Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 191>
Author
Message
KoS View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 17 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Points: 16310
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 22:57
Originally posted by avalanchemaster avalanchemaster wrote:

so back on track:

good books for Atheists who want to temper weigh their individual ideas against others'????

I personally really enjoyed Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion"
as well as the trilogy I previously mentioned, "His Dark Materials" by Philip Pullman....the first book was made into a terribly rendered movie:  The Golden Compass- but I assure you, the books are nothing short of AMAZING!
Any of the Four Horseman material:
Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitchens.

Here is a debate DVD.
Hitchens vs. Craig
Which I attended.
http://www.biola.edu/academics/professional-studies/apologetics/events/
Back to Top
avalanchemaster View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 02 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 730
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 23:01
Originally posted by KoS KoS wrote:

Originally posted by avalanchemaster avalanchemaster wrote:

so back on track:

good books for Atheists who want to temper weigh their individual ideas against others'????

I personally really enjoyed Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion"
as well as the trilogy I previously mentioned, "His Dark Materials" by Philip Pullman....the first book was made into a terribly rendered movie:  The Golden Compass- but I assure you, the books are nothing short of AMAZING!
Any of the Four Horseman material:
Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitchens.

Here is a debate DVD.
Hitchens vs. Craig
Which I attended.
http://www.biola.edu/academics/professional-studies/apologetics/events/


Questions:
Did you post that hour long link from youtube on the 3rd page?
and why are these men called the Four Horseman?  Are they likened to apocalyptic-minded men?
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 23:02
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. 

I still think the only honest answer to faith questions is "I don't know."  If you don't at least start with the premise that you could be wrong, whatever your view, you're not being intellectually honest. 
Back to Top
avalanchemaster View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 02 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 730
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 23:05
Originally posted by Finnforest 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. 

I still think the only honest answer to faith questions is "I don't know."  If you don't at least start with the premise that you could be wrong, whatever your view, you're not being intellectually honest. 


that's very easy to agree with.... in fact it seems like the only LOGICAL answer.  That is why Agnosticism seems like the most Logical/practical derivative of this mode of thinking.
Back to Top
Queen By-Tor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 13 2006
Location: Xanadu
Status: Offline
Points: 16111
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 23:13
Originally posted by Finnforest 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 Wink


Edited by King By-Tor - June 06 2009 at 23:14
Back to Top
Failcore View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 23:18
Well if their already dead, why not smack the corpse up a little?Evil Smile

j/kTongue
Back to Top
Man With Hat View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Jazz-Rock/Fusion/Canterbury Team

Joined: March 12 2005
Location: Neurotica
Status: Offline
Points: 166178
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 23:21
Might as well explain my "story" or what have you.
 
My father is a Catholic (non practising for the most part), and my mother is a Presbyterian. Being this, I was raised Presbyterian. Went to church, did sunday school, involved with various church functions and all that. Then, at some time in the past which I can not remember, we (my mother and me) pretty much stopped attending church, for reasons I don't think I am aware of (or don't care to divulge). From that point on religion and god and all that were more or less off my radar, and I really didn't give much thought to any of it. I still called myself a Presbyterian for whatever reasons.
 
Then came college. Again, for reasons I don't remember, the subject of god (or more specifically the death and the afterlife) began to creep into my mind during the beginning of my freshman year. Then I took a class called "Religions of The Western World". There we discussed the formation/development/etc of the major religions of the western world (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). Not to get into far into specifics or anything, but throughout the course I realized just how humanily manipulated the bible/the church/etc are. (Not to say this was the first time the church has come up in school, just the first time I really cared to think about it.) This didn't sit well with me so I began to mull things over. (I suppose not having a fully structured religious background helped.)
 
Over the course of twoish years (again, not good with timelines) I came to regard organized religion as something that's not for me. To many discrampancies, disagreements, etc to statify me. Also, I'm not a believer in the bible or any holy book which was written by man (especially those with many different versions). Mostly due to this, organized religions are off the table for me (of course, there are many many religions, most of which I'm not familar with, so perhaps somewhere something exactly fits my views). I think of the bible as a nice book of stories that can be used as a model for how to behave in life (perhaps akin to aesop's fables). (Also, don't mean to out the bible in all my examples, its just it is the holy book I'm familar with the most.) To go further, I view organized religion as a place where people can feel they belong to a group, or to a purpose, and in that case its not a horrible thing, though, like anything, it can be taken to the extreme, which is obviously not good. In this past, year or so (whatever fits into this timeline) I've become more firm in my beliefs and now happy with them.
 
So, where does this leave me? I suppose Deism is the closest thing to what I believe in. I believe there is a god (or higher power/supreme being/whatever you feel like calling it) and I also believe in science. However, this is where I believe I differ from Deism, I do think god can "interfere" in one's life. By this I mean, he can provide you guidence if you ask for it, he can protect if he sees fit, etc. I suppose by admitting that, I believe in fate or destiny or divine plan or (again) whatever you want to call it, at least thats what someone told me. I don't know if I believe that per say, but I think these are issues outside of religious beliefs (or on the cuff) so I'll ignore going further. So, I suppose I don't know if I have a true niche I fit perfectly into, and thats ok by me. As I said earlier, if there is something out there that fits what I believe, then excellent, but I am comfortable being undefined as well.
 
Like a few others have expressed, it doesn't really make a difference to me what you practice, as long as you don't force your beliefs down other's throats. Its fun to discuss these things, but I honestly don't see the point in debating them, usually people who enter those debates have their minds pretty made up, and nothing is going to change them. Thus, healthy, respective discussion is as far as it should go. (And just to emphasize, this last bit was not directed at anyone in this thread nor is it meant for anyone to jump on and discuss the importance/significane/point of/etc debating...so please ignore it if you will take it in that direction). Let tolerance reign supreme.
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 23:21
Originally posted by King By-Tor King By-Tor wrote:

Originally posted by Finnforest 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 Wink



Nice set-up Mike, but any of the 2 or 3 punchlines I had in mind could be too much for some people.  PassLOL
Back to Top
Man With Hat View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Jazz-Rock/Fusion/Canterbury Team

Joined: March 12 2005
Location: Neurotica
Status: Offline
Points: 166178
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 23:24
Originally posted by Finnforest 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.  

 
 
Damn...you made that same point I did, whilst I was typing my post! Tongue
 
Nevertheless...amen brother.
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2009 at 00:56
I really don't like it when people mention threads like this just being bickering matches. I try not to close my mind, and I would love it if someone could even tell me something I don't know or have not heard...which is less likely if most of the people stand on the sidlines saying how futile it is.
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65268
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2009 at 01:18
your post was a good read, MWH
Back to Top
KoS View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 17 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Points: 16310
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2009 at 01:35
Originally posted by avalanchemaster avalanchemaster wrote:

Originally posted by KoS KoS wrote:

Originally posted by avalanchemaster avalanchemaster wrote:

so back on track:

good books for Atheists who want to temper weigh their individual ideas against others'????

I personally really enjoyed Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion"
as well as the trilogy I previously mentioned, "His Dark Materials" by Philip Pullman....the first book was made into a terribly rendered movie:  The Golden Compass- but I assure you, the books are nothing short of AMAZING!
Any of the Four Horseman material:
Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitchens.

Here is a debate DVD.
Hitchens vs. Craig
Which I attended.
http://www.biola.edu/academics/professional-studies/apologetics/events/


Questions:
Did you post that hour long link from youtube on the 3rd page?
and why are these men called the Four Horseman?  Are they likened to apocalyptic-minded men?

I think it is sort of a joke title given to them by others. They do not hold any wishes to bring the apocalypse. One of the reasons for their name, is their attitude towards religion, in that they are outspoken critics.

Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20250
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2009 at 04:39
Originally posted by Raff Raff wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by Sean Trane 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 LOL


That is true. I have a friend who is a Freemason (though he's not supposed to tell outsidersLOL), 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.
 
 
Well it is true they (FM) like to play with mythology and mix the whole thing up (from Egypt to Templars), but it's more out of fun.  The original goal of masonry was to et up a counter-powerto the churches. FM helped out liberals and atheists and were the firsrt interested in Darwin's theories
 
 
But I wouldn't say having to nelieve in a spiritual higher power is a must-have to get in with them. The very motives of Masonry is to gain power through that circle of alliance....
 
sort of a Rotary or Kiwani's clubs.....for black sheeps od society.....
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20250
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2009 at 05:24
 
 There are things that are difficult to comprehend for religiouss people regarding atheism.... and we ourselves have difficulty explaining precisely what we mean, preciselt because we don't have general plitical lines  and don't hold Papal concialbuls in the .Vatican......
 
Concialbuls is a strong word if it's the translation of "Concialibulos" (I believe the word doesn't exist in English) >>> I'm not too sure myself >>> I'm not even sure how to spell it in French >>> but the important thing was top pique and amuse you with such a notion)Wink which is a secret and illegal reunion organized to hide something, the catholic Church doesn't have that practices any more, they did in dark ages but no longer. >>> you mean Benedictis 16 didnot reinstate them?????Confused...... shall not be mlon before he does....TongueWink
 
Please don't be patronizing, we are not  Atheists and according to you naive people who believe in mythology, but not ignorants. >>> that'snot what I meant here..... I'm not calling religious ignorant, but simply unable to grasp certain concept of thinking because they are submitted to a train of thought that  they haven't developped for themselves, but read into a book.  and we don't believe in mythology either. And I wasn't patronizing since I'm saying that atheists are failing to express themselves clearly their POV so others can catch at first explanation. ItEmbarrassed
 
Ivàn and most religious try to tjhink via analogy and see how our completely free thinking can fit into what they know MUST be a dogma or doctrine. This is why they think atheism is a believing matter, when it's simply not
 
Sean, you must admit that not all the atheists are free thinkers, Atheists of America or Atheist Alliance International  for example, have an almost religious structure, surely they don't represent all Atheists, but  a good part of them yes  >>>>> no way, José!!!!!  Big smile 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......as a fact many of this sites clearly express they believe there is no God and some of them accept to be Positive atheists. <<<<< I'm sorry to say, but that only exists into your brains!!!!!
 
I believe you can't ignore them >>> 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....
 
 
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
 
I believe you're geting confused Sean, my grandfather was founder of the Grand Mason Temple of Iquitos and he was a Catholic, despite that according to the Church, he was excomunicated until 1974, when Pope Paul VI rescinded the prior Bulls allowing Catholics to be Masons.
 
So hardly i could consider tthe Masons Atheists exclusively (There are mason Atheists also Catholic) >>> 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....
 
 Precisely in order not to dispute about these matters..... but that's what irritates the clergies.... This is the princile of laïcity and separation ofb the churches from power...... something rendered difficult for their believers, precisely because THE LAST THING the churches want to do is stay away from politics...... since we alll know that religion is more about politics than spriritualism
 
You believe Sean, many priests like Ernesto Cardenal have been at the border of excomunication for having a political positon...>>>> because he's probably haviong political views not suiting Vatican ... I can'rt see  them expelling him for another reason.... ...The last thing te Catholic Church wants is to be mixed in politics, prove of that is their resignation to be part of the UN, despite the Vatican State has the right to be a member as any soberaign state  >>> 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....
 
Iván
 
 
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2009 at 05:35
Sorry guys - while some people think that the debate between Iván and myself has gone off-topic I just want to close my side of the debate just as Iván has done, then I'll stop.
 
Anyway, I testified my own path to atheism on page two of this thread Wink
 
 
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
That's why i said SOME in capital letters, there are SOME atheists doing evangelism as there are SOME Christian, denominations making evangelism, seems we agree in this point also.
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.
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

As to Strong/Weak/Possitive/Negative atheism, I dispute them, as do others:
Originally posted by wiki, in very bad English wiki, in very bad English wrote:

The validity of this categorisation is disputed, however, and a few prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins avoid it.
But as some dispute his categorization, others believe in it and there lies the problem....Or the schism LOL
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.
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

  
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Not true, you would like there to be perhaps, but there is no organisation to create schism within - they are not factions, but seperate and unconnected opinions that some people have decided to categorise for their own ends. They are not clubs that you can chose to join or sides that you can chose to take, they are only opinions that you can either agree or disagree with.
 
Well Dean, I found several organizations with dfferent perspectives, some even not compatible, so it's reasonable to believe there's some sort of schism.
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.
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

So if I have no belief system I am not allowed to call myself an atheist? Okay, I am not an atheist, I just don't have a religion or belief system that requires a supernatural figure head.
 
Again you are changing my words, i say there's a common dogma in atheism, and it's "There's no God" if you don't accept that dogma (And for that reason believe in some divinity), then you can't be an atheist by definition.
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.
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
Then we agree, this are the beliefs or the interests of the Israelites that were added to the Old testament as if it was the word of God.
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.
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

  
I believe the jealous quotation came after, but doesn't matter we were talking about different quotes.
I'm sure it didn't Tongue later you went off on a Abraham tangent - I never mentioned him at all.
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

   That's all for me in his thread
 
Iván
Thanks Iván - an enjoyable game of ping-pong and a little pyramid building thrown in for good measure. Clap
 
go in peace, I'll stick around here for as long as it remains interesting. Big smile
What?
Back to Top
Windhawk View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 28 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 11401
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2009 at 06:16
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?
Websites I work with:

http://www.progressor.net
http://www.houseofprog.com

My profile on Mixcloud:
https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/
Back to Top
Raff View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2009 at 07:47
Originally posted by Windhawk 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 surprisedWink. What's the diference between queuing up to visit Lenin's mausoleum, or visiting the shrine of some saint?
Back to Top
Windhawk View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 28 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 11401
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2009 at 07:59
Indeed. Belief-systems tend to become religious whether the people instigating them originally wanted them to or not.

At one point in time various atheist organizations were open-minded to religious beliefs and acknowledged them as an alternative to co-exist with. But as time has gone by, these organizations and their followers have started to attack religion in general and (in most cases) christianity in particular as a negative, lower belief system.

When that change occured, atheism for me changed from a philosophical belief system based on science and understanding into a religion of it's own. And one far less inclusive and accepting than many of the already established religions as such.
Websites I work with:

http://www.progressor.net
http://www.houseofprog.com

My profile on Mixcloud:
https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2009 at 09:17
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
Back to Top
avalanchemaster View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 02 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 730
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2009 at 11:52
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

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.  






Well written sir!  Clap

the part that always makes me snicker about a lot of these "christian" holidays is how many Pagan ideas were assimilated into them, as imagery or symbolism.... like the christmas tree.  When Christianity was a scourge running through the (then) world, converting with the ultimatum of Death if no conversion, it was an atrocious thing to behold.  When the crusades swept through the world, the warriors on the crusading side were offered salvation and entrance into God's kingdom if only they would fight in the "holy" battle.  Often when christians would conquer a land, they would instate their papel and then assimilate the religion into their own, in order to make the transition easy for the natives..... and yet look at the state of some countries..... I weep for the state of Norway/The Netherlands, a once proud pagan area, now (ironically) forced to be christian.  That is one of the biggest things that turned me off to religion- the historical facts prove that this dogmatic way is a power-hungry institution working under the guise of eternal salvation.  What a farce!   Anybody seen Bill Maher's "Religulous"?  It is sort of one-sided (editorial), but asks many great rhetorical questions of religion.  I for one found it very refreshing and hilarious and scary (what some people believe and the lengths they will go to for their "God")  The religious right has direct ties to the government and there will NEVER be a separation of church and state.  That scares me because that denies secular/civil rights to citizens (in a way- depending on the situation).....
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 191>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.266 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.