The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

Dean wrote:     The main difference is that some individual athiests are being proactive and agressive, though still not as part of any collective, while some christians are evangelising because that is part of the tenet of their church - to go out and spread the word of god. But, yeah, I agree in part and certainly see on reason to continue debating it.   Yes, there are some agressive and even bigiot churches like the Wetboro Baptist Church, but you can expect that if Christianity has 30,000 denominations.   It's also truth that some are so small that really are like personal opinions, but sadly they are the loudest, the ones who praise God when a soldier or a gay is killed, they are savages, but you can't blame christianity for them.   [When one of the most vocal and agressive athiests (Dawkins) avoids this categorisation then it is an indication to me that it is neither generally accepted amoungst atheists, nor does it have any validity beyond the page it is written on. But since neither of us support what they say, I'm done.   I honestly don't know how small they may be, but lets agree on this.     I dispute that you have found "organisations" - you have found individual websites - you have no proof of organsiation behind those, and I'm not going looking for it.   Acording to their websites they are organizations but yes, I'm not involved with them so hardly can know their size or credibility, but they exist, that's the main point.   [Yep, I'm paraphrasing what you wrote in order to see whether it stands or falls. The assumption that an atheist says that 'there is no god' is a dogma is looking at it from the perspective of someone who believes that a god does exist. From a different perspective it is not dogma IMO and since we have different perspectives on this, debating it further will not change that.   No, it won't   Okay... a little odd that you think the message given to Moses on Mt. Horeb was not the word of god, but I will obviously not disagree with that.   I'm not sure on how much of it is the word of God and how much has been added by the writer, I said this about the old Testament since my first post.   [Thanks Iván - an enjoyable game of ping-pong and a little pyramid building thrown in for good measure.   Seems i will have to stay as long as Sean is around   Iván

Sean Trane wrote:   Had to come back, two replies towards me, made me do so   Hve ignored the first part of your post becaudse you are still patronizing.    >>>>> no way, José!!!!!   These are extreme minorities  and are only gaining visibility  through internet lately  and even then, they depend of vthe Ivàns s of this world eeling them out of the darkness to try to get his point across >>> I'd say up to 95% of atheist have not heard of these organizations  and 99% of those refute these falacies,  There are no rumes in Atheism and I even shouldn't put a capital A to it)  although we could we could see some copncepts as valid, but that's it......   Please Sean you talk of extreme minorities, but at least according to Wikilpedia, the Positive Atheists are a majority.    <<<<< I'm sorry to say, but that only exists into your brains!!!!!   Do you say positive Atheists don't exist?   >>> WE (and I think I can speak for the entire contigent of atheists on this site) did until now, and will most likely continue doing so.... paying attention top these fallacies wouuld only gain them credibitity, which they direly need....   Those are fallacies because you disagree, it's a very religious position like saying my god is the correct one the others are false.   >>> then I suggest you go back to our debate (Is God Ruining prog???) and read up your words >>> if memoryb serves, , you even associated their signs (compass and ruler) to a David star.....  You hadn't mention your grandfather back then either (orv at least I have no recollection), and were almost accusing me of of "evilry" for liking their counterbalancing role in Europe in the XIXth century. BTW, nowadays, the FM are slowly becoming mafias >>> too many people out for fortunes without ethics are joining up....   I went back, as a fact I said Civil Watchers are full of atheists, you sai Civil Watchers are Free Masons and you assume I said Free Masons are Atheists,   I even  compare their symbol with the star of David WHICH IS A JEWISH RELIGIOUS SYMBOL, HARD TO SAY AN ATHEIST SYMBOL!!!!!!, and yes I believe many legal or correct institutions have been corrupted   But I clearly said:   Ivan wrote: That's something I don't get, the Masons have a Jewish organization, use some early Christian symbols plus some Greek and they are Atheists?  isn't that contradictory?   Even said it would be a contradiction to say they ar atheists!!!!   Totally different to saying they are atheists...I accused the Civil Right Watchers of being pro-atheists and you made a parallelism between them and the Free Masons,   Sean Trane wrote: Because the atheists you accuse in the Civil rights Watcher are really Free Masons  - who are not atheists   I believe the multitude of colors in that thread confused you, I talked about the Civil Right Watchers, you said they were Free Masouns and then you thought that I said Free Masons are Atheists.   Then you (In green) said that ATHEISTS trust more Masons than a any religious Institution and i (In red) said that it was contradictory to trust more a secret logia who's agenda nobody ooutside knows than  a religious organization   But Free massons are free thinkers and Atheists trust Free masons more than organized religions. They fought on the same side on many issues which to a Christians might be reason enough to confuse the two cutrrents!! (i love this debate!!!!) Atheists trust a secret logia whose real beliefs and agenda we all ignore????? For God's sake, a bow of secrecy is praised by Atheists, this is more medieval than the Inquisition and the Witch Hunt.   I stay in my piont The Civil Watchers organizations are anti religious in most cases and flooded with Atheists but the connection with the Masons was made by you.   because he's probably haviong political views not suiting Vatican ... I can'rt see  them expelling him for another reason....   So, if they keep the politician inside the Church is wrong, and if they sanction him, the Church is also wrong..This is a no win situation.     >>> Come on Ivàn, I'm not talking of internatuinal politics  (the UM seat would prompt the jews and Muslims to claim a seat as well) or even politics regarding business. I'm talking of politics like personal  rights (education, divorce, , pregnancy etc.... >>> the churches shouldn't have a say in these moral issues outside giving their advice  and basta for the rest....   I don't know other churches, but the Catholic Church only says something to their members, who have to accept if they want to be Catholics, not to the Governments. We are not writing in the books that Evolution is only a theory as valid as Creationism, the Church has accepted evolution.   They may give opinions, but that's something every person ad institution can do in a democratic country.   Iván

IMO, the whole Atheism/Agnostic = religion argument is false.  We are dealing with a country that about 90-10% believes in God, so these people are the distinct minority.  Of that minority, a very small number of people are militant, FAR smaller than the militant Christian right in America who are large enough to be truly heard and respected as a group (even politicians must attempt to woo them). 

Most of the unbelievers do not attend a weekly event, do not try to proselytize, and do not seek to get involved in government to advance their work.  They simply try to live our lives in a society where we have to see and hear about everybody's faith in God.....every......single.....day......and it gets old.  So this whole argument is just laughable to the unbelievers I know.  They look at the mountainous difference between the behavioral expectations placed on atheists versus the carte blanche given to noble evangelicals, with their self-righteous attitudes about the conversion of others and their "Jesus Army" mentality of advancing the cause, and laugh.  You can't be serious.  I suppose when the media makes a big deal about some guys suing Santa Claus, the public gets all whipped up and the churches send their email action teams into full force looking for sympathy, one could get the impression that we evil agnostics  are out to take over.  It's just false (and copying some Internet list of atheist "commandments" proves nothing about the actual reality there on the street). 

There is no movement in America that is on the radar of most unbelievers, it is a miniscule joke compared with the evangelical/christian movement and their vast empire in numbers, dollars, infrastructure, cultural holidays/traditions, and television/radio presence.  Please stop equating the two without making this HUGE distinction. Most unbelievers could care less about these organizations you point to.  The same cannot be said of the Christians in America, who do organize quite successfully and seek to promote/expand to a serious, measurable degree. 

If you wish to say that unbelievers are defensive and crabby, fair enough.  Some do get that way and lash out in anger at the RR, and maybe that's wrong of them.  But to compare the tactics and power of the two on any realistic level, in America, is just not factual in the daily life I see around me.   Perhaps in Europe it is different.  






Edited by Finnforest - June 07 2009 at 10:32

Windhawk wrote: One little tidbit from The Norwegian Humanist Association which might interest someone in the debate: The Association will work: - For a state professing a neutral life stance, freedom to choose any life stance and respect for human rights in a pluralistic society. - To ensure that everyone will be able to choose humanist ceremonies. - To develop humanist life-stance and welfare services. - To offer members a social and organisational framework for life stance identity and a sense of community. - To spread knowledge of humanism and the organisation’s activities In what manner is this different from the activities of any given religion I wonder?

Well, Olav, if you think that in the countries that had a so-called 'Communist' government (which practiced militant atheism, often actively persecuting religion) you could recognise a distinctly 'religious' attitude to both the ideology and its leaders, you should not be too surprised. What's the diference between queuing up to visit Lenin's mausoleum, or visiting the shrine of some saint?

Raff wrote: JJLehto wrote: Sean Trane wrote: [      In another debate , Ivàn cannot comprehend that free masons are not atheists (everyone in atheism knows that catholics, Jews and Muslims (even Amish if they wish it) are welcome in the temples of Free Masonry, as long as they leave their religions outside the doors.          It's true Ivan. In fact to be a Mason you MUST believe in God. Or at least put it down that you do....They welcome ANYONE as long as you believe in a higher power. And as you said, that is the extent. While you have to profess to believing in a higher power there is NO breakdown inside. So yea, Masons are not atheists. NOW, there's those people out there who think the opposite...that Masons are a religious cult bent on a NWO That is true. I have a friend who is a Freemason (though he's not supposed to tell outsiders), and he told me as much. You HAVE to believe in some sort of spiritual higher power, though it does not have to be any form of organised religion.

your post was a good read, MWH

Finnforest wrote: Debating faith is a bit like debating Abortion though....it's rarely going to end well.....and tends to just solidify the views you held previously.  Mainly useful for the sport of joust I guess.

Might as well explain my "story" or what have you.

Finnforest wrote: Debating faith is a bit like debating Abortion though....it's rarely going to end well.....and tends to just solidify the views you held previously.  Mainly useful for the sport of joust I guess.

Are you suggesting that we joust with aborted fetuses? That's just immoral


Edited by King By-Tor - June 06 2009 at 23:14