This is topic How many Atheists are there? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=059268

Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
I was just linked to something unexpected, a census for atheists world wide. They had some technical issues early on but since December 7th they have had 126,195 people submit themselves as atheists. The quick and easy census asks for your age, gender, education level, country and religion of origin. They are requiring no more than an email account which obviously doesn't prevent any abuse but there is no prize to waste time over so I think excessive submission is unlikely.

Most submissions have been from the U.S. with some really surprising percentages from the other first world countries, as well as six from Haiti.

How many atheists do you think it would take to have a more apparent existence world wide?

http://www.atheistcensus.com/
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
The number of self identified atheists is dwarfed by the number who are "no religious affiliation" or some flavor thereof.

It's still a pretty huge taboo to be an "atheist" in most parts of this country. Many who "lack a belief in a deity" won't go so far as to accept the label. I don't blame them, generally.

Edit: So to me, as am atheist, these numbers aren't typically all that interesting to me. Though if they are growing, all the better.

[ December 27, 2012, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
The site tally was eight thousand just a couple days ago, so as we heathens spread the word it should have many more submissions to go. It may also benefit from the degree of anonymity that many Americans don't feel with the federal census.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
Yeah, when I say the number of "no religious affiliation" dwarfs the number of atheists, I mean on more widespread survey mechanisms like the ARIS. Obviously on an internet site where you "opt-in" it won't be the same ratio.

But still, I'd be quite interested to see how large the number gets.

Edit: BTW, I'm number 126,297. So by sharing it here you've bumped it by 1 at least [Smile] .

Though I wonder if /r/atheism has seen it yet. If not you can expect the number to double at least when they do get their hands on it.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
I'm not familiar, although I would wonder if reddit has contributed. I've even had it related to me randomly while at work that reddit has quite the Niel Degrasse Tyson fan club.

ETA
Haha, well. I just googled /r/atheism. Great minds?
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
You guys might also be interested in /r/TrueAtheism. It's got more serious conversations going on. Though, the more "fluff" centered /r/atheism is also incredibly satisfying at times.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
It all depends on how you ask the question.

The actual percentage of atheists, or something that could be comfortably described as atheist without the specific label (ie: mostly believe that there is no God) in Europe is, according to some estimates, a majority. In some countries, the figure approaches 90%.
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
R/atheism is a wretched pit.
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
I don't have a religion myself, yet I do not understand the aversion against religions. It is a lack of moral principles that is the problem in the world today, not religion in itself. This lack of moral principles is caused by obedience: Either emotional obedience (being incited by others aversion, anger, hate, blaming) or mental obedience (as it is comfortable to hand responsibility over, so one cannot make mistakes nor has to admit them and thus escapes the pain of shame and guilt and negative feelings, no fear for bad decisions) to a point where people perform acts not compatible with their own standard of fundamental moral principles, if only they would sit and think about it.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
quote:
How many atheists do you think it would take to have a more apparent existence world wide?
For some reason I find this quote really amusing. [Cool]

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
Ginette, for me the designation of atheist versus non-religious is heavily influenced by the abuse of power and influence by people whose only authority is magical. In America the leading argument against equal rights for a minority is because religious people say its wrong without much legal reasoning. In addition to being tax exempt religious institutions are not held to same scrutiny than non-religious organizations and non-profit charities are. In the UK the church of England has a voice in parliament. Religions are allowed much authority and privacy world wide, I think the time for this is behind us. We don't need myths to keep us from killing our brothers and eating shellfish anymore.

[ December 29, 2012, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
The point I am making, is that this giving authority away to religious institutions is in peoples mind, not in the religious teachings. If you would want to change that, I guess you'd have to make people study their religion seriously. That would be a better approach than blaming everything on 'religion'.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Ginette's right. No major religions insist upon high degrees of authority over the lives and decision-making of their believers, and hardly any at all insist that in order to be good, decent human children of God who do things like please Him or avoid hellfire, adherents must reject their own conclusions when they come into conflict with the religion's principles.
 
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
 
The fact that churches are tax exempt is ridiculous. Even better, several of them were campaigning in the last election, and there hasn't (and won't be) any word about revoking their status.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
I obviously never thought that religion is a tangible thing that can be defeated. I treat any and all religions like any other organization, the only difference is that very few people believe that political parties or companies are above reproach. It is when we speak out against religious organizations, their teachings or even defending the Constitution that we find those who would be willing to demand that our civil liberties be ignored. I understand how one could find people like Dawkins disagreeable but I don't think that the "smile and nod" method improves life for anyone but the theists in power.

For instance, the only ones fighting against gay rights are doing it for religious reasons. Actively denying equality with no better excuse than a passage or two in a book. It is far from reasonable, and if they keep restricting the freedoms of innocent civilians and rewriting our history I fear for what such regressive people could get away with in the future.

So I'm willing to be a loud mouth on the matter.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
How many atheists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Thirty.
One to go get a ladder, obtain a bulb, and change the bulb without making a big deal about it. Twenty to point out to everyone else in earshot how easy it is to change a lightbulb when you aren't shackled to outmoded superstition. And another nine who worry that there aren't enough atheists out there to change all the lightbulbs that need changing.
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
Don't forget the extra three to post Facebook arguments about lightbulbs to the internet.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
How many atheists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Thirty.
One to go get a ladder, obtain a bulb, and change the bulb without making a big deal about it. Twenty to point out to everyone else in earshot how easy it is to change a lightbulb when you aren't shackled to outmoded superstition. And another nine who worry that there aren't enough atheists out there to change all the lightbulbs that need changing.

Needs some work. The genius of a good lightbulb joke is that it plays with the concept instead of just making fun of the group screwing in said lightbulb. The first part of the joke is pretty good on its own actually: "one... it's not really a big deal."

Ever hear the one about how many hipsters it takes to change a lightbulb? No I'm not surprised you haven't heard about it.

How many hipsters does it take to screw in a lightbulb? You know, this joke sounds better on vinyl.
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
No Achillesheel, they are not doing it for religious reasons, and because it is in the book. They do it, because it causes aversion in their mind. Then next, they seem to find justification for that in the book. This justification is false, as Christians already have proven (with the same book) and it is only a matter of time before also muslims will find out, justification of this aversion is not to be found in the Qu'ran.

You justify your own aversion against religion by attacking religious institutions, not acknowledging the problem is in the mind of those people that obey those institutions. Please keep in mind, there are millions of people having more or less left the church, without loosing their religion.

So, whether you like it or not, you yourself might very well suffer from emotional obedience: Incited by others aversion against people obeying religious institutions, you blame 'religion' for all the problems in the world. That though, is not the way to take responsibility and do something constructive. Such an attitude causes more problems instead of solving them.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
When did I blame religion for all that is wrong with the world?

I will repeat, I treat religions as organizations and no differently than any other organization. And yes, plenty of the immorality within these organizations does stem from the source material. When you indoctrinate a child from birth with views of sexism, racism, tribalism and servitude all with the threat of eternal punishment if they do not comply they are less likely to think for themselves and question the book that tells them all this. In the past, religion has been the binding force of society. Without the catholic church Europe would be a very different place today. But these organizations that base themselves on myths that are above reproach have, are and will continue to hold our global societies back. Voting for a president due to the opinion that he is a "good christian man" and teaching our children about how cavemen co-existed with dinosaurs because the Earth is only six thousand years old in science class is detrimental to the evolution of our society and effectively our species.

If any person or organization wishes to hold authority of any kind they should be held to the same scrutiny and requirements as all others. So long as these organizations wish to remain held apart but still enforce their views and restrictions upon society I will look for ways to undermine them. If they would like to start paying taxes and allow federal requirements to be involved in their hiring practices as well as their practices in general, I would welcome the change.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
Teaching myth and misdirection over proven science.
http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Eye-Opening_Highlights_From_a_Creationist_Science_Textbook

Rewriting American history.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history

This is a two hour documentary on youtube, centered around a veteran who came home to King, North Carolina to find a christian flag above the newly built memorial in the center of town. I agree that there are vicious and immoral people who use religious organizations to their own benefit, but this is thousands of people who are demanding that one man leave town because he challenged the christian supremacy and defended the Constitution. Surely each of them don't have a personal vendetta against this man, but when a book is placed above questioning these are the things that happen. I would note that we are getting better with these things, mere decades ago it would not have been a rally demanding that his civil liberties be ignored but a lynch mob killing his family. Progress is progress nonetheless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ucVDpmFz-E
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
You justify your own aversion against religion by attacking religious institutions, not acknowledging the problem is in the mind of those people that obey those institutions.
It's actually sort of amusing to see someone castigating an atheist for complaining about religious institutions, when the real problem (the complainant asserts) is with religious people.

You don't often see that particular approach.
 
Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
 
this is a bit off topic, maybe should be its own, but this seems a good place to ask:

I know a couple of true Agnostics, they are not sure what divine powers there might be, or if there are any, but they are also not sure there isn't anything out there, they simply do not care one way or the other.

But I know a down right fanatical atheist who insists in trying to convince anyone of faith that their faith is foolish, and that there is nothing there. Still he insists on being called an Agnostic, not an atheist because he says atheist is an offensive term. Personally i find most atheism no more or less annoying than any other faith. But is the term atheist offensive?
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
If nothing else atheists and agnostics are individuals. There is no hand book to show us how to be non-believers no matter how many books Richard Dawkins or Penn Jillette publish.

If he doesn't want to be called atheist, it's his deal. I was raised without religion but only became an atheist at twenty years old, I chose the descriptor myself. I'm the only non-believer in all my extended family and it was three years before I started spending time with other atheists. No one put the label on me, but I would be interested in why someone would think it derogatory.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
Marek, it's difficult to say. He might have his own reasons for being offended and they may in part have something to do with how he defines both those words, or how he associates those terms with the movements, etc.

For instance, the terms atheist and agnostic tend to be used to mean "knows god doesn't exist" and "isn't sure if god exists", respectively. But their technical definition is actually something like, "lacks belief in a deity" and "believes the question of the existence of a deity cannot be answered/known with certainty". So under those definitions, I'm both an atheist and an agnostic.

So without knowing more about your friend and how he views those terms it's impossible to say what it is that offends him about the word atheist.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
quote:
Personally i find most atheism no more or less annoying than any other faith.
Also, you might not want to call atheism a "faith". I don't particularly care to argue that point again, so just trust me, its not [Wink] .
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Personally i find most atheism no more or less annoying than any other faith. But is the term atheist offensive?
If you keep calling it a "faith," yes, it is. I'm not at all offended when someone calls me an atheist; I am generally livid when someone suggests that I belong to the Atheist Faith. Leaving all other questions aside (like, for example, the fact that there are actually atheist faiths out there, so a hypothetical Atheist Faith is not itself a useful grouping), it's like saying that a lack of belief in unicorns is itself a belief.

For my part, I think atheists who want to be called agnostics while still believing that the question of a god's existence is in fact an answerable one are mildly cowardly. If you're calling yourself an agnostic because the non-existence of God hasn't been proven, you've misunderstood the meaning of the word.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
I think they are just excusing themselves from the judgement, stupid questions and antagonism that you can encounter as an atheist.

"Are you happy?"
"How can you have morals without god?"
"Have you read the bible? I think it would do you good."
"I'll pray for you" which always sounds like they think they are tattling on me to god, and I'll get sorted out in the end.
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
I hear some very narrowminded views here. In the first place, those views have nothing to do with religion, but everything with aversion, caused by Christian people asking the wrong questions. But what exactly do you know about Islam? Buddhism? Taoism? And what exactly do you know about Christianity?

All religions describe the beginning of all things, they give lessons about how to live our lifes, and they describe our final destiny together with predictions about the end of times.

The principle underlying the beginning of existence, is similar in all religions, whether theistic or non-theistic. Even science has a similar view on the origin of the universe and its development, being one ultimate source everything evolved and expanded from. Where beliefs start to differ, depends on the properties, given to the ultimate source of our origin. At least all religions agree, something cannot come into existence out of nothing, so the universe must have an ultimate cause. Though it seems to be an important question, it is by far not the most important. The most important is the keypoint, whether this cause/the Highest God has a will of itself, whether it thinks and loves, whether it has sent its Word into the world through messengers, and whether it intervenes in our lifes through actions.

As to life for humans, all religions agree our love and our human intelligence, our mind/consciousness, or spirit, are sort of trapped in a mortal body, and the desire to please and protect this body/individual existence is the cause of destructive emotions, sins or evil. They all teach how to develop our love and mind, by being aware of this destructive tendency. They also teach, we are all one big family and should not put our own interests above the interests of others but at least equal to our own interest. Furthermore, they contain advice as to what is healthy for the body including advice on hygienics and diet, and on how to structure life in a community of people including basic laws against harmful actions. In essence, even those rules are very similar in all religions. Where beliefs differ, is as to what is in between our highest destiny and mortal life on earth. Is there more (intelligent) life in the universe? Are there intelligent beings on some higher level of reality between humans and the Highest God? Do we have more than one mortal life? Are there lesser deities or gods? Do we have to worship those lesser gods and/or the Highest God? Did God send the Word through messengers? Can God work miracles without interference of humans? Depending on the answers to those questions, religious lessons contain rituals and rules for the sake of worship, to please and thank the gods and/or God, and to ask for divine interference. Last but not least, there is the queest for extraordinary powers - like for example healing, speaking with the death, knowing the future - and a continuous blissful state of mind.

As to our final destiny, all religions promise a blissful ending if we succeed in living our lifes according to the teachings, to be judged in the end of times. All religions agree, the end of times does not mean the end of life on earth, it means the end of the cycle of birth and death, (ultimately) to be replaced with eternal life both on the earth as well as in the heavens. All religions say we cannot achieve this without a saviour, so they all predict this saviour to come in the end of times. The difference is, that all religions say this saviour will come from among their own midst, and most believe, this saviour will only save those from their own religion. Yet, all religions also teach, humankind is one big family with ultimately the same anchestors, no matter religion, so this is probably a misunderstanding, unless the saviour has 7 bodies.

Those without a religion prefer to leave all answers to questions that cannot be known open, until science has given proof. As to developing inner human values, they use our human mind with the conscience, giving warning signals whenever we (plan to) do something wrong, while religious people have the opinion, we cannot trust this enough, so we need the ethics from the religion. Besides, we are ignorant, so they believe we need the religions prescriptions as to what is healthy for us and good for our community. And they believe, we cannot achieve higher powers nor can we achieve eternal life, without religion.

So,as for religion, the essence of them all is compassion, love, tolerance and respect for others. Their different philosophical views are approaches to the same end.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
All religions agree, the end of times does not mean the end of life on earth,
Really? I don't think all religions agree on this. Actually I know for a fact that the Catholic church accepts the current cosmological model, which spells the end of life on Earth at some point in the future.


Anyway, religious people so often get caught up in what religion "promises" people. They don't get that to an atheist, who came to this conclusion based on a rational, observational, deductive thought process, it sounds like an insurance sales pitch. "Buy Jesus, get saved now." It is utterly meaningless in the philosophical context in which most atheists operate.


quote:
while religious people have the opinion, we cannot trust this enough, so we need the ethics from the religion.
Or perhaps religious people operate under the false assumption that the natural laws of human behavior are imparted by religion, rather than being incorporated into religion *because* they are already a part of the human psyche.

In this way, religion is about as sophisticated as Taroh reading: it reds omens and invokes scriptures to tell people exactly what they already instinctively understand about themselves, but were not self-aware enough to realize it, nor poised enough to credit themselves with that understanding.

My parents attended the Swedenborgian Church in San Francisco, and subsequently I read Emerson's "Self-Reliance," and "Education," among other essays. He presents this as the central problem of organized religion: it depends upon us accepting that what is natural and right in our minds was put there by words that merely describe how we already see ourselves. It is, in his view, the greatest swindle of all time.

[ December 31, 2012, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
As a former Baha'i, reading Ginette's rant just now was a little surreal.
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
It was not a rant. Maybe that's why you thought it surreal.
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
Ok. I'll put it simple. Something cannot come into exisistence out of nothing. Now DEPENDING ON THE PROPERTIES of this source, we have different beliefs. Got it?

For the rest, I am out of this thread. Just indulge in your aversion, and waste your time ventilating your frustrations against religion. It won't have the sligthest effect for the good. If you want people to think for themselves and stop misinterpreting their religion, then maybe you should understand them first so you don't harm them, and then help them if you can. If you think you're wiser than them, show it.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
Ginette, what you fail to realize is that most of us atheists understand religion extremely well, as most of us were raised in one faith or another. I, for one, went to an orthodox jewish school for 10 years growing up. I *was* religious, I understand the mindset perfectly.

Further, a lot of atheists acquaint themselves with various scriptures. Some did this during their process of leaving the faith and trying to find something more suitable for them. Not all do this for altruistic reasons; many try to learn as much as possible about all the other religions so they can better argue against them. But whatever the reason, many atheists know a religious person's religion in great detail, while also being able to discuss many different world religions.

Can you explain what particular views in this thread are narrowminded?
 
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
 
Why can't the problem be both the religious people AND the religious scriptures?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Ginette, someone who has just labeled one of the essences of all religions as being *tolerance* is in no position at all lecturing others on a failure to understand religions.

I mean, the rest of it where you pin most of human virtues to religion, those are varying degrees of murky and difficult to argue. But *tolerance*?
 
Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
I think they are just excusing themselves from the judgement, stupid questions and antagonism that you can encounter as an atheist.

"Are you happy?"
"How can you have morals without god?"
"Have you read the bible? I think it would do you good."
"I'll pray for you" which always sounds like they think they are tattling on me to god, and I'll get sorted out in the end.

Even as a Catholic, I would want to sock some one who said most of those. Those just really annoying to me.

also
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
it's like saying that a lack of belief in unicorns is itself a belief.

Does this mean my new church of No-unicorns is a hoax? But I already payed for the symbolic necklace and car decal! [Angst]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
So,as for religion, the essence of them all is compassion, love, tolerance and respect for others.
Exactly what meaning of the word "Tolerance" are you using here to describe a universal characteristic of religions?
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
With 'respect' I mean true respect, that is acknowledging the value. With 'tolerance' I mean to accept others beliefs even if you think they are false.

My tolerance goes so far as to accept false views, but I will not accept wrong views. The difference is - if you'd please allow me as a foreigner to make this distinction in your language - that a wrong view is a harmful one, sure to lead to harmful action. While a false view is taking something for true that has been proven to be false or the other way around.

As to narrowminded, it is this whole thing of condemning 'religion', the black-and-white thinking.

Strider, why would you argue 'against them'? As I said, I don't have a religion. I have friends from different religions as well as friends that do not have one. I meet people from different religions and cultures. I would never 'argue against them' unless they are harming me or others. To be a good person, be happy and contribute to the wellbeing of others has nothing to do with religion.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GinetteB:
With 'respect' I mean true respect, that is acknowledging the value. With 'tolerance' I mean to accept others beliefs even if you think they are false.

Do you see how such a thing is inherently self-contradictory? You do not accept other people's beliefs if you think they are false. Patently. Tolerance is *allowing* and *forgiving* beliefs in contradiction to your own. It is not accepting those beliefs. We are not required to accept that which we do not believe, as a condition of tolerance.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
quote:
With 'tolerance' I mean to accept others beliefs even if you think they are false.
I don't know how anyone could have even a minimum of exposure to world history (or current events!) and come to the conclusion that this is a property of religion.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GinetteB:
Ok. I'll put it simple. Something cannot come into exisistence out of nothing. Now DEPENDING ON THE PROPERTIES of this source, we have different beliefs. Got it?

No I don't get it. As a rational person, looking at the accumulated evidence, which suggests that the laws of nature may not have always been consistent with our current observations, I am not convinced that something cannot come from nothing. This is an area of cosmology that is still being explored. As such I *have* no beliefs about the origins of the universe, other than what the scientific process has suggested is likely, or possible. I am not required to have beliefs about something, about which I do not have sufficient information. A key difference between me and you, apparently.

quote:
As to narrowminded, it is this whole thing of condemning 'religion', the black-and-white thinking.

My thinking is not black and white. I condemn some religions on firmer grounds than others, for example. I condemn all religions, about which I have collected sufficient information, because all of them have been, in my experience, condemnable. This is a powerful pattern, but nevertheless, I am not tempted to suggest that all religion, everywhere is universally condemnable. I do not know this to be the case. I only suspect it. This is not black and white. Rather, your thinking is decidedly binary on this: you perceive criticisms of religion as universal statements of absolute faith (a consequence of your religious training, I imagine), and not as qualified statements of opinion, which is what they actually are.
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
It is. Unfortunately, it is not a property of religious institutions.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GinetteB:
It is. Unfortunately, it is not a property of religious institutions.

No, it is a *claim* of religious institutions. I defy you to segregate, in a meaningful way, the properties of "religions," and "religious institutions."

Mind: a meaningful way. I am not looking for your latest bright-siding prevarication about how everything bad about religion is institutional, and everything sunshine and lollypops is "religion." I want to know what the difference actually is- not how you feel about one or the other. I am looking for some justification for the notion that religion, and religious institution are discrete things, despite the observable fact that religions are shaped by, defined, and advocated by institutions of one make or another.
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
That is my point Orincoro. Religions have been used as an instrument of power through religious institutions. Now those institutions have corrupted their own scriptures, and made rules and false interpretations. To have religious harmony and respect for other beliefs, it is not enough to find common ground on what beliefs have in common (in the lollypop part as you call it). It is also necessary to acknowledge this common ground as the most important element in beliefs, and have it prevail over man-made interpretations and rules within a beliefsystem. To acknowledge this, would mean to reconsider religious laws and rules, not in line with the main scripture, to correct misunderstandings caused by false human interpretation, and to consider rituals and worship at least equally important to living the teachings.

So that is what I think the discussion should be about. Why not value what is valuable, and save arguing for the elements that are harmful?
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Or perhaps religious people operate under the false assumption that the natural laws of human behavior are imparted by religion, rather than being incorporated into religion *because* they are already a part of the human psyche.

Is a belief in "natural laws of human behavior" any different than the belief in objective morality? Claiming there are laws that govern behavior implicit to the human psyche suggests there is some optimal condition of human existence or a preferred outcome of events.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
So basically whenever you have intolerance as a feature of religion, it's not religion (which supposedly has tolerance as a universal value) but rather 'religious institutions,' okay, what about the preponderance of faiths throughout history which have held at their core that nonbelievers are lesser, dangerous, or deserving of death?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GinetteB:

So that is what I think the discussion should be about. Why not value what is valuable, and save arguing for the elements that are harmful?

You see value in things that I see as harmful. This is the basis of the discussion. Your answer above is practical nonsense: you plead "understanding," and "acceptance," or such terms, I think in the hopes of having a discussion about religion entirely on your own terms. And when it is had on your own terms, anything bad is not worth talking about, and anything "good," (read: not necessarily explicitly bad from your point of view), counts in favor of your religious beliefs.

This is like asking us all to sit down and *try* really hard, to agree with you, and to find reasons why you might be right. Really, it's infantile- and I would blame you personally if I didn't know that this is what you've been taught. This is what people think talking about religion is. This is *why* people stay religious, because they don't get into actual discussions about it, they learn to avoid them.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
Religion demands persons or institutions with authority. The institutions are what made the scriptures, designated the holidays and named the saints. When there is no institution making declarations and demands, there is no religion. In the past this would only have resulted in anarchy and regressive human actions. Currently we are capable of moving beyond mysticism and embracing reason logic and rationality. In cases when there were no over institutions ones were made. This is true throughout all humanity.

For longer than we have recorded our thoughts we have struggled to understand everything that we have met. What is edible, the seasons, the tide, animal behaviors, what can heal our sick and what happens to us when we die. Every religion answers the questions we have, but in the last four hundred years we have been disproving them all. As mentioned above, even the Vatican has accepted some scientific proof that defies the bible.

History has shown time and again that when religious teachings are disagreed with the blasphemer is killed, when equally challenged the response is genocide.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Or perhaps religious people operate under the false assumption that the natural laws of human behavior are imparted by religion, rather than being incorporated into religion *because* they are already a part of the human psyche.

Is a belief in "natural laws of human behavior" any different than the belief in objective morality? Claiming there are laws that govern behavior implicit to the human psyche suggests there is some optimal condition of human existence or a preferred outcome of events.
It implies it, but it does not require it. "Natural laws of human nature," I employed as a loose term to describe basic human nature. I am not inured to the idea that there is an unbreakable natural order to humanity- evolutionary theory suggests that the nature of humanity must be fluid, and must contain elements adaptable not just to our present, but to our past as well. And as we adapt to the future, our present adaptions themselves remain. So "natural laws of human nature," are themselves not an article of faith, but a general term of description for the human condition as it is observed.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Or perhaps religious people operate under the false assumption that the natural laws of human behavior are imparted by religion, rather than being incorporated into religion *because* they are already a part of the human psyche.

Is a belief in "natural laws of human behavior" any different than the belief in objective morality? Claiming there are laws that govern behavior implicit to the human psyche suggests there is some optimal condition of human existence or a preferred outcome of events.
It implies it, but it does not require it. "Natural laws of human nature," I employed as a loose term to describe basic human nature. I am not inured to the idea that there is an unbreakable natural order to humanity- evolutionary theory suggests that the nature of humanity must be fluid, and must contain elements adaptable not just to our present, but to our past as well. And as we adapt to the future, our present adaptions themselves remain. So "natural laws of human nature," are themselves not an article of faith, but a general term of description for the human condition as it is observed.
I should also note that many (most) atheists would be fine with saying there is objective morality, given the types of organisms we are and the way in which we can be in positive or negative states of being, etc...
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
You have to fall back on insulting again Orincoro? Calling me infantile, between others?

Now that is a sign of weakness.
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
Achilles heel:

Religion demands persons or institutions with authority.

No, they don't. The only authority is God/the ultimate truth.

The institutions are what made the scriptures, designated the holidays and named the saints.

No. Humans made the scriptures.

When there is no institution making declarations and demands, there is no religion.

No. Religion is the word of the ultimate Truth/God as revealed

In the past this would only have resulted in anarchy and regressive human actions.

? No, they resulted in laws, based on this Word.

Currently we are capable of moving beyond mysticism and embracing reason logic and rationality.

Then you don't know much about philosophy. 3000 years ago, they were very well capable of logical reasoning and rationality.

In cases when there were no over institutions ones were made. This is true throughout all humanity.For longer than we have recorded our thoughts we have struggled to understand everything that we have met. What is edible, the seasons, the tide, animal behaviors, what can heal our sick and what happens to us when we die. Every religion answers the questions we have,

No, they don't and they don't pretend to, that is the basis of faith. There is always a rest that cannot be known.

but in the last four hundred years we have been disproving them all. As mentioned above, even the Vatican has accepted some scientific proof that defies the bible.

The Bible? As if that is the one and only scripture. Them all?? So we disproved the value of mental (health) care? We disproved the value of concern for others? Of hygiene? Of self-discipline? Etcetera? I think we proved the opposite.

History has shown time and again that when religious teachings are disagreed with the blasphemer is killed, when equally challenged the response is genocide.

It is people that kill people, using their religious institutions as an excuse, no scripture says the blasphemer should be killed, on the contrary. It is Allah alone who judges who is a believer and who is a disbeliever. The Qu'ran is pretty clear about that. And does the Bible say that we can just kill those who do not fall on their knees to God? I can't find it.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Wait a second, I want to see if you'll committ to this: it is your claim that *no* scripture advocates death for heretics and blasphemers and nonbelievers? And I don't mean any of this wishy washy nonsense you've been peddling so far, where the bad things written and passed down in scripture don't count or are obviated by a later pronouncement or edit (of...the holy word of God...).
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
No. Religion is the word of the ultimate Truth/God as revealed
And how, perchance, are we to figure this from when what religious authority is telling us is wrong?

Like, basically, you're telling us "Religion is religion only when it is really religion, otherwise it is religious institution. All real religion has these universal characteristics. Whenever it does not have these universal characteristics, it is not really religion."

A fairly indecipherable (in practice) church of the true scotsman. There are plenty of active religions going on right now that quite clearly establish the importance of othering nonbelievers as lessers. Go mill around in Guinea tribes for a while if you don't believe me.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
As if one would need to travel so far...
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
Ginnete, institutions are organizations, comprised of people. People are the ones who make religions and myths, not cats. Or robots. Or things that have no humans involved yet are called institutions or organizations.

Keep this in mind and then reread my posts. I think you will find them to relay very different ideas than before.
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
By using our mind, Samprimary


Now for what it is worth, this is my personal opinion: The overall American interpretation of Christianity is satanic; it is harmful and demoralizes your society. Their Bible has only one sentence -I am the way, the truth and the light - You have 15 million likes on a page like Jesus Daily! That about says it all.

Just don't think it is like that all over the world. We are with 7 billion people, and Christianity in Europe or India or Russia is completely different from yours. Then we have the other 6 major religions plus all kinds of minor religions and sects. Some turned into harmful systems, others contributed to peace and prosperity.

So, now I am going to have a nice New Years Eve. Happy New Year to all of you!
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
Oh...forgot Achilles Heel. Religions = original scriptures acknowledged as being the Ultimate Truth/Word of God as revealed through messengers/prophets like Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha. What their followers made of it over those thousands years is something completely different, unfortunately.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
That would require the assumption of gods and magic with no proof other than the materials provided by people. The idea that magic proves magic without any proof is small minded and willfully ignorant. You want to point at a name in a religions text and demand that they be recognized as real and above reproach, I refuse. I am not alone in this, those with no religious affiliation have become the third largest demographic in the world.

Oh, and you can call me AH. Everyone here does, happy new years.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GinetteB:
By using our mind, Samprimary

Okay, so what do you say to everyone who says that they have used their minds and seen religion to be often very much so intolerant? Do you tell them they're just not using their mind correctly?
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
AH,

The idea that magic proves magic without any proof is small minded and willfully ignorant.

If you'd study Buddhistic philosophy for example, you'd find they do not proof magic with magic. They provide proof by logic and reasoning. Also in Taoism.

You want to point at a name in a religions text and demand that they be recognized as real and above reproach, I refuse.

That I refuse too. That is exactly what American Christianity does. Yet the Qu'ran says, he who does not believe in the VERSES of the Qu'ran is a disbeliever. I also think the Bible states this. 'Whoever transgresses and does not bring the DOCTRINE, has not God; whoever follows the doctrine has both God and the Son'. Clear enough. What would it be worth to 'God'- or whatever you call this ultimate source of our origin - what name we give it?
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
Samprimary, how can 'religion' be intolerant? What do you mean? You mean the teachings are intolerant?
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GinetteB:
Samprimary, how can 'religion' be intolerant? What do you mean? You mean the teachings are intolerant?

I am paraphrasing here but... "Our God is the only God, all other gods are false idols that are to be destroyed in the name of our God."

Also, you spoke of the Qur'an. In regards to specific people within religious text being held beyond reproach or doubt I would ask you this, is it blasphemy against Allah to claim that Moses is a false prophet?

Is it blasphemy to claim that the Qur'an is false?

Is such blasphemy punishable?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GinetteB:
Samprimary, how can 'religion' be intolerant? What do you mean? You mean the teachings are intolerant?

You have stated, essentially, that you consider religion to have a certain set of universal components. Tolerance is one of them. You said earlier "With 'tolerance' I mean to accept others beliefs even if you think they are false." I'm running off of this definition, because it is the definition you are applying as a universal component of religions, even when it very much so is not even near universal and has not been throughout history. If one uses their mind and determines that religion does not actually possess tolerance as a universal virtue and that in fact many religions are often fundamentally intolerant, do you tell them that they are wrong? That even though they are using their mind, they must just be doing so incorrectly?
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
Samp, I meant to say they TEACH tolerance.

You say 'many religions are often fundamentally intolerant' Prove it please. Where in the scripture of which religion do you feel this teaching is intolerant? Intolerant towards whom?

Are you referring to for example intolerance towards homosexuals, abortion, polygamie? Well,it has already been proven with the Bible that homosexuality is ok (Chicago), that abortion is ok (I found proof at the Christian Left page) and it is only a matter of time before the story of Lot's people in the Qu'ran will be interpreted as it should, well at least that is what I hope for muslim homos. So, thanks to people smart enough to use their own weapons against them, we can fight this 'intolerance' that is in the minds of people, not in the teachings.
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
AH No of course not. If you are not a muslim, you are free to believe Moses was a false prophet and the Qu'ran is false. If you are a muslim, you declare that you acknowledge the truth in the messages from all the prophets mentioned in the Qu'ran - which includes Jesus. Then, the Qu'ran says: So give glad tidings to My servants,
[39:19] Who listen to the Word and follow the best thereof. It is they whom Allah has guided, and it is they who are men of understanding.

In other words, you're free to 'follow the best thereof' you don't have to take everything literally but use your own mind: As here is a warning to obey only the authentic teachings and not some wordly institution:

O ye who believe! if you obey any party of those who have been given the Book, they will turn you again into disbelievers after you have believed.
(Qu'ran Aal-e-Imran 3:101)

As I said before, only Allah can judge, who is a believer and who is a disbeliever. So whatever laws some sects may have, they are against the Qu'ran if the simple fact that someone disagrees with some teaching will lead to punishment by some party.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GinetteB:
You have to fall back on insulting again Orincoro? Calling me infantile, between others?

Now that is a sign of weakness.

No. Your arguments are infantile. Of course, it is more convenient for you to leave the table now that I have said thus- you don't have to deal with everything else I said before I crossed the line into "insult." That's ok. We both know how this works.
 
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
 
I forget, what passage was it that had Jesus repudiating that whole Amalekite "incident?"
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
for you to leave the table now that I have said thus

That is a false assumption Orincoro. The reason to leave is whether I have the idea people want to discuss my perspective or not. If I have the idea they don't, then I leave, why waste each others time? Yet, there were some who did after all, so I stayed.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I belonged for many years to a religion that preached the ultimate commonality of all religions, Ginette. It strongly encouraged its adherents to be well-read in pretty much all major works of scripture, and I've maintained an interest in theology even as I moved beyond religious faith. So I'm very familiar with the claim that "all religions" share certain common values, and have been on the other side of this argument as recently as twenty years ago.

But once you stop to examine the reality of the matter, the truth is that successful societies share certain common values, and no religion can exist unless it is compatible with those values. Religions distinguish themselves by disagreeing with (and even killing) each other over the unimportant crap -- while staying out of the way of the more important changes that happen as societies mature. It is unsurprising that human collaboration has gelled around certain obvious rulesets -- like, say, don't go around killing or raping or stealing or basically being a jerk -- and equally unsurprising that people would find comfort in ascribing these "rules" to an unimpeachable and unreachable power. But while it's easy to find the common ground of all human societies (and thus all religions), it requires filing off all the rough and distinguishing edges of those societies (and religions) to assert that they're all identical and equally beneficial at their core.
 
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
 
Yes Tom. Exactly. To have religious harmony and respect for other beliefs, it is not enough to find common ground on what beliefs have in common. It is also necessary to acknowledge this common ground as the most important element in beliefs, and have it prevail over man-made interpretations and rules within a beliefsystem. To acknowledge this, would mean to reconsider religious laws and rules, not in line with the main scripture, to correct misunderstandings caused by false human interpretation, and to consider rituals and worship at least equally important to living the teachings.

Now for the approach: You say it requires filing off all the rough and distinguishing edges of those societies (and religions) to assert that they're all identical and equally beneficial at their core. (just like humans btw)
If you'd want to contribute to religious harmony, then are you going to make the people find each other on this common ground and next have them reconsider the mess they made of their religion - so changes will in the end come from the inside out, if you succeed in making them a little wiser -, or are you going to attack 'religion' as the dragon that has to be slaughtered?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GinetteB:
Samp, I meant to say they TEACH tolerance.

You say 'many religions are often fundamentally intolerant' Prove it please. Where in the scripture of which religion do you feel this teaching is intolerant? Intolerant towards whom?

The Dani and other Papuan tribes, the Zealand tribes, the Yanomamo, the Germanics, the Nuer, to say nothing of the established history of most religions anyway?

I mean we're talking about multiple religions in which "tolerance" does not exist in any meaningful sense. Outsiders are taken as slaves that can be killed at will, or they are simply killed, or even eaten, because outsiders are evil, not one of the chosen people, etc.
 
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
 
I don't want to get into a theological discussion so take this as humor and that's it.

They should have a building that atheists go to. They can hear atheist messages and even donate money to the cause. They can keep track of who comes on a weekly basis so everyone knows how many atheists come to this building. Everyone should be encouraged to bring a guest.

That's what the title of this thread reminds me of. That and those old boards in the small churches that show attendance.

Again, no offense meant, I just thought it was funny.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
I've thought about that before, like a social center for atheists and secularists. Game nights, social clubs co-opesque classes. Maybe even an atheist private school.

Would it qualify for tax exempt status?

One of the most common lamentations of the non-religious is a lack of imminent and accessible community. Pick any religion, in North America you can almost always join a preexisting community. Such communities regularly provide opportunities, luxuries and general higher standard of living not readily offered or available to outsiders. Not to mention a nice place to meet nice people. I would happily make a tax deductible donation to my local Secularist Social Center.

Oh to see a political drama in which the mayor shakes in his boots when he makes a decision that may lose him the secularist vote.
 
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 
Seems to me that most atheists are like myself, and don't really like such large gatherings of people.

I don't really think that there is anything inherently harmful about religion. I think it is people themselves that use it for their own ends. Power corrupts. Dominant people are more likely to end up in leadership roles. Religion is just something people can use to unite against another group. I don't really think the people behind the Islamic terrorist groups really care if we all convert or not. They are just warping the religion to give people living terrible lives something to believe in and be willing to die for. Nationalism is the same thing as religion in that regard.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I love large gatherings of people. But those people need to be united by way more than atheism, because atheism is after all not actually a philosophy or viewpoint; it is the absence of a shared philosophy. There is no reason for me to assume that any given atheist shares my values or hobbies or interests.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
The monthly meeting I attend will usually have over thirty people in a fairly small area. There are occasionally people who I don't get along with but for the most part everyone is amiable and interesting. While the lack of religion doesn't bond anyone the opportunity to socialize where no one is drunk, there is no pounding music and almost everyone is intellectual and able to converse beyond "what's your name? that's cool... y'wanna drink?" can do wonders.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
But those people need to be united by way more than atheism, because atheism is after all not actually a philosophy or viewpoint; it is the absence of a shared philosophy.
More importantly, when you try to do an 'atheist group' thing united pretty much only by atheism, the commonality of the people who do attend is usually that they all have a stick up their butt about the theists/Xians/slaveminds/neurotypicals and that's what it's really all about for them.

Meanwhile everyone else does something else with their lives because the absence of a belief in something does not a sunday social group make for them
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
I belonged to a Humnanist group for some years that filled this very purpose. Monthly meetings with a speaker on topics to do with ethics, social issues, religious issues, etc. Book club, movie night, dinner/drinks get together, various other social and community service activities. The only thing we didn't have was our own building. And Humanist groups tend to be brought together not just by the atheism of the members, but out of a desire to live good lives.

On a separate, but related, note, this guy argues for taking all the good parts of religion and incorporating them into atheism: http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0.html
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
Samp, have you actually attended such a function? If so, how many different kinds with what variables? Let's be empirical about this.

Yes it does attract a large variety, so do most things. Comicon for instance is attended by more than comic-book nerds and gamers. The meetup I attend does not have an overriding agenda, it is simply social. When there has been a conversation about religion its been people relating their upbringing and loss of faith, I've learned a lot about not necessarily religious practices of various religious organizations this way. If not that, it has been in passing and usually a small bit of humor.

From the monthly meeting I attend people have found like-minded people to share personal interests with. There are a lot of hiking groups for varying schedules and locations that have spawned from the fact that they enjoy each others company, not to go hiking with non-religious people. Family friendly breakfast meetups in various parts of the valley game nights for people who are into those kind of things. If there were any other hockey fans (and if there were hockey.......) I might have tried to assemble a group of friends to enjoy home games with.

The reason we go is to socialize with interesting people, not temper or defend our atheism. Arizona is far from being a hub of intellectualism or culture, so it is nice to know that once a month I can meet strangers who so far have been less likely to be boring or insane. The part about no drunk people or annoying music is a big plus for me.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
One event in particular that I am not attending because I do not go to church, but attending because I am interested in learning. Nate Phelps, son of Fred Phelps and former member of the Westboro Ministry will be speaking this Friday about child indoctrination, religious fanaticism, his upbringing and how he ended up being an atheist and an advocate of the LGBT community and rights.

I wouldn't have known if not for the meetup group calender. If it was just an atheist talking, I wouldn't care. But I care a lot about equal rights, children's safety and I still don't know what to do with that sick anger that I have felt over the Westboro Ministry's actions in the past. I would like to learn more about these things, he has a unique experience with these subjects. I'm going.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
The reason we go is to socialize with interesting people, not temper or defend our atheism.
Which is great, except that then you're talking about an "Interesting People's Club," which may as well include religious folk.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
The first time I went it was just to meet other atheists, I had never socialized with anyone who wasn't christian. Even people who had never actively participated in a religious organization decided they were defacto christians and rarely shared my skepticism in general. I was curious about them, atheism is not something people talk about here, at least not politely.

About a year prior I had also attended one socialist party meeting. I wanted to learn, I learned that the group of people were not very interesting and that I was no socialist.

I don't go to school, my work is very solitary, I don't inebriate and I obviously don't attend church. In Arizona this makes me confusing to many people who I do meet, and it is very difficult to meet people who do not bother or bore me. Hence why I appreciate the lack of inebriation, and that most everyone I've met have been clear headed and well spoken adults.

I went the first time just to talk to other atheists to see what that would be like, I've kept going to that one monthly event because I have met some really nice people who I like talking to and I wouldn't mind meeting more. In fact, getting out of my shell with them is why I have made a strong friendship with one of the customers who would come through my old store.

Tom, if you make the meetup and actually get interesting people, I'm in. Oh yeah, and it has be in Phoenix. But not in a bar.

E.T.A.
There are other meetups in my area that cater to skeptics and humanists, but they carry some agenda driven purposes that I don't want to participate in. There are a few groups for nerdy interests but they have very low membership and no activity. There are even age group specific social clubs, that I'm not really comfortable with. Somehow I found a happy little place where I can find fascinating people with no pressure or prerogative riding the whole thing. I do not care to apologize for it.

[ January 02, 2013, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
Religion demands persons or institutions with authority. The institutions are what made the scriptures, designated the holidays and named the saints. When there is no institution making declarations and demands, there is no religion.

I disagree with this. I think that you are talking about organized religion pretty specifically. While it is quite true that religious organizations are often quite old and powerful, organization and institutional authority is demanded by human nature, not necessarily religion. There are plenty of organizations and institutions that have nothing to do with religion.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
In the case of those institutions and organizations they have no choice but to prove they are worthy of authority by providing either a control of resources or a particular benefit to society. Religious organizations have actually worked in direct contrast to social advancement, not only retaining authority but in some cases gaining more by degrading the standard of living within the society.

If Stanford killed and or banished the entire staff of Harvard, destroyed the grounds and outlawed the use of Harvard issued degrees I don't think they would ever get away with it. Without a mystical imperative they have to remain on the progressive side of our advancement or else we may stop supporting them. When people are blindly faithful to your organization many things can be directly regressive and destructive to not only society but innocent people. And yet these religious organizations persist and survive.

Perhaps I haven't made one of my core perceptions clear thus far. Religion is shaped by human nature, not just religious institutions but religion in general. We fear death, so we name it and define it and convince ourselves and our children that we know all about it and its alright, because when you die you are not actually dead. The planet is six thousand years old, because I can't fathom how it could be any older. Fire blesses our food with its magic, evidenced by how much easier it is for us to process cooked meat versus uncooked.

We need to know everything, admitting that we don't know almost all of everything is a really scary thing for a lot of people. I get that. But the world is not flat, god is not punishing pack-a-day smokers with poor health because they let non-christians live within the city walls and reading the same book over and over doesn't make anyone more moral than someone who doesn't read that book at all.

This community is one of those strange little places where everyone questions things, we want to understand different ideas and the world at large, but not everyone is like this. Plenty of modern people are content to live their adult lives never surpassing or questioning what they were told as children. Morality, personal responsibility and general human nature. They would rather refer to ideas that they could understand by the age of eight than pursue further education and personal experience on the matter.

At the end of the day I don't care if people are a b c d or anything really, so long as they are not terrorizing or hurting innocent people. But I think it would be more difficult for the predators to act as they have in history and in our current society if more people actually started asking questions about the world, and going in search of answers even when there are easy ones available. If it leads them back to the religion they were taught, congratulations. If it leads them to a different one, congratulations. If it leads them to a place where they choose to take the world as it is without extrapolating unprovable truths, then there is no ethereal good or evil to blame the world on and you keep on questioning what you can.

Questioning can only impair ignorance.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I am not sure that you are really looking at most religion in the 21st century. Very little of it deals with magic fire.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
I find the rationality to be similar.

"The fire god blessed the meat."

"God kept me from dying in that car crash."

Where can I find magic fire these days?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
*sigh* Again,* Yes. Humans do take short cuts and use metaphor to wrap our heads around infinite ideas. And, yes. Often we mistake our metaphors for the truth. Hardly restricted to religion BTW. Religion as a whole is not entirely (or even mostly) about appeasing the superman in the sky. At least mature religious thought is not.

* Not necessarily "again" to you.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
Without pointed regard for the conversations we have been having I want to share this.

http://www.examiner.com/article/america-s-shameful-christian-crime-spree

Apparently atheist billboards are commonly destroyed, vandalized or outright stolen. In one case a news crew had the criminal admit on camera and admit his name, he has not been brought up on charges. This is happening in different states and types of communities. So I guess it really isn't criminal to commit crimes against atheists.
 
Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
 
I agree the vandalism is wrong, but that article is one of the most openly biased ones I have ever read. To say that these things are unacceptable, and that atheist should be as protected as anyone else are fair points. I am just not sure why the open attacks on all Christians are needed in it.

I guess that could just be the brainwashing talking though, since the article literally says that Christians hate Atheists.

"the existence of Christian hate for atheists is so well documented at this point that there ought to be no need for justification."

"There are a lot of Christians who hate atheists."

Though there is an almost humorous contradiction to this line of thinking later in the article: "Every time an atheist billboard is defaced or stolen, a Christian is proving not only that (s)he is hatefully intolerant of atheists," See that is more correct, the person who destroys a billboard, proves that that person is intolerant (or into vandalism) but is not really proving anything about the larger group. Also again the vandal is proving this about themselves, so it would seem better to say "when a person..." as opposed to "when a christian...".

It is wrong to say because some terrorists are Muslims, that Muslims hate America. Or when churches are vandalized, it is wrong to say Atheists hate Christians. I believe it is also wrong to say that because some Christians vandalized billboards, Christians hate atheists.

Still I do agree the vandalism is wrong, and that every group has the right to get their message out there. And really any crime that cops look the other way on, bugs me. I guess it is just the language and tone of the article that bothers me here.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
I agree that the article is voiced in slanted manner, but to me it sounds like an atheist talking directly to an atheist audience.
 
Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
 
Yeah, that is the problem with a lot of blogs. The writers know they are preaching to the choir so they get really over the top, because they do not expect who disagrees with them to ever even see it. This seems the case on almost any subject by the way.
 
Posted by Daryl (Member # 12932) on :
 
I'd like to comment here on a cultural aspect. I'm an Australian and in our culture we generally don't share our religious views publicly. In one job I had, over time there were quite a few visiting Americans, and it tended to be embarrassing when they tried to say grace at a business lunch or mentioned their beliefs and everyone quickly started talking about the weather.
 
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GinetteB:


All religions describe the beginning of all things, they give lessons about how to live our lifes, and they describe our final destiny together with predictions about the end of

2 of those things are just plain wrong and contradicts discovering the true nature of our world. The part about the end of the world is even dangerous to unstable minds. The third involves good parenting and stopped being for religion to teach in any civilized countries with, you know, laws.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daryl:
I'd like to comment here on a cultural aspect. I'm an Australian and in our culture we generally don't share our religious views publicly. In one job I had, over time there were quite a few visiting Americans, and it tended to be embarrassing when they tried to say grace at a business lunch or mentioned their beliefs and everyone quickly started talking about the weather.

The U.K. thinks we are silly as well. They have their own religious right political group but keep them penned much better than we do.
 
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
 
There is a Humanist group here that has a monthly Tango meetup. I'd like to get my Beloved to go, but he's not into dancing. I would probably not feel comfortable doing the tango with strangers, and I'm a horrible atheist, anyway. [Razz]
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
Why are you a horrible atheist, do you pray before dinner?
 
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
 
I pray constantly. It's really kind of embarrassing. I just recently came out to my spouse and close friends as atheist, and most of them were surprised I hadn't been all along. I mean, I went to Christian school and was basically a true believer to start with, but I have not been to church (with the exclusion of funerals and community plays... and I think my polling place at the last election was a church, but you know, not for churchy reasons) in more than a decade.

But in all that time, I prayed. All the time. Even after I figured that holy scriptures are all fallible books written by people and do not contain any higher concentration of Truth than your average book, etc. I still kind of talked to the Universe, and sometimes called it God.

So, I'm a newly-out atheist, and my cat goes missing. In my head I'm saying, "Please help him find his way home, or let the end be quick." Not just saying it, but really feeling like I'm in a conversation, just as I always have.

I believe biologists call it Displacement Activity.

So, I'm driving down the road having my usual talk with the Universe in my head, and I realized I'm a total CRAP atheist. Actually, it was more like, "You know, God, I'm a crap atheist."

So, yeah. I think I might be more of an Einsteinian theist, just by nature. I don't really believe in a god, but I talk to one all the time.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
I think that's pretty natural. I've never been a member of any religion, but I still talk to the "universe" at times. Even bargain with it. I don't actually believe I am talking to any deity, its just a psychological thing.

I also sort of live my life as if "karma" exists, even though I know it doesn't. Same for "luck", to a lesser extent. I don't actually believe in any superstitions, but I sometimes pretend for the fun of it. I'll even do things like switch dealers at a casino when I'm on a losing streak. Even though I know that's nonsense.

Just because your beliefs are rational, doesn't mean your behavior has to be. At least in my opinion.

[ January 05, 2013, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier:
Just because your beliefs are rational, doesn't mean your behavior has to be. At least in my opinion.

I don't think anyone's is ever fully aligned with their beliefs. There it's always something dissonant regardless of what those beliefs are, which is why it's always so easy to find a reason to label people hypocrites.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
I'm always using christian based expletives for expletives sake, it is just cemented into my speech patterns at this point. I've tried to use different languages to curse in but people look at you funny when you swear in German and Japanese in one sentence.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2