I'm a Humanist I think.

I'm not really an atheist, nor a gnostic, so I think you should have separated the choice possibility.

I was raised Catholic, spent some time learning about Jewism, and other religions. Basicaly I believe in the good parts of bible's torah's and everything, but only as a moral/ethical guide to how one should live their lives in accordance with the people around us. I ignore the things I don't like, or think to be false.

Perhaps you should have separated Atheism and Agnostic - the two have different meanings and very different connotations.

I am an agnostic, in the sense that I feel there is not sufficient evidence to believe either that there is or isn't a god.

Atheists, on the other hand, are confident that there is no god. I think it should be important for people to specify which they belong to, and why.

Oh, and I know little about Humanism. Could someone care to tell me more?

Jim Garten wrote: even the most devout atheist will call on a deity when a 20 ton truck is rolling toward him/her Good thread, by the way, but I totally agree with your caveat: Sweetnighter wrote: I have a fear that this thread has the potential of being riddled with proselytizing and arguing, but I kindly ask all of you to refrain from that Let's keep this civil, people

How can you agree with the let's keep this civil tag after making that contentious statement:

even the most devout atheist will call on a deity when a 20 ton truck is rolling toward him/her

That statement sums up religion for me.
I will never, even in my darkest hour, attempt to invoke the mercy of any deity.
I wouldnt shout for Superman, Batman or International Rescue, so why would I shout for God's help?

define humanist

Velvetclown wrote: No but he would blame it all on me, that Leed Rover

No, I'd just use you as a protective shield to save myself!

Humanism: A philosophy asserting human dignity and man's capacity for fulfillment through reason and scientific method, hereby often rejecting religion. A humanist beliefs in continuous emergent evolution.

Philosophy and science are the keywords for understanding ones behaviour and relation with the world. some quotations from famous humanists.

Humanists recognize that it is only when people feel free to think for themselves, using reason as their guide, that they are best capable of developing values that succeed in satisfying human needs and serving human interests. • ISAAC ASIMOV - scientist, author, and past president of the American Humanist Association.

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. • ALBERT EINSTEIN - scientist, Nobel Prizewinner in physics, originator of the theory of relativity.

When we speak of equality, of women and men, of Blacks and Whites, of all the world's people, we are talking about humanism. • GLORIA STEINEM - founder of Ms.magazine, Humanist Pioneer Awardee.

joyous service for the greater good of all humanity, of application of new ideas of scientific progress for the benefit of all. • LINUS PAULING - scientist, Humanist of the Year in 1961, Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1954, Nobel Peace Prize in 1962.

I was christened a Catholic, but when my Irish mother moved to England she stopped going to mass. Therefore I was not raised a Catholic. My father was Protestant, but seemed uninterested inmworship altogether. He died when I was sixteen so I never had the opportunity to discuss his take on such things.

I was an Athiest, and I'm pretty cynical about organised religion as a whole.

I had thought for sometime that the ten commandments formed the basis of how we conduct ourselves in Christian societies. Regardless of whether we practice a religion or not, all mentally stable people with a conciense know its wrong to kill, steel etc. Now, however, I feel the natural world plays a more significant role in how we organise our societies. All species will, naturally over time, organise their 'kind' in a way most conducive to survival. We have done this, without Gods help. Our aversion to killing - with some obvious exceptions - has come about through our natural evolution as a species; as both our emotional and intellectual intelligence evolved. To credit our values to the 10 commandments is barely touching the surface IMO.

Although I am a Christian (essentially Protestant) minister, I reject mainstream, heirarchical, "organized" Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant), since, as JrKASperov infers, the vast majority of it is apostate, if not heretical.  I practice (and preach and teach) what has been referred to as "primitive" Christianity; i.e., Jesus' ministry (the four Gospels) and the first 60 years following (i.e., the remainder of the New Testament).

As an aside to threefates, it is historically incorrect to state that "the Bible was written by men, other than the 10 Commandmnets which were written by God."  You seem to be relying on the movie "The Ten Commandments" rather than scholarly theology.  As any Old or New Testament scholar can tell you, when God "gave the law" to Moses, He did not simply give him the 10 Commandments.  After all, it would not have taken God forty days (which is how long Moses was on Mount Sinai) to do so.  Rather, God "wrote" (actually, had Moses transcribe) the entire "Pentatuch" (Torah) - the first five books of the Bible, including all the laws (moral, dietary, etc.).  This is why Moses was on the mountain for 40 days.  It is also why, when a new Torah is created, every single Hebrew letter must be meticulously hand-written from the Torah before it.  If the scribe "messes up" even one letter, he is required to throw away the entire "page" (actually, sheepskin), and start that page again - even if everything else was correct.  This is why the over 350,000 letters of the Torah have changed less than 2% after almost 4,000 years.

In addition, to state that "the Bible was written by men" negates the fact that, according to Judeo-Christian belief, every man (and, yes, woman) who "contributed" to the Old and New Testaments was "divinely inspired"; i.e., although it might not have been "written by God," it was, nonetheless, "given" by God through "revelation" or otherwise.

This is not meant to be proselytizing or "arguing," but merely informational re the history of the Bible itself.

Peace.

maani wrote: This is not meant to be proselytizing or "arguing," but merely informational re the history of the Bible itself. Peace.

History in the sense that one might plot the history of Batman and his exploits.
One could say that Peter Jackson's interpretation of "The Lord Of The Rings" is far closer to the spirit of Tolkien's books than the New Testament is to the spirit of Christ's life on Earth.
And as relevant....

maani wrote: As an aside to threefates, it is historically incorrect to state that "the Bible was written by men, other than the 10 Commandmnets which were written by God."  You seem to be relying on the movie "The Ten Commandments" rather than scholarly theology.  As any Old or New Testament scholar can tell you, when God "gave the law" to Moses, He did not simply give him the 10 Commandments.  After all, it would not have taken God forty days (which is how long Moses was on Mount Sinai) to do so.  Rather, God "wrote" (actually, had Moses transcribe) the entire "Pentatuch" (Torah) - the first five books of the Bible, including all the laws (moral, dietary, etc.).

Uhh.. as someone who worked at the American Bible Society for 14 years and worked with quite a few Biblical scholars (including Barclay Newman) on "The Good News Bible" and the "Contemporary English Version"... where does it say in your Bible that this is indeed true.  This reasoning is speculation, as is half the translation of the Bible from the Greek/Hebrew text for that matter.

maani wrote: In addition, to state that "the Bible was written by men" negates the fact that, according to Judeo-Christian belief, every man (and, yes, woman) who "contributed" to the Old and New Testaments was "divinely inspired"; i.e., although it might not have been "written by God," it was, nonetheless, "given" by God through "revelation" or otherwise.

Yes I remember reading in quite a few spots of the Old Testament where many of the sages or seers would do some of that smokey stuff and start quoting speeches as visions from God...also lots of weird incense being burned in the temples.... I had a lot of friends in the early 70s that smoked some stuff and had conversations with God also... That doesn't mean I have to accept it as Gospel.  Also quite a few books in the Old Testament were written by man... whose's to say truthfully that it all wasn't.

threefates wrote: maani wrote: As an aside to threefates, it is historically incorrect to state that "the Bible was written by men, other than the 10 Commandmnets which were written by God."  You seem to be relying on the movie "The Ten Commandments" rather than scholarly theology.  As any Old or New Testament scholar can tell you, when God "gave the law" to Moses, He did not simply give him the 10 Commandments.  After all, it would not have taken God forty days (which is how long Moses was on Mount Sinai) to do so.  Rather, God "wrote" (actually, had Moses transcribe) the entire "Pentatuch" (Torah) - the first five books of the Bible, including all the laws (moral, dietary, etc.).  Uhh.. as someone who worked at the American Bible Society for 14 years and worked with quite a few Biblical scholars (including Barclay Newman) on "The Good News Bible" and the "Contemporary English Version"... where does it say in your Bible that this is indeed true.  This reasoning is speculation, as is half the translation of the Bible from the Greek/Hebrew text for that matter. maani wrote: In addition, to state that "the Bible was written by men" negates the fact that, according to Judeo-Christian belief, every man (and, yes, woman) who "contributed" to the Old and New Testaments was "divinely inspired"; i.e., although it might not have been "written by God," it was, nonetheless, "given" by God through "revelation" or otherwise. Yes I remember reading in quite a few spots of the Old Testament where many of the sages or seers would do some of that smokey stuff and start quoting speeches as visions from God...also lots of weird incense being burned in the temples.... I had a lot of friends in the early 70s that smoked some stuff and had conversations with God also... That doesn't mean I have to accept it as Gospel.  Also quite a few books in the Old Testament were written by man... whose's to say truthfully that it all wasn't.

I worked out a timescale for all your jobs and adventures Linda.

What is it like to be the world's oldest slapper?

Reed Lover wrote: threefates wrote: maani wrote: As an aside to threefates, it is historically incorrect to state that "the Bible was written by men, other than the 10 Commandmnets which were written by God."  You seem to be relying on the movie "The Ten Commandments" rather than scholarly theology.  As any Old or New Testament scholar can tell you, when God "gave the law" to Moses, He did not simply give him the 10 Commandments.  After all, it would not have taken God forty days (which is how long Moses was on Mount Sinai) to do so.  Rather, God "wrote" (actually, had Moses transcribe) the entire "Pentatuch" (Torah) - the first five books of the Bible, including all the laws (moral, dietary, etc.).  Uhh.. as someone who worked at the American Bible Society for 14 years and worked with quite a few Biblical scholars (including Barclay Newman) on "The Good News Bible" and the "Contemporary English Version"... where does it say in your Bible that this is indeed true.  This reasoning is speculation, as is half the translation of the Bible from the Greek/Hebrew text for that matter. maani wrote: In addition, to state that "the Bible was written by men" negates the fact that, according to Judeo-Christian belief, every man (and, yes, woman) who "contributed" to the Old and New Testaments was "divinely inspired"; i.e., although it might not have been "written by God," it was, nonetheless, "given" by God through "revelation" or otherwise. Yes I remember reading in quite a few spots of the Old Testament where many of the sages or seers would do some of that smokey stuff and start quoting speeches as visions from God...also lots of weird incense being burned in the temples.... I had a lot of friends in the early 70s that smoked some stuff and had conversations with God also... That doesn't mean I have to accept it as Gospel.  Also quite a few books in the Old Testament were written by man... whose's to say truthfully that it all wasn't.   I worked out a timescale for all your jobs and adventures Linda. What is it like to be the world's oldest slapper?

I've seen your abilities with math... I ain't worried about your theories...

You've made sense, in a pointless sort of way that is

I think your right though. The only difference between atheism and other religions is, it hasn't been institutionalised, there is not yet a church for the profoundly disbeliever. I think there should be.

Something in the vein of "Nationalists of all countries unite" or would that be an oxymoron.

threefates wrote: Reed Lover wrote: threefates wrote: Reed Lover wrote: threefates wrote: maani wrote: As an aside to threefates, it is historically incorrect to state that "the Bible was written by men, other than the 10 Commandmnets which were written by God."  You seem to be relying on the movie "The Ten Commandments" rather than scholarly theology.  As any Old or New Testament scholar can tell you, when God "gave the law" to Moses, He did not simply give him the 10 Commandments.  After all, it would not have taken God forty days (which is how long Moses was on Mount Sinai) to do so.  Rather, God "wrote" (actually, had Moses transcribe) the entire "Pentatuch" (Torah) - the first five books of the Bible, including all the laws (moral, dietary, etc.).  Uhh.. as someone who worked at the American Bible Society for 14 years and worked with quite a few Biblical scholars (including Barclay Newman) on "The Good News Bible" and the "Contemporary English Version"... where does it say in your Bible that this is indeed true.  This reasoning is speculation, as is half the translation of the Bible from the Greek/Hebrew text for that matter. maani wrote: In addition, to state that "the Bible was written by men" negates the fact that, according to Judeo-Christian belief, every man (and, yes, woman) who "contributed" to the Old and New Testaments was "divinely inspired"; i.e., although it might not have been "written by God," it was, nonetheless, "given" by God through "revelation" or otherwise. Yes I remember reading in quite a few spots of the Old Testament where many of the sages or seers would do some of that smokey stuff and start quoting speeches as visions from God...also lots of weird incense being burned in the temples.... I had a lot of friends in the early 70s that smoked some stuff and had conversations with God also... That doesn't mean I have to accept it as Gospel.  Also quite a few books in the Old Testament were written by man... whose's to say truthfully that it all wasn't.   I worked out a timescale for all your jobs and adventures Linda. What is it like to be the world's oldest slapper? I've seen your abilities with math... I ain't worried about your theories...

.....it seems like you two need some quiet time away from each other. Go to your rooms....no better yet.......go to my room.....your rooms has your stuff in it..not really much of a punishment.....and stay in there until you two can play nice.

I believe in god as a concept created by mankind (or possibly by animals, plants or bacteria...it's impossible to say with certainty that another kind of life doesn't have a sort of spirituality). Do animals see us as a kind of god? That's how I interpret most of the classic portrayals...human beings as a victim of His condescending 'love' and thoughtless slaughter.

I do not believe in God as a conscious entity, omniscient and omnipotent...if I did, I would be forced to align with His enemy due to the pain and suffering He has knowingly caused. Whoever came up with the ultimate rationalization "God works in mysterious ways" should be remembered as one of mankind's most successful apologists.

Such a being, responsible for the deaths of everyone we have ever known and cared about, deserves one of two faiths: the faith that such a monster could not exist in the real world, or the faith that we are all doomed to be flaccid puppets in a baffling performance that we can never comprehend, let alone enjoy. I chose the former.

Every bit of faith you give to this supposed deity is quisling loyalty to the murderer of your parents and your children. I do not believe mainly because I have no wish to dedicate my life to revenge.

THERE WAS A SIMILAR THRAED TO THIS IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE FORUMS WHICH ENDED UP GETTING HIJACKED BY .....SHALL WE SAY, "AGENDAS"...SO MUCH SO ,IT HAD TO BE DELETED AS IT CAUSED PROBLEMS.SO FAR,THIS TIME,PEOPLE ARE EXPRESSING THEMSELVES WITHOUT GOING OVERBOARD,AND ALL POINTS OF VEIW ARE WELCOME

BUT LETS KEEP IT CIVIL PEOPLE

AS FOR ME, I SET ASIDE A SMALL AMOUNT OF TIME EACH DAY FOR SOME BIBLE READING AND QUIET REFLECTION

SO YOU KNOW WHERE I STAND(THANKS MAANI)

BUT I STILL KICK ARSE WHEN I HAVE TO!!

I am an atheist. But I'm not completely sure what being a humanist entails...

whatever, it's in the same category here in the poll

Joren wrote: I am an atheist. But I'm not completely sure what being a humanist entails... whatever, it's in the same category here in the poll

Crikey J, you're usually so high you could rattle the Pearly Gates!

Atheism is a religion in the sence that you believe there is no god.

Again, atheism is NOT a religion!

Modern Humanism, also called Naturalistic Humanism, Scientific Humanism, Ethical Humanism and Democratic Humanism is defined by one of its leading proponents, Corliss Lamont, as "a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion." Modern Humanism has a dual origin, both secular and religious, and these constitute its sub-categories.

or....

Secular Humanism is an outgrowth of 18th century enlightenment rationalism and 19th century freethought. Many secular groups, such as the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism and the American Rationalist Federation, and many otherwise unaffiliated academic philosophers and scientists, advocate this philosophy.

That was my basic intention there.

The Atheist/Agnostic/Humanist option is more of a "I believe in a non-religious philosophy" option... I should have worded it as such. For example, I'm an objectivist, more or less, so I put myself under that category.

I think Atheists assert knowledge that god doesn't exist. In the mind of a true atheist, there's no question. He simply does not exist.

Reed Lover wrote: Joren wrote: I am an atheist. But I'm not completely sure what being a humanist entails... whatever, it's in the same category here in the poll Crikey J, you're usually so high you could rattle the Pearly Gates!

Is it so obvious?

Jim Garten wrote: Joren wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Joren wrote: I am an atheist. But I'm not completely sure what being a humanist entails... whatever, it's in the same category here in the poll Crikey J, you're usually so high you could rattle the Pearly Gates! Is it so obvious? Have you read your posts recently....?

My way of posting changed?

Could be...

Maybe because I feel at home here, then I show my true self...

and I got fed up with all the useless discussions.

(For the butterfly-
eternally beep, call for help
shall the man with the BAT eat the CHEESE?
We may never know - before man, there was NO MAN
eleven is not the strawberry flavoured imagination)

I'm not an Atheist, but the other 2 I would say I am.

I'm a Catholic Roman not only because I was raised in this religion but because I'm convinced that 90% of what our Church prieches is truth.

But I have the most respect for all other believes or disbelieves, once in Jerusalem I prayed in a Mosque and several times I went to Jewish ceremonies (invited by friends) like marriages and also maintained the same level of respect.

I can't understand a religion that teaches peopole to hate every one who doesn't share your faith, specially because I believe every religion worships the same God even when their perspective are different.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: I'm a Catholic Roman not only because I was raised in this religion but because I'm convinced that 90% of what our Church prieches is truth. Iván

No Ivan, you are a Catholic Peruvian, a Roman Catholic Peruvian>

unless you were born in Italy!

Joren wrote: Jim Garten wrote: Joren wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Joren wrote: I am an atheist. But I'm not completely sure what being a humanist entails... whatever, it's in the same category here in the poll Crikey J, you're usually so high you could rattle the Pearly Gates! Is it so obvious? Have you read your posts recently....? My way of posting changed? Could be... Maybe because I feel at home here, then I show my true self... and I got fed up with all the useless discussions. (For the butterfly- eternally beep, call for help shall the man with the BAT eat the CHEESE? We may never know - before man, there was NO MAN eleven is not the strawberry flavoured imagination)

You people are SO NOT NAKED!

those bottles are pretty naked

WHY?

WE'RE ALL DOOMED!

Goose:

If you are interested, there is a cute book called "God Does Not Believe in Atheists."  Indeed, I recommend it for all.

James:

Although I realize it will only complicate matters (), you put blame for "the deaths of everyone we have ever known or cared about" on only one entity.  Yes, God is responsible for some deaths.  But "the enemy" is responsible for far more of them.  As Verbal Kint says in Usual Suspects: "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince people that he doesn't exist."  By falling into that trap (...), you end up blaming God for "the devil's work."

Peace.

maani wrote: Goose: If you are interested, there is a cute book called "God Does Not Believe in Atheists."  Indeed, I recommend it for all. James: Although I realize it will only complicate matters (), you put blame for "the deaths of everyone we have ever known or cared about" on only one entity.  Yes, God is responsible for some deaths.  But "the enemy" is responsible for far more of them.  As Verbal Kint says in Usual Suspects: "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince people that he doesn't exist."  By falling into that trap (...), you end up blaming God for "the devil's work." Peace.

Very interesting that you accept that "God is responsible for some deaths", Would you care to elaborate on this shock admission?

Atheism is just a tag that doesnt really make sense IMO.I believe that trees exist but arent God...does that make me a dendroatheist? I dont believe that I can walk through a 5 foot thick steel barrier,is there a name for that? Disbelief in God is a rationale that doesnt need a fancy tag.

maani wrote: Goose: If you are interested, there is a cute book called "God Does Not Believe in Atheists."  Indeed, I recommend it for all. James: Although I realize it will only complicate matters (), you put blame for "the deaths of everyone we have ever known or cared about" on only one entity.  Yes, God is responsible for some deaths.  But "the enemy" is responsible for far more of them.  As Verbal Kint says in Usual Suspects: "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince people that he doesn't exist."  By falling into that trap (...), you end up blaming God for "the devil's work." Peace.

I think I was a little down when I wrote that post. Too much misery in the world. The concept of god is tempting for those looking to place blame as well.

If there was an omnipotent god, incapable of mistakes, then that would satisfy those who need meaning and reason (in times of tragedy especially, but generally as well). Unfortunately, it rarely comes with a truly satisfying explanation; thus the "mysterious ways" concept.

I don't need to understand everything (things like calculus, automatic transmission repair and John Travolta's continuing popularity will always be completely beyond me) but Judeo-Christian religions inevitably taper off into mysteries concerning the divine plan. I can understand where a few deaths might have made the world a better place, but the sheer scale of pointless suffering- for the virtuous as well as the sinful- makes talk about a "loving god" seem hollow.

Even when the blame could be laid at the devil's feet, god is accountable for lack of action and a general lack of intelligible heaven-to-earth communication (if CNN can be unreliable, how about centuries-old interpretations of translations of hearsay! ).

On one hand, one might say that the obstacles we face strengthen us- but honestly, that's equally true and false, like any other easy answer. If god means to make us better people through suffering, the past 2000+ years of Christian growth have not shown much progress in that area. Christian arguments for a benevolent deity have the same ring as the excuses of battered wives.

Human beings have the power to make the world a heaven (we really could, right now), but it seems that we usually have more tendency and success creating the opposite...so I can't really call myself a Humanist. Too much emphasis on reason fails us as utterly as too much emphasis on faith. Of course, I can't say conclusively that there is no god, just as no believer can prove that one exists...but I think we should learn to find our positive motivations in life instead of an after-life. It's just a little harder sometimes to find joy in living rather than in the escapism of mythology.

Sweetnighter wrote: Tony R wrote: maani wrote: Goose: If you are interested, there is a cute book called "God Does Not Believe in Atheists."  Indeed, I recommend it for all. James: Although I realize it will only complicate matters (), you put blame for "the deaths of everyone we have ever known or cared about" on only one entity.  Yes, God is responsible for some deaths.  But "the enemy" is responsible for far more of them.  As Verbal Kint says in Usual Suspects: "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince people that he doesn't exist."  By falling into that trap (...), you end up blaming God for "the devil's work." Peace. Very interesting that you accept that "God is responsible for some deaths", Would you care to elaborate on this shock admission? Atheism is just a tag that doesnt really make sense IMO.I believe that trees exist but arent God...does that make me a dendroatheist? I dont believe that I can walk through a 5 foot thick steel barrier,is there a name for that? Disbelief in God is a rationale that doesnt need a fancy tag. Whats wrong with the title atheism? It just means "the opposite of theism" or "the opposite in the belief in gods" or "belief that there are no gods". Its not a 'fancy tag', its just a name for a certain kind of philosophy. I don't believe any higher powers exist, so I consider myself an atheist. Really, its a very broad philosophy that emcompasses lots of other philosophies. For instance, communists and objectivists are diametrically opposed on every issue, except that both are atheists (one saying that a belief in gods is irrational, the other saying that the creation of gods is a tool of the bourgeoisie to suppress the masses). Its not a fancy title, just a classification.

There is no problem with there being a title for the non-belief in God per se.I have a problem with people calling themselves atheist or being called atheist.The title makes it sound like a cause to be adhered to. My disbelief in God is linked to my non-belief in ghosts,psychic phenomena,UFO's and all the other "whimsy" that people find it necessary to invest their time and sanity in.

You say:

"Its not a 'fancy tag', its just a name for a certain kind of philosophy."

I say "case proven" in my favour.You cannot even begin to understand how much that statement stinks of intellectual snobbery........and linking Communism and Objectivism through non-belief in God is ..hmmmmm-be nice young noob.

One Of Us(Joan Osborne)

If God had a name, what would it be
And would you call it to His face
If you were faced with Him in all His glory
What would you ask if you had just one question

Yeah, yeah, God is great
Yeah, yeah, God is good
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make His way home

If God had a face, what would it look like
And would you want to see
If seeing meant that you would have to believe
In things like Heaven and in Jesus and the Saints
And all the Prophets and...

Yeah, yeah, God is great
Yeah, yeah, God is good
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make His way home

Tryin' to make His way home
Back up to Heaven all alone
Nobody callin' on the phone
'Cept for the Pope maybe in Rome

Yeah, yeah, God is great
Yeah, yeah, God is good
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make His way home

Just tryin' to make his way home
Like a holy rolling stone
Back up to Heaven all alone
Just tryin' to make his way home
Nobody callin' on the phone
'Cept for the Pope maybe in Rome

kind of funky, I like the Prince Version, God has invented music, he must be a kind of groovy guy (or girl)!

Tony R wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: Tony R wrote: maani wrote: Goose: If you are interested, there is a cute book called "God Does Not Believe in Atheists."  Indeed, I recommend it for all. James: Although I realize it will only complicate matters (), you put blame for "the deaths of everyone we have ever known or cared about" on only one entity.  Yes, God is responsible for some deaths.  But "the enemy" is responsible for far more of them.  As Verbal Kint says in Usual Suspects: "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince people that he doesn't exist."  By falling into that trap (...), you end up blaming God for "the devil's work." Peace. Very interesting that you accept that "God is responsible for some deaths", Would you care to elaborate on this shock admission? Atheism is just a tag that doesnt really make sense IMO.I believe that trees exist but arent God...does that make me a dendroatheist? I dont believe that I can walk through a 5 foot thick steel barrier,is there a name for that? Disbelief in God is a rationale that doesnt need a fancy tag. Whats wrong with the title atheism? It just means "the opposite of theism" or "the opposite in the belief in gods" or "belief that there are no gods". Its not a 'fancy tag', its just a name for a certain kind of philosophy. I don't believe any higher powers exist, so I consider myself an atheist. Really, its a very broad philosophy that emcompasses lots of other philosophies. For instance, communists and objectivists are diametrically opposed on every issue, except that both are atheists (one saying that a belief in gods is irrational, the other saying that the creation of gods is a tool of the bourgeoisie to suppress the masses). Its not a fancy title, just a classification. There is no problem with there being a title for the non-belief in God per se.I have a problem with people calling themselves atheist or being called atheist.The title makes it sound like a cause to be adhered to. My disbelief in God is linked to my non-belief in ghosts,psychic phenomena,UFO's and all the other "whimsy" that people find it necessary to invest their time and sanity in. You say: "Its not a 'fancy tag', its just a name for a certain kind of philosophy." I say "case proven" in my favour.You cannot even begin to understand how much that statement stinks of intellectual snobbery........and linking Communism and Objectivism through non-belief in God is ..hmmmmm-be nice young noob.

I have to agree with this mouthy little newbie

Why is organised religion more believable than anything else that can not be proven scientifically, and relies on blind faith for survival. My disbelief in God is based on similar reasoning here.

BTW, I cant vote either  Not that I'll lose much sleep over it.

Who's this god guy and can I blame him for that other Simpson girl?

And haemmorhoids. What's 'all in god's plan' about them? He sure does move in mysterious ways on that score.

And what about dropped mobile phone calls - is he to blame for those too I'm not paying your bill oh all-powerful deity if that's the case...

Sweetnighter could reply better if he reads what we have written instead of what he thinks we have written.......

I am saying that "atheism" does not have to be a philosophy,that is all.A religious man like Maani is always conscious of his beliefs,they underpin his spiritual life in the non-spiritual world.I do not walk around wearing a mental badge saying "I do not believe in God",it would be as pointless to me as having to declare that "Peter Gabriel is not a member of Led Zepellin" or "Geddy Lee is a member of Rush"

I practice the Dalai Lama's religion, that is trying to be a kind person.

EDIT: Just in case, everyone, let's get our DSOTM booklets out, and sing "Us and Them" in front of our PC monitors, all right?

Once more,

"My name isnt Bill"

is that a philosophy? Or a statement?

"I do not believe in God"

is that a statement or a Philosophy?

I contend that it is only a Philosophy to someone who does believe in God.

In the same way that  "My name isnt Bill" would only be a Philosophy to the "I Believe Tony Is Called Bill" Sect.

I do not like tags for non-belief.....that is my Philosophy!

Sheesh, what did you expect when you started this thread, Sweetnighter? When someone feels his/her worldview (read: someone's promise of salvation, intellectual prestige, peace, happiness, power etc. reward in general) is jeopardised by someone else's worldview (read: as above), they become a terrorist, to a greater or smaller degree.

And this is why I'm quitting this thread, the temptation to spread verbal violence in defence of my worldview, and thus becoming a terrorist is too great. To quote Maani:

Peace  

Atheism, by its name, requires a comparison...however, the concept of atheism only requires that the adherent not posess a belief in a god. Rather than opposition (which would be Antitheism, I guess), there is only an absence when compared with 'Theism', or belief in a deity or deities. It has the same orientation as 'amoral', which is not a rejection of morality, but simply its lack.

One could be an atheist if the concept of god had simply never occured to them (though in that case one would not be able to call themself an atheist- as the alternative would not have occured to them either).

"There is no God."

"There is no Bogey-Man"

Which is a philosophical statement? Both would be if someone started a Bogeyman Cult.

I will only get passionate about either statement if someone declares the opposite is true and invites me to comment.

My long-winded point is that,to me,belief in God is equally as ridiculous as the belief in the Bogey-Man and come from the same book of campside stories  (Maani might argue that the Bogey-Man is a metaphor for the Devil).That is not a philosophy it is an observation.

I hate tags,jargon and all other esoteric bullsh*t designed to make the user appear intellectually superior when in effect it just describes the users herd mentality.

Tony R wrote: "There is no God." "There is no Bogey-Man" Which is a philosophical statement? Both would be if someone started a Bogeyman Cult. I will only get passionate about either statement if someone declares the opposite is true and invites me to comment. My long-winded point is that,to me,belief in God is equally as ridiculous as the belief in the Bogey-Man and come from the same book of campside stories  (Maani might argue that the Bogey-Man is a metaphor for the Devil).That is not a philosophy it is an observation. I hate tags,jargon and all other esoteric bullsh*t designed to make the user appear intellectually superior when in effect it just describes the users herd mentality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#God_as_a_philosophical_category - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#God_as_a_philosophical_ category

You didn't respond to a thing I wrote. Why do you keep bringing this "passionate" issue up? Who cares!? Whether you're passionate about a philosophy or not is totally non sequitur. Atheism, whether or not you identify it as a philosophy, is a philosophy that many people adhere to. Its a group of ideas that, together, are designed to disprove the existence of deities. Thats philosophy. You may interpret that to be "intellectual snobbery" if you like, fine, but atheism is still philosophy! thats what it is! Atheism is far more than just an "observation".

You also seem to be arguing that atheism doesn't need to be a philosophy becuase theism shouldn't be a philosophy. I hear what you're saying, and I agree with you that theism is a ridiculous concept, but there are others (a vast majority of others) who disagree with us. Regardless, there's a conflict of opinion, and the result is the development of two philosophies, theism and atheism, which use arguments to try to disprove one another. Just because you don't like it that way doesn't mean that those entities aren't philosophies.

Tony R:

You say, "I do not walk around wearing a mental badge saying "I do not believe in God", it would be as pointless to me as having to declare that "Peter Gabriel is not a member of Led Zepellin" or "Geddy Lee is a member of Rush."

However, following on Sweetnighter's position that "one is a statement of fact. the other is a statement of opinion," you can prove that Peter Gabriel is not and never was a member of Led Zeppelin, and that Geddy Lee is and has been a member of Rush.  You cannot prove that God does not exist.

I offer this not from any spirituo-religious standpoint, but from a completely rational, empirical perspective vis-a-vis philosophical intellectualism.

Peace.

Sweetnighter wrote: I don't believe any higher powers exist, so I consider myself an atheist.

Atheism isn't a simple lack of belief, it's a disbelief. I think you said elsewhere in the post (which I deleted in the quotation, whoops) that you believe that there is no God, so from that statement you probably are an atheist, but true atheism doesn't come just from not believing. Just thought I'd clear up/confuse matters a bit.

maani wrote: Tony R: You say, "I do not walk around wearing a mental badge saying "I do not believe in God", it would be as pointless to me as having to declare that "Peter Gabriel is not a member of Led Zepellin" or "Geddy Lee is a member of Rush." However, following on Sweetnighter's position that "one is a statement of fact. the other is a statement of opinion," you can prove that Peter Gabriel is not and never was a member of Led Zeppelin, and that Geddy Lee is and has been a member of Rush.  You cannot prove that God does not exist. I offer this not from any spirituo-religious standpoint, but from a completely rational, empirical perspective vis-a-vis philosophical intellectualism. Peace.

You cannot prove that the bogey-man doesnt exist either..........

But I will tell you he doesnt.

If the conviction of men is the only thing you need to have proof of existance then I'm off to swim with the mermaids.................

Tony:

True - I cannot prove that the bogey-man does not exist.  But under what rubric can you make the definitive statement that "I will tell you he doesn't."  Based on what empirical evidence?  After all, you are a rationalist, so you must believe in the "scientific method," which requires empirical "proof" - or, at a bare minimum, supporting data - in order to make declarative statements of theory, much less fact.

It is this "absolute certainty" in your "atheist" arguments that leaves your positions open to "attack" - both rational and faith-based.

Peace.

So did Pegusus The Winged Horse exist?

I will tell you it did not.

Why does the obvious need empirical proof?
Yes I know it is only obvious to atheists.Why we need empirical proof to deny what is obviously() man-made is irritating to me!

LOL, I doubt very much that anyone here is going to be able to prove or disprove god's existence, since the actual definition of 'atheist' seems a bit of a slippery concept for some to grasp...even after it has been specifically stated and re-stated.

How about this logic: I don't believe in a god for the same reason I don't believe in aliens or ghosts...because their existence would make life fun and interesting, and all evidence thus far has indicated that this is not the case.

James Lee wrote:

"I believe in god as a concept created by mankind (or possibly by animals, plants or bacteria...it's impossible to say with certainty that another kind of life doesn't have a sort of spirituality). Do animals see us as a kind of god? That's how I interpret most of the classic portrayals...human beings as a victim of His condescending 'love' and thoughtless slaughter.

I do not believe in God as a conscious entity, omniscient and omnipotent...if I did, I would be forced to align with His enemy due to the pain and suffering He has knowingly caused. Whoever came up with the ultimate rationalization "God works in mysterious ways" should be remembered as one of mankind's most successful apologists.

Such a being, responsible for the deaths of everyone we have ever known and cared about, deserves one of two faiths: the faith that such a monster could not exist in the real world, or the faith that we are all doomed to be flaccid puppets in a baffling performance that we can never comprehend, let alone enjoy. I chose the former.

Every bit of faith you give to this supposed deity is quisling loyalty to the murderer of your parents and your children. I do not believe mainly because I have no wish to dedicate my life to revenge."

James, God does not murder, if he did He would be breaking His own law. God gave us the ability to decide for ourselves our own paths. He gave us freedom and FREE WILL to do as we wish. We have the conscious knowledge of what is right and wrong but many CHOOSE to do wrong like murder (not talking about war or self defense here). We can also choose to accept who He is or not. It's all OUR OWN choice.

We have never been puppets of God but of man.