "tolerate" that absolute travesty of human rights in your country. ?

Are you.?????

you may think this is a purely rhetorical question, but to answer it would also define how much tolerance you would give credance to.

I do not think that the example in the question is a reality. So don't start climbing up the wrong tree.


I'm no apoligist. I don’t want religion “propped up.” If it wants to dig its own grave, I’ll lend it a shovel, as I’ve mentioned before.

And I'm suggesting that the shovel needs to be bigger , and more of them.


I’m not supporting moderate faiths. They’re merely an example of religions with which one can typically coexist in a state of mutual tolerance (however grudging and uneasy, I might add.)

Yes, but as you have said they do not like it. What do you think would happen if any of those religions just happened to be the survivor of them all, in the future. Or as in other countries.


You can disrespect a religion and still tolerate it.

Yes, you can. I could. But disrespect religion and it'll bite back, and you know it.

Or are you implying that religion (xtian if you like) will play to the same rules. That is not what they teach the converts to do is it.?.

[Wolverine]

Also please tell me without a argument why does the big bang make more sense to YOU than the Bible.

No one here as actually told me that without a stupid argument.

You're lumping together unrelated concepts as the result of being exposed to and/or harboring common misconceptions (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#misconceptions). Other posters have described their reasoning in answering you, however I feel select points have either been omitted or not emphasized strongly enough.

First, it's important to dispense with the "either or" reasoning that's been popularized by religious believers and apologetics. This discussion boils down to our species seeking answers about origins -- as such, it's not a case of the Big Bang and/or evolution and/or atheism versus Genesis.

Key points to internalize and remember:


Science is a formalized, empirical process -- it employs a strict methodology and addresses observable phenomena in the natural world. Neither scientific methodology nor the scientific theories resulting from that process include religious or non-religious positions.


The Big Bang is a cosmological model which describes how the universe changed over time. It does not presume to explain the origin of the universe.


Evolution is a biological model which describes how life on Earth changed over time. It does not presume to explain the origin of life.


Science is not, nor is it intended to be, a replacement for religion or religious faith. It's an evidence-based method we use to develop our best and most reasonable conclusions about the natural world.



These concepts have been simplified for ease of discussion here. They're not terribly difficult to grasp, but are so frequently misunderstood by theists. Bearing them in mind:

Genesis is an archaic account attempting to definitively explain origins of the universe, life, and whatnot. Neither the Big Bang nor evolution attempt to explain origins. As a result, it does not logically follow for apologetics/believers to pit evolution versus God or cosmological models versus Genesis, advocating that you must accept one or the other. And, because biology and cosmology are scientific disciplines, scientific theories which explain these processes/phenomena are neither theistic nor atheistic in nature.

Now ask yourself what caused the big bang?

"We don't know" is the simplest and most honest, correct answer. Causality is not a function of the model. The Big Bang describes how the universe developed, not where it came from -- if the universe indeed even came from anywhere. Unfortunately the cosmos doesn't really care about what we deem reasonable or rational. With time, effort, and technology we'll likely assemble a better answer in the future. For the time being, "we don't know" will have to do.

what created the earth you live on?

"Formed" would be a preferable term to "created". The best-supported models indicate Earth (along with the rest of the solar system) formed naturally over time via accretion (overview (http://stardate.org/resources/ssguide/planet_form.html) -- more (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/solarsys/nebular.html)).

All I asked is why is God NOT in the equation?

To elaborate upon what I noted above -- unless you're using a non-standard definition of God, you're invoking a supernatural claim which is neither testable nor falsifiable. Such things by definition are not part of scientific methodology. Further, and reiterating a key term introduced by another poster: parsimony.

I hope this helps.

[biomorph]

All I asked is why is God NOT in the equation?

Because scientific discovery and observation cannot find him to put him in the equation.

If a god could be there, scientific and other rational observers would be able to detect it.
That, is the actual reality we face.

It is not the opposition to your god that is the main thrust of any scientific discovery.

It is the absence of the gods influence or workings to manifest itself to the scientific community that is the real issue..

[Ryan O'Dine]

So how would you define your type of tolerance?

If you are not silent, what would you say?
If you are not going to supply deference, what is the stance that one should take? what stance should I take?

I've stated my position, where are you coming from?

I am genuinely intrigued about this tolerance you think is good practice.

Maybe there is another way, and I would consider it, if you would care to enlighten me as to what it is.

Some tough questions. Let me give them a whirl.

What I’m really trying to establish here (very clumsily) is when to act. At what point should one take an active stance against religion? Should every religious system and all religious beliefs be attacked all the time? My answer is no. One acts when religion exceeds the “live and let live” standard. Otherwise, tolerance.

You asked for examples of religions which typically keep to that standard. I like to think my list gave some.

That is possible end game. If someone wishes to practice a religion, without inficting that on any other lifeform (family included), thats fine.

I believe a religion should be as free to try to convince people of its “truths” as political parties are to try and sway people’s political views. Religion has a bad habit of taking this too far. On those occasions, there’s no reason to hold back.

At worst, this promises a perpetual, low-level conflict between religiosity and secularism. So long as the conflict is contained, it’s a state I’d be willing to accept to ensure such freedoms as belief and expression.

Again i'm not sure i follow you here. Tolerance does imply support I think. I could (but do not) tolerate the teaching of creationism in science class. Does that make it a wise strategy?
I could tolerate weeds in my garden? What chance do my flowers have? Same question, different subject.

Tolerance to me is a neutral stance. If I’m mischaracterizing “tolerance,” perhaps you could read “neutral stance” when I use the word.

But your larger point: If religion goes unchecked, it will cause general harm to society (yes?). I believe that’s true of many forms of religion (particularly those that can’t abide the L&LL standard). I don’t believe its true of religion, per se. IOW, religion isn’t a weed, it’s just another plant. It may or may not be harmful to your garden.

Perhaps this is the heart of our disagreement.

Again, please, I need a more precise definition of the type of tolerance you envisage.
It might be worthwhile, after all.

Have I done so yet?

that is not what i actually said in the main. You also said that I would be banning politics. that is, on your part alone, an eronious view of my postion.

I expect a retraction, matey.


I’ll be happy to retract it, but I’m not there yet. Here, you say...

IMO directing our energies to fighting back when it tramples on the rights of others does mean with the aim of eventually getting rid of it altogether. It tramples on the rights of all its partakers, whether they are aware of it or not, I feel.
You seem to think the tiger can be tamed, I think history and current events speak otherwise. I respect your opinion to hold that view, I cannot hold that view myself however..

To sum, your goal is to abolish religion altogether, no?

To retry my previous point: if your argument applies equally well to politics as to religion, but you don’t think politics should be abolished, then your argument is at best incomplete, and at worst self-contradictory.

Can we agree to that? If so, I’ll try to show how your argument applies equally well to politics, if you haven’t already guessed.


since when has the major religions in the world responded to "openness and democracy"

Since the time they starting flourishing in open, democratic societies.

God is not an elected official, after that its turtles all the way down is it not?

If Islam happened to be the main religion using sharia law in , say, 25yrs in your own country due to "natural" and "tolerant" practices by the citizens and the state.
ARE you going to "tolerate" that absolute travesty of human rights in your country. ?

Are you.?????

In a word, no.

you may think this is a purely rhetorical question, but to answer it would also define how much tolerance you would give credance to.

I do not think that the example in the question is a reality. So don't start climbing up the wrong tree.

I’m willing to give all the tolerance I have toward religions that adhere to the L&LL standard.



Yes, but as you have said they do not like it. What do you think would happen if any of those religions just happened to be the survivor of them all, in the future. Or as in other countries.

If they changed from tolerable to intolerable, there’d be no holding me back.


Yes, you can. I could. But disrespect religion and it'll bite back, and you know it.

Or are you implying that religion (xtian if you like) will play to the same rules. That is not what they teach the converts to do is it.?.

Different Christian denominations and churches teach different things. Some are more worthy of tolerance than others. In short, and to sum everything, I believe it's possible to take a nuanced approach toward religion.

[biomorph]

Ok
I think i can see roughly where you are here, and you have illustrated some areas where tolerance would not suffice. Possibly also where tolerance would be ok.

thank you for that, much appreciated too. I know it takes some time to work this out.

i'm getting to understand your position a little more I think.

however the retraction i'm after is over politics only.
As I consider that a different sociological feature of the human condition and never postulated that as a similar, or comparitive to, religion or worthy of removal.
The comparison is all your's not mine.
however i can live without the retraction if thats easier on you.

I have, it is clear to me, a different opinion from you on a number of issues regarding the dealing with religion.
i accept that difference, and respect it.

Unfortunately i feel i will be proved to hold the more accurate view as the future unfolds, but that is also only my opinion.

we shall see i guess as time goes on.

I would like to get some clarification on what would also produce a workable L&ll policy, if that is acceptable to you.

a sort of what is, and what isn't, rough guide to acceptable practice and what is not acceptable practice.

regards

[DARK LORD XENU]

Wait. You're using the atomic bomb as an example of harm done by science? The atomic bomb was used to end one of the costliest and bloodiest wars in the history of the world. The technology that arose from the atomic bomb allows countries like France to generate over 75% of its power without burning fossil fuels. Atomic energy allows western democracies to be less dependent on oil-rich countries that are run by religious fundamentalists.

Furthermore, even if you think science does harm people, the vast, vast, vast majority of scientific progress has allowed people to live longer, better, safer, more comfortable, more knowledgeable, and more peaceful lives.

Please don't trot out the tired, old, and laughably weak argument that maybe religion has done bad things but science has done bad things too.

Ladewig I was using the atomic bomb as an example of something bad.
Also nuclear power can cause more pollution in just getting the uranium out of the ground than what it is worth from my understanding.

Also I see no one has had a grand insight that has given them an argument to convince me that religion is bad and atheism is good.

Wolverine I will say good argument.

[Mobyseven]

I pointed out that the flat earth hypothesis is a very valid one in many cases.

No, it's not. Just because one doesn't have to adjust for the curvature of the earth in many practical everyday situations (eg. building permits) doesn't mean that it is reasonable to hypothesise that the earth is flat. In fact, it is patently ridiculous.

[Herzblut]

No, it's not. Just because one doesn't have to adjust for the curvature of the earth in many practical everyday situations (eg. building permits) doesn't mean that it is reasonable to hypothesise that the earth is flat. In fact, it is patently ridiculous.
You're funny. Let me try to make you understand how science works, in contrast to dogma. For a cartographical project, the flat earth hypothesis might be assumed. This is justified, because it's an excellent approximation over the relevant length scale. In other words, the flat earth hypothesis is justified by pragmatism here, it's correct. That's what it's all about: pragmatism, not dogma. You got it? The fact that the flat earth hypothesis is an insufficient model for calculating the shortest flight path between Berlin and New York, has no impact on our mapping project. For the flight, a spherical or even an ellipsoidal approximation of the earth's shape has to be used. It might even be this shape has been measured with high accuracy by satellites. Nevertheless, the results of those measurements will probably not be used by our local cartographers, the flat earth approximation might be simply more accurate than measurement.

[DARK LORD XENU]

Because scientific discovery and observation cannot find him to put him in the equation.

If a god could be there, scientific and other rational observers would be able to detect it.
That, is the actual reality we face.

It is not the opposition to your god that is the main thrust of any scientific discovery.

It is the absence of the gods influence or workings to manifest itself to the scientific community that is the real issue..

Bravo BIOMORPH that is the best argument I have been given for atheism,
I suggest everyone else on this thread take a look at BIOMORPHS answer if you have someone like my self ask the question I did give an answer like this.

Even though I still believe in God you still opened my eyes to why atheists do not believe in religion.

[DARK LORD XENU]

I was stationed with a guy who I thought was borderline insane. He used to be something of a punk as a kid, apparently, but was "reborn" or whatever it is they call it. He'd read from the bible, in the barracks, LOUDLY. We'd all ignore him. It was kind of annoying, but nothing worth breaking a sweat, however. That ended the day he cornered me in the stairwell, and told me in no uncertain terms that if I didn't go with him to his church, RIGHT THAT MINUTE, that I would go to hell. Long story short, he went alone after I offered to sanctify his jaw for him. I got the feeling this guy had been voted "Most likely to get sucked up into a cult" in high school.

Did you end up sancifying that guys jaw?

[Mobyseven]

You're funny. Let me try to make you understand how science works, in contrast to dogma. For a cartographical project, the flat earth hypothesis might be assumed. This is justified, because it's an excellent approximation over the relevant length scale. In other words, the flat earth hypothesis is justified by pragmatism here, it's correct. That's what it's all about: pragmatism, not dogma. You got it? The fact that the flat earth hypothesis is an insufficient model for calculating the shortest flight path between Berlin and New York, has no impact on our mapping project. For the flight, a spherical or even an ellipsoidal approximation of the earth's shape has to be used. It might even be this shape has been measured with high accuracy by satellites. Nevertheless, the results of those measurements will probably not be used by our local cartographers, the flat earth approximation might be simply more accurate than measurement.

Dear Vishnu that was the most inane drivel I've read in a while.

The flat earth hypothesis is not justified. This is because the earth has pretty conclusively been shown to be an oblate spheroid, and not flat.

The fact that the earth appears to be flat from our perspective, and in some situations it may be treated that way for practical reasons does not mean that anybody is adopting the flat earth hypothesis. It means recognising that over short distances the curvature of the earth is negligible, and does not need to be adjusted for - thereby using a 'flat earth' as a practical short distance model of the actual earth.

Practical adoption of a standard does not make an unreasonable and conclusively discredited hypothesis any more valid or reasonable. Shut up with your nonsensical ramblings about pragmatism and dogma.

[Herzblut]

Dear Vishnu that was the most inane drivel I've read in a while.

The flat earth hypothesis is not justified. This is because the earth has pretty conclusively been shown to be an oblate spheroid, and not flat.

Wrong. The earth's shape is similar to an "oblate spheroid", the latter being hence an approximation.

You don't get it, better stay with your dogmas.

[kmortis]

Wrong. The earth's shape is similar to an "oblate spheroid", the latter being hence an approximation.

You don't get it, better stay with your dogmas.

And "oblate spheroid" is much closer to the shape than "flat".

I got it, you made the point poorly.

[Hawk one]

And "oblate spheroid" is much closer to the shape than "flat".

I got it, you made the point poorly.

Heck, simply "sphere" would be much closer. Yes, it's not a perfect sphere, but it's close enough (the obloid difference being about 0.3% as far as I can recall) that if you shrunk it to the size of a snooker/pool ball, it would actually pass international tournament standards.

[Ladewig]

Ladewig I was using the atomic bomb as an example of something bad.

Yes. I understand that was your purpose. I responded by saying that the atomic bomb is not something bad. It makes a very poor example when looking for something to equate to the Spanish Inquisition.

Also nuclear power can cause more pollution in just getting the uranium out of the ground than what it is worth from my understanding.

I did not know that. Will you provide a reliable citation for that assertion?

Also I see no one has had a grand insight that has given them an argument to convince me that religion is bad and atheism is good.


Probably because we did not know that you were asking that question. The topic under discussion was why is Genesis not a valid source for understanding the universe, its origins, and life. That question seems very well answered to me.

If you want to talk about why some think religion is bad or about why some religions are bad, then let's do it.

I think Christianity is bad because it is predicated on a series of absurdities. If you saw a mother on the edge of a cliff yelling at her children : "Because you are very, very wicked, I will now have to prove my love for you by killing myself," you might contact a police officer or try to get the woman away from the cliff because saying those things is a sign of mental unbalance. But when the God of the Bible says, "Because you are very, very wicked, I have to kill myself to show you how much I love you," people nod knowingly and say, "yes, we are very, very wicked. Thank you for killing yourself for us."

[Herzblut]

And "oblate spheroid" is much closer to the shape than "flat".

How "much closer" over which distance? Your statement is meaningless unless you specify the distance over which you compare the two models. If you indent to say that the flat model is much worse over a distance of, say, 100km you have to face the fact that you're simply wrong. In fact, the flat model is equally close to reality here and preferred based on its simplicity. You know, Occam and so forth.

[Ladewig]

I've been reflecting on my previous post and want to temper my criticism. Christianity has done a lot of good by staffing shelters for homeless people and opening charity hospitals. I would find it difficult to precisely compare the beneficial acts done some many Christians to the detriments done by many Christians (persecution of gays and people of different faiths).

[UnrepentantSinner]

I've been reflecting on my previous post and want to temper my criticism. Christianity has done a lot of good by staffing shelters for homeless people and opening charity hospitals. I would find it difficult to precisely compare the beneficial acts done some many Christians to the detriments done by many Christians (persecution of gays and people of different faiths).

While the abuses of religion are known by all posting here and I could go on forever about the abuses of ostensibly charitable* functions of religion, it must be admitted that all religious entities have provided some good at some point (not just Christians). The Salvation Army, Jewish hospitals, Red Crescent, etc.

Interestingly enough I heard a reply of the Lars Larson radio talk show the other night where he ambushed interviewed Margaret Downey** and he asked her why there weren't atheist charitable organizations. Her response was the same as mine - numbers and dollars. Atheists are still a minority and activist atheists are even more so. We can donate our money to a number of religious or not charities like the Salvation Army or local soup kitchens (or the ASPCA) which have the force of numbers rather than trying to start our own.

* My biggest current problem here is Catholic hospitals not providing birth control or abortion counseling (I can understand them not providing abortions).
** I disagree with a lot of her positions, but man is she hot.

[biomorph]

Bravo BIOMORPH that is the best argument I have been given for atheism,
I suggest everyone else on this thread take a look at BIOMORPHS answer if you have someone like my self ask the question I did give an answer like this.

Even though I still believe in God you still opened my eyes to why atheists do not believe in religion.

thanks, you're welcome.....anytime..

[ThatSoundAgain]

While the abuses of religion are known by all posting here and I could go on forever about the abuses of ostensibly charitable* functions of religion, it must be admitted that all religious entities have provided some good at some point (not just Christians). The Salvation Army, Jewish hospitals, Red Crescent, etc.


(bolding mine)

I don't think the Red Crescent views itself as a religious organization. In fact, the cross, crescent and shield of david are interchangeable emblems used by the various Red Cross organizations depending on where in the world they operate.

If these symbols bother you, Doctors without Borders is a break-off organization, that also has a different philosophy with regards to speaking out against war crimes.

Otherwise I agree with your post.

[kmortis]

How "much closer" over which distance? Your statement is meaningless unless you specify the distance over which you compare the two models. If you indent to say that the flat model is much worse over a distance of, say, 100km you have to face the fact that you're simply wrong. In fact, the flat model is equally close to reality here and preferred based on its simplicity. You know, Occam and so forth.

Um, no. The flat model is not an accurate description of the shape of the earth. Yes, it can appear flat when you're away from the coast or not at sea. It however, doesn't come close close in any aspect of that word to describing the true shape. To argue otherwise is just pedantry. Seriously, the ancient Greeks figured this one out without the aid of telescopes.

Since you seem to be making an argument from integration, yes, over very small distances (dx) it appears relatively flat, barring mountains and pits. However, when it's shape is taken as a whole, rather than just a segment, it's not flat by any approximation.

The simplest explanation is that humans perspective is faulty and the Earth is a lot bigger than we are, so we can't normally see the whole thing. That's Occam's razor, not that a true approximation of the shape of the Earth is flat. Now, move on to something else. Your point has been made, now you're looking silly.

[biomorph]

so, Ryan O'Dine...

How do you deal with these types of situation?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102987

[Ryan O'Dine]

so, Ryan O'Dine...

How do you deal with these types of situation?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102987


Thanks for directing me to that fascinating thread. I thought I’d escaped this one with my dignity intact, but it never happens.

So. Religion certainly presents challenges, including the problems our friend Digital Shadow faces. I, myself, have fundamentalists in my extended family who are the principle source of discord in an otherwise unusually harmonious tribe. Notably, they don’t abide by the live and let live contract, expecting more tolerance than they give in return. I personally get along with them and value our debates, but in conflicts with other family members I never take their side. They’ve violated the contract.

Such is often the case with fundamentalists. Many, by their very nature, live outside the contract and should be treated as such. Here’s the thing, though. Not every religious person is a fundamentalist, or in any way coercive.

Which brings us to an important question: what’s the alternative to tolerance? It’s nice to say society would be better off without religion, but how do we get there? This is an aspect I haven’t addressed, but it’s in the foreground.

So let me turn the tables a little, my friend. How would you get rid of religion? Please be specific.

If you have no method which wouldn’t cause more harm to society than good, or you have no method at all, then I'd be left wondering how you can criticize tolerance.

[Mister Earl]

Did you end up sancifying that guys jaw?

No, didn't need to. I think my offer got my point across that I didn't wish to be sucked into his cult.

[biomorph]

Thanks for directing me to that fascinating thread. I thought I’d escaped this one with my dignity intact, but it never happens.

You have conducted your side of the debate with dignity.

As far as I'm concerned your dignity is intact, though your position as regards the topic might be a bit ruffled, but thats ok.


So. Religion certainly presents challenges, including the problems our friend Digital Shadow faces. I, myself, have fundamentalists in my extended family who are the principle source of discord in an otherwise unusually harmonious tribe. Notably, they don’t abide by the live and let live contract, expecting more tolerance than they give in return. I personally get along with them and value our debates, but in conflicts with other family members I never take their side. They’ve violated the contract.


I find that a normal situation, to a greater or lesser degree.
Like I've attempted to point out, it's an expansionist ideology. I think that makes it difficult to deal with on a neutral l&ll basis. They just do not see it that way.

Even the most mild convert has somewhere in there, the concept that equates tolerance by non converts with "room to expand". It is part of the misson.

They may not practice it in a manner that is "fundamentalist", but starting with their nearest and dearest they'll try. that I can assure you is very very common. how do you think they survive?


Such is often the case with fundamentalists. Many, by their very nature, live outside the contract and should be treated as such. Here’s the thing, though. Not every religious person is a fundamentalist, or in any way coercive.


see above

Which brings us to an important question: what’s the alternative to tolerance? It’s nice to say society would be better off without religion, but how do we get there? This is an aspect I haven’t addressed, but it’s in the foreground.

So let me turn the tables a little, my friend. How would you get rid of religion? Please be specific.

If you have no method which wouldn’t cause more harm to society than good, or you have no method at all, then I'd be left wondering how you can criticize tolerance.
See
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3289108&postcount=169:eek:
for the most radical of the measures i thought, in part, might work.

I am not suggesting all or any are fixed, essential, or any thing.
Just pure opinion. some agree, some do not. that's fine by me.

further on there is a post I did on modifying the 1st Amendment as well.

That raised a few comments, i can tell you, and i don't even live in the states.:cool:

regards and glad to see you are still kicking.

ps, I was raised moderate baptist, so I have some experience with xtianity. Only my own though.....:)

[Ryan O'Dine]

You have conducted your side of the debate with dignity.

As far as I'm concerned your dignity is intact, though your position as regards the topic might be a bit ruffled, but thats ok.

Give me time. Losing dignity is a gift. Fortunately, there are smilies for every occasion: :Banane14:


I find that a normal situation, to a greater or lesser degree.
Like I've attempted to point out, it's an expansionist ideology. I think that makes it difficult to deal with on a neutral l&ll basis. They just do not see it that way.

Even the most mild convert has somewhere in there, the concept that equates tolerance by non converts with "room to expand". It is part of the misson.

They may not practice it in a manner that is "fundamentalist", but starting with their nearest and dearest they'll try. that I can assure you is very very common. how do you think they survive?

I guess I’m not clear where the harm is in letting them argue their point. What is it about religious ideology that deserves different treatment from, say, political ideology? (I keep bringing up politics for a reason. It seems to me they’re functionally equivalent here. There are hateful, aggressive, viral politics, too. Why single out religion? (Am I a broken record? If you've answered this already, could you humor me again?))

See
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3289108&postcount=169:eek:
for the most radical of the measures i thought, in part, might work.

I am not suggesting all or any are fixed, essential, or any thing.
Just pure opinion. some agree, some do not. that's fine by me.

further on there is a post I did on modifying the 1st Amendment as well.

That raised a few comments, i can tell you, and i don't even live in the states.:cool:

I’m impressed. Really. Most people rant about the dangers of religion but offer no solutions. My hat is off.

I think this isn’t really the place to argue your specifics, but I’ll make some general comments. Here goes. Once you’ve done away with all the religious ideas you don’t like, what’s next? There are many ideas which straddle the religious domain -- new age and other philosophies, the self-help movement, even general questions of cultural identity (try asking the definition of “Jew”), and then of course -- once again -- politics.

I realize I’m on the verge of a “slippery slope” argument, but that’s not really what I’m getting at. The problem comes in delineating the boundaries of religion. Who gets to decide?

In even more general terms, it comes down to a choice between free speech and no religion. Your list is basically a targeted assault on free speech. For my own part, I’d much rather err on the side of too much free speech. I'm even willing to pay the price of coexisting with religion.

How’s that for ruffled? ;)

[biomorph]

How’s that for ruffled? ;)

not bad at all, however i think this thread is possibly loosing the will to live, so I'm abandoning ship here.

you make some good points though, and provoked some thought on my part.

The politics = religion thing i sort of get, but my brain is pretty compartmentalised as regards dealing with one or the other not both, but i see where you are going with that concept.


As for the harm, well I think you'll find plenty of examples around you and at this forum, enough to keep us both happy thats for sure.

I'm sure you'll find me posting more anti religious stuff here, seems to be a favorite pastime of mine.

Keep thinking,

regards

BM

[Tanstaafl]

I have long thought that religion is just a subset of politics.

Seems to me that telling other people what they should think and how they should live their lives is political at the core.

[biomorph]

I have long thought that religion is just a subset of politics.

Seems to me that telling other people what they should think and how they should live their lives is political at the core.

In as much as they try to control behaviour , yes i'd agree.

there are loads of similarities that is true, it appears.

i don't like politics either much.:)

[kmortis]

In as much as they try to control behaviour , yes i'd agree.

there are loads of similarities that is true, it appears.

i don't like politics either much.:)

Both religion and politics have funny hats, their own specialized language and their own versions of taboos.

[DARK LORD XENU]

Thought you people may be interested in looking at these links.

http://www.theexodusdecoded.net/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus_Decoded

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOexodus.html

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/...orer_adam.html

If you don't want to read it fair enough the subject is very interesting

[biomorph]

Both religion and politics have funny hats, their own specialized language and their own versions of taboos.

coming from you, thats a little ironic on the hat front as it where....and i agree they have their own little peculiarities ,..........however i'm of the opinion that there's a possibility of a form of politics that is sort of, well, beneficial in back corner of my mind where i don't go that often.............with religious belief systems that postulate the inconceivable and the pretty much impossible I have much less patience.......

[biomorph]

Thought you people may be interested in looking at these links.

http://www.theexodusdecoded.net/index.html
I got this:
http://4java.ca/index.html....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus_Decoded

well thats what its about then,



http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOexodus.html



I think I take Hershel's view, backed by the majority of the evidence.



http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/...orer_adam.html

i got this,

Not Found

The requested URL http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/...orer_adam.html was not found on this server.

do you have the complete url? Also blogs are pure opinion, and ought to be taken as such i'd have thought

If you don't want to read it fair enough the subject is very interesting

I did, and thanks, and I'm not convinced that some sort of backwards correlation to confirm the old testament is that valid about any thing really, especially the existance of god. never mind the god that modern theology purports to have an understanding of.

I've also previously looked at other historical websites about Egypt and remain pretty convinced that whether the OT is in anyway a reflection of factual history or not is pretty irrelevant to any discussion about god anyway. Or about as relevant as any other concept held by other old world civilisations, don't forget they thought the earth was flat, by majority too.

however an interesting read, and i note that the exodus decoded stuff was written with some sort of vested interest in proving that the texts the author holds dear were a true account of history, I find that a little disturbing really....a little bias there would you not say? Especially as most findings dispute that understanding.....thanks again though...:)

[kmortis]

coming from you, thats a little ironic on the hat front as it where....and i agree they have their own little peculiarities ,..........however i'm of the opinion that there's a possibility of a form of politics that is sort of, well, beneficial in back corner of my mind where i don't go that often.............with religious belief systems that postulate the inconceivable and the pretty much impossible I have much less patience.......

What hat front?

I gotta say, that's a charming picture you have of me. Where'd you get it? Was that you I heard outside in the bushes last night? I hope the cats didn't scratch your leg too badly.

[biomorph]

Almost, I went in disguise as usual, I got this out of your security camera before I snapped you....just as well i had my cat resistant outfit on wasn't it?

That's after i avoided the claymore mines, razorwire and all that other stuff in your garden you employ to stop the fundies coming back to "reconvert" you.......


i did promise to be back to get you in a previous post (damn, does that mean I'm psychic?)